Hyman Lubinsky

[CagneyBT]

Hyman Lubinsky was the ice cream peddler who drove his wagon past 92 Second St. shortly after 11:00 a.m. the morning of the murders. He testified at the trial that he saw a woman walking from the barn to the house; he was adamant that it was not Bridget Sullivan, as he had sold ice cream to Bridget in the past. The defense suggested that it was Lizzie that Hyman saw, confirming her alibi of being in the barn when Andrew was killed.

Using newspaper accounts and other sources, it’s possible to piece together Hyman Lubinsky’s story.

Hyman was the son of Jacob & Bessie Sanderov. According to his 1890 naturalization papers, he was born on March 15, 1869; he was a peddler, then living at 64 Spring St. He was born in Elisavetgrad, Russia (aka Elizabethgrad) now Kirovohrad, which is now a part of Central Ukraine. He arrived in the U.S. via New York on Oct. 26, 1885 at the age of 16. His family may have been fleeing the anti-Jewish pogroms that started in April 1881 in Elisavetgrad.

The witnesses to his naturalization were John Whittaker, 51 Davis St., Fall River and Isaac Gundel or Grundel, 64 Spring St., Fall River.

He had several siblings who also lived in Fall River, including Rose Lubinsky (m. Hyman Yulesvitsky); Abram Lubinsky (m. Basse Finberg); Alexander Lubinsky, aka Alex Lubin, (m. Hilda Fox); Louis Lubinsky (m. Rosa Reback); Meyer Lubinsky (m. Mary Kossi); Eva Lupinsky; Jacob Lupinsky; Harry Lupinsky and Henry Lupinsky (m. Esther Barash). Most of his brothers also worked as peddlers.

The following is a chronological timelime for Hyman during his life in Fall River:

Fall River Globe, March 13 1889: “Jacob Rodowinsky waa accused of assaulting Hymon (sic) Lubinsky and Hymon Lubinsky was accused of assaulting Jacob Rodowinsky. Miss Bessie Smolensky interpreted and Mr. Nelson Codfish was one of the witnesses. It was an interesting case. Hymon and Jacob met a week ago last Friday. Hymon could lick Jacob single-handed, but Jacob whistled for his son Harris Rodowinsky, and the two of them made it lively for Hymon. At least that is what Hymon alleged, but Jacob said that he was the sufferer. Messrs. Braly & Reed sparred over the testimony. The Judge concluded that it was about six of one and half a dozen of the other and discharged both Rodowinsky and Lubinsky”.

April 1889: The Fall River Daily Evening News reported that Hyman was found guilty of peddling without a license.

July 30, 1890: The Fall River Daily News reported that Hyman was a canopy bearer at the wedding of Abraham Sherrard. “A queer feature of the festivities was a Russian dance performed by the visitors.”

On Oct. 13 1892, Hyman Lubinsky, address 64 Spring St., Fall River, was a witness to the naturalization of Abram Lubinsky, b. 1866, peddler, address 56 Union St., Fall River.

April 14,1893: The Fall River Evening News reported that Hyman Lubinsky was named as a witness for the plaintiffs in a case involving the collision of a street car and two wagon drivers.

June 1893: Hyman Lubinsky, ice cream peddler, testifies for the defense in the Lizzie Borden murder trial. A Boston Post article dated Aug. 10, 1892 gave his age as 21, and reported that he had lived in Fall River for six years and was known as “Luby.”

The Post also found humor in the numerous ways Hyman's name was recorded by the press, reporting on June 17, 1893: "Variety is the spice of life. Here are a few of the changes that the reporters rang in speaking of the Hebrew ice cream man: Hymen Lubinsky, Hyman Lubinsky, Hymon Lubinsky, Hiram Lubinsky, Simon Rubinsky, Simon Lubinsky, and so on indefinitely."

Oct. 1896: It was reported that Hyman was an attendant at the wedding of Barine Rotskovsky.

Sept. 1897: It was reported that Hyman and his brother, Harry, were members of the wedding party for Morris Zineneri.

On April 10, 1899, Hyman married Doris Kaplan in Bristol, Rhode Island. Two children of the marriage, born in Fall River in 1900 and 1903 respectively, were stillborn. Dora filed for divorce on Nov. 23, 1907, citing abusive and cruel treatment and for failure to provide for her. She confirmed that they had “no living issue.” She also requested permission to resume her maiden name. The Boston Traveler, Jan. 4, 1908

Jan. 26, 1904: The Fall River Daily Herald reported a fire at a dry goods store at 162 Columbia St: “...Henry Sandler, the proprietor of the store, and Hyman Lubinsky, of 193 Spring street, were sitting near the stove In the store, when a lady customer came In. Sandler arose to attend her, at the same time lighting a cigarette with a parlor match, and laying it on a counter, under which was a pile of overcoats and lighter materials. The lady completed her purchase, and Handler returned to his seat. A few moments later, Lubinsky noticed flames issuing from beneath the counter, near where the cigarette had been laid. Running to the spot, he pulled out the coats and tried to extinguish the flames by stamping on them, but this served to send sparks flying, which Ignited other materials. Seeing that he had lost control of the fire, Lubinsky ran to John W. Whittaker’s drugstore at the corner of Canal and Ferry streets, where he got Mr. Whittaker to pull in the alarm from box 31. Meanwhile Sandler, who resides upstairs over the store, had succeeded in getting his family out.”

Hyman was involved in some shady dealings as a peddlar of dry goods.

The first article involves the theft of cloth from a textile mill, The American Printing Company, that involved two brothers named Millerick who were employees.

July 15, 1904, The Fall River Globe: “By the arrest of William and Patrick Millerick yesterday afternoon, the police believe they ’have in custody two members of an organized gang of thieves who have been engaged In a systematic robbery of the American Printing company for a period covering several years ...
Inspectors Shay and Medley were responsible for the downfall of the Millerick brothers, but very little of the stolen property has been recovered. In disposing of the goods, the accused men had the assistance of two women and a man, and there is every reason to believe that the agents of the Millerick brothers knew the cloth was not obtained in an honest manner, despite their claims to the contrary…
The witnesses summoned in the case, aside from the officials at the mill, are Hyman Lubinskl (sic) a pedler living on Spring street, Annie Samuelson, also of Spring street, and Ida Cohen, a dressmaker and general all ’round saleswoman living on Mulberry street...
While the above named parties are merely summoned as witnesses at the present state of the game, it is believed that other actions will be taken before the close of the hearing tomorrow…
Previous to having the talk with the accused men, Inspectors Shay and Medley were accompanied around the city below the hill, and they found ample evidence as to where the stolen goods had been disposed of. The stolen cloth Is of a pattern which Is not disposed of in the local markets, but many women and children were found on the streets and in the tenements wearing wrappers, waists, and skirts made of the material. When questioned as to where they had purchased the goods, they gave the information that the selling agents were the Cohen and Samuelson women and Hymen Lubinski. This trio, when interviewed by the police, gave the first tip which led to the interview with the Millerick brothers…
When the officers made a second call upon Lubinski and the two women and demanded an accounting for the stolen cloth, they were informed that every yard had been disposed of. At Mrs. Samuelson’s home at 184 Spring street, the officers found many yards of cloth carefully stowed away, and some garments which had been made up ready to be disposed of in the neighborhood. Lubinski and the women admitted buying the goods and said they had paid as high as 4 cents per yard. Each one said they did not know the property was stolen, as they were Informed it was “seconds,” which had been purchased by the Millericks at the factory. The police say they have not completed their Investigations, and it Is their expressed opinion that others have been implicated in the larceny of manufactured product.”

Poverty and desperation had led the Millerick brothers to steal. Both William and Patrick were widowers with young children to support, as well as an elderly mother. In November 1904, pleas of clemency were entered on their behalf due to their circumstances; Williams’ 2 year-old son died later that month. The mill superintendent decline to pursue the matter further and the brothers were released on parole.

Flash forward nine years to 1913. The American Printing Company and a second textile mill, the Algonquin Printing Company, brought charges against Hyman Lubinsky as a receiver of stolen goods.

The Fall River Globe, Dec.8, 1913: “Hyman Lubinsky of 176 Washington street...entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of receiving stolen goods, both from the American and the Algonquin companies. ..
Inspector Bogan was the first witness called. He testified he and Officer Michael Lenehan went to Lublnsky's home on the afternoon of Nov 26 armed with a search warrant.
Four men were seated about a table, and one identified himself as Lubinsky The Inspector told of his plans authorized by the search warrant and started for the bed room used by Lubinsky. The latter said he didn't have any stolen goods, but the police dragged some cloth from a closet. They found more under a pillow, and some between the bed and the wall. While they were sorting this out, the Inspector said Lubinsky frequently picked out bolts of cloth and said: "That didn’t come from the print works. It belongs to my brother.” Such claims were honored and the cloth set aside. In all, 260 yards of white cloth and 257 yards of printed cloth were seized.
About 6 o’clock, a young man of about 20 years entered the tenement, walked into the bed room, where he dropped a suit case and then went out. As he was leaving, Lubinsky was asked If this was his brother but would not reply. The Inspector started after the departing caller but could not locate him. Later Lubinsky accompanied the Inspector to a tenement at 96 Canal street, but this young man could not be found. Upon the return of the party to the house, the suit case was opened and three parcels of white cloth, containing 96 yards, were found
“I questioned Lubinsky about this purchase of cloth,” continued the inspector, "and asked him why he bought the stuff. He told me he was able to buy it for three cents a yard and sell it for seven.” Officer Michael Lenehan offered corroborative testimony of the seizures, and George A. Pilling of the American company said he examined the cloth and identified it. Two young men who said they were caught stealing cloth in the American works admitted to the detectives and reiterated to the court that they had sold the stolen goods to Lubinsky. The cross-examination of these young men brought conflicting answers as to whether Lubinsky was told that the cloth was stolen. In each instance, they wrapped the cloth in newspapers before they brought It to him...
(Note: The article continues to report that The Algonquin Company conducted a sting operation, employing a private detective, working undercover, to sell Lubinsky supposedly stolen cloth. The Algonquin’s charge against him was dismissed, since the cloth was not technically stolen goods, having been freely provided to the private detective by the company for purposes of entrapping Lubinsky However, Lubinsky was found guilty in the case involving the American Company).
...Judge Hanify sustained the contention of defendant’s counsel as to the Algonquin count. He said that it must first be’ shown that goods were stolen before such could be received, and in this instance, the government had utterly failed. As to the American company count, Judge Hanify said the private detectives were fortunate to have the good offices of the local police in preparing their case. The court referred to the convincing testimony of Inspector Bogan, which contained the admission by Lubinsky that he was getting a profit on his deals in excess of 100 per cent on the investment. Lubinsky was therefore adjudged guilty and sentenced to the house of correction for a term of two months and was discharged on the Algonquin count. Judge Hanify remarked that he agreed with Attorney Phillips that the conduct of such men as Lubinsky encouraged persons to steal who might otherwise be honest. Lubinsky entered an appeal, and surety was ordered In the sum of $300.” It’s unknown if Lubinsky served the two months or won his appeal.

Despite all that happened in his life, Hyman is best known nowadays for his participation in the Lizzie Borden trial. It could be argued that his testimony helped to acquit her.

In an ironic twist, he was listed in the city directory living at 230 Second St. (formerly 92 Second St.) in 1917 & 1919.

Hyman last appeared in the 1923 city directory at 142 Washington St. He died that year of pulmonary tuberculosis at age 54.

[camgarsky4]

Nice writeup!

I wonder if Lizzie would have been charged with murder August 11th if Lubinsky had told Officer Mullaly that he saw the woman at 11am vs the 10:30am timing he told the officer in August '92 and as was reported in the newspapers.

Lizzie's alibi was the weakest aspect of the defenses case. If there had been collaboration, regardless how thin, interesting speculation if Knowlton would have authorized the arrest.