THE ‘ALAMEDA’ TRAGEDY.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 24, 6 August 1887, Page 2

THE ‘ALAMEDA’ TRAGEDY.

STRANGE STOBY—TRAGIC ENDING. A WOMAN NAMED VON SHOOTS A GISBORNE CHEMIST. AMOURS OF MR BISHOP a Fatal "transaction," Wilan wa published the first intimation that a man named Bishop had been assassinated on board the Alameda as she was about to leave San Francisco for New Zealand, by a woman, not a few conjectured that the man was identical with Mr G, W. Bishop, until recently a well-known chemist of thia town. The announcement caused considerable excitement at the time, and a denial or a confirmation of the conjecture was eagerly awaited. The only thing that could in any way connect Mr Bishop’s name with the dreadful tragedy was the fact that he had a few months before left for America. The surmise was only too true, for a few days after we received a wire from our correspondent, at Auckland, that it was Bishop, of Gisborne, who had been shot. The terrible affair created a great sensation, and as the naffle of the woman did not transpire, many cruel and unjust rumours were set afloat, the names of two females, late residents of this district, being freely used in connection with the crime, From what we can learn, there was not ths slightest fragment of foundation for the rei ort, and its circulation was. to say the least of it cruel in the extreme. The particulars show that the assassin was a woman named Von, who appeare to be an immoral character with whom Bishop had become acquainted. Of course there has been no ‘Frisco mail since the shot, which has terminated fatally, was fired, and, therefore, no information as regards the murder case is to hand, but late American papers give lengthy reports of a case between Bishop and his paramour, the result of which, no doubt, acted as an incentive in tbe woman’s feelings against Bishop. This case shows an extraordinary state of things, and there can hardly be a diversity of opinion in linking Von’s name as the perpetrator of the awful deed. Those who knew Bishop will be greatly suprised at the low depth of degradation into which he had sunk, for during a residence of eight years in Gisborne he had proved himself to be a hard man of the world. Bishop came here from Auckland, and very soon worked up a lucrative business, eventually disposing of it to the present proprietor, Mr Foster. He was a married man. and leaves a wife and large family in Auckland. From Auckland papers received by yesterday’s steamer the following account is taken of the tragic affair: — A cablegram received at Gisborne on Saturday identified the man nairled Bishop, who was shot by a woman on board the Alameda, just prior to her departure from San Francisco, as G. W. Bishop, formerly carrying on business at Gisborne. The message further stated that the wound had terminated fatally. The circumstances of the shooting are these: At about 2 p.m. on the date fixed for the departure of the Alameda, a woman, tall and powerfully built; stepped on board and inquired whether Mr Bishop, who had taken a steerage passage for Auckland, was on board. On being informed that he had gone ashore to make some purchases, she said very quietly that she would wait for him. She went into the steerage apartments, and stood alongsid? of the steps leading to the main deck, and spoke on commonplace topics with the men connected with the steamer. They noticed nothing remarkable about her up to this time, except that she had her right hand hidden under a shawl wrapped round her shoulders. She had not waited long when Mr Bishop Arrived and entered the steerage. He asked immediately to be shown his berth, and one of the stewards was proceeding to comply with his request, when he heard a shot fired, and the woman exclaim, “ Take that with you." It seems that nobody actually saw the shot filed. Mr Bishop called out loudly as if in great pain, and pressed his hands on his left side where the bullet had evidently entered. He staggered to the deck and was promptly placed in a vehicle and conveyed to the Receiving Hospital. The Woman in the meantime was arrested on the steamer and taken ashore. The Alameda sailed almost immediately afterwards, and those on board did not learn the sequel of the tragedy. From the cable despatch now to hand, however, it appears that the assassin did her work effectually, as Bishop has since died.

BISHOP’3 CAREER IN SAN FRANCISCOBishop sold his business in Gisborne a few months ago, and went to San Francisco. Here he quickly fell into the toils of the woman by whose hands he ultimately met his death. He seems, however, to have been a very willing and apt pupil in the fast ways of the great and reputedly wicked city of the Pacific slope. It appears that on April 15th Bishop went to a matrimonial agent named Hopkins, and asked for an introduction to a woman who was advertised in a sheet which Hopkins published as in search of a husband. Hopkins gave him a letter to a woman named “ Lady Mary Von,” charging ten dollars for his services. The introduction led to a liaison, Bishop setting her up in a lodging-house' in Powell Street, which he rented for her special benefit. All went well for a time, until Bishop apparently tired of his bargain, and assigned the property to a man named Joseph M. McLaughlin. The woman refused to give up possession, and this led to a suit for the recovery of the furniture, which, according to the complainant, included five beds and bedding, carpets, six mirrors, cooking stove, chairs in eight rooms, pictures in eight rooms, three washstands, five tables, and various other articles, all valued at 299 dollars, (about £6O). BISHOP’S EVIDENCE IN COURT-

The hearing of the case occupied part of two days, and fills over two columns of the San Francisco Chronicle. The evidence of Bishop is thus reported:— George Wesley Bishop, who is a partly bald-headed man, who should have known better, and who sports a full beard and looks more like a German than a citizen of New Zealand, testified substantially as follows when on the stand : “ I am about four months from New Zealand. I met Mrs Mary Von, and I confess I fell in love with her, and she induced me to purchase the house on Powell Street from Mrs Mcßride. I came here about March 20, and put up at 604, McAlister street. I got acquainted with Mrs Von by an advertisement in the “ Matrimonial Gazette ” by the assistance of Dr. Hopkins. I told her when I met her that she need not suppose I came to her on matrimonial business, as I already had a wife. I paid her considerable attention. I got her medicine, such as limes, lozenges, and many other things. When she got well we again talked of divorce matters, and were very affectionate. Once when she was playing at the piano she broke off rather “ rhapsodieally ” and [said it was too bad she never could get ready money when she needed it. I said that was all right; it was only changing money from my pocket to hers. Then she spoke about the house on Powell street, and she asked me to look it up. If the plan met her approval and expectations it would be all right and I was to buy it. It was 104, Powell street. Well, we looked over the house and it seemed all right and I bought the place out. The bill of sale was first in her name from Mrs Mcßride, but afterward, at my suggestion, it was put in my name. On May 30th I asked her if she hud the money to pay next month’s rent, and site said no. Then I asked her what proposition she had to make, but she submitted none. Consequently the lady depreciated considerably in my estimation.” “ How did you come to visit Mrs Von ’ ” that lady’s counsel asked on cross-examina-tion,

11 Well, a friend of mine showed me an advertisement ill the ‘ Matrimonial Gazette' about a young lady, blond complexion, just passed through the divorce courts, now ready for matrimony. I thought I would go and see how she stood it. I found her an intelligent, nice-looking woman, and paid attentions to her.” , ... Counsel for the defendant here pressed the witness very hard as to the. amatory nature of hla behaviour towards Mrs Von, in the course of which he admitted that he had purchased her a musical instrument. TESTIMONY OF MRB MARY VON. The report proceeds ; Mrs Mary Von, the defendant, was called to the stand, Mary is a lady of impressive presense, She must weight nearly 200 pounds, Nevertheless her handsome face and generally shy, maidenly manner were entirely inconsistent with her general claim of being fat, fair and 40—more fat than 40, to be particular (It appears that she was a tall stout woman of probably 50 years of age.) She appeared in Court in a plain blue dress, whose ample folds enfolded her form with a sort of neglige looseness, and a light yellow-coloured straw bonnet, turned up at the back, which was decorated with several feathers, and which set off the powdered face with becoming coyness.

“ Mr Bishop,” said witness, in a low, sweet voice, the harmony of which was only occasionally broken by a sound like the broken string on a fiddle, “ came to me with a letter of introduction, from Dr Hopkins. He told me he had paid lOdols. for the letter of introduction, and we had many a laugh over it. Mr Bishop told me he had just come from Australia and wanted to make a home, and therefore he had gone about the speediest way of doing it. Dr Hopkins told me he wau wealthy, and Mr Bishop corroborated that statement himself. He left a letter of credit for 6300 with me as a guarantee of his good faith.

" Good faith for what 7" said the Attorney, “ Why— er— ah—»h—” and Mary blushed and giggled. "He wanted to marry me, Oh, he was a very affectionate man. Why, I never had a more devoted lover,” and Mary's massive frame shook, as if with the ague, as a sigh escaped her, while her mind seemed to revert to her bygone flames. Witness then told bow in the pure affection of his heart Bishop hud bought out tlitJ lodging-house for her.

On cross-examination she had a hard time. She was compelled to acknowledge that at various times she had borne the names of Blodes, Hughes and Hammersmith, and that she did not know where her quondam husbands were. The "poor girl’’ was quite nonplussed when asked if she was a married woman, and how that " under the decisions she realiy did not know.” Then she said she had married Bishop by an agreement. Being asked what her business was she said she was a physician, although she had uo diploma, and could not tell how many teeth were in the head nor bones in ti e body. She desired it to be understood however, that she did not cure by the use of medicines, but by the laying on the hands, and her method was known as the Roman method. She was a “ natural healer." She said: The marriage contract with Bishop was written in ink, and was made at her suggestion. She got the idea from the Sharon case, and thought that such marriages were all right. “ Were you not sentenced in Judge Murphy's court on January 7th, 1885, for an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder and sent to San Quentin and served a year ? ” “ Yes—es, sir, faltered the claimant of four names, and the relict of several husbands. On cross-examination by her own attorney Mrs Von stated that Bishop had given her a number of presents, and she produced several silk handkerchiefs, various towels, a scarfpin, a large roll of silk, and some linen. Hopkins, the matrimonial agent, admitted advertising the defendant in she following terms : “ A young and beautiful woman, who has just got ont her divorce papers from a bad husband, is again in the matrimonial market. She is a beautiful creature, splendid formation, accomplished, prepossessing, beautiful pianist, and high-toned relatives, and is uow in a prosperous business." Under examination he admitted that the description was false.

Mr Collins, attorney for the defendant, then made a statement in which he denied some of the testimony of Mr Bishop. Mrs Wier, the last witness, testified that Bishop had roomed at her house since he came to the country, but had not slept home from May 12th to May 29th, which was the period during which defendant stated Bishop had been with her, SPEECHES BY COUNSELThe case was then argued, Counsel for the defendant contended that the furniture had been a gift from Bishop to defendant. J. D. Sullivan, attorney for the plaintiff, said Bishop was the very incarnation of guile, while the defendant was his very antithesis—the perfection of a shrewd woman. llothing could be gained favourable to Mrs Von from the testimony of this man Hopkins, who had lived there for a number of years and never had a reputation ; who advertised women, and who, judging from the sample produced in court, tbe stylo of all of them Could easily be imagined. “We know what her reputation is,” Mr Sullivan continued. *' She is one of a class who too often ply their nefarious trade in the shadows of the courts of justice. This olaea of human spiders that are laying for human files like this man, to take them into their nests—oould any good come of her connection with Hopkins! A ‘ beautiful, beautiful woman,' and then a man gets a woman built like John L. Sullivan,"

THE JUDGE’S DECISION. In rendering his judgment in favour of the plaiutiff. Justice Burke reviewed the evidence at length. He did not think the fact of a marriage had been conclusively shown, and thought that the evidence had not shown that Bishop had made a gift of the furniture to Mrs Von.

“ I think,” said the Court, "that this gay Lothario bought the property and |put this woman in the house to run it and make all she could out of it. lam inclined to think that the plaintiff here, although he probably ought to have a guardian appointed for him—a man who went to Hopkins to get a wife ought to have a guardian—is entitled to judgment. I can’t see that the defendant in this case, after receiving all those presents, is entitled to this property. Judgment for the plaintifi.” THE SEQUEL. The sequel to thia extraordinary story has already been told. Bishop had evidently made up his mind to leave San Francisco, and had booked for the return voyage, when his career was cut short in a manner that is not at all surprising under the circumstances.