Walkabout: A Reader’s Inquiry -- the Toerge Family Saga, Part 2

Read Part 1 of this story.

Nicholas Toerge was a wealthy liquor merchant living in the St. Marks District at the turn of the 20th century. His wealth enabled him to build a wonderful house for his family on St. Marks Avenue, a mansion outfitted in the finest materials, designed by one of Brooklyn’s better architects, Peter J. Lauritzen, a man who was busy designing mansions and clubs for Brooklyn’s wealthiest folk.

Toerge and his wife were among the thousands of Germans who had immigrated to the United States and done extremely well, and it is not surprising that they should hire other German immigrants to be servants and governesses to their children. One woman who was a nanny for the Toerges here on St. Marks Avenue went back to Germany after her service was done.

One hundred years later, her descendent happened to read a Walkabout I wrote that mentioned the Toerges and St. Mark’s Avenue. He wrote me from Germany, asking if I had any more information, or photographs of the Toerge mansion, which no longer stands. He had done his own research on the Toerges, and shared some of it with me, including photographs. It turned out that the Toerge family had quite a history, which began in Part One.

Now here’s also where it gets confusing, when trying to sort out the people and events that make up this story. According to my research, the results of which came from newspapers, census records, and city directories, two different Toerge families emerge. One family, on Amity Street, in 1880, seems to be the same family that settled on St. Marks, almost 20 years later. But there are small differences. A son disappears from the record. Perhaps he died? Edward Toerge is four years old in 1880, but nowhere in the 1900 census, or in later life. But he is mentioned in a lawsuit in 1896.

Another son, George William, is listed both in 1880, and well into the 20th century, and was the plaintiff in the 1896 suit. Yet, he is listed as William, six years old, in 1880, and George William, 26 years old, in 1896, in the suit, and in the 1900 census. His age is the same, is he the same person? In 1880, Nicholas Toerge’s wife is Caroline (Lena). We know she died in 1883. Nicholas remarried, and had two more children with his new wife, Katie, if he’s the same Nicholas.

The children were Jospehine and Norman, both listed, along with George William, in the 1900 census. But in that census, they say they’ve been married for twenty years, which would be a slight exaggeration. If they are the same Toerges, they couldn’t have been married more than sixteen years. Mysteries abound. Is there enough here to make the leap that they are the same family? I think so. If they are, here is the lawsuit that put them in the papers.

A well-to-do woman named Elizabeth Stark died in 1880. She had two children, Lena Toerge and a son, John Neiheisel. She was a wealthy widow, with money and property in Cobble Hill and Manhattan. Her son John had been deemed mentally unstable, and was in an institution for the insane.

Lena was married to Nicholas Toerge, and the family lived in Mrs. Stark’s house at 180 Amity Street. When Mrs. Stark died, she stipulated in her will that John would have perpetual care in the asylum, should he not recover, which would be administered through a trust fund, and if he should regain his reason and leave the institution, he would receive the income from three Brooklyn properties for the rest of his life.

Lena would receive the house on Amity Street, another property in Manhattan, and in a separate clause of the will, all of Mrs. Stark’s household goods, including jewelry, furniture, paintings, china, clothing, books, etc. This was specifically left to her, alone.

If John should die before Lena, she would receive his share of the inheritance, including the trust fund and the real property in Brooklyn. Lena died three years later, in 1883. Her brother never recovered, and died in the asylum a year later, in 1884. Lena’s own will left everything to her husband, Nicholas Toerge. The two sons, George William and Edward, were not specifically mentioned.

Almost twenty years later, George William named himself and his brother in a suit against their father, Nicholas Toerge. The suit charged that Lena had misinterpreted the will, and only had the right to leave the household goods to her husband. The real property, that is, the houses in Brooklyn and Manhattan, as well as the trust fund, would have passed from Lena to her brother, at her death, and from her brother to the next of kin, which would be Lena’s sons, not their father. The suit stated that Nicholas Toerge did not have rights to that property, or the income from its rent or sale, they did.

George did all the talking here, leading me to wonder if Edward was still alive. Again, he was not on the census. The newspapers never interviewed him, and the only mention of him is that he was a plaintiff. The rest of the family is not mentioned at all.

In 1896, a judge agreed with the suit, awarding George William the estate, deciding that Nicholas Toerge was not the proper next of kin, and that his wife had erroneously left the property to him. The case was appealed. In the end, a year later, the Appellate judge ruled that the estate should be split between father and son. That must have been fine with both of them, because all through this whole thing, they were all living in the same house.

As I mentioned, Nicholas remarried, probably as soon as was decent, after his wife’s death, and had two more children with his new wife, Katie. They were all living at St. Marks Avenue when the law suit was in court. George William, who was 20 when he instituted the lawsuit, was now 24, and a bank cashier in 1900, a good position that usually leads to bank management. A cashier, at that time, was the equivalent of a bank officer or manager, and dealt directly with customer’s financial needs, like mortgages and loans.

The younger children, Josephine and Norman, were thirteen and fourteen, in 1900. The family was socially connected, although quiet about it. Their names occasionally appeared in the social column, usually announcing when they were going to their summer home out on Long Island, or when the children attended social events. According to the Eagle, the family was “a decided note in the social world.”

Norman Kinkel Toerge married Elinor Gates, in 1917. She was the granddaughter of Cornelius Hoagland, the wealthy co-owner of the Royal Baking Powder empire. The new Mrs. Toerge was a champion golfer, one of the earliest women to make a name in that sport. Norman enlisted in the army during World War I, and served in France. He made it home safely, and became a stock broker. His sister Josephine, married Lloyd Hitchcock in 1910, and the wedding reception was held in their beautiful home on St. Marks Avenue.

The description of Nicholas Toerge, from his passport application, shows him to be a man of slight stature, only 5’6” tall. He had black hair and hazel eyes and a dark complexion. He described his nose as “Grecian.” A photograph supplied by Mr. Hans Huber, great grandson of the Toerge’s nanny, shows Mr. Toerge in front of the St. Mark’s house. He also sent a photograph of his great grandmother.

The mansion was home to the Toerges for many years. They sold it to Dr. Napoleon Ratzan, a cancer specialist, in 1920, and decamped to the Hotel Bossert, on Montague Street, where they are mentioned in the social pages at that address. In 1931, Dr. Ratzan planned on tearing the mansion down to build an apartment building, the fate of almost all of the freestanding mansions on St. Marks Avenue. But he lost the house in foreclosure during the Depression.

It was torn down at some point, but nothing was built on the site until 1961, when the Greater Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church was built on the lot. Nicholas Toerge had another house built next door, at 889 St. Marks. Peter J. Lauritzen was the architect of that house, as well. That house, a five story Beaux-Arts beauty, still stands, and is the parish house to the church. It is landmarked, and that designation put the family name on the historic record.

The Toerges are gone, and would be totally forgotten except for the entry in the designation report for 889 St. Marks Avenue. It’s too bad we couldn’t learn more about this family, or their lives on St. Marks Avenue, but you never know what will turn up. If I find out anything more about the people of 887 St. Marks, I will certainly share it. Once again, many thanks to Hans Huber for contacting me, and sharing information with me. I greatly appreciate it. GMAP

(Photo above: Nicholas Toerge at 887 St. Marks Avenue, thanks to H. Huber. The photograph was taken by his great grandmother.)