During the 1820s and 1830s, northern antislavery groups that demanded the immediate abolition of slavery began to emerge. Led by abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Arthur Tappan, and Theodore Weld, they instituted an aggressive print campaign against slavery. Abolitionist societies published newspapers and pamphlets that bitterly condemned slavery and called for its extinction. Needless to say, abolitionist literature was not well-received in slaveholding states, including Virginia.

In 1835, a Frederick County, Virginia, grand jury issued a criminal presentment against the Abolition Society of New York. In a lengthy and strongly worded indictment, the grand jury referred to the antislavery organization as an “evil of great magnitude” and accused it of disturbing the peace of the commonwealth and threatening the lives of its citizens by inciting slaves to rebel. The grand jury encouraged local law enforcement agencies throughout Virginia to adopt “increasing vigilance … in the detection of all fanatical emissaries, and in the suppression of their nefarious schemes and publications.” Furthermore, it called on the General Assembly to enforce present laws and enact stricter legislation against written or printed material that encouraged slave insurrection. The presentment also named Arthur Tappan, whom the grand jury considered to be the “prime mover” in the society. Tappan helped found the Abolition Society of New York in 1831, which two years later evolved into the American Anti-Slavery Society.

No criminal trial was held. It was more of a symbolic response, a release of pent-up anger and fear by the citizens of Frederick County. They were angry at these “outsiders” interfering with their institutions. They were fearful that the abolitionist publications would incite more slave revolts similar to the one led by Nat Turner in Southampton County only a few years earlier.  

In response to the threat posed by the abolitionist societies, the General Assembly enacted stricter legislation in 1836 to suppress the circulation of abolitionist publications. Anyone speaking, writing, printing, and/or circulating “incendiary doctrines” that denied the right of people to own slaves or encouraged slaves to rebel would be fined and imprisoned. Postmasters were required to give notice to local authorities if they received abolitionist publications. The local authorities were to burn the publications immediately and arrest the individual who was to receive them.

Recently, I discovered two Grayson County criminal cases in which local pro-slavery citizens attempted to use the 1836 act to silence an antislavery minister named Jarvis C. Bacon. A Wesleyan Methodist minister who moved to Grayson County in 1848 to start a church, Reverend Bacon regularly found himself in hot water with the local citizenry because of his opposition to slavery. In 1849, a grand jury issued indictments against Reverend Bacon for circulating two abolitionist publications: Frederick Douglass’ autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, and an antislavery sermon delivered at the Sixth Presbyterian Church of Cincinnati, Ohio. Both trials were held in September. A jury quickly found him not guilty regarding the Douglass autobiography, but the other jury had a more difficult time reaching an agreement of not guilty regarding the sermon pamphlet. Reverend Bacon’s abolitionist reputation made it difficult for him to remain in Grayson County. He left the county and the commonwealth in 1851.

Commonwealth of Virginia versus Abolition Society of New York, 1835 and Commonwealth of Virginia versus Jarvis C. Bacon, 1849 are open for research and available at the Library of Virginia.

See the Abolitionist Map of America for a digital exploration of the anti-slavery movement in America.  For more on the Library of Virginia’s involvement with the Abolitionist Map and HistoryPin, see these earlier blog posts.

-Greg Crawford, Local Records Coordinator

Part fiction, part family history, the movie Lawless tells the story of the Franklin County bootleggers, but what about the automobiles used to run their moonshine? Their stories can be found at the Library of Virginia in the Franklin County Determined Papers and Franklin County Common Law Papers. Automobiles used by bootleggers were seized by law officers when bootleggers were arrested and reported to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney who would file a criminal charge in the name of the Commonwealth against the automobile, e.g., “Commonwealth vs. REO Roadster Automobile.” These documents record the date of seizure, type and make of automobile, license number, engine number, and reason for seizure. The automobile would then be condemned and sold at an auction at the courthouse. Given the extent of bootlegging in Franklin County, the front of the courthouse may have looked like a used car lot at times.

If anyone protested against the condemnation and sale, they would be made a party defendant with the automobile to give a valid reason why it should not take place. The party defendants generally were the credit companies and banks who assisted the alleged bootleggers with financing the purchases of the automobiles. They made it clear in their responses to the court that they were ignorant of the fact that the purchasers intended to use the vehicles for illegal purposes. Therefore, the credit companies and banks asked the court to return the automobiles to them rather than sell them at auction.

The sales contract between the alleged bootlegger and the finance company or car dealer was commonly filed with the party defendant’s petition to the court. It recorded whether the automobile was new or used; year, make, type, and model number or letter; motor number; price of automobile; payment schedule; names and addresses of dealership and purchaser. Based on a sampling of the suits, the alleged bootleggers generally purchased their automobiles outside Franklin County and in some instances outside the Commonwealth.

The Prohibition-era Franklin County Determined Papers and Common Law Papers are unprocessed but available for research in the Local Records Collection at the Library of Virginia. For more information on Prohibition in Virginia, see the Virginia Prohibition Commission Records, 1916-1934, found in the State Records Collection at the Library of Virginia.

-Greg Crawford, Local Records Coordinator

In the years following the Civil War, the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands (commonly referred to as simply the Freedmen’s Bureau) provided assistance to former slaves still living in the South, helping them transition from a society based on slavery to one allowing freedom. Established as part of the War Department by an act of Congress on 3 March 1865, the Freedmen’s Bureau, operational until 1872, helped introduce a system of free labor, provided food and clothing, helped locate families and legalize marriages, promoted education, supervised labor contracts, and provided legal representation.

One of the Bureau’s most important roles was to help safeguard the rights of African Americans and ensure they received justice from the court system. Following the Civil War, several southern states, including Virginia, enacted a series of laws commonly known as “black codes” that restricted the rights and legal status of freedmen. African Americans were often given harsh sentences for petty crimes and were sometimes unable to get their cases heard in the state courts. In September 1865, Freedmen’s Bureau courts were established to adjudicate cases involving freedmen. By February 1866, Virginia had amended her laws and the Bureau courts were discontinued by May of that same year, but because of the failure of many local court officials to administer equal justice, the Bureau courts were reestablished in certain areas of the state.

One instance of the Freedmen’s Bureau interceding to ensure the legal rights of African Americans happened in the Highland County criminal courts. In November 1865, Stephen J. Reynolds accused Alexander McCray, an African American, of feloniously stealing and carrying away his bay horse valued at seventy-five dollars. Alexander McCray successfully postponed his trial until January 1866 by claiming that he had already been tried and acquitted in Staunton before a military court for the crime he now stood accused of again. McCray claimed that he could not safely go to trial without the benefit of a statement from the military court. In January 1866, Lieutenant Colonel Cecil Clay, then stationed in Staunton, wrote a letter stating that McCray had been tried for the alleged offense and further claimed that the horse was proven to be the property of the U.S. government. Clay went on to write that “at the time of trial, civil authority was yet unrestored” and that the provost court was “competent to decide all cases in which the U.S. Government or its soldiers were parties or a party.”

To further ensure that McCray was not tried for his alleged crime a second time, the Freedmen’s Bureau sent a letter by command of Major General A. H. Terry, then Assistant Commissioner for the Bureau in Virginia, on 14 February 1866. The Bureau wrote to James M. Sieg, prosecuting attorney for Highland County, and ordered that all further action in the criminal prosecution against McCray be suspended until further orders were received from the Freedmen’s Bureau. It is unclear why Stephen J. Reynolds was convinced the horse was his property or why the case was brought against McCray for a second time. And, it is also unknown exactly how the Freedmen’s Bureau became aware of McCray’s plight, but they did and the Bureau ensured that the legal rights of this African American were upheld.

The Highland County (Va.) Commonwealth Causes, 1852-1867, are open for research and available at the Library of Virginia. Other Freedmen’s Bureau records can be found at the Library of Virginia in the Free Negro and Slave Records, Court Records, and Cohabitation Registers of various localities.

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

Three Highland County Commonwealth Causes (Barcode 0007281802) reveal a tangled web of conspiracy, murder, and secret affairs. The cast of players includes Elizabeth Sheridan, wife of the deceased; Mary Ann Wily, Elizabeth’s daughter from a previous marriage; Sam, a slave; and Ellen, a slave and Sam’s wife. Commonwealth vs. Sam (slave), 1856 August; Commonwealth vs. Ellen (slave), 1856 August; and Commonwealth vs. Elizabeth Sheridan and Mary Ann Wily, 1856 November concern the murder of Mr. Francis W. Sheridan by Sam, a slave hired by Sheridan from William Wilson. Sam’s wife, Ellen, was also charged with being “concerned in the murder,” while Elizabeth Sheridan and her daughter Mary Ann Wily were charged as accessories.  The cases contain assorted court documents including depositions and statements from various neighbors and acquaintances of the accused and the murder victim. 

A document entitled “Evidence in Support of Prosecution” offers a wealth of information.  Notes from the coroner’s inquest give revealing physical facts about Francis Sheridan.  He was described as a small man about the age of 21 or 22 years whose body displayed visible signs of trauma due to strangulation.  The report reveals that the body was found lying face down in a drain twenty or thirty feet away from the public road and gives a detailed forensic account of Sheridan’s bedroom, where the murder actually took place.

Francis Sheridan was noted around town for getting drunk and becoming quite belligerent, making verbal threats to kill his wife and step-daughter with a “pistol and a gun.” He often lamented the fact that he had gotten married and said his married life had been the worst six months of his life. Statements also suggest that Sheridan was not the most honest businessman in town. Several people felt they were treated unfairly by him and had ample motive to see Sheridan leave the earth quickly and violently. There are also accounts of Mary Ann telling people in town she wished someone would kill Sheridan, stating that “she would pay to have him killed or if she was a man she would kill him herself.”  

A multitude of scenarios and implications concerning the murder abound within the records.  The predominant theory was that Elizabeth Sheridan and her daughter, along with Sam’s wife, Ellen, plotted to kill Sheridan and convinced Sam to carry out the deed. There is testimony that the three ladies were witnessed having a loud, quarrelsome conversation with Sam prior to Sheridan’s death and that at one point Ellen beat Sam with her fist and Mary Ann “cracked her fist together” toward Sam. Sam was supposedly madly in love with Elizabeth and desirous that no harm would come to her or her children, especially Mary Ann. Sam is quoted as saying that he loved Mrs. Sheridan “more than any woman on the face of the earth – that he would do more for her, risk his life further, than for anyone else – that he had been sleeping with her for more than twelve months whenever he pleased, that she was to continue to hire his wife [Ellen] as long as she was for hire and he was to continue to sleep with her [Mrs. Sheridan] whenever he pleased.”

While the true nature of the personal relationship between Elizabeth Sheridan and Sam remains unclear, Sam acknowledged that he was in a “bad fix.”  He confessed his guilt to the justice of the peace, claiming that he had been promised a hundred dollars from both Mrs. Sheridan and Mary Ann if he committed the murder. Sam claimed that Francis Sheridan was drunk on the day of his death and that he, Sam, was “drinking himself or he could not have done the deed.” Sam claimed to love the man as well as if he had been his own brother and “if he had opened his eyes he could not have killed him.”

Other theories tried to pass off the murder as a suicide. Sheridan was noted as being “smartly intoxicated” on the day of his death and Elizabeth and Mary Ann started telling people that Francis may have wanted to commit suicide because he appeared to be in a bad state. Mrs. Sheridan stated that when he came home that morning “if she had been standing up she would have sunk down, his looks was so dark and terrible.”

Ultimately, Sam was found guilty of the murder and sentenced to be “hanged by the neck until he be dead” and he was, on Friday, 26 September 1856. But despite Sam’s execution, the county did not stop investigating the murder of Francis Sheridan.  The investigation continued through November 1856 with the prosecution of Elizabeth Sheridan and Mary Ann Wily as accessories to murder. The lone document in the case states it is seeking costs incurred by the prosecution in the pursuit of the charges and lists witnesses and monies paid to them by the county. As there are no other documents concerning this particular court action, we will never know if Sam acted alone or if he was just a tool wielded by Mrs. Sheridan in an attempt to rid herself of an unwanted husband. 

-Joanne Porter, Local Records Archivist and Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

Mildred Delores (Jeter) Loving, an African American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a white man, were residents of Caroline County who married in June 1958. The wedding took place in the District of Columbia because Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act banned marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, they were charged with violation of the ban. On 6 January 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case was Leon M. Bazile who wrote the famous opinion of the court for the Lovings’ appeal of their original sentence – since God had created people of different colors and placed them on different continents He therefore never intended for the races to intermarry.

The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia even though they found it a great hardship for both them and their children to be separated from their families in Virginia.  Terms of their sentence directed that even when visiting family they were not allowed to come into the state together but had to make individual trips.  On 6 November 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on the Lovings’ behalf in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment. Various other suits in state and federal courts followed.  On 12 June 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In September 1967, the Virginia Supreme Court sent an order to the Caroline County circuit court ordering that the Lovings’ original conviction be overturned and prosecuted no further.

Caroline County (Va.) Commonwealth versus Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Delores Jeter, 1958-1966, contains documentation of the criminal case including arrest warrants, indictment for a felony, the opinion of judge Leon M. Bazile, and copies of birth certificates for both Loving and Jeter. The original case is housed at the Central Rappahannock Heritage Center, but the Library of Virginia holds microfilm copies.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2012, at 9:00 PM, HBO will present a new documentary titled The Loving Story about the couple and their landmark legal battle.  The documentary will show contemporary video footage and photographs that have been unseen until now.

On the same evening at 7:30, the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., will host a panel discussion and a showing of the documentary as part of the Chappell Great Lives Lecture Series.  The panelists will be Bernard Cohen, one of the two lawyers who argued the case before the Supreme Court, and Peggy Fortune, the Lovings’ daughter. 

-Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist

On the morning of 14 March 1885, Lysander Rose, caretaker of the Old Reservoir in Richmond, went about his normal duties, but this morning would not be a typical one for Rose. As he approached the reservoir, Rose found what appeared to be a piece of broken shoe string, a woman’s red glove, and what he described as signs of a “desperate struggle.” When he peered over into the water, Rose saw “floating near the top the flounce or something of a woman’s dress and one leg jutting up.” After the coroner arrived, the muddy body of a young woman was lifted from the water. A cursory examination revealed that she had slight bruising on her face, a swollen mouth, and a rent in her gown at the elbow. Later, it would be discovered that she was also eight months pregnant. Several days and several false identifications passed before the body was finally identified as that of Fannie Lillian Madison.

At the time of her death, Lillian Madison, as she was commonly called by friends and family, was 23 years old, pregnant, and unmarried. Lillian had checked into the Exchange Hotel in Richmond under the name Fannie Merton mere days before her body was discovered. Lillian’s pregnancy (without the prospect of a husband) supported the coroner’s initial ruling of suicide, but as more evidence began to surface, the coroner was overruled and the cause of Lillian’s death was ruled a murder.

Within days of the body’s identification, Lillian’s cousin Thomas Judson Cluverius was arrested for the murder. Although they were cousins, Lillian Madison and Thomas Cluverius had very little in common. Lillian had a complicated past – she was estranged from her parents and had a history of scandal. Cluverius, however, was the poster child of middle-class normalcy – he was white, well educated, and well regarded in his community. Lillian grew up on her parents’ small farm in King William County. In October 1884, soon after learning she was pregnant, Lillian left for Bath County where she served as a teacher and governess. Thomas Cluverius, born in King William County, received a law degree from Richmond College and was practicing law in both King and Queen and King William Counties. Before his arrest, Cluverius was considered an upstanding citizen, but once the trial began, it was unclear if he was an innocent victim or a nefarious seducer and murderer.

It was soon discovered that Thomas Cluverius had also been in Richmond on 13 March 1885, and the case against Cluverius began to build when a young Richmond boy found a watch key caught on the fence leading to the reservoir. (Cluverius had been arrested wearing his watch and a chain but without a key.) The trial started on 5 May and would last until 4 June 1885. Two of the most damaging eyewitness accounts to Cluverius’s case were given by members of the community whose opinions and accounts would have been little regarded during the nineteenth century – a prostitute and an African American.

Mary Curtis testified that Cluverius had visited her at a “house of bad repute” where she was working as a prostitute and claimed to have seen the couple together in a bedroom located in the back of a Richmond cigar store. While she was able to identify Cluverius by sight, Curtis could only describe Lillian as being heavily veiled and wearing a dark colored dress. The only distinguishing feature on Lillian was her red shawl, an article of clothing that was used by several witnesses as proof that it was indeed Lillian with Cluverius and not some other woman.

One of the most detailed accounts of the couple’s activities came from William Tyler, an African American night watchman at the Exchange Hotel. According to Tyler, Cluverius visited the Exchange Hotel and asked to see the woman in room 19 – the very room that Lillian was staying in under the name Fannie Merton. When told that the lady was not in, Cluverius asked that a note be passed along to her – “I will be there as soon as possible, so do wait for me.” The note never reached Lillian, but was torn up and discarded only to be later reassembled by hotel employees and entered as evidence.

In the end, the jury was left to decide whether or not the long chain of circumstantial evidence was enough to prove Cluverius’s guilt. The jury was instructed that “proof of guilt by circumstantial evidence” did not require “an absolute and demonstrative certainty” but only a “moral certainty.” The jury certainly took these instructions to heart because Cluverius was convicted on the circumstantial evidence of a watch key, a torn note, and a handful of witnesses who testified to seeing the couple together on the day of the murder.

What makes this case so interesting is the doubt that still lingers over a hundred years later. We will never know what really happened to Lillian that night at the reservoir. Was it suicide? Possibly. Was she murdered? Maybe. Was Thomas Cluverius a vile seducer of women or was he merely another victim? These are just some of the many questions that have no easier answers today than they did in 1885. Despite several appeals, Thomas Cluverius was finally hanged for the murder of Lillian Madison on 14 January 1887. Cluverius would reportedly claim to the very end that, “I did not see F. L. Madison during the day and night of the 13^th of March. That is all the ‘confession’ I have to make.”

Records related to the criminal trial can be found in the Commonwealth of Virginia versus Thomas J. Cluverius, 1885 (Barcode 1170946). The collection includes correspondence between Cluverius and Lillian (including a sexually explicit poem “On the Delaware”) showing the couple shared an intimate relationship, correspondence between Lillian and her aunt Jane Tunstall illustrating Lillian’s emotional state at the time of her death, a watch key similar to one supposedly owned by Cluverius, and photographs found in Lillian’s possession at the time of her death.

Want to hear more about the murder and the relationship between Thomas Cluverius and Lillian Madison? Come to the Library of Virginia for a book talk on Thursday, January 12, from 12:00-1:00, to hear John Milliken Thompson discuss his novel The Reservoir, which is based on these events.

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

Ever want to claim you were too drunk to be responsible for committing a criminal act?  In Virginia in 1915, you would have been out of luck.  Jury instructions found in the Staunton criminal case of Commonwealth vs. Vaughan Bell (Staunton Commonwealth Causes, barcode 1184535) suggest that Mr. Bell, indicted for housebreaking with the intent to commit larceny in the store house of H. N. Tinsley, tried to use being drunk as an excuse for his accused criminal behavior.  He also may have tried to claim insanity, as a notation on the case wrapper indicates that a commission was held to inquire into his mental state.  The commission found him sane and the jury found him not guilty.  Additional jury instructions speak to the necessity of proving beyond a reasonable doubt not only the housebreaking but the intent to commit larceny and that any doubt must cause the jury to judge in Mr. Bell’s favor.  Clearly the jury did have doubts and Mr. Bell went on his merry way, dubious excuses and all.

-Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist

At the October 1903 session of Rockbridge County court, Oliver R. Bane, called “Dock” Bane (alternately spelled Bain), was convicted of unlawful assault against Lone B. Vess (alternately spelled Vest) and sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary.  The grand jury indictment of Bane charged him with making “an assault and him the said Loane B. Vest feloniously and maliciously did strike, beat, cut and wound with intent him the said Loane B. Vest there and then to maim, disfigure, disable and kill.” The official charge was mayhem.  A newspaper article from the Lexington Gazette gives a fuller picture of the circumstances surrounding the crime.  The article states that Bane and Vess had gotten into a fight at the home of Mr. Dave Potter while returning home from a dance.  “Knucks and chairs were freely used in the battle” and Vess was struck on the head with a fire shovel.  Jury instructions from the case file indicate that part of Bane’s defense was that Vess had attacked him first and without provocation.  The article explained that Vess was not expected to recover and that the doctor had extracted several fragments of bone from his wounded skull.  Preserved as evidence in the case file are these bone fragments, wrapped up in tissue paper.  Vess did survive the attack and the loss of pieces of his skull and was summoned as a witness for the prosecution.  Bane arrived at the Virginia Penitentiary on 17 October 1903, prisoner #5086.  He served just over one year of his sentence and was paroled on 22 October 1904. The documents for Bane’s criminal trial can be found in Commonwealth vs. Oliver R. Bane alias Dock Bane in the Rockbridge County Judgments and Commonwealth Causes, 1902-1904 (Barcode 1140736).

-Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist

(Editor’s Note: The short scene above from Downton Abbey, part of PBS’s Masterpiece, though an English period drama, is set only weeks after the trial in Newport News and is a great example of a couple dancing the Grizzly Bear to “Everybody’s Doing It Now.”)

If you’ve ever heard “America The Beautiful” or “White Christmas” then you know the music of Irving Berlin. Considered by many critics to be the country’s greatest songwriter, many of his songs are American classics. It was very strange indeed then when one of our archivists discovered the sheet music to one of Berlin’s songs entered as evidence in an obscenity trial in Virginia.

On the evening of 3 April 1912, Newport News police arrested Olympic Theater owner E. T. Crall, song-and-dance troupe leader Palmer Hines, and his six dancing girls. That night’s act, judged too hot for the public good by police, combined Palmer singing the suggestively titled Berlin song “Everybody’s Doing It Now” with the girls dancing the Turkey Trot, the racy and very latest “animal” dance to sweep the nation.

The animal dances which emerged around 1909 and later, such as the Turkey Trot, Grizzly Bear, and Bunny Hug, were the dances of ragtime music, the popular music of its day. The Turkey Trot was the first animal dance to catch on nationwide and created quite a stir. All the dances imitated the movements of the animals for which they were named to some extent. What rubbed polite society the wrong way was that the Turkey Trot and all the other animal dances were danced face-to-face, with the female partner being held close (called hugging) around the waist. Never before had America’s men and women danced so close together and, according to many, so indecently.

Many ragtime songs popular during that time tied themselves to a particular dance. But Berlin cleverly kept his song “Everybody’s Doing It Now” nonspecific so the song was appropriate to any ragtime dance craze and became the most popular song of the animal dance era. “It” could be the Turkey Trot, Grizzly Bear, or Horse Trot. For guardians of public morality “it” could be something very specific indeed. Combining the Turkey Trot with Berlin’s song was like throwing gasoline on a fire as far as Newport News authorities were concerned.

It must not have been typical to have a standing-room-only crowd in the Newport News police court on a Thursday morning – few if any were there to see the city’s drunks, brawlers, and petty thieves have their day in court. When the case of The Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Palmer Hines, etc,.  was finally called at 10:30 A.M., 4 April 1912, the presiding police justice, much to the dismay of the cramped onlookers, cleared the courtroom.

The group from the Olympic Theater were charged with performing, “…a wicked and scandalous, infamous and immoral, bawdy and obscene song and dance, or act, corrupting the morals of the public and youth, and too filthy, obscene and immoral to be in decency further described…” according to the summons.

According to the Newport News Daily Press coverage of the trial, troupe leader Palmer Hines testified that his girls were not doing the real Turkey Trot. “He said that the original ‘Turkey Trot,’ he believed, is immoral and should be debarred from all respectable places but repeated that the dance performed by the girls in the troupe is not the ‘Turkey Trot,’” the newspaper reported. City police officers were divided about the performance’s offensiveness. Detective S. G. Pearson testified that he believed the performance to be suggestive and would not take a female member of his family to the show. Captain J. E. Williams testified for the defense that he saw nothing offensive in the performance.

In the end the police court justice convicted theater owner Crall of operating an immoral show and fined him $7.75. Hines and his dancing girls were convicted of using obscene language and fined $5.25 each. The defendants appealed their convictions to the Newport News Corporation Court where a jury upheld the police justice’s original ruling. This case is part of the recently processed Newport News Commonwealth Causes.

-Dale Dulaney, Local Records Archival Assistant, Submitted by Greg Crawford, Local Records Coordinator