"INNES HAS A HABIT OF LOSING MONEY," Toronto Star. October 1, 1912. Page 3.
---
Second Offence of Dropping Employer's Cash Leads to a Long Term.
---
CASES IN POLICE COURT
---
Two Men With Two Bags of Potatoes, Which They Say Were Given to Them.
---
Though there was little force behind the blow which Thomas Petrie directed at Constable Young's face, Magistrate Denison chose to fine the intent rather than the act when the man came up in the Police Court.
"Was taking his name," Young stated, "when he struck me."
Petrie's two fines, for drunkenness and assault, were a dollar and costs. each, or thirty days, with time to pay.
The Sentences Grow.
The sentences of Edward Innes have been somewhat disproportionate. This morning before Magistrate Denison, he admitted that while working as a collector for Joseph McQuilian's liquor store in Queen street west he retained $11.80 from the returns, and offered the defence that if he was given time he would refund the money and have it taken out of his wages.
"I lost it," he suggested.
"It's not the first time he's lost money," Crown Attorney Corley. commented. "A year ago when he was given $400 to buy Exhibition tickets he lost that. His term then was sixty days."
Now, for the theft of of the much smaller amount, Innes will go to Central for a much longer term, four months.
Two Bags of Potatoes.
Once more Charles Beamish, an aged character well known to the police, is charged with theft. Last night he was taken by Constable Ox-land, who saw him walking away with a bag of potatoes on his shoulder. A few paces behind was Lou Parsons, with a like load. The constable, knowing Beamish, went after the stranger first.
"Parsons dropped his load and ran," Oxland stated, "but I caught them both."
The charge is that the potatoes were stolen from a G.T.R. box car.
"Given to me," declared Beamish, confidently.
"Whom by?"
"Don't know his name."
"Where does he live?"
"Don't know."
"Who is the kind man, anyway?" Magistrate Denison demanded, a bit impatiently.
Finally Beamish decided it was either the carmen or an officer of the M.O.H. Department. The couple remain in jail a week until they can give more definite information.
After arresting Mrs. Louisa Fifield as she came out of Eaton's. Detective Wickett want to her home at Prescott avenue, West Toronto, and a large quantity of goods, which the woman is charged with stealing.
When arrested with her 12-year-old daughter Queenie, Mrs. Fifield had an umbrella and six shirt waists which could not be accounted for by sales checks which could not be accounted for.
Ivy, another daughter. aged 15. working at Gillies' factory. 121 Prescott avenue, the police say, has admitted the theft of 11 neck scarfs, 197 neckties, 4 spools of silk, and a spool of brass wire.
The bundle of goods that the police recovered includes ribbons of all recovered in sizes, fancy lace bags, six umbrellas, lace, shirt waists, collars, hat plumes, and numerous small decorative articles. More were recovered this morning but none of the articles have yet been identified as coming from the Eaton Store.
When Mrs. Fifield appeared in Police Court, T. C. Robinette, reserved election and did not obtaining a week's adjournment.
Detective Wickett was with woman most of the morning, but she denies stealing the goods. She came to this country about nine months and ago.
Accused of Burglary
Wm. J. Bell is being held in connection with the shopbreaking at 280 Church street on the night of September 14, when the warehouse of the John Sloan Company, wholesale grocers, was broken into and burglarized. Entrance was forced through a rear window, several desks were broken open, and the burglar, whether Bell or another, proved so clever that he found the combination of the be vault. About 260 postage stamps, $28.07 in cash, medals, and a quantity of jewelry was stolen.
Bell was placed under arrest on King street by Detective Mitchell in pawnshop, where it is alleged he was attempting to dispose of jewelry which, the police say, corresponded to the stolen articles.
Bell was remanded a week without bail.
A Real Estate Deal.
"If you can't do business better than that you had better not do it at all. You've been here before. If you come again I'll know better how to deal with you." Those were the comments of Magistrate Denison to William Campbell, a real estate dealer, charged with the theft of $320 from Adam McMillan. There was a conviction, with a remand till called upon.
McMillan said that he bought a lot in Brandon for $320, and that when was fully paid for Campbell kept putting him off for several weeks and never furnished the deed.
Campbell's defence was that he had purchased a group of lots and that he hadn't fully paid for them to obtain the deeds himself.
"Carrying them on McMillan's money," the magistrate commented. "That is no way to do business. But you'll be remanded till called on." Campbell will now furnish the deed.
Back to Blue Grass Land.
Hyde Nelson, colored, declares he will go back to his Kentucky home, and Robert Beatty is short $5. Beatty said that ten days ago he handed the colored man the amount at the Woodbine, to put on a "sure thing" which really won.
"And I never got my winnings," was the complaint.
As Nelson was positive he passed the money along to a third person who misplaced it, the ten days already spent in jail seemed enough, that is, if he keeps nis promise to get town.
Chinese Liquor.
"Ing Kopy" was the plain English lettering on a carafe of Chinese wine which was seized upon the the premises of Ing Ding at 192 York street by the police when Inspector Dickson led a search party through the Chinese quarter two weeks ago..The charge was illegal sales and keeping.
"'Ing Kopy' means medicinal wine," explained J. W. Carry, defence counsel. "The proper analysis is printed on the side. That complies with the law."
Not when written in Chinese," Magistrate Denison replied.
Some of the police contended that the while the liquid was labelled "Ing Kopy," it was in reality only whisky colored red. As a test, the magistrate had whiffed a little from a glass, thought it was stronger than rose wise, and demanded an analysis. Ding was accordingly allowed a week's remand.
Lee Dun of 184 York street, was to have sold whitish stuff rice wine, for which his fine was $100 and costs or 3 months.
A Real Estate Deal
After several remands, John Hanley, real estate agent, was convicted of false pretences. The complainant was John Bain, who stated he placed Welland and Port McNicol lots in Hanley hands for sale.
"He told me he had a buyer," Bain explained, "so I gave him $35 commission. Then he turned in a $100 check from a bogus buyer, and I couldn't get the money."
The court allowed Hanley three weeks remand to produce this buyer, but when he still failed to do so this morning, he was sent to to jail for 20 days.
John A. Brooker, of 54 Margueretta street, was fined $100 and costs for illegal liquor sales. The case has been on the books since July 20.
2 notes
·
View notes
"BOOTLEGGER SENTENCED TO FOUR MONTHS," Edmonton Bulletin. March 4, 1913. Page 5.
----
Fine of $490 Imposed on Frank Henri and Prison Term.
====
AFTERMATH OF A SENSATIONAL RAID
===
Total of $700 Inflicted in Fines - Great Excitement Prevails at Edson.
---
Over $700 was collected in fines on Saturday from persons concerned in the recent raid on bootleggers in Edson, which was carried out by R. S. Stafford, of the Alert Detective Agency and Town Constable Tatham. Inspector Raven, of the mounted police of Edmonton, went west to hear the cases. The principal in the case was Frank Henri, proprietor of Cotton's restaurant, who was fined $490 and costs with the alternative of twelve months imprisonment, for selling of liquor without a license. The fine and costs were paid. For running a house of ill fame Henri was sentenced to four months' imprisonment without the option of a fine.
Mildred Howell for selling liquor without a license was fined $150 and costs, and for keeping, a house of ill fame, she was fined $45, and costs. The fines and costs in both cases were paid. Margaret Clark and Mignor Martin, charged with being inmates, were each fined $25 and costs. A similar charge against Grace Bedford or Bredford, was dismissed, there being insufficient evidence.
Stafford Paid On.
Detective Stafford, who is charged with shooting a bystander when effecting the arrests, did not appear on Friday when the case came up before Mr. Bradley, justice of the peace, acting on the advice of his solicitor, Mr McCaffray. Application was made by the solicitor for the prosecution, C. J. Roberts, to have the bail of $1,000 estreated, but this was refused and the case adjourned for eight days.
A remarkable situation exists at Edson in connection with the affair. Stafford, who was acting as temporary chief of police on the instructions of Mayor Lawrence, has been paid off, while town constable Tatham; who was dismissed by the council, has been reinstated by the mayor.
There seems to be a continual war between the council and the mayor, each undoing what's done by the other. An effort is on foot to institute proceedings against the mayor. The town is very much excited over the whole affair and it is freely alleged that some citizens are in league with the bootleggers.
3 notes
·
View notes
Can we get a ranking of speedsters most to least likely to kill
This thing is gonna be an upside down pyramid. Jesus, okay.
Tier 1 (Have killed, will kill)
Jay, Max, Dawn, Don
Tier 2 (Have killed, will kill again but is more prone to torture when angry and/or threatened)
Barry, Bart, Wally
Tier 3 (Hasn't killed but will if needed)
Avery, Ace, Jesse, Jenni
Tier 4 (Actual child)
Irey, Jai, Wade
My explanation for this? Simple. Tier 1 is all people who have actively fought in wars. Jay fought Nazis, he killed people in WW2. That's just what happened. He doesn't feel bad about it. Jay avoids killing people now because he isn't at war currently, but he will kill and has killed if he absolutely has to.
Max has also fought in wars and he has had a long and storied past throughout history. The man has seen and done things. Not all of them good. But yeah, Max has killed. Will he kill again? Unlikely. Unless someone is threatening his daughter or Bart, in which case, yes, it's very likely.
Dawn and Don also fought in a war and killed entire platoons of Dominators. They're unlikely to kill again because they're dead. But if they weren't dead? I'm pretty sure they'd still be fine with killing people in wartime situations.
Tier 2 is a little bit more complicated. Barry, Wally and Bart have all killed people. It's a last resort for them but it's still always an option. If they have to kill the bad guy to save the civilian then they'll kill the bad guy no questions asked. Some people have to die for the time stream to function correctly? Sure. Okay. Especially bigger bads like Darksied. They had absolutely no problem killing Darksied. Oh, and you better watch out if you threaten their loved ones because the people they love are worth dying and killing for.
They don't like it. They really don't like it. But they'll do it.
(Honestly though? Bart is unnerving unfazed by it)
Tier 3. So... This may come as a surprise but I actually haven't read all the LoSH comics? So while I'm fairly certain Jenni hasn't killed anyone, I can't say that 100%. Either way, she'd be down for it if it was the only option.
Avery would 100% be down for murder. So would Ace. That's the Iris West influence right there. Those two kids are not afraid to get their hands dirty and, while I'm fairly certain they haven't yet, I have no doubt that they will. These two just inherited Iris' moral code and she's totally fine with homicide.
Jesse surprises me because she's gotta have killed someone. I'm wracking my brain and nothing comes to mind but I don't buy that for a second. She's just got that homicidal energy, you know? She's 100% done it and will again, I just can't remember when it was.
Tier 4 is the children. Now... to be clear. I'm not saying that they haven't killed anyone because they are children. No, I'm actually fairly positive they have killed a significant amount of people. I'm saying that they are children and therefore do not understand the concept of death. They don't really understand that they've killed people and I don't really think they are any more or less likely to kill again. Until they understand it they are just destructive forces of nature. No malice or intent. Just sheer raw power.
194 notes
·
View notes