PART ELEVEN - The East-side Story

The BIG SCANDAL involved the keeping of houses of ill-repute ... brothels!
Young Street came to be known for all the wrong reasons...

In the Advertiser (28/08/1916) it was reported that No.14 was the culprit household.
In the Register (19/08/1916) it was reported that No.22 was also a culprit (the confectioner
was delivering more candy than sweets). The Advertiser (07/09/1916) reported that No.26 was
also in on the game! These shenanigans and the following court cases made headlines in all
the newspapers of the day and for months ahead.

This titillation of the unwanted kind would not have been helpful to any business in
Young Street. The big businesses (like Publishers and Detmolds) would have been okay;
being wholesalers, they did not reply on public thoroughfare.

For small businesses - like Scott Bonnar's - it would not have been helpful at all.
It's one thing to advertise, "S. Bonnar, (next Detmold's)" in advertisements; it would
be another thing altogether to advertise, "S. Bonnar, (opp. whore houses)".

Clearly, this would have been a commercially-relevant reason why Scott Bonnar moved premises.
I have no idea what importance this scandal made to his decision to move a block north, but
it would have been significant.

The last photograph (1919) I would like to present shows the east-side just a year or so
after Scott Bonnar moved to Bloor Court. Compare it to the photo above. It nicely, but subtly,
sums up the situation. All the residential properties were demolished!

Clearly, the whore houses really made an impact - and the dark side finally saw light.

[Linked Image]
Photo 3b Mud Map