Play
The Woodside cottage
In June 1897 William Guldensuppe, a Turkish-bath rubber who worked until three in the morning, went with a companion to see a cottage in Woodside, Queens, and never came back. The cottage had been rented the day before, under the name Braun.
Work the case from the same records before you read how it ended. Free, in your browser.
Play the caseAt a glance
- When
- June 25, 1897
- Where
- Woodside, Queens County, New York
- Key place
- A cottage rented the day before under the name Braun
- Record
- People v. Thorn, 156 N.Y. 286 (1898)
Timeline
A lodger in the building fights Guldensuppe and is beaten badly enough to need a hospital.
A cottage for rent at Woodside is advertised in a paper, and the premises are looked over.
The cottage is taken for fifteen dollars by a couple calling themselves Mr. and Mrs. Braun.
Guldensuppe is brought to the cottage. He is not seen alive again.
From the record
usually occupied in his business from three in the afternoon until about three o’clock in the morningStatement of facts · People v. Thorn, 156 N.Y. 286
First month’s rent: fifteen dollars … Names given for the renting: Mr. and Mrs. Braun.Reconstructed from the statement of facts · People v. Thorn
Show what the court found (spoils the game)
Thorn found and examined the Woodside cottage, then rented it with Mrs. Nack under the names Mr. and Mrs. Braun, paying fifteen dollars. On June 25, Mrs. Nack brought Guldensuppe to the cottage. According to Thorn’s confession as related by Gotha, Thorn was hidden behind a door, waited while Guldensuppe inspected the premises, and shot him. The remains were then wrapped in oilcloth and paper parcels, and Thorn later disposed of parcels in the East River and near High Bridge.
Thorn was tried in Queens County and, on November 30, 1897, judgment was rendered on a verdict convicting him of murder in the first degree. The Court of Appeals heard the case April 22, 1898, and decided June 7, 1898. Haight, J., wrote for affirmance, with Parker, C.J., Gray, Martin, and Vann concurring. O’Brien, joined by Bartlett, dissented over the jury’s view of the cottage. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Sources
Lines marked “reconstructed” restate the court’s summary in the form of the original document; they are not facsimiles.