The Hicks Matrimonial Imbroglio

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reporter thought up the title above, and you can just imagine him having a good laugh about it. The year was 1863; the place, the Eastern District of Brooklyn. The stars: my great great great uncle and aunt, Lemuel and Lydia Hicks. I must tell you that I like them both, especially Lydia, and I wish I'd had room at my ancestral dinner to include them. Though I might have used paper plates if Lemuel was coming over - read on, and you will see why.

This is one of the stories my grandmother didn't tell me. Maybe nobody told her. You see, she only really knew her mother's family, the Reeds - a respectable bunch, originally from Pennsylvania, who had come to Brooklyn in the early 1870s.

Her father, Charles Garrett Hicks (b 1856) was the eldest son of Daniel Losee and Mary Ann (Barnett) Hicks. Daniel was the youngest of the twelve children of Stephen and Elizabeth (Losee) Hicks of North Hempstead, then in Queens County, later in Nassau County. Of those twelve, five are known to have settled in Brooklyn by the 1850s - Hiram, Lemuel Stephen, Andrew Jackson, Susannah and Daniel Losee.

Hiram was a shoemaker who led a fairly quiet life, though he did have a bit of trouble with reference to a foster child. I'll be writing about that down the road. Daniel Losee had his share of troubles too, but in general kept out of the papers (with a couple of exceptions - again, that's for another post). Andrew and his family were in the Eagle a reasonable amount, and poor Susannah was a possible murder victim whose story belongs in a longer post as well.

And that leads us back to Lemuel Stephen, born in 1826. He was in Brooklyn by the late 1840s, and was originally in the shoe business. He married a woman named Lydia, possibly of German extraction (their only child's name was Augustus) about 1849. Augustus was born about 1850. Lydia became a photographer and Lemuel followed suit. By 1859 he is listed as an "ambrotypist" working at 158 Grand Street, Brooklyn. He remained on Grand Street for at least 30 years, working at various addresses (Nos. 160, 162, 191 and 195), always as a photographer.

Eugene Armbruster's very informative book, Brooklyn's Eastern District (1942), mentions Lemuel a few times, in his section on Grand Street:

"Hicks, the photographer, kept near Bedford Avenue, the 'Jenny Lind.'" (p. 177)

"At the corner of Bedford Ave. stood in the early '50s the old time sporting resort known as the Jenny Lind where the sports congregated."

"Lemuel L. [sic] Hicks, the photographer, was located in the '60's at old No. 160." ( p. 186)

I haven't found much out about the 'Jenny Lind' yet, but I'll keep you posted if I do. In any case it sounds like Lemuel ran some sort of shady saloon in addition to his daguerreian labors.

Now the family genealogist in the mid-Victorian era was one Benjamin D. Hicks of Brooklyn. He compiled a vast number of Hicks records and traced all the branches of the family down to the generation born in the 1830s or so, including the children of Stephen Hicks and Elizabeth Losee. But Lemuel's entry shows him married to the lady who turned out to be his second wife, Susannah Jane Anderson. Benjamin D. made no mention of Lydia. I think he knew this story, and left her out on purpose:

The Eagle first reported the Hicks "domestic scandal" on July 25, 1863. Many years before, the Eagle reporter writes, a man named Hicks had "established...a daguerrean [sic] gallery" at No. 158, which was run largely "by a lady of that name somewhat noted for abundance of dress and her general attractive qualities." Notice the description, coded to tell us that Lydia was rather a live wire even from the first. Abundance of dress indeed! Her husband, Lemuel S. Hicks, on the other hand, "quietly officiated" downstairs at Mr. Whitehouse's shoe store. Sounds like he won't be too much trouble to her, doesn't it - all he does, it would seem, is officiate. Quietly.

Then Lemuel found out that Lydia had a gentleman admirer "whose name is not very different from that of a prominent official at Washington." He did a little spying - "several mysterious operations seemed to satisfy the injured husband that he had been deeply wronged." Maybe he was not so quiet and meek after all. But Lydia managed to calm him down. I wish I could go back in a time machine and hear just what she said!

In any case, she smoothed things over, and they separated amicably. Lydia kept the gallery at 158. Lemuel opened a rival establishment down the block. Lydia was a successful photographer and "being of a sociable turn received a good deal of company." Which is what one would expect of a lady with an abundance of dress. At which point Lemuel decided that he really was not happy about this.

On Saturday July 18, 1863, Lydia had a party for her men and women friends. The principal guest was "Mr. Herrick, son of the proprietor of the New York Atlas." This was the admirer, I believe, mentioned earlier - he was the son* of Anson Herrick**, a politician and newspaper editor from Maine, living then in New York City.

Lemuel brooded and boiled outside on the sidewalk for awhile, listening to the music and laughter in the rooms above 158 Grand. Then he went in, broke up the party, and started arguing loudly with Lydia. He broke up more than just the party though. Lydia immediately filed a complaint against Lemuel for "malicious mischief for damage done to the furniture, etc."

Lemuel protested this, saying that Lydia's studio at 158 "was fraudulently obtained" and therefore his property - and he could break his own property if he liked.

Lydia said she already had got a divorce from Lemuel, and furthermore "ha[d] about $5000 in the Williamsburgh Savings Bank, and is said to be determined to vindicate her rights."

The case was initially heard on July 30th. Lydia, "a small, light made woman, with a brunette complexion and small hazel eyes to match" came in with several witnesses, including Mr. Herrick, "the champion of the Sunday [sic] evening melee."

Lemuel never showed up, much to his lawyer's chagrin. Judge Walter said he could do nothing if Hicks could not be "procured." Judge Walter revoked Lemuel's bail at this point and "the unhappy artist [would be] liable to be detained in durance vile until he can obtain a hearing." 'In durance vile' means confinement by force. It isn't clear to me if he was in jail or not at this point, but he was in danger of going there at least.

Lydia's friends all clustered round to congratulate her, reports the Eagle, and she "laid her delicate lemon-tinted Alexandre No. 4 1/2 in several sympathetic palms, and departed." The Judge said he would let her know if she was needed back in court again.

After Lydia swanned off with Mr. Herrick et al, who should turn up but Lemuel and "two sureties." He said he wanted to make his bail, and didn't understand "the appointment of his counsel," and that was why he hadn't come.

Finally on July 31st there was "A New Phase Among the Hickses" said the Eagle - who noted that the entire Eastern District was gossiping about them. Lemuel never made bail and instead walked away. Apparently he kept walking - no one had seen him in "twenty-six hours" and "meanwhile his bail are left to console themselves as best they may." His lawyer gave up on him and went back to his other cases.

Lydia and the "feminine Hicks faction" were all smiles, her lawyer and friends "as happy as an averted danger can make them." And after court on the previous day, they all went out "en caleche, having a good time, the expenses of which somebody [Herrick?] paid."

The article ends with the remark that Lydia's so-called divorce was obtained in Allen County, Indiana, even though she never resided there, and Lemuel's lawyer thought it was probably not valid. I am still trying to figure that bit out; I'll let you know when and if I do.

I'd also like to obtain the divorce proceedings for Lemuel and Lydia Hicks; he was remarried to Susannah Jane Anderson in Brooklyn on June 29, 1868, so things must have been resolved by then.

**Anson Herrick (b. Lewiston, Androscoggin, Maine, Jan. 21, 1812) was Representative from New York at the 38th Congress (4 Mar 1863-3 Mar 1865). Son of Ebenezer, who was also a Congressional Representative, and by trade a printer, Anson founded the Citizen in Wiscasset, Maine in 1833, before moving to New York in 1836. There he established the Atlas in 1838, was a city alderman, and Naval Storekeeper. He died in NYC in 1868 and is buried at Greenwood Cemetery [link]. This is a photograph of Anson Herrick.

Anson Herrick was accused of bribery when he was a NYC alderman in the 1850s; the New York Times notes theat "there was personal hostility between Mayor Wood and Herrick." [New York Times, 9 Oct 1855]

* According to the 1860 census, Anson Herrick (age 48, editor, b Maine) and his wife Lydia had two sons (as well as a daughter Margaret): Carleton M., a 24 year old lawyer and Anson junior age 21, a clerk. [New York County, NY, 19th Ward, District 2; Series M653. Roll 815. p. 1106]

Image from Library of Congress, American Memory collection, of a caleche in the collection of the Museum of the City of New York. I am not sure how many people Lydia could squeeze into a caleche.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle articles: "Saturday Evening, July 25; A Domestic Scandal" (July 25, 1863, p.3); "The Hicks Malicious Mischief Imbroglio," (July 30, 1863, p. 3); "A New Phase Among the Hickses," (July 31, 1863, p.3).