Mary's Rent arrears and photographs

[Maggyann]

I have read everything I can find and searched but cannot come across any other references to Mary owing rent other than statements by Mr. McCarthy. Is there any other 'proof' that Mary did in fact owe him money?

Also can anyone use the photographs pertaining to JTR or are they all copyright somewhere along the line?

[Phil H]

I think it is usually accepted that McCarthy was being truthful, but as far as i know there is no corroborative evidence such as rent books. Barnett, may, of course, have verified what was said.

I seem to recall - like Melville Macnaghten I am relying on memory here - that there has been some question about how the sum involved (30/-) was arrived at from her weekly rent. It could be, of course, that she made odd payments against the outstanding amount.

One question that has been discussed is: why was MJK allowed to accrue such a large sum of unpaid rent?

There has also been speculation about whether McCarthy was a "pimp" and the women living in his "rents" were the prostitutes he ran, and that he took a share of their earnings. On that score, Bowyer was going round to collect that money not rent, when he saw her body.

There has also been discussion of whether McCarthy was receiving services in kind in lieu of rent.

Finally, if you look at MJK's alleged history (most of it questioned at times) as told by Barnett, Julia Van Turney and others, Mary appears to have been associated with a Mrs Carthy at Breezers' Hill. Was she a relative of mccarthy? A long time tenant, including other than Miller's Court? We shall probably never know.

Phil

[Sally]

But..

Who else, other than McCarthy (and Barnett) would know, really? The rent arrears only concerned McCarthy, Kelly and Barnett - so would we expect to find any corroborative evidence?

As to McCarthy pimping his 'tenants' - very penny dreadful. I don't know that I buy that. It would mean he was effectively running a brothel on his own doorstep. It would imply that his wife; and Bowyer, were involved in the racket.

Maybe not. A bit close to home, perhaps.

[Phil H]

Sally

I agree with your estimation of the "pimping" hypothesis.

But the question was about the rent, and I don't think you'd deny that there has been speculation over the years about the possibility that McCarthy was exploiting these woman. I think referring to that debate was thus relevant.

At the very least, given the number of "unfortunates" occupying his properties, McCarthy surely cannot have been unaware of how (on occasion at least) they earned their crust?

All the best

Phil

[Sally]

Sally

I agree with your estimation of the "pimping" hypothesis.

But the question was about the rent, and I don't think you'd deny that there has been speculation over the years about the possibility that McCarthy was exploiting these woman. I think referring to that debate was thus relevant.

At the very least, given the number of "unfortunates" occupying his properties, McCarthy surely cannot have been unaware of how (on occasion at least) they earned their crust?

All the best

Phil

Phil

I think McCarthy was exploiting everybody who used his amenities - he was a slum landlord. I don't know that any special case can be made for him having been extra-exploitative when it came to 'unfortunates'

That he was apparently willing to exercise leniency with regard to Kelly's rent arrears has been the focus of much debate, hasn't it? I don't have the answer - perhaps he hoped Kelly would bring in the cash, knowing, as you suggest, her profession. Considering that she and Barnett had broken the window, perhaps he reckoned it was better to hang on and recoup his losses.

Maybe there's more to it - I don't know.

But so far as his knowing if his Miller's Court tenants were engaged in prostitution - I'm sure where this was the case he must have realised, yes. Was he interested in exploiting that? I doubt it. Small fry.

[Maggyann]

So in effect we only have Mr. McCarthy's word for it which is interesting.

I can see what you mean about perhaps it was being paid in some other way but I do find the whole thing about these poor women being called prostitutes and all lumped together under that heading sad.

They were simply earning a crust (and a few drinks); they could and yes possibly were bringing men back to their lodgings etc after being bought some gin or rum in Ringer's or whatever and maybe getting a meal out of it or some pennies but it is not that different from how things are today (or really ever have been).

Picked up in a bar, drinks bought, fish and chips or a pizza to take home and sex as pudding.

I imagine that for most of these women the 'clients' were well known to them and they all lived together in this great melting pot. It was more a sort of friends sharing booze, food, beds, money and bodies in a very basic survival type way.

'Unfortunates' is such a sad term but a better description I always feel than simply coldly calling them prostitutes. I always feel that for the majority of them it was not a 'sex with strangers' scenario in the main.

As far as McCarthy being paid his rents in kind it is quite possible there was something like that. I am sure he knew whether his tenants had a means of earning regular money or were stumbling along day to day and he could well have taken advantage of that.

I find it very interesting that Mary was alleged to owe so much.

...

About using the photographs - does anyone know what restirctions there are, copyright etc?

[c.d.]

I think the answer as to why McCarthy would let Mary or any other tenant be in arrears with their rent is probably the simplest one. These were poor, lower class people who had little money. And if they were prostitutes, there income would be irregular. If he kicked out those who owed rent money, he would have to go through the hassle of finding new tenants who most likely would end up in the same situation, so why bother. He probably had enough tenants paying their rent on time in any given month so he could let a few tenants slide. I am sure there was a point where if a tenant couldn't come up with the money that they were kicked out. I don't see him running a brothel but he probably didn't care what the tenants did as long as he got his rent. I would not be surprised if he occasionaly traded rent for sex with some of the prostitutes including Mary.

c.d.

[Rubyretro]

I agree with you c.d. -once he had kicked a tenant out he would have to cut his losses.

The time that the tenant stayed, they would keep finding part of the back rent and owe ever more money. How an old fashion 'corner shop' with a slate works (except that a shop needs to pay it's stock, and I presume that Mccarthy owned the rooms outright).

[jason_c]

So in effect we only have Mr. McCarthy's word for it which is interesting.

Barnett did not contradict him on this.

Would the "arrears" include money due for the broken window?

[Phil H]

Cd - with great respect, regarding your post above:

I think the answer as to why McCarthy would let Mary or any other tenant be in arrears with their rent is probably the simplest one.

I'm all for the simplest explanation.

These were poor, lower class people who had little money.

yet we know that lodging hose keepers were zealous over their 4ds - see Nichols and Chapman, out on the street because they did not have doss-money.

If he kicked out those who owed rent money, he would have to go through the hassle of finding new tenants who most likely would end up in the same situation, so why bother.

You may well be right, but i would say this:

he does not seem to have had trouble letting the room after the got it back from the police following the murder. Even (apparently) un-redecorated the room was soon tenanted. And we don't find much mention of empty rooms in Miller's Court so we? Didn't Maria Harvey stay with MJK because she had no room, then got one further up Dorset St - so maybe the situation was a seller's market? That would change things wouldn't it?

He probably had enough tenants paying their rent on time in any given month so he could let a few tenants slide.

Is that the way businessmen work then or now - let alone a "slum landlord" as sally rightly calls McCarthy? My recollection of later examples of this type such as Rachman in the 50s were that they were brutal and unbending.

I am sure there was a point where if a tenant couldn't come up with the money that they were kicked out.

If 30 bob wasn't the limit - roughly six week's rent for MJK - what do you think it might be? Nichols and Chapman were booted out because they did not have fourpence - if MK and Barnett couldn't manage the rent in the past, how about the future, PLUS the back debt? i would expect interest being added too.

I don't see him running a brothel but he probably didn't care what the tenants did as long as he got his rent.

Yet don't I recall references to McCathy's "rents" and contemporary references to this meaning prostitutes?

Just some points, but I am not necessarily challenging your view.

Phil

[claire]

Add to the mix the (fairly high) likelihood that the 'rent' arrears included stuff on the tab from his shop, and you can quite quickly cut the number of weeks' rent owed. What we can't know is whether (and to what extent) other occupants of his properties were in arrears; this might go some way to telling us a little more about McCarthy. It's probably worth bearing in mind that the period of time to which the arrears pertain were quite unusual--women being knocked off on the street left right and centre, you might recall--so it's possible that McCarthy was either less attentive, or more compassionate, than he may have otherwise been.

Certainly, there's a fair and reasonable chance that he and his collectors kept an eye out for any evidence of possible cash amongst their tardy tenants--if they saw a tenant in and out with a catalogue of punters, common sense would cause them to pay them a visit soon afterwards, in just the same way that landlords and debt collectors now turn up right after pay day. But, and I'm well aware of McCarthy's documented history and the social contexts in which he operated, it would take a right hard bastard to lean hard on his tenants to get out on the streets in the autumn of 88--and a somewhat stupid one, given that this move may well have brought him under closer police scrutiny than he would have liked.

Just thoughts.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Claire,
Precisely my take on this.
I feel that McCarthy felt a responsibility for his residents, and feel that a lenient attitude was adopted... at least until the killer was apprehended.
Actually I Believe the ''Desperate for money'', and ''What shall I do for the rent'' plight has been overplayed, Kelly hardly kept out of her landlords way, purchasing at least a candle in the shop on the wednesday, and talking to Mrs McCarthy on the thursday.. hardly keeping out of sight.
I would not be surprised if Mary actually had aquired some money that night, to give to her landlord, and the sixpence that she asked Hutch for was to possibly make up the 4/6d which would be 1 week of the arrears.
That being the case , the killer was a thief also.
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

Comparing lodging house keepers to landlords like McCarthy is comparing apples to oranges is it not?

Even if we assume that he would have no trouble renting a room that was now available because he had evicted the previous tenant for not paying the rent, who would he be renting it to? Most likely the new tenant would be in the same economic situation as the former tenant and of the same class. How does he know that the new tenant could come up with the rent on a regular basis? At least he knew that the tenants that he had and who were in arrears did eventually come up with the money so why take a chance on a new tenant?

I certainly have no way of determing his basis for when a tenant would be kicked out for being in arrears. It might have varied from tenant to tenant.

I don't know what you mean by contemporary references to McCarthy's rents and prostitutes.

c.d.

[Phil H]

cd

How does he know that the new tenant could come up with the rent on a regular basis? At least he knew that the tenants that he had and who were in arrears did eventually come up with the money so why take a chance on a new tenant?

One reason is that, having a no nonsense approach could be seen as "pour encourager les autres".

If they knew McCarthy was tough on non-payers they would make more of an effort to keep up arrears.

Even if we assume that he would have no trouble renting a room that was now available because he had evicted the previous tenant for not paying the rent, who would he be renting it to? Most likely the new tenant would be in the same economic situation as the former tenant and of the same class.

but Maria harvey seems to have been looking out for a room and finally found one. there clearly was a markey and even dreadful rooms (like MJK's after the murder) found new tenants quickly it seems. A seller's market.

I don't know what you mean by contemporary references to McCarthy's rents and prostitutes.

See page 313 of the latest A-Z, but I have seen many references over the years. It appears that Miller's court was known as "McCarthy's rents" - but by implication what was rented was the women not the rooms. (The A-Z does not make that assumption btw.)

My heart is touched and warmed by all the references to McCarthy as a paragon of liberal care, but he has been described as a "swindler", a bully and a tough guy. (Allegations by Arthur Harding, a slightly later local villain.) Against that background, I don't especially feel McCarthy likely to have been a soft touch.

phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

I have no idea how McCarthy ran his business or his reasons for doing so. I can only speculate. I don't think letting tenants be in arrears necessarily indicates a kind heart. It could also be an acceptance of reality. In other words, given the kinds of tenants that were renting his rooms, it seems likely that a few were going to be in arrears. Now he could be a hard ass and kick them all out and put the fear of God into the remaining tenants. But what I am saying is that because of the type of people he was renting to the new tenants would proabably be in arrears as well. He might simply have come to the realization that it was simply easier to let a few tenants be in arrears if they had shown in the past that they could eventually come up with the money. It doesn't mean that he was a swell guy only a practical one.

c.d.