LICENSING CASES.
SUNDAY TRADING ALLEGED.
At the City Police Court this morning Margaret Parker, licensee of the Grand Pacific Hotel, was charged with failing to close her hotel on Sunday, and with serving liquor on licensed premises at a time when they are directed to be closed. Mr Macassey, the acting Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the police, and Mr D. D. Macdonald, on behalf of defendant, asked for an adjournment on account of defendant's health being too bad to enable her to he present.
Sub-inspector Norwood: She was well enough yesterday.
Mr Macdonald said that he went out to see Mrs Parker yesterday evening, and she was confined to bed and unable to see him.
Dr H. A. De Laufour was called by Mr Macdonald, and testified that Mrs Parker was suffering from gastritis, and it would be dangerous for her to move about just now.
Mr Macassey said that if an adjournment were granted he would ask that the evidence of Hayes, a witness for the Crown, be taken at once. Hayes was the man to whom the liquor was alleged to have been sold, and past experience showed that it was not desirable that any delay in hearing such evidence should occur.
Mr Macdonald objected, saying that, not having been instructed in the case, he could not cross-examine Hayes. "I never heard of such a thing," he commented, "and I can't imagine anyone making such an application except a crown prosecutor.
Mr Macassey: There is no need to make such remarks, Mr Macdonald.
Mr Widdowson, S.M., who was on the bench, said that in the meantime he would hear some other cases. Later, having disposed of several other cases, Mr Widdowson announced that he would hear the evidence of Hayes, who could be cross-examined on the day to which the case would be adjourned.
Mr Macdonald: I have, no instructions to appear in the case. I have merely been instructed to apply for an adjournment. He continued that if Hayes was examined forthwith he would throw up the case, and the position would then be that defendant was absent through illness and was unrepresented.
Mr Widdowson: You represent her.
Mr Macdonald (walking out of the court): No.
Mr Widdowson: Tell Mr Macdonald that the application for an adjournment has not yet ben granted.
Edward Hayes was then placed in the witness box. He stated that he was a laborer, living at St. Clair. On Sunday, the 19th inst, he went to the Grand Pacific Hotel at about 1 p.m. and bought a 3s 6d flask of whisky from Mrs Parker. He did not buy the whisky in the hotel, but on the footpath, Mrs Parker coming out to the side door in Moreau street when witness rattled on the iron fence. Witness asked for a flask. Mrs Parker inquiring whether he would have a 1s 6d or a 3s 6d flask. She went into the hotel to get the flask. At this stage witness, on being asked what happened next, said he would require to be indemnified against incriminating himself. Sub-inspector Norwood assured witness that he was protected by the law, but the witness declined to proceed unless the magistrate "indemnified him." On being reassured by the Bench, witness proceeded that after getting the flask he stepped inside tea side door of the hotel, and Mrs Parker gave him a glass of beer. He did not pay for the beer. Coming out of the hotel he met Constable Young, with whom he went to the South Dunedin Police Station, where he gave possession of the flask of whisky to the police. The police had been watching him with a spyglass all the time
His Worship then adjourned both charges against Mrs Parker until Friday, stating that the cross-examination of Hayes could take place when the case was again called on.
AN AFTER-HOURS CUSTOMER FINED. Herbert Ellis, who did not appear, was charged with bein found on licensed premises at a time when they are required to be closed; Sub-inspector Norwood, who prosecuted, handed His Worship a letter, in which defendant stated that he did not intend to appear. He was a laborer in the Drainage Board's employment, and boarded near the Criterion Hotel. j Constable Neill said that be was passing the Criterion Hotel about 10.45 p.m., and the police inspector instructed him to take the name of a man whom the inspector had just seen come out of the Criterion Hotel. Witness did so, and defendant gave a wrong name at first, but afterwards, at the police station, he gave his right name. His Worship convicted defendant, and fined him 20s, with 7s costs. -Evening Star, 24/4/1908.
| NZ Truth, 10/10/1914. |
THE GRAND PACIFIC TEA ROOMS.
POLICE POUNCE ON THE PURGE.
A Lawyer on Lies and Liars.
MARGARET'S CAPACITY FOR GRAFT AND GROG.
The Grand Pacific Tearooms are situated just near to the trotting course at Forbury Park and are owned and occupied by Mrs Margaret Parker, who carries on the business entirely by herself. In time gone by the house used to hold a license for the sale of spirituous and fermented liquors, but Reduction put it out of action, and now nothing more dangerous than ginger-pop and tea is allowed to be sold. But the police, who are notoriously suspicious, took it into their heads that
"SOMETHING MORE EXQUISITE STILL" was being vended at the Grand Pacific, and a new constable named. John McMillan was brought down from Wellington early in October and given a commission to see what he could find out about the house. He visited the place frequently, and as a result of his operations, Sergeant Emerson made a raid on the place on October 24 and seized a ten-gallon keg of beef half full, nineteen bottles of Speight's beer, a dozen bottles of Briggs' ale and ten bottles of Briggs' stout. The whole of the circumstances were gone into before Magistrate Widdowson on November 28 at the Dunedin S.M.s Court, when Margaret was charged that on October 16 and 21 she had unlawfully sold liquor, and that between October 22 and 24 she had failed to deface a stamp on a beer keg. Mr MacGregor appeared for Margaret and pleaded guilty as regards the stamp, but not guilty m respect of the sale of liquor.
A STORMY OPENING. Counsel and Sub-Inspector Phair fell out badly while the Sub-Inspector was opening the case, over the latter saying the cask was half full.
Counsel: Is it half full? It's been m the hands of the police since it was seized.
Sub-Inspector: I don't think the police would take any.
The S.M.: We have got a lot of work, so you might get on.
Sub-Inspector (heatedly): If counsel wouldn't sneak so much we should get along better.
Counsel retorted by saying that it was only by courtesy that "the sergeant" could sneak at all at that stage of the case.
The Sub-Inspector said he had the right to speak.
Counsel: I think it is laid down by the best authorities that there is no right to speak.
The S.M.: Mr MacGregor, I'm running this court, and I allow it.
Counsel: I know you allow it, but "the sergeant" doesn't speak as of right.
The fisticuffs stage was cleverly averted by the constable, who had been put m the box, and who started at this point to give his evidence at a great rate.
THE BEETLE-SQUASHER'S TALE. McMillan recounted how he had arrived at Dunedin on October 9, and had been frequently to the place up to October 21. On that day he went to the Grand Pacific about half-past twelve and bought drinks from Margaret for himself and her.
In reply to counsel, John said he had been m the force for two months, had previously been an engine driver in Queensland; and when he first visited the Grand Pacific on Sunday, October 9, he did not go in his uniform.
Counsel: Did you tell anybody there that you were a constable?
Witness: No. I told them I was an engine-driver from Australia over on a holiday.
Counsel: Which, of course, was a lie.
Witness: Yes.
Did you tell many more lies? — Oh, not many.
Why do you laugh? Do you think it's a joke to tell lies? — Oh, no.
You spoke to Mrs Parker about some girls. You spoke of a barmaid. Has she any existence or is she in the same box as your alleged job in Australia? — Oh, she's alive all right, but she's gone to Christchurch.
Do you remember telling anybody where you lived? — I said I was
LIVING WITH FRIENDS IN HIGH-STREET. Who are those friends? — The police. The police station is in High-street.
Counsel: That's only half a lie, which is the most cowardly kind.
Sergeant Emerson gave evidence regarding the raid on October. While waiting for an express to take the liquor away, he discussed with Mrs Parker the state of business. Mrs Parker said business was no good — in fact, that day she bad sold only a bottle of lemonade and a bottle of beer. The sergeant pricked up his ears at the mention of beer, but Mrs Parker explained that it was hop beer she meant. When shown the search warrant, Margaret said she kept beer in the house, but only for her own use. In opening his case, Mr MacGregor became very eloquent on the subject
OF LIES AND LIARS, suggesting that as McMillan had lied so freely out of the box he would probably not alter his course when he got into the box. The only evidence he said, was that of "the informer McMillan," who admitted that he was a liar. So far as this experience went the present case was the most remarkable he had seen in regard to the witness's attitude regarding lying. He (counsel) had no doubt that Sergeant Emerson, Constable Macartney, Mr Briggs (brewer), and Mr Pearce (holder of a wholesale liquior license) were telling the exact truth. He was shocked, he said, that men like McMillan should be able to got into the force.
MARGARET'S LITTLE MAN Mrs Parker then got into the witness-box and said first of all that there was not a word of truth in what McMillan had said. She had a suspicion what he was when he came into the house first. Once he came in with a bandsman, but she was pretty sure that he was a spy also. On another occasion he came in with "Biggie" McLennan. Again, he had asked for beer, telling a tale about being in a female's company, On his first visit she gave him a whisky because he pretended to be "bad for the want of it."
Counsel: The list put in by Mr Briggs shows that you've been getting a ten-gallon keg from him about once a fortnight.
"I COULD DRINK IT MYSELF," said Margaret. "I have been drinking beer all my life, and I do all the work in the establishment."
The S.M.: I shouldn't like to do it.
Counsel: The works or the beer?
The S.M.: The beer.
Counsel: I wish I could drink that much beer.
Sub-Inspector Phair: Do you keep beer to give away to your friends? — Yes.
Counsel: And people will continue to do it until it is made unlawful under the laws which obtain in this marvellous country.
Margaret then stated that she was expecting some people from Oamaru when she ordered the ten gallons of beer from Briggs on October 22. The keg didn't turn up for some time, and therefore she got two dozen bottles of beer from Pearce so that she would not be short. Only a gallon was taken out of the keg.
Counsel: The keg has been in the possession of the police since.
The Sub-Inspector indignantly objected to this remark.
Counsel: After hearing McMillan's evidence, it wouldn't surprise us to hear anything about the force. If he is a representative of the force
I'M SORRY FOR THE FORCE, The Sub-Inspector again indignantly objected.
The S.M.: The remarks are entirely uncalled for. I cannot allow you to speak like that, and I cannot listen to you.
Counsel: I've said all I wanted to say.
The case was dismissed, the S.M. saying that the fact of liquor being found in large quantities could not, in the circumstances, be admitted as evidence against the defendant. On the charge regarding the beer stamp, defendant was fined forty shillings. -NZ Truth, 3/12/1910.
THE GRAND PACIFIC.
ANOTHER ABORTIVE ACTION.
Police Informer Again Disbelieved.
Magistrate Wants no Defence.
The Grand Pacific tea-rooms, the prosecution of the proprietress (Margaret Parker) of which, on a charge of sly grog-selling, was reported m "Truth's" last issue, again occupied the attention of Mr Widdowson, S.M,, at the Dunedin S.M.s Court on Wednesday last, when Mrs Parker was charged with having sold liquor on October 9, not being the holder of a license.
Constable McMillan's evidence was all that the prosecution relied on. Before the case started, Sub-Inspector Phair asked that all witnesses should be ordered out of court. McMillan made no move to leave the court, and Mr MacGregor, who again looked after Margaret, said: "Isn't that the informer there?"
Sub-Inspector Phair: He's not an informer m the ordinary sense. If this case is going to be like the last one and these remarks continue I'll have to object.
The S.M.: There's nothing objectionable in the term of itself.
McMillan went outside for about half a minute and was then called in to give his evidence. He said that when he arrived at the place on the evening of Sunday, October 9, Mrs Parker offered him a glass of beer soon after he went in. He offered to pay for it, but she said she was shouting. Mac. went into the kitchen and there got into conversation with one William Riddle. Riddle asked Mac. what about shouting, and Mac asked Margaret to sell him a bottle of beer. Margaret said she had none, but the money was given to Riddle, who went into another room and returned with a bottle of beer and the correct change. Mac, Riddle, Margaret and one McKay, who came in later on.
POLISHED OFF THE BEER. A second bottle was procured in the same manner, Riddle and Margaret leaving the kitchen together. A third bottle was got just before Mac. left. Margaret repeated her tale that she had no more beer, and Riddle said to Mac.: "The old woman's frightened of you — she thinks you're a policeman." But Riddle got the beer all right. Mr Macgregor then took Mac. in hand.
Counsel: Have you heard that the successful informer in such cases is given a share to any fine?
Witness: I have 'heard of it. I heard it before I joined the force.
That's probably why you joined the force? — Oh, no.
You admitted last time that you had told several lies to defendant.
Sub-Inspector: He only admitted telling one lie.
Counsel: Once a liar always a liar, I should think. When you gave Riddle two shillings for the last bottle, did he give you any change? —No, he said you've got more than me.
More beer? — No, he meant that I had more money than he had.
Don't you think
IT'S A DIRTY TRADE you've got into?
The S.M.: You needn't answer that question.
Counsel: Why wasn't this case brought on before the others? Does it not look as if your superiors did not believe your tale?
Witness: The case wasn't brought because Riddle had left the town and has only recently come back.
Other evidence for the prosecution was given by William. Riddle, a carpenter, now of Wyndham. He said that previously he lived near the Grand Pacific, and used to stay there sometimes over Saturday.
Sub-Inspector Phair: What was the attraction ?
Riddle: Just for change. It's a free country, I suppose.
Mr MacGregor: I'm not too sure of that.
Riddle denied having been on the premises when McMillan said he was.
Sub-Inspector Phair wanted to produce a written statement made by Riddle, but the magistrate said it could not be put in until the witness was proved hostile.
The case was dismissed, the defence not being called upon. -NZ Truth, 10/12/1910.
THE FACE AT THE WINDOW
Was Only a Policeman's "Phiz."
Margaret Parker "Potted" Again.
And Securely "Jugged,"
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.), Last week at the Dunedin Magistrate's Court Margaret Parker was charged, that on. January 6, at St. Kilda, she unlawfully sold liquor, she having been previously convicted of a similar offence.
Lawyer C. N. Scurr defended the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.
Constable Coppell, St. Kilda, stated that accused sold cigarettes, soft drinks and hot-water to picnickers, and beer to private customers and others. She now lived by herself. On November 17, two men called at her home, and witness observed the accused and two men drinking in the kitchen. They had two drinks each, evidently beer.
HE SAW NO MONEY PASS. On several other occasions witness saw men frequent the house, some of whom left it under the influence of liquor. On one occasion witness had a good square look through the scullery window, which Mrs. Parker had left open. He observed four persons in the room — accused, another woman, a man dressed m dark clothes, and a man in military uniform. All four were busily engaged emptying glasses down their necks. Money passed and very high words, too. Accused was endeavoring to reason with the "civvy" who was anything but civil. "You must leave here," she was saying; "You will get me into trouble with the police. You know I got three months for this before." The man referred to ''shouted" and then left, returning again. He was, however, refused admittance, and he went away swearing vengeance. Witness put his hand through the window and examined the jug that contained some beer. At 1.30 a.m., Christmas Day, witness saw Mrs. Parker go on a searching expedition through the clothes she was wearing. She eventually located
A BOTTLE IN HER BUSTLE which she handed to a man, telling the latter to hop out the back way. Witness and Constable Turner overtook him, and took the bottle from him. It was a bottle of Speight's Gold Medal Ale. In the subsequent raid on the sly-grog stronghold there were located in a secret cupboard in the scullery 19 empty beer bottles, and four empty whisky bottles, but no full bottles.
Constable Turner stated that he saw a five gallon demijohn containing four gallons of draught beer.
Constable Hessey found 21 loaded beer bottles at the head of Mrs. Parker's fancy bath. They were behind a loose panel.
Defendant then gave evidence, but though her solemnly-attested statement might knock the leg off an Irish pot, it did not knock the sense of measure of things out of Magistrate Young's cranium.
Lawyer Scurr said the woman was old, she was over 60, and he suggested that she should be given the opportunity of paying a fine.
The S.M.: She is apparently a woman of means, and a fine» of L100 would not deter her from committing the offence. She will have to go gaol again.
Margaret got jugged for three months, and all her "booze" was confiscated. -NZ Truth, 27/1/1917.
WHITE SLAVERY
THE EBZERY CASE IN PARLIAMENT
STATHAM, M.P., EXPRESSES AN OPINION
Another Dirty, Dubious, aid Drunken Den
A "Joy Joint" at St. Kilda — Vicious Virago Margaret Parker "Potted" — Reilly and His Maclaggan Street "Rialto"
It has been said (though, of course, it is not true) that there is no such thing as "white slavery" in New Zealand. Those who are loudest in proclaiming that "white slavery" does not exist in this country are those who close their eyes to what goes on every day in any city of this Dominion. At any rate, the disclosures, such as they were, in the notorious Ebzery case at Dunedin were a sufficient answer to the keep-it-dark cry of the wowsers, who will not admit the
EXISTENCE OF GREAT EVILS in this young country. It is stated, and, no doubt, it is true, that if the man Ebzery had pleaded not guilty to the charge of conducting a house of ill-fame at Dunedin, the police, in order to prove the charges to the hilt, would have been obliged to unmask many white-livered and unholy hypocrites in the dour city, and the revelations which would have been made would have astounded the whole community, and held up to public scorn many so-called respectable citizens, who are now known to the police to live and lead double lives. By pleading guilty, Ebzery, while not seeking to shield himself, drew the veil of official secrecy over many in Dunedin, and while it is perfectly true that the Magistrate was justified in denouncing "the white slaver" on the carefully stated facts set forth by Chief-Detective Bishop, the Magistrate could not very well denounce others, equally as guilty as Ebzery, in causing the downfall of women, simply because the facts concerning the others not implicated had not been placed before him. It is said that if there were no "receivers" there would be no thieves. Can it not be said that if there were not a lot of hypocrites in our community, there would be no "tony" brothels, because, in the absence of "clients" of a class, viz., those who pay heavily for their
CARNAL AND SEXUAL PLEASURES, there would be no fallen females and the white slaver and the keeper of the brothel would be unable to make the unholy licentious traffic pay. Ebzery's case is by no means an isolated one in this country to-day, but it is doubtful whether in New Zealand's history that a case of Ebzery's description should need mention in Parliament.
Ebzery's case has been mentioned in Parliament and reference to the unsavory case was made by Mr. C. E. Statham, M.P. for Dunedin Central, in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon of last week, he having previously asked a question concerning the allegations made. "This is really the beginning of the white slave traffic in New Zealand, and is causing great concern to many people," he said. Mr. Statham had asked whether, as the evidence revealed
A SHOCKING STATE OF AFFAIRS, and appeared to show that Ebzery was a procurer of the worst type, and the magistrate is reported to have pronounced him a danger to the community, would the Minister take the necessary steps to prevent Ebzery and others who have been convicted of a similar offence from being free to continue their nefarious practices after serving a short — and quite inadequate — term of imprisonment.
In a reply made in the House, Mr. Herdman said that since the passing of the War Regulations, which gave the police additional powers to deal with persons who conduct houses of ill-fame, the Police Department had succeeded in detecting many breaches of the regulations, and a number of persons m the different centres have been brought before the courts and sentenced to terms if Imprisonment. The case referred to by the honorable gentleman was probably one that would not have been discovered had the regulations not been passed. The police have been instructed to exercise all possible vigilance In detecting these houses, and to institute proceedings against persons who keep them.
Mr. Statham said it was satisfactory so far as it went, but that the present sentences were totally Inadequate. It was for such crimes that
MEN SHOULD BE HANGED. The case under notice was so revolting that he would not mention the more sordid details in the House. Ebzery was a man of the worst type. He had his decoys and his motor-cars so that he could take schoolgirls to his den. It was a very sorry state of thins if such crimes occurred in New Zealand. He would beg the Government to make it possible to give such people indeterminate sentences. It had been said that as soon as Ebzery came out of gaol he would be sent to the front. He was not worthy to fight for his country, but should spend the rent of his days in gaol.
Apparently the police of Dunedin are bent on exposing and "rooting out" the disgraceful dens of that city, though it is fair to Dunedin that it should be stated that it, as a city, is not alone in being disgraced. Since the Ebzery case, the Dunedin police have embarked on a crusade against vice. The first and biggest "bag" was Ebzery and the latest case to attract attention, to cause consternation and to bring the blush of shame to the faces of the clean-minded, clean-living denizens of the Otago capital is that
OF A VICIOUS VIRAGO, Margaret Parker, whose disgraceful drinking (and worse) den was successfully raided last week-end. The den was broken up. and the vicious creature, a notorious sly-grog seller, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Margaret Parker was brought before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew at the Dunedin City Police Court on Monday, the charge against her being that of keeping a house of ill-fame at St. Kilda during the months of May, June and July.
Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr. Irwin. From the evidence elicited it was proved that "Old Mag's" infamous den at St. Kilda was known as the
GRAND PACIFIC BOARDINGHOUSE. It was shown that women took men to the "Grand Pacific" for immoral purposes and evidence in support of the charge was given by May Annie Tabernacle, Violet Wackeldine (a single woman of 20 years), the two girls Mary Fowler and Olive Fowler (17 years of age), who were prominent in the Ebzery case. Clara Robinson was another woman whose name was mentioned. All the females who gave evidence concerning the immorality at the Grand Pacific mentioned the names of such men as "Charlie" Greenaway, Andrew Townley, "Georgie" Ross, a steward whose name was said to be Miller, George Ross, and Albert Dawson. There were other men, but the women either could not, or would not, disclose their names or identity, though one was alleged to be an officer on an ocean-going steamer.
A sample of the evidence given by the woman Tabernacle was as follows: She stayed at the "Grand Pacific" during May, June and July, and paid no board, because she brought plenty of men to the awful den and these men paid for the accommodation received. She said that on one occasion "Old Mag" refused admission to the Fowler girls because they had no "boys," though Mary Fowler's version was that admission was denied her because her "boy," apparently a ''hard-headed" Scot, refused to "come to light" with fifteen shillings, which was demanded of him for accommodation purposes. As a result Mary Fowler spent the night in the lupins, presumably with her male companion. Olive Fowler, however, was admitted, and stopped the night, her male "friend" having gone home.
Generally, the evidence of the women was that they picked up men off the streets and took them to the Grand Pacific; the men "paid through the nose" for "accommodation." which was Margaret Parker's "profit," and presumably she got a "commission" from the women. It was an up-to-date brothel or "accommodation house," and when Detective Hammersley effected the arrest of the accused, she was alone m the house which was particularly clean and well-furnished.
After the evidence for the prosecution had been given, Mr. Irwin contended that the case should be dismissed, basing his contention on the conflicting nature of the evidence given by the witnesses. However, the magistrate decided that it was a case calling for a defence and "Old Mag" accordingly
BRAVED THE PERILS of the witness box, and subsequently was well raked fore and aft by Chief Detective Bishop. In her evidence Margaret said that 'the Fowler girls had been to her house on two occasions — once by themselves and the other with two men, and on this occasion she refused them admittance. She did not know the woman Wackeldine. The woman Tabernacle stayed with her between three weeks and a fortnight. So far as she knew Tabernacle did not have men stopping with her. There were eight men connected with horses for the races staying at the house. One night there were some men with the Fowler girls outside the house kicking up a row, and she cleared them away. She let one of the Fowler girls in and told her to go to bed, and to go away in the morning. The other one went to the lupins.
Under cross-examination Margaret denied that her house was reputed to be one of ill-fame, and generally she characterised the evidence given by the women as "all lies."
The magistrait said that Mr. Irwin had very properly criticised the evidence given by one witness in particular, and it merited that criticism. But the case did not depend merely upon her evidence, nor upon the fact that she was contradicted by the other witnesses. The two Fowler girls were not contradicted in the evidence they had given, and the Wackeldine woman told a straight-out story. It was admitted that the woman Tabernacle stayed on the premises for some time and inference must be drawn from her admitted reputation. The strongest thing in the accused's favor was that it was not suggested that
SHE WAS A PROCURESS, or that she actively induced these young women on to her premises. Even so, when he regarded the youth of some of those who wee suffered to prostitute themselves on her premises, he could only deal with the offence in one way. He would make the sentence as light as possible. Accused would be sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labor.
REILLY'S "RIALTO. That the Fowler girls are "out and outers" was evidenced when the next case of keeping a house of ill-fame was called.
The defendant in this case was one Peter Reilly, and the charge against this gent was that of keeping a "joint" in Maclaggan-street during the mouths of May, June and July. When the case was called, Mr. Scurr for accused, asked for a remand for a week, and pointed out that Reilly had been arrested on the previous Saturday, and, therefore, had had no time in which to prepare a defence.
While not objecting to the proposed remand, Chief-Detective Bishop sought and obtained permission to call a witness, and the particular witness was Mary Fowler.
In short, Mary's evidence was that Reilly kept a boarding home in Maclaggan street and she had been a "boarder" for three weeks. She attested that, on one occasion, she had a consort named Crossley, allegedly from a certain steamer. She and her friend went under the name of Crossley. The room was hired from Reilly, who she said, knew they were not married, nor did she lead him to believe that Crossley and she were man and wife.
An adjournment til next Monday was granted, the accused being allowed bail in one surety of £50. -NZ Truth, 11/8/1917.
MOTHER PARKER'S MENAGE
WHAT PIOUS POTTED
TWO SERIOUS CHARGES ALLEGED
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.)
Margaret Parker, otherwise better known through Otago and Southland as Mother Parker, appeared before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., on Monday of last week charged (1) that on April 2, she did keep a house of ill-fame, to wit, the Grand Pacific Boardinghouse, St. Kilda; (2) and that on that date she sold beer without being licensed, having been twice previously convicted — in 1917 and 1919.
Lawyer Callan defended (instructed by Tonkinson and Wood), and pleaded not guilty.
Constable Coppell stated that, owing to complaints received, he kept the place under supervision on April 1 from 11 p.m. until midnight. He saw three men leave during that time. On the night of the 2nd, from 7 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., he saw
EIGHT MEN AND ONE WOMAN go in and three men and one woman leave. With Sergeant Thomson he entered the premises as two men were leaving and they took these men back into the dining room. While conversing with them there some one came downstairs, and witness went into the passage and found a man with a handbag making for the door. He also conducted him to the dining room, and peering into the brief bag, saw two loaded beer bottles snugly reposing therein. While making this little discovery witness was attracted by the ringing of Mother's hall door-bell, and most obligingly hopped off to attend to it. He admitted a man who said he came for a bed. Witness then sauntered upstairs and found a man and woman in bed, and in another room there were a man and woman in bed also. These two were entirely undressed. In another room he found another man — a room claimed by one of the females charged, Ivy Smith. The lady found in the savage state was a Mrs. Rodwell; he did not know the woman in the first room, but he heard the man say that they were
NOT MAN AND WIFE. Mrs. Rodwell had been living for some time with Mrs. Parker. He did not hear what explanation the man made who was with Rodwell. The man with the brief bag said he had come from town to get a room and paid 10s. He also said he had a room in an hotel in town. Mrs. Parker said she sent him upstairs to wash his hands; she later said he had engaged a room and paid 10s for it. On the following night they visited Mrs. Parker's again.
Mr. Callan objected to evidence being given relative to dates not in the charge as being irrelevant. The magistrate said Mr. Callan was not serious, and the witness proceeded.
On that night there were two men there. One of them was standing in the dining room with Mrs. Rodwell, and one in the kitchen with Ivy Smith. On the 4th they visited the house again, and found two different men with the same women. A week later they visited the place again and
FOUND A COUPLE UPSTAIRS in No. 1 room, who were not man and wife. There was, also a man in another room adjoining Rodwell's.
To Mr, Callan: On the last occasion he visited the house there were a second couple — an elderly pair who said they were man and wife. He did not put the times of his visits down on all occasions. He could not say how long Mrs. Rodwell was with Mrs. Parker, but Ivy Smith was with her a long time. There was also another time he visited the house and found nothing wrong. He had known Mrs. Parker for four years. She was convicted of a similar offence on August 6, 1917.
Further hearing of the charge was adjourned until Friday.
THE SLY-GROG CHARGE. The same witness narrated that on April 1, he saw a man come out the back way, and twenty minutes later another man came out under "the influence." At 11.30 p.m., a man came along under "the influence," and went to the door but was not admitted. On April 2, between 1 and 9.30 p.m., he saw eight men and one woman go in and saw three men and one woman leave. Sergeant Thomson joined him, and at 9.30 p.m. they entered the house. When Mrs. Parker unbolted the door to let out two men the sergeant and he entered, and invited the two guests back into the dining room. These men said they had gone m for a soft drink; they had been walking on the beach they said. One of them said he wanted something stronger, but there was nothing doing. He (witness) then heard a noise on the stairs and on investigating he located the gent with the brief bag making for the door. He was fetched back to the dining room too. The kitchen was examined next, and in a cupboard in the scullery two dozen empties of various sorts were found, and seven or eight whisky bottles. Two full beer bottles were found in the store room, and also a "blue peter" half "loaded." Mrs. Parker said she did not know any man had liquor, and did not know the gent with the brief bag had anything either. Victor James was this man's name; he said he brought the beer with him from the Crown where he had been staying. Mrs. Parker had been twice previously convicted on a similar charge.
The woman Smith did not appear, as she had not yet been served with a summons. Rodwell appeared, and said she went to Mrs. Parker's to board, her board being paid by a Mr. Brandt. Both women were charged with assisting in keeping a house of ill-fame.
All the cases were further adjourned to the end of the week.
Lawyer Irwin, on the resumption of the case, said he had been instructed by Mrs. Rodwell to represent her. She was unable to appear, as she had given birth to a child after appearing in court on the opening of the present cases. Mrs. Rodwell's case was adjourned sine die.
ergeant Thomson corroborated Constable Coppell's evidence in general relative to sly-grog and other charges.
Mr. Collan: This man with the brief bag — had he anything in it besides the beer? — Toilet articles and pyjamas. He gave the name of Victor James. The couple who told you they were man and wife — do you know them? — Yes, I know the man; he is
A REPUTABLE CITIZEN. I do not know anything about the woman.
Mr. Collan contended that the police could have produced all the couples and persons found in the house, but had not done so. It was a strange proceeding. Not only did none of the couples or reputable citizens offer to support the frail evidence of the police, but they had not even their names. The reference to be drawn from the evidence and the varied nature of the bottles found, was that the people who went to the house brought the liquor with them. Regarding the other charge the way chosen to attempt proof was a round-about way indeed If this charge could have been proved at all it could easily and properly be done by calling the couples and persons who made the statements. There was no proof whatever that Mrs. Parker knew these people were not husband and wife, and that other women — apart from Rodwell and Smith — were persons of ill-fame.
Henry Otto Brandt, general dealer, said he had taken a dozen-and-a-half empties in the week away from Mrs. Parker's. He had been around the place from time to time.
Mr. Callan: You know Mrs. Rodwell? — Only slightly.
Were you not paying her board at the place? — Nothing of the sort.
But you were about getting a house for her? — I was not. I was after a house for myself.
Brandt said he had met Mrs. Rodwell at Mrs. Parker's for the first time. The arrangements he had made to get a house for himself had nothing to do with Mrs. Rodwell. He never paid Mrs. Parker any money for Mrs. Rodwell. If Mrs. Rodwell said so, she was lying. He was a single man.
Lawyer Callan traversed the evidence relative to the liquor and the parties found in the house. He said he would not drag the elderly couple up again.
The Magistrate: They have found shelter
BEHIND THE FOURTEEN CHILDREN. Mrs, Parker said she did not know that the man and woman found in the bedroom on April 2 were not man and wife. She asked them at the door. They said they were married and signed a book. They gave their names as Mr. and Mrs. Thomson. She never saw them before. She charged them 10s for tea, bed and breakfast. The second couple on the 10th gave the names of Mr. and Mrs. Thomson. She charged them 10s. Mrs. Rodwell came there two months ago, and paid her £1 a week for her board. Brandt came there and paid her money for Rodwell's board; he often brought Mrs. Rodwell a bottle of stout, and had tea with her there, several times. Relative to what the police found, Mrs. Rodwell said to her she had gone to the bathroom and the man forced his way in. Ivy Smith was a general servant there for five weeks. She paid' her £1 a week. These girls occupied the one room. Witness made her living by soft drinks and teas. A great many people visited her place for temperance drinks and teas.
Sub-Inspector: Mrs. Rodwell would have some clothing on going and coming from the bathroom? — I don't know. I told the story as told by Mrs. Rodwell.
Did you believe it? — I thought it a bit funny at the time.
You know all these people? — I do not.
Are they all Thomsons? — No.
Mrs. Rodwell's baby is even a Thomson? — Yes.
You christened it? — Yes.
Are you not using the name Thomson as a bit of sarcasm against the sergeant? — No.
The Magistrate dismissed the sly-grog charge without calling upon evidence for defence. The charge of keeping a house of ill-fame was adjourned sine die, owing to Mrs. Rodwell's inability to attend. The charge against Ivy Smith was similarly adjourned. She elected to stay in the Salvation Army Home pending disposal of the charges. During the hearing of the case the public were not admitted to the court. -NZ Truth, 1/5/1920.
Mother Parker's Menage
Dubbed a Disorderly Den.
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) On Friday, before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew S.M., Margaret Parker once more appeared on the charge of keeping an improper house. Her assistants, Mrs. E. Rodwell and Miss Ivy Smith, were charged with helping to run mother's house of ill-fame. All were convicted, and mother was put away under lock and key for a rest dure of six months. Lawyer Callan defended.
Mrs. Rodwell, a young widow, said she had been at Mrs. Parker's as a boarder for about a few months prior to the raid. She was engaged to a man named Brandt, who paid for her board at Mrs. Parker's. As regards the man located m her bedroom she knew nothing: he should have been in another room. She had been for a bath, and on returning found the intruder, who locked the door and would not go out or let her go out. She had never seen him before or since.
Sub-Inspector Mathieson: Brandt has stated he did not pay for your board? — He's a liar: he did pay for it.
Did you tell Sergeant Thomson that you brought men to the house? — I did not.
Or that Mrs. Parker paid you? — No.
The Magistrate: The proof of an offence in such cases is largely circumstantial, but there is a large quantity of significant evidence m this affair: A considerable amount of drinking had been going on. In two of the cases it had been shown that men and women who were not men and wives occupied rooms together, but there was nothing to prove prostitution on a commercial basis, which is necessary in such a case. There are other proofs, however, and there is also the fact that Mrs. Parker has been previously convicted. She is not an unsophisticated woman, and will be convicted.
Lawyer Callan, in mitigation of the sentence, said Mrs. Parker's solicitors told him that she had entered into a binding contract to sell the house, and it was only a matter of entering into possession. The police had gained their object in having the place closed. In view of this, and the woman's old age, he pleaded with the Magistrate not to send her to gaol.
Sub-Inspector: Practically the same thing was said about selling the house at a previous prosecution.
The Magistrate: Yes; I was sadly deceived on that occasion.
Lawyer Callan: I can produce the I contract this time.
Sub-Inspector: Even if the house passes out of Mrs. Parker's possession, there is nothing to prevent her from resuming practices next door.
The Magistrate accepted Lawyer Callan's statement relative to the sale, but owing to accused's record; and what had happened on a previous occasion, he could not attach much weight to her promises. She had an ugly record, and seemed to be incorrigible. She was a menace to the community. The police had not unduly harassed her, and had given her every opportunity to redeem herself.
She was sentenced to six months' Imprisonment.
Ivy Smith and Eileen Rodwell were also convicted. The former is to be placed with the Army for twelve months, and Eileen Rodwell was sent to the Magdalene Home, Christchurch, for two years. -NZ Truth, 5/6/1920.
A Fatherless Babe
Echo of the Mother Parker Case.
At Dunedin W. H. O. Brandt, secondhand dealer, was proceeded against for the maintenance of an illegitimate child, of which he was alleged to be the father. Defendant opposed the application. He was represented by Lawyer B. S. Irwin.
Eileen Rodwell said she was a widow, and the mother of a female child born on April 19 last. Brandt paid her board all the time she was at Mrs. Parker's. She first met Brandt at the Dunedin railway, station. He came up and spoke to her, asking her if she was a widow. She said she was, and that started matters. She went various times out with him for walks and to the pictures. He was the father of her child. She knew that too well, as she ought to know.
To Lawyer Irwin: No one else had been out with her, and the man found in her room by the police at Mrs. Parker's broke into that room at the time of the raid. She knew Brandt for twelve months.
Mr. Irwin: He brought you to the pictures, you say? — Yes.
Which picture house? — The Queen's and the one opposite.
What pictures did you see? — All kinds, ships, boats and the sea.
What else? — A lady and a man.
Making love, I suppose? — Oh, yes.
Brandt, at Parker's used to pay the money into her hand, and she paid Mrs. Parker. He paid her twice in the presence of Miss Smith. She showed the baby to Brandt, and he made a big fuss over it. He said, "Go away and your baby — I don't want to see you any more." She told Mrs. Parker what Brandt said to her, and Mrs. Parker said, "Pull him."
Mr. Irwin: You are angry with Brandt? — Yes, I could crack him.
Continuing to Mr. Irwin, witness said that. Brandt told Mrs. Parker he was going to marry her, and in the meantime get her a new dress, and provide a house. He promised to come and see her in the hospital, and bring her anything she wanted. He never came. Brandt did not know she was at Parker's until he came there for change.
Mrs. Margaret Parker said Brandt visited her place to see Mrs. Rodwell. Brandt told her that he was responsible for her board. She often heard Brandt say that he would marry Mrs. Rodwell.
To Mr. Irwin: Mrs Rodwell came there for a cup of tea, and said Brandt sent her there and would pay her board. After the child was born and Brandt turned her down, Mrs. Rodwell said she was going to pull him for breach of promise.
Ivy Smith said Brandt visited Mrs. Parker's twice a week — sometimes for bottles, and sometimes to see Mrs. Rodwell. Mrs. Rodwell told her that the father of her child was an old man living down in King-street. She could not remember the old man's name now.
Mr. Irwin: Was the old man's name Golightly? — Yes, that's it.
The Magistrate, at this juncture, threw the tangled case "over board." remarking that the evidence was totally insufficient to support a claim of the sort. -NZ Truth, 12/6/1920.
Margaret Parker next reliably appears in the pages of the papers in an inquest on a man who had boarded with her in Cumberland st before his death. The street number, 341, matches that given as the last address of a Margaret Parker who died on December 17, 1923, and is buried in Dunedin's Northern Cemetery.
Deaths
PARKER. — On December 17th, at Dunedin, Margaret Omanda, wife of William Parker, 341 Cumberland street, and dearly loved mother of Mrs H, Jarvis, Christchurch, and James Parker, Dunedin; in her 65th year. “At rest.” Private interment. — Hope and Kinaston, undertakers. -Evening Star, 17/12/1923.
No comments:
Post a Comment