Mayor Convicted in Police Court - 1895

It was raining heavily during the afternoon of September 22, 1894, so heavily that William Lottridge and his friends sought shelter in the road house of the Hamilton Jockey Club.

          The grounds of the Hamilton Jockey Club included the race course, paddock and stables directly associated thoroughbred horse racing and, in addition, a road house which provided food and beverages.

The Jockey club house had a first floor section for the general public, and upstairs, there was a section only available for use by paid up members. A stairway from the main entrance hallway connected the two sections.

William Lottridge and a few others sought shelter from the wet weather in the hallway, when Alexander David Stewart, secretary of the Hamilton Jockey club, and then the current mayor of Hamilton, was told that one of the group was sitting at the base of the stairwell, blocking access to the private club.

Stewart then went to hallway to confront Lottridge and the rest of group about their presence in an area of the road house which he felt was negatively affecting the members of the private club.

After this, the chronology of events was very differently remembered by Lottridge and Stewart, but the minimum facts were that a confrontation ensued and Lottridge was left with a black eye and other evidences of being assaulted.

The police were called and Lottridge chose to lay a charge of against the secretary of the Hamilton Jockey Club and Mayor of the City of Hamilton, A.D. Stewart.

There was more than the usual interest in the police court proceedings of October 6, 1894 as a large crowd gathered to witness the sight of the Mayor of Hamilton appearing before the police magistrate to face a charge of assault.

The Hamilton Spectator police court reporter wrote about the case in some detail not only because the mayor of the city was involved but also because as he put it, “the decision of the Police Magistrate in the Stewart-Lottridge case, tried at the police court this morning, should receive explicit and careful reading. It was a decision on fine points rather than on general principles, and it involved several points which it would be well for individuals to commit to memory before they undertake to defend themselves or eject an offender from private property.”

Both the defendant and the complaint were represented by prominent local lawyers.

Lottridge took the stand first. He testified that when he entered the hallway seeking cover from rain, A.D. Stewart was standing at the base of the stairway. Lottridge recognized the mayor and went directly up to him, calling the mayor by his name.

Then Lottridge, as recounted by the man from the Spectator, said “the secretary stopped him, and in an impolite and unorthodox manner performed the ceremony of the laying on of hands. Then he caught him by the back of the neck and pitched him up against a man named Nash. All this was very disagreeable to the witness, and turning round he said, “Stewart, you can’t do that here.” Then it was that the secretary made the wilful assault complained of, planting his fist between the witness’ eyes and leaving as a pleasant memento of the event a long scratch on his forehead, made by a ring on the secretary’s finger. All this was, according to Mr. Lottridge, without the least provocation.”

Lottridge adamantly denied being drunk, although he admitted to having two or three drinks earlier in the afternoon. He also denied entering, or even approaching, the quarters of the private club. Under cross-examination, he admitted that Stewart asked him what he was doing in the hall way and later, after being struck, saying” “I wouldn’t have that mark on my face for $50.”

William Nash, who was among the group seeking shelter from the rain, also testified : “Mr. Nash said that Mr. Stewart came up to Lottridge, himself and another man, and quietly said, “Gentlemen, you have no business here.” Nash replied, “Very good sir,” and he walked out. He had hardy reached the door when some one shoved heavily against, nearly forcing him out the door. He turned and saw Lottridge walking back towards the secretary. Then he saw Mr. Stewart strike him.”

Stewart, secretary of the Jockey Club and the current mayor of Hamilton, was very familiar with the Hamilton Police Court as he had served the city as police chief for many years before he entered politics.

His testimony as recounted in the Spectator dramatically differed from the complainant’s version of the events :

“He said complaints had been made to him by members of the club that three young men who had no rights as club members were trespassing on club quarters, and he went out into the hallway to investigate. He saw Lottridge and two other men sitting on the steps of a stairway leading to the club’s private apartments, and requested them to move. Two of them at once did this, but Lottridge replied to the request with, “I’m very comfortable here, and I’ll be d----d if I’ll go out.” He was again asked to move and replied, “I am not going out, and you can’t put me out.”

          Thus it was that force became necessary, and using no more of that commodity than he deemed necessary, the muscular secretary proceeded to put Lottridge out. He pushed him down the hallway and out the door. Then he turned to walk back to the club quarters, but, hearing footsteps behind him, turned his head and saw Lottridge coming at him with fists up. Not because he was afraid of his antagonist, but because he preferred not to run the risk of getting a chance blow on the face, the secretary assumed the defensive, and in his own behalf landed the offensive right hander that Mr. Lottridge so strongly objects to.”

          A witness to the encounter, George Nichols, was called by the defense. He testified that he heard Lottridge say, after being struck, ““You son of a ---, I’ll get square with you for this.” Nichols claimed to have known Lottridge for many years and in Nichols’ opinion, Lottridge was drunk.

          After the testimony was finished, Stewart’s lawyer argued that it was Lottridge not the mayor who was the offender. Lottridge was negatively impacting the private club’s property, was acting in an obstreperous manner and that Stewart had struck him an act of self-defence.

          Lottridge’s lawyer dismissed that argument and simply told the magistrate that there was no occasion for an assault and that the mayor fully deserved to be convicted.

          The Spectator reporter noted that it did not take very long for the police magistrate to deliver his verdict :

“Magistrate Jelfs quickly found club secretary guilty.  He agreed that Mr. Stewart may have been justified in putting Lottridge off the club quarters, if he was on them, but said he had no right to force him down a public hallway and out a door. Such action on his part was unwarranted. It was calculated to make Lottridge angry, and he had a perfect right to protest and return to the hall. As for the blow being struck in self-defence, the magistrate decided that if Mr. Stewart imagined he was going to be hit, it was his duty not to hit back, but to walk away.”

As there was some question as to whether the assault was provoked or not, the conviction only resulted in a $1 fine, plus costs.

Mayor A. D. Stewart was, even before this incident, a controversial and polarizing personality in Hamilton. Many citizens were appalled that  the mayor of the city of Hamilton had been hauled up in court to be convicted on a charge of assault.

One of Mayor Stewart’s most vocal critics was Reverend James Murray, of Wentworth Presbyterian church, who referred in a public sermon to the character of the men at the head of affairs in the city.

As described by the young man from the Spectator, who along with many others had heard that the reverend gentleman was to speak about the mayor’s actions, was in the church to hear what was to be said.

The reporter’s coverage of the sermon, in part, follows :

“(Rev. Murray) animadverted somewhat forcibly on the disgrace of the chief magistrate holding the position of secretary of a jockey club and having to appear in the police court to answer a charge of assault, coupled with a regret that the city seemed to be governed by sports and sluggers.

“He preached a thoroughly practical sermon of the duties of citizenship, vehemently denouncing the dispensing of liquor in the city hall and stigmatizing that imposing pile as a “Chamber of Bacchus.”

““A short time ago,” he continued, “I made reference to the Jockey club, and it might seem if I were criticizing it. When I read a few months ago that we had a new race course, the best of its kind in Canada, and second to none on the continent, I was proud. Then I began to look for its fruits, to ask what were its advantages to the city of Hamilton, if its going to develop that noblest of animals , the horse, what effect will it have on that nobler animal , man? Is it not possible that as the horse becomes faster, man will become faster, too? I am told that the racetrack benefits Hamilton by bringing in many visitors, but I am doubtful of any institution that brings in so many gamblers and pickpockets to the city.” He did not deny that there were many respectable patrons of the track, but its best patrons were bookmakers and gamblers, without which it could not flourish. Gambling, he said, grows best in the soil of the racetrack. Many of the men interested in the Jockey club were making themselves prominent in civic affairs, and to these he would say, “Gentlemen, please keep your hands out of the organization of the city.”

          Then the reverend gentleman turned his attention to the city government, expressing his belief that some unpardonable things were done in the municipal headquarters, the city hall. He objected strongly to the chief magistrate moving his private office there, and there transacting his business as secretary of the Jockey club. “The other mayors have not done it. When I had occasion to call on the present incumbent’s two predecessors, I found them at their own offices, and I maintain that the secretary of the Jockey club should never have mixed his private business with the business of the city. I object to the mayor and council asking a half-holiday for the opening of the races. They are not there to further the interests of a private corporation that many of us do not consider a credit or a benefit to the city. What right do they have to turn the keys in the schools, the stores and the workshops? It is one of the most profound insults that ever was thrown in the faces of citizens to have its chief magistrate acting as a sort of policeman for the Jockey club, and thrusting out little men, or any other kind of men who have been unruly.

          “I object to the mayor having liquor in his office at city hall and inviting aldermen and others in to drink, this making the place a Chamber of Bacchus. Our Christian temperance workers are vitiated by the chief magistrate’s conduct in this regard, and if he has no respect for himself he should consider the moral sentiment of the people.”

          Mayor Stewart’s disgrace was strong, but not lasting, in the city. He would be re-elected and serve a second term as mayor in 1895.