Lizzie Borden Society Forum

The Boston Globe, Saturday, August 13, 1892 - 1, 4
"TO WHOM THE PROPERTY?"

Interesting Legal Questions Arising
Regarding its Disposal.

FALL RIVER, Aug. 12. - That neither Andrew J. Borden nor his wife, each possessed of property in their individual right, left a will, seems to be pretty thoroughly established, as a search of the premises does not reveal any will and all the legal papers and documentary evidence of the murdered people's holdings was found this afternoon in the family safe which had been broken open.

Yet it is authoritatively stated that, although every other paper the man presumably had in his possession has been found in good order, nothing in the shape of a last testament was found.

With the fact of no expression from either as to their desires in the disposition of their property, the distributing of the large estate must necessarily be according to the dictate of the common and statute law regarding inheritance.

In this case the deaths of these people, so nearly together that it may be impossible to determine, according to the lines of legitimate evidence, to the satisfaction of the law, just who died first, odd complications upon the matter of the settling of the estate may ensue.

In the case of Mrs. Borden, this absence of a will, if report is true, will cause a disposition of her estate entirely opposed to her intentions.

This question of the disposition of the property is freely discussed, and has been

Since the Arrest

taken up in the city as the latest topic of interest in connection with the murder.

It is presented upon eccentricities of law not upon the statute books, of which the legally informed public has such an extensive knowledge.

The determination of the exact time each died means a fortune, or the loss of one, for each of Mrs. Borden's heirs.

One of the heirs is so thoroughly convinced of her equity right in Mrs. Borden's dowry that she talks of taking a hand in the settlement of the estate.

According to the ideas of the interested public which are being disseminated about the city tonight, if the husband was killed first, then the wife was entitled to a widow's share of the deceased husband's estate, and consequently upon her subsequent decease her property thus acquired by widow's right would naturally revert to her heirs, and Lizzie and Emma would be relieved a third of the estate on the common law dowry.

It is astonishing how extensively this presentment of the situation has gained credence today, and the prejudice in favor of Mrs. Borden's heirs is illustrated in the assiduity with which their case is being argued upon the street.

There are
Reputed Facts and Arguments

presented in support of the theory of Mr. Borden's death having been first to be worthy the testimony of an expert medical man.

And yet their theory and their law is wrong.

Upon no legal condition can Mrs. Borden's two sisters, her only heirs-at-law, obtain any of the estate, that is in the absence of a will.

The right to will her own individual possessions to whomever she chooses is undisputed, but she does not seem to have done it, hence this interesting condition of affairs.

A GLOBE reporter this afternoon spent some time with a prominent attorney of Fall River, poring over the probate laws and considering the Borden inheritance complication from its different aspects.

Arguing now upon the hypothesis that Andrew J. Borden died first, the old common law gives as a widow's dowry a portion of her deceased husband's estate.

If the husband dies intestate, the widow shall be entitled to a dowry of the lands of her husband, and shall be entitled to his real estate in fee, that is, with the right of sale at her pleasure, or willing at her death, according to her own desire, to an amount not exceeding $5000; and she shall also be entitled during her life to one-half of the other real estate of which he died seized.

If her husband dies intestate

And Leaves No Kindred,

then the widow shall take all the real estate in fee.

If these two sections of the Massachusetts statutes were only applicable to the Borden estate then Mrs. Borden's two sisters would be in most agreeable circumstances.

But they are not, in spite of the fact that these two heirs-at-law confidently expect a portion of the estate.

Mrs. Borden's dowry, assuming that she was a widow before her decease, would, according to common law, be only a life interest, and with the husband's issue still living would be unassignable by her to any of her kindred.

It is commonly supposed that a dowry amounts to one-third of the deceased husband's estate, but it is not so.

The widow's portion of her husband's estate is regulated by a table of dowries, dependent upon the age of the widow.

In determining the proportionate part of the estate to be settled, Smith's probate law has a table of the amount widows at certain ages should receive.

Just what Mrs. Borden's proportionate amount of the half a million dollars her husband left, if she ever was a widow, cannot be determined tonight, as the only lawyer in town who has a copy of the Smith's probate law is away on a vacation.

In regard to the personal property, the probate judge would determine the widow's portion.

It will be seen that no

Construction of the Probate Laws,

in the absence of a will, will in any way provide for Mrs. Borden's heirs, as a good part of the city is anticipating.

If Mrs. Borden was killed after her husband, then she held a widow's dowry right to the possession of an income from a certain part of her deceased husband's $500,000 only during the few moments between the time of the murders.

Her income from the possession of the property disappeared the moment the axe descended upon her head, for death was in the first blow, and her opportunity to benefit her relatives had passed.

All the estate must necessarily then go to the two daughters, Emma J. and Lizzie Borden.

Mrs. Borden had both real estate and personal property in her own right, which she might have bequeathed in the manner she always said she would, to her two sisters and their heirs.

But she undoubtedly neglected to draw up a testament, and the matter is in the same condition it is on the opposite assumption of the relative time of the death of each.

Assuming that Mrs. Borden was killed first, as some contend she was, at 9.30 in the morning, there is just as

Interesting a Legal Construction

governing the disposal of her estate.

The Public Statutes provide that when a man and his wife are seized in their own right to real estate, and when a married woman is seized to her sole and separate right to an estate by an inheritance in lands and they have one issue living which might have inherited such estate, the husband shall, on the death of the wife, hold the lands for his life as a tenant thereof by courtesy.

If they have no such issue, then the husband shall hold one-half of such lands for his life.

If she dies intestate and leaves no issue, he shall take her real estate in fee to an amount not exceeding $5000 and shall also have her other estate through courtesy or other life interest.

“You see,” said the attorney, submitting the law on the question, “this is the only legal clause which in any way would enable the heirs of Mrs. Borden at any time to acquire the rights in any part of her real estate.

“Assuming that Mrs. Borden died first, then Mr. Borden inherited in fee her real estate to the value of $5000 and a life interest in other of her real estate.

“Upon his death, of course, this $5000 worth or real estate would naturally go to his heirs, not to hers.

“So if the wife was killed first, then for the short intervening space of time before he, too, was murdered, he would be holding an interest in other of her real estate over the value of $5000.

“He did not hold this in fee, that is with the right of bequeathing it to any one of his kin.

“Consequently arguing upon this theory, that Mrs. Borden was slain, that is the first opening of the heirs of Mrs. Borden to receive any of her real estate.

“This seems, at a cursory glance, favorable for the heirs-in-law of Mrs. Borden, and with the husband dead it would seem that the life interest in the dead woman's additional estate, over the $5000 worth, would come into the possession of Mrs. Borden's two sisters.

“The law on such a point would authorize such a disposition.

“But let us look at the facts of Mrs. Borden's estate, and apply this total provision.

“Mrs. Borden's

Heirs Can Get Nothing,

as, although she may have a total estate amounting to more than $5000, still she is not recorded as possessed of that amount of real estate.

“Her bank stock and shares in mills here form, I understand, the bulk of her estate, and that as personal property without a will becomes the property of her husband upon her death.

“So, you see, a condition dissipates the possibilities of the heirs accruing property under this clause.

“Now, we will assume that Mrs. Borden died first; her husband was, I just contended, possessed of her real estate to the value of $5000, and a life interest in the estate; we will assume for the purposes of this argument that Mrs. Borden had real estate of the value of more than $5000, then you would say her heirs-in-law will receive this additional real estate now that Mr. Borden is also dead.

“Very true, but now let us go back to the actual condition of things.

“Did Mr. Borden or Mrs. Borden die first?

“This must be legally determined before any real estate in excess of $5000, if she possessed it, could be given to her heirs, and I judge it would be hard to establish in the eye of the law.

“Doctors might say that Mrs. Borden was murdered first, or they might also contend that Mrs. Borden was, at some, however infinitesimal, time, a widow.

“But it would not be acceptable according to law.

“It would not be the establishment of a fact; it would only be on two men's opinions, and that would have no weight.

“The only way I see to come to a decision in any deduction in this matter, would be
Through a Confession.


“If the murderer came forward and said: 'Mr. Borden died first,' or “Mrs. Borden was killed first,' then there would be evidence of the actual fact.

“If this statement of a witness never could be obtained, you see, the property of Mrs. Borden, in excess of the husband's $5000, would never revert to her heirs.

“If a married woman dies intestate and leaves no kindred, the law reads that the husband would be entitled to hold in fee all of her real estate, and, upon his death, it would descend to his legal heirs.

“With the fact well established that Mrs. Borden did not leave real estate of the value of $5000, it would seem that none of her heirs can ever, reasonably, expect anything.”

Those who have known this estimable lady, and who have been cognizant of her intentions regarding her property, her affection for these two younger sisters of hers, are fully aware that this legal circumstance was farthest from her thoughts and desires.

If she could have foreseen any condition of this kind, she never would have neglected the making of her will.

But she did neglect it, and although some may say that it served the heirs right for ever entertaining any such anticipations, it is particularly hard upon one sister of the murdered woman, Mrs. A. G. Whitehead, who lives at 45 4th st.

Mrs. Whitehead is a half-sister, being the daughter of Mrs. Borden's father by his second wife.

She resides in the house where her father lived for many years, and where the wedding of Abby Gray, as she was, to Andrew J. Borden, and the marriage of the other sister, Mrs. Priscilla Fish of Hartford, was celebrated.

It was owned by her father, and when he died he left the old home to Mrs. Whitehead.

About five years ago Mrs. Gray, the mother, did not care to keep the half interest any longer, and rather than have it bought by persons outside of the family, and have her half-sister thus annoyed, Mrs. Borden induced her husband to purchase it.

He did so, paying something like $1500 for it, and

The Deed was Recorded

in Mrs. Borden's name.

This is, as far as known, the only piece of real estate Mrs. Borden held a separate title to.

In the absence of a will, half of this house, together with a sum of money left her by Mrs. Borden's father, will become the property of the Borden girls, Lizzie and Emma.

This lady [Mrs. Whitehead] is a woman of no great means and will deeply feel her misfortune.


--Supplied by Joe, transcribed by Harry, re-formatted by Kat.

As noted in Rebello, pp. 278-279, Abby's heirs were treated fairly.

Sarah Whitehead and and George Fish (husband of Priscilla Gray) each got $788.83 from Abby's estate.

Lizzie and Emma also transferred the deed to Abby Borden's portion of the Fourth Street house, personal belongings and bank deposits of $4000 to Mrs. Whitehead and Mrs. Fish. Mrs. Whitehead did use Mr. Swift (of Alice Russell counsel fame) as her legal counsel.

So even if Andrew died first, Abby's sisters got their fair share of the estate under the law.

I don't recall the heirs got anything "under the law." They got what was freely offered and given them, no holds barred, from Emma and Lizzie, out of fairness- isn't that so?

Also, by the time shares were distributed, weren't both Fish dead?
Can you look this up and verify?

Kat-you are misreading what I am trying to say.

What they got was freely given, but it covered the letter of the law if the circumstances of death were reverse. They got what they would have gotten.

Date of transfer was August 13, 1893 (Rebello, p 278). Priscilla Fish died January 25, 1894, and George died shortly before, January 4, 1894 (Rebello, p. 23). I wonder if they left wills.

I guess it was not clear.

Also, I've read this Globe info 3 or 4 x and to me it says that without a will, Abby's personal property would not under any circumstances go to Abby's sister and half-sister.
Her personal property includes that part of a house.

I thought Fish Jr. got the Fish share (of Abby) given by the girls.
I will re-look it up.

In Rebello, 278, it says that "The estate of Abby Durfee Gray Borden" was ordered dispersed on November 2, 1894.
On page 23, it says that Priscilla died January 25, 1894, and her husband George died January 4, 1894, 10 months
before.
Where are the misunderstandings coming from?
It does say something a bit different on page 279 at the top, but the $788.84 you referred to earlier is included in the page 278 info I quote, which is a date of November 2, 1894.

We probably need to find another source, as these 2 in Rebello might be contradicting the other?

Thanks for the info, Cynthia and Kat. I find it expecially interesting as I never knew that Abby's family received money from Lizzie and Emma, just that share in the house.

"On page 23, it says that Priscilla died January 25, 1894, and her husband George died January 4, 1894, 10 months
before. "

Did George die in 1893 or 1894? But, either way, it sounds like they didn't receive any of the money.

i appreciate the posting of the legalistic reality of this. i'm assuming the author knows what he's talking about. it's just as i've always thought it should be, if i understand the legalese, which i'm not experienced with.

i've never bought the emphasis placed on "who died first" in one or two of the theories.

if abby had had a will when she died, her heirs would have gotten whatever she had designated for them regardless of when she died relative to andrew.

in the absence of wills, abby's people don't get anything of the percentage that abby would have inherited in the case of andrew's death, since she herself is dead and cannot decide to give it to them.

even if andrew had had a will that left abby such and such specifically -- her people don't get it in the event that abby is dead.

whatever abby had (such as that property in her name) is part of the general estate, which goes to lizzie and emma. under the circumstances, andrew owns everything, which goes to lizzie and emma.

in other words, whatever has abby's name on it reverts to andrew, who is dead, and who in death passes to lizzie and emma. had abby been spared, it would be a different matter, but who died first does not matter since they are both dead.

had abby legally willed something to someone, that would be that, but she did not.

had andrew died and abby lived, she would have a portion of the estate for herself. had abby died and andrew lived, he would have inherited whatever was in her name. he would have actually still owned everything.

if they are both dead (as they were) the entire estate is left to andrew's heirs.

whatever abby's people got was the decision of lizzie and emma.
_______________________

kat, is this your understanding? or is a part of that wrong?

Hi Susan!
Hi Eugene- we passed each other!
Susan: 1894- "10 months before"- meaning 10 months before the November pay-out. They died very close together in time. Foul-play?

I have an item here from the New York Times, dated February 5, 1894, pg. 4...right after their deaths.
It is entitled:
"Andrew J. Borden's Estate."
It says that there will be no inventory required by Lizzie of Emma, and that she -Lizzie- had received her "full share of said estate...and release and discharge...Emma...[from]liability...of the administration of the estate..."
That's when probate closes and the court's interest in the estate dissolves. Of course, included in this is Emma's assurance that all debts have been paid etc.

I think what the misunderstanding is is that probate in Andrew's estate may have finalized in February, 1894, but the dispensation of Abby's estate, which was between the sister's and Abby's heirs, with no lawful claim involved, probably was fulfilled in a less timely manner, in November as stated in Rebello. I believe it was considered sort of as an out-of-court settlement with the Whitehead family and the remaining Fish family.

I think it's a good interpretation that whatever Abby's family got was at the good-will of the Borden sisters.

I think it's possible Abby was killed first because Lizzie believed if Andrew died first they would get nothing and everything would go to Abby's family. If we have such a hard time understanding the legal jargon surrounding the laws of who gets what...I think it's fair to say Lizzie and Emma may have had the same troubles as well. I don't think they would've felt safe asking anyone about it, given the fact that Lizzie may have been contemplating murder. How is she going to go to a lawyer and ask who gets what in the event that Abby dies first, and not have it come back to haunt her? It would go directly to showing a motive. Some may say that she would understand it because she lived back then, and would better understand the laws. How many of us know and understand the laws as they pertain to us today without talking to a lawyer first? I think we are giving Lizzie to much credit for understanding the legal mumbo jumbo.

HI!
Boy, what you've gone though to be here! Thank you!

I think it's very possible that neither Lizzie nor Emma knew or understood the details. It's also possible, I think, for the information to be funneled to them (through Morse?) that all they needed to know to get it all is that Abby have no will and both Andrew and Abby be dead.
However, they gave up what Abby would have willed away anyway, so I guess they didn't need to know any more than that. It didn't have to be explained, so to speak, just the bottom line, possibly?

Otherwise, I do agree that any Massachusetts citizen not concerned with a large legacy would probably not ever know or understand the details.

I must admit tho, that after reading old wills (mid-1700-1800's) they were extremely explicit as to who got which cow and which spoon.

Should we collect the news items about Lizzie going to a lawyer and items about Lizzie not going to a lawyer?

Assuming Lizzie is our murderess, one of the ways to look at this case is from the perspective of how well planned in advance it was.

If we think she knew the inheritance laws or not makes a difference. I don't think that she did.

If she had looked into them it would certainly indicate some planning or at least her fate even if her father died of natural causes. She would have to know whether there was a will or not. She obviously would want to know the will's contents. There is no known indication whether she knew there was a will or not.

As for the inheritance laws, I think they were as widely misunderstood then as they are today. People assumed things which were not true. The Whiteheads, for instance, were under the illusion they were due something by law.

If her planning was that detailed she forgot one major point, the most important one, her alibi. She had none for her stepmother's death and a very poor one for her father's. It would seem to me that her alibi would have been priority number one.

Thanks Kat, I'm glad to be back again! I've missed you guys!

Harry @ Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:30 am wrote:

If her planning was that detailed she forgot one major point, the most important one, her alibi. She had none for her stepmother's death and a very poor one for her father's. It would seem to me that her alibi would have been priority number one.

I think for Lizzie to have had any alibi that was believable enough, she had to have a witness to make it credible. Who would've been that witness? She could say I was out shopping, I was out taking a walk, I was out doing..whatever it is she decided to say she was doing. But without a witness, it makes any alibi just as credible as the one about being out in the barn and we would still be debating it. She could say she was anywhere. But can she prove it without a witness? I think she did the best she could under the circumstances. I think for some reason, she did not want to place herself that far from the house, hence the alibi about being in the barn. Maybe it was because she had been afraid she was seen coming from the barn?

The alibi is pretty bad, I admit. It could be classed as a mistake. The note thing was a mistake and so was burning the dress. 3 big mistakes and yet it worked out.
I think the note story was perpetuated because Bridget accidently overheard. I think the alibi could be because she was seen, as Allen says. (by the ice cream man).
The dress-burning is harder to understand. She would have to have been forced to do that, like she was forced to admit she mentioned a note and she was forced to put herself outside because she was seen. So what forced her to burn the dress?
This is not assuming she killed the Bordens personally.
If she was involved, then someone was paid- and at the least that someone would know the minimum detail as to inheritance- that both Bordens be dead, will or no will- that would be the bottom line.

Back to Rebello, pp. 278 +279.

Re-reading I believe Abby's estate was not dispersed till Nov. 2, 1895. It seems likely that George H. Fish is the son, because on p. 279. only Mrs. Fish (the true heir) was referred to.

It says that the transfer occurred on August 13, 1893. I believe this refers to the transfer of deed to the property at 45 Fourth St. and other concession Lizzie and Emma made to Abby's heirs which were not part of Abby's estate under the law. I think they gave the heirs the "life estate" to which they were not truly entitled as a gesture of good will/

I think my interpretation is a bit different and posted elsewhere explaining this.

BTW: The son, Fish, is the son of the husband, not of Priscilla. So Abby's possessions went partially to her sister's husband's son.

You can check maybe the Land Transactions of Lizzie and Emma, in the back of Rebello?

This truly is a confusing kettle of Fish.

Kat, was Priscilla George's second wife? Is that what is meant by your quote:

The son, Fish, is the son of the husband, not of Priscilla

?


Anyway -- it's really George's middle initial that is the problem for me.

Rebello has George Sr. (Priscilla's husband) as George H. Fish (Rebello, 23,523) -- but a newspaper report originating from Hartford, Conn. (where the Fish family lived) says that Priscilla's husband was George B. Fish and the son was George H. Fish. (Not that I'm a big believer in anything that appears in the press BTW.)

But if, as Rebello indicates, Abby's estate was not processed and dispersed until November of 1894 and the proceeds were split between Sarah Whitehead and George H. Fish (Rebello,278) then doesn't it look as though George H. Fish was the son's name? Because George Sr. and Priscilla had both died almost a year prior to the settlement.

Were both father and son George H. Fish? If so, wouldn't they be designated as Jr. and Sr. in legal documents in order to distinguish one from the other? I don't know .... this is one instance where I'm almost tempted to go with the newspaper over Rebello's meticulous research just because it would simplify things.

I always wandered what lizzie and emma got out of andrew's estate. Must have been pretty decent.

I guess it does mean that Fish was previously married.
Priscilla had no children by Fish, just as Abby had no children by Borden.
Is that in Rebello?

It seems that Priscilla & Abby were both stepmothers.
Just as Jane Gray was Abby & Priscilla's stepmother.

So did abby and andrew have a will or not? And who got the most stuff?

There's the $64,000 question, snokkums. Nobody (that I've heard of anyway) has ever offered proof of a will written by either Andrew or Abby. It comes almost to a "He said-she said" sort of thing that after all these years...well, who can say?

Who got the most? The probate material on the website might tell you roughly. As for who ended up with the most by the time she died...it seems to me that Emma had more money.

I checked the land transactions in the back of Rebello and it does say pg. 556, that the Fourth Street property was sold for $1 etc. to Sarah Whitehead and Priscilla Fish (and Abby is spelled Abbie).
So I don't know why there is this seeming contradiction earlier in the book.

Anyway, I think the info that the Fish kids were not Priscilla's is due to the info as to who was at the funeral. It is quoted as "Mr. Fish J.L. Fish and wife, the latter a sister of Mrs. Abby Borden; Mr. Fish's son and his wife, of Hartford, Connecticut..." page 103, Rebello, but also in the newspaper.

Thanks for those page numbers, Kat. I wonder why J.L. Fish, though?

I'm also wondering if the newspaper identifying Jr. as "Mr. Fish's son" totally precludes him also being Priscilla's son. We have to remember what a patriarchal society we're dealing with here.

I don't know.. I'm not totally convinced. I need more evidence before I believe the George H. Fish who got that $788.84 in November of 1894 wasn't Abby's nephew by blood.

I think I understand the disbursements -- I think it has something to do with the Fourth Street property being a separate issue from Abby's actual estate. In any case, looking at it that way helps eliminate those seeming contradictions in Rebello....

Interesting that the legal document used the 'Abbie' spelling.

I almost didn't transcribe the whole part beginning with J.L. Fish but I noticed the semi-colon.
I figured that semi-colon between the Mr. Fish and wife (Priscilla), separates the Sr. Fish from his son and wife.
I suppose with one typo in the paper, there could be 2.

Here is a Globe item from Aug 9, 1892.
It says her son, and it says his son.
I thought I knew from somewhere she was not the mother.
I suppose we need census or birth info.
It's a good question.

please click on picture to open in a bigger screen version.

Thank you, Kat. Yes, that's the item with the Hartford dateline (where the Fish family lived) that shows George Sr. (Priscilla's husband)as George B. and the son as George H..

It's George H. who received the split residue of Abby's estate in Nov. 1894. And because we know George Sr. was dead by this time -- George H. must be the son, right?

So, although Rebello also lists Priscilla's husband as George H. in two separate entries (p. 23 and p.523) -- I think her husband may have been George B. (or who knows? -- maybe J.L. as the other newspaper says.)

Anyway, you're right -- we need census lists or birth records to go any further with this. And is it worth pursuing? It doesn't impact the case. I get totally hung up on little inconsistencies like this all the time. I have to learn to move on ....

I think every little thing could be important.
If the Fish family thought Abby's dying might bring them an inheritance, they could be suspects!
It says 2 Fish family members were in Fall River at the time, doesn't it?
And visiting Fish Jr's wife's parents at the time?

Suspects, all!

Another reason I never thought Priscilla had children, was because as Abby's full sister, I'd think they would stay closer if Priscilla had children. They don't sound close at all.

Federal census for George Fish in Connecticut:

FISH  GEORGE 19 M W MA CT FAIRFIELD  NORWALK  1860
 
FISH  GEORGE B 22 M W NY CT NEW HAVEN  WATERBURY  1860
 
FISH  GEORGE S 38 M W CT CT NEW LONDON  NEW LONDON  1860


FISH  GEORGE 22 M W CT CT HARTFORD  2-WD HARTFORD  1870
 
FISH  GEORGE 37 M W CT CT NEW LONDON  LISBON  1870


Surname GivenName Age Sex Race Birthplace State County Location Year
FISH GEORGE H 55 M W MA CT HARTFORD 3-WD HARTFORD 1900
Wife= Caroline 56
Mother-in-law Caroline M. Sperry 76 widow

Others 1900
FISH  GEORGE 46 M W MA CT FAIRFIELD  2-WD BRIDGEPORT  1900
 
FISH  GEORGE L 25 M W CT CT TOLLAND  MANSFIELD  1900
 
FISH  GEORGE N 32 M W RI CT MIDDLESEX  OLD SAYBROOK  1900
 
FISH  GEORGE T 65 M W CT CT MIDDLESEX  OLD SAYBROOK  1900

Good work, Kat!!

So the one you've detailed there could quite conceivably be the son, George H. Fish -- but we still don't have Priscilla's husband, right? The others are all too young.

I wonder where he is ... and what his middle initial is?

I could not definetly find Priscilla's husband and notice there's no George Fish in the 1880 census in Connecticut?

We don't have George Sr.'s birthdate either I don't think, so I used Priscilla's which birth year was 1820 to single out that *son* by estimating his age- but I suppose Fish Sr. could have been older than she?

BTW: I noted your use of the term the son. I appreciate it!

George's name changes again.

Thank you, Kat. Yes, that's the item with the Hartford dateline (where the Fish family lived) that shows George Sr. (Priscilla's husband)as George B. and the son as George H..

I was reading some of Lizzie Borden: A Case Book of Family and Crime in the 1890s(Williams, Smithburn & Peterson, editors, pp. 118-119) this morning from a New York Times Report:

When shown the statement of G. E. Fish of Hartford, to the effect that he believed that Lizzie and Morse conconted the murder of the old couple, and hired some one to do it, Morse said: "You know as well as I do what grounds there are for such an absurd charge as that. It is entirely unreasonable. That is all I say."

Besides showing a slightly litigious side to Morse, the name G. E. Fish made the lights go on for me. He's the famous George B. E. H. Fish.!!!

You know him.

Georgie "Brought Extra Hatchet", disgruntled husband of Priscilla Gray. There was always something fishy about his comments.

nbcatlover @ Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:06 pm wrote:Back to Rebello, pp. 278 +279.

Re-reading I believe Abby's estate was not dispersed till Nov. 2, 1895. It seems likely that George H. Fish is the son, because on p. 279. only Mrs. Fish (the true heir) was referred to.

It says that the transfer occurred on August 13, 1893. I believe this refers to the transfer of deed to the property at 45 Fourth St. and other concession Lizzie and Emma made to Abby's heirs which were not part of Abby's estate under the law. I think they gave the heirs the "life estate" to which they were not truly entitled as a gesture of good will/

I reread this thread a few times, and I'm still a little confused. I do not think that the giving of the half house to the Whiteheads had anything to do with good will. Weren't they still living in it? That means they would have to keep dealing with "those people" as long as they lived there. Plus what was giving away a half house worth only about $1,500 to get "those people" out of their hair for good , especially when they were suddenly very very rich? The concessions that Abby's heirs received were a mere pittance, nothing but a drop in the bucket. Lizzie left more money and real estate than that to her servants. In my opinion, I don't think that Lizzie and Emma really wanted any of the meager belongings that were Abby's. They had dispised her in life, and they still dispised her and her people after her death.


Rebello page 279:

Emma and Lizzie transferred their half interest at 45 Fourth Street property, personal belongings and bank deposits of $4,000 to the heirs Abby Borden. Mrs. Whitehead and Mrs. Fish. The transfer was made August 13, 1893, under the direction of Emma and Lizzie Borden through Levi E. Wood, administrator. Mr. Swift was counsel for Mrs. Whitehead.

Allen, I think "good will" is the socially-correct term, however facetious.

Another piece of this puzzle I have always found particularly odd is the fact that Emma and Lizzie held on to the house at Second Street until 1918. That's 26 years! It states in Rebello on page 307 that the house was purchased on July 3, 1918 by Mr. Dunn for "One dollar and other valuable considerations." I find it very peculiar that the girls would hold on to it that long. Maybe Lizzie liked the idea of keeping the scene of the crime under her thumb?