proceedings

Robert Marsden Shaw was a New York banker whose wife, Katherine Lyall Shaw, left him for another man, Richard S. Darling. In 1915 Shaw sued Darling for alienation of affection and had him prosecuted under the Mann Act for transporting Mrs. Shaw across state lines for immoral purposes. Darling was aquitted in the Mann Act prosecution and Shaw dropped the alienation of affection suit. query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C15F9395C13738... Shaw and his wife must have divorced, because in June 1916 he married another woman, Lillian Mahoney. query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0E12F93A5B17738... There's a close up of Shaw on the LOC Photo division site www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2005018715/ that hasn't been loaded on Flickr yet.

There are a number of these floor-level shots of trial proceedings. I wonder if the photographer shot this surreptitiously or if the judge permitted pictures if the camera wasn't raised?

I was wondering the same thing. This one in particular really looks like the photographer was trying to hide the camera.

Thanks for connecting up the two photographs and the information about Shaw and the trial. We can add some information when we next update the description. Good question about photography during trial proceedings. I don't know the precise answer, although Emma Little, who published an article about Bain many years ago had a colorful account of how one of the office boys Bain trained to take pictures got the first photos of a trial in a New York federal court, where photographers were banned on pain of contempt of court. The boy "got a step-ladder and placed it in front of the court-room door, put his camera through the high transom and let the flash light, leaped down and dashed off with his camera, leaving the step-ladder to block the door." (Emma Little, "The Father of News Photography: George Grantham Bain," Picturescope 20 (1972): 203.) A talent for being surreptitious from any angle may have been the order of the day!

It's very beautiful. The rose and the ornamentation.

Gorgeous initial. However, don't know exactly why, I always preferred the White Rose of York :-)

Mrs. Helen M. Angle was on trial in March, 1915, for manslaughter in the death of her friend Waldo R. Ballou in Stamford, Connecticut in June, 1914. Helen was divorced from her husband of twelve years, Frank W. Angle. Her father was Leonard Blondell, a wealthy former Stamford Councilman who was retired from the coal and road contracting business Waldo Ballou was was a friend of her fathers, and a leading Republican politician and Stamford business man. Helen met Waldo in 1911 after his wife died. Waldo proposed to Helen several times, but she said he was too old. He was 69, she was 40. Mrs Angle took the stand in her own defense, and told her version of what happened on the night of June 23, 1914. More than 500 people were turned away from the packed courtroom. After a twelve day trial the jury deliberated for one hour and forty-five minutes before returning a verdict of not guilty, after three ballots. Judge William H. Williams presided. Eight months after the trial, Helen remarried her former husband, Frank Angle, a foreman at Union Metallic Cartridge Company in Stamford. It was said that during her trial Mr Angle's sympathies were aroused, and he was a frequent visitor in the court. [1] [2] [3]  

Thanks for the interesting story Pixel Wrangler. We'll add her full name to our record.

Mrs. Helen M. Angle was on trial in March, 1915, for manslaughter in the death of her friend Waldo R. Ballou in Stamford, Connecticut on June 23, 1914. Helen was divorced from her husband of twelve years, Frank W. Angle. Her father was Leonard Blondel, a wealthy former Stamford Councilman who was retired from the coal and road contracting business Waldo Ballou was was a friend of her fathers, and a leading Republican politician and Stamford business man. Helen met Waldo in 1911 after his wife died. Waldo proposed to Helen several times, but she said he was too old. He was 69, she was 40. Mrs Angle took the stand in her own defense, and told her version of what happened on the night of June 23, 1914. More than 500 people were turned away from the packed courtroom. After a twelve day trial the jury deliberated for one hour and forty-five minutes before returning a verdict of not guilty, after three ballots. Judge William H. Williams presided. Eight months after the trial, Helen remarried her former husband, Frank Angle, a foreman at Union Metallic Cartridge Company in Stamford. It was said that during her trial Mr Angle's sympathies were aroused, and he was a frequent visitor in the court. [1] [2] [3]  

There are several low-angle shots from inside the courtroom. I wonder if they were taken surreptitously?

Thanks Pixel Wrangler for her full name, we will update our record. That's a good question artolog. I think it would be hard to sneak a camera from that time period in, but he may have been able to take in his camera because he took photos before and after the trial. The only thing I'm unsure of, is if he could take multiple photos without making any noise or being disruptive. He would have had to change the glass negatives and that seems like that would be hard to do secretly. That's all assumption on my part. Feel free to suggest other reasons.