1885-06-25 Wall Shooting (Part 2)

James Wall was the most important prisoner to appear in Hamilton's Police Court on June 25, 1885, just two days after the shooting incident :

    “The preliminary trial of James Wall, for shooting at Rosa Zoeller with intent to kill, took place at the police court yesterday. Mr. Carscallen appeared for the prisoner, and entered a plea of not guilty. Mr. Crerar, county crown attorney, appeared for the prosecution.

“Rosa Zoeller testified : ‘Live at 109 James street north with my husband. Was out for a drive with my husband until 4 o’clock Monday last. I then went to Mrs. Mason’s on Peter street, and Mrs. Mason and Mr. Davis went for a drive with me. I returned shortly after 8 o’clock and was waiting for my mother-in-law. Wall came out of my house. He came over to me and said, ‘You have been out with Davis.’ I said no, and he pulled a revolver from his pocket and said, ‘You are gone.’ He raised the revolver and pointed at my head . I Stretched out my hand to take the revolver. My hand touched his arm and the revolver went off. He then drew the revolver back and held, but I managed to get it. Before I got the revolver, I saw him shake it. I threw it on the sidewalk and called out for someone to take care of it. Wall took hold of the horse after that, and said I had better clear out or he would have my life. There was a crowd around when he said thes. I said to a policeman present : ‘For God’s sake, take hold of him.’

“Cross-examined by Mr. Carscallen : I had been driving with my husband and had been out from 12:30 o’clock. It was about 8:30 when the shooting occurred. The horse was standing in front of my house. After leaving my husband at home, I drove up to Peter street. Mrs. Mason and Mr. Davis drove with me over to Bayview and then we returned to my house, by way of the Beach. I was sitting in the buggy in front of my own house when I first saw Wall. I was sitting alone in the buggy waiting for my mother-in-law to drive her home. Wall came up and said, ‘you have been driving with Davis.’ I said no, and he immediately raised a revolver and said, ‘you are a goner.’ The prisoner  raised the revolver and I touched his arm. The revolver immediately discharged. I touched him with my right hand. I was sitting squarely in the buggy and the lines were over the dashboard. Only one shot was fired. No one was nearby.

“James Dwyer sworn “ ‘I was at my door on James street on Monday night; saw my buggy at Zoeller’s door. I heard a report like that of a firecracker, then Mrs. Zoeller who was in the buggy screamed and the horse started to run away. I went over and caught the horse. A policeman had already seized it. Wall also had hold of the horse, by the bridle. Heard Wall say, ‘You had better leave town.’ Mrs. Zoeller called out for someone to take hold of him.

“Maud Evans sworn : Saw Wall come out of Mrs. Zoeller’s house, go up to the buggy and say something in a low voice. Mrs. Zoeller said no. I then saw Wall point a revolver. Mrs. Zoeller shouted and caught at Wall’s arm. The revolver went off. Mrs. Zoeller caught the revolver but Wall held it and tried to shake it from her. Mrs. Zoeller got the revolver and thew it on the sidewalk saying, ‘For God’s sake, take it.’

“Cross –examined by Mr. Carscallen : there was only one shot fired; I saw the flash under the buggy as it left the revolver. My sister was standing beside me from the time Mrs. Zoeller pushed Wall’s hand away till II saw the flash, about two seconds.

“Constable Walsh sworn : ‘I heard the shot and a scream immediately afterward; saw the horse running away and ran up and caught it; a man came up to the other side of the horse’s head as I caught it; Mrs. Zoeller was in the buggy; the prisoner came up to the buggy and said, ‘You had better leave the city before tomorrow.’ He shook his fist at her, cursing at her the same time. I went around to arrest Wall for making use of profane language. Mrs. Zoeller called out  to me to take him. He started to run away, and I followed and caught him. He turned around and struck at me, but I held him off. I asked him who fired the shot and he said it was none of my business. I asked him was it the woman in the buggy, and who she was. He said he did not know who she was nor who fired the shot. I took him into a store and looked for a revolver but he had none. He said his pocket was on fire and that a cigar had burned it. I examined his leg and found a flesh wound evidently caused by a revolver. I asked him what had caused it, and he said, ‘It’s none of your business, find out.’

Cross-examined – When he pulled out his posket, the bottom part was on fire. His leg was also bleeding. The wound on his leg was three or four inches long. There was a hole in his trousers below the bullet mark in his leg, apparently made by the bullet passing out. There was no other hole in his trousers.

“O. C. Evans testified that he found the revolver and gave it to Detective Campbell. He heard the woman shout but did not hear the report of the shot. Detective Campbell mentioned the revolver and said he got it from Evans.

“The prisoner was committed for trial at the next assize, bail not being applied for.”

“The Wall Shooting Affray : Jimmy Wall, the Prisoner, Committed for Trial at the Next Assize”

Hamilton Spectator     June 25, 1885.

1885-06-22aWall Shooting (Part 1)

Gunfire on James Street was rarely heard in the 1880s. However, on June 22, 1885, violence manifested by an obsessive rejected suitor caused pandemonium.

Jimmy Wall was widely known as a jig dancer, but also as an odd character. Rosa Voeller was the woman he was obsessed with.

Here is the story of the incident that was the culmination of months of trouble:

 “”A slenderly-built, waxen-faced young woman, of prepossessing appearance, was sitting in a buggy on James street north about half past eight last night, when a man rushed out from a laundry at No. 109, pointed a revolver at her, exclaiming, ‘Now, young lady,

                   You’re a Goner !’

and fired. Passersby were horrified at hearing a shot immediately followed by a woman’s piercing screams and cries of ‘For God’s sake, take it away,’ and soon a crowd obstructed the street.

          “The first shot having failed to effect any injury, the diminutive shooter stepped closer to the woman and attempted to fire another shot. The weapon would not work, and the determined fellow shook it to cause it to fire. The woman made a dash for the revolver, and

                   GRAPPLED WITH THE MAN

and an exciting struggle ensued, during which the weapon went off and the bullet entered the young fellow’s thigh. Grasping  the pistol, the almost fainting woman threw it from her with all her remaining strength, screaming, ‘Somebody

                   FOR GOD’S CATCH IT.’

and almost fell from her seat. The horse was at this time plunging violently and the shootist made a jump for the bridle and clung to the horse. Turning to the woman, he shouted ‘you’d better leave town or

                   I’LL HAVE YOUR LIFE

tomorrow. ‘ Mr. Dwyer, the owner of the rig, sprang to the aid of the woman and assisted her into the house, while constable Walsh took charge of her assailant, but not till after he had made strong resistance and tried to escape.

“The lady is Mrs. Rose Zoeller, whose husband is an invalid, and the man who caused her death was James Wall, better known as Jimmy Wall, the dancer. He is a hatter by trade.

                   THE WOMAN’S STORY

          Mrs. Zoeller says she was acquainted with Wall before her marriage five years ago. When he heard of her approaching nuptials he told her she would have no peace after she was married, and ever since, in various ways, he has done his best to make his prophesy materialize. He at one time boarded for a short period with the Zoellers  and took advantage of his position to annoy the lady of the house. The neighbors have received a number of badly-spelled and ill-constructed letters, filled with scurrilous language calculated to injure Mrs. Zoeller in their eyes, and insinuating that while Mr. Zoeller  was flat on his back, ill with consumption, his wife was altogether too pleasant to Mr. Wall, who was described as the ‘whited-haired boy’ of the family. These charming epistles, some of which have fallen into Mrs. Zoeller’s possession, are alleged to be the work of Mr. Wall himself. ‘I tried to keep what Wall was doing annoying me away from my husband,’ said Mrs. Zoeller, ‘but one day he threatened me in front of my sick husband, and I had to complain of him.’

“The lady says she had been driving during the afternoon with her husband, and after that with some friends. Returning home, before taking the big rig back to the stable, Wall, who was in the house,, visiting her husband, rushed out and attacked her as already stated. She was unhurt, but suffered a terrible shock to her nervous system. She seemed most troubled, however, by the probable effect of the affair upon her invalid husband. She seemed afraid that he would succumb under the excitement of the affair.

“The revolver was recovered where it was thrown from the rig by Mrs. Zoeller and handed to Constable Campbell.

“After arresting Wall, constable Walsh remarked that the shot might have been a bad one to which Wall replied ‘I wish I had shot myself through the gizzard.’ Wall was perfectly sober but very much excited when arrested.’ ”¹

¹ “Wicked Jimmy Wall : A Little Jig Dancer Tries the Shoot Act – Upon a Young Lady – He Fires Twice and Only Manages to Shoot Himself in the Leg”

Hamilton Spectator     June 23, 1885.

1885-06-22Baseball in Hamilton

It was just another issue of the Spectator , June 22, 1885, but the sports section (1/3 of the one page devoted to local items) contained three interesting items, which would have caught the attention of local baseball fanatics.

First, the hotly-anticipated first visit of the season by the team from Toronto to play the Clippers at Dundurn park, turned out to be less than satisfying for the Hamilton supporters :

                   SAURDAY’S FRACTIONAL GAME

“Saturday, at Dundurn, for the first time since the revival of baseball in Hamilton, a game was interrupted by rain. The Torontos and Clippers had met for their first contest. The Clippers, weakened by the secession of three of their strongest players, and handicapped by the necessity of playing the remaining men out of position, could not have been expected to play a strong game. They had no catcher, and Chamberlin was compelled to pitch easy little ones that the Torontos batted freely. When the rain came on and the game was stopped, the score stood 5 to 1 in favor of the Torontos. The result gives much encouragement to the Toronto team and its backers, and will assist the baseball boom that has taken passion of that city. As the Clippers lost nothing – the game being no game – it is perhaps just as well that the play turned out as it did. As it was, the Torontos had the best of it. Had the game gone on to a finish ---------------“ ¹

¹ “The World of Sport : Items of Interest to the Noble Fraternity : A Game of Less Than Five Innings Between the Clippers and Torontos – No Game at London – Miscellaneous Notes”

Hamilton Spectator     June 22, 1885.

The first season of the newly-organized Canadian Baseball League had five franchises, each filled with professional or semi-pro players. Hamilton had two franchises in the league, the Clippers and the Primroses. Then there was the Maple Leaf tem from Guelph, the Torontos and the Londons. Each city had sports writers as competitive with each other in their columns as the teams were on the field. The sports writers in London and Hamilton were constantly bickering with each other :

          HOME RUNS

“ ‘Our esteemed local contemporary and the Hamilton Spectator have got into a jangle as to what constitutes a home run, but finally they have agreed that a home run is an earned run. We don’t like to interfere with such eminent authorities, but we take the liberty of remarking that a home run is not necessarily an earned run.’

London Advertiser.

“One of the eminent authorities is much amused. If the Advertiser be right, then a two base hit is not necessarily a hit upon which two bases are made. If a batter makes a hit that is good for three bases, and gets home on a fielding error, it is not a home run, although he has not stopped running. To make it a little plainer. If a batter gets his first on called balls and a fielder picks up the ball and throws it over the fence, and the base runner shoots right along and scores, it is not a home run. A home run can only be made by batting the ball to such a distance that it cannot be returned in time to put the runner out. These explanations are quite unnecessary in this part of the country, and the Spectator prints them simply with a view of elevating the standard of baseball knowledge in the Advertiser office.”¹

The final baseball item in that June 22, 1885 Spectator concerned a contract dispute between the management of the Clipper and three of its players, all three of whom were brothers. Peter, Fred and Jeff Wood were Americans from the city of Buffalo, New York. All were excellent players, with Pete even having played some in the major leagues.

          THE CLIPPER QUARREL

“The rupture between the Wood brothers and the Clipper management seems to be complete. The Woods have a document, signed by the manager, which they claim, constitutes a release. The gist of the document is this : The manager agrees to play the Wood brothers as pitcher, catcher and first base during the season, and a clause is added to the effect that if this arrangement be broken by the management, the document shall immediately become a release.

“On Friday the manager decided that Jeff Wood would not play in the game with the Torontos. This, the Woods claim, is a violation of the agreement, and constitutes the document a release. Manager Stroud claims that an agreement to play a player in a certain position, ‘during the season,’ does not mean that that player shall play that position in every game; but only that he shall play that certain position when he does play. He holds that the document is no release. It is likely that the question will have to be decided by the executive committee of the league. It is unfortunate that this quarrel occurred just when it did. But it is not surprising. There has been a good deal of grumbling on both sides for some time, and an open rupture could not long be deferred. As usual in disputes of this nature, there is a great deal to be said on both sides. The Woods want what they consider to be written in the bond, and the manager very naturally is of opinion that he ought to have something to say about the management of his team.”