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
1874, Eugeno Nepomucena - Unfit For Publication
Text Size

 

Depositions for Eugeno Nepomucena 21 Oct 1874 Maitland trial 1

[Subpoena 2]

                                                                

New South Wales,
TO WIT                }

Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c.

 

                                                                                                         

To Nicolas Stipwich interpreter.

Greetings:–
We command you and every of you, firmly enjoining you, that laying aside all pretences and excuses whatsoever, you and every of you be and appear in your proper persons, before our Justices assigned to hold pleas before us, on Monday the nineteenth day of October Instant, by nine of the clock in the forenoon of the same day, at East Maitland on our Colony of New South Wales, in the Courthouse, situate in East Maitland there to testify the truth, and give evidence, on the part of the Crown, before our said Justices, touching a certain information to be preferred against

Eugene Nepomucena

on a case of sodomy.

And that you so appear, from day to day, until the case be tried; and if you, or any, or either of you, are not to omit, under the penalty of one hundred pounds, to be levied upon your and every of your goods and chattels, lands and tenements, if you, or any, or either of you shall fail in the premises.

Witness: The Honorable Sir James Martin, Knight, our Chief
Justice of our Supreme Court of New South Wales, at Sydney,
the fourteenth day of October
in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
seventy four.
For the Prothonotary,
[Signed] J[ames] A[lexander] Read

John Williams,  Crown Solicitor

2nd Clerk of the Supreme Court.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Maitland Prison
13th October ‘74.

The Controller General of Prisons

Respecting Eugene Nepomucena

Sir,
    I have the honor to inform you that the prisoner named in the margin (Eugene Nepomucena – Unnatural Offence), for trial at the Maitland Assizes on the 19th Instant, is a Spaniard, and cannot speak the English nor French language.

I have the honor to be,
  Sir,
Your obedient servant.
[Signed] G[eorge] H[enry] Stace.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Forwarded for the information of the Crown Solicitor.

[Signed] WG Beverley, DCP, in the absence of CPS.
14.10.74

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Station Newcastle
18 September 1874

EV Morisset Esquire, Superintendent of Police, Maitland

Sir,
    With reference to your memo herewith attached of 15th Instant I do myself the honor to inform you that I have seen the interpreter in the case “Nicolas Stipwich” who informs me that the prisoner Nepomucena at the Police Office inquiring stated distinctly that he committed the offence on the boy Croft and that he Croft did the same to him and that he interpreted such to the Bench.

I have the honor to be
  Sir,
Your obedient servant.
[Signed] C[harles] Thorpe
Sub-Inspector.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Perhaps it would be desirable to lay these reports before the Honorable the Attorney General with the other papers in the case.

[Signed] Edmund Fosbery.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Forwarded for the Attorney General’s information.

[Signed] EV Morisset Sub-Inspector
24.9.74.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Station Newcastle
11 September 1874.

EV Morisset Esquire, Sub-Inspector of Police, Maitland

Sir,
    With reference to the case noted in the margin (Regina versus Eugeno Nepomucena, Sodomy) I do myself the honor to inform you that no other evidence can be obtained in corroboration. The boy Ernest Croft was observed to be unwell and when questioned admitted that “Nepomucena” had committed the offence for which he stands charged.

    After Croft had given his evidence at the Police Court the prisoner was asked through the interpreter if he had any questions to put. He had no any but admitted having committed the offence on the boy and at the same time stated that the boy also done the same to him. You will also observe in the statement of the accused he says I done it to the boy and he did it to me.

I have the honor to be
    Sir
Your obedient servant.
[Signed] C[harles] Thorpe.
Sub-Inspector.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The quotation is incorrect. The accused’s statement has “The boy did the same thing to me I did to him.”

[Initialled] EF, 14.9.74. (?)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Forwarded for Sub-Inspector Thorpe’s information, did Sub-Inspector Thorpe hear the prisoner make the statement, as it may have been incorrectly taken down by the CPS.

[Signed] Morisset Sub-Inspector
15:9:74.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Department, Maitland Station.
10th September 1874.

Sub-Inspector Thorpe

Memo:–

    The Inspector General’s minute is forwarded to Sub-Inspector Thorpe for his attention, and guidance.

[Signed] EV Morisset, Sub-Inspector.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Inspector General of Police.

    Sub-Inspector Thorpe’s report (attached) is forwarded for the information of the Inspector General of Police.

[Signed] EV Morisset, Sub-Inspector.
12.9.74.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Department, Maitland Station
4th September “74

Sub-Inspector Thorpe

Memo.

    Forwarded to Sub-Inspector Thorpe who will endeavour to obtain some evidence corroborative of the boy’s. 

[Signed] EV Morisset, Sub-Inspector.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

EV Morisset Esquire, Sub-Inspector of Police Maitland.

    No other evidence could be obtained in corroboration. The boy was suffering from disease and when questioned he admitted that the offence had been committed. The accused when charged also admitted this fact.

[Signed] C[harles] Thorpe, Sub-Inspector
5-9-74.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The admission does not appear to be in the evidence to whom was it made, when and how?

    As I have to report to the Attorney General Inspector Thorpe’s report should be in a shape I could (forward ?)

[Signed] Edmund Fosbery, Inspector General of Police.
8th September ‘74.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Department, Inspector General’s Office,
Sydney, 2nd September 1874.

Sub-Inspector Morisset, East Maitland

Memo:–

  Report to Inspector Morisset for enquiry and report.

[Signed] Edmund Fosbery,
Inspector General of Police.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Department, Inspector General’s Office,
Sydney, 14 September 1874.

The Secretary to the Honorable the Attorney General

No. 693                      

Regina versus Eugene Nepomucena – Sodomy Maitland CC.

  Copy of a report obtained from the Sub-Inspector of Police at Newcastle respecting the above case, is forwarded herewith for the information of the Honorable the Attorney General. 

    Depositions returned attached.

[Signed] Edmund Fosbery
Inspector General of Police.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Station Newcastle
11th September 1874.

EV Morisset, Superintendent of Police Maitland

Sir,
    With reference to the case noted in the margin (Regina versus Eugene Nepomucena sodomy). I do myself the honor to inform you that no other evidence cane be obtained in corroboration. The boy Ernest Croft was observed to be unwell and when questioned admitted that Nepomucena had committed the offence for which he stands charged.

    After Croft had given his evidence at the Police Court, the prisoner was asked through the interpreter if he had any questions to put. He had no any but admitted having committed the offence on the boy and at the same time stated that the boy also done the same to him. You will also observe (+ incorrect the statement was “the boy did the same thing to me I did to him.”:) In the statement of the accused he says “I done it to the boy and he did it to me.”

I have the honor to be
    Sir,
Your obedient servant.
[Signed] C[harles] Thorpe
Sub-Inspector.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Office Newcastle
27 August 1874.

Under-Secretary Crown Law Department, Sydney

Sir,
    By this post under separate cover addressed to you I do myself the honor to forward the depositions and proceedings against the prisoner named in the margin (The Queen versus Eugeno Nepomucena sodomy) who is now in Maitland Gaol under committal from this Bench awaiting his trial for the offence named in the margin at the next Court of Assizes to be holden at Maitland on the 19th day of October next.

    The boy Croft is at present in the protection of the Police.

I have the honor to be
    Sir,
Your obedient servant.
[Signed] Helenus Scott,  PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(O. 1, 11 & 12 Vic., Cap. 42.)
Recognizance to give Evidence.

New South Wales,
TO WIT.              }

The Queen versus Nepomucena for sodomy.

Be it remembered, that on the 21st day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy four John Donohoe a Sergeant of the Water Police Force, stationed at Newcastle in the Colony of New South Wales, and Henry Francis McGrath of Newcastle in the said Colony, surgeon 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, he Heirs and Successors if they the said before mentioned persons shall fail in the condition indorsed.

Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first above mentioned, at Newcastle in the said Colony, before me.
[Signed] Helenus Scott, PM.

    The condition of the within written Recognizance is such, that whereas Eugeno Nepomucena was this day charged before Helenus Scott Esquire one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said Colony, with sodomy.

If therefore, they the before mentioned persons shall appear at the next Court of Assizes to be holden at Maitland, in and for the Colony of New South Wales, on the 19th day of October next, at nine of the clock in the forenoon, and then and there give such evidence as they know, upon an information to be then and there preferred against the said Eugeno Nepomucena for offence aforesaid, to the jurors who shall pass upon the trial of the said Eugeno Nepomucena then the said Recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.

[Signed] Helenus Scott, PM.

1

(M., 11 & 12 Vic., Cap. 42.)
Depositions of Witnesses.

New South Wales, Newcastle
TO WIT.                              }

The Queen versus Nepomucena, sodomy.

The examination of John Donohoe of Newcastle, in the Colony of New South Wales, Sergeant in the Water Police, Ernest Stephen Croft late of Melbourne but now of Newcastle Cabin Boy and Henry Francis McGrath of Newcastle, in the said Colony, Surgeon taken on oath, this 21st day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy four, at Newcastle 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 Eugeno Nepomucena who is charged this day before me, for that he the said Eugeno Nepomucena,   on or about the 23rd day of July last at Newcastle, in the said Colony, feloniously made an assault and then feloniously wickedly and against the order of nature had a venereal affair with one Ernest Stephen Croft (under the age of 14 years) and then feloniously carnally knew him the said Ernest Stephen Croft and then feloniously wickedly and against the order of nature with the said Ernest Stephen Croft   did commit and perpetrate that detestable and abominable crime of buggery. 

2

    Nicolas Stipwich sworn to interpret truly.

    John Donohoe on his oath saith:– I am Sergeant in the Water Police Court stationed at Newcastle. On the 13th of April from instructions I received I removed the prisoner now before the Court (Eugeno Nepomucena) from the Newcastle Hospital to the Lockup at Newcastle and there charged him with committing an unnatural offence on a lad named Stephen Ernest Stephen Croft about 23rd July last at Newcastle he did not appear to understand the charge he was confined in the Lockup on the above charge.

[Signed] John Donohoe.

Taken and sworn before me at Newcastle the 21st day of August AD 1874.
[Signed] Helenus Scott, PM.

    Ernest Stephen Croft on his oath saith:– I am a son of Thomas Croft a Shipping Clerk in Melbourne and am fourteen years of age come next November. I have been employed lately on the Don Henrique (a Peruvian vessel) and came on her from Melbourne to Newcastle. She was commanded by Captain Mendeoza.

3

I know the prisoner now before the Court. He was the 2nd Steward of the Don Henrique. The prisoner and myself occupied the same cabin when we arrived at Newcastle and all the time she was in the harbour up to the time of my removal from her two or three weeks after the arrival of the vessel in Newcastle I went to bed about 9 8 o’clock one evening and I went to sleep. I was awoke by the prisoner getting into my bed at the top of the bedclothes, undressed. I asked him what he wanted. He said he wanted to frig me. I told him to go to his own bed, that I did not want him to do it. He turned me over on to the back and rubbed my private parts up and down with his fingers. Often after that he turned me over on my stomach by my side he had pulled the clothes off me. He got on the top of me. He pulled my shirt up and put his private parts right into my body. He remained there about 5 minutes. He hurt me. After about five minutes he withdrew from me and got into his own bed. I did not call out because I was afraid he would hit me. On the following night I went to bed again first and was awoke by the prisoner. He was getting into my bed. He did the same thing

4

I was lying on my back. He put his hands to my private parts and his private parts to my private parts and turned me over and put his private parts onto my body behind. I did not make any objection. His bunk was the top one and mine the bottom.

    By the Prisoner: I did not have any improper connexion with you at all.

[Signed] Ernest Stephen Croft.

Taken and sworn before me at Newcastle the 21st day of August 1874.
[Signed] Helenus Scott, PM.

    Henry Francis McGrath on his oath saith:– I am a legally qualified Medical Practitioner residing and practising at Newcastle in the Colony of New South Wales. On or about the 13th Instant I was called on board the board Don Henrique to examine the boy now in Court upon whom the crime of sodomy was alleged to have been committed. I found the anus excoriated considerably and reddened and there was an unhealthy discharge from the rectum. I then examined the boy’s penis and found a considerable discharge resembling Gonorrhea coming from that organ.

5

The state of things I noticed in the fundament were such as might have been occasioned by penetration of the penis. I examined the prisoner but found no appearance of sodomy being committed on him or of gonorrhea.

[Signed] HF McGrath.

Taken and sworn before me at Newcastle the 21st day of August 1874.
[Signed] Helenus Scott, PM.

    The prisoner is committed to take his trial at the next Court of Assizes to be holden at Newcastle Maitland on or about the nineteenth October next.

[Signed] Helenus Scott, PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(N., 11 & 12 Vic., Cap. 42.)
Statement of the Accused.

New South Wales,
TO WIT.               }

The Queen versus Nepomucena sodomy

Eugene Nepomucena stands charged before the undersigned, one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the Colony aforesaid, this 21st day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy four for that he, the said Eugeno Nepomucena on or about the 23rd day of July last at Newcastle, in the said Colony, did feloniously wickedly and against the order of nature with the said Ernest Stephen Croft commit and perpetrate the detestable and abominable crime of buggery (the said Ernest Stephen Croft being under the age of 14 years) 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 be my, the said Justice, (by/or) before whom such examination has been so completed; and I, the said Justice, 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 confessions of his guilt, but that whatever he shall say may be given in evidence against him upon his trail, notwithstanding such promise or threat; and the said charge being read to the said Eugeno Nepomucena and the witnesses for the prosecution, John Donohoe, Ernest Stephen Croft and Henry Francis McGrath being severally examined in his presence, the said Eugeno Nepomucena is now addressed by me through the interpreter 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 do say will be taken down in writing, and may be given in evidence against you upon your trial;” whereupon the said Eugeno Nepomucena saith as follows:– “The boy did the same thing to me I did to him.”

Taken before me, at Newcastle in the said Colony, the day and year first above mentioned.
[Signed] Helenus Scott, PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[On the depositions’ cover sheet is the following]

21st August 1874
No. 693
Depositions No. 3
Regina
v.
Eugeno Nepomucena
CC Maitland
19th Oct
Sodomy
see fold
[Initialled] JGLI [Joseph George Long-Innes] AG
Newcastle

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The boy, not being 14, cannot be regarded as an accomplice even if he consented to the perpetration of this crime. See Arch. Criminal Pleads, ed of 1867 p. 666. But still (if possible) some corroborative evidence should be procured.

29/8/74 [initialled] JGLI AG
The Inspector General of Police
[Initialled] EF [Edmund Fosbery, Inspector General of Police] 31:8:74
Noted 1-9-74 [initialled] JGLI AG
See Police Report herewith – 14th September ‘74

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice P Faucett’s Notebook 3

32

[Maitland] Wednesday 21 October 1874
Q v Nepomucena – Ernest Stephen Croft.
Stephen  for prisoner.

    Ernest Stephen Croft examined by Foster. I was on board the Don Henrique a Peruvian ship. I came from Melbourne to Newcastle. I was on board as a cabin boy. My parents are at Sandridge. Prisoner was second steward. I slept in a small room next the galley – prisoner slept in same room. I was about 3 weeks in Newcastle. I observed somebody getting into my bed – not long after I went to bed. I found it was prisoner. I asked him what he wanted. He used to talk English – not much. He said he wanted to frig me. He pulled the bedclothes off and put his private part into my body – bottom. I am certain it entered into my body. There about 5 minutes – hurt me. He then got out into his own bed. He was given into custody one or two weeks after. I continued to sleep in the same cabin and prisoner also.

  Cross-examined by Stephen. There were 18 sailors I think on board – the captain and 3 mates – and (?) (?) (?) stewards. There was a passenger also on board. The room – Carpenter slept the other side of the (boarding ?). I was only one week at sea – 3 weeks in the harbour. Prisoner went on shore during that time but not very often. I don’t know that he had money. I slept in the lower bunk – prisoner in the upper bunk – about 3 feet between. I told him not to do it. He was quite sober. There was another boy 12 years old on board. He slept in the same cabin with the carpenter. Only two bunks in the carpenter’s cabin. It was not more than a month after that I told the Police. I don’t know whether was more than 3 weeks.

33

I never spoke about it till I asked (?). I could have told the captain and every one about it. I lay upon a mattress which came pretty nearly on a level with the bunk. Before I said anything about it th Doctor had discovered that I had a disease. I have a disease running from my penis. I don’t know when I got it. I went on shore at Newcastle. Pretty often – got no acquaintances there – never went into a shop or house there.

    By me. I went to Dr Harris myself. It was 2 or 3 weeks after that that I saw Dr McGrath. It was after prisoner did it that I discovered the disease.

    By Stephens. I heard the boy talking with the carpenter in the next berth.

    Henry Francis McGrath examined by Foster. Duly qualified medical practitioner at Newcastle. I recollect examining the boy – carefully examined his person. About the middle of August I was brought on board the Don Henrique by the Assistant Inspector of Police and examined the boy. I found the skin excoriated or torn or broken about the anus – the fundament – and an unhealthy discharge from the inside of the fundament – the rectum. I further examined the boy’s penis and discovered a considerable unhealthy discharge therefrom. I did not then come to a conclusion – but I thought at the time that it was gonorrhoea. I have the treatment of the boy since. I am now of the opinion that it was an extension of the inflammation set up in the rectum to the urethra. The urethra passes through the prostate gland – inside the rectum. If a penis passes into the rectum it will pass touch the prostate gland – and so cause the inflammation. I don’t believe it was gonorrhoea.

34

It was not an effusion from the prostate gland. I know it was pus. It was mechanical irritation – just as if a stick had done it. I am of opinion that it was not from disease – that it was merely mechanical.

    Cross-examined by Stephen. I examined him about the middle of August. I think I saw him again between that and seeing him at the Police Office. I have seen him a dozen of times since. I believe it was the 13th August I saw him on board and gave my evidence on the 21st of August. I believe I saw him several times between. At the Police Office I said it was gonorrhoea. The discharge in gonorrhoea is pus. If not told by the Police I would have thought it venereal. It was not anything that I was told by the Police that made me form my opinion. In the first instance I would have supposed that it arose from sexual intercourse. I believe it is possible that prisoner’s penis could have produced such inflammation as appeared in the boy. I examined prisoner. I saw no signs whatever of disease – either in his private parts or rectum.

    By Foster. If no disease – after 3 weeks there would be no signs. – excoriation.

    Nicholas Stipwich examined by Foster. I understand Spanish pretty well. I communicated with prisoner – and I tried 3 or 4 times till I made him understand. I was sworn as interpreter at the Police Court. I am an Italian. Prisoner did not speak pure Spanish. I speak Spanish mixed with Italian. I interpreted the evidence at the Police Court. I interpreted the evidence of the boy and of Dr McGrath.

35

I explained a caution made by Mr Baker a clerk. Prisoner was not threatened in any way – nor did I induce him to say anything. After he heard the evidence he made a statement. When he first [was] brought up I told him what he was charged with.

    Foster now proposes to ask what he said.

    Cross-examined by Stephen. I understand more than a few words about things – eating &c. I don’t know the Spanish word for sodomy. I told him he was charged with acting something as on a woman. It is so long ago that I don’t recollect what Mr Baker read. I recollect 4

    John Donohoe examined by Foster. Sergeant of Police at Newcastle. I was present in Court at (?) respecting the charge. I was in and out during the hearing. I can’t say I heard the caution read to the prisoner.

    Stephen. 11 & 12 (to ?) No. 42.

    The caution and statement made by prisoner are now tendered by Crown.

    Stephen objects. Crown not opposing. The evidence is rejected.

    Nicholas Stipwich recalled by Foster.

    By Stephen. Prisoner spoke Spanish as far as I could understand him. I repeated the words 3 or 4 times over and over again till we understood one another – and he told me he understood me. I was called on to act as interpreter. I did not ask him to make any statement but as the Magistrate told me I told him the offence he was charged – I told he might make any statement whatever he might like. He was then in custody of the Police. I repeated what he said to the clerk in English – who wrote it down.

36

The caution and prisoner’s statement are now tendered again, and not being objected to are read.

    Stephen to Jury. Age not proved. Time that elapsed before speaking of it. Doctor’s evidence at Police Office.

Verdict not guilty. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Mercury, and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 20 Oct 1874 5

MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
CRIMINAL SIDE.

    This court opened this morning, at ten o’clock, at the court house, East Maitland, before his Honor Mr Justice Faucett. Mr WJ Foster prosecuted for the Crown. The other barristers present were Messrs Dalley, Windeyer, Stephen, and O’Keeffe.

    Mr James Smith, Police Magistrate of the Hunter, was present on the bench as Deputy-Sheriff.

    The Judge’s Associate, Mr JJ Cope, read the usual proclamation against vice and immorality.

UNNATURAL OFFENCE.

    A charge against Eugene Nepomucena of committing an unnatural offence at Newcastle, on the 23rd July last, upon Enoch Stephen Croft, was postponed till to-day, in order to ascertain if the prisoner (who is a Spaniard, and had to be questioned through an interpreter) had means to employ counsel. It was announced that this case would be the first taken to-day (Tuesday.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Mercury, and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 22 Oct 1874 6

MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21.

    The Court re-opened at ten o’clock.

SODOMY.

    Eugene Nepomucena (a native of Manila) was arraign for that he did, on the 23rd July last, at Newcastle, feloniously and wickedly, and against the order of nature, assault one Ernest Stephen Croft, and commit an abominable offence upon him, not to be named amongst Christians.

    Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Stephen , instructed by Mr Levien.

Several jurymen were challenged by prisoner’s solicitor.

The Crown Prosecutor opened the case to the jury, and impressed upon the jury the desirability of being fully satisfied as to the prisoner’s guilt before they convicted, in view of the abominable and detestable nature of the offence. The jury could, if they thought the offence was not actually committed, find him guilty of the attempt.

    The following witnesses were called:– Ernest Stephen Croft (fourteen years of age), Dr [Henry Francis] McGrath, Nicolas Stipwich.

    After hearing evidence, the address of the counsel for the prisoner, and his Honor’s summing up, the jury retired.

    At twenty-eight minutes to five it was announced that they had agreed. The verdict was not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Newcastle Chronicle, Thu 22 Oct 1874 7

MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
CRIMINAL SIDE.

    This court opened on Monday morning, at ten o’clock, at the court house, East Maitland, before his Honor Mr Justice Faucett. Mr WJ Foster prosecuted for the Crown. The other barristers present were Messrs Dalley, Windeyer, Stephen, and O’Keeffe. Mr James Smith, Police Magistrate of the Hunter, was present on the bench as Deputy-Sheriff. The Judge’s Associate, Mr JJ Cope, read the usual proclamation against vice and immorality.

  


1  SRNSW: NRS880, [9/6578], Supreme Court, Papers and depositions, Maitland, 1874, No. 693. 

2  Two identical subpoenas were found with the depositions only one has been recorded here.

3  SRNSW: NRS5927, [2/3915] , Judiciary, P Faucett, J. Notebooks Circuit Courts, 1866-87, pp. 32-6. Emphasis added.

4  Sentence unfinished.

5  The Maitland Mercury, and Hunter River General Advertiser,  Tue 20 Oct 1874, p. 2.

6  The Maitland Mercury, and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 22 Oct 1874, p. 2.

7  The Newcastle Chronicle, Thu 22 Oct 1874, p. 4.