Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-03-15
THE FLAG COTTAGE.
Evidence Given as to Its
Character.
VERY FEW WITNESSES CALLED
The Court Rules Considerable Evi-
dence Out-Scenes in the
Courtroom.

At 10 O'Clock yesterday morning JUS
tice Savage's courtroom was crowded to
its utmost capacity, There was hardly
room in the lobby to allow those stand
ing there space in which to breathe, and
every inch OF standing room was occu-
pied. Inside the rail every seat avail
able was taken, and the number of idle
attorneys who had time to listen to the
proceedings in the Flag Cottage case was
very considerable. The defendants,
Maud and Charles Mccormack, were
present with their attorney, and a num-
ber of ladies residing in the vicinity OF
their resort were also in attendance.
The proceedings opened promptly at
10 O'Clock, when District Attorney Kelley
read the complaint charging Charles
Mccormack and Maud Mccormack
with keeping a disorderly house,
known as the Flag Cottage, between
February 26th and March 7th, 1889.
After reading the complaint, he stated
that he intended to prove that the Flag
Cottage was resort kept by the defend
ants, and that in consequence of the dis
orderly conduct of the visitors the peace
of the neighborhood had been disturbed.
The first witness was L. II. Brown,
who had sworn to the complaint. He
testified that he was detective employed
by Mr.. Lawson, and that he had acted
under the direction of Sheriff Aguirre.
He started to tell about how he dis
covered that the Flag Cottage was an as
signation house, but an objection was
made TO this line of evidence, and it was
ruled out. He then said that he had
gone to the Cottage dressed as lady
with Mr.. Arment, and had gone to a
room and staid there until o'clock in
the morning of the Goth of February.
While in the room, a party of two men
and two women drove up in carriage,
and for some hours these four kept up
drinking and using bad language. At
this point it was suggested that the
ladies present leave the courtroom.
While in the room he heard one of the
women whom the other called frankie
say in loud voice to the others, "wait
for me, / am going out here" Then
followed some expressions too strong for
repetition. The women he thought we're
prostitutes. They made great deal of
noise and used vulgar language, both in
and out of the house in the garden.
The attorney for the defendant moved
to strike out all evidence as to the
character of the visitors to the house.
Justice Savage held that the character
of the people who made the disturbance
was immaterial. The fact of the dis
fs1rh rho Ill that - b.
prove.
Witness then said that the defendants
were there on that occasion.
Cross-examined-The party of four left
between IL and l o'clock in the morning.
l was dressed as a woman; had a
woman's hat on my head and wore a
hustle. The rest of the clothing l had
ON was the same that l usually wear. l
did not go to bed. l was employed to go
there by Mr.. Lawson. heard a great
deal of noise and bad language, such as 1
never heard around hotel. Do not
use such language myself, but l
have faint idea of the meaning of
language l heard frankie use. 1t did
not disturb my peace, and did not lose
my sleep on account of it.
ANOTHER DETECTIVES TESTIMONY.
W. II. Arment testified that he was a
detective in Mr.. Lawson's employ. He
knew the Flag Cottage on Jefferson
street, and had gone there on February
26th, about 10 O'Clock P. NJ, and re-
manned until P. NJ. He had escorted
l.. II. Brown, who was dressed woman.
About IL O'Clock that night he heard a
carriage drive up. 1t contained two
men and two ladies, who went into the
parlor and had drinks. They talked
loudly, and afterwards went into the
garden and made considerable noise. 1t
was loud enough to be heard consider
able distance. He repeated the language,
which was unfit for publication. Judg-
ing from the conversation be heard later
on, one OF the girls started out with her
escort to walk, and the other wanted
them to get into the carriage. The
language here used was not fit for pub
lication. 1t lasted fully half an hour.
He said that when he went to
the cottage he told the defendants
that he had married lady along with
him that had never been on that kind OF
a racket before. He wanted to know il
he could have q room to take her to
without running the risk of being seen.
He had been shown the room. On
March I'd he went there again and told
them that his companion was very shy
and he wanted the strongest kind of
liquor sent to his room. They gave him
some liquor, and, ON being shown bot
tie containing liquid, identified it as the
the liquor that had been sent to him,
The attorney for the defendants OBJ
jected to this evidence as immaterial un-
der the complaint, which did not charge
that his clients kept an assignation
house.
The District Attorney said he desired
to show that the liquor furnished was
strong enough to set the whole world in
disorder, and that it was one cause of the
disorderly conduct of the people who
visited the house.
Justice Savage ruled this evidence out
of order.
Cross-examined witness said have
been detective for four years. Was
employed by Lucas. Was manager of
his patrol. Went down to the Cottage
in q coupe. drank some liquor while l
was there. 1t was as good as the aver
age liquor sold here. | did not go to bed.
The people who made the disturbance
were about forty feet or more away from
where was. left Lucas employment
because he employed certain parties ]
did not care to work with. told him if
they stayed would leave, and as they
remained 1 left. There was a hack at
the house when / got there. Two