Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c07/h03/mnt/178353/domains/unfitforpublication.org.au/html/plugins/system/gantry/gantry.php on line 406
1885, Harry Sinclair - Unfit For Publication
Text Size

 

 

James Dolman Spickett, 1876

Below also see: James Dolman Spickett, 1883,
James Dolman Spickett, Thomas Meredith Sheridan, Edward Dominic Bac, 1884,
Harry Sinclair, 1885, – Sodomy,
James Dolman Spickett, 1892,
Neich v. Neich, 1901 – Divorce

 

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 16 Nov 1876 1

MUDGEE.
(From the Independent, November 9.)

    A well-known resident, named John McHugh, was recently bitten by a whip snake, and providentially rescued from death by medical interference. McHugh was at work fencing at Mallamuddy Creek on Tuesday, October 30th. While he was lifting a post at about ten o’clock in the morning, a small snake seized him by the hand, and broke a tooth in his thumb. The reptile was a whip snake of about 30 inches in length. McHugh immediately saddled a horse, and made all haste to Mudgee to procure medical assistance. No doctor was available, and the man accordingly repaired to Mr JD Spickett, consulting chemist, who did all in his power to arrest the ill-effects of the poison. The hand was scarified at once, the object of this being to drive out all congealed blood. Ammonia was also rubbed over the injured part, and then Mr Spickett mounted McHugh’s horse and journeyed to Wilbetree for Dr Morton. Wilbetree is five miles from Mudgee, and the distance there and back was accomplished in the course of half-an-hour. Dr Morton then inspected the injury, and prescribed suitable remedies, which had the desired effect. The patient was kept walking all the night in order to prevent doziness, and the next morning McHugh had completely recovered from the snake bite. But for the very timely assistance of Mr Spickett and Dr Morton, more serious results might have ensued.

 


 

James Dolman Spickett, 1883

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 3 Jul 1883 2

DISTRICT NEWS.
———
(From Our Various Correspondents.)
———

NARRABRI.
(From the Narrabri Herald, June 30.)

    Mr Charles Beauvais met with a rather serious accident on Wednesday last, by which he severed a portion of two of the toes of his right foot. It appears that while engaged in using an adze upon a plank intended to form part of a stable he was building, the wood slipped, and the adze completely cut off the ends of the second and third toes, and, as one of the arteries had been severed, a considerable quantity of blood was lost. Mr Spickett, who was sent for, succeeded in stanching the wounds, and under his treatment the case is going on favorably.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 7 Aug 1883 3

DISTRICT NEWS.
———
(From Our Various Correspondents.)
———
NARRABRI.
(From the Narrabri Herald.)


    An accident which might have proved fatal, occurred to Wm Thompson , one of the drivers of Messrs McNamara and Vickery’s coaches, on Monday last. After his arrival, and having seen his horses stabled, he again visited them after breakfast, when, as he does not remember the cause, it is supposed that he received a violent kick, under the chin from one of the horses, lacerating it to a considerable degree, the under portion being laid open and two of his teeth were knocked out, necessitating the wound being stitched up, which was done by Mr Spickett, and he is now progressing favourably.

 


 

James Dolman Spickett, Thomas Meredith Sheridan, Edward Dominic Bac, 1884

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 19 Nov 1884 4

THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF A WOMAN AT
PETERSHAM.

    Mr H Shiell, JP, City Coroner, held an inquest yesterday afternoon at the South Sydney morgue, on the body of a single woman named Sarah Hales, aged 32 years of age, who died at a house in Constitution-road, Petersham, on Sunday, the 16th instant. The circumstances connected with the death of the woman were of a very peculiar character, and a number of persons assembled in the vicinity of the morgue while the inquiry was proceeding. Mr William Roberts, sen, appeared on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Thomas represented Sheridan. In connection with the affair a man named Bac, a hairdresser, carrying on business at Balmain, had been arrested by the police, and he and Sheridan were present during the inquiry. At a later stage of the proceedings a man named James Dolman Spickett [aka Spiggot] was also arrested by the police, as he is known to have had something to do with the affair. He was likewise represented by Mr Thomas. After the jury had viewed the body, the following evidence was taken:—Millicent Billiard deposed: I live at Constitution-road, Petersham; the dead body just viewed is that of Sarah Hales; she was a native of Hampstead, England, and was a single woman; deceased and I had been living together for 10 years; she was formerly a domestic servant; for the last four years she has been living with me, and has been dependent for her support on some money which she received for the two children that belonged to her; I knew that deceased was about three months gone in pregnancy; I believe the man who had visited her was named Bac, a hairdresser, of Balmain; he came to the house last Sunday fortnight, and after some conversation with Sarah he said, “Why don’t you go to Sheridan? – he will do it for £3;” after Bac left the house the deceased told me all about the interview, and I said to her, “Don’t you go, Sarah;” on the following Wednesday (last Wednesday week), the deceased and myself went to Mr Bac’s residence at Balmain; we saw him standing in the shop; Sarah went inside and said, “I want to see you, Bac;” he said, “Come into the dining-room;” we all went into the room, and the deceased said, “I have been to see Sheridan, and he has given me a bottle of physic;” she took a dose of the medicine while there, saying at the time, “This is my first dose;” she asked Bac to cut her hair; he did so, and while he was cutting it deceased said, “I suppose you are cutting my hair for the last time;” I did not hear him say anything to her at the time; they subsequently had a long conversation together; deceased told Bac that he must accompany her to Sheridan’s place on the following Friday evening, and take a guinea with him; the man expressed his willingness to go to Sheridan’s, and deceased said it would be all right; after Sarah had taken the physic, and while she was going home, she complained of feeling very sick; Bac came to our house on the Friday afternoon in the same week; deceased and he had some private conversation at the time, and he then had a chat with my husband; they left the house together, and did not return until about 1 o’clock on Saturday morning; both of them entered the house, and a conversation took place between us (deceased and witness); I said, “Sarah, what kept you out so late?” she replied, “I had to wait at Sheridan’s—there was a very bad case on,” adding to me, “It is a good job Milly, you were not there, or you would have fainted;” she said Sheridan had given her a glass of water, and that she had left his place at about a quarter past 8 on Friday night; in reply to my query as to why she had not returned before, she said it was “because Bac had been such a brute to her that night;” she was crying bitterly at the time; deceased then said, “I have to go to Park-street again on Sunday;” Bac was intoxicated on Saturday night (meaning Saturday week last) Sarah retired to bed, feeling very unwell; she never left her room again; each time deceased took any of the medicine she complained that it burnt her throat and made her unwell; on the following Sunday night Sheridan visited the deceased in her own bedroom and examined her; he left shortly afterwards, and said she was progressing; he then said that he was going to the Glebe, as he had a very bad case there, but stated that he would return at 6 o’clock on Monday morning. (Witness here said that something took place very early on Monday morning, and she then detailed the facts connected with the premature birth of the child). Continuing, Mrs Billiard said: Sheridan came to the house early on Monday morning and did certain things to deceased in my presence; he then left, but continued to visit her every day until he was arrested in connection with the affair at the Glebe; on Tuesday night last a man named Spickett came to the house and asked to see Mrs Hales (meaning the deceased); he said to me, “Have you heard about Sheridan?–he’s in Darlinghurst; I’m his confidential;” he went into deceased’s bedroom and felt her pulse; she was very delirious at the time; I said to him, “Will she die?” he replied, “I think she will, but I will do all I can to relieve her;” Spickett remained about half-an-hour; before he attempted to do anything, he said, “I want money;” I said to him, “Mr Sheridan is paid already;” he then said, “There is a worse case on at North Shore;” I told him I had sent for Dr Chisholm; he then asked me if there were any bottles of Sheridan’s physic lying about; I gave him three bottles, each of which contained a small quantity of medicine; he said to me, “Destroy them, and if the doctor comes do not allow him to examine her;” he again said she would die, and I replied, “If she doe I will get you all into trouble;” he then remarked, “If you say anything you will all be confounded—don’t say anything, and don’t know anything;” my husband was present at this time; Spickett said to me, “If she dies, can’t you get a certificate from Dr Chisholm?” he then remarked, “If you can’t get a certificate I will get you one;” Spickett then wrote a prescription, which I took to a chemist and got dispensed. The other evidence given by the witness was of an unimportant character. Mr Thomas questioned Mrs Billiard at length, but nothing material was elicited. Several bottles were shown to the witness by the police, and she identified them.

    Adolph Dominic Bac (who spoke through the medium of an interpreter) declined to ask the witness any questions. The evidence was then read over in French and English. In reply to Mr Roberts, Mrs Billiard stated that the deceased died at about quarter before one o’clock on Sunday morning, the 16th instant.

    Dr Edwin Chisholm, residing at Summer Hill, deposed: On Friday afternoon, the 14th instant, I was sent for to see the woman Sarah Hales; I did not see her until Saturday the 15th instant at about 1 o’clock in the morning; I found her suffering from acute peritonitis; I made a minute examination of the woman; the doctor here described the nature and result of the examination, and stated that from what he saw and heard the ultimately communicated with the police; he visited the woman in company with Dr Twynam during the day, and did what he could for her, but she gradually became unconscious, and died at an early hour on Sunday, the 16th instant; a post-mortem examination was made by Dr Chisholme, in conjunction with Dr Collingwood, within 17 hours after death; death was caused by acute peritonitis, resulting from a wound in the uterus.

    Dr David Collingwood, of Summer Hill, gave corroborative evidence. At this stage of the proceedings, it being half-past 6 o’clock, the inquiry was adjourned. It will be resumed at the South Sydney morgue, on Wednesday morning next, at 9 o’clock.

——————


    WHAT SHALL I DRINK?—The Lancet says: “We have tested the Montserrat Lime-Fruit Juice and found it sound and free from adulteration. It is a far more wholesome drink than any other form of alcohol.” Annual importation over 100,000 gallons sold by all storekeepers, Sydney. Elliott Brothers—(Advt.)

    CAUTION TO SHAVERS.—The only genuine AS Lloyd’s “Euxesis,” for shaving without soap, water, or brush—and in one-half the ordinary time—bears the words, “Prepared only by his widow,” in red ink, across labels, and “Aimee Lloyd” on cap of tube. Address on labels—8, Spur-street, Leicester-square, London, formerly of 27, Glasshouse-street. NB—Ask for “the widow’s,” and refuse all others.—(Advt.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 20 Nov 1884 5

LATEST
SPECIAL TELEGRAMS.
———
(From Greville’s Telegram Company.)
————
SYDNEY.

Wednesday, received 3.20 afternoon.


    At Botany, at the inquest on the body of Norah Hales, yesterday, shocking disclosures were made. Sheridan, the chemist, under arrest on suspicion of having caused Mrs Bell’s death, was present; also, a Frenchman named Bac, a hairdresser, carrying on business at Balmain, and James Spickett, supposed to be a confidante of Sheridan. Both were under arrest. The inquest was adjourned until next Wednesday. Sheridan, Spickett, and Bac were all remanded till that day. Bail was refused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The South Australian Advertiser, Thu 20 Nov 1884 6

THE SYDNEY ABORTION CASES.
————
COMMITTAL OF DEFENDANTS FOR
MURDER.
(By Telegraph.)

Sydney, November 19.

    At the Central Police Court to-day Edward D Bac (36), described as a barber, James Dolman Spickett (35), chemist’s assistant, lately in the employ of Thos Sheridan, who was also present in custody, were charged with being concerned in the death of Sarah Hales of Leichardt [sic]. On the application of the police the prisoners were remanded till Wednesday next.

    An enquiry was initiated by the city coroner at Botany to-day into the circumstances of the mysterious death of Mrs Sarah Jane Wright, widow, who expired on 16th inst from alleged malpractices on the part of Sheridan, chemist, in attempting to procure abortion. Jas S Berry said deceased was his daughter, and was 28 years of age. She had been a widow for three years, and was on intimate terms with a young man named Harry Deeper. They used to walk out together. On the 12th instant deceased was taken ill with what appeared to be a bilious attack, but witness had a suspicion that the cause of the illness was pregnancy. Dr Kyngdon, who was sent for, attended her till her death. He first heard that she was pregnant from Dr Kyngdon. Dr R Kyngdon said on Saturday 15th instant, he was called in to see Mrs Wright. She had been vomiting, and complained of having had a severe bilious attack. He prescribed for the symptoms, and on Sunday afternoon a young man named Deeper called and stated that the retching still continued, and asked whether he (witness) could prescribe anything to stop it. He did so, but in about an hour Deeper returned in great distress and said the woman was dying. He then told witness that she was three months gone in pregnancy, and also said that Mrs Wright and himself had applied to Sheridan, who had given her medicine to make it all right, but had taken it without producing the desired effect. She again visited Sheridan on the Prince of Wales’s Birthday, when an instrument was used. She got home, suffering intense pain. A miscarriage took place on Wednesday night. Harry Deeper gave evidence in corroboration of the foregoing, and after an hour’s retirement the jury returned a verdict of murder against Thomas Sheridan and Harry Deeper, who were thereupon committed for trial.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hawkesbury Chronicle and Farmers Advocate, Sat 22 Nov 1884 7

LOCAL AND GENERAL.
————


    TERRIBLE DISCLOSURES IN SYDNEY.—The City Coroner has been busy this last week or so investigating three serious cases of malpractice, performed by a chemist in Park-street, named Sheridan. The first was on a woman named Ellen Bell, living at the Glebe, whose husband is a secularist and a believer in the Malthusian theory; and he appears to have employed Sheridan for the purpose of procuring abortion. Sheridan was arrested; and since then another case has been reported to the Coroner, and an inquest held upon the body of a woman named Sarah Hales, residing at Petersham, upon whom Sheridan had also operated, at the instance of a man named Bac, a hairdresser at Balmain; a man named Spickett (Sheridan’s “confidential”) is implicated and has also been arrested. The third case is that of a woman named Jane Wright, a widow residing at Botany, who died on the 16th inst, she also had been under Sheridan’s treatment—having been taken to his house by a young man named Henry Deeper, an assistant at Lasseter’s, George-street, Sydney, and who was engaged to be married to the deceased. Both Deeper and Sheridan have been committed for trial at the next sitting of the Criminal Court.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 27 Nov 1884 8

CORONERS INQUESTS.
———◦———
THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF A WOMAN AT
PETERSHAM.

    The adjourned inquiry into the circumstances connected with the death of a single woman named Sarah Hales, aged 32 years, who expired at a house in Constitution-road, Petersham, on Sunday, the 15th instant, was resumed yesterday morning, at the South Sydney morgue, before the City Coroner, Mr H Shiell, JP. Mr W Roberts, sen, appeared on behalf of the Crown. Mr Thomas represented Bac and Spickett, who have been arrested in connection with the affair. Sheridan was present, and conducted his own case. Mr CO Michel, Government Interpreter, translated the evidence of the different witnesses to Bac, who is a Frenchman. Mrs Billiard was recalled by the Coroner, and after giving evidence she was cross-examined by Mr Thomas. In the course of the examination she admitted that she had said that “Bac was the cause of the woman’s death, and she would punish him.” She also stated that Bac was not a married man. The hearing of this witness, together with the time occupied in cross-examining her, occupied more than an hour. The evidence was not of much importance, being simply a repetition of that given by Mrs Billiard last week.

    Charles Watt, Government analyst, proved that he had made an analysis of the contents of two bottles of medicine which have been supplied to the woman by Sheridan. One of them contained a weak solution of wood tar; the other bottle contained chloral-hydrate, &c. the contents of other bottles had likewise been partly analysed. But they will have to undergo a further analysis.

    Martin Billiard deposed: I am a stonecutter, living at Petersham; the deceased (Sarah Hales) formerly lived at my house; I have known Bac for about 10 years; he used to visit my house occasionally, and he was there shortly before the death of Sarah Hales; Bac on that occasion wanted me to go to town with the deceased; I would not go, and both of them (Bac and Sarah Hales) subsequently left my house to go into town; they did not say where they were going or what they were going to do; Spickett came to our house on the night of last Friday week; he said he was Sheridan’s confidential; he went up into Sarah Hales’s bedroom; Sarah was then very ill in bed; Spickett and my wife were in the bedroom together; my wife said to him, “Will she die?” he replied, “I think she will, but I will do all I can to relieve her;” he then told my wife to destroy the bottle of physic which had been furnished by Sheridan; Spickett then said, “She will die;” my wife said, “If she does I will get you all into trouble;” he replied, “Don’t say anything, or you will all be compounded;” I also said, “Can’t you get a certificate from the doctor?” adding, “If you cannot, I will get you one.” The rest of the evidence was similar to that given by Mrs Billiard at the former inquiry. The witness was examined at length by Sheridan and Mr Thomas. Senior-sergeant McNamara proved arresting Bac at Balmain on Sunday, the 16th instant. He charged Bac with having been concerned with another man in causing the death of a woman named Sarah Hales. In reply to the charge Bac said, “I understand it”; I know the man Spickett, who is now before the court, and I arrested him on the 18th instant; on the 17th instant, at about 5 pm, I remember seeing him at Sheridan’s shop in Park-street; I was dressed in plain clothes, and accompanied by Sergeant Lee at the time; I entered the place and had a conversation with Spickett; I said to him, “Do you know a woman named Sarah Hales, who lives at Petersham?” he said, “Yes;” I said, “Did you visit her on the 14th instant?” he replied, “I did, as I prescribed for her;” he also told me that Mrs Billiard had requested him to give Miss Hales something in order to relieve her; Spickett denied having given orders to Mrs Billiard to destroy the bottles of medicine which had been supplied by Sheridan; when I arrested Spickett I charged him with being concerned, with others, with causing the death of Sarah Hales; in reply he said, “I deny having done anything of the sort;” an hour or so before I took him into custody, he said to me, referring to the North Shore case, “I would like to make a clear sweep of these wretches.” Senior-sergeant Keating deposed that on the 18th instant he charged Sheridan, who was then under arrest on another charge, with causing the death of Sarah Hales. Sheridan made no reply. Constable Alexander Walsh also gave evidence. At this stage of the proceedings, the case was further adjourned until 9 am this morning.

————————

    After the adjournment of the foregoing case the adjourned inquiry into the circumstances relating to the death of the woman Rachel Rippon, who, it will be remembered, expired at the North Shore on the 16th instant, was commenced before the City Coroner. The police had no further evidence to offer, and the Coroner then summed up and presented the facts of the case to the jury. The room was closed, and the jurors, after deliberating for an hour-and a-half, asked the Coroner if they could return a verdict of manslaughter? Mr Shiell entered the room and explained that a verdict of manslaughter would not be brought in. Having informed them that it was quite competent for them to return a verdict of guilty of wilful murder, upon the circumstantial evidence which had been adduced, the room was cleared a second time, and the jurors left to themselves. At half-past 4 o’clock they had not agreed on their verdict. Accordingly the Coroner, after making a few observations to the jury, left the room, remarking that he would return again at 9 o’clock. A special constable was sworn in, and he was told off by Mr Shiell to keep guard over the room in which the jurors were locked up. On returning at 9 o’clock the foreman stated that the jury had not been able to agree upon their verdict. The Coroner said that he was sorry, but he could not discharge the jurors, and they would therefore be locked up until 9 o’clock next morning. He hoped they would arrive at a decision by that hour. He regretted very much that he had to resort to such a measure, but the case was of such great importance that it was impossible for him to do otherwise. At 10 o’clock last night the jurors were supplied with refreshments by order of the Coroner, and they were then left in charge of two constables. At 9 o’clock this morning Mr Shiell will repair to the morgue to hear the verdict which may be returned, that is, supposing the jury are enabled to arrive at a decision. At the time our reporter left last night, it seemed highly improbable that an agreement would be arrived at.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 28 Nov 1884 9

CORONERS INQUESTS.
———◦———
SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF A WOMAN AT
PETERSHAM.

    The adjourned inquiry into the circumstances connected with the death of the woman Sarah Hales at Constitution-road, Petersham, on Sunday, 16th instant, was continued before the City Coroner at the South Sydney Morgue yesterday. Mr W Roberts, sen, represented the Crown; Mr Thomas appeared for Spickett and Bac, who were present during the inquiry. Sheridan conducted his own case. Mr Michel, Government interpreter was present, and translate the evidence to Bac. Mrs Billiard was recalled and examined by Mr Roberts. Mr Shiell, Sheridan, and some of the jurors. The woman’s statements were partly a repetition of the evidence which she had given on former occasions, and went to show that Sheridan was the person who had interfered with deceased. Mrs Billiard also stated that she knew nothing of the condition of Sarah Hales until the latter volunteered some statements to her about having visited Sheridan’s place in Park-street. This was the whole of the evidence offered by Mr Roberts on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Thomas called James Dolman Spickett, who deposed: I reside at 475, Dowling-street, Moore Park, and am a registered chemist and dentist. (The witness was at this stage of the proceedings duly cautioned by the Coroner.) Spickett then resumed: I remember last Friday week, 14th instant; I was then in Mr Thomas’ office, and I went from thence to Darlinghurst gaol in company with Mr Thomas, in order to see Sheridan, to explain some prescriptions which had been written by him; in consequence of what Sheridan told me on that occasion I visited a Mrs Hales at Petersham on the night of the 14th; when I got to the house I was not admitted immediately, although the cabman knocked at the door; Mrs Billiard came to the door; I said to her, “Does Mrs Hales live here?” she replied in a flurried tone of voice, “Yes, sir;” I said, “I wish to see her,” before I was admitted to the house Mrs Billiard said to me, “Oh, sir!, you are not a detective, are you?” (Mr Roberts here objected to the evidence as being entirely irrelevant to the case. The Coroner concurred with him.) Spickett then continued: I went up into the bedroom and took hold of Sarah Hales’ wrist; I looked at her for a moment, and then said, “Good God!, the woman is dying;” Mrs Billiard then told me of certain things which had taken place between Sheridan and the younger woman; I told Mrs Billiard that I believed the case to be one of peritonitis; while I was in the room Sarah Hales partly regained consciousness, and uttered several oaths against Mrs Billiard and her husband, the latter having been called into the room at my request; the deceased then made other observations of a painful nature; I asked Mrs Billiard how long it would be before Dr Chisholm would arrive, as Sarah Hales was becoming delirious; Mrs Billiard said, “I do not know, but as it is so late he may not come before morning;” all three of us then had a conversation about Sarah Hales; this was whilst I was awaiting Dr Chisholm’s arrival; in the course of the conversation Billiard and his wife complained of their fatigue and want of rest; I said, “If the doctor does not come soon I will write you a prescription in order that the poor woman’s sufferings may be somewhat allayed, as I do not wish to miss my train;” shortly afterwards I wrote the prescription, and appended my proper signature to it; Mrs Billiard got the prescription dispensed, and I gave Sarah Hales the first half of the draught myself, as she said she would not take it unless I gave it her; I then sat down and waited a little to see if she would become quieter; I saw some bottles on a chest of drawers, and remarked to Mrs Billiard, “Those are Sheridan’s bottles, that’s his label;” she replied, “Yes, doctor,” I said, “Are those all you have, have you destroyed any?, because Dr Chisholm, when he comes, is sure to see into this case;” I then told her that I had to go over to North Shore to another case, and consequently I could not wait any longer; I did not touch the bottles; I also said, “I can do nothing more, she will surely die, but I will come again in the morning if I can and see the doctor and her;” Mrs Billiard then said, “Do you think she will die before the doctor comes in the morning?, if so, what shall I do for a certificate of death?” I replied, “You must see Chisholm about that; Sheridan should have told me about his case, but I thought from the way he gave me the address that it was an ordinary case of sickness that he had not seen before;” she replied to me, “You will come in the morning?” I said, “If possible;” she again asked me if I would give a certificate; I said “If the doctor thinks fit he will give one;” she then went on her knees and swore she would get Bac into trouble, saying, “I always hated that fellow;” she did not mention Sheridan’s name at all; I then left the house, and the cabman drove me to the station, but I missed the midnight train. The witness here stated that it was very hard for him to be arrested and incarcerated, as he was entirely innocent of the nature of the case until he arrived at Mrs Billiard’s house. He had prescribed for the woman out of kindness, although he knew it was too late to save her life. Spickett stated that he had not been in Sydney for more than six weeks, and just as he was about to get a better position in life his prospects had been blighted through this unfortunate affair. Mr Thomas cross-examined the witness at some length. After the cross-examination of Spickett, the Coroner briefly summed up, and left the jury to consider their verdict. In less than a quarter of an hour the foreman of the jury announced that they had unanimously come to the conclusion that Spickett was not guilty, but had returned a verdict of wilful murder against Thomas Meredith Sheridan and the man Bac. Spickett was then acquitted; Bac and Sheridan were committed to Darlinghurst gaol to take their trial at the next sitting of the Central Criminal Court.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Sat 20 Dec 1884 10

TELEGRAMS.
———◦———
(From Our Own Correspondent.)
———

THE ABORTION TRIALS.

    SYDNEY, Friday.—James Dolman Spickett, the chemist, has been committed for trial, as being accessory after the death of Sarah Hailes, [sic] of Petersham, by abortion.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The South Australian Advertiser, Sat 20 Dec 1884 11

COLONIAL TELEGRAMS.
———◦———

NEW SOUTH WALES.
(From our own Correspondent.)

Sydney, December 19.


    At the Central Police Court to-day the charge against James Dolman Spickett for being an accessory after the fact in procuring abortion from Sarah Hales was further heard. The magistrate considered that a prima facie case had been made out, and committed the prisoner for trial at the quarter sessions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bathurst Free Press and Mining Journal, Thu 12 Mar 1885 12

TELEGRAPHIC INTELLIGENCE.
———◦———
(From our own Correspondent.)

Sydney, Thursday.


    The Petersham abortion case, in which Sheridan the chemist, Edward Bac, and James Spickett are concerned, has been commenced at the Central Criminal Court, and after occupying the Court the whole ay, was adjourned until this morning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 12 Mar 1885 13

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—
Wednesday.
(Before his Honor Mr Justice Innes.)

    Mr Foster and Mr Gibson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

ATTEMPT TO PROCURE ABORTION.

    Thomas Meredith Sheridan and Edward Dominic Bac were arraigned upon the charge of having on the 16th November, 1884, unlawfully administered to, and caused to have been taken by, one Sarah Hales, at Petersham, a large quantity—to wit, two ounces—of a drug, with intent thereby to procure abortion. There were two other counts against the prisoners. James Delman [sic] Spickett was charged with having been an accessory after the fact. The prisoners were undefended. The facts of the case are already known to the public, as the evidence taken at the Coroner’s inquest has been published in detail. The evidence of Senior-sergeant MacNamara, Sergeant Keating, and Mrs Billiard was taken, and the case was not concluded when the Court adjourned at 6 pm. The jury were consequently locked up for the night. The case will be resumed to-day (Thursday).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 14 Mar 1885 14

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—
Friday.
(Before his Honor Mr Justice Innes.)

    Mr WJ Foster and Mr Gibson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

ATTEMPT TO PROCURE ABORTION.

    Thomas Meredith Sheridan and Edward Dominic Bac were arraigned upon the charge of having, on the 16th November, 1884, unlawfully administered to, and caused to have been taken by, one Sarah Hales, at Petersham, a large quantity—to wit, two ounces— of a drug (the name of which drug was unknown to the Attorney General), with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage; a second count charged the two prisoners with having administered the drug, well knowing that the same was intended to be unlawfully used with intent to procure a miscarriage; and a third count charged them with having used a certain instrument, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage. James Delman Spickett was also placed in the dock upon charges of having been an accessory after the fact.

    The prisoners were undefended.

    Further evidence in this case was given by Drs Chisholm and Collingwood, Mr Watt (Government analyst), and Constable Walsh. This concluded the case for the Crown. The case for the defence was commenced shortly before 2 o’clock. The prisoner Sheridan did not call evidence; but the prisoners Bac , Spickett called a number of witnesses as to character, and also for the purpose of disproving some of the statements made in evidence by the Billiards. The prisoner Spickett also attempted to prove by witnesses that he was not leagued with Sheridan, and did not know the nature of the case when he attended it. The witnesses were examined at some length, and the whole of the evidence was not completed until a quarter-past 6 o’clock, at which time the Court adjourned.

    The case will be resumed this morning (Saturday), when the addresses will be made to the jury.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 16 Mar 1885 15

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—
Saturday.
(Before his Honor Mr Justice Innes.)

    Mr WJ Foster and Mr Gibson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

ATTEMPT TO PROCURE ABORTION.

  Thomas Meredith Sheridan and Edward Dominic Bac were arraigned upon the charge of having, on the 18th November, 1884, unlawfully administered to, and caused to have been taken by, one Sarah Hales, at Petersham, a large quantity—to wit, two ounces—of a drug (the name of which drug was unknown to the Attorney General), with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage; a second count charged the two prisoners with having administered the drug, well knowing that the same was intended to be unlawfully used with intent to procure a miscarriage; and a third count charged them with having used a certain instrument, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage. James Delman Spickett was also placed in the dock upon the charge of having been an accessory after the fact.

    The prisoners were undefended.

    The evidence in this case was completed on the previous day.

    The prisoner [Thomas Meredith] Sheridan, in commencing to address the jury, said he felt himself placed in a very peculiar position, and had to endeavour to clear his character from a very foul blot indeed. The evidence which had been given against him was utterly unreliable. The first and principal evidence against him was that given by Millicent Billiard. He intended to shorten his defence as much as possible, and therefore did not think it necessary to read her evidence to them. They had heard the depositions taken at the morgue and at the police court, and he thought it would only be necessary for him to refer to them in places so as to show the discrepancies between the witness’s statements then and at the present trial. When the witness gave her evidence at the morgue but one week, or only a few days, had elapsed between then and the death of Sarah Hales, therefore all the incidents were fresh in the witness’s memory. She was then sworn to speak the truth, and was supposed to have done so. At the morgue she made statements which, coming so shortly after the occurrence, might be considered true. But another case arose in which a third party was implicated; police court proceedings followed, and she had to give evidence again, and from that time she commenced to vary her statements. She found that she had not given evidence enough at the first inquiry, and fearing that there was something hanging over herself, she found that she had to force some one into trouble to save herself. At the morgue she stated she knew that Sarah Hales went to him (prisoner), but she forgot to state how she knew it. When cross-examined at the police court a month afterwards, she stated that she did not know. At the police court she also stated that Sarah Hales had had two miscarriages before Dr Chisholm saw her. That was a lie. The fact was that they did not go to Dr Chisholm for some four or five days afterwards, when they were compelled to go. They did not go until they found that they had made a mistake themselves. When Sarah Hales came to him (Sheridan) the thing had been already done; there were evidences of it, and there was no necessity for him to perform an operation. The woman, however, tried to conceal her state from him, and complained of another disease, for which he treated her. She did not tell him, as he afterwards found, that Mrs Billiard and herself had been trying to manage it themselves. With regard to the actual birth, it was proved that Mrs Billiard sent for him on the Sunday night; that he went, saw the woman, and shortly afterwards left the place. If he had been employed to procure abortion, was it likely that he would have left the place until he had seen the end of it? He had been carrying on a midwifery practice in Sydney for nearly two years, and therefore there was nothing in the fact of his having been sent for in the present case. He contended that since the first inquiry the woman Billiard, knowing the danger she was in herself, had been coaching herself as to her evidence. During the present trial she had admitted that she had mixed medicine herself for Sarah Hales, and she admitted that there was an issue before the woman came to him. The witness clearly saw that, to save herself, she would require to lay her hands on somebody else. He contended that the Billiards had been living on the ill-gotten proceeds of the deceased Sarah Hales, and he would ask whether such people were to be allowed to swear a man’s life away. Mrs Billiard, he said, was an old hand at the game, for during the 10 years that Sarah Hales had lived with her, the deceased, who was a single woman, had been five times a mother; there had been three abortions, two of which were carried out by Millicent Billiard; and it had also been proved that another single girl had been attended to by her at Ashfield. He did not for a moment attempt to deny that he had attended the deceased; but he treated her for another disease altogether. He then quoted from English and French medical authorities to show that his treatment had been correct, and that the medicine given by him was not medicine used for the purpose of procuring abortion. What he did was for the good of the patient, and the means used were scientific and proper, and would in such circumstances have been used by the first surgeon in Sydney. The woman Billiard was the only one who brought the charge against him, and he would ask them whether they could believe the evidence of such a witness—one who, throughout her life, had been the partaker of the fruits of her crime, and who now had an interest in convicting someone else? She had displayed throughout the case a bitter determination to imprison someone. He (Sheridan) had been practising medicine for 15 years, and could produce hundreds who had to thank him for their health. He had built up, by his own steady perseverance during the last four or five years, a business which at the time of his arrest was returning him within a few pounds of £1800 a-year; and he would ask them whether he would risk that, his own liberty, and the happiness of his wife, for, as had been stated, the sum of £3? In conclusion, he reviewed the evidence at some length, and stated that he attended Sarah Hales for a just and honest purpose, the same as any man in his profession might have done, and not for the purpose of procuring abortion. There was not one tittle of evidence as to his having used an instrument, beyond a catheta [sic], and he would ask them to consider whether it was not a fact that the woman Billiard had got herself into trouble, and had, to use her own words, determined to “hand Sheridan, Bac, Spickett, and the whole —— lot,” to save herself. He felt every confidence in leaving his case in the hands of the jury.

    The prisoner [Edward Dominic] Bac then addressed the jury at considerable length, his remarks being interpreted by Mr Michel (Government interpreter). In his opening remarks he admitted, as had been previously given in evidence, that he had been sent out of his own country to New Caledonia as a political offender; but he tendered a certificate from the French Consul showing that he was now a free man. He referred at very great length to circumstances connected with the history of the woman Sarah Hales, and also to the history of the Billiards, but disclaimed any connection whatever setting forth any criminal intention on his part with the case.

    The prisoner [James Dolman] Spickett then addressed the jury, referring to those points of evidence which appeared to implicate him, and made a point of the fact that when tried by the coroner’s jury he was acquitted. He repeatedly asserted that there had been no intention on his part to screen Sheridan, that he never acted as Sheridan’s confidential, and that he was ignorant of the nature of the case of the woman Hales when he visited her. He stated that he told the inmates of the house to preserve the bottles, and not to destroy them, as Dr Chisholm would want to see them when he came. He commented in strong terms upon the conduct, character, and also the statements of the witness Millicent Billiard.

    Mr Foster (Crown Prosecutor) on rising to address the jury, in reply, said the case they had tried had occupied close on four days, and he did not hesitate to say that the amount of evidence affecting the issue of the case should not have taken more than a day, or a day and a-half at the most. The prisoners had, of course, been allowed a great deal of latitude, as they were undefended, but he thought they had very much abused that latitude. At the same time, he did not wish to charge them with having wilfully or wantonly wasted the time of the Court. He, however, had no hesitation in saying that they had used the time with a premeditated purpose, viz, that of attempting to distract the attention of the jury from the main issues they had to try. He did not intend to go through the whole of the case in detail. It was for them to say whether, after having heard the evidence, they were satisfied as to the guilt of the prisoners. The address of the prisoner Sheridan had been an ingenious one, and he had avoided referring to those points of evidence which were conclusively against him. Spickett was the last to address them, and he had attempted to make much out of the fact that he had been acquitted by the Coroner’s jury; but he (Mr Foster) would point out that the prisoner was charged on a very difference charge at the Coroner’s court; he was then charged with having been concerned in causing the death of the unfortunate woman Hales. But the question for them to consider now was whether he really was, as the evidence showed him to have been, the representative of Sheridan, and at the time in full charge of Sheridan’s business. With regard to Bac, he was not an ignorant man he had treated them to a very long defence, and had disclaimed any connection with the affair whatever; but were not his statements and admissions to the arresting constable conclusive evidence against him, when they were found also to tally exactly with the evidence of Mrs Billiard? The whole thing depended upon the amount of credibility the jury attached to the woman Billiard’s evidence. The contention of the prisoner Sheridan was that this woman had herself been guilty of the crime, and was not seeking to screen herself by charging him with it. If she was not a witness of truth it was quite evident that she could have manufactured more statements than it was alleged she had done. They had the whole facts of the case before them, and he should not at such a late hour detain them with any further remarks, for after the time which had been already expended in the case he would only be doing an injustice to their intelligence by addressing them at any greater length. It was for them to say whether they believed the evidence of Mrs Billiard, as corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. The case was a most important one, and deserved their fullest consideration.

    His Honor briefly summed up. He said the case had taken a long time, and had the prisoners been defended by counsel it would not have taken anything like the time. He was sure, however, that the jury would not allow any such circumstances, or any conviction that the time had been wasted, to militate against the prisoners. The matter was of very great importance to them, and the law was not altogether unmerciful. There was a well-established maxim that where the life of a prisoner was at stake, it was not becoming in any one to find fault with delays. With regard to the prisoner Bac, he was a foreigner, and he was sure there was no necessity to append to the generous spirit of jurymen to see that he had every justice done him, just as though he was of their own nationality. It would appear from his history that at one time he was sent out of his own country to the penal establishment at New Caledonia. His offence was not that of an ordinary criminal, for he had been sent out as a political offender; but he (his Honor) was sure the jury would not consider that against him in the present case. With regard to the prisoner Sheridan, it had been stated that there were other cases—or another case—against him or in which he was involved. He would therefore ask them to disabuse their minds entirely of anything of the kind, as they were to investigate the present case simply on its merits, and independently of anything they might have heard outside. His Honor then commented upon the salient points in the evidence, showing where the testimony was strong against the prisoners, and where statements and facts had been corroborated. He pointed out in conclusion that the case rested entirely upon the question as to whether they believed the evidence of the Billiards. The characters of these persons had been, he thought, very justly the subject of a good deal of comment by the prisoners. The unfortunate deceased was shown, from the story of her life, to have been an immoral woman, and statements had been made which went to show that Madame Billiard’s character was such as could be assailed. In such a case, however, they could not expect to get the evidence of respectable people, for respectable people would not mix themselves up in such an affair; but he would say that if such people as the Billiards were not to be believed sometimes, and if juries were always to exclude such evidence, it would simply mean that this class of persons would be without the pale of the law altogether. In this case the jury would have to ask themselves whether the story told was a reasonable one. If they had a reasonable doubt in the matter they would have to give the prisoners the benefit of it, and acquit them. If, on the other hand, they had no doubt of the guilt of the prisoners, they would, of course, find them guilty. He could only ask them to give the case serious consideration, as it was one of great importance to the prisoners, and also to society.

    The jury retired to consider their verdict at 10 minutes past 8 o’clock. At 20 minutes to 10 o’clock they were sent for by the Judge, and in reply to a question the foreman stated that there was no probability of a decision being arrived at. They retired again, and at 10 minutes past 10 o’clock they sent in a message to the effect that they had agreed with regard to one of the prisoners. The jury were then brought into court, and stated that they could not agree as to the prisoners Sheridan and Bac, but that they fund that the prisoner Spickett was not guilty.

    His Honor took their verdict as to Spickett, and the accused was discharged from the dock.

    The foreman then stated that there was no probability of the jury agreeing as to the other prisoners.

    His Honor said he had no power to release them under 12 hours, and as the next day was Sunday he was compelled to lock them up until Monday morning, at which time, if they had not agreed, he would discharge them.

    The jury were accordingly locked up, and the prisoners Sheridan and Bac were conveyed back to gaol.

    The Court adjourned at about 25 minutes past 10 o’clock pm.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 17 Mar 1885 16

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—
Monday.
(Before his Honor Mr Justice Innes.)

    Mr WJ Foster and Mr Gibson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

ATTEMPT TO PROCURE ABORTION.

    In the case of Thomas Meredith Sheridan and Edward Dominic Bac, who were tried upon the charge of having attempted to procure abortion, the jury, who had been locked up since Saturday night, were found still unable to agree, and were discharged by his Honor.

    The prisoners were remanded.

    The foreman of the jury before leaving the box stated that the jury wished to tender through him their thanks for the kind attention which had been paid to them by the Sheriff during the trial.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bathurst Free Press and Mining Journal, Wed 18 Mar 1885 17

GENERAL ITEMS.


    The Sarah Hales case was continued at the Central Criminal Court all day on Saturday, and until a late hour in the evening, but then had not been concluded. At 10.30 pm the jury acquitted Spickett, and being unable to agree about Sheridan and Bac, were locked up until Monday morning, when they were discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Edward Dominic Bac, Gaol photo sheet 18

SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6047], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1885, No. 3305, p. 36, R5101.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 3305
10517-84

Date when Portrait was taken: 28-11-1884

Name: Edward Dominic Bac

Native place: Paris

Year of birth: 1849

Arrived       Ship: City of Melbourne
in Colony }   Year: 1879

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Hairdresser

Religion: R. Cath.

Education, degree of: R & W

Height: 5' 5"

Weight     On committal: 132
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Brown

Colour of eyes: Blue

Marks or special features:

Where and when tried: Sydney CC
25 March 1885

Offence: Insert an instrument to procure abortion

Sentence: 5 years P.S.

Remarks: Guilty: convicted with Thomas M Sheridan

(No. of previous Portrait ... ) 

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

 

 

 

 

Nil

 


~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Thomas M Sheridan, Gaol photo sheet 19

SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6047], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1885, No. 3303, p. 34, R5101.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 3303

Date when Portrait was taken: 25-11-1884

Name: Thomas M Sheridan

Native place: B.C. Sydney

Year of birth: 1853

Arrived       Ship:
in Colony }   Year:

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Chemist

Religion: R. Cath

Education, degree of: R & W

Height: 5' 9½"

Weight     On committal: 151
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Dark brown

Colour of eyes: Brown

Marks or special features:

Where and when tried: Sydney
14 & 25 March 1885

Offence: Procuring abortion 2 charges

Sentence: 1st 10 years P.S. 2nd 10 years P.S. 5 years of the second sentence to be cumulative with the first 15 years in all. Convicted with William Bell and Edward D Bac

Remarks:

(No. of previous Portrait ... ) 

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

 

 

 

 

Nil

 

Discharged from Parramatta Gaol 28th October 1892


~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Thomas Meredith Sheridan, Gaol photo sheet 20

SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6059], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1895-1896, No. 6491, p. 40, R5106.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 6491

Date when Portrait was taken: 28/9/1895

Name: Thomas Meredith Sheridan

Native place: Sydney

Year of birth: 1853

Arrived       Ship:
in Colony }   Year: BC

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Chemist

Religion: R. Cath.

Education, degree of: R & W

Height: 5' 8¾"

Weight     On committal: 146
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Brown

Colour of eyes: Grey

Marks or special features: Scars on centre of forehead & bridge of nose. Sabre and cupping scars under left breast

Where and when tried: Sydney 
14 & 25 March 1885

Offence: Procuring abortion 2 charges

Sentence: 1st 10 years P.S. 2nd 10 years P.S. 5 years of the second sentence to be cumulative with the first 15 years in all. Convicted with William Bell and Edward D Bac

Remarks:

(No. of previous Portrait .. 3303)

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

Convicted in the first instance with William Bell & Edward D Bac
Convicted in the second instance with John Seawell

Where and When Offence. Sentence

Sydney CC.

ditto



Sydney CC.

19

25



20

  3

  3



11

1885

1885



1895

Procuring Abortion 2 charges

ditto



Murder

1st 10 years ps

2nd 10 years ps. 5 years of the
2nd to be accumulative with
the 1st (Discharged from
Parramatta 28th October 1892)

Death

 Executed 7th January 1896

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

James Dolman Spickett, Gaol photo sheet 21

SRNSW: NRS2326, [3/14127], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1873-1922, No. –, p. 10, R5128.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. –

Date when Portrait was taken: 25-11-1884

Name: James Dolman Spickett

Native place: England

Year of birth: 1847

Arrived       Ship: Duncan Dunbar
in Colony }   Year: 1863

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Chemist and dentist

Religion: R. C.

Education, degree of: RW

Height: 5' 10½"

Weight     On committal: 176
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Brown

Colour of eyes: Blue

Marks or special features: Scar on right temple

Where and when tried: Sydney GD 14 March 1885

[1885] Offence: Being an accessory after the fact in procuring a miscarriage

Sentence: Acquitted

Remarks:— For trial Maitland Q.S. 5 September 1892

(No. of previous Portrait ... )

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

Narrabri PC

ditto

Newcastle Q.S

2

9

5

  2

10

  9

1880

1883

1892

Stealing a watch

False pretences

Accessory to an indecent assault
after the fact

Committed for trial
(Not tried)

Remanded to the Sydney Bench

1 month H.L. and to find sureties in
£25 each, & self in £50 or one in £50
to be of good behaviour for 2 years in default 2 months additional.

Served the 2 months additional.

Discharged 3-12-1892

 


 

Harry Sinclair, 1885

The Illawarra Mercury, Tue 29 Sep 1885 22

COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS.
Monday, September 28, [1885]
(Before the Police Magistrate [Alfred Allatson Turner], and Mr G McPhail JP.)


    Harry Sinclair was charged with an attempt to commit an unnatural offence.

    Constable Saunders deposed to the arrest of prisoner.

    John Dolman Spiggot [aka James Dolman Spickett] deposed that he stayed at Roxby’s Cricketers’ Arms on the night of Friday last; he travelled from Sydney in company with prisoner, who also stayed at the same hotel, occupying the same room. Witness then gave evidence as to the offence.

    Patrick McDonald also gave evidence.

    Prisoner [Harry Sinclair], in reply to the usual question, said that the affair had arisen through drink. Both prosecutor and himself had been drinking for some weeks previously. It was purely imaginary on the part of the prosecutor, who was suffering from the horrors, the result of his excessive drinking.

    Peter Roxby, landlord of the Cricketers’ Arms, said prosecutor was sober when he arrived at the hotel, and appeared to know what he was doing when he retired for the night; he took half a-pint of rum to the bedroom with him; he also seemed sober when the police arrived.

    Prisoner was committed to take his trial at the Central Criminal Court, to be holden in Sydney on the 16th November next; bail allowed, himself in £200, and two sureties in £100 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Depositions for Harry Sinclair 16 Nov 1885 Sydney trial 23

Court House Wollongong
29th September 1885

William Bede Dalley, QC, Attorney General, Sydney

Sir
    I have the honor to forward under separate cover the Depositions &c., in the case against one Harry Sinclair who has been committed to take his trial at the next Central Criminal Court at Darlinghurst Sydney on the 16th November next on a charge of attempting to commit an unnatural offence.

    I have the honor to be
       Sir
    Your most obedient Servant
[Signed] Alfred Allatson Turner, PM.

1

(M., 11 and 12 Vic., Cap. 42.)

Depositions of Witnesses.

New South Wales, Wollongong
TO WIT.                                  }

The examination of William Saunders of Wollongong in the Colony of New South Wales, Constable of Police taken on oath, this 26th day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty five at Wollongong in the Colony aforesaid, before the undersigned, one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said Colony, in the presence and hearing of Harry Sinclair who is charged this day before me, for that he the said Harry Sinclair, on the 26th day of September instant at Wollongong in the Colony, did assault one James Dolman Spickett, with intent wickedly, and against the order of nature to commit the abominable crime of buggery with the said James Dolman Spickett.

2

New South Wales, Wollongong
TO WIT.                                  }

Regina v Sinclair

    The deponent William Saunders Constable of Police being duly sworn saith as follows:– From information received I arrested the prisoner in Roxby’s Cricketers’ Arms Hotel at Wollongong at about 3 am this morning.
    I charged him with attempting to commit an unnatural offence upon the person of one James Dolman Spickett – he made no reply. I pray that prisoner may be remanded until Monday next the 28th instant for the production of evidence.

[Signed] William Saunders.

Taken and sworn before me at the Police Office Wollongong this 26th September 1885.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

    The accused is remanded to Wollongong Goal until Monday the 28th instant at 11 am.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

3

(M., 11 and 12 Vict., Cap. 42.)

Depositions of Witnesses.

New South Wales, Wollongong
TO WIT.                                  }

The examination of William Saunders of Wollongong in the Colony of New South Wales, Constable of Police, James Dolman Spickett of Sydney Surgeon, Dentist, Patrick McDonald of Clifton Labourer and Peter Roxby of Wollongong, in the said Colony, Agent taken on oath, this 28th day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty five at Wollongong in the Colony aforesaid, before the undersigned, two of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said Colony, in the presence and hearing of Harry Sinclair who is charged this day before us, for that he the said Harry Sinclair, on the 26th day of September instant at Wollongong in the said Colony, did assault one James Dolman Spickett with the intent wickedly and against the order of nature to comm it the abominable crime of buggery with the same James Dolman Spickett.

4

New South Wales, Wollongong
TO WIT.                                  }

Regina v Sinclair

    The accused is brought before the Court pursuant to remand.

    This deponent, William Saunders Constable of Police being duly sworn on his oath saith as follows:– When I proceeded to the Cricketers’ Arms on Saturday morning with the prosecutor I went to the bedroom. I saw the bed that the prosecutor said he had been sleeping in. The clothes were all tossed about and disturbed and the foot board of the bed had been knocked out. The suit of clothes that the accused now wears was lying in

5

the room. The accused was not there. I searched the house for him. I found him in the kitchen on the ground floor of the house, he was lying in front of the fire in his shirt covered with an old piece of bagging. I said “What brings you here in this state?” He said “I am frightened to go back up there.” I said “Up where?” He said “To the bedroom.” I asked his name and he said “I’m Harry Sinclair.” Prosecutor came into the kitchen then and said “That is the wretch.” I then arrested the accused and charged him. Prosecutor said “Harry I treated you like a man and paid your way here and you have treated me like this.” Accused said “Oh you have often done worse.” The accused had been

6

charged at that time with this offence.

    By the Accused: You had been charged when you said “Oh you have often done worse.” It was not when prosecutor struck you that you said it – it was some time after. He said to you “You tried to bugger me”, he used that expression several times. It was not in reply to that expression that you said “You have often done worse.”

    By SS Grieve: The prosecutor said to the accused “It is not the first time that you have been at this sort of thing. You have been knocking about in the chinese camps of Sydney too much.” The accused did not reply to that. The prosecutor was crying at the time. He was not sober when he made the complaint, but he understood what he was saying

7

and doing.

[Signed] William Saunders.

Taken and sworn before us at the Police Office Wollongong this 28th September 1885.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

8

    This deponent James Dolman Spickett being duly sworn on his oath saith as follows:– I am a surgeon, dentist and chemist and druggist. I am at present travelling as a dentist. I’m currently My wife and family at present reside at Beryl Street, Waverley, Sydney. On the night of 25th September instant I stopped at Roxby’s Cricketers’ Arms Hotel. I know the accused casually. We travelled together from Sydney. We occupied one bed and one bedroom at Roxby’s. There were two beds in the room, a double and a single. We occupied the double bed. We went to bed that night. I fell asleep and was awakened by something paining me in the anus. Then I recollect somebody catching me by the hand or waist and saying “Come, come”. The I found a hand

9

catching hold of my penis and rubbing it. Immediately after that I again felt something hurting my anus. I put my hand around and caught hold of the accused’s penis. It was that what was hurting me. When I found that it was the accused trying to commit an unnatural offence upon me I struck him, threw myself out of the bed and pulled him out also, he ran out of the door. I then awoke the man in the other bed and I complained to him about it. The accused was present, I do not recollect what I said exactly. I know I used the words “He tried to bugger me.” I do not recollect if the accused replied. I then dressed myself and made a complaint at the Police Station.

    By the Accused: You had hold of my penis after we went

10

into bed. I did not take you in my arms and speak of “My dear little wife.” I did not undress myself that night; you pulled off my boots and trousers and helped me to some rum out of the lemonade bottle. I do not know whether it was at my own request. You helped me, you said “We had better have nip before going to sleep.” I did not get up again after we went to bed and say “Give me another drop, I can’t go to sleep.” I am not aware whether you kicked the board out of the foot of the bed or not. I was in such a temper.

[Signed] James Dolman Spickett.

Taken and sworn before us at the Police Office Wollongong this 28th September 1885.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

11

    This deponent Patrick McDonald being duly sworn on his oath saith as follows:– I am a labourer working at Clifton. I came in from Clifton on Friday night last. I came in the coach with the accused and the prosecutor. We all stayed at Roxby’s in one bedroom. I slept in a single bed and the accused and prosecutor slept in a double bed. I was awakened in the night by the prosecutor who lit the candle and said had a asked me for a smoke out of my pipe. He lit the pipe and said “Do you know what that man wanted to do to me? He wanted to bugger fuck me.” I did not reply at this then. The accused was lying in the bed. Prosecutor said to me “You had better have a look at my behind for I am all sore.” He sat on

12

He made that complaint before the accused left the room. Prosecutor threatened the accused, they had a scuffle and the accused left the room. Prosecutor locked the door after him and then said to me what he did about his behind. A short time after that I dressed myself and said that he was going for the Police. I was in bed when the Police came.

    By the Accused: Prosecutor asked the Publican for some rum. He was neither drunk nor sober but he knew what he was doing. He got the rum in a bottle and took it up to the room. I did not remember you asking him to take a drink up in the bedroom. I heard him ask you for rum and say that he could not sleep. You took off all his clothes. He was sitting

13

on the bed after you undressed him, when he did get into bed you had to turn his legs right around and put his pillow under his head. He got up after that again and asked for rum. When he went to bed (?) and you had to turn his legs around as before. I did not light the candle. He said to me “Get up and light the candle”. I do not think that I lit it. I might have, for all I know. You did not call on me to protect you. He struck you several times on the bed, and you rushed out of the room in your shirt.

    By SS Grieve: Prosecutor was sober enough to light the candle and I believe that he did light it. He said something to the accused whilst he was striking him. I could not say what it was. I do not

14

know whether he accused him of doing anything to him.

    By the Bench: The prosecutor awoke me by shaking me. I fancy that the candle was alight then, I am not sure. The prisoner was then in bed. After waking me prosecutor asked me for a smoke of my pipe. I gave him a smoke. He said then “Do you know what that cove has been trying to do to me?” I said “I did not know.” He said “He wanted to fuck me.” Prisoner was still in bed and he did not reply. Prosecutor smoked two or three minutes then began to beat the prisoner. As he was doing so he muttered something; I do not know what it was. Prisoner told him to knock off beating him and ran out of the room. Prosecutor was sober then. He locked the door as soon as the prisoner had gone and shewed me his behind

15

and complained to me. Then he sat on his bed for a minute or two and went for the Police. I did not look at his behind. I did not notice it. I had not my proper senses when I first awoke. When I first awoke things could have occurred without me recollecting them.

[Signed] Patrick (his X mark) McDonald.

Taken and sworn before us at the Police Office Wollongong this 28th September 1885.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

16

(N., 11 & 12 Vic., Cap. 42.)

Statement of the Accused.

New South Wales, Wollongong
TO WIT.                                  }

Harry Sinclair stands charged before the undersigned, two of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the Colony aforesaid, this 28th day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty five for that he, the said Harry Sinclair on the 26th day of September instant at Wollongong, in the said Colony, did assault one James Dolman Spickett with intent wickedly and against the order of Nature to commit the abominable crime of buggery with the same James Dolman Spickett and the examination of all the witnesses on the part of the prosecution having been completed, and the depositions taken against the accused having been caused to be read to him by us, the said Justices, (by/or) before whom such examination has been so completed; and we the said Justices having also stated to the accused and given him clearly to understand that he has nothing to hope from any promise of favour, and nothing to fear from any threat which may have been holden out to him to induce him to make any admission or confession of his guilt, but that whatever he shall say may be given in evidence against upon his trial, notwithstanding such promise or threat; and the said charge being read to the said Harry Sinclair, and the witnesses for the prosecution William Saunders of Wollongong, Constable, James Dolman Spickett of Sydney surgeon, dentist and Patrick McDonald of Clifton Labourer being severally examined in his presence, the said Harry Sinclair is now addressed by us as follows:– “Having heard the evidence, do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you desire to do so; but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence against you upon your trial;” whereupon the said Harry Sinclair saith as follows:– “All I have to say is that this affair has arisen out of drunk. Both of us had been drinking for weeks previous to this – he heavier than I and it was purely imaginary as he was suffering from the horrors of drink, and that apart from the

17

evidence that has been taken in this case as a proof of what he is in drink while on our way from Coal Cliff to Bulli he struck me and knocked me down without any provocation whatever, and on the night before this is alleged to have taken place he fell out with me and said he was tired of paying the expenses and I might go wherever I liked, which caused me that night to sleep out in an outhouse. On the following morning he saw me sitting outside of a public house and asked me to take a drink and said “You may as well come as far as Wollongong.” We took several drinks that day and then started for Wollongong where nothing occurred until he charged me with this offence that is now before the Court.”

[Signed] Harry Sinclair.

Taken before us at the Police Office Wollongong this 28th September 1885.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

18

For Defence

    This deponent James Dolman Spickett  called and examined by the accused, saith as follows:– I slept with you in the same bed at Hodges  at Hurstville, at Darcy’s Hotel,  at Broadheads  at Clifton, and at the back of Graham’s shop at Bulli and at Conn’s between Hurstville and Coalcliff. Although we slept together at all these places I never had anything to complain of against you. Nothing like this ever occurred before.

[Signed] James Dolman Spickett.

Taken and sworn before us at the Police Office Wollongong this 28th September 1885.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

19

    This deponent Peter Roxby being duly sworn on his oath saith as follows:– I am the Agent of the Licensee of the Cricketers’ Arms Hotel. On Friday last the 25th September instant the prosecutor Spickett came to my hotel in “Budgery’s” coach together with the accused. I showed them into a parlour. Prosecutor appeared to be quite sober. I had to ask you them to go to bed twice. You They had three rounds of drinks and some rum in a bottle.

    By the Bench: Prosecutor was sufficiently sober to know what took place when I asked them to go to bed. I saw him when he came in with the Police. He was sober then and appeared to know what was taking place. They took half a pint of rum up to bed with them.

[Signed] Peter Roxby.

Taken and sworn before us at the Police Office Wollongong this 28th September 1885.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

20

New South Wales, Wollongong
TO WIT.                                  }

Regina v Harry Sinclair

    Harry Sinclair is committed to take his trial at the next Central Criminal Court to be holden at Darlinghurst Sydney on Monday the 16th November next.

    Bail allowed accused in £200 and two sureties in £100 each.

[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.
Police Office Wollongong 28th September 1885.

21

(O. 1, 11 & 12 Vic., Cap. 42.)

Recognizance to give Evidence.

New South Wales, Wollongong
TO WIT.                                  }

Be it remembered, that on the 28th day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty five William Saunders a Constable of the Police Force, James Dolman Spickett of Sydney in the Colony of New South Wales, Surgeon Dentist, Patrick McDonald of Clifton in the said Colony, Labourer and Peter Roxby of Wollongong in the said Colony, Agent personally came before the undersigned one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Colony of New South Wales, and acknowledged themselves to owe Our Sovereign Lady the Queen the sum of

FORTY POUNDS EACH,

of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied on their Goods and Chattels, Lands and Tenements, to the use of our said Lady the Queen, her Heirs and Successors, if they the said before mentioned persons shall fail in the condition indorse. [Signed] William Saunders, James D Spickett, Patrick (his X mark) McDonald, Peter Roxby.

Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first above mentioned, at Wollongong in the said Colony, before us
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

The condition of the within written Recognizance is such, that whereas Harry Sinclair was this day charged before Alfred Allatson Turner and George McPhail Esquires, two of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said Colony, for that on the 26th September instant he did at Wollongong in the said Colony, assault one James Dolman Spickett with intent wickedly and against the order of nature to commit the abominable crime of buggery with the said James Dolman Spickett.

If therefore, they the before mentioned persons shall appear at the next Central Criminal Court Sydney to be holden at Darlinghurst, in and for the Colony of New South Wales, on the 16th day of November next at nine of the clock in the forenoon and then and there give such evidence as they know, upon the information to be then and there preferred against the said Harry Sinclair for the offence aforesaid for the Jurors who shall pass upon the trial of the said Harry Sinclair.

Then the said Recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.
[Signed] Alfred A Turner, PM, Geo McPhail, JP.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[On the depositions’ cover sheet is the following]

Central Criminal Court
16th November 1885
No. 205
Depositions.
Regina
v. No. 1
Harry Sinclair
Attempting to commit an unnatural offence
See [below] within [initialled] W[illiam] B[ede] D[alley, QC,] AG
Committed at: Wollongong
on: 28th September 1885

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Attempt to commit sodomy
[Initialled] WBD [AG]
2/10/85

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice J Martin’s Notebook  24

62

[Central Criminal Court Sydney, Monday, 16 November 1885]

Regina v Harry Sinclair – Assault with intent to commit sodomy – Sec. 60
This prisoner being arraigned pleads not guilty.
(Ward ?) AG states case & calls –

    1st Witness. William Saunders. A constable in the Police Force at Woollongong. 25 From information

63

on the 26th of September last I went to Roxby’s Hotel at Woollongong between 2 & 3 am. I saw prisoner there. I charged him with attempting to commit an unnatural offence on the person of James Dolman Spickett. 26 He made no reply. I went with Mr Spickett to a bed room & saw a bed. The clothing was all tossed about and the footboard was displaced. The prisoner was lying in the front of the fire in the kitchen when I found him – he was undressed with a shirt only on & covered with some old baggings. I asked him (?) brought him there in that state. He said because I am frightened to go back up there. I asked him why & where did he mean. He said up to the bed room. I then asked

64

his name. He said I’m Harry Sinclair. Mr Spickett came into the kitchen at that time. He said that is the wretch pointing to the prisoner. I then arrested and charged him. Mr Spickett said to prisoner Harry I treated you like a man. I paid your way here and then you treated me in this manner. The prisoner then replied “Oh you have often done worse.” Spickett said several times to the prisonerYou tried to bugger me.” Prisoner made no reply to that. The prisoner was almost sober. He may have had a few drinks. Mr Spickett was under the influence of liquor but not drunk.

    Cross-examined by prisoner. Prisoner did not say to Spickett you have done more to me than ever I have done to you. Spickett was not (?)

65

sober when he came to the watch house. He was not quite sober when he gave prisoner in charge but very nearly so. There were no stains on the bed.

  2nd Witness. James Dolman Spickett. Surgeon Dentist and Chemist & Druggist. Towards the end of September last I was travelling as a Dentist. On the night of the 25th September I stopped at Roxby’s Hotel Woollongong. I arrived there with the prisoner. I had travelled with him from Sydney. We occupied the same bed. There were two beds in the room one a double bedstead & the other single. I occupied the double bedstead. When Prisoner and I and another person

66

went up to bed together. After we went up to the room we went to bed. I fell asleep. I was awoke with something (irritating ?) me behind, at my anus behind. This disturbed me. I put my hand down behind me. My (wrist ?) was caught hold of and about the same instant my hand was passed over up my hip and my penis was taken hold of and the prisoner said “Come, come”. I immediately struck him with my left hand. I jumped out of bed after striking him and called the other man and pulled the prisoner from the bed and began to strike into him. I complained to the other man and in prisoner’s presence said “This fellow was trying to bugger me.” I can [not] say whether the prisoner made any reply. The prisoner went out of

67

the room and I went for the Police.

    Cross-examined. We came from Bulli that day in the coach. I was not drinking heavily, a couple of (pints ?) (previously ?). Two (pints ?) before I was in Sydney. I was sober when we arrived at the Hotel. We had three glasses of ale before going to bed. We had some rum upstairs in the bed room. I did not take rum up to the bed room. I was not eating opium on my trip all along the coast. I have used opium for many years. Smoked it and eaten it. I am the same Spickett tried some months ago with Sheridan & (?) for (inveinous ?) (?). I was not treated by Dr O’Connor (Good ?) for illness caused by eating opium. I believe I said on the night of the event that I had treated prisoner like a man & paid

68

his expenses. We stopped at Hodges Hotel at Hurstville. I did not pay the bill there yet. We I came in the coach by myself part of the way from Coal Cliff to Bulli. Prisoner was not with me then. I had to discharge him for drunkenness. I struck prisoner on the road. I had occasion to do so because he was swearing at me. I was sober and prisoner was drunk. He couldn’t keep his hands off me. We were at Bulli on and off some time. I can’t say exactly how long. We were not 11 days in Bulli. I can’t say how much I paid on prisoner’s account at Bulli. Prisoner did not (lay ?) on the road with my sanction. We slept in the bush one night. When prisoner got some bread and meat at a farm I had some. We had slept together in the same bed at Mrs (Corin’s ?) on the road and at other places.

69

Nothing of this sort that I now complain of occurred on these occasions. I was sober when we went to bed at the Hotel at Roxby’s. I had injured my arm and prisoner had to help me to undress to go to bed. I struck prisoner first before I got up and called the other man. On the night we slept in the bush I did not have the tremors & say that I could see purple in the trees. I was sober when I went to the watch house to give the prisoner in charge. I had a drink of rum in the room before going to bed. I did not get up for rum after going to bed. By me prisoner was not engaged (by ?) me he was taken (by ?) me as companion only. He said he was (carpenter ?) looking for work. He carried one of

70

my parcels. I discharged (him ?) from being with me.

    By prisoner. The prisoner was a companion only.

    3rd Witness. Patrick McDonald. I am a labourer. On the night of the 25th September I occupied a bed in the same room with prisoner & Spickett. I was awoke by Spickett. Prisoner was in the room. Spickett said (referring to prisoner) do you know what that man wanted to do to be me. I said no. He said I don’t like to tell you – if I have got to say it I will have to he tried to fuck me. Prisoner made no remark. He cleared out of the room – Spickett struck the prisoner a couple of times. Spickett was neither drunk nor sober. He knew what he was doing at the time.

71

    Cross-examined. I came into coast on coach from Bulli to Woollongong with Spickett & prisoner. Spickett was sober on the coach. Spickett had two rounds of drinks at the public house. I shouted once too – That was three “hairs” we had. He took some rum up into the bed room. He took a drink of rum before going to bed. Prisoner undressed Spickett and took all his things off. Prisoner had to catch hold of Spickett’s legs and turn him quite round on the bed. Spickett got up a second time and asked for rum. Spickett came over to me and asked me for a smoke out of my pipe. I gave it to him. He laid on the bed for a minute as far as I can judge. I was perfectly sober on that night.

72

    I was asleep when Spickett came over to me. The beds might be four feet apart. Spickett (?) (?) talk when he went for the constable.
Case for the Crown closed.

Defence.

    Statement made by prisoner to the Magistrate read.

    Prisoner makes a statement to the Jury.

    I sum up and the Jury retired at 5 minutes to 12 o’clock. The[y] returned into Court at 20 minutes past 12 o’clock and found the prisoner not guilty, wherefore he was discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 16 Nov 1885 27

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

    The following cases have been set down for hearing at the Central Criminal Court, the sittings of which will commence at Darlinghurst Courthouse to-day, at 10 am:– Harry Sinclair (Woollongong [sic] Beach), unnatural offence; Combo and Johnny Gibson (Manning River), murder; Timothy Scanlon (Port Macquarie), bestiality; Arthur D Gumley (Milton), indecent assault; William Bennett (Nowra), attempted suicide; William A Foulerton (Newtown), arson; William Challinor and others (Sydney), stealing; John Fletcher and another (Glen Innes), cattle stealing; Edward Jackson (Cootamundra), assault with intent; William Wilson (Campbelltown), rape; Ellen King and another (Forbes), murder, &c.; William Burgess (Gosford), stealing in a dwelling.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Tue 17 Nov 1885 28

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
Monday, November 16.
(Before his Honor the Chief Justice [Martin].)

    The Attorney-General, assisted by Mr Wise, prosecuted for the Crown.

JURORS FINED.

    The following jurors were fined 40s., for non-attendance:– George Sams, clerk, Sit-road, Buena Vista; Alfred James Simpson, accountant, Conder-street, Burwood; Patrick O’Connell, produce merchant, Bubb-street, Burwood; Llewellyn Baglin, builder, Bourke-street, Waverley.

UNNATURAL OFFENCE.

    Harry Sinclair, charged with having attempted to commit an unnatural offence at Wollongong on September 26, was acquitted.

 


 

James Dolman Spickett, 1892

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 26 Jul 1892 29

DISTRICT TELEGRAMS.
————
(From Our Correspondents.)
————

COPELAND.

Monday.

    James Dolman Spickett was arrested here on Saturday and brought up before Mr Angus Beaton, JP, on a charge of being accessory to a felony committed by George Parish. On the application of the police he was remanded for eight days. Bail was refused

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Mon 5 Sep 1892 30

THE QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———

THE Quarter Sessions commence in the Court House at 10 o’clock this morning, before Judge Backhouse. Mr WH Coffey will act as Crown Prosecutor. The list, which is a lengthy one, is as follows:—James H Hamilton, alias Hall, alias Henderson, alias Coombes, forgery (two charges), uttering (two charges); W Broadman, alias James Hewit, burglary (two charges); Alfred Anderson, larceny (two charges): Robert L Jones, cutting and wounding; James D Speckett, accessory after the fact; John Stewart, bigamy; Wm Ah Gin and Jacques Valle, conspiracy; John McIntyre, maliciously wounding; Mary J Cridland, forgery and uttering; Charles Tucker, assault and robbery; Thomas Brennan, forgery; John Mather, disturbing a Salvation Army meeting at Dungog.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 6 Sep 1892 31

THE QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
OPENING DAY.
———
Monday, September 5th.
———
(Before Judge Backhouse).
———

THE Quarter Sessions commenced in the Courthouse yesterday morning, before Mr District Court Judge Backhouse. As usual there was a large attendance of the public, the room being crowded in every part. Mr WH Coffee, instructed by Mr WR Beaver, Clerk of the Peace, prosecuted for the Crown, the other barristers present being—Mr F Rogers (QC), Mr W Blacket, Mr AB Shand, Mr AA Hunt, and Mr C Delohery. The solicitors present were—Messrs HJ Brown, JA Gorrick, WH Baker, W Sparke, RW Thompson, J Windeyer, CW Readett, RA Young, T Cronin, CF Low, W Reid, GW Mitchell, J Dart, and C Millard.

AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT.

    James Dolman Spickett pleaded guilty to two charges of having, on the 2nd of July, at the Gloucester River, received, harboured, and maintained one George Parish, knowing that the said George Parish was guilty of having committed an indecent assault on a girl under the age of 14 years, thereby making himself an accessory after the fact.

    The governor of the gaol stated that in 1885 the accused was tried in Sydney, and acquitted, on a charge of being an accessory after the fact in an attempt to procure an abortion. In 1887 he had been fined at Copeland for using abusive language and he paid the money.

    The prisoner was remanded for sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 6 Sep 1892 32

COUNTRY NEWS.
———◦———
(From Our Correspondents.)

NEWCASTLE QUARTER SESSIONS.

Newcastle, Monday.

    The Quarter Sessions were commenced this morning before Judge Backhouse. Mr WH Coffey was the Crown prosecutor. The case s against Captain Jacques Valle, master of the French steamer Loire Inferieure , and Ah Gin, charged with having conspired, on April 20th last, to defraud the Government of divers sums of money by substituting two strange Chinese in lieu of two Chinese firemen who had deserted from the steamer, thus evading a penalty of £100 in each case, were proceeded with. The evidence was similar to that already reported. The jury, after considering the case for one hour, acquitted the accused. James Herbert Hamilton, on two charges of forgery, pleaded guilty. Sentence was deferred. James Speckett [sic] was convicted of being an accessory to a felony after the fact. He was remanded for sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Wed 7 Sep 1892 33

THE QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
SECOND DAY.
———
Tuesday, September 6.
———
(Before Judge Backhouse).
———
Mr WH Coffee prosecuted for the Crown.

SENTENCES.

    James Dolman Spickett, who had pleaded guilty on the previous day to two charges of having, on the 2nd of July, at the Gloucester River, received, harboured, and maintained one George Parish, knowing that the said George Parish was guilty of having committed an indecent assault on a girl under the age of 14 years, thereby making himself an accessory after the fact, was brought up for sentence.

    The Crown Prosecutor said he wished to call one witness as to character.

    Senior-constable Stokes, of West Maitland, but formerly of Copeland, said that he had known the prisoner for about five and a half years. His character was not very good. He was addicted to drink.

    The prisoner was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, and was ordered at the expiration of that term to find one surety of £50, or two of £25, for his good behaviour for a period of two years, failing which he should serve an additional term of two months’ imprisonment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 7 Sep 1892 34

COUNTRY NEWS.
———◦———
(From Our Correspondents.)

NEWCASTLE QUARTER SESSIONS.

Newcastle, Tuesday.

    The Quarter Sessions were continued to-day before Judge Backhouse. Mr WH Coffey was the Crown Prosecutor. The following sentences were passed:—JH Hamilton, forgery and uttering, 18 months on each offence, the sentences to be concurrent; J Speckett, accessory to a felony, one months, and to find sureties for £50 to be of good behaviour for two years; RS Jones, convicted of maliciously wounding, was remanded for sentence. Mary Jane Cudland, a young girl, pleaded guilty to forging and uttering. Her father and herself were ordered to find bail in £50 to appear when called upon.

 


 

Neich v. Neich, 1901

Neich v. Neich divorce papers 1900 35

1

Divorce Justice Gregory Walker notes. Photo: Peter de Waal
Divorce Justice Gregory Walker notes.
Photo: Peter de Waal

No. 3654

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales
In Divorce                                                 }

OSWALD NEICH

AGAINST

CLARA NEICH.

William Tomas Cozens,
. . . Spickett, Robert
Henderson, and TW Gaut,

Co-Respondents.

————————
CORAM GREGORY WALKER J.
16/10/01
————

QUESTIONS FOR THE JUDGE.

    On behalf of the Petitioner:—

    1.  Whether Oswald Neich, the Petitioner, was married to Clara Neich, the Respondent, on the 12th of November, 1891.

    2.  Whether the Respondent on or about the 2nd of June, 1900, committed adultery with William Thomas Cozens, one of the Co-respondents, at Burwood, in the State of New South Wales.

    3.  Whether at the time and place mentioned in the 2nd question the Co-respondent, William Thomas Cozens, committed adultery with the Respondent.

    4.  Whether the Respondent between the 1st of August, 1897, and the 1st of January, 1898, committed adultery with … … … Spickett, another of the Co-respondents, at Newtown and other places in the said State.

2

    5.  Whether at the times and places mentioned in the 4th question the Co-respondent … … … Spickett committed adultery with the Respondent.

    6.  Whether the Respondent between the 1st of October, 1898, and the 31st of March, 1899 committed adultery with Robert Henderson, another of the Co–respondents, at Sydney and other places in or near Sydney in the said State.

    7.  Whether at the times and places mentioned in the 6th question the Co-respondent, Robert Henderson, committed adultery with the Respondent.

    8.  Whether the Respondent between the 1st of December, 1897, and the 1st of March, 1898, committed with TW Gaut, another of the Co-respondents, at Sydney and other places in or near Sydney aforesaid.

    9.  Whether at the times and places mentioned in the 8th question the Co-respondent, TW Gaut, committed adultery with the Respondent.

    On behalf of the Respondent:—

    1.  Whether the Petitioner between the 1st of January, 1895, and the 1st of May, 1895, committed adultery with a woman known as Molly Evans at Narrabri in the said State.

    2.  Whether the Petitioner between the 1st of June, 1895, and the 1st of December, 1895, committed adultery with a woman known as Annie Beal or China Ann at Narrabri aforesaid.

    3.  Whether between the 1st of July, 1899, and the 31st of November, 1899, the Petitioner committed adultery with a woman known as Theresa Scarret at Perth in the State of West Australia,,

    4.  Whether the Petitioner has without just cause or excuse wilfully deserted the Respondent, and without any such cause or excuse left her continuously so deserted during three years and upwards.

————————

    Cozens entered an appearance.   No answer.

    Spickett—No appearance.
                     Affidavit Oswald Neich, 23rd February.

    Henderson—Appearance.    No answer.
    Gaut—Appearance dispensed with.    No appearance.     Order 10th May. Affidavit of GD Brentnall, 8/8/01.

ISSUES.

    1.—Marriage.
    2 and 3.—Adultery with Spickett.
    4 and 5.—Adultery with Cozens.

3

    OSWALD NEICH. Examined by Whitfield. Petitioner married to respondent, Clara Randall, 12th November, 1891. (Certificate tendered. Ex “A”).

    After marriage we lived at various places in New south Wales, the last place being Narrabri. From there I went to Western Australia, about the beginning of 1896, leaving my wife at Narrabri. I came back about March, 1900. I sent her money till about 6 months before I returned. Then I heard something, and I ceased sending money. She issued a warrant against me, and I was brought back. I know nothing personally about the adulteries alleged. Spickett was a resident of Narrabri. I knew him.

    TO ME.  During the 4 years of my absence I corresponded with my wife. Before I left for Western Australia she was having men coming about the place. I told her I would not have it. She said she would do as she liked. She told me I was no use to her and to clear out. When I was leaving she threw the axe after me and told me she would split me down. I left the house and went to the hotel to live. I lived there six weeks. During that time I watched the house and saw Spickett frequent the place frequently. She told me she would sooner have Spickett than me. I said, “Very good. Have Spickett if you like.” I had watched the man, and had seen him stop at the place for hours at a time. I was cabman at Narrabri. I was earning £2 a week. After I left the house I allowed my wife 10s a week while I was at Narrabri.

    (Shorthand writer sworn).

    MARTHA LEISEGANG. Examined by Whitfield. April, 1897. Mr and Mrs Spickett, 3 weeks.
    (Fourth Issue amended by substituting April for August).

    BURWOOD NEICH. Examined by Whitfield. 2nd June, 1900.
    Petitioner (recalled). Examined.
    (Case for Petitioner).
    Whitfield, to Court. Baldwin v. Baldwin, 14 Weekly Notes 206.
(Adjourned till to-morrow, 0.30).

————

THURSDAY, 17TH OCTOBER, 1901.
Whitfield, to Court. Brown and Powles, 6th Ed. pages 72 and 100. Dering v. Dering. 1 P and D 535.

4

JUDGMENT.

    HIS HONOR. In this case I find on the evidence that the issues of marriage and of the respondent’s adultery with Spickett and Cozens, viz, the first five issues, have been proved. But, at the same time, after giving the case a good deal of anxious consideration and listening very carefully to the arguments of Mr Whitfield, I feel bound, in the exercise of my discretion, to refuse the petitioner the relief which he asks. The law makes neglect or misconduct on the part of the husband conducing to the adulter5y charged a discretionary defence to a suit for the resolution of marriage. The Court, in a case like that, has a discretionary power to refuse relief even if the charges made against the wife are entirely proved. The difficulty is in applying the discretion to the facts of each particular case. There are numberless case reported in which this discretion has been exercised in one direction or the other, but very little assistance is to be found in these cases because they all differ so widely in their facts. The only help the Court can derive from them is in seeing what principles have been laid down by the judges as those which ought to guide the Court in the exercise of this discretion, which is unquestionably a judicial one.

    The nearest principle, I think, of practical use in this case is to be found in the judgment in Dering v. Dering, 1 P & D, 535. In that case the Judge Ordinary, in charging the jury, said, “Before you arrive at the conclusion that the Petitioner has been guilty of such misconduct as the Statute condemns, you ought to be thoroughly satisfied that the intimacy between these parties was of such a character as to be distinctly dangerous, that the husband knew so much of it as to perceive the danger, and that he either purposely or recklessly disregarded it, and forbore to interfere.”

    Now, what are the facts in this case? The Petitioner and Respondent had apparently lived unhappily for some time on account of the violent temper of the Respondent. In 1896 the Petitioner left for Western Australia, not because of any financial straits in which he found himself—because he was at the time earning a competency as a Cabman—but on account of the unhappy relations between himself and his wife. Six weeks before he left for Western Australia he had a quarrel with his wife, and left their house, and lived for six weeks at an neighbouring hotel. The Respondent had been in the habit of allowing men to visit at her house, and, in particular, a man named Spickett with whom she is proved to have subsequently committed adultery. The Petitioner very properly remonstrated with his wife, and had a quarrel with her about the matter. The evidence which he gives on this point was given very clearly and candidly, in answer to questions put by me; for I thought it my duty, as the case was not defended in Court, though the wife’s answer made serious allegations against the Petitioner, to find out as well as I could what the circumstances were

5

that led up to this suit. Without any pressure on my part the Petitioner gave his evidence:—“Before I left for Western Australia she was having men coming about the place. I told her I would not have it. She said she would do as she liked. She told me I was of no use to her, and to clear out. When I was leaving she threw the axe after me, and told me she would split me down. I left the house and went to the hotel to live. I lived there 6 weeks. During that time I watched the house, and saw Spickett frequent the place frequently. She told me she would sooner have Spickett than me. I said ‘very good, have Spickett if you like.’ I had watched that man, and had him seen him stay at the place for hours at night-time.” On further examination by Mr Whitfield he went a little more in detail into the facts, but mentioned nothing further that materially affected the short summary of the facts that he had given to me.

     I have to decide a somewhat difficult question as to whether the conduct of the Petitioner in this case disentitles him to the relief to which he would otherwise be entitled. Mt Whitfield’s argument comes to this: That, suspecting that his wife was improperly intimate with Spickett, the Petitioner remonstrated with her and forbade her to receive Spickett’s visits, and that having done that he had done all that was his duty to do. In Baldwin v. Baldwin, 14 Weekly Notes, 206, to which I was referred, the Full Court held that the conduct of the husband in that case did not bar him from the relief because—and this, as I understand, was the gist of the decision—he had done all that was incumbent upon him as a husband to do. I have to say whether in this case the Petitioner has done all that was incumbent upon him; whether, having remonstrated with his wife because of her familiarity with a certain man, and having quarrelled with her on that account and forbidden her to continue the intimacy, he was justified in not interfering when, after that, he saw the man visiting his house under suspicious circumstances. In my opinion he was not so justified. When he saw the man, whom he had forbidden his wife to know, entering his house under such circumstances as to rouse his (Petitioner’s) suspicions it was his bounden duty as a husband to prevent it. He had ample opportunity of doing so. He could have ordered Spickett out of the house, and if there was any physical difficulty in turning him out, he could have obtained the assistance of the police. Instead of that, though suspecting that his wife was frail, he allowed this man to visit her at night-time and to remain in the house for some hours. Indeed he had before this, by saying to his wife, “Very good. Have Pickett [sic] if you like,” pretty plainly intimated to her that he should not further interfere with her friendship for that man. I am of opinion that that is conduct which he cannot justify, and that it was conduct which distinctly tended to the commission of the adultery which was proved to have been committed at a later date between Respondent and Spickett.

6

    Referring again to the passage which I read from the Judgment in Dering v. Dering, 1 P & D, 535, the question is whether the Petitioned purposely or recklessly disregarded this intimacy, which he must have perceived to be dangerous, and forbore to interfere? Mr Whitfield argued that these words are satisfied in the present case by the Petitioner having quarrelled with his wife about her intimacy with the Co-respondent Spickett. I am of opinion that a husband has a further duty to his wife, and to himself than that. If, after warning his wife, he nevertheless perceives the prohibited person entering his house under suspicious circumstances and makes no effort to prevent that person’s access to his wife he, in my opinion, fails in his duty as a husband and is guilty of conduct conducing to her adultery.

    I will not deny that the matter is one of some difficulty, and the exact point involved appears not to have been decided before. But I have to give expression to the views which I entertain of the duty of a husband under such circumstances as those in the present case, and I must say that in my view the Petitioner’s conduct conduced to the commission of the adultery of which he now complains. Under those circumstances I think it is the duty of the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to refuse relief, and I dismiss the petition.

    At the same time, following Bremner v. Bremner, 10 LT ‘99, I order the Petitioner’s costs out of pocket in providing the issue of adultery with the Co-respondent Cozens to be paid by Cozens.

(Copy of the evidence taken by the shorthand writer.)

    OSWALD NEICH. (For the first portion of the evidence by this witness see His Honor’s notes.) On leaving Narrabri I went to Western Australia. I wrote a letter to my wife about a fortnight after I landed in that Colony. I sent her, on an average, about 10/- a week until the time when I stopped paying her money.

    I know that my wife charges me with having committed adultery with women named Molly Evans, Annie Bear, and Theresa Scarrett. [sic] There is no truth in those charges. I have never committed adultery with any of those women. I do not know the women she accuses me of having committed adultery with.

    To Mr Whitfield. My business as a cabman took me away from my home a good deal. I had to run between two towns—Narrabri and Narrabri West. Sometimes the trains would be late. Sometimes they reached the station at 1 o’clock in the morning. I used to go to meet the trains. I could not go home until I had gone to the station to meet the trains. I used to get wires sometimes from Commercial Travellers and others to meet the trains.

    My wife was a woman of very violent temper. There had been separations between us on several occasions before this particular one.

7

Those separations had been made up again through the intervention of friends. My wife used to come to me and ask to be taken back.

    In addition to her being a woman of violent temper she was a woman of violent actions. She threatened to split me down. On one occasion she hit me on the ear with a scrubbing brush and burst all my ear, and I have a cut on my face where she hit me with a tea-cup. She cut my clothes, and the baby’s also, up and burnt them. She was a woman over whom I had not the slightest control.

    After argument, Mr Whitfield asked permission to recall the Petitioner.

    PETITIONER recalled.

    To Mr Whitfield. It was on a Wednesday night that I first saw Spickett go into the house at Narrabri. I watched the house, and saw him go in.

    To His Honor. That was about 7 weeks before I left Narrabri. I left my house the same week. On leaving Narrabri I left for Western Australia.

    To Mr Whitfield. I watched the house in consequence of something I heard. It was between half-past 7 and 8 o’clock when I saw Spickett go into the house. He came away about 10 o’clock. I went back to the cabstand, put my cab up, and went home.

    To His Honor. I was on the other side of the road from the house watching. I was not engaged on the cab during the time. I was there watching. Another man was on my cab for the time being. I said nothing to my wife that night as to what I had seen—on account of my wife’s violent temper and the like of that. I got up the following morning and went to my work. I watched the house again on the following Saturday night and saw Spickett go in again. I went away and put my cab up, and then went home. I asked my wife “What kind of game is this you are carrying on?” She said “What game?” I said “I won’t have this man Spickett coming here at these hours of the night when I am away.” She said she would do as she b-----well liked, and that I could clear out of the house as she was going to do as she liked. She said she would split my head with an axe.

    To Mr Whitfield. She said that she would sooner have Spickett than me. When I first went in on the Saturday night I told her that I would not have those carryings on. She said “What carryings on.” I said “With Spickett.” Then she said that she would do as she b-----well liked. I told her that I had watched the house. She said “You can watch again, as much again. I will have 40 men come here.” I left the place then. I told her I had seen Spickett there on the Wednesday night. She said “That’s all right. I will have him here as many times as I like.”

8

    MARTHA LEISEGANG. Sworn. Examined by Mr Whitfield. My name is Martha Leisegang. I am the wife of Henry George Leisegang, and live with my husband at Newtown. I keep a boarding-house there.

    I remember a man and woman whom I knew as Mr and Mrs Spickett living at my place in April, 1897. They lived there 3 weeks. The persons whom I knew then as Mrs Spickett I afterwards knew as Mrs Neich, the Respondent in this case. During the 3 weeks they were at my house they lived as man and wife.

    I remember their quarreling [sic] on one occasion. I remonstrated with Spickett. I said “How dare you speak to your wife like that?” He said “She is not my wife.” He used a bad word, and said that she was nothing to him, and that his wife was in Narrabri. I said “How dare you use that language to me?” He said “It is true.” He said she was his whore. He said that she had been his housekeeper at Narrabri, and using the word again, that that was what she was. I locked her and her 2 children up in a bedroom to get away from Spickett. She went away the next morning.

    I think the woman I knew as Mrs Spickett was a very passionate woman. She was very bad tempered the night she had the row with Spickett. During the course of the quarrel Spickett used very bad language to her. I do not remember much of the conversation that took place between them. I cannot remember that he said anything to her as to what she would do if she was in a temper.

    Mr Whitfield asked leave to alter the Fourth Issue, to make it read “1st April” instead of “1st August.”

    BURWOOD NEICH, sworn. Examined by Mr Whitfield. My name is Burwood Neich. I am a brother of the Petitioner in this case.

    I remember on the 2nd June last year watching the Respondent and Co-respondent Cozens. It was on a Saturday night. I was in company with a man named John Archer. In consequence of certain information I watched what they did where they went. I first saw them on the Burwood Station. They were not together then. I saw them together at the Newtown Station. Archer and I saw them walk up the railway platform steps at the Newtown Station, and then get into a tramcar. We then got into a cab and followed them down as far as the University Park. They alighted from the tram there. They walked down the street for a little way, and stood there for some time. I saw the Respondent leave Cozens and go into a house, one of a terrace. She rejoined Cozens again. We followed them back as far as Croydon Station. They got out of the train there, and went over the overhead bridge on to the road. There is a road there which runs parallel to the Burwood Road, and they went along that road into a

9

paddock. Archer and I went into an adjoining paddock. There was only palings between us and the Respondent and the Co-respondent Cozens. I saw an act of adultery committed between the Respondent and Cozens. Archer and I jumped over the fence, and said, “This is a nice game.” I said to Cozens, This is one to us.” The woman had a cape on, and she put it up over her head, and never said a word. They walked down alongside a barbed wire fence. Instead of going out through the place where they went in to the paddock they got over the barbed wire fence. We followed them along the road a little way. They turned into Wallace Street, and went straight to her house. We were there before she came along to the house. I knocked at the door and asked for the gentleman of the house. The person who had come to the door said that I could not see him. I said I wanted to say to to [sic] them that I had seen their servant woman in a paddock with a man. I was there when the Respondent came home. She remarked that she had been followed by some men.

    PETITIONER recalled.

    To Mr Whitfield. After I came back from Western Australia I paid £1 a week towards my wife’s support. I paid that under an order of the Court. I tried to raise the question of adultery when the case was heard, but the Magistrate would not listen to it. The order was made in April, and I have been paying it ever since.

    Mr Whitfield addressed His Honor, quoting Baldwin v. Baldwin, page 206, 14 Weekly Notes. At Mr Whitfield’s request the case was adjourned till 10.30 the following day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 17 Oct 1901 36

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before Mr Justice Walker.)
NEICH v. NEICH (Cozens and Spickett, Co-Respondents).

    Mr Whitfield, instructed by Mr HC Ellison Rich, appeared for the petitioned, Oswald Neich, who sued for a dissolution of his marriage with Clara Neich, formerly Randall, on the ground of her adultery with William Thomas Cozens and one Spickett, who were joined as co-respondents. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent except on the question of custody. The co-respondent Cozens appeared, but had failed to file an answer. There was no appearance on the part of Spickett. Respondent laid a cross charge against the petitioner of misconduct with several women and of desertion. Petitioner said she married the respondent in November, 1891, at Sydney, according to the rites of the Congregational Church. He was at that time a cabman, and he and his wife lived together until 1896 at various places in New South Wales. In the year he left for Western Australia. Evidence was given in support of the petition, after which further hearing of the case was adjourned to the following day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 18 Oct 1901 37

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before Mr Justice Walker.)
NEICH v. NEICH
(Cozens and Spickett, co-respondents).
(Part heard.)

    Mr Whitfield, instructed by Mr HC Ellison Rich, appeared for the petitioner, Oswald Neich, who sued for a dissolution of his marriage with Clara Neich, formerly Randall, on the ground of her adultery with William Thomas Cozens and one Spickett, who were joined as co-respondents. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, except on the question of custody. The co-respondent Cozens appeared, but failed file an answer. There was no appearance on the part of Spickett. Respondent laid a cross charge against the petitioner of misconduct with several women and of desertion. Evidence closed on Wednesday, and the case was adjourned at the request of Mr Whitfield to enable him to show his Honor that the petitioner had not been guilty of connivance, or of such wilful neglect, or misconduct, as conduced to the alleged adultery of the respondent. Mr Whitfield submitted that the fact of the petitioner having quarrelled with his wife about the behaviour with one of the co-respondents, and a separation having followed upon the quarrel, and she, in defiance of his expressed wish, continued to receive the man, was a rebuttal of any assumption that the petitioner had connived at his wife’s conduct. The petitioner’s interference was, Mr Whitfield contended, sufficient to relieve him from the charge of wilful neglect.

    His Honor found the husband had failed in his duty, and was guilty of conduct which had conduced to the respondent’s adultery of which the petitioner complained. Under those circumstances he thought it was the duty of the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to refuse the petition.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 13 Nov 1901 38

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

(Before Mr Justice Owen, Mr Justice Cohen and
Mr Justice AH Simpson.)
DIVORCE APPEALS.

NEICH v. NEICH

    Mr Whitfield, instructed by Mr HC Ellison Rich, appeared for the petitioner, Oswald Neich, in support of an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Walker in October last dismissing the petition. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The suit was one brought by the petitioner, Oswald Neich, who was a cabman at Narrabri at the time the suit was brought, against his wife, Clara Neich, to obtain a divorce on the ground of adultery of the respondent. His Honor, while satisfied as to the issue of marriage and adultery, exercised the discretion conferred upon him by the Act by dismissing the petition, on the ground that the petitioner’s conduct tended to the commission of the adultery charged against respondent. Against this decision petitioner now appealed.

    The Court held that on the evidence Mr Justice Walker rightly decided the case, and dismissed the appeal.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 3 Apr 1909 39

IN DIVORCE.
(Before Mr Justice Pring.)

NEICH v. NEICH

    Oswald Neich petitioned for divorce from Clara Neich, formerly Randall, on the ground of adultery with Henry Kolts, who was joined as co-respondent. Mr PK White, instructed by Mr JW Abigail, appeared for petitioner; and Mr FJ Tanner for respondent. The petition was dismissed.

 


1     The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 16 Nov 1876, p. 7. Emphasis added.

2     The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 3 Jul 1883, p. 7. Emphasis added.

3     The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 7 Aug 1883, p. 2. Emphasis added.

4     The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 19 Nov 1884, p. 6. Emphasis added.

5     The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 20 Nov 1884, p. 5. Emphasis added.

6     The South Australian Advertiser, Thu 20 Nov 1884, p. 5. Emphasis added.

7     Hawkesbury Chronicle and Farmers Advocate, Sat 22 Nov 1884, pp. 2, 3.

8     The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 27 Nov 1884, p. 6. Emphasis added.

9     The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 28 Nov 1884, p. 10. Emphasis added.

10   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Sat 20 Dec 1884, p. 4.

11   The South Australian Advertiser, Sat 20 Dec 1884, p. 5.

12   The Bathurst Free Press and Mining Journal, Thu 12 Mar 1885, p. 2. Emphasis added.

13   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 12 Mar 1885, p. 9. Emphasis added.

14   The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 14 Mar 1885, p. 10. Emphasis added.

15   The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 16 Mar 1885, p. 5. Emphasis added.

16   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 7 Mar 1885, p. 5.

17   The Bathurst Free Press and Mining Journal, Wed 18 Mar 1885, p. 3. Emphasis added.

18   SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6047], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1885, No. 3305, p. 36, R5101.

19  SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6047], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1885, No. 3303, p. 34, R5101.

20   SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6059], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1895-1896, No. 6491, p. 40, R5106.

21   SRNSW: NRS2326, [3/14127], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1873-1922, No. –, p. 10, R5128.

22   The Illawarra Mercury, Tue 29 Sep 1885, p. 2. Emphasis added.

23   SRNSW: NRS880, [9/6719], Supreme Court, Papers and depositions, Sydney, Nov 1885, No. 205. Emphasis added.

24   SRNSW: NRS7378, [2/6174], Judiciary, J Martin, CJ. Notebooks Criminal, Sydney, 1873-86, pp. 62-72. Emphasis added.

25   This spelling used throughout.

26   In depositions aka Spiggot.

27   The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 16 Nov 1885, p. 5. Emphasis added.

28   The Daily Telegraph, Tue 17 Nov 1885, p. 7.

29   The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 26 Jul 1892, p. 5.

30   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Mon 5 Sep 1892, p. 4. Emphasis added.

31   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 6 Sep 1892, p. 7.

32   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 6 Sep 1892, p. 6. Emphasis added.

33   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Wed 7 Sep 1892, p. 6. Emphasis added.

34   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 7 Sep 1892, p. 6. Emphasis added.

35   SRNSW: NRS13495, [13/12544], Divorce and matrimonial cause case papers, No. 3654, 1900. Emphasis added.

36   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 17 Oct 1901, p. 3. Emphasis added.

37   The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 18 Oct 1901, p. 3. Emphasis added.

38   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 13 Nov 1901, p. 10.

39   The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 3 Apr 1909, p. 8.