105 Turk St. | map |
Opened: Around 1970, originally called the 105 Turk Theatre. The location was the south side of the street between Taylor and Jones.
We're a block from several somewhat larger theatres, the Golden Gate and
Warfield.
The c.1972 photo is by Nick De Wolf. Thanks to Tenderloin historian Peter M. Field for locating it. He's the author of the 2018 Sutton Publishing book "The Tenderloin District of San Francisco Through Time." See his full report on the history of this building at the bottom of the page.
An ad from the Chris Carlsson collection. Thanks to Peter M. Field for sharing this and the item below.
A card from the Chris Carlsson collection dating from a period when they were catering to gay customers. They switched back and forth several times.
Closing: The date of its demise has escaped the historians. It was running as late as 1982.
Status: The building is still around although with a redone facade.
More street views: 
A shot of the Grand Hotel, 39-67 Taylor St. On the right the building later to become the Turk St. Follies is seen as Paul's Tuxedo Club. Thanks to Peter M.
Field for locating the photo. Peter notes:
"A photograph belonging to Jacob Schurman, whose father managed
the Hotel Grand for his great grandmother, shows the Hotel Grand on the
southwest corner of Taylor and Turk in 1950. The marquee entrance to the
hotel is still there (57 Taylor), all the storefronts are occupied, and
while it looks a trifle faded, it still looked good. Visible are Leo’s
Coffee Shop (53-55 Taylor), The Mirror bar (65 Taylor), and Budner’s
Kosher Style Deli (inside what appears to be a drug store on the corner), a
Smoke Shop (103 Turk), and Paul’s Tuxedo Club (105 Turk). Schurman says
the photo was taken for insurance purposes."
Another 1950 photo from Jacob Schurman that was shared by Peter M. Field.
It's a late 1960s Tom Gray photo from the Jack Tillmany collection. Jack notes that the address on the marquee wasn't correct. Evidently this was when it was still known as the 105 Turk Theatre. This image and the one below were shared in a post on the BAHT Facebook page. Gary Parks commented:
"I like the little sculpted G's on the building, which certainly do not speak to the ratings of the films inside. I wonder what they stood for originally?"
Betty O'Crocker suggested that maybe it was Girls! Girls! Girls!
A 1970 view of the venue from KRON. It's from footage on the Bay Area Television Archive "Censorship of Skin Flicks" page where they comment:
"KRON-TV Newswatch footage from August 4th 1970 with Phil Wilson featuring a report on the making, screening and censorship of pornographic movies in San Francisco, focusing on O'Farrell Theatre owners the Mitchell Brothers. Includes exterior views of downtown adult movie theaters and of a film production set at the O'Farrell Theatre.."
Here they have the Turk St. Follies name up. It's a somewhat later shot from the Jack Tillmany collection. He comments:
"A
barker at the door waves welcome to curiosity seekers challenged by the
promises made on the marquee. That's a 1968 Lincoln parked out front.
Once again, my buddy Tom Gray has immortalized memorable moments of a
half century ago."
Here they've gone wilder with the signage budget. Thanks to Jack Tillmany for sharing this Tom Gray photo from his collection. By this time you only had to be 18 to enter. In the top photo the signage said you had to be 21. Also see a slightly wider version of the photo from the Chris Carlsson collection.
A 1982 photo by Larry Moon from the San Francisco Public Library collection. Thanks to Peter M. Field for locating it.
A detail from the Larry Moon photo.
That squat thing in the middle is the former Turk St. Follies. Through the parking lot we're looking at the back of the Golden Gate Theatre. Taylor St. is off to the left. Photo: Google Maps- 2017
Thanks to Peter M. Field for this report about the building that housed the Turk St. Follies:
The Turk Street Follies Building
The fifty-vara lot on which 105 Turk Street sits was owned by Alexander W. Wilson, a Swedish immigrant who came to San Francisco in the 1860s and did well in the restaurant business until the labor troubles of the late 19th century drove him into real estate, where he made a fortune. According to Wilson’s great grandson, Jacob Schurman, his descendants held this and several other Tenderloin properties until the urban upsets of the 1960s made Schurman’s father sell out.
Wilson’s Grand Hotel, designed and built by C. A. Meussdorfer in 1907, was first listed in the telephone directory in August, replacing Wilson’s pre-fire Francisco Hotel. If we go by the city directory listings, the first building on the site was apparently a temporary wood structure erected in 1906, the year before work started on the hotel. It housed the Cleveland Faucet Company, a manufacturer of beer pumps, in 1906 and 1907, after which the company moved to an address next door. There’s no further evidence of occupancy until 1912, when contractor L. M. Goggins was listed at 105 Turk Street for just a year. The permanent concrete (probably reinforced) building was apparently tacked onto the northwest corner of the lot as an income enhancing afterthought, with Goggins its first tenant.
The following year, Joseph Weiss moved his Western Art Glass Shade Works from the Western Addition back downtown into the building through 1921, after which he moved up to the next block. He was one of several similar companies in the neighborhood who were taking advantage of the boom in business caused by the demand for decorative elements for reconstruction of the city’s business district. After Weiss’ tenancy, the building began its slide into disreputability. The next tenant was Floyd T. Denman’s Fur Den, a retail fur business that advertised alterations and repairs. Two years into his tenancy, the newspapers reported his arrest as the fence of a gang that operated in the better-heeled sections of the city, stealing furs and jewelry and selling them to Denman, who accumulated thousands of dollars worth of stolen goods. His wife reinvented the business as the Co-Operative Fur Factory, presumably while Denman was doing time, and kept it going for seven years, until the second year of the Great Depression.
"In the middle of the 1930s it was a cigar store fronting for a gambling parlor, probably a card room. The second occupant during those years was Edmund J. Brown, who tried a number of get rich quick schemes, including running poker rooms. Brown’s son was Edmund “Pat” Brown, San Francisco District Attorney and California governor, his grandson was California governor Jerry Brown, and his granddaughter was California Treasurer Kathleen Brown. Pat, as a young man, sometimes worked as a doorman for one of his father’s card clubs to watch out for cops. Card clubs had taken advantage of the laws governing the incorporation of fraternal societies and other private social clubs. They allowed members to play poker in small games in their clubrooms. The professional cardrooms operated under the legal fiction that they were legitimate because even though they were open to the public, a membership card was issued to each player.
Nonetheless, Brown studied law, and passed the bar exam. A former Republican, he first ran for district attorney in the late 1930s as a reform Democrat against the corrupt Republican political machine of his day. This presented several problems. One was that he was on record from his years as a young attorney in private practice as preparing the incorporation papers for Joe Bailey’s Turk Street cardroom, one of the Tenderloin’s biggest. He also prepared the papers for his father’s card clubs. During the year of his candidacy, Pat’s father ran the Padre Club, a quasi-legal poker room screened by his Padre Cigar Store in a storefront on the corner of Eddy and Taylor streets. Brown feared the newspapers would murder him if they ever tumbled to his father’s activities.
But perhaps his worst problem was that he was married to the daughter of San Francisco Police Captain Arthur Layne, a very straight-laced and honest cop who spent years raiding vice joints in the Tenderloin, including card clubs. If Brown was elected as District Attorney, he’d have to live with the nightmare that someday his father might be arrested by his father-in-law. Brown went to talk to his father in the afternoon when he knew the club wouldn’t have any customers and gently explained the situation. He later recalled that his father was magnificent, looking Pat right in the eye and saying he wouldn’t do anything to interfere with his son’s political ambitions. Right then and there he turned off the lights and closed the club.
Pat walked his father across the street to his hotel, feeling kind of bad. Here was his father, recovering from a stroke and recently separated from Pat’s mother, and he, his son, was taking away his only real interest in life. Brown had a very restless night in bed. The next morning he went back downtown to tell him to go ahead and open up and to hell with what the newspapers might say. He was surprised to find his father not at his hotel, thought about it for a minute, and walked across the street to the club. It was running wide open. His father had never had any intention of closing it down.
Beginning in 1937, the building hosted a bar called the Tuxedo Club. The next year an Army sergeant was picked up there by a prostitute who took him to a hotel. The next morning he woke to find both her and his $1,400 gone. In World War II, when the neighborhood was packed with soldiers, sailors, and war workers and was open 24/7, its liquor license was suspended for selling drinks after hours, and it was later declared off limits to military personnel. It had three fires in four years, one of them an arson attempt.
The Tuxedo Club lost its liquor license in 1955 when a campaign launched by the newly legislated Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission resulted in a test case to close a legal loophole. At that time many California bars got away with hiring B-girls to hustle drinks if they put them on their liquor license as owning a percentage of the business. An A. B. C. agent arrested one of these 'partners' at the Tuxedo Club after she got him to buy her a dozen expensive 'B-girl-type drinks' like champagne cocktails, the prices of which kept increasing. The A. B. C., won its case by using an assistant attorney general as prosecutor to go up against the defense’s lawyers at the license suspension and revocation hearing instead of the less legally trained supervising agent used by the old Board of Equalization.
The Five O’Clock Club managed to function for several years without attracting newspaper attention. In the 1960s it was vacant, then a laundromat. About 1970 a former Texas and Colorado nightclub owner named Jackie Simpson opened the 105 Turk Theatre and began showing XXX movies. He achieved notoriety of a kind by being the first exhibitor in California to offer a hardcore bestiality movie (titled 'Animal Lover'). Filmed as a pseudo-documentary, it started off with a half hour of talking heads on the subject of human-animal sex, after which it featured a Danish farm girl going at it with a dog, a boar, and a horse. According to Simpson, the film made big profits at $7 a pop (about $58 in 2025 money).
At that time, previous court rulings made it difficult to prosecute XXX films on grounds of prurient interest, community standards, or redeeming social value. An unfortunately named Committee on Social Order tried a different route by charging XXX theatres with not meeting fire and other codes, and the San Francisco Board of Permit Appeals sided with them and revoked their permits. Then came 'Animal Lovers.' The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requiring all movie theatre operators to re-apply for new licenses, and the Board of Permit Appeals continued to deny license requests from XXX theatres, including the 105 Turk Street Theatre.
Simpson tried changing the name of the theatre, but by the following year the Turk Street Follies took over the building as another hardcore pornographic film house. Its several owners over the next two decades changed its policies from heterosexual to homosexual and back, and to films and live shows, whatever seemed like it would attract audiences. But the neighborhood continued its downhill slide to the point that not even XXX film patrons would brave its streets. Google Street Views shows it to be an empty storefront from 2008 to the present (2025), in spite of losing its marquee to a remodel in mid-2014.
Turk Street Follies San Francisco city directory and other listings:
1906 (June) No listing
1906 (Aug) No listing
1906 (Oct) Cleveland Faucet Co . . . Beer Pumps, 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1906 (Dec) Cleveland Faucet Co . . . Beer Pumps, 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1907 (Mar) Cleveland Faucet Co . . . Beer Pumps, 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1907 (June) Cleveland Faucet Co, beer pumps, 105 Turk, S F, tel Franklin 981
1907 (Aug) Cleveland Faucet Co . . . Beer Pumps, 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1907 (Oct) Cleveland Faucet Co, 105 Turk
1908-1909 Cleveland Faucet Co, A. Hanselman, mgr, 111 Turk
1910 No listing
1911 Goggins L M & Co (L M Coggins, L Van Vlack) contrs, 1712½ O’Farrell
1912 Coggins L M & Co (L M Coggins and L Van Vlack) contrs, 105 Turk
1913-1915 Weiss Jos prop Western Art Glass Shade Works r 105 Turk
1916 Weiss Jos (Western Art Glass and Shade Works) r 105 Turk
1917-1918 Weiss Jos prop Western Art Glass Shade Works r 105 Turk
1919-1921 Weiss Jos (Western Art Glass and Shade Works) r 105 Turk
1922 Denman T F furs 105 Turk r 1231 Market
1923 Denman F T furs 105 Turk
1924 Denman Floyd T furrier 105 Turk
1925 Co-Operative Fur Factory (Lillie J Denman) 105 Turk
1926 Denman Lillie J Mrs furs 107 Turk r 627 Cole
1927 Co-Operative Fur Factory (Mrs Lillian J Denman) 107 Turk
1928 Co-Operative Fur Factory Inc Lillian Denman pres-mgr 105 Turk
1929 No listing
1930 Co-Operative Fur Factory Mrs L J White mgr 107 Turk
1931 Co-Operative Fur Factory Lillie J White mgr 107 Turk
1932 No listing
1933 Flemma Frank cigars 105 Turk r Mission cor 6th
1934 Brown Edmund J (Ida) cigars 105 Turk h 1752 Grove
1935 No listing
1936 Hayes Jas P liquors 1678 O’Farrell 105 Turk 3079 16th r 77 Downey
1937 Tuxedo The (John Olivia Victor Divers) liquors 105 Turk
1938 (Aug) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1939 (May) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1940 (Nov) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1941 Tuxedo Club (R L Watson J H Miller) liquors 125 Turk
1941 (Aug) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1942 No listing
1943-1945 Tuxedo Club (Chas Lindeman Philip Anderson) liquors 105 Turk
1946 (Nov) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1947 (Aug) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1948 No listing
1949 (Nov) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1950 (Aug) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1950 Paul’s Tuxedo Club 105 Turk
1951 (July) Tuxedo Club 105 Turk (telephone directory)
1952 No directory published
1953 Tuxedo Club (Jas W and Mrs Marjorie H McQuade) liquors 105 Turk
1954 Tuxedo Club (Nelda Penny Mrs Marjorie and Jas W McQuade) tavern 105 Turk
1955 Tuxedo Club (Mrs Marjorie and Jas W McQuade Nelda Penny) tavern 105 Turk
1956 No city directory published/No listing in telephone directory
1957 Tuxedo Club (Harold Myers Norman J and Mrs Joan M Hobday) tavern 105 Turk
1958-1962 Five O’Clock Club (A L Pattersons) cocktail lounge 105 Turk
1963 Vacant
1964 No listing in address directory
1965 No directory published
1966-1969 B & L Laundromat (Bernard Lopez) Self Serv 105 Turk St
1970 No directory published
1970 “The city’s Board of Permit Appeals yesterday, by separate votes of four to one, closed down two more of San Francisco’s so-called nudie movie houses. The Board’s performance received a one star rating from lawyers representing the Peek-A-Rama theater at 53 Turk Street and the “105 Turk” theater at 105 Turk street.” (“2 More Nudie Movies Are Closed at Bitter Hearing,” SF CH, 7/21/1970, 2)
1971 Adult Movies (Jack Simpson) 105 Turk St
1972 Turk Street Follies (Michl F Hunter) 105 Turk St
1973-1976 Turk Street Follies (Martin Kaplan) 105 Turk St
1977-1978 Turk Street Follies (Robt Poe) 105 Turk St
1979 No directory published
1980-1981 Turk Street Follies (Robt Poe) 105 Turk St
1982 Turk Street Follies (Paul Robinson) 105 Turk St
Newspaper items:
10/30/1918 “$50 Loaned on $50 Lib. Bond; $100 loaned on $100 bond at once; bank rate. 105 Turk st.” (“Liberty Bonds,” SF Call and Post, 10/30/1918, 14) “Liberty bond owners; no others; home work; good pay. 105 Turk, San Francisco.” (“Help Wanted—Male,” Stockton Daily Independent, 11/10/1918, 15) These ads appeared through mid-December.
9/13/1922 “DENMAN’S FUR DEN 105 TURK ST.—FRANKLIN 2432. Operate an exclusive factory; specializing in seal work of all kinds; we can positively match your seal; lengthen or remodel your coat or wrap to your complete satisfaction. Full line of new models always on hand. (“Furs,” SF Call and Post, 9/13/1922, 20)
8/15/1924 “SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 15. With the recovery of more than $35,000 worth of furs and jewelry and the arrest of one man, police believe today that they have cleared up a series of robberies perpetrated during the past few months in some of the most fashionable San Francisco homes. Floyd Denman of the Denman Fur Den, 105 Turk street, under arrest, was severely grilled by detectives in an effort to determine the identity, and capture members of a supposed bandit gang. Denman, according to the police, has been the "fence" for a band of "society burglars" whose operations are declared to have netted more than $50,000 in loot. Denman was arrested late yesterday when a raid on the Fur Den unearthed the alleged stolen goods. He was taken to the Hall of Justice and charged with receiving stolen property. The raid followed information which the police obtained several days ago when George Baker, arrested for vagrancy, confessed, according to the police, to being the leader of the "society burglars."” (“Dealer Held In Raid On Society Thief Fur Cache,” Oakland Tribune, 8/15/1924, 10)
8/15/1924 “In the arrest yesterday [8/14] of Floyd Denman of the Floyd Denman Fur Den, 105 Turk street the police assert they have uncovered receiving headquarters for thousands of dollars’ worth of stolen jewelry and furs and have broken up a ring of cleverly organized house robbers whose loot from scores of fashionable homes in San Francisco totals more than $50,000 since the first of the year. Detective Ricard Tatham, heading a squad of plain clothes men, raided the Fur Den late yesterday afternoon and found there $25,000 worth of stolen furs, jewelry and household treasures. Approximately $5,000 worth of furs, known to have been stolen in addition to the $25,000 worth recovered, were searched for in vain by the police raiders. Denman was taken in custody and charged with receiving stolen property. The clue that led to the raid on the Fur Den was obtained several days ago, when the police arrested George Baker for vagrancy. Baker, according to the police, confessed that he was the leader of a robber gang. Eddie Smith, alleged to be a third member of the gang, was also arrested. More than $10,000 worth of additional jewelry was recovered last night under Baker’s guidance. A bracelet set with 45 large rubies, stolen from the home of B. C. Ehrman, 2005 Sacramento, and insured for $1,750, was recovered in one shop. Two diamond bracelets, valued at $4,100, and which Baker had sold for $110, were repossessed in another place, and a third $6,000 worth of pearls and jewelry, sold for $125, were found by the detectives. Investigation of Baker’s statements brought the detectives to the trail of Denman, who, they claim, has been acting fo many months as the “fence” for the gang of fur thieves. Other homes looted are those of Dr. Cosmos Glover, 5532 California street, where goods valued at $5,000 were stolen; W. J. Block, 24 Cornwall street, $4,000; Mrs. S. Newbauer, 269 Nineteenth avenue, $1,000.” (“Huge Loot Found, S. F. Theft Ring Bared Following Raid by Police,” SF EX, 8/15/1924, 1)
5/21/1932 “Starting shortly after 8 p. m. Captain Arthur Layne of the Central Police District headed a posse that raided incorporated clubs at 136 Taylor and at 105 Turk street. Six patrol wagons full of frequenters of the places were sent to the Hall of Justice, where seventy men were booked as $1000 vagrants and their fingerprints taken. The raids created consternation in the up-town tenderloin and the sidewalks were jammed by the curious as the men were herded fom the club rooms into the wagons . . . Those who watched, however, were men and women of the Saturday night parade crowd. The denizens of the district scuttled to cover when the word went round that the cleanup was on. None of those arrested was charged with frequenting a gambling place, the high bail vagrancy charged having been placed because under it, it is legal to take fingerprints. These will be compared with the records to see if anyone of the men have been in trouble previously . . . Long before the last of the wagons arrived at the Hall of Justice agents of professional bondsmen were bustling about the place. When they found what the charges were they were chagrined, for it requires the presence of a Judge to obtain release on a $1000 bond. The customary bond on a gambling charge is $25 for the keeper and $5 or $10 for frequenters of such places.” (“S. F. Suspect Hunted for Gang Killing,” SF CH 5/22/1932, 1)
5/21/1932 “Starting shortly after 8 p. m. Captain Arthur Layne of the Central Police District headed a posse that raided incorporated clubs at 136 Taylor and at 105 Turk street. Six patrol wagons full of frequenters of the places were sent to the Hall of Justice, where seventy men were booked as $1000 vagrants and their fingerprints taken. The raids created consternation in the up-town tenderloin and the sidewalks were jammed by the curious as the men were herded fom the club rooms into the wagons . . . Those who watched, however, were men and women of the Saturday night parade crowd. The denizens of the district scuttled to cover when the word went round that the cleanup was on. None of those arrested was charged with frequenting a gambling place, the high bail vagrancy charged having been placed because under it, it is legal to take fingerprints. These will be compared with the records to see if anyone of the men have been in trouble previously . . . Long before the last of the wagons arrived at the Hall of Justice agents of professional bondsmen were bustling about the place. When they found what the charges were they were chagrined, for it requires the presence of a Judge to obtain release on a $1000 bond. The customary bond on a gambling charge is $25 for the keeper and $5 or $10 for frequenters of such places.” (“S. F. Suspect Hunted for Gang Killing,” SF CH 5/22/1932, 1)
5/24/1932 “A motion on the part of Attorney Byron Barker, representing fifty-two defendants picked up in an alleged gambling resort at 136 Taylor street, was sufficient to secure a continuance for twenty-three, who had failed to appear in court to answer to the charges. Their bail was not forfeited. The balance were released.” (“Courts Free 265 Seized In Gang Roundup,” 5/24/1932, Second Section, 23) However, 136 Taylor Street may be the building at 138-142 Taylor Street.
1/1/1938 “Happy New Year From The Tuxedo Club Andy Nace—Bobby Watson Eat, Drink and Be Merry at San Francisco’s Most Popular Rendezvous 105 Turk Street” between Taylor and Jones “TU. 9930” (“SGF CH, 1/1/1938, 26)
6/22/1938 “Sergeant Roy Clark, attached to Fort Mason, was $1400 poorer today. He says he was drinking in a tavern at 105 Turk Street, San Francisco, with a girl who he knows only as "Betty." They went to a Fillmore Street hotel. When Clark awakened, he says, "Betty" was gone and so was his $1400.” (“Girl, $1400 Gone, Reports Soldier,” Oakland Tribune, 6/22/1938, 1)
9/4/1942 “Twelve additional complaints, bringing the total to 77 since August 8, were filed yesterday [9/3] against San Francisco liquor establishments for violating Board of Equalization regulations . . . San Francisco complaints . . . Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk street, James H. Miller and Robert L. Watson, accused of selling liquor after 2 a. m.”(“Liquor Control Complaints Filed Against 12 More Establishments, SF CH, 9/4/1942, 9)
1/1/1938 “Happy New Year From The Tuxedo Club Andy Nace—Bobby Watson Eat, Drink and Be Merry at San Francisco’s Most Popular Rendezvous 105 Turk Street” between Taylor and Jones “TU. 9930” (“SGF CH, 1/1/1938, 26)
6/22/1938 “Sergeant Roy Clark, attached to Fort Mason, was $1400 poorer today. He says he was drinking in a tavern at 105 Turk Street, San Francisco, with a girl who he knows only as "Betty." They went to a Fillmore Street hotel. When Clark awakened, he says, "Betty" was gone and so was his $1400.” (“Girl, $1400 Gone, Reports Soldier,” Oakland Tribune, 6/22/1938, 1)
9/4/1942 “Twelve additional complaints, bringing the total to 77 since August 8, were filed yesterday [9/3] against San Francisco liquor establishments for violating Board of Equalization regulations . . . San Francisco complaints . . . Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk street, James H. Miller and Robert L. Watson, accused of selling liquor after 2 a. m.”(“Liquor Control Complaints Filed Against 12 More Establishments, SF CH, 9/4/1942, 9)
10/9/1942 A list of the “San Francisco liquor establishments affected yesterday [10/9] by the State board of equalization’s crackdown on law violators” included “James H. Miller and Robert L. Watson, 105 Turk Street, disorderly premises; ten days suspension.” (“Here Are Places Hit By Liquor Board’s Order,” SF EX, 10/10/1942, 6) Eighteen out of 24, or 75%, were located in the Tenderloin.
5/2/1944 “Two more San Francisco taverns—Black Cat Café, 710 Montgomery street, and Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk street, have been declared out of bounds by the Army and Navy, George R. Reilly, State Board of Equalization member in this district, was officially informed yesterday [5/2].” (“Two More S. F. Bars Ruled Out of Bounds,” SF CH, 5/3/1944, 4) “The Tuxedo Club, at 105 Turk Street, San Francisco, today was placed out of bounds for Navy personnel by Rear Admiral Carleton H. Wright, commandant of the 12th Naval District. The admiral gave no reason for his order, but said that any naval personnel visiting the place will be subject to disciplinary action.” (“Navy Bans Club,” Oakland Tribune, 5/18/1944, 13)
12/10/1946 Around a hundred taverns were “named in complaints filed by liquor enforcement officers [today] at Sacramento. Noncompliance with food requirements of liquor laws under recent Supreme Court ruling was charged” and included the Tuxedo Lounge at 105 Turk Street. (“S. F. Taverns In Food Law Complaints,” SF CH, 12/11/1946, 18)
10/6/1950 “Carlton S. Miller, 26, an itinerant from Colorado, was booked on suspicion of arson yesterday [10/5] after a small fire in a bar at 105 Turk Street. Police Sergt. Richard Brennan, who made the arrest, said Miller poured gasoline on the tavern floor, ignited it, and ran. Brennan, off duty, caught him at the door.” (“Suspect Seized In Arson Case,” SF EX, 10/6/1950, 2)
7/28/1952 “4:42 p. m. – 105 Turk Street, basement.” (“Where’s the Fire?” SF EX, 7/29/1952, 12)
10/25/1953 “12:46 a. m.—105 Turk St., fire between walls.” (“Where’s the Fire?” SF EX, 10/26/1953, 30)
3/9/1955 “The strange prices of drinks at the Tuxedo Club at 10 Turk street; the strange tastes of a lady patron; and her strange capacity for alcoholic beverages puzzled State Liquor Agent Frank Ryan not one whit last night [3/8]. He jailed the lady—Nelda Penney, 30, of 155 Turk street—as a B-girl and he jailed the bartender—Sonny Thomas, 44, of 111 Taylor street—for permitting B-girls to operate. Ryan’s story was that he walked into the club about 9:30 p. m. and ordered a short beer when, lucky him, who should sit down beside him but Miss Penney, all blonde and evening gowned. He said she asked him to buy her a drink and she agreed. The first drink was a champagne cocktail and cost $1. The second drink, Ryan said, was another champagne cocktail in the same size glass, but it cost $2. This, he was told, was a “double shot.” Ryan said that while he had two short beers, Miss Penney ordered, on him, $25 worth of widely variegated drinks. Ryan said he got to wondering how Miss Penney remained so bight until he noticed that she kept asking him the time. Whenever he would look at the clock, he deduced, she would “ditch” her drink. At 10:10 p. m., Ryan’s partner, David Hamrock, and Police Sergeant Barney O’Leary walked in and made the pinch. Ryan said he was not in the least surprised to find that Miss Penney was a co-owner of the establishment.” (“B-Girl Arrest Here---‘Many Costly Drinks’,” SF CH, 3/9/1955, 4)
5/2/1944 “Two more San Francisco taverns—Black Cat Café, 710 Montgomery street, and Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk street, have been declared out of bounds by the Army and Navy, George R. Reilly, State Board of Equalization member in this district, was officially informed yesterday [5/2].” (“Two More S. F. Bars Ruled Out of Bounds,” SF CH, 5/3/1944, 4) “The Tuxedo Club, at 105 Turk Street, San Francisco, today was placed out of bounds for Navy personnel by Rear Admiral Carleton H. Wright, commandant of the 12th Naval District. The admiral gave no reason for his order, but said that any naval personnel visiting the place will be subject to disciplinary action.” (“Navy Bans Club,” Oakland Tribune, 5/18/1944, 13)
12/10/1946 Around a hundred taverns were “named in complaints filed by liquor enforcement officers [today] at Sacramento. Noncompliance with food requirements of liquor laws under recent Supreme Court ruling was charged” and included the Tuxedo Lounge at 105 Turk Street. (“S. F. Taverns In Food Law Complaints,” SF CH, 12/11/1946, 18)
10/6/1950 “Carlton S. Miller, 26, an itinerant from Colorado, was booked on suspicion of arson yesterday [10/5] after a small fire in a bar at 105 Turk Street. Police Sergt. Richard Brennan, who made the arrest, said Miller poured gasoline on the tavern floor, ignited it, and ran. Brennan, off duty, caught him at the door.” (“Suspect Seized In Arson Case,” SF EX, 10/6/1950, 2)
7/28/1952 “4:42 p. m. – 105 Turk Street, basement.” (“Where’s the Fire?” SF EX, 7/29/1952, 12)
10/25/1953 “12:46 a. m.—105 Turk St., fire between walls.” (“Where’s the Fire?” SF EX, 10/26/1953, 30)
3/9/1955 “The strange prices of drinks at the Tuxedo Club at 10 Turk street; the strange tastes of a lady patron; and her strange capacity for alcoholic beverages puzzled State Liquor Agent Frank Ryan not one whit last night [3/8]. He jailed the lady—Nelda Penney, 30, of 155 Turk street—as a B-girl and he jailed the bartender—Sonny Thomas, 44, of 111 Taylor street—for permitting B-girls to operate. Ryan’s story was that he walked into the club about 9:30 p. m. and ordered a short beer when, lucky him, who should sit down beside him but Miss Penney, all blonde and evening gowned. He said she asked him to buy her a drink and she agreed. The first drink was a champagne cocktail and cost $1. The second drink, Ryan said, was another champagne cocktail in the same size glass, but it cost $2. This, he was told, was a “double shot.” Ryan said that while he had two short beers, Miss Penney ordered, on him, $25 worth of widely variegated drinks. Ryan said he got to wondering how Miss Penney remained so bight until he noticed that she kept asking him the time. Whenever he would look at the clock, he deduced, she would “ditch” her drink. At 10:10 p. m., Ryan’s partner, David Hamrock, and Police Sergeant Barney O’Leary walked in and made the pinch. Ryan said he was not in the least surprised to find that Miss Penney was a co-owner of the establishment.” (“B-Girl Arrest Here---‘Many Costly Drinks’,” SF CH, 3/9/1955, 4)
3/10/55 B-girl charges against the female owner of the Tuxedo Club at 105 Turk Street and her bartender were dismissed when the judge found there are no laws against bar owners from asking customers to buy drinks. The owner, Nelda Penney, 30, lived up the block at 155 Turk Street, and the bartender, Sonny Thomas, 44, across the street at 111 Taylor. Penney has been a partner at the Tuxedo Club since 1949. (“No B-Girl Case: She’s Bar Owner,” SF CH, 3/10/1955, 4)
3/11/1955 “Russell Munro, director of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, moved yesterday [3/10] to plug a glaring loophole in the B-girl law. As a test case, he ordered his San Francisco office to file charges aimed at revoking or suspending the liquor license of the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk Street. He test will determine whether young women who share ownership of taverns can solicit drinks like B-girls and still retain their liquor licenses . . . The present law does not restrict owners, regardless of their percentage of ownership, from soliciting drinks. But some tavern owners are taking advantage of tis loophole. But where B-girl criminal charges cannot be pressed in court against a woman owner of a bar who solicits drinks, Munro feels that his department, as a licensing agency, can take civil action. He initiated the test case against the Tuxedo Club after B-girl charges were dismissed in municipal cout against Nelda Penney, 30, co-owner of the bar . . . Judge Carlton W. Horn, who acted on motion of the district attorney’s office, also dismissed charges against the Tuxedo’s bartender, Sonny Thomas, 44. Assistant Attorney General William M. Bennett, special adviser to the state liquor agency, and Norbert Falvey, supervising liquor control officer here, were concerned, knowing that the Tuxedo criminal case would collapse in court. Bennett, after thrashing out the matter with Falvey, phoned Munro in Sacramento and discussed it at length with him. Munro then announced he would instruct Falvey to file departmental charges against the Tuxedo Club. A hearing will be held before a state referee, as in other liquor cases, to determine whether he bar’s liquor license should be suspended or revoked . . . Bennett, explaining his position, said: “The present law does not say that a woman owner of a bar must NOT solicit drinks, even B-girl drinks. But neither does the law authorize a woman owner of a bar to solicit B-girl drinks. If a co-owner of a bar was a prostitute, or a narcotics peddler, she could not engage in these illicit activities in her bar. We contend that if a woman owner of a bar sits among the customers and solicits phony, B-girl type of drinks, she is engaging in an illicit activity. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has the constitutional power to revoke a license, if the license is used in a manner contrary to public welfare and morals. The entire purpose of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is to promote temperance. A licensee, soliciting B-girl drinks, is not promoting temperance.” Falvey, the supervising liquor control officer who will file the charges against the Tuxedo Club, said he will confer on the matter with Bennett. Meantime, in another action involving B-girls, a husband and wife, licensees of a Turk Street were arrested on charges filed by a police under cover agent. They are Irving T. Cobb, 45, and Patricia Cobb, 48, operators of the Spur Club tavern at 126 Turk Street, who were charged with employing a minor as a B-girl. Patrolman Harold J. Walker swore out the warrants after taking the girl into custody at a hotel in the 200 block of Turk Street. She is a runaway from her home in LaCanada. Walker said the girl told him she was employed last Saturday [3/5] as a cocktail waitress at $25 a week. But, she added, her duties included those of a B-girl. She said the Cobbs did not question her age.” (“Action Taken To Tighten Up B-Girl Laws,” SF EX, 3/11/1955, 1)
3/17/1955 “Sacramento, March 16—The State Liquor Department Today was completing a complaint seeking the revocation of the license of the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk street, San Francisco, for B-girl operations. Criminal charges against the alleged B-girl, Nelda Penney, and the bartender, Sonny Thomas, were dismissed by the San Francisco Municipal Court last week after it was found that Miss Penney was a part owner of the bar, not strictly an employee. But State Liquor Director Russell St. Munro told The Chronicle he intends to take action against the license, even if there was no criminal offense. “If this woman was hustling drinks in that spot, the licensees are responsible whether she is on the license or not,” Munro explained.” (“Tuxedo Bar Faces New State Action,” SF CH, 3/17/1955, 21)
3/25/1955 “The State filed charges against a Turk street bar yesterday [3/23] as a test case in an effort to plug a loophole in B-girl laws. The bar is the Tuxedo Club, at 105 Turk street; its owners are James and Marjorie McQuade and Nelda Penney. Continuance of the club’s license, according to the charges, would be “contrary to the public welfare and morals.” Miss Penney was arrested n the bar earlier this month and charged as a B-girl. But the accusation was dropped when she turned out to be a co-owner, for there is nothing in the law forbidding bar owners from soliciting drinks from their customers. The alleged solicitation in this case involved a State Liquor Control agent, Frank J. Ryan. Yesterday’s charges against the Tuxedo Club were carefully drawn up by Supervising Liquor Control Officer Norbert Falvey with the aid of the Attorney General’s office. They are aimed at revoking the tavern’s license. Falvey’s specific charges are: 1—The licensees permitted Miss Penney to solicit drinks “under a profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy.” 2—That Miss Penney was permitted to drink while she was obviously intoxicated. 3—That Miss Penney was permitted to solicit drinks by using foul language, by caressing the State agent and by “holding forth inducements of improper personal relationships.” The charges will be argued before a State hearing officer. Date for the hearing has not been set.” (“State Acts to Plug Loophole In B-Girl Law,” SF CH, 3/24/1955, 3)
3/25/1955 “A test case was filed here yesterday [3/23] to plug a loophole in the State’s liquor laws, under which women who share ownership of bars could solicit drinks like B-girls. The test, exclusively forecast by The Examiner, was filed by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control against the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk Street. The Department is seeking to revoke the bar’s license, primarily on charges that a partner, Nelda Penney, 30, carried on like a B-girl on one occasion witnessed by a State liquor agent . . . There is nothing in the present law to restrict owners, regardless of their percentage of ownership, from soliciting drinks. Some tavern owners had been taking advantage of this loophole. The test was initiated after B-girl criminal charges were dismissed in municipal court several weeks ago. The district attorney’s office recommended the dismissal, contending it was powerless to proceed, there being no law which prohibits a woman bar owner from soliciting drinks . . . But assistant Attorney General William Bennett and Supervising Liquor Control Officer Norbert Falvey here felt the State liquor department, as a licensing agency, could tale civil action. Bennett discussed the matter with Russell S. Munro, State liquor director, who ordered the test case. Falvey, in charges filed yesterday [3/23], stressed that B-girl activity was illegal and accused Miss Penney of B-girl behavior. He charged that she solicited a encouraged a State liquor control agent to buy her drinks by intimately “caressing and fondling him and by holding forth inducements of an improper personal relationship.” Falvey charged that at the time, Miss Penney was herself in an intoxicated condition and was “loud, boisterous and using foul and profane language.” BARTENDER ACCUSED One of the charges accused bartender Sonny Thomas of serving liquor while she was in this condition. Falvey charged that because of her conduct, Miss Penney was not a fit person to be a liquor licensee; that the premises had been operated contrary to public welfare, peace and morals. Falvey said his records showed Miss Penney is listed as having a 25 per cent interest in the bar. The rest is in the name of James W. and Marjorie McQuade. On the basis of the charges filed yesterday, the bar’s operators will be given a hearing before a State referee. Then State Liquor Director Munro will decide whether the license should be revoked.” (“Bar Faces License Test Case Over B-Girl Ownership,” SF EX, 3/24/1955, 7) “Sacramento, March 24 . . . The Liquor Department . . . set a hearing in the State Building in San Francisco at 2 p. m. April 11 on a B-girl accusation against the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk street.” (“2nd S. F. Bar Wins B-Girl Case Appeal,” SF CH, 3/25/1955, 2)
3/25/1955 “EXAMINER BUREAU, SACRAMENTO, March 24. The State liquor control appeals board for the second time in a week today reversed a decision of Liquor Director Russell S. Munro revoking the license of a San Francisco bar on B-girl charges. The action preceeded by a few hours Munro’s announcement that a complaint has been filed charging that the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk Street, has been operated contrary to public welfare and morals and that a woman partner in the business, Nelda Penney, operated as a B-girl . . . Today’s appeals board decision, holding the director’s findings were “not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record,” involved the license of Robert W. Greenblatt at the Aloha Club, 145 Eddy Street. A week ago today the board issued a similar reversal of Munro’s revocation order against the license of Manos Frangadakis at the Mother Lode, 178 Third Street. Munro said he has not determined which of three alternative courses he will take. He said neither case has yet reached his desk and he was unaware of today’s decision until informed by The Examiner . . . He noted that both cases were carryovers in which the State Board of Equalization issued the original revocation orders. These were affirmed by the new department of alcoholic beverage control which took over liquor enforcement on January 1. “I’ll admit that some of the board’s cases which we affirmed were thin,” Munro added. State liquor law authorizes Munro to accept the appeals board order, and for a judicial review on his own initiative, or ignore the appeals board decision and issue a final order. In the latter case the licensee would have recourse to a mandamus action in court. The board today in effect sustained the argument of Greenblatt’s attorney, Edward Dienstag, that the decision was not based on the facts and that there was insufficient evience to support the penalty. The board was informed the complaining liquor control officer admitted he bought the alleged B-girl her first drink at his own suggestion. No proof was presented that she received a percentage from the house.” (“Board Reverses Ban on S. F. Bar License,” SF EX, 3/25/1955, 6)
4/12/1955 “Hearing of a test case seeking to revoke he license under which the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk Street, is operating, was postponed indefinitely yesterday [4/11] for the taking of further testimony . . . William L. Ferdon, attorney for the licensees told Hearing Officer Ivores Dains of the State department of alcoholic beverage control that Munro had shown bias against the owners in public announcements. He referred to a statement on “a Turk Street bar that was a test case to plug a loophole in the State’s liquor laws.” (“Hearing on Liquor Test Case Postponed,” SF EX, 4/12/1955, 17)
5/27/1955 The recently formed State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, which took over the Board of Equalization’s state liquor control duties on January 1, will inaugurate a policy of prosecuting law violator case hearings involving possible suspension or revocation of liquor licenses with assistant attorney generals, a change from the Board of Equalization’s policy of using supervising liquor control officers for that purpose. In the previous system, the supervising officers would frequently find themselves in over their heads when a violator was defended by an attorney. Moreover, Frank Fullenwider, the “top liquor control man for nineteen coast counties,” will step in and personally prosecute complicated or high profile cases. The first of the cases to be prosecuted will be the Tuxedo Club case, on June 9. (“Liquor Area Head Acts As Prosecutor,” SF EX, 5/27/1955, 3)
6/10/1955 “A studious appearing State liquor agent described yesterday [6/9] how the blonde co-owner of a Tenderloin bar “repeatedly fondled” him, downed nine drinks and caused him to spend $25 on her in 50 lively minutes there on March 8. Frank J. Ryan, the bespectacled liquor control officer, testified at the resumption of hearings in which the Alcohol Beverage Control Department has charged that continuance of the license for the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk street, would be “contrary to the public welfare and morals.” The case is considered an effort by the State to plug a loophole in B-girl laws—namely that there is nothing in the law forbidding bar owners to solicit drinks. And under a new policy inaugurated by Frank Fullenwider, he department’s area adminstrator, an assistant attorney general—in this case Charles Barrett--acted as prosecutor. Ryan testified the blonde co-owner, Nelda Penney, 30, cosied up to him as soon as he entered. In the next 50 minutes, he says she finished off nine drinks. Meanwhile, Ryan said, he managed to finish three beers himself. The bill, he added, came to about $25—averaging 50 cents a minute. Under cross-examination by Attorney William Ferdon—who represents Miss Penney and the other owners, James and Marjorie McQuade—Ryan was asked whether Miss Penney was sitting to his right or left during his visit. “She was at my left, at my right, behind me and all around me,” he said, adding that she “repeatedly fondled” him. Asked by Ferdon if he protested, he replied: “no.” Police later testified Miss Penney was arrested on B-girl charges later that evening, but the accusation was dropped when she turned out to own a 25 per cent interest in the place. Police Sergeant Barnaby O’Leary was asked to describe her behavior when she was brought into the station. He said she was unsteady.” (“Blonde Barlady Costly, Agent Says,” SF CH, 6/10/1955, 30)
6/10/1955 “The new, tough policy of the State liquor department in prosecuting liquor license violators was put into operation yesterday [6/9] in a test case involving the Tuxedo Club at 105 Turk Street. Instead of a non-lawyer liquor officer at the head of the prosecution, the State was represented by Deputy Attorney General Charles Barrett . . . The new method of prosecution appeared to eliminate much of the bickering that, in the past, has marked the license hearings where skilled defense attorneys vied with liquor control officers who were not lawyers. The testimony yesterday revolved around 30 year old blonde Nelda Penny, a co-owner of the Tuxedo Club. She is accused of using B-girl tactics to solicit customers . . . The charge was thrown out of municipal court because she is a part owner of the tavern, but the liquor department contends that her actions are grounds for revoking the club’s license. State liquor agent Frank J. Ryan testified that she sat beside him at the bar and fondled him repeatedly over a period of fifteen minutes on the night he arrested her March 8 . . . Later, Miss Penny’s night bartender, Sonny Thomas of 111 Taylor Street, testified he observed no “fondling” on his boss’ part. “I would not tolerate it anyway, regardless of who the man was,” Thomas declared. The bartender said Ryan, soon after entering the place, looked down the bar toward where Miss Penny was seated and shouted “Buy the blonde a drink.” During the evening the liquor agent bought him a shot of whisky and Thomas bought one in return, the bartender said . . . Ryan said he purchased nine drinks for Miss Penny in less than an hour, but that “she seemed to be intoxicated before I bought the first one.” Both Thomas and Mrs. Marjorie McQuade, another partner in the tavern, said Miss Penny’s ability to hold her liquor was “exceptionally good.” “She can outdrink me and I can drink plenty,” the bartender said. Mrs. McQuade said neither she or Miss Penny offered the suggestion of improper relationships in return for drink buying. Other defense witnesses included James W. McQuade, Mrs. McQuade’s husband and another partner, who said Miss Penny paid $5,000 to join the bar ownership six years ago; Clarence Messer, a waiter, od 1061 Connecticut Street, who was in the place on the night of the arrests; his wife, Ann, and Clifford Oakland of 467 Guerrero Street, a clothing salesman and part-time bartender at the Tuxedo Club, also on the premises the night the B drinks allegedly solicited . . . Miss Penny is expected to be the first witness his morning at 10 when the hearing resumes at the State Building. David Hamrock, another agent who was cross examined by Miss Penny’s attorney, William Ferdon, said he had visited the tavern, off and on, for three and a half years. He said he never saw Miss Penny soliciting drinks.” (“New Tough Liquor Policy Invoked in Test Case Over Tuxedo Club,” SF EX, 6/10/1955, 19)
6/11/1955 “While one of the owners of the Tuxedo Club bar was defending herself yesterday against charges of soliciting drinks from customers, another was in jail as an alleged bookmaker. Owner No. 1 is Nelda Penney, who appeared at a hearing in the State Building to determine whether the club, which is at 150 Turk street, should lose its liquor license. Owner No. 2 is James W. McQuade, 52, or 101 Sutton street, South San Francisco. He was released from city prison late in the morning on $1000 bail after he had been arrested in the bar at 10 a. m. McQuade is a former San Francisco policeman, who retired for disability in 1946 after about 19 years’ service. He, his wife and Miss Penney are listed as the bar’s owners . . . Bartender Sonny Thomas, of 111 Taylor street, testified that Miss Penney had accepted five drinks from State Agent Frank J. Ryan only because Ryan pressed them on her. Miss Penney couldn’t have made any advances to Ryan, Thomas added, because “she’s not that kind of a woman.” After this testimonial, Miss Penney began a tour on the stand which ended with an admission that she had lied on some of her testimony. Asked where she got the money to buy her shares of the bar, Miss Penney first told Hearing Officer Ivores Dains she had borrowed $3000 from her sister. Under cross-examination she admitted, however, that the money actually came from a bar equipment salesman . . . “He’s a married man,” she explained. I didn’t want to embarrass him.” Earlier, Miss Penney, tall, emaciated blonde who gave her age as 30, denied she had ever solicited drinks. She said she had accepted drinks offered to her only because she wanted to maintain a “cheerful, happy atmosphere” in the bar by being “friendly with the customers.” Ryan earlier testified that he was induced to spend $25 in 55 minutes. With the end of Miss Penney’s testimony, the hearing of the case came to a close. Dains will recommend to Russell S. Munro, State liquor control director, whether the Tuxedo Club’s license should be revoked.” (“Bar Owners Have Double Legal Trouble,” SF CH, 6/11/1955, 3)
6/11/1955 “A part owner of the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk Street, showed up late yesterday at a State hearing involving a B-girl test case against the bar. Because at 9:30 a. m., a half hour before the State hearing was to open, James W. McQuade, 52, the part owner, was arrested at the Tuxedo Club—on a bookmaking charge. It was a trying day, too, for another of the Tuxedo owners, Miss Nelda Penney, 30. She admitted portions of her testimony at the State hearing were false and was reprimanded by the hearing officer . . . McQuade, a retired San Francisco policeman, was found in a booth with bookmaking paraphernalia and $94 on the table before him, two officers from the police bureau of special services charged. The officers, Sgt. Frank Loftus and Patrolman Joseph Vanderford, said McQuade had been conducting a $200 a day betting operation. McQuade, who originally planned to go directly from the bar to the State Building hearing on whether his bar license should be revoked or suspended, did not. Instead, he was taken to city prison and booked on suspicion of bookmaking. He was released on $1,000 bail later in the morning and hied himself up to the liquor license hearing. McQuade, who lives at 101 Sutton Street, South San Francisco, joined the San Francisco Police Department in 1927. He was given a disability pension in 1946. The liquor license of the Tuxedo Club is held by McQuade, his wife, Marjorie, and Miss Penney . . . The State department of alcoholic beverage control is seeking to revoke or suspend the license, charging Miss Penney used B-girl tactics to solicit customers. The case is to determine whether women who share ownership of bars can solicit drinks. Yesterday [6/10], the third and concluding day o the hearing, Miss Penney took the witness stand to deny the soliciting charges. During cross examination by Deputy Attorney General Charles Barrett, acting as prosecutor, Miss Penney admitted that portions of her testimony were untrue. Earlier, she denied that her signature was on a partnership agreement for the bar. Under Barrett’s questioning, she admitted it was her signature. Earlier, she said she paid $5,000 to join the bar ownership and received $3,000 for a down payment from her sister, Evelyn Penney, of San Diego. Under Barrett’s questioning, she said this was untrue, also. She admitted borrowing the money from a man she identified as “Jake, a salesman of bar supplies.” (“B-Girl Case Bar Owner In Bookie Net,” SF EX, 6/11/1955, 7)
2/3/1956 “As a test case aimed at plugging a loophole in the B-girl laws, the liquor license of Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk street, was revoked yesterday [10/9]. State Liquor Director Russel S. Munro, I lifting the license, held that women who share ownership of bars cannot solicit drinks. The test was initiated last March, after State liquor agents charged that Nelda Penney, 30, a part owner of the Tuxedo Club, had violated the criminal code by soliciting drinks with B-girl tactics . . . The test was decided upon after B-girl criminal charges against Miss Penney were dismissed in municipal court. The district attorney office had recommended the dismissal. It contended it was powerless to proceed, there being no law which makes it a crime for a woman bar owner to solicit drinks. Some tavern owners have been taking advantage of this loophole by selling a tiny interest in the business to one or more B-girls. With dismissal of the B-girl criminal charges in court, the State department of alcoholic beverage control office here filed civil charges aimed at revoking the bar’s license . . . And yesterday, Munro revoked the license, on charges that Miss Penney had solicited drinks; that liquor was sold to an intoxicated person, and that one of the licensees was not a fit and proper person to hold a license. The other owners are Marjorie and James McQuade.” (“Bar Loses License; Owner Called B-Girl,” SF EX, 10/7/1955, 3) “Examiner Bureau, Sacramento, Feb. 2.—The State Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board today scheduled hearings in San Francisco February 14 on liquor director Russell S. Munro’s license revocation orders against two San Francisco bars. The are the Gold Rail, 1128 Market Street, and the Tuxedo Club, 105 Turk Street.” (“Hearings Today On Bar Licenses,” SF EX, 2/3/1956, 18)
8/2/1956 “Police Chief Frank Ahern yesterday [8/1] asked the State liquor department not to issue a permit to William K. Hespe to operate a bar at 105 Turk Street. Ahern said that Hespe had been convicted of lewd conduct in 1953 and was, therefore, considered by police as unfit to hold a permit.” (“Liquor Permit Issuance Fought,” SF EX, 8/2/1956, 9)
10/10/1957 “Examiner Bureau, Sacramento, Oct. 10. – The State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control today . . . Reversed a previous order denying the application of Alexander L. and Cora C. Patterson for transfer of a bar license at the Five O’clock, 105 Turk Street. The original denial was based on grounds that approval of the transfer would aggravate an existing police problem, but the department said the San Francisco police chief meantime withdrew his protest.” (“State Cites New Law In Liquor Order,” SF EX, 10/11/1957, 24)
11/9/1957 “Relax! Enjoy Superb Cocktails Around Our Homey Fireplace Open 2 P. M. To 2 A. M. Daily Five O’clock Club 105 Turk Street” (SF EX, 11/9/1957, 13) “Cocktail Hour Special 5 to 6 P. M. Two-For-One Cocktails - Highballs – Martinis Etc. All Genuine Doubles! Five O’clock Club Homey Fireplace 105 Turk St.” (“SF EX, 11/23/1957, 6) “Relax! Enjoy Superb Cocktails Around Our Homey Fireplace Open 2 P. M. To 2 A. M. Daily Five O’clock Club 105 Turk Street” (SF EX, 12/7/1957, 9)
7/20/1970 “Is Salem witchcraft trial hysteria being used in the drive to stamp out San Francisco’s flourishing nudie movie industry? Attorney George T. Davis thinks it is. Representing one of the theater owners before the Board of Permit Appeals yesterday [7/20], Davis said: “I would not like to think that in 1970 there is a witch hunting board that tells me not to read a book or see a movie . . .” Having earlier compared the appeals board with a kangaroo court, Davis Davis showed no surprise when the permit reviewers, by a 4 to 1 vote, ordered his client’s establishment, “Peekarama” at 53 Turk St. closed, boosting to five their kill of nudies to date. The one dissenting board member was Peter Boudoures. Explaining his stand, Bourdouris said he would be in favor of banning all such movies but felt he couldn’t because the courts have ruled them legal.” The board ruling that the “105 Turk Street and the Peekarama across the street be closed probably won’t stop them from doing business as usual . . . “We’ll get ourselves a restraining order right away,” said Davis. The plea that the theaters be closed was made by the Committee on Social Order. Legally, all hat the committee could do was challenge a permit that the Fire Department had issued after determining the movie operation didn’t violate any of its regulations . . . When social order advocates argued that the showing of movies in buildings not specifically constructed for that purpose might pose a fire hazard, Boudoures interrupted: “Are you saying that the San Francisco Fire Department, which is one of the best in the country, made a mistake or are you really trying to tell us that this type of movie shouldn’t be allowed to be shown anywhere in San Francisco?” Davis warned the permit reviewers that by playing ball with the social order committee, they’d put themselves in the position of becoming “a board of censors.” And he added, “If an adult person wants to go to one of these movies, I say he has a right to do it. As adult men, why should you prescribe what they should see, as long as it’s not being forced on you or your children?” All permit reviewers indignantly denied a statement by Davis that he’d been told that every member of the board had been contacted by a member of the City Attorney’s office, urging them to order the nudie theaters closed. “Absolutely wrong,” said board chairman Fred Ainslie before voting in favor of social order on he screen.” (“Closure of Nudie Film House Said Witch Hunt,” SF EX, 7/21/1970, 18)
8/2/1956 “Police Chief Frank Ahern yesterday [8/1] asked the State liquor department not to issue a permit to William K. Hespe to operate a bar at 105 Turk Street. Ahern said that Hespe had been convicted of lewd conduct in 1953 and was, therefore, considered by police as unfit to hold a permit.” (“Liquor Permit Issuance Fought,” SF EX, 8/2/1956, 9)
10/10/1957 “Examiner Bureau, Sacramento, Oct. 10. – The State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control today . . . Reversed a previous order denying the application of Alexander L. and Cora C. Patterson for transfer of a bar license at the Five O’clock, 105 Turk Street. The original denial was based on grounds that approval of the transfer would aggravate an existing police problem, but the department said the San Francisco police chief meantime withdrew his protest.” (“State Cites New Law In Liquor Order,” SF EX, 10/11/1957, 24)
11/9/1957 “Relax! Enjoy Superb Cocktails Around Our Homey Fireplace Open 2 P. M. To 2 A. M. Daily Five O’clock Club 105 Turk Street” (SF EX, 11/9/1957, 13) “Cocktail Hour Special 5 to 6 P. M. Two-For-One Cocktails - Highballs – Martinis Etc. All Genuine Doubles! Five O’clock Club Homey Fireplace 105 Turk St.” (“SF EX, 11/23/1957, 6) “Relax! Enjoy Superb Cocktails Around Our Homey Fireplace Open 2 P. M. To 2 A. M. Daily Five O’clock Club 105 Turk Street” (SF EX, 12/7/1957, 9)
7/20/1970 “Is Salem witchcraft trial hysteria being used in the drive to stamp out San Francisco’s flourishing nudie movie industry? Attorney George T. Davis thinks it is. Representing one of the theater owners before the Board of Permit Appeals yesterday [7/20], Davis said: “I would not like to think that in 1970 there is a witch hunting board that tells me not to read a book or see a movie . . .” Having earlier compared the appeals board with a kangaroo court, Davis Davis showed no surprise when the permit reviewers, by a 4 to 1 vote, ordered his client’s establishment, “Peekarama” at 53 Turk St. closed, boosting to five their kill of nudies to date. The one dissenting board member was Peter Boudoures. Explaining his stand, Bourdouris said he would be in favor of banning all such movies but felt he couldn’t because the courts have ruled them legal.” The board ruling that the “105 Turk Street and the Peekarama across the street be closed probably won’t stop them from doing business as usual . . . “We’ll get ourselves a restraining order right away,” said Davis. The plea that the theaters be closed was made by the Committee on Social Order. Legally, all hat the committee could do was challenge a permit that the Fire Department had issued after determining the movie operation didn’t violate any of its regulations . . . When social order advocates argued that the showing of movies in buildings not specifically constructed for that purpose might pose a fire hazard, Boudoures interrupted: “Are you saying that the San Francisco Fire Department, which is one of the best in the country, made a mistake or are you really trying to tell us that this type of movie shouldn’t be allowed to be shown anywhere in San Francisco?” Davis warned the permit reviewers that by playing ball with the social order committee, they’d put themselves in the position of becoming “a board of censors.” And he added, “If an adult person wants to go to one of these movies, I say he has a right to do it. As adult men, why should you prescribe what they should see, as long as it’s not being forced on you or your children?” All permit reviewers indignantly denied a statement by Davis that he’d been told that every member of the board had been contacted by a member of the City Attorney’s office, urging them to order the nudie theaters closed. “Absolutely wrong,” said board chairman Fred Ainslie before voting in favor of social order on he screen.” (“Closure of Nudie Film House Said Witch Hunt,” SF EX, 7/21/1970, 18)
7/21/1970 “The city’s Board of Permit Appeals yesterday, by separate votes of four to one, closed down two more of San Francisco’s so-called nudie movie houses. The Board’s performance received a one star rating from lawyers representing the Peek-A-Rama theater at 53 Turk Street and the “105 Turk Street.” “Yesterday’s closing brought to five the number of theaters closed by the board acting in concert with a group of self-styled censors calling themselves the “Committee on Social Order.” BOARD Calling the board a “kangaroo court,” and challenging its right to close down businesses without court hearings, Attorney George Davis said: “If an adult human being wants to go to one of those movies . . . I say he has a right to do it. As adult men, why should you tell me I cannot go see it . . . as long as it’s not foisted on your children or (the theater owner) is not disturbing the peace?” Davis was joined in his scathing criticism of the board by Attorney Paul A. Neuer who represented the theater at 105 Turk. Neuer traded insults with a hostile board, closely cross-examined food merchant Paul LeBaron of the Committee – who presented the cases against the theaters – and finally announced: “I abhor the way this board sets itself above the courts . . .” and said the Committee’s actions were no more “than subterfuge to circumvent recent court decisions and the (U. S. Constitution).” CONCERN The Committee insists, however, that its only real concern is for the safety of San Franciscans and the enforcement of city codes and planning provisions. For example, the Committee claims the films used in the erotic-fare houses is inflammable, that the city’s fire inspectors have erred and that citizens of San Francisco want a more beautiful city – as evidenced by the $24 million Market street bond issue – and the movie houses threaten all this. The Appeals Board has revoked the five permits for these reasons – officially. Committee chairman James Scatena admitted at an earlier hearing, though, that if a theater like Peek-A-Rama showed Bible pictures instead of bawdy ones, there would be no trouble. CASES The one dissenter on the Appeals Board in the movie cases has been – and was yesterday – Peter G. Boudoures. In each of the five cases, h has voted against the Committee. The committee now presents cases only to a five man board, where Boudoures cannot hurt them. In a testy mood yesterday, Boudoures blasted Committee member LeBaron and, in effect, his colleagues. “What you are really protesting is (the type) of movies shown and that is for a court to decide and not this board or anyone else. “You know how the court had decided in these matters, so now you are blaming the Fire Department,” he snapped. “I would not like to to think,” added layer Davis, “that in 1970 there is a witch-hunting board in this city that wants to tell me what to see . . .” APPEAL Later, Davis and Neuer said they and lawyers involved in earlier movie cases probably “will get our heads together” to plan a court appeal on th board’s decisions. Neuer said the lawyers and their clients would attempt to get a restraining odr against the Appeals Board to put an end to the shutting down of the movie houses. “You cannot deny a businessman his right to do business without a court hearing,” said Neuer. “Those rights are guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.”” (“2 More Nudie Movies Are Closed at Bitter Hearing,” SF CH, 7/21/1970, 2)
9/29/1970 “A citizen’s group, with the help of the city’s Board of Permit Appeals, added the Sutter Cinema yesterday [September 28] to the growing list of so-called nudie filmhouses it has managed to close down through building-permit appeals. The appeals board, by a 4 to 0 vote, overruled the Fire Department’s issuance of n operating permit to the theater, located at the 363 Sutter street site of the old Forbidden City night club. Yeterday’s decision brought to seven the number of so-called nudie erotic film theaters the permit reviewers have theoretically shut down since May on appeals by the Citizens Committee for Social Order that operating permits be revoked. None of the theaters has yet been officially ordered to close because of the time-consuming paper work required by the government machinery to revoke the permits—and ready itself for anticipated court appeals. However, that paper work was expected to be completed by tomorrow in connection with the first half-dozen theaters whose permits were suspended by the appeals board. The next step, said Phillip Siggins, appeals board secretary, would be a request that the police take steps to shut down the theaters, and that could take place before the end of the week. The theaters involved are the Peek-A-Rama, the Upper Room, the 105 Turk Theater, the Pink Cat, Expo ’69 and the Latin Quarter.” (“New Nudie Movie Permit Revocation,” SF CH, 9/29/1970, 5)
11/16/1971 “A bestiality film called “Animal Lover” at the 105 Turk Street theter was, for Natali [the West Coast representative of a company with a chain of 50 legitimate and hard core theaters], “the most distasteful thing I ever imagined. It’s anti-sexual, almost nauseating. I had to turn my eyes away.” But bestiality and necrophilia are, he fears, the coming thing. He said the composition of audiences is changing dramatically. The Gay Paree on Sixth makes a joke of it, a sign outside saying, “Let us bring out the Dirty Old Man in you!” TOURISTS Now, Natali said, women – many of them tourists – make up 30 per cent of the audience at the North Beach Theater on weekend nights. “We can’t seem to get young people into our theaters no matter how hard we try,” he said. “What’s new is that we’re now getting couples who want to see some erotic movies. But young people don’t seem to be interested.” (“The Porn Film Boom in S. F.,” SF CH, 11/16/1970, 1)
11/16/1970 “A bestiality film called “Animal Lover” at the 105 Turk Street theater was, for Natali [the West Coast representative of a company with a chain of 50 legitimate and hard core theaters], “the most distasteful thing I ever imagined. It’s anti-sexual, almost nauseating. I had to turn my eyes away.” But bestiality and necrophilia are, he fears, the coming thing. He said the composition of audiences is changing dramatically. The Gay Paree on Sixth makes a joke of it, a sign outside saying, “Let us bring out the Dirty Old Man in you!” TOURISTS Now, Natali said, women – many of them tourists – make up 30 per cent of the audience at the North Beach Theater on weekend nights. “We can’t seem to get young people into our theaters no matter how hard we try,” he said. “What’s new is that we’re now getting couples who want to see some erotic movies. But young people don’t seem to be interested.” (“The Porn Film Boom in S. F.,” SF CH, 11/16/1970, 1)
11/16/1970 “A bestiality film called “Animal Lover” at the 105 Turk Street theater was, for Natali [the West Coast representative of a company with a chain of 50 legitimate and hard core theaters], “the most distasteful thing I ever imagined. It’s anti-sexual, almost nauseating. I had to turn my eyes away.” But bestiality and necrophilia are, he fears, the coming thing. He said the composition of audiences is changing dramatically. The Gay Paree on Sixth makes a joke of it, a sign outside saying, “Let us bring out the Dirty Old Man in you!” TOURISTS Now, Natali said, women – many of them tourists – make up 30 per cent of the audience at the North Beach Theater on weekend nights. “We can’t seem to get young people into our theaters no matter how hard we try,” he said. “What’s new is that we’re now getting couples who want to see some erotic movies. But young people don’t seem to be interested.” (“The Porn Film Boom in S. F.,” SF CH, 11/16/1970, 1)
1/7/1971 “Animal Lover A Documented Film Filmed In Super 22mm Sound and in Color 105 Turk Street Theatre, San Francisco Cont. 9 AM Ph. 771-8636” (SF CH, 11/18/1970, 61) “Is a film showing a Danish farm-girl having sex with a dog, a boar and a stallion legally “obscene?” This is a question a jury of six men and six women with have to determine in a key trial which opened yesterday [1/6] in Municipal Court. The film, a thoroughly unpleasant pseudo-documentary on bestiality down through the ages, is called “Animal Lover.” DEFENDANT The defendant is Jackie Simpson, 41, a puffy-eyed fellow who used to be in the night club business in Texas. He showed the film at his 105 Turk street mini-theater last year – and made a bundle doing it, according to his lawyer. “Animal Lover? May be the make-or-break case for Assistant District Attorney Jerome T. Benson, who has yet to get a hit in three times at bat. His three previous prosecutions of proprietors of skin-flick houses all ended in hung juries late last year . . . If yet another jury fails to agree on “Animal Lover,” the district attorney may decide to give up his expensive ($2500 or more per trial) prosecutions of skinflicks and the men and women who show them. The heroine of “Animal Lover” is Odil, a pretty girl in her 20s with dark blonde hair. Through a translator she tells how she first had sex with her dog when she was 12 and growing up on a farm in Northern Denmark. Since then she has had sex with dogs, bulls, stallions and boars, because she “trusts” animals . . . As for normal sexual relations, she said she had sexual intercourse with a man only once, and found it a “disappointment.” Sandwiched in between shots of Odil having sex with her barnyard friends and a lecture on bestiality are interviews with sellers of smut in Copenhagen, as well as one with a “Miss Mendelsohn” from San Mateo, who claimed to have been kidnaped in Marrakech and gang-raped over a period of 18 months. For the jurors to find “Animal Lover” to be “obscene,” they must find it has no “redeeming social importance” and also appeals to prurient (i. e., morbid or shameful) interest, and that it “substantially” exceeds community limits of candor – whatever they may be in a city now known as the world capital of pornography. Sergeant Sol Weiner, a four-year veteran of smut investigations, will return to the witness stand when the trial resumes today at 10 a. m. before Municipal Court Judge S. Lee Vavuris. Simpson is defended by Paul Neuer, an ex-police inspector, and by Peter Keane.” (“A Legal Test of Bestiality Film,” SF CH, 1/7/1971, 3)
1/8/1971 “A psychiatrist charged yesterday [1/7] that “Animal Lover,” the first bestiality film to be shhown openly in San Francisco, depicts “very sick behavior.” Dr. Louis A. Noltimier, 42, has presented “expert” testimony as a prosecution witness in a dozen obscenity trials, including the three porno-movie cases which ended in hung juries late last year. Dr. Noltimier, who said he has no read the landmark Report of the President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, spent the day on the witness stand in the Municipal Court trial of Jackie Simpson, proprietor of the 105 Turk street theater. The film, which shows a Danish farm girl having sex with a dog, pig and horse, [played at the theater for more than a month at a $7 admission . . . Dr. Noltimier, a conservative Republican who is on Governor Reagan’s Advisory Commission on Mental Health, showed himself to be a conservative in sexual matters also He essentially limited his definition of “healthy” sex to that which goes on between consenting members of the opposite sex for the main purpose of procreation . . . He hemmed and hawed on the subject of masturbation, but said that oral-genital contacts might be all right, as long as they were mostly “foreplay.” Dr. Noltimier said that as a psychiatrist he sometimes thinks of his patients’ sexual behavior as “unhealthy,” or “perverted” or “diseased” or “sick” or even “shameful.” “I feel the film does appeal to prurient (morbid or shameful) interest,” he insisted under cross examination by defense attorney Peter Keane. Bestiality is an “unnatural act,” he said, which “goes against the natural law.” PAIN Dr. Noltimier, who grew up on a North Dakota farm, also said he believed that the whimpering of the dog in “Animal Lover” during sex indicated that “in all probability the dog was in physoical pain.” He also expressed the view that watching a bestiality movie would either increase guilt feelings on the part of someone who had been having sexual contact with animals, or would “reinforce the desire” to continue with such relations. The trial continues today before Municipal Court Judge S. Lee Vavuris and a jury of six men, six women and a male alternate.” (“Expert Says Bestiality Film ‘Sick’,” SF CH, 1/8/1971, 8)
1/9/71 “A four-year veteran of smut investigations said yesterday [1/8] he believes San Francisco was the first city in California where bestiality movies were shown openly. Police Sergeant Sol Weiner told a jury of six men and six women that in his opinion, “Animal Lover,” a film first shown here on November 10 “substantially exceeds any limits of candor.” San Francisco police and firemen recently checked out a report that a live show featuring a woman and a pony was being staged at an address on Grant avenue. The report apparently was without foundation, Weiner said. On trial before Judge S. Lee Vavuris is Jackie Simpson, 41, a former night club operator in Texas and Colorado and now owner of the 105 Turk Street Theater. The trail resumes Monday.” (“A Porn Film First for S. F.,” SF CH, 1/9/1971, 26)
1/12/71 “In another courtroom, a Methodist clergyman who is one of the leading sexologists in the United States testified that the bestiality film “Animal Lover” has some redeeming social importance. The Rev. Ted McIlvenna, co-director of the National Sex and Drug Forum, spiced his testimony with references to the 15,000 sex movies owned by Playboy publsher Hugh Hefner, several of which he said were bestiality movies. As for “Animl Lover,” a film of a Danish farm girl having sex with a dog, pig and horse, the Rev. McIlvenna said: “I don’t think it goes beyond the limits of candor in the community.” Peter Keane, defense lawyer for Jackie Simpson, 41, owner of the 105 Turk street theater, asked whether the Rev. McIlvenna felt that the alleged documentary film appeals to a prurient (i. e., shameful or morbid) interest in sex. “It absolutely doesn’t,” said the clergyman, who founded the Council on Religion nd the Homosexual some six years ago. The Rev. McIlvenna, who did much of the research for the landmark Report of the President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, said he has shown brief bestiality films in educational courses he has given to thousands of doctors, clergymen, counselors and others. Most viewers weren’t interested and considered the movies “a waste of time,” he said. He said Playboy Hefner, for whom he has acted as a consultant, has given some of his “best ones” in his huge pornography collection to the Kinsey Institute. The Rev. McIlvenna defined “obscene” movie as one in which real force or physical damage” is caused, such as “films on the Vietnam War.” His cross-examination will continue today. In an adjoining courtroom, Judge Low in effect threw out the case against Les Natali, 29, manager of several “adult” theaters, by granting a motion to suppress the evidence (the film “mona”) against him. The ruling was yet another setback for Assistant District Attorney Jerome Benson, whose three trials of porny movies have all ended in hung juries, and who could wind up with yet another mistrial in the “Animal Lover” trial as well. Judge Low said he found the film “offensive” and a “waste of money.” But he ruled that despite various explicit acts of intercourse, oral copulation, etc., “it is not obscene within the requirements of the law.” (“Judge Rules ‘Mona’ Not Obscene,” SF CH, 1/12/1971, 38)
1/12/71“District Attorney John Ferdon is batting exactly .000 in his prosecution of the purveyors of alleged pornographic films. Yesterday [1/11], Municipal Judge Harry Low granted a motion which cleared a film in a seventh trial, and, continuing today before Municipal Judge S. Lee Vaviuris and a jury of six men and six women, is an eighth trial . . . The film involved in the trial before Vavuris, the first of bestiality brought by Ferdon’s office, is a pseudo-documentary. After a half hour lecture on the history of bestiality, farm girl is shown in sex acts with a dog, and boar and a horse. The defendant in this case is Jackie Simpson, 41, operator of the 105 Turk Street Theater. Judge Low in effect ruled out obscenity in a film showed by Les Natali, 29, who manages six movie houses for the Art Theater Guild. Low said that although the film “Mona” shows “explicit sex acts of intercourse,” it is no obscene within the requirements of the law . . . The requirement, he said, are three: the film must arouse prurient interest, it must be substantially beyond the limits of candor and it must be utterly without redeeming social importance. The other trials: * Robert Albreaux, 29, operator of the Albreaux Gallery at the Cannery, 12-day trial last April, hung jury. * Ronald Chiquet, 31, Reel Theater, seven-day trial last May, hung jury, scheduled for retrial Jan. 29. * Albert Krikorian, 45, Gay Paree Theater at 122 Sixth St., three-day trial in October, mistrial, retrial next Monday. * Gino Del Prete, 39, Expo 69, six-day and seven-day trials in November, hung jury. * James Mitchell, 26, O’Farrell Theater, eight-day trial in November, hung jury. These trials have cost more than $5000 in jury fees and lunches, plus the daily wages of judges, reporters, clerks and bailiffs.” (“Prosecutor Losing Smut Film Battle,” SF EX, 1/12/1971, 42)
1/13/1971 “Final arguments are set today in San Francisco’s latest porny-movie case . . . Defense lawyers Peter Keane and Paul Neuer rested their case yesterday in the trial of “Animal Lover” after a noted psychiatrist said that only a “pervert” could have his prurient interest aroused by it. Dr, Martin G. Blinder said he found the pseudo-documentary on bestiality to be “distasteful, dull, boring and ridiculous.” “But I don’t see any harm in it,” said Blinder, who teaches both at UC Medical Center and Hastings College of the Law, and who has testified for the defense in a dozen obscenity trials.” (“Defense Rests In Bestiality Film,” SF CH, 1/13/1971, 37)
1/15/1971 “Assistant District Attorney Jerome Benson has won his first case in the prosecution of the purveyors of pornographic films. Late yesterday [1/14] a Municipal Court jury of six men and six women found Jackie Simpson, 41, operator of the 105 Turk St. theater, guilty of displaying “Animal Lover,” a film on bestiality, after six hours of deliberation. Simpson was the first to be charged with showing such a film. The jury found the film to be legally obscene. The theater operator’s attorneys, Peter Neuer and Peter Keane, plan to appeal the decision on the grounds that there was judicial error by Municipal Judge S. Lee Vavuris. The sentence on the misdemeanor charge is $1000 fine or six moths in jail or both. The nine-day trial was the seventh that Benson had attempted to prosecute. Four have ended in hung juries, one in a mistrial and the sixth was blocked by Municipal Judge Harry W. Low who ruled that the film in question was not obscene “within the requirements of the law.” Three of the hung jury cases are to be retried. “Animal Lover” was obscene, the jury found, because it is utterly without redeeming social importance, appeals to a prurient interest in sex, and substantially exceeds community standards of candor.” (“‘Animal Lover’ Ruled Obscene,” SF EX, 1/15/1971, 6)
1/16/71 A “municipal Court jury of six men and six women found Jackie
Simpson, 41, guilty of showing an obscene film. It was the bestiality
movie “Animal Lover,” which stars a Danish farmgirl having sex with a
dog, pig and horse . . . Simpson, 41, a former operator of night clubs
in Texas and Colorado and present owner of the 105 Turk Street theater,
is appealing the conviction, which carries a maximum sentence of six
months in jail and a $1000 fine . . . A trial date will be set later
this month for Robert Hubsch who also showed a bestiality movie, “Mrs.
McDonald’s Farm, at his Mini Adult theater in the Tenderloin. (“Hope for
End to Bestiality Films,” SF CH, 1/16/1971, 3)
4/21/1971 “Assistant Police Chief Donald Scott has served notice on San Francisco’s filthy movie operators that the exhibition of hard-core sex is virtually at an end. The occasion yesterday [4/20] was the first haring on approval of permits under the new ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 10. A 60-day moratorium, required by the code, has just elapsed. The dirty movie operators are not required to come in and be checked out by the police on the basis of personal background (prior arrests for sex crimes, Etc.) and conformity to fire, health, building code and other regulations. Gino del Prete, operator of an establishment at 1030 Kearny St., was first to get the news. Casually and with great assurance, he explained that his business was “just a livelihood that provides me with my bread and butter.” Four women delegates from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association had a number of things to say, all unfriendly to Del Prete’s establishment. It was also reported that Capt. Joseph Flynn, commander of Central Station, regarded Del Prete’s place unfavorably. Crisply, Chief Scott put Del Prete out of business with a revocation of his license. In repaid order a half dozen more exhibitors were ordered before Scott. When the proprietors of a theater at 2111 Polk St. made their appearance, they found themselves substantially outnumbered. Other porno houses reviewed for licensing (with no grants) were theaters at 430 Mason St., 76 Smith St., 471 Broadway, 245 Sixth St., 150 Mason St., and 105 Turk St.” No licenses were granted. Chief Alfred Nelder was pleased with the results of the first hearing. “These people might just as well learn now that we mean business,” he said. “They’ll get all the due process they’re entitled to. We invite them to come in – attorneys and all – and qualify for permits if hey can. But we are not going half way in this campaign to drive sick and unsavory establishments from San Francisco’s streets.” (“Police Revoke Permits on Sex Film Shows,” SF EX, 4/21/1971, 24)
8/8/1971 The 105 Turk Street Theater was remodeled into the Turk Street Follies and began weekly display advertisements of XXX films in the Sunday Date Book section of the SF CH, and eventually daily ads in the SF EX. “Unrestrained Adult Action Adults Only Turk Str. Follies 105 Turk St. Doors Open 9 AM to 1 AM Secret Scandals Of Sin-City All Color . . . All Sound . . . All Hard Action!!! Soft Girls Making It The Hard Way In Sin-City!! This show begins where all others end, and leaves Nothing to the imagination!! Completely Remodeled.” (“Adult Theaters,” SF CH, Date Book section, 8/8/1971, 15)
8/8/1971 The 105 Turk Street Theater was remodeled into the Turk Street Follies and began weekly display advertisements of XXX films in the Sunday Date Book section of the SF CH, and eventually daily ads in the SF EX. “Unrestrained Adult Action Adults Only Turk Str. Follies 105 Turk St. Doors Open 9 AM to 1 AM Secret Scandals Of Sin-City All Color . . . All Sound . . . All Hard Action!!! Soft Girls Making It The Hard Way In Sin-City!! This show begins where all others end, and leaves Nothing to the imagination!! Completely Remodeled.” (“Adult Theaters,” SF CH, Date Book section, 8/8/1971, 15)
8/10-1971 “The Board of Permit Appeals voted yesterday [8/9] to deny new motion picture licenses to another four of the city’s skin flick movie houses. The cases, heard at a brisk clip, resulted from a city ordinance early this year which required that all movie operators seek new licenses. None of the porn operators made the grad, and at least 17 have now petitioned the appeals board for rehearings. Denied appeal yesterday of Police Department refusal to issue new licenses were: Sutter Cinema, 369 Sutter street; Michael Hunter, 105 Turk street; Turk Street News, 66 Turk street, and John Buckley, 4416 18th street.” (“Four More Porn Theaters Denied Licenses,” SF CH, 8/10/1971, 29)
2/21/1973 The Turk Street Follies at 105 Turk Street advertised hardcore male stag films.” (Bay Area Reporter, 2/21/1973, 22) The ad ran to December.
9/20/1977 SF EX reporters Phil Matier and Andy Ross wrote a week-long expose of conditions in San Francisco’s Tenderloin District. Included: “Turk Street Follies, movies and live male dancers, 105 Turk. Permit holder is Harold A. Davis of Oakland. Property owners are Gilmer and Marjorie Anselmo and Frank M. Martino, all of San Francisco.” (“Who owns the ‘adult’ stores,” SF EX, 9/20/1977, 9) Admission to the Turk Street Follies at 105 Turk Street and other Tenderloin XXX movie houses (“Business as usual—and some unusual businesses,” SF EX, 9/20/1977, 8) is $5, which is $26 or $27 in 2025 dollars.
8/3/1978 “1. ADONIS, 384 Ellis, 474-6995. Live show some nights, lounge, $3 membership, $4-$5 door, Noon—Midnight or later. 2. E.O.C.C., 17th at Castro, 621-9275. Lounge, $3 membership, $2 door, 2pm-3am (4am Fri. & Sat.) 3. NOB HILL; 729 Bush, 781-9468. Lounge, $1 membership, $5 door, 11am-Midnight. 4. SPARTAN THEATER, 150 Mason, 421-5257. Live show, lounge, $5 door, 10am-2am. 5. TEA ROOM THEATRE, 145 Eddy, 885-9887. Lounge, $3 door, 10am-2am. 6. TURK STREET FOLLIES, 105 Turk, 441-9381. Live show, $5, Noon-Midnight or later.” (“Male Erotic Film Theaters,” Bay Area Reporter, 8/3/1978, 5)
1/23/1979 “Across the street at the Turk Street Follies (“Live Male Shows and Movies”) two pimply males grunt and groan on a grainy screen . . .” (“It’s his beat – the tarnished side of a sparkling city,” SF EX, 1/23/1979, D-5)
11/25/1981 “. . . The size queens all over town are rapturously celebrating the appearance of a male dancer at the Turk Street Follies. His name is LEE and from all reports, his entire supply of is Heaven-lee . . .” (“Bob’s Bazaar,” Bay Area Reporter, 11/25/1981, 27)
5/8/1983 “Dancer Wanted; reliable, over 18. Must be able to work day and night shifts. Apply 105 Turk St., Turk Street Follies, SF. Ask for Tanya.” (“Performing Arts,” SF CH, 5/8/1983, Want Ad Supermarket, 18)
1/5/1984 “Margo Moore. Mr. Moore supplied his biography in a form as creative, pointed, and smart as he is in drag. It follows, complete: Margo Moore fell in love with titles at an early age. At 16 he was selected the first Grand Duchess of Merced. It was there that he also first became known as "Miss Size Queen.” When rumors circulated around town that he had “Take a number" tattooed on the soles of his feet, he decided to run away to San Francisco — and have it done. Nearly penniless, he rented a room in the Tenderloin with two other people and began dancing at the old Turk Street Follies. The year was 1977. The drag scene beckoned. All spare change went to the Goodwill store to pay for the latest “Goodie” designer dresses. Performances at clubs came next. The Landmark. The Sound of Music. The Railway Express. In 1979 Margo made a three-month visit to New Orleans, where he chug-a-lugged gumbo between stage appearances at The Gunga Din. Later in 1979 he visited Gainesville, Florida, to find out if it is true that the difference between a California orange and a Florida orange is that when you suck on them, the California orange sucks back. It’s true. In Florida he continued his study of hairdressing at a beauty academy. He also found time to perform at The Melody Club. Back in San Francisco Margo was chosen the first Miss Gay World in 1982. In that capacity he participated the Beaux Arts Ball, he vamped and camped and won the Grand Prize. He now lives South of Market on Dolores which he says is “like living in a box of granola —— smack dab in the middle of fruits, nuts, and flakes. I love it." Margo Moore hopes as Empress to continue to promote unity, spread joy, be Mary, and continue to raise funds for worthy charities. (“Forecast: A Year’s Reign,” Bay Ara Reporter, 1/5/1984, 27)
7/12/1987 “Not all the hotels are as expensive as, say, the $200-per-day rooms at Campton Court. For $8 the budget-conscious traveler can share a dormitory-type room at Youth Hostel Centrale. It’s a private hotel in the heart of the Tenderloin, situated conveniently between a pornographic bookstore and the Turk Street Follies.” (“Tourism: San Francisco’s cash crop,” SF EX, 7/12/1987, 1)
11/4/2022 “New plans have been filed for an 18-story residential infill at 101 Turk Street in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood. The proposal will replace a surface parking lot and a single-story vacant retail structure. The proposal will also retain a five-story residential building with 112 units managed by Veritas Investments at 57 Taylor Street. Project details are scarce for 101 Turk Street. The initial plans specify that 116 new apartments will be created in the 18-story addition, with 4,390 square feet of shared open space shared across the site. Unit sizes will vary with 62 studios, 12 junior one-bedrooms,12 one-bedrooms, 18 two-bedrooms, and 12 three-bedrooms. The project uses the state density bonus program, which allows the developer to increase the total residential capacity by 50% if a certain percentage of base units are designated as affordable. Demolition will be required for a vacant single-story commercial structure at 105 Turk Street and the surface parking lot covering 111 Turk Street. As mentioned in the introduction, the existing five-story residential building at 57 Taylor Street will remain undisturbed. The 1906-built structure includes retail above four floors of housing, with 112 studio units on-site. Veritas Investments is the property owner, while RentSFNow is the property manager. City records show the property of 101-111 Turk Street, which includes 57 Taylor, last sold in 2017 for $25.5 million to Veritas. The property is located directly across from the recently-opened Serif SF by L37 Partners, a developer collaboration that separate in July of this year. Learn more about the mixed-use development from our previous coverage, which includes a site tour from July. Future residents at 101 Turk Street will be a block from the MUNI buses and light rail along Market Street, just pass the Golden Gate Theatre. The Powell Street BART Station is just three blocks away. The project is also just two blocks away from another former subject of our coverage, the tallest exclusively hotel building in the city, the Hilton San Francisco tower. A representative for Veritas confirmed for YIMBY that Veritas is involved with the project, describing the proposal as “a ground-up development that would take place on a parking lot behind an existing building we manage at 57 Taylor.” The representative shared that “entitlements will likely take years, so this project won’t be realized anytime soon. But this is a great opportunity to create housing on what would otherwise be a parking lot.”
2/21/1973 The Turk Street Follies at 105 Turk Street advertised hardcore male stag films.” (Bay Area Reporter, 2/21/1973, 22) The ad ran to December.
9/20/1977 SF EX reporters Phil Matier and Andy Ross wrote a week-long expose of conditions in San Francisco’s Tenderloin District. Included: “Turk Street Follies, movies and live male dancers, 105 Turk. Permit holder is Harold A. Davis of Oakland. Property owners are Gilmer and Marjorie Anselmo and Frank M. Martino, all of San Francisco.” (“Who owns the ‘adult’ stores,” SF EX, 9/20/1977, 9) Admission to the Turk Street Follies at 105 Turk Street and other Tenderloin XXX movie houses (“Business as usual—and some unusual businesses,” SF EX, 9/20/1977, 8) is $5, which is $26 or $27 in 2025 dollars.
8/3/1978 “1. ADONIS, 384 Ellis, 474-6995. Live show some nights, lounge, $3 membership, $4-$5 door, Noon—Midnight or later. 2. E.O.C.C., 17th at Castro, 621-9275. Lounge, $3 membership, $2 door, 2pm-3am (4am Fri. & Sat.) 3. NOB HILL; 729 Bush, 781-9468. Lounge, $1 membership, $5 door, 11am-Midnight. 4. SPARTAN THEATER, 150 Mason, 421-5257. Live show, lounge, $5 door, 10am-2am. 5. TEA ROOM THEATRE, 145 Eddy, 885-9887. Lounge, $3 door, 10am-2am. 6. TURK STREET FOLLIES, 105 Turk, 441-9381. Live show, $5, Noon-Midnight or later.” (“Male Erotic Film Theaters,” Bay Area Reporter, 8/3/1978, 5)
1/23/1979 “Across the street at the Turk Street Follies (“Live Male Shows and Movies”) two pimply males grunt and groan on a grainy screen . . .” (“It’s his beat – the tarnished side of a sparkling city,” SF EX, 1/23/1979, D-5)
11/25/1981 “. . . The size queens all over town are rapturously celebrating the appearance of a male dancer at the Turk Street Follies. His name is LEE and from all reports, his entire supply of is Heaven-lee . . .” (“Bob’s Bazaar,” Bay Area Reporter, 11/25/1981, 27)
5/8/1983 “Dancer Wanted; reliable, over 18. Must be able to work day and night shifts. Apply 105 Turk St., Turk Street Follies, SF. Ask for Tanya.” (“Performing Arts,” SF CH, 5/8/1983, Want Ad Supermarket, 18)
1/5/1984 “Margo Moore. Mr. Moore supplied his biography in a form as creative, pointed, and smart as he is in drag. It follows, complete: Margo Moore fell in love with titles at an early age. At 16 he was selected the first Grand Duchess of Merced. It was there that he also first became known as "Miss Size Queen.” When rumors circulated around town that he had “Take a number" tattooed on the soles of his feet, he decided to run away to San Francisco — and have it done. Nearly penniless, he rented a room in the Tenderloin with two other people and began dancing at the old Turk Street Follies. The year was 1977. The drag scene beckoned. All spare change went to the Goodwill store to pay for the latest “Goodie” designer dresses. Performances at clubs came next. The Landmark. The Sound of Music. The Railway Express. In 1979 Margo made a three-month visit to New Orleans, where he chug-a-lugged gumbo between stage appearances at The Gunga Din. Later in 1979 he visited Gainesville, Florida, to find out if it is true that the difference between a California orange and a Florida orange is that when you suck on them, the California orange sucks back. It’s true. In Florida he continued his study of hairdressing at a beauty academy. He also found time to perform at The Melody Club. Back in San Francisco Margo was chosen the first Miss Gay World in 1982. In that capacity he participated the Beaux Arts Ball, he vamped and camped and won the Grand Prize. He now lives South of Market on Dolores which he says is “like living in a box of granola —— smack dab in the middle of fruits, nuts, and flakes. I love it." Margo Moore hopes as Empress to continue to promote unity, spread joy, be Mary, and continue to raise funds for worthy charities. (“Forecast: A Year’s Reign,” Bay Ara Reporter, 1/5/1984, 27)
7/12/1987 “Not all the hotels are as expensive as, say, the $200-per-day rooms at Campton Court. For $8 the budget-conscious traveler can share a dormitory-type room at Youth Hostel Centrale. It’s a private hotel in the heart of the Tenderloin, situated conveniently between a pornographic bookstore and the Turk Street Follies.” (“Tourism: San Francisco’s cash crop,” SF EX, 7/12/1987, 1)
11/4/2022 “New plans have been filed for an 18-story residential infill at 101 Turk Street in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood. The proposal will replace a surface parking lot and a single-story vacant retail structure. The proposal will also retain a five-story residential building with 112 units managed by Veritas Investments at 57 Taylor Street. Project details are scarce for 101 Turk Street. The initial plans specify that 116 new apartments will be created in the 18-story addition, with 4,390 square feet of shared open space shared across the site. Unit sizes will vary with 62 studios, 12 junior one-bedrooms,12 one-bedrooms, 18 two-bedrooms, and 12 three-bedrooms. The project uses the state density bonus program, which allows the developer to increase the total residential capacity by 50% if a certain percentage of base units are designated as affordable. Demolition will be required for a vacant single-story commercial structure at 105 Turk Street and the surface parking lot covering 111 Turk Street. As mentioned in the introduction, the existing five-story residential building at 57 Taylor Street will remain undisturbed. The 1906-built structure includes retail above four floors of housing, with 112 studio units on-site. Veritas Investments is the property owner, while RentSFNow is the property manager. City records show the property of 101-111 Turk Street, which includes 57 Taylor, last sold in 2017 for $25.5 million to Veritas. The property is located directly across from the recently-opened Serif SF by L37 Partners, a developer collaboration that separate in July of this year. Learn more about the mixed-use development from our previous coverage, which includes a site tour from July. Future residents at 101 Turk Street will be a block from the MUNI buses and light rail along Market Street, just pass the Golden Gate Theatre. The Powell Street BART Station is just three blocks away. The project is also just two blocks away from another former subject of our coverage, the tallest exclusively hotel building in the city, the Hilton San Francisco tower. A representative for Veritas confirmed for YIMBY that Veritas is involved with the project, describing the proposal as “a ground-up development that would take place on a parking lot behind an existing building we manage at 57 Taylor.” The representative shared that “entitlements will likely take years, so this project won’t be realized anytime soon. But this is a great opportunity to create housing on what would otherwise be a parking lot.”
UPDATE: Veritas has followed up to correct their statement, the investment firm manages the property at 57 Taylor, they are not the owners. (“Preliminary Application Considers 18-Story Infill In Tenderloin, San Francisco,” SF YIMBY, 11/4/2022).
Thanks, Peter!
More information: Jack Tillmany's Arcadia Publishing book "Theatres of San Francisco" can be previewed on Google Books. It's available from Amazon or your local bookseller.
For a fine history of the neighborhood see Peter M. Field's 2018 America Through Time/Sutton Publishing book "The Tenderloin District of San Francisco Through Time." It's available through your local bookseller or Amazon.
| back to top | San Francisco Theatres: by address and neighborhood | alphabetical list | list by architect | pre-1906 theatre list | contact info | home | bay area historic theatres on facebook |
I remember passing by this establishment on my Muni rid from Sacred Heart High School back to the Bayview. Titillating titles to say the least for a Catholic School teenager - all sorts of images in my head of course I never went in.
ReplyDelete