#bootlegging operation

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“False Wall In Barn Hides Liquor Still,” Toronto Globe. February 19, 1931. Page 03. --- Aged Woman Unaware of Its Presence on Farm, Police Say ---- OTTAWA RULING AWAITED --- (Special Despatch to The Globe.) St. Thomas, Feb. 18 - Seizure by a police posse led by R. F. Karrow of Port Stanley, Federal Government Enforcement Officer under the Inland Revenue Act, of what is said to be a complete liquor distilling plant on a farm in the Mount Salem district, southeast of Aylmer, late last night, resulted in inquiries being made of Ottawa today as to the proper course to pursue. The farm on which the alleged still was found belongs to an 87-year-old Mount Salem woman, and officers expressed the belief that the woman was unaware of the presence of the still. It was found in a small room in the rear of the barn of the farm. The officers discovered false walls in the barn. But the only door to the room between seemed to be nailed securely. At length, a knothole, thirty feet away, was found, and in it was a rope which, when pulled, caused the door and part of the siding to fall back. In the secret room were the still and equipment. The outfit was removed to Aylmer by Mr. Karrow. The plant is said to have a capacity of twenty gallons, and to be exceptionally well made. It was constructed to fit on top of a four-burner oil stove.

The equipment included a hydrometer for testing alcoholic strength and a filtering tube for removing fuel oil and sediment from liquor.

Investigations are being made in an effort to establish ownership of the outfit. The other members of the searching party were Corporal Weekes and Constable Wilson, R.C.M.P. officers at the Muncey Indian reserve, and C. E. A. Webb, enforcement Officer at London. Until instructions are received from Ottawa, no charges will be laid.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Raid Uncovers Liquor Supply,” Border Cities Star. December 27, 1930. Page 13. ---- St. Thomas Police Report Seizure Is Large --- ST. THOMAS, Dec. 27. - In a spectacular raid last night at the residence of B. A. Wood, 28 Arthur avenue, Chief of Police Gunson with Patrol Sergeant Joseph McCulley and P. C. Grant, made the largest seizure of liquor in some months.

The total haul consists of 70 gallons of wine, 36 quart bottles of wine and three bottles of coloring extract. The materials were located in the cellar along with 10 empty gallon containers, 165 empty pints and 45 empty quart bottles. These were cleaned and ready for refilling, it is claimed. Two 18-gallon kegs, one filled with wine, and the other partly were also seized, in addition to a five-gallon jar containing mash.

Four youths were found in the house throwing dice. One of the four was a son of Woods. The father was home when the officers entered, and was placed under arrest. He is described as a traveler.

Officers claim that the evidence of coloring extract might indicate that liquor was being manufactured at the house.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Cecil Smith Gets Six Months,” Border Cities Star. November 14, 1930. Page 03 & 07. ---- Bootlegger Given Limit For ‘Keeping’ --- Notorious Character Had Liquor for Sale, Finds Magistrate ---- APPEAL IS LAUNCHED --- Bail Set at $5,000; Club is Castigated by Bench in E. Windsor ---- Cecil Smith, notorious bootlegger, was given the maximum penalty of six months by Magistrate Smith in East Windsor police court today, following a conviction on a charge of keeping liquor for sale at the Shawnee Gun and Country Club, Sandwich East.

BAIL IS $5,000 Immediately after sentence was passed, Norman J. Riordan, who appeared for Smith, announced that he would appeal the decision. Bail was set at $5,000.

Smith was convicted upon the evidence of Bernard McNamee, who, it was testified, was hired by Smith to work at the club and to take the fall if necessary, but who was a Crown witness at today’s trial.

Arthur Maynard, who is on the second month of a three month stretch at Sandwich jail as the result of operations at the Shawnee Club, was also a Crown witness. Mayrand, it was testified, had been a partner with Smith in the operation of the club.

IN LIMELIGHT In passing sentence on Smith, the magistrate pointed out tat the Shawnee Club had been in the limelight for some time. He called attention to the fact that there had been a number of convictions as a result of operations at the club, with heavy penalties. In view of the club’rs record, Magistrate Smith declared, the extreme penalty under the Liquor Control Act was justified in the present case. POLICE TELL OF RAID Constable Duncan and Sergeant Rush, of the provincial police, told of visiting the Shawnee Club the night of October 24, and of finding 73 pints of beer in a cache in a chicken coop, and of 13 bottles of assorted liquors in a cleverly concealed cache in a staircase.

Cecil Smith and Mrs. Mayrand were at the club when the police arrived, it was said, but were gone when the police returned to the club after the discovery of beer in the chicken coop.

HIRED BY SMITH McNamee declared that he was hired by Smith, as the result of a chance meeting in a restaurant, and put to work at the club on the understanding that he was to get $15 per week and board. Cecil also promised him, he said, that his fine would be paid in case the place should be ‘knocked off,’ and that he would be paid $25 per week for an jail sentence.

McNamee testified that Smith brought liquor to the club and that he, as an employe, stored some of the liquor in the cashes where it was found. McNamee declared that Smith told him that Dr. Smith was a partner in the operation of the club, with Arthur Maynard. He testified that he was paid for his services by Smith, he got a dollar or so now and then.

Arthur Mayrand declared that he and Smith entered into a partnership in the ownership of the club on September 1. WENT TO JAIL When he was convicted, October 24, and sent to jail, Mayrand said, he went with the understanding, gained in a conversation with Smith, that Smith would carry on the business.

Asked by Crown Attorney James S. Allan what the ‘business’ at the club consisted of Mr. Mayrand replied that it was ‘serving meals and serving drinks’, Mr. Mayrand testified that the Shawnee Club had been declared a public place, December 1, 1929.

Smith’s defence was that his partnership agreement with Mayrand had lapsed because payments specified in the agreement had not been made. Mr. Rirordan, arguing for Smith, declared that Smith had been declared ‘out’ because of non-payment of the required sums, the day before the raid, October 28.

Magistrate Smith commented that the clause in the agreement, would be null and void unless payments were made as scheduled, was a penalty clause that appeared in agreements but did not hold unless some definite action were taken by the other party to declare the agreement out.

Cecil Smith explained his presence at the club on the night of the raid, October 24, by saving that he had made an appointment to meet a bailiff, there regarding the removal of an icebox. Crown Attorney Allan questioned Smith’s interest in the Shawnee ice box in view of the fact that Smith had sworn that he had passed up all interest in the club and its operation.

DENIES KNOWLEDGE Smith denied taking liquor to the Shawnee Club, and denied knowledge of the caches on the property.

Asked for an explanation of Mayrand’s story, Smith declared that he ‘could not explain it, unless some arrangement ad been made with Mayrand.’

‘Just like,’ he continued, ‘the man who told officers on the night of the raid that he was manager of the club, the man I posted bail for, who, after an interview with police, decided to tell his story as a Crown witness,’ Smith was evidently referring to McNamee who had turned Crown’s evidence.

JUST WENT AWAY Smith denied that he had ‘beat it’ away from the Shawnee Club the night of the raid, as had been reported in ‘the newspapers.’ He declared that after he had finished his conversation with the bailiff about the icce box, he just got into his car and drove away, ‘like anyone else.’

It would be useless for him to run away, he said, because the police of the district watch him wherever he goes. He declared that he couldn’t go out for a drive with his family, without police pulling up alongside of his car muttering. ‘That’s him driving all right,’ without being followed by police. A habit of police, he said, was to follow him a stretch and then to rush ahead and wait for him again. [AL: Smith later got into bigger trouble in 1932 and was sentenced for 5 years for conspiracy to the penitentiary, and again went back in 1937 right after release for assaulting a police officer and fleeing custody]

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Gabby Juror Cancels Trial,” Windsor Star. November 21, 1939. Page 16. ---- Violates Oath so Second Hearing Is Needed in Still Case ---- WINNIPEG, Nov. 21 - Trial of eight men charged with conspiracy to defraud the federal government ended abruptly here yesterday when Justice A. K. Dvsart announced he would discharge the jury because one of the jurors had violated his oath.

Mr. Justice Dvsart’s announcement closed the trial of William Wolchock, Sam Arbour, Frank McGirl, Ned and Ben Balakowsky and Eugene Cass and Jules Mourant, who are accused of conspiring to defraud the Dominion Government of $100,000 by operating an illicit liquor still at Prairie Grove, Man. The still was seized by Royal Canadian Mounted Police on April 13, 1937.

The eight defendants will be held in custody until new bail bands can be arranged. The case will be re-tried at the spring assizes.

In announcing his intention to discharge the jury, Mr. Justice Dvsart said that a week-end investigation had revealed that juryman D. I. Thompson, Winnipeg electric contractor, had violated his oath by discussing the case with an outsider and known his intention.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“No Fingerprints,” Toronto Star. October 26, 1938. Page 10. ---- (County Police Court at County Buildings, Magistrate Keith.) Appearing before Magistrate Keith in county police court today on a charge of ‘unlawfully assisting in distilling spirits in an unlicensed place,’ Charles Urso, Dominic Arno, Mike Capizzi, Joe Quattrone and Victoria Valenza wee all remanded to Nov. 9.

With the exception of Quattrone, who was released on bail of $5,000, all were returned to custody pending trial.

Won’t Release Woman When M. Cosentino requested Victoria Valenza be released on bail, the crown raised objections.

‘This woman, Capizzi and Urso came from the United States,’ declared Mr. Luxenberg, for the crown, ‘and are being held for a breach of the Immigration Act.’

Mr. Luxenberg stated he had no objection to allowing Quattrone out on bail. At the same time, he requested the man’s fingerprints be taken before leaving the court.

‘A very respectable man in this city, who is his boss, assures me a grave mistake has been made in this man’s case,’ interposed his counsel, R. H. Greer. ‘I don’t like to see a man being kicked around who may be innocent.’

Fingerprint Objection ‘I can’t see why there should be any objection to fingerprints being taken,’ Mr. Luxenberg interposed.

‘Let my friend go out and have his fingerprints taken and see how he likes it,’ Mr. Greer suggested.

‘I can assure my friend,’ Mr. Luxenberg replied, ‘that the fingerprints will be destroyed if his client is found innocent.’

‘I am not going to order it,’ Magistrate Keith declared.

Mr. Greer then requested Quattrone’s automobile be returned to him pending trial.

‘Strong-Arm Methods’ ‘Quattrone’s car has been seized by the department,’ he asserted. ‘There is nothing to justify this seizure under this section of the code.

‘I am protesting against these ‘strong-arm’ methods of the crown. Unless there is evidence the car was used for ‘transporting,’ the crown should released it. I don’t like being ‘shanghaied’ by the crown.’

‘If the department has no evidence on which to detain the car,’ stated Mr. Luxenberg. ‘I can assure my friend it will be released.’

11 1/2 Years In Custody Thomas Nottley was given suspended sentence and probation for one year, when he appeared for sentence on a charge of attempted shopbreaking.

‘I feel this man has lost the best years of his life which in itself is terrible punishment,’ his worship asserted.

Nottley, who stated he had been drinking just before the offence took place, said he had spent 11 1/2 years in custody. He has been out for three years.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Explains He Is Beer-Runner And Delivers to Bootleggers,” The Globe and Mail. April 23, 1940. Page 07. --- Peterborough, April 22 (Special). - Geoffey Feeley of this city startled court officials today by describing himself as a beer runner. He said he was paid 22 1/2 cents a case for delivering a brewery firm’s products to bootleggers.

Feeley was a crown witness in a case against Harry Jingles of Norwood, who is charged with unlawfully keeping liquor for sale.

‘You have described yourself as a beer runner for a brewery. How much do you receive for each case?’ Crown Attorney V. J. McElderry asked.

‘Twenty-two and one-half cents a case,’ the witness answered.

‘To whom are the deliveries made?’

‘To our customers, to bootleggers,’ Feeley answered.

‘You delivered it just like bread?’ Magistrate O. A. Langley interjected, then asked. ‘You you use tickets?’

‘No, it was a cash business,’ witness said.

Feeley sought the protection of the Canada and Ontario Evidence Acts when he stepped into the box. He and two other Peterborough men are charged with breaches of the Liquor Control Act.

In his evidence, Feeley described getting a quantity of liquor and beer and taking it to Ingles’ home in Norwood. He said he sold ten bottle of liquor for $10.50 but Ingles did not want any beer. He swore he then drove to Hastings and sold two more bottle of liquor to a man named Thomas Lamery.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Big Load of Booze Seized By Police,” The Porcupine Advance (Timmins). April 3, 1918. Page 01. ---- Was Cashed in Unocccupied Shack, Would Retail for $3.00 or More. --- On Friday evening Chief Clark and his assistants made the biggest ‘haul’ of liquor seized in this district for some years past. The seizure included boxes, cases, barrels, and bags full of bottles full of booze. There were all kinds of liquor – highwines, whiskey, rum, gin, etc.,  - and many different brands. The stuff must have cost close to a thousand dollars if bought in the regular way and if retailed at regular ‘blind-pig’ rates it would realize three thousand dollars or more.  The liquor was cached in an apparently unoccupied house on Birch street. The windows of the house were double boarded, there were papers fixed ot keep the light from showing through to the outside, and only one electric light was in commission in the place. There was also a trough affair running outside the house. This had a lid on, but no lock, and the purpose, the police think, was to deposit the bottle for the buyer who may have made the bargain on the street and who could get his booze thus without knowing where it come from. The house is supposed to be rented by a Russian who had been already convicted under the Ontario Temperance Act, which would make the shack a public place in the meaning of the O.T.A. This Russian, however, cannot now be located though a warrant is issued for his arrest on the charge of keeping liquor for sale illegally. The case will come up on Thursday this week.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Taglerino Had A Lucky Escape,” Hamilton Spectator. August 6, 1919. Page 07. --- Fractured the Temperance Act Second Time --- By Mistake Only Charged With First Offence --- Evidence of Men Who Purchased Booze Accepted --- A $200 fine was inflicted upon John Taglerino, 342 Macnab street north, who was convicted of selling liquor, by Police Magistrate Jelfs in the police court this morning. Taglerino had been convicted of a B.O.T.A. before, but in pressing the charge an error had been made and it read as a first offense.

Isaac Cook stated that on Saturday evening he was handed a $10 bill by Bernard O’Flaherty and that he entered Taglerino’s store and asked for a bottle of whisky. He was given one and paid $5 for it. O’Flaherty then came in and received his $5 change and saw the transaction. O’Flaherty also declared that whisky had been purchased from Taglerino. The prisoner strongly denied selling the liquor and declared that the two men were drunk when they accosted him. Mrs. Taglerino also denied that the men had gotten whisky at their store. They had asked for it, but had been refused, she said.

S. R. Sloane, who appeared for the prisoner, pleaded that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the liquor had been bought from Taglerino, but a conviction was lodged, nevertheless.

Cook and O’Flaherty, who had pleaded guilty to breaking the O.T.A. in police court yesterday, were fined $200 between them.

Didn’t Do It John Williams, 55 William street, grew tired of this humdrum existence and decided to quit it. So he wrote a very sad and touching letter to his wife, in which he expressed himself as soul-weary and asked her to forgive him if he were to ‘shuffle off this mortal coil’ without waiting for some little germ to get him. So John, deciding that the usual methods were rather unpleasant, went to Cleveland on June 23 and had such a good time he was almost ‘tickled to death.’ His wife charged him with non-support, and stated that when he left for Cleveland she had discovered that he attempted to take a young woman with him.

‘I think you left Hamilton to desert your wife,’ the magistrate said. ‘If it hadn’t been for the kind heart of the other girl in telling your wife where you had gone, you would have never come back. I’ll remand you for two days. I feel too strongly to sentence you now.’

Will Be Deported Charles West and Bernard Sehman, who pleaded guilty several days ago to the theft of watches and jewelry from Polack Brothers’ shows, were sentenced to one month each in jail. When they have served this term they will be deported to the United States.

In Again Percy Mitchell faced the court again, charged with failing to support his wife. The woman the husband was alleged to have been living with appeared and produced witnesses to prove that it was untrue.

‘Take your wife home,’ the magistrate said.

‘She’s taken everything out of the house!’ the prisoner replied.

‘I did not,’ the wife contradicted.

‘There you go, contradicting each other again,’ the magistrate murmured despairingly. ‘You’d netter go home and take her with you.’

Peculiar Case Charles Osborne, 183 Rosslyn avenue north, was charged by his wife with non-support. W. S. McBrayne, who represented the complainant, stated that the husband’s father had taken exception to something Mrs. Osborne had done and had tied her yup. After that she had left to go to her own people. William Morrison, who appeared for Charles Osborne, declared that Mrs. Osborne had left the house on Rosslyn avenue and taken her own and a part of her husband’s goods.

‘The case seems to be that she didn’t want to love in the same house with her father-in-law,’ the magistrate commented. Mr. Osborne declared that when she had left him their child was taken ill and that she would not allow him to see it.

‘If you want to go on with this case you must first charge the person that tied her up,’ the magistrate said. ‘If you can maintain that chagre, I think there would be justification of the woman leaving her home.’

‘The case is let stand then?’ Mr. McBrayne asked.

‘Yes,’ the court replied.

Trespass Charged with trespassing on the property of the G.T.R., Fred McKittrick grinned vacantly from the dock and winked at the court. 

‘Take this man out; he’s not fit to plead,’ the magistrate said.

Taxi By-Law Louis Byrson, 48 Division street, was fined $5 for using his jitney as a taxi without the necessary license.

Motor Cases The department of militia and defense again answered a charge of speeding. They sustained the loss of $10. George T. Teny was taxed $5 for a similar breach.

Dismissed Efem Charuk, 396 Birch avenue north, was acquitted of a charge of breaking the O.T.A. A can of alcohol had been found in the furnae of his home, but the house was a private one.

One Week Percy Warren, 252 Avondale avenue, who was arrested yesterday by Sergt. Murto, of the military police, on a charge of unlawfully wearing the King’s uniform, was remanded for one week.

Only Drunk ‘I had a glass of beer, but I guess I was drunk,’ said Alexander Jackson, of Brantford, when the court clerk asked him if he had taken too many.

‘This is the first time,’ Jackson pleaded, ‘let me go home.’ But a $20 fine was inflicted, nevertheless.

Anna Jusycugh, 719 Barton street east, explained that she had taken a glass or so of wine, and then things began to multiply, and whirl around. It had never happened in her life before.

‘She can go,’ the magistrate said.

Theft Case ‘The complainant was lying in bed with his eyes shut,’ interpreted Mr. Yarosh. The prisoner,’ Mary Kubay, ‘approached his trousers, fumbled at his pockets, started back and tripped over a chair.’

‘He saw all this with his eyes shut?’ the court asked in a surprised tone. Dimitro Wyacaka, the complainant, hastened to explain that he was merely dozing with his eyes almost shut. The conclusion of the story was to the effect that Dimitro’s trousers lacked $200 when he put them on the next day.

Another foreign woman stated that Mary Kubay had given her $78 to take care of.

Mary pleaded not guilty to the theft charge and elected to go to a higher court.

‘There is sufficient evidence to commit her,’ the magistrate said.

‘How about bail?’ asked Norman Kay, who appeared on Mary’s behalf.

‘Five hundred dollars,’ the court replied.

Talked It Over ‘Let them go into a room by themselves and talk it over,’ said the magistrate when he was confronted with the domestic difficulties of the John Erskine family. Husband and wife left the court room and spent a half hour in conference. They returned, both looking serious. They couldn’t make up, Mrs. Erskine said.

‘You’re sentenced to two months in jail,’ the magistrate informed John.

Remanded One Day Emily Campbell, 180 East avenue north, was remanded for one day. She was charged by Clara Bates with receiving $29.75 advance payment for some clothing. She pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried by the magistrate.

Domestic Trouble ‘How long have you been married?’ William Morrison asked Mrs. Hopkins, who charged her husband with non-support. He had chocked her on several occasions, and had not given her any money since January 11. They had been living in the same house, as it was owned jointly, but had practically been separated. Her son had done his best to support her, Mrs. Hopkins said.

‘When was the last time you provided meals for him?’ Norman Kay asked the wife.

‘In April, he stopped bringing in any food since then,’ she answered.

‘Would you go back and live with him?’ Mr. Kay asked.

‘Yes, if he didn’t abuse me and gave me decent support,’ Mrs. Hopkins replied.

The son of the house declared that George had struck his mother and had neglected her. Mr. Hopkins stated that his wife had given him the greatest provocation for the past ten years, was jealous of him, and that three years ago she had refused to get his meals when he was sick. He denied choking her, and said he had merely laid his hand upon her neck and asked her a question.

‘I think there is sufficient evidence to prove that this man has neglected his wife,’ the magistrate said. ‘He must pay her $10 a week.’

Case Dropped John Patett, 159 Rebecca street,  was allowed to go. Mrs. John Draker who accused him of assault, did not appear to press the charge.