Lizzie Borden Society Forum

The following inquest exchange has always had me curious about what kind of business Andrew would have objected to so much that he would not lease building space for it (sorry, I don't know the page number from "Lizzie's Inquest").

"Q. Do you know of anybody that your father was on bad terms with?
A. There was a man that came there that he had trouble with. I don't know who the man was.
Q. When?
A. I cannot locate the time exactly. It was within two weeks. That is, I don't know the date or day of the month.
Q. Tell all you saw and heard.
A. I did not see anything. I heard the bell ring and father went to the door and let him in. I did not hear anything for some time except just the voices. Then I heard the man say, "I would like to have that place; I would like to have that store." Father said, "I am not willing to let your business go in there." And the man said, "I thought with your reputation for liking money, you would let your store for anything." Father said, "You are mistaken." Then they talked a while and then their voices were louder and I heard father order him out and went to the front door with him.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said he had stayed long enough and he would thank him to go.
Q. Did he say anything about coming again?
A. No sir.
Q. Did your father say anything about coming again, or did he?
A. No sir.
Q. Have you any idea who that was?
A. No sir. I think it was a man from out of town because he said he was going home to see his partner."

Assuming for the moment that the exchange Lizzie recounts actually took place, what could Andrew find objectionable? Would it have been something marginally legal? legal, but morally repugnant to him? against his tastes and preferences? destructive of the property? offensive to other tenants? attracting a "bad element" of people?

I have considered businesses typical of downtowns at that time (like drug store; Dr's office; butcher's shop; grocery store; restaurant; appliance store; antiques store; tea room; livery stable; barber shop; toy store; candy shop; law office; investment brokers; etc. Then, I've found some businesses or activities that may or may not have been common in New England at the time (dance hall; bowling alley; pool hall; opera house) which might have clashed with his religious sentiments. I've also tried to think of more "off-the-wall" kinds of uses: spiritualists meetings; pornographic materials; saloon; gambling; ladies' lingerie; birth control information; dance hall or dancing lessons; men's club.

I suppose he might dislike having a butcher's shop with its sights, sounds and smells. Dancing, drinking and gambling would seem to go against his religion. But, I remain curious. If anyone else is interested in discussing what type of business or activity someone would have been seeking to place in Andrew's building that Mr. Borden could have refused, I'd look forward to getting your thoughts.

Good question, Gerontologist!

How about a house of ill repute? That would certainly be against Andrew’s religious beliefs, wouldn't it?

BYW: The part of Lizzie’s Inquest testimony that you have posted is on page 49 (6). Here is the link: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... nquest.pdf

Thanks for the assistance, Twins! Now I have page numbers.

Yeah, I guess I left out one of the biggies: prostitution. But, would his building have lodgings? Maybe something closer to an escort service?

David Kent's book mentions that the business was thought to be a 'rum shop'. This was taken from an article in the Herald newspaper on August 5.

OOPS, I see I have not yet responded to your post Gerontologist. Sorry about that.

You're welcome for the page number to the testimony you posted, and the suggestion.

Hello, Denali2016, welcome to the forum. I hope you will find a wealth of information here.

Please correct me if am mistaken. I assume you are referring to David Kent’s book titled, Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden. If so, would you mind indicating which page you found this information on?

I did find the following in David Kent’s book titled, The Lizzie Borden Sourcebook, on pages 7 and 8 (Underlining is mine.):

Miss Lizzie made the following statement to Officer Harrington as soon as she was sufficiently composed to talk coherently of the affair. It differs in only one particular from the one she told Dr. Bowen, namely, the time in which she was out of the house and in the barn. She said that she was absent 20 minutes, and, upon being requested to be particular insisted that it was not more than 20 minutes or less than that time. She said that her father enjoyed the most perfect confidence and friendship of his workmen across the river, and that she was in a position to know this, unless something unusual had happened within a few days. She told that story of the angry tenant, saying that the man came to her father twice about the matter, and that he persistently refused to let the store which he wanted for the purpose desired. The only vacant property of Mr. Borden was the room recently vacated by Baker Gadsby, and it is thought that this is the place the man wanted to use. Mr. Borden told the man at the first visit to call again and he would let him know about the rental. It is supposed to be an out-of-town man and that he called and found that Jonathan Clegg had occupied the store. It is also thought that the tenant wanted to use the place as a rum shop: this Mr. Borden would not allow. It may be added that the police attached little importance to the latter matter.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/jxbyosx

Unfortunately, Mr. Kent did not indicate the date this article was published in this book.

As far as I know, there is no evidence that the Andrew Borden family drank. If that is true, then a rum shop would certainty be something that Andrew would have not wanted his name assisted with.

Hi Twins and thanks for the welcome! Having just recently discovered this forum I'm having a blast going through all the many interesting topics and postings.

You're correct...I was referring to David Kent's Forty Whacks and I found the info on page 27. As mentioned it was taken from the Herald article of August 5th which 'brought the citizenry up to date on the facts, the rumors, and the speculations'.

Hi Denali2016, you’re welcome for the greeting. Thank you for clarifying that you were referring to David Kent’s book, Forty Whacks, and the page number.

I am glad to hear you are enjoying the vast amount of topics that are on the forum here. Please feel free to make comments and ask questions on any topic; we will be glad to answer your questions, if we can, and respond to your comments, if we have something to say.

Hi and welcome to Denali2016 and Gerontologist. I read David Kent's book but must have missed that about a rum shop or have just forgotten that about that part. I also had some thoughts at first that Andrew Borden may have not wanted an outsider to open a business, because I have seen people in the present day have trouble breaking into business in some small towns and I guess that influenced my thinking.

Thanks for the welcome patsy. I love this newly found forum and have so much to go through yet!

I feel that the chance of the tenant doing the deed was extremely slight. I find it hard to believe that someone in a situation like that could build up enough anger to commit such violent murders.