DRESSED AS DONAHS.

NZ Truth, Issue 184, 26 December 1908, Page 8

DRESSED AS DONAHS.

MELBOURNE MALES MASQUERADES.

Perverts or Prank Players ?

ABSENCE OF INTENT LEADS TO A DISMISSAL

Magistrate Says They Trod On Thin Ice*

KS fte District Court on Monday, says "Truth," before Mr P. J; Dwyer, P.M., and a brace of honoraries, Constable Charles Maddox Hickling proceeded agajnst three' yo,ung men, namedAllan McKail, Douglas Ogilvie, and Tom Page, for. having on or about September 22, behaved m an offensive manner m a public place, to wit, Collins-street, Melbourne. The prosecution was the outcome of an anonymous communication which had been forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Police at the beginning of last month. An individual, who used a typewriter and signed himself "A.W.," informed Mr O'Callaghan that certain fashionably-at-tired male persons were m the habit of indulging m very questionable practices, and that the pranks of. the trio who had masquer aided as women should be fully, inquired into.. The mysterious document was referred to the plain-clothes police, and Constables Hidkling and! Curran were at once deputed to make inquiries. Those officers were naturally anxious to discover the • . IDENTITY OF "A.W.," 1 and were '.'laid on" to a young man I named Algernon Wakefield, who, however, they soon discovered to have no knowledge of the affair, and to be ,/juite innocent ot complicity, remote or otherwise. The anonymous- writer had. evidently used Wakefield's initials to ■ more effectively cover up, his own identity. Turning to the other soiirces of information, the constables rapidly collected the facts. Commissioner . O'Callaghan, was informed accordingly, but, seeing that there is no law to prevent men assuming Women's aarrnents, he was m a .quandary, until it ■was pointed out that after .the masquera'ders had left the Vienna Cafe, there had been a hostile demonstration m Collinsstreet. It Avas, therefore, decided to proceed under the ''offensive behavior" provisions of Ihe Police Offences Statute, which practically restricted the evidence to the few minutes occupied by the accused m LEAVING/ THE CAPE ' and entering their cab," " The ' prosecution, ' although its failure Was a, foregone conclusion, attracted considerable pullic interest. There was a large attendance at the Court on .'Monday, and the three defendants, were unrelentingly scrutinised by the curious crowd. They were young fellows barely out of the adolescent . age. Page, the eldest; is said to be 25, whilst Ogilvie is, 22, and- McKail is only "20. .They all had smooth, hairless faces, and their gentral appearance, as well as their mannerism, denoted a distinct tendency towards effeminancy. Owing to his high family connections, McKail was, the 'cynosure of all eyes, and he appeared to feel his' unenviable position keenly. He is said to have an income of £500. per annum m his own right, and that some time ago received special training m Paris concern ; ng the .designing art . . IN FEMININE COSTUMERY. Hjs associates m Page and Og- > ilvie, who are (or were) clerks m the.' employ of the Melbourne Steamship C0.,,---are of much lesser importance as regards* social .status. ' < The prosecution was conducted by Ml. 1 , Field Barrett, who represented the pol-' ice, and Mr Thomas Fogarty defended ii> lieu of Mr Maxwell, who had "been instructed, but who -was unavoidably de-' taincd m the higher courts. Mr Field Barrett, mi n opening the case, said that on the date m question the accused had arrived m Melbourne one evening disguised as women," According to/ their own sfcatenients; tfhey intended goring- to a Scandinavian Vail, which was heing held "for girls antf. women only." They were refused admittance, and went m their borrowed plumes* to one of the theatres. Afterwards they adjourned to the Vienna Cafe, where they had a supper, which included wine and smokes, and subsequently emerged, into Collins-street, where a crowd, which had assembled,. had subjected them to rough "treatment. The accused were '■'... ■ EITHER SEXUAL .PERVERTS or brainless young idiots. The offence tbay had committed conld not toe treated as a joke or lightly passed over. tThe distinction between mate and female attire was one of Ijhe, safeguards pf : decency 'm civilised communities. If men were permitted j hq "make up" as women the consequences might be disastrous. 'Ladies' retiring rooms would he thrown open to the counterfeits, and. they would be permitted to invade the privacy of reputable women without question. He (Mr Barrett) could not prove that the accused had any such intent, and he would be sorry to declare '-■ them v to toe perverts.hut th<j fact remained that they were pretending to . be women, an<L if such preten&e was the outcome of pure idiocy. • : ' - « THE SOOItfER THE IDIOTS' .were brought to their senses by punishment the better. E. Napoleon Boffard, who was, the first {witness, said he was a musical artist, of 272 Collins-street. . He. was m the jVienna Cafe on the evening m question when three "young ladiesf' came m. It was a few minutes past 11 o'clock. The "ladies" had suprer, and commenced* to drink champagne. , They also smoked cigarettes. Two of the "girls", were ''dressed quietly," but 1 lie other, who had a mass of reddish, hair; he could not see very well. ."She'' held before «'her" a . programme of .the menu, Avhich.- served as a screen. . • Mr Barrett: They say they were imperspnatine; the theatrical characters of "Mother Goose." "The Gibson Girl,"and '"lho Merry Widow." •/ Were they costumed m ihat way ?— I cannot remember.-, All that I can say is that -one watf' <ttcs,sed theatrically, and ''her" hair was- dark. Can you identify any .{>f the accused as those "young ladies" ?-— No, I could not, recognise theni. They were having a merry time with CHAMPAGNE AND CIGARETTES. '•Did you pass any remark to the waiter? ■<— Yes ; I said, "TViere is a hen party en{joying itself. I-- wonder if .they want any company." (Laughter.) But I think at. wrong to bring me here to ask me itl\ose things, because I am foreign, . and iff tip not properly understand my words. Mr Dwrcr, P.M.: Olh, you are doing all ripht.' (Laughter.) - Mr Fogarfcy : "When did you* arriive ?— .They were m the cafe about seven- minutes past 11 o'clock. I arrived about 11. 1 did not sco them walk m. I orely noiticed them sitting at a table. Did you see them walking at all ?— No- . Then you do not remember having seen (their feet ? — Np. Do you know the difference between laHierf' and men's feet? Mr Barrett : He only KNOWS FRENCHWOMEN'S FEET, which Bent says are large, and flat. .(Laughter.) Mon •■;. Boffard : I saw not their feet. I saw only that, they were enjoying th?mSfKf... (Ls\u;jMer.) ]\Tr Kowirly : How long-adid they- remain ?— "About' 25 nijtfutesV vjand. with the f:xc'ni;Lifj» .of .saioking cigacett^s, they behaved theiiisOlves... 1 , , „ You dirt' hot know that tfiey were men ami not ladies ?— No. ■ . ' • As a fact, you were toot la a position to! judge, as you did foot see their feet?

| Mr Barrett: You don't judge sex toy the foot, surely il (Laughter;) Nathaniel Louis Levey, of the Leviathan Clothing Co., said he knew McKail, and had seen him at the Vienna Cafe m company with two companions. Mr Barrett drew attention to the fact that Ogilvie was grinning as if he treated the whole thing as a joke. Mr Dwyer, m reply, looked towards the youth rebukingly, and the latter assumed a solemn expression instanter. Witness Levey, continuing, said it was 20 minutes past 11 when he arrived at the Cafe. Although the accused were dressed as women he knew, by his recognition, of McKiail,* that they were really men. They were m ladies' evening costume. : They behaved like women, except that they were smoking. Mr Barrett : DM you hot openly EXPRESS YOUR DISGUST? Mr Dwyer : , Oh, his opinion doesn't matter. Mr Pogarty (to witness) : They did not deceive you ?— No. , Nathaniel Lionel Sanders gave similar evidence. Mr Fogarty : You knew they were men? — Yes; I recognised McKail. There was no disorderly conduct ? — No. Mr Barrett : The quieter and more "ladylike" they were the more deadly they would be. - Mr Dwyer : The witness does not say that. Mr Barrett : No ; but I mention it as a. subject for argument. , Henry Barton said he was . a clerk at the . Crown Law Department. He corroborated the previous witnesses as to the masqaieraders' presence at the. cafe. He had gone to the . cafe m response to something he had been told.. He saw the accused, dressed as girls, m the din-ing-room downstairs. Mr Barrett : What did they look like? —They looked ridiculous. ' What kind of clothes did they have on? —Pretty clothes. What did you do ?— I . went across Col-lins-street to watch and see if they were WHAT. I HAD BEEN TOLD. Mr Pogarty : What you had been told ! Mr Barrett : I can!t ask him what he had 'oeeri told, „but you ian uo so v you wish. (To witness) : Did .you see them leave ■?— Yes; they came out and seemed so_ be "springy" m their gait. They eventually got into a cab and drove off. Did you hear any women of the town saying anything to the accused while they' were m Collins-street? Mr Fogarty : What women of the town cried out m the street is not evidence against my clients. Mr Barrett contended that such evidence was admissable if the remarks were made to .-or m the presence of the accused. " Mr Dwyer, however, upheld Mr Pogarty's objection. Mr Bar ratjb (to witness) : Did you hear the accused laughing or saying anything? —No, I, was fifty yards away. Did you see them skipping on the footpath ?- No. Was there a crowd collected there?— No. ■ t Now, look here, you are varying your original account of the affair. Did you not make a different statement •to the police ?— Yes ; but that Was only what I had been told. Have you told us everything you ;»aw and heard ?•— Yes ;> I saw arid HEARD VERY LITTLE. Do you remember the 11th of this month, when Paa,© called to see you ?— Yes, he said the police %\ere down at the Melbourne Steamship Co.'s office, and that Ogilvie was telling them everything. He saijd to me, 'You know nothing, and cannot say anything." I replied, "Why don't you own up and be done, with it;"- He said he would. Mr Fogarty: That will do, Mr Batton ; I have nothing to ask you. Constable Hickling said he and Curran had been deputed to investigate, m conI sequence of a complaint made to the Department. Ogilvie had said he and his associates had dressed as women to go to the Scandinavian Girls' Ball, but had gone to the theatre instead. On the 12th inst. MISS WALSHE, , who had been "chaperoning" the, accused, .had come to the police station with them to explain that they had been dressed as "Mother Goose," the "Gibson.Gir.l," and the "Merry Widow." They had intended going to the Scandinavian Fancy Dress Ball, but, when they found no men were admitted, they had gone to the theatre, and from thence to the cafe.. One of the accused said, his dress had been torn, and, when reminded that that pointed to a disturbance having taken place m Col-lins-street, he accounted for the damage by saying someone had trodden on his train. Constable Curran gave corroborative evidence, and the case for the prosecutfion closed. . Mr Fogarty asked that the case be dismissed, as there was absolutely no evidence of offensive behavior. His clients were . masquerading as well-known musical comedy characters. There had been nothing m ttieir conduct that the most exacting citizen could object to. They had .■ ■ ' NOT BEEN "LADY-fILIKE." They had smoked cigarettes, and at least, three of the Crown witnesses wore not deceived. Offensive conduct of the kind imputed would consist of misleading the .public or getting into .the compapy of women for ulterior purposes. If convic,tions were recorded, University students <arid those taking part an the Eight Hours' demonstrations should be prosecuted. His clients had dressed up m character to go to a fancy costume ball, which they had. found was for females only, and had then gone, elsewhere. 'They! had committed no offence. • Mr Barrett : Men parading m women's clothes clothes is very offensive to all de-cent-minded persons. Mr Pogarty : Certainly, if 3'ou can show intent. Mr Barrett: l\ can suppose intent, but I can't prove it. If I cquld' prove in.tent you can 'rest assured I would have the accused before '' A JUDGE AND JURY on an indictable charge. I am not a particular man myself, but if I discovered men prowling around m women's clothes I X'now what would happen. Mr Fogarty : Does your Worship wish me to call any evidence ? Mr Dwyer, P.M.; said there was no .law preventing a man assuming a woman's garb, or vice versa, and ihere was nothing m the evidence to suggest intent or to prove offensiveness. The young men had not attempted to associate with ladies or invade their privacy. There was not a tittle of evidence to indicate impropriety or pruriency. Had the accused retired to tlie ladies' lavatories, or taken liberties with their dress, or allowed a disarrangement of their clothes, br indulged m high-kickine;, there, might have been cause for complaint, hut all that the PRINCIPAL WITNESS (BARTON) had to affirm was that the "ladies" had seemed "springy" m their walk,- The accused had undoubtedly caused a scandal, and had, to some extent, injured their reputations. They had trodden on thin ice, and if they continued m the same way they might get themselves into serious trouble without the intervention -of a court pf law,. * iThe cases Were thereupon dismissed*;