16/10/2024
“CHARGED WITH STEALING”
The incident involved a jeweler and attained a considerable amount of notoriety because of the principal character involved, and the purported crime, larceny. In February of that year, headlines boldly stretched across newspaper front pages must have rankled the individual whose name, once again, found itself there: “CHARGED WITH STEALING – Warrant Issued for the Arrest of Lizzie Borden.” The tale of the incident, appearing first in the Providence Journal, soon made its way to the pages of the Fall River Daily Globe, a paper never known to balk at printing banner headlines when that lady’s name was involved. The Daily Globe reported that a “most strenuous effort” was made to squelch the story; it was said that even the Boston newspapers were “muzzled,” with one “deny[ing] absolutely that there was ground for the outrageous story.”
The stuff of legend surrounds the ambiguous occurrence at the Tilden-Thurber Company in Providence, a prestigious jeweler in that nearby city often frequented by many affluent customers from Fall River. As best as can be surmised, Lizzie, known to be a “frequent visitor to this city and a customer” of that jeweler, had allegedly visited the concern and, upon her departure, it was said that two painted porcelains were missing. The matter was immediately reported to Henry Tilden, who made note of the affair. Some time later, a woman entered the store, bearing a porcelain plaque in need of repair, which was recognized by the clerk as one that previously had been discovered missing.
A slightly different report of the account made no mention of this earlier suspicion of Lizzie, but describes a woman, the wife of a man employed by a Providence bank, who entered the jewelry firm with a painting on porcelain, wishing to have it framed. Examination of the item alerted the clerk, who believed it was a piece from their collection. Upon investigation, it was discovered that, not only this work but another smaller one was missing as well. In both cases, the woman informed the Tilden-Thurber clerk that the porcelain had been a gift from Lizzie A. Borden. The woman in question is believed to be Mrs. Preston Hicks Gardner, née Mary Eliza Hoyt; she and her husband, the latter an employee of the Providence banking institution, Hospital Trust Company, were friendly with both of the Borden sisters.
Tilden-Thurber “secured the services of the police department and Detective [Frank H.] Parker was sent to Fall River to investigate.” It was at this time that it was said to have been discovered that the second painted porcelain was at Lizzie’s residence and, in response to inquiries “concerning it and the picture she had given to a friend … she stated that she had bought them both at the store of the Tilden & Thurber Co., paying $16 a piece for them.” This deflated price stood in contradiction to what the jeweler professed was the actual value, at least $100 for the two pieces. “The question of veracity between Miss Borden and the clerks who were in charge of the pictures … was thus raised by Miss Borden’s statement” and it was there that the matter was to remain.
No statements were made to the press concerning the affair, although the Providence Chief of Police, Reuben R. Baker, did “not deny … that a warrant charging Miss Lizzie Borden with larceny … was issued, and Judge [William Howard] Sweetland, being the judge of the district court [did not] care to make any statement concerning the swearing out of this particular warrant.” Lizzie’s attorney, Andrew J. Jennings, “steadfastly refused to say anything for publication except that he did not believe the story.” It was known that the warrant was “never served,” in spite of its issuance, and the paintings were believed to be in the possession of their owners. Concerning the dubious circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the items from Tilden-Thurber, it was said that the recipient of the painted porcelain made full restitution for the price of the merchandise.
Inexplicably, the incident disappeared from the front pages as rapidly as it had appeared. One reason offered as an ending to the story, albeit sarcastically, was that Tilden-Thurber was “led to see that the claim of [Lizzie] that she purchased the articles was correct even though there was no record of such a happening and despite the complaint of the clerk to the heads of the company.” But regardless of the minimal coverage by the press, and whatever the resolution, the incident left behind it a stigma that continued to haunt her as did the mystery of the events that occurred on August 4, 1892. Tales of an uncontrollable Lizzie abound, describing her visiting local merchants to do her “shopping” under the watchful eyes of various and sundry clerks, who later saw that Andrew J. Borden was sent the bill for anything procured by his daughter. In view of all we know of Borden’s strict management of his personal and business affairs, it is hardly likely that he would have tolerated such embarrassing behavior on the part of one of his offspring. The rumor mill, however, has produced an inordinate number of shoplifting tales, all evolving from this sole, unexplained instance which, for only a few days barely four years after her acquittal, again thrust Lizzie’s name onto newspaper front pages. For many individuals, these unsubstantiated occurrences became accepted as fact.
Mrs. Ellis Gifford, née Mary Hamilton Beattie, whose husband was the proprietor of C.E. Gifford & Co., was one of those who believed the stories of Lizzie’s alleged pilferring. The octogenarian stated that when Lizzie entered her husband’s establishment, he watched her “very carefully,” as would “the clerks, if my husband was busy,” adding that Lizzie “had plenty of money to buy everything she wanted. It was a compulsion.” It is believed by some individuals that Mrs. Gifford possessed positive evidence that Lizzie stole items from her husband’s store when, in fact, she had actually only stated that Lizzie was “watched.”
It was the belief of Mrs. Richard C. Brigham, a close friend and associate of Mary, that the veil of suspicion drawn over Lizzie caused Gifford’s employees to keep a sharp eye on their infamous customer, and that this feeling was shared by the jewelry store proprietor and his wife, as well as other shopkeepers across the city. In actuality, this suspicion on their part remains just that, a suspicion, as no evidence has, as of yet, surfaced to indicate otherwise. Careful examination of the extant records for Gifford’s has not resulted in evidence that would indicate that any item identified as stolen is in any way connected to Lizzie. Rather, business transactions associated with her name appear alongside those of countless others who legitimately patronized the establishment. Since these private records were never intended to be seen publicly, it would seem that any unscrupulous actions, and their subsequent resolutions, would, by necessity, be indicated in the official business records; proper reporting would dictate that this be done in order to maintain an accurate accounting of the store’s inventory.
From: Parallel Lives: A Social History of Lizzie A. Borden and Her Fall River, by Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette, Fall River Historical Society Press.
https://fallriverhistorical.org/product/book-frhs-press-parallel-lives/
