Familypedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
in: Non-SMW people articles, Lindauer (surname), Burials at Cypress Hills Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York

Louis Julius Lindauer (1838-1915)

Edit
Louis Julius Lindauer
Sex: Male
Birth: August 1838 (186 years ago)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Death: January 19, 1915 (age 76)
Manhattan, New York
Burial: Cypress Hills Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York
Father: Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer (1815-1866)
Mother: Sophia Weber (1815-1891) as stepmother
Siblings: Charles Frederick Lindauer I (1835-1921)
John Jacob Lindauer (1841-1888)
Eloise Lindauer I (1852-1944)
Spouse/Partner: Mary Sheehan (1842-1888)
Marriage: circa 1868 at age 30 (156 years ago)
Children: Minnie Lindauer (1869-after1880)
Louisa Lindauer (1870-after1900)
Babygirl Lindauer (1872-?)
Grace Lindauer (1873-?)
Sophia Lindauer I (1874)
Jennie Lindauer (1874-after1880)
Sophie Lindauer II (1875-1945)
Katherine Lindauer (1878-?)
Ada Lindauer (1882-1945)
Findagrave: Louis Julius Lindauer
1866 Lindauer robbery

Possibly our Louis with his brother Charles involved in a robbery in Newark, New Jersey in 1866

Lindauer-OscarArthurMoritz 02d

Lindauer Ensko bible

CypressHill 3049162146 9ea116d4a8 o original

Cypress Hill cemetery burials

Lindauer-LouisJulius 1915 death

1915 death certificate

Lindauer-OscarArthurMoritz cemetery 05

Cypress Hill cemetery plot

Louis Julius Lindauer (1838-1915) aka Lewis Lindauer. He worked at an "exchange" and as a "broker" for lottery tickets which were illegal. He also involved in the legal sale of alcohol. He also was a cigar store owner with Lindauer and Company, Tobacco with his brothers in Manhattan and Jersey City and Hoboken. (b. August 1838; Pennsylvania, USA - d. January 19, 1915; 604 West 115th Street, Manhattan, New York City, New York County, New York, USA)

Parents[]

Siblings[]

Manhattan, New York[]

By 1850 Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer moved the family to Manhattan and they appear on the US Census of that year. In the 1859-1861 New York City Directory Louis is listed with his occupation as "liquor" and he is either living or working at the corner of Fourth Street and Thompson Street. In 1866 Louis was listed in the Manhattan City Directory as living at 174 Mott Street and his occupation was listed as "beer". He was working at 446 Broome Street.

Marriage[]

Around 1869 Louis married Mary Sheehan (1842-1888) of Massachusetts.

Children[]

Together they had the following children. Some of these children are duplicated:


Other children may belong to Louis and be buried in Cypress Hills Cemetery in Brooklyn in the Lindauer Family Plot but their parentage must be confirmed by a birth or death certificate. ^ These women may have married and these lines may be extant. They had eleven children and some must have lived to be adults and married and had children.

Occupation[]

In 1870 Louis and Mary were living in Manhattan with Minnie, their first child and Louis was working as a "exchange broker". There is a second entry for Louis Lindauer and his brother, Charles Lindauer living at home with their mother, Sophia. The double entries in the 1870 United States Census are confusing and there may be two sets of Lindauers in Manhattan with the same name, or if they are the same person, they may be listed at two different residences. Louis appears in the 1880 United States Census living in Hoboken, New Jersey with the name transcribed as "Louis Lindowen". He is working selling cigars retail. The record was found on Friday, November 26, 2004, by searching for all the people named "Mary", born in Massachusetts between 1840 and 1844, living in New York or New Jersey. In 1880 Louis is listed in the New York City Directory as selling "segars" (cigars) at 87 Fourth Avenue and living at 299 West Houston Street. In 1880-1881 Louis and his two brothers are also listed in the Hoboken and Jersey City Directory as a "cigar manufacturer".

in re Louis Lindauer in 1869[]

  • United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York. Before Judge Benedict and a Jury. U.S. v. John Lindauer. This was an indictment charging the defendant with doing business as a lottery dealer at No. 202 Chrystie-street, without paying the special tax required by law. From the evidence it did not appear clear whether he was pecuniary interested in the profits and losses of the business. Lewis Lindauer, the brother of the defendant, testified that he (Lewis) paid the rent of the lottery office, and that the defendant merely received wages for his services. On the other hand it was shown that the defendant had made statements to the effect that he was interested in the business. Judge Benedict charged that if the defendant was found to be simply a clerk, he must be acquitted; and further charge that a person might sell lottery tickets on commission, if the commission was allowed as wages, and still be merely a clerk, and not be amenable in the eye of the law as being engaged or concerned in the business ot lottery dealing. This construction of the law is very important in View of the great number of arrests of lottery-ticket vendors that have recently taken place, nearly all of whom claim to be clerks, and it being extremely difficult to prove who are the principals. The jury, after a brief absence, found the defendant not guilty.
  • In re Louis Lindauer. The various provisions of the Internal Revenue laws imposing penalties on persons for carrying on the business of lottery ticket dealers or lottery dealers without complying with the laws, considered. The 13th section of the Act of March 3d, 1865, (13 U. S. Slat. at Large, 485,) aa amended by the Act of July 27th, 1866, (14 Id., 301,) is not inconsistent with the 73d section of the Act of June 30th, 1864, (13 Id., 249,) as amended by the Act of March 2d, 1867, (14 Id., 471,) and the two can stand together. A person may be indicted under the 13th section of the Act of March 3d, 1865, as amended by the Act of July 27th, 1866, for engaging or being concerned in the business of a lottery dealer without having paid the special tax required by law, and, on conviction, be punished by imprisonment. The special tax on lottery dealers named in the Act of July 27th, 1866, is the special tax imposed on lottery ticket dealers by the Act of July 13th, 1866, (14 TT. 8. Stat. at Large, 113.) (Before Blatchfoed, J., Southern District of New York, May 31st, 1870.) Blatchford, J. This is an application for a writ of habeas carpus. The petitioner was convicted in this Court, by pleading guilty to an indictment found against him therein, and was sentenced on such conviction, the Court which imposed the sentence having been held by Judge Woodruff. I have conferred with him on the questions raised in the case, and we concur in the conclusion that the application must be denied. The indictment was found on the 24th of November, 1869. The petitioner, on his conviction, was sentenced, on the 19th of March, 1870, to be imprisoned for six months. Under that sentence he is now confined in the custody of the marshal, in the jail of the city and county of New York. The application for the writ is made on the ground that the sentence was erroneous, for the reason that the statute under which the conviction was had does not authorize imprisonment, but authorizes only a fine. The indictment consists of two counts. The first count charges, that, on the 1st of August, 1869, the defendant, knowingly and unlawfully, did engage, and was concerned, in the business of a lottery ticket dealer, within the meaning of the statute of the United States, without having paid the special tax of one hundred dollars, as in that behalf is required to be paid by the statute of the United States in such case made and provided. The second count charges, that the defendant, on the 1st of August, 1869, did exercise and carry on the business of a lottery ticket dealer, upon which said business a special tax is imposed by law, without having paid the special tax, as in that behalf required by the statute of the United States. The two counts are, in substance, the same, except that the first charges him with having engaged, and been concerned, in the business of a lottery ticket dealer, while the second charges him with having exercised and carried on the business of a lottery ticket dealer — in each case without having paid the special tax required by law. The first count mentions the amount of the tax — one hundred dollars. The second count does not mention any amount, but merely says that a special tax was imposed on the business, and that he exercised and carried on the business without having paid such tax. Why this distinction in the language was made—one count using the words "engage, and was concerned, in," and the other using the words "exercise and carry on," will appear from the statutes on the subject. The first time that the imposition of a penalty upon any person for carrying on any business without complying with the law on the subject, appears in the statute book, is in the 73d section of the Act of June 30th, 1864, (13 U. S. Stat. at Large, 249.) Under that Act, a license was required to be taken for the carrying on of various trades, businesses and professions, and, among others, that of lottery ticket dealer. Subdivision six of the 79th section of that Act required lottery ticket dealers to pay one hundred dollars for each license, and provided, that every person who should make, sell, or offer to sell, lottery tickets, or any device representing or intended to represent a lottery ticket, or any policy of numbers in any lottery, or should manage any lottery, or prepare schemes of lotteries, or superintend the drawing of any lottery, should be deemed a lottery ticket dealer, under the Act. The 73d section of the same Act provided, that, if any person should exercise or carry on any trade, business or profession, for the exercising or carrying on of which a license was required by the Act, without taking out such license, he should, for every such offence, besides being liable to pay the tax, be subject to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both. On the 3d of March, 1865, an Act was passed, (13 V. S. Slot. at Large, 469,) amending various sections of the Act of June 30th, 1864, but not amending the 73d section of that Act. The 13th section of this Act of March 3d, 1865, was a new enactment on the subject of lotteries, and provided as follows: "All persons, and every person, who shall engage or be concerned in the business of a lottery dealer, without first having obtained a license to to do, under such rules and regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall forfeit and pay a penalty of one thousand dollars, and shall, on conviction by any Court of competent jurisdiction, suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding a year, at the discretion of the Court." This 13th section unequivocally implies the understanding of Congress, that there was then required by law a license for engaging or being concerned in the business of a lottery dealer; otherwise, it would have been absurd for Congress to say, that a person who should engage or be concerned in such business, without having first obtained a license so to do, should, on conviction, suffer imprisonment. The only provision of law which then existed in respect to the obtaining of licenses by lottery dealers, was the provision of the Act of 1864, for the payment of one hundred dollars for each license by lottery ticket dealers. It follows, that, when Congress spoke of a " lottery dealer," in the Act of 1865, they meant such a "lottery ticket dealer" as was deemed in the Act of 1864; otherwise, the provision of the 13th section of the Act of 1865 would have been utterly meaningless. Therefore, it is apparent that Congress intended, by the 13th section of the Act of 1865, to take lottery ticket dealers out of the general provisions of the 73d section of the Act of 1864, which imposed on all persons who should exercise any business requiring a license, without taking out such license, a certain punishment, and to place them under the special provisions of the 13th section of the Act of 1865. The Act of 1864 provided, as a punishment, imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both. The Act of 1865 imposed imprisonment for a period not exceeding a year, nothing being said about a fine. The Act of July 13th, 1866, (14 U. S. Stat. at Large 113,) amended the 73d section of the Act of 1864, by imposing the punishment of imprisonment or fine, or both, imposed by the 73d section of the Act of 1864, upon any one who should exercise or carry on any trade, business or profession, for the exercising or Carrying on of which a special tax was imposed by law, without paying such special tax. The reason for this amendment was, that, by the Act of 1866, Congress abolished the system of granting licenses, and merely required special taxes to be paid for the exercising or carrying on of the trades, businesses or professions. The special tax for lottery ticket dealers was fixed by the Act of 1866 at one hundred dollars, and that Act gave the same definition to the term "lottery ticket dealers," as was given to it in the Act of 1864. The amendment made by the Act of 1866 to the 73d section of the Act of 1864 was, to re-enact the latter section, only imposing the imprisonment or fine, or both, as a punishment on a conviction for carrying on the business without paying the special tax, instead of imposing it as a punishment on a conviction for carrying on the business without obtaining the license. There is nothing in this legislation that makes the 13th section of the Act of 1865 inconsistent with the 73d section of the Act of 1864, as amended by the Act of 1866. The two can stand together, quite as well as the 73d section of the Act of 1864 could, before the amendment of 1866, stand with the 13th section of the Act of 1865. "We come, next, to the Act of July 27th, 1866, (14 U. S. Slat. at Large, 301.) Congress having, by the Act of July 13th, 1866, adopted the system of special taxes instead of the system of licenses, and applied it to the provisions of the Act of 1864, found in existence the 13th section of the Act of March 3d, 1865, imposing a punishment by imprisonment, on a conviction for engaging or being concerned in the business of a lottery dealer without having first obtained a license so to do. It was apparent, that, as licenses had been abolished, such 13th section must be amended, to conform to the new system. Therefore, the Act of July 27th, 1866, was passed, which contained nothing but a provision amending this 13th section of the Act of 1865, by striking out the words, "without having first obtained a license so to do," and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words, "without paying the special tax therefor;" thus making the 13th section of the Act of 1865 to provide, that, on a conviction for engaging or being concerned in the business of a lottery dealer without paying the special tax therefor, the party convicted should suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding a year. This enactment shows, that it was the intention of Congress that the 13th section of the Act of 1865 should continue in force, notwithstanding the amendments made to the 73d section of the Act of 1864. We then come to the Act of March 2d, 1867, (14 U. S. Stat. at Large, 471,) the 9th section of which amended again the 73d section of the Act of 1864, by striking it out, and providing instead, that any person who should exercise or carry on any trade, business or profession, for the exercising or carrying on of which a special tax was imposed by law, without payment thereof, should be subject to a fine or penalty of not less than ten nor more than five hundred dollars. In other words, they struck out of the general provisions of the 73d section, as they had existed up to that time, the provision for imprisonment, and made the punishment merely a fine. But the section, as amended, went on to provide, that if the person should be a manufacturer of tobacco, snuff or cigars, or a wholesale or retail dealer in liquor, he should be further liable to imprisonment for a term not less than sixty days and not exceeding two years. There is nothing in the 73d section of the Act of 1864, as amended by the Act of 1867, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the 13th section of the Act of 1865, any more than there was any inconsistency between the 73d section of the Act of 1864, as originally enacted, and the 13th section of the Act of 1865. The two have stood together always and they continue to stand together. There is nothing inconsistent between them. It is evident that Congress intended that the two should run on pari passu. It is evident, also, that the "lottery dealer" mentioned in the Act of 1865 must be considered as being the "lottery ticket dealer" defined in the statute; otherwise, we have an inhibition against the exercise of the business of a lottery dealer without paying a special tax, when no special tax is imposed except on the exercise of the business of a lottery ticket dealer. Moreover, it is impossible to conceive how a person can, under the designation of a lottery dealer, do any thing in connection with lotteries, that is not embraced in the statutory definition of a lottery ticket dealer. It was suggested, on the argument, that a man might be a lottery dealer, by selling out to another the good will of a business of selling lottery tickets. But that would not make the person a lottery dealer, within the good sense of the statute; and it is quite evident that Congress intended the same person by both designations — a lottery dealer and a lottery ticket dealer. It follows, therefore, that, as each count of the indictment charges the defendant with having violated the law in respect of the business of a lottery ticket dealer, he was properly punished by imprisonment, under the 13th section of the Act of 1865. He was indicted under that section, as well as under the 73d section of the Act of 1864, as amended. That 13th section imposes the punishment of imprisonment upon any one who shall engage or be concerned in such business, without having paid the special tax; and the first count of the indictment, which charges that the defendant did engage, and was concerned, in such business, was evidently framed.

Death of wife[]

In 1888 Louis' wife, Mary Sheehan, died of tuberculosis and in 1890 the New York City Directory lists Louis and Charles F. Lindauer, his brother, working at 32 University Place in Manhattan in the business of "liquors". Louis is also listed as living at 295 West Houston Street. In 1900 Louis was living at 108 Washington Place in Manhattan, New York City with Lulu, Grace, Sofie and Adeline.

Death[]

Louis died On January 19, 1915 of locomotor ataxia in Manhattan, and his death certificate number was number "2296". Locomotor ataxia is usually secondary to tabes dorsalis a symptom of an untreated syphilis infection.

Children living together[]

Charles Edward Ensko II (1921-2004) said on July 26, 2003: "My grandmother played the piano until she got Alzheimers. She had cousins called Addy Lindauer, Minny Lindauer and Grace Lindauer that lived in Washington Heights by us. In the 1930s they would come over to our house. Grace Lindauer was married and had a child that died. He fell down a flight of stairs in the large house in Rye in Westchester County. The house in Rye was very big on a couple of acres."

Burial[]

He was buried in the Lindauer family plot in Cypress Hills Cemetery in Brooklyn. The grave is marked by two tombstones, even though 14 people are interred there. The tombstones are for: Stanley Marlton Massey (1895-1902); and William Arthur Ensko II (1850-1889). All buried there are:

Research[]

  • No photograph of Louis is known to exist and his obituary has not been found. It is assumed that he has no living descendants, yet some of his daughters may have married and had children. Louis Julius Lindauer (1837-1915) has Louis Julius Freudenberg I (1894-1918) named after him.
  • New York Times; July 1, 1865: "Resolved, That permission be and the same is hereby given to L.J. Lindauer to place a gas-lamp in front of premises, number four hundred and forty-six Broome-street, the same to be at his own expense, and remain only during the pleasure of the Common Council."

Timeline[]

External links[]

References[]

  1. ^ "Lindauer". Familysearch. 2 May 1872. https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FDR4-Y8B. Retrieved 2012-01-07. 

Images[]

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement

Fan Feed

More Familypedia