June 14, 1876

“This morning our reporter interviewed an Indian from the Reserve who is attending the sessions here as to the whereabouts of the Youngs”

Hamilton Spectator June 14, 1876

The escaped, condemned murders, the Young brothers, were still on the loose. As it was firmly believed that the Youngs could well try to hide in the immediate area,  Spectator reporter interviewed a man from the Six Nations reserve who was in the city about the matter:

 “He firmly believes that the escaped murderers are still in the country, and asserts that at no distant day they will make themselves heard as the chiefs of an organized gang of desperados. No effort is being made to find them, and the sheriff of the county appears to be perfectly indifferent as to whether the Youngs are recaptured or not. In the States if a man steals $3,000 and escapes, the sheriff has photographs of the man attached to posters, giving an account of the crime and a description of the criminal’s personal appearance. These posters are distributed among the police officers of the States and Canada, so that it is hard for a man to pass undetected. It was this dodge that secured the capture of Schoolby, the celebrated express robber, in this city some time ago. The sheriff of Haldimand has made no such attempts in the case of two of the most important escapes that ever have occurred in this country. The very idea that two escaped murderers under the sentence of death should be at large in the country is terrifying to some and incomprehensible to others, and that there should be no obvious attempt to capture shows a very lamentable state of things in our courts of justice. The Government has certainly offered a reward of $1,000 for these men, and the sheriff has added half as much more, but what inducement is this for a man to risk his life in searching for such desperate criminals? Why not pay two or three shrewd detectives so much a week to work up a clue and then double the reward for their capture? Something must be done to recapture these men as the country is becoming impatient and the people in the neighbourhood of Cayuga and Brantford more especially. The poor Indians are beginning to dread the highway at night. “

The Spectator, ever vigilant about matters which the Health Inspector should deal with had two to suggest in the issue of that newspaper dated June 14, 1876:

“The drain carrying the slops and excrement from the Lunatic Asylum empties from the side of the mountain into this city, causing an undesirable nuisance in the neighbourhood of the drain. This is a subject for the Health Inspector.”

“On the vacant lot on the corner of Park and Maiden Lane street there are large heaps of rubbish, etc. thrown there by persons living in the neighbourhood, from which comes a most offensive smell, and is dangerous to the health of the neighbourhood. Will the Health Inspector see to its removal at once?”

Finally, the Spectator carried a lengthy account of a court case involving some individual from Dundas who were trying to get around the liquor license issues of the day:

“Yesterday afternoon at three o’clock, the trial of Mr. Charles Moss, the Steward of the Dundas Union Club, charged by Mr. McMonies, Inspector of Licenses for North Wentworth, with selling liquor contrary to the law, took place in the Police Court before Mr. Cahill. A large number of the members of the Club were present. Mr. B. B. Osler, Q. C., County Attorney, prosecuted; Mr. Frank Robertson appeared for the defendant.

                             The Evidence

James McMonies, sworn: Am Inspector of Licenses for the North Riding of Wentworth; the defendant lives in the riding; know his premises; they were formerly occupied as a public house for the sale of liquors; he appeared for a license for the present year; I inspected his premises; he had all the appliances for the sale of liquor; I found my charge because on visiting the place on the 30^th of May I found the premises were changed somewhat; the bar had been changed into a reading room; on my first visit I found no person in; I came back in half an hour and found no person in the house; I came back a third time and found no person in; I went out and called on Mr. Mackenzie, the secretary of the club to whom I stated my business, and he invited me in; we walked through the reading room and at the far end I found a recess in which I found champagne bottles, bottles of brandy and other liquors; I am not positive whether or not there was a counter; Mr. Mackenzie asked me what I would take; I took a pop and he took ale; a lady served us who I took to be Mrs. Moss; I can’t say that I saw any money paid for it; we went into the sitting room, when some other parties came in, among them Mr. Thos. Hatt, who called for drinks for the crowd; I took a glass of beer, and the rest took cigars; I did not see any money paid for the cigars or drinks; the same lady served the refreshments; this was on the same premises which the defendant occupied and for which he applied for a license.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robertson – I went on the invitation of Mr. Mackenzie; I found myself in a reading room; I walked through that into a little bar; the pop was handed to me; the recess might have been an ordinary sideboard; when I met Mr. Mackensie I told him that my business was to look after the Club House, and then he invited me in and treated me; I only saw the lady who waited on me once before when I inspected the house; she was not at the sideboard when I went in but came when called; did not see the defendant at all; when Mr. Hatt came in, he said he was a member of the club and called for drinks.

To Mr. Osler. There was no sign outside; there is no other club house in my district.

Charles Moss sworn : Up to the first day of this year, I kept a saloon and billiard room on the premises I own on King street, Dundas, and on the premises on which I now live; It was a licensed saloon; I was an applicant for a license this year; the license was refused; I still occupy and own the premises; I do not continue to sell liquor; I serve liquors to parties in that house; after the first of May I returned my stock of liquor to Mr. R. T. Wilson; I did not buy it back from him, the club bought it back; the liquor never really left the premises; it was measured and priced by one of Mr. Wilson’s men; Wilson took the liquor for a debt I owed him; the secretary of the club bought the liquor I think for the same amount Wilson paid for it; some of the furniture in the house belongs to me and some of it to the club; my wife and I serve liquor to the club; it is served when called on by members and it is paid for; strangers drink there when brought in by members of the club.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robertson – I occupy the premises as usual; when my license was refused I was indebted to Mr. Wilson for $2000 and he took my stock as a valuation; I was released and the debt was transferred to the Club a short time afterwards; I did not in anyway take part in the buying of the liquor back by Mr. Mackenzie; the old counter is used for holding papers and books; the old refrigerator is used as a sideboard to hold the liquors; the club was organized about the 11^th of May; it was before that date that I returned the liquor to Mr. Wilson; I am there as Steward of the Club; I receive a salary of $2 a day for my services, and $300 a year for the rest of the premises; it was shortly after the club was organized that I moved the bar back; no one but members pay for anything; when liquor is paid for, suppose four drinks, he gives me twenty cents, and I give him a cheque for that amount, which he deposits in a box, the key of which is held by the secretary; the secretary takes out the checks, counts them and puts down the money in the cash book, charging it as money received by me, and hands me back the checks which I use over again; I own no liquors in that place; if I don’t take in my wages and my rent I suppose the club would make it up among themselves; the bargain was made with Mr. Gwynne, Mr. Wink, Mr. Walker, Mr. Mackenzie and others; there is a written agreement, but I have not got it with me; if I had received a license, I do not know that the organization of the club would have taken place; all the money I have received so far has gone into my pocket; Mr. Mackenzie collects the entrance fee ($1) and the yearly subscription ($1); we have rules governing the club; if a stranger is proposed by a member, and seconded by another, and pays 50 cents, he is a member for one week, but if he is not balloted for at the expiration of that term, he is no longer a member.

Cross-examined by Mr. Robertson - The Club has regular meetings every week; I paid some accounts for the Club; we have not come to a settlement as yet; I keep all I get until the Club demands it.

This closed the case for the Crown.

                     DEFENSE

Geo. Mackenzie, sworn : Am Secretary  and Treasurer of the Dundas Union Club; the document handed to me is the Constitution of the Club; (Mr. Robertson read the Constitution) I bought the liquor for the Club from Mr. Wilson; Mr. Moss had nothing whatever to do with making the bargain; the liquor belongs to the Club, and is charged to the Club; no one is allowed to buy liquor except members; Mr. Moss is there in the capacity of steward; we give him $2 a day and $300 a year for the rent of his premises; when we have a settlement the steward is accredited for the money in his possession; there is a written agreement with Mr. Moss, which is in Dundas; in the first ballot, there were admitted 73 members; only 19 paid their dues, of which Mr. Hall is not one; on the second ballot, 20 were elected, of which 5 were paid; and on the third and last ballot 12 were elected, of which one paid; the liquor was taken over from Wilson’s for the exact amount of Wilson’s account against Moss, and an error of $2 on Moss’ account was taken off when the liquor was transferred.

          This closed the defense.

          Mr. Robertson pointed out that the Steward had not been selling his own liquor but the property of the Club, which had been purchased by the Club, the liquor is delivered to them by the Steward as their servant, who receives money for it as their servant, and is accountable to them for it as their servant.

          Mr. Osler said the evidence showed that the organization was a mere subterfuge, or evasion of the law; it had only a capital of the clear sum of $12, and yet this organization pays a steward $2 a day, $300 a year rent, and makes the bold purchase of $200 worth of liquor – on the capital of $12.00. This Club differs from Clubs in the city which are substantial. They are not organized on the ruins of a saloon. Mr. Moss has organized a transparency, and if it will hold water, then the license had better be done with. No club can give a Steward power to buy or sell liquor, wholesale or otherwise, without a license, hence the Steward is acting on his own responsibility, and is guilty of an infraction of the law.

          Mr. Robertson contended that fraud must be proved by the party alleging it.

          His Worship believed that an infraction of the law had been committed, and fined Mr. Moss the sum of $40 and costs. He remarked that the case could be heard before a higher tribunal.”