Lizzie Borden Society Forum

When Andrew's pockets were examined on August 4th, some $81 and change were found. This amount adjusted for inflation is roughly $1600 in today's dollars. I don't know of too many people who carry a sum of money like that around with them and I always found that curious.

Today I found this in the August 5, 1892, NY Herald newspaper:

"... Mr. Borden's agent yesterday paid him a large sum of money collected from tenants, and at half past nine this morning he started from home to deposit it at his bank. ..."

"Yesterday" in this paragraph would have been Aug. 3rd. I don't recall Andrew making any deposits on that fateful morning and the newspaper does not mention the source of the information. The agent may well have been Cook who managed some of Andrew's properties.

I'm speculating that the larger portion of the $81 found on Andrew was this rent money. But I find it strange that Andrew, who I believe visited 3 banks on the morning of the 4th, did not deposit it.

Could he have had a transaction pending where he would need a fairly large sum of cash?

My garndfather always liked to have cash. He did not distrust banks but I think the occupation made him paranoid that he would be unable to get to his money if he needed some in a hurry.

You know... $81 is not a bad amount of cash to have even today!
Usually I do not think I need more cash from the ATM if I have $20!

[Supposedly]: Does this mean that Andrew was given the rent money on the 3rd and was supposed to or was expected to deposit it on the 4th? And this item about that was published on the 5th?
(Just so I understand).
But Andrew was sick on the 3rd, and I don't think he went downtown at all. Could it be that his agent brought the money to him at his house, on Wednesday the 3rd? If so, that gives a lot of motive for a home robbery- or home invasion. I use "invasion" in the modern sense where the perps don't care who they harm to get what they are after, hence Abby's murder.
But the money wasn't stolen. Maybe there wasn't time...

Why, after returning from downtown and going to his room (where there was a safe nearby) did Andrew not lock the money away Thursday, but continue to carry it?
If this info is correct, it does seem to imply that Andrew needed a wad of cash on him on Thursday afternoon, which he kept around the house since Wednesday. That might also imply he didn't know exactly when he'd need it?
Just guessing here...

Yes, it does strike me as odd for him to be carrying all that money around after he had visited three banks that morning.There is no record of him making a deposit or withdrawal that morning. It could be that he was carrying it around because he was about to make a transaction as Audrey said. I can buy a theory of a home invasion except for one question, he collected rent quite often, how was anyone to know that at this time he was carrying around a large part of it on him and had not deposited it in the bank?Are there any theories as to what type of a transaction he could possibly have been about to make?

If I recall when Andrew came home on the 4th he went up to his room for a few minutes before he went in for his nap. Is it possible that he "withdrew" the $80 from his safe for what purpose we may never know? To pay someone who was coming to the house? To use as a deposit on something? It is possible that he planned on going back into town with Abby for some reason and needed the money for for that trip?

Hmmm.

Kat @ Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:55 am wrote:[Supposedly]: Does this mean that Andrew was given the rent money on the 3rd and was supposed to or was expected to deposit it on the 4th? And this item about that was published on the 5th?
(Just so I understand).

That is also my interpretation of the timing. As we know early newpaper reports were highly inaccurate regarding times and sequence of events. They improved greatly after the first few days.

It's speculation that the money found on him was rent money. When the safe in his room was opened there was cash along with papers found in it. I've never heard the amount of the money found there. There is no record of anyone visiting the house on the 3rd with money. We know Clegg said he came twice on the 2nd, but he was a tenant and not Andrew's agent.

There is no record of anyone giving Andrew money down town on the 4th nor of him withdrawing any from the banks he visited. The places he visited don't indicate any need for a supply of cash.

Frome Rebello, page 26, regarding Andrew:

"The killing of Andrew J. Borden removed an always interesting figure in real estate circles. He never made a purchase of land for which he was not ready to pay cash down. It mattered not whether the purchase money was $1,000 or $20,000, he invariably drew his check for the amount or walked with the dealer to the bank and saw that the accounts were squared at the time of the passing of the deed. ..."

The $81, though sizable for walking around money, certainly wasn't large enough for a land transaction or even a down payment. I don't think he would have negotiated a transaction of that type on the street.

Just more speculation on my part.

So either it was money he received from rent payments, or he could have withdrawn it from the safe.If Andrew was transferring a deed of some sort, would he have had to pay any fees for the transfer? What would the fee have been for having a will drawn up? This is just grasping at a couple of straws.

From Dolan's testimony at the trial, he gives the exact demoninations of the money found on Andrew --
4 x $10
5 x $5
1 x $2
11 x $1
2 x $0.50
3 x $0.25
6 x $0.10
5 x $0.05
5 x $0.01


Right away, I recognized method to his madness. When my own father (also an exacting Virgo, BTW) had his book business, he used to make up a daily "cash float" for the store. This way he always had the correct change (at least at the start of the day). Andrew did not have an official place of business...therefore, he became "a walking store" carrying his "cash float" on his person so he always had the correct change.

Sorry, that "list" didn't come out well & I'm afraid it won't allow me to edit. Read: (4 x $10) (5 x $5) (1 x $2), etc.

Hmm ... I'm leaning heavily toward Tina-Kate's theory here. That makes sense. Cash was the usual method of exchange in those days. And Andrew doesn't appear to be the type to say "Oh, don't worry about the difference -- I'll catch you next time", does he?

If he was approached in the street by a renter -- or if they came to his house to pay him -- he would want correct change for the transaction at the ready.

Andrew was a banker. TENANT: "I'd take care of that right now, but I'm afraid the only cash I have is a ten."

ANDREW: "No problem; I can change that for you right now. How would you like that sir, ones or coins?"

Sounds good T-K. With luck he could unload some eggs on them in lieu of change.

I think we have a winner.....

Thanks TK!

Yes that does make sense, TinaKate.

Just some further info:
It seems that Clegg came to the Borden house on Tuesday and on Wednesday and probably would have gone there Thursday, except he saw him on the street and called Andrew over.
Maybe this was a money transaction- or maybe Andrew owed him change from rent paid that very week?
Apparently Clegg saw Andrew also at his store Tuesday, so that any of these 4 meetings could involve cash.

The first thing Clegg is asked at the Prelim and trial is if he is hard of hearing.

Preliminary
Clegg
214
Q. Was Mr. Borden ever in your store before, at this No. Main street store?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When?
A. On the Tuesday when I first made arrangements to take the store.
Q. Tuesday before he was killed?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What time was he there then?
A. After dinner I think. I would not be positive.
______________
Trial
Clegg
172
Q. Where did you first see Mr. Borden on the morning of August 4th?
A. In my store, 6 North Main Street.

Q. Did you see him before he came into the store?
A. I called him into the store. I wished to see him that morning.

Q. Where was he when you called him into the store?
A. The opposite side of the street. I was wanting to see him specially that morning.

Q. Did you have some talk with him in your store?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. About how long did he remain in the store?
A. Well, perhaps about eight or nine minutes.
..........
173
Q. At that time, Mr. Clegg, were you having some dealings with him with reference to hiring another store?
A. I had already hired it. It was to make arrangements.

.........
Page 174

Q. Had you gone to Mr. Borden's house to visit him with reference to this store?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. When and how many times did you go there?
A. Twice.

Q. Do you remember what days you went there?
A. Yes, Tuesday the first day.

Q. Tuesday of this same week?
A. Tuesday, on the second.

Q. Tuesday, the 2d of August, 1892. What day did you next go there?
A. Wednesday.

Q. The following day?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that you were there the two days preceding the homicide?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who let you in either of those times?
A. The servant Bridget, as I afterwards learned.

Q. Both times?
A. No. I think he let me in the first time. Bridget let me in the second time.

Q. How long did you remain in the house with him?
A. Well, about ten minutes.

Q. Did you go in the front or rear door?
A. Front door.

Q. What was the subject of your conversation?
A. Hiring the store.
.........

175
Q. Did you want to see him at No. 92 Main street that morning?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you see him there?
A. I saw him in 6 North Main street, but I didn't see him at 92.
___________________

This is interesting. I thought maybe Andrew was carrying extra money maybe to pay the workers at the new Clegg store location, but it seems the modifications being done Thursday were under contract to Clegg and not to Andrew:
Prelim
Shortsleeves
230
Q. Did you know Mr. Borden?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you work for him?
A. I worked for him on different jobs, yes sir.
Q. What is your business?
A. Carpenter.
Q. Were you working for him on the day that he was killed?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you see him on that day?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. You remember the day, of course?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Where did you see him?
A. In the building that he owns on So. Main street, No. 92.
..................
Q. Did you see him on some business that day?
A. Nothing, no particular business; he dropped in there. I supposed he was on his way home at the time. We were repairing this store for Jonathan Clegg; and he came in there.
Q. That was the store Clegg was to move into?
A. Yes Sir, he is moving in some of the stuff now.
Q. You were working in that store?
A. Yes Sir.
_____
--After Shortsleeves, Mather testifies and he says Andrew picked up the lock but he didn't notice anything else in his hands when he did that. So where was the box-shaped item everyone else saw?

I think Tina-Kate's theory makes a lot of sense. It's a very straight forward answer and it ties in pretty well with the way I picture Andrew. That was some very good thinking. I especially like the TENANT- ANDREW example, and the nice touch added by Harry with the eggs . But now Kat has me thinking about that package. I can see what my next bit of research will have to do with.

I am thinking Clegg gets more suspicious the more I read him.
He is a suspect of Masterton's.
He could have been having money issues with Andrew about the new shop- he seems very concerned about seeing Andrew so many times that fateful week.
Now I see that Clegg possibly had to pay for his own renovations or modifications (the men were working each side of the window, whatever that means) and that could have caused some vivid negotiations. Clegg had been to the Borden home Tuesday, and Tuesday night Andrew & Abby were taken ill. Maybe he brought some poisoned bon-bons?

Anyway, Clegg doesn't sound like the best tenant- maybe too persnickety? He sounds bothersome to me. Notice Andrew was on the opposite side of the street, as he approached the corner of Spring...Maybe avoiding the man?
Speculation here...

i love the word "persnickety" but I would apply
that to Andrew, he sure fits that word