“The
trial of A. B. Mackay started this morning before Judge Snider and will not
likely be completed until late this afternoon.”
Hamilton Spectator. June 16, 1914.
Fully three months after the police
served summonses on James Gow and A. B. Mackay regarding sensational charges of
immorality at a home on Hughson Street South.
As James Gow had committed suicide, it
was only A. B. Mackay who, on June 16, 1914, went to trial on the matter.
As court was called into session,
Crown Attorney immediately rose to move that the public be excluded from the
trial.
E. F. B. Johnson, chief counsel for A.
B. Mackay, stood to voice his opposition to the effort to keep the press and
public away from the trial:
“ (Johnson) objected, claiming that
while the matter was at the discretion of the judge, the English courts favored
a free and open court and there was nothing in the case different to rape or
seduction which were tried by jury in an open court. He claimed that Mr. Mackay
was not given a fair deal by the exclusion of the public from the police court
and that there was nothing in the evidence given there.
“In justice to the prisoner, he
thought that the case should be tried in the open court and ended by saying
that as to embarrassment of the girls, that every woman was embarrassed when
she entered a witness box.”1
1 “Exclude
Public From Trial of A. B. Mackay : Crown’s Request Was Granted By the Judge :
But Reporters Were Allowed to Hear Evidence”
Hamilton Spectator. June 16, 1914.
After considerable wrangling, Judge
Snider declared that the press, but not the general public, were allowed to
remain in the court room when the trial itself started at 11:14.
Crown Attorney Washington moved that
an amendment to the original charge against A. B. Mackay :
“The final charge was that Mr. Mackay,
along with Gow and others unnamed, allowed three girls to be on the premises at
124 Hughson street south, for illegal purposes and that he procured or
conspired to procure girls.”1
The first
witnesses provided information that both Gow and Mackay were registered jointly
as owners of the house in question, that in terms of tax assessment Gow was
considered owner and Mackay a tenant, and that Mackay had regularly ordered
meals and furniture to be delivered under his name to the Hughson street house.
An unnamed girl witness was called.
She claimed to be 18 years old, and that she lived on John street south. She
testified that the first time she visited the house it was shortly before
Christmas, and had been invited by one of her girlfriends. She had visited the house several times after
that.
The next witness was
the sister of the previous witness. Under questioning, she said that her sister
had reached 18 years of age in February, after her sister had been to the Hughson
street house several times. In response to Judge Snider’s questioning, the
witness claimed that she was trusting on her memory only as regards her
sister’s birthday. There were no official records and the girls’ mother had
died ten years previously
Another girl witness
was called, who testified that she knew James Gow, but had never met A. B.
Mackay. Crown Attorney Washington then read aloud testimony that the girl had
given at the police court’s preliminary hearing in which the girl had claimed
to have known both Gow and Mackay:
“She said that her
first visit to the house was at the invitation of a girlfriend. She said that
she was sixteen at the time and she was seventeen now.
“At this time her
memory became bad and about the only answer Mr. Washington could get was ‘I
don’t remember.’
“ ‘What happened to
your memory since the police court trial?’ asked Mr. Washington.
“ ‘I’ve been working
hard and it has failed me,’ was her reply.
“She said that Mr.
Gow had made improper proposals to her and that she accepted money from him.
“On the occasion of
her second visit, she was accompanied by two girlfriends, and on arriving there
found two girls from Toronto. On that occasion, she became acquainted with ‘a
man from the west’ who gave her money.
“Her next visit was
to borrow money from Mr. Gow to pay her expenses to Toronto.
“ ‘On any of your
three visits did you meet Mr. Mackay?’
“ ‘No. I did not know
Mr. Mackay until he was pointed out to me on the street the other day.”1
At this point the
court was adjourned until 2 o’clock.:
Policemen guarded every entrance to
the court room. The girls who gave evidence were not allowed to leave the court
house for lunch, it being sent in to them by the sheriff. Mackay was also held
in the court room during the intermission.”1
The Spectator
reporter who had been covering the proceedings, observed the defendant closely
and wrote that “Mr. Mackay showed no signs of nervousness or worry as to the
outcome and chatted with his counsel in a free and easy manner throughout the
trial.”1
When court resumed at
two o’clock, several girls were called to testify:
“The evidence at the
afternoon session was similar to that heard in the morning. The salient feature
of the whole trial was the unutterable sadness of it all, young girls in their
teens telling harrowing tales of immorality and shame, some in brazen manner,
others in deep sorrow and remorse.
“But after all
evidence had been put in and while the lawyers were addressing the judge, and
his honor was assuming up and delivering the verdict, most of the girls crowded
about one of the doors leading to the court room, displaying a keen eagerness
to hear what was going on, and disturbing the solemnity of the trial with
occasional hysterical and shrill but mirthless laughter.”2
2 “Mackay
Acquitted After Short Trial : He Was Neither Owner Nor Occupant of the House :
Judge Commented on Flaunting Immorality in Face of the Public”
Hamilton Herald. June
17, 1914.
It was no surprise to
most people that Judge Snider acquitted A. B. Mackay of the charge he faced. It
had not been proved that he was owner or a tenant at the Hughson street, and so
under the Section 217 of statute he could not have been able to bid or forbid
what went on in the house.
Judge Snider stated
that, while he could not convict Mr. Mackay because of a technicality, he felt
impelled to say that the efforts of the police in endeavoring to put an end to
the goings-on at the Hughson Street house were entirely justified.
In his remarks, the
judge said, in part:
“There was no doubt
as to the fact that there had been great immorality practiced at the Gow house,
at which Mackay was rooming.
“It was clearly shown
that the prisoner was in habit of having immoral relations regularly in this
house. I have to say that the conduct there, in which he took part, was carried
on in such a gross manner, so publicly and with so little regard to decency,
that it became the duty of the police to try and put a stop to it in some way.
“In my opinion, these
proceedings, though frustrated by the special wording of the code, have still
been sufficient to put a stop to it, and I should think the contempt in which
the prisoner is held for his conduct by the people of this city ought to be a
sufficient lesson to put an end to such flagrant exhibitions of immorality.”1
After the trial,
there was a wild time in the lobby :
“A row was started
between one of the girls and the mother of one of the younger girls.
“ ‘You are
responsible for my daughter’s downfall,’ said the mother. ‘She was a good girl
until she met you, and she would never have been dragged into this trial but
for you.’
“It looked as if the
two would come to blows, but the police stepped in and parted them, sending the
girl and the mother of the other girl out by different doors.”1
The Hamilton Herald,
in an editorial, echoed the frustration that Mackay was acquitted on a
technicality:
“But the story told
by the girl witnesses of the immoral doings in this charnel house – a house
worse than a common brothel – is sufficient to lead people to wish that
somebody was to be severely punished for this heartless traffic in human flesh,
this degradation and violation of young girls to satisfy the brutish instincts
of inhuman vultures.
“If the hand of
justice is paralyzed and no further effort can be made to get at some of these
ghouls, nothing may be gained by commenting on the unsavory matter, unless the
scandal can be held up as a warning to any who may now be treading the primrose
path, basking in the great white way, to them a word of advice may not be
amiss.
“The fate of Gow, no
less than the unhappy experience of Mackay, may lead those of wayward steps to
take heed where they are going. There is a way that seemeth good unto a man,
but it leads to death and worse.
“The Gow house may be
only one of many. To frequenters of such we would say ‘Be sure your sins will
find you out.’ ”3
3 “The Gow
House”
Hamilton Herald June
17, 1914.
The final word on the
tawdry case of James Gow and Alex. Mackay was written the day after the trial :
“A bevy of flashily
dressed young ladies, all witnesses in the Mackay case, tripped into the City
Hall this morning, and created a big stir among the municipal employees. Half a
dozen of the latter raced upstairs in order to show the young ladies to W. R.
Leckie’s office where each collected a dollar f4rom the treasury.
“The maidens had no
objection to flirting with some of the junior officials when the latter showed
such a tendency, and it was only after one of the controllers got busy that
their tete-a-tete was disturbed.”4
4 “Collected
$1 : Girl Witnesses in Mackay Case at City Hall”
Hamilton Herald. June
18, 1914
No comments:
Post a Comment