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
1889, Thomas Singleton - Unfit For Publication
Text Size

 

Below also see: Thomas Singleton, 1890,
Thomas Singleton, 1896,
Thomas Singleton, 1898

 

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Sat 11 May 1889 1

NEWCASTLE.

Friday.


    Thomas Singleton, labourer, aged 38, was charged at the Police Court to-day with carnally knowing his daughter, Sarah Singleton, she being under 16 years, to wit 14 years of age. Mr Readett for accused. The evidence of the girl was to the effect that something took place between her father and herself about twelve months ago. The witness gave a full account of the alleged assault; details are unfit for publication. She did not tell her mother, as she was frightened. The assault was committed again about six months ago; her father was drunk when he committed these assaults; her mother was out washing. He had tried to repeat the offence, and beat her with a strap because she refused. Dr Harris gave evidence of examining the girl, who had told him her father had criminally assaulted her three times; in his opinion the assault had been frequent. Mr Lochhead produced a certificate of the birth of Sarah Singleton, who was born 15th October, 1878, at Limeburner’s Bay. The wife of the accused was brought into court in a low state; being very ill, the Bench declined to allow her evidence to be taken against her husband. The case stands adjourned till Tuesday, to give the police an opportunity of providing the exact age of the girl; bail refused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Sat 11 May 1889 2

ALLEGED INCEST.
———◦———
FATHER AND DAUGHTER.
————
A SHOCKING STORY.
————
A Dying Mother.
————
SAD SCENE.
————
Case Adjourned.
————

A LABOURER, aged 38, living at Stockton, was charged before Messrs Mair, PM, and Thorn, JP, at the Police Court yesterday, with carnally knowing his daughter, aged 14 years, at Stockton on or about twelve months ago.

    Mr Readett appeared for accused, and Sub-inspector Lynch prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

    Considerable curiosity was manifested by the spectators, but on the application of Sub-inspector Lynch, the Bench ordered the court to be cleared, and heard the case with closed doors.

    Constable Brown stated that at five minutes to 5 o’clock on Thursday he arrested the accused by virtue of a warrant, in which he was charged with carnally knowing his own daughter, Sarah Singleton, who is above the age of 10 and below 16 years, at Stockton, about twelve months ago. When he read the warrant to the accused he said, “Good gracious! Bless my heart, what next? I would sooner have my head chopped off than do such a thing.” He was brought to the lock-up at Newcastle, and lodged in the cells.

    The girl said, in answer to Sub-inspector Lynch, that she would be 16 on October 15. She had been living with Mrs Taylor, at the Bluff, in the capacity of a general servant for a fortnight, but lived at home before that with her father and mother at Stockton. She knew the man in the dock as her father, Thos Singleton. She recollected something which had happened between herself and her father about 12 o’clock in the day. She could not remember the exact date, but it was about twelve months ago. On that day she was in the kitchen, and only her father was present. He said “Let us have a cuddle,” but she refused. He then caught hold of her by the waist and took her in his own bedroom.

    Mr Readett here objected to the child being questioned. He submitted that she should be made to give her evidence in her own way.

    The girl at this stage gave a detailed account of the disgusting crime alleged to have been committed upon her. Her mother was out washing on the day, and she did not tell her because she was frightened it would again make her ill. A similar offence was committed on her about six months age, and on that occasion her mother was again out washing. Her father was always drunk when he assaulted her. She had two brothers and three sisters, and on the days in question her father told them to go out and play. She went with them, but he called her back.

    To Mr Thorn, JP: She had not told her mother of the first offence when the second was committed. The witness then narrated the disgusting details connected with the alleged second offence, but several times seriously contradicted herself. The person she told first was her elder sister, who was about eighteen years old, but it was only a few weeks ago. She had told another girl, who told her mother, and then Mrs Taylor heard of it. She had often felt giddy in the head since the offence had been committed. Her father had often tried to repeat the offence, and had once beaten her because she refused to surrender herself to him. No one else had ever done a similar thing to her.

    Under cross-examination, the witness admitted that she did not scream, but only called out for her little sister. She had been to school for seven years, but could not read or write.

    Constable Brown, recalled, said, in answer to Sub-inspector Lynch, that he knew the house in which the offence was said to have been committed, and the nearest habitation is 15 yards away. It was about 10 yards from the main road to Raymond Terrace.

    Dr John Harris, Government Medical Officer, deposed that he had examined the girl yesterday morning, and found that there were indicators of her having been tampered with. He did not think that she was more than 13 or 14, as her organs were not fully developed. Her condition was such as he would expect to find where repeated sexual intercourse had taken place.

    In answer to the Bench, he stated that the commission of the alleged offence by an adult twice would be sufficient to account for appearances, although he was inclined to think that the offence had been committed much oftener,

    Frederick W Lochhead, district registrar of births and deaths, produced a copy of the registry of the birth of Sarah Singleton, who was born on the 15th October, 1873, at Limeburner’s Bay.

    The case at this stage was adjourned for two hours, to procure the evidence of the mother as to the girl’s age.

    On resuming, Sub-inspector Lynch tendered the evidence of the mother; but the Bench declared it to be inadmissable, [sic] on the ground that a wife cannot give evidence for or against her husband. The unfortunate woman, who was plainly in a dying condition, was then carried from the court by her two female attendants.

    Dr Harris, re-called, said that he could swear that she was under 16 years of age twelve months ago. He would say that her age at the present time was not more than 14 years.

    In answer to counsel, witness stated that he was positive that the girl was but a child, and he would swear that she was under 16 years at the time the offence was alleged to have been committed.

    At this stage the case was adjourned until Tuesday next, to enable the police to obtain evidence relating to the age of the girl. Bail was refused, on the ground that the crime, if it could be sheeted home to the accused, was a criminal one.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Singleton Argus, Sat 11 May 1889 3

TELEGRAMS.
———◦———
(From Greville’s Telegrams Co.)
———

ASSAULTED BY HER FATHER.

    A girl named Sarah Singleton, aged 14 years, reported to Sub-inspector Lynch last night at Newcastle that her father, Thomas Singleton, a labourer, residing at Stockton, had committed an assault upon her. A warrant was immediately issued and Singleton was shortly after arrested.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Singleton Argus, Wed 15 May 1889 4

A SERIOUS CHARGE.
———◦———
SHOCKING IMMORALITY.
————

AT the Newcastle Police Court on Friday Thomas Singleton, 38, labourer, was charged with having, about twelve months ago, criminally assaulted his daughter, Sarah, aged under 14. The case was heard with closed doors. The girl said she would be 16 years old on October 15. She recollected something which had happened between herself and her father about 12 o’clock in the day, about twelve months ago. She was in the kitchen, and only her father present. He said, “Let us have a cuddle,” but she refused. He then caught hold of her by the waist and took her into his room. (The girl at this stage explained the nature of the assault alleged to have been committed.) Her mother was out washing on the day in question, and she did not tell her, because she was frightened it would make her ill. A similar offence was alleged to have been committed on or about six months ago; and on that occasion her mother was again out washing. Her father, she said, was always drunk when he assaulted her. She had two brothers, and three sisters; and on the days in question, her father told them to go out and play. She went with them, but he called her back.

    Sub-inspector Lynch tendered the evidence of the mother, but the Bench declared it to be inadmissable, [sic] on the ground that a wife cannot give evidence for or against her husband. The unfortunate woman, who was plainly in a dying condition, was carried from the court by her two female attendants.

     Dr Harris said he could swear that the girl was under 16 years of age twelve months ago. He would also say her age at the present time was not more than 14 years. He was positive the girl was but a child.

    At this stage the case was adjourned until yesterday to enable the police to obtain evidence relative to the age of the girl. Bail was refused, on the ground that the charge, if it was proved against the accused, was a capital one.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 16 May 1889 5

OUR NEWCASTLE LETTER.
————

Wednesday.


    Thomas Singleton was before the police court on Tuesday on remand from Friday last, on a charge of carnally knowing his daughter, Sarah Singleton, she being under 16 years of age, about twelve months ago, and again about six months back. Evidence of the girl’s age was given, and the bench committed accused to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions at Maitland. Bail was refused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 16 May 1889 6

ALLEGED INCEST.
———◦———
THE GIRL’S AGE PROVED.
————
ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
————
BAIL REFUSED.
————

The hearing of the charge against Thomas Singleton of having criminally assaulted his own daughter, Sarah Singleton, a young girl of un der 16 years of age, was resumed in the Newcastle Police Court yesterday morning, before Mr J Mair, PM, and Messrs J Thorn, D Murray, and WH Shaw, JPs.

    The court was again crowded, and as the only evidence remaining to be heard was relating to the age of the girl, the Bench evidently did not think it worth while to again clear the court.

    Mr Readett again appeared for the accused, while Sub-inspector Lynch prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

    William Johnson, a farmer, deposed that he had lived next door to the accused some 15 years ago. The age of the prosecutrix he knew to be some six months under 16 years, as she was born about that time after his own daughter, who is now exactly that age.

    To Mr Readett: He remembered the birth of the girl well, and would swear that she was under 16 years at the present time.

    Constable Brown produced the baptismal certificate of Sarah Singleton, showing that she was born on October 9th, 1873. He had obtained the document from the mother.

    Mr Readett objected to the certificate being taken in evidence, but the Bench decided to accept it, Mr Mair stating that the handwriting looked like that of Canon Selwyn, who could be got to give evidence if necessary.

    The accused was then asked the usual question, as to whether he had anything to say, but he answered merely “No, nothing.”

    Mr Readett said that the defence would be reserved.

    The prisoner was then formally committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Maitland Quarter Sessions, to be held on the 10th of June.

    Mr Readett asked for bail, on the ground that the case was a very weak one. When the time came for the defence to be brought forward, they would then see that a foul conspiracy lurked behind the case. It was only on finding out the true state of affairs that he had consented to defend the accused.

    The Bench did not think that in a case of such a nature bail should be allowed. It may yet be made into a capital charge, and in that case the Quarter Sessions court could not deal with it, but that rested with the Crown.

    Bail was accordingly refused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 6 Jun 1889 7

MAITLAND QUARTER SESSIONS.
————

His Honor Mr District-Court Judge McFarland will take the business at the ensuing sitting of the Maitland Quarter Sessions which begins at East Maitland on Monday. Following is the list of cases for trial:—
    Walter William Squires, horse stealing.
    Cecilia Ross, attempting to commit suicide.
    Harry Howard, larceny.
    Charley Assam, indecent assault.
    Thomas Stapleton and — Dorcas, prison breaking.
    William Chick, forgery.
    James Newman, maliciously wounding.
    James Foreman, attempting to discharge loaded arms.
    John Mudge and another, assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
    Thomas Singleton, carnally knowing his daughter, a girl under the age of sixteen years.
    Thomas Bolton, attempting to commit suicide.
    William Butler, maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm.
    Richard Behr, larceny.
    William Sharp, breaking and entering and stealing.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 11 Jun 1889 8

MAITLAND QUARTER SESSIONS.
————

    Yesterday the business of this court was entered upon at the court-house, East Maitland, before his Honor Mr District Court Judge McFarland. Mr W Dudding, JP, of Singleton, represented the sheriff. Mt WH Coffey prosecuted for the Crown. The other barristers present were—Messrs Jas Moriarty, W Blacket, and AB Shand.

CARNALLY KNOWING HIS DAUGHTER.

    Thomas Singleton was indicted for that he, on the 31st May, 1888, at Stockton, being her father, did carnally know Sarah Singleton, a girl then above the age of ten years and under the age of sixteen years, to wit, of the age of 14 years and 7 months.

    Accused was defended by Mr Moriarty, instructed by Mr Readett, and pleaded not guilty.

    In stating the circumstances upon which the Crown relied, Mr Coffey said the case rested almost, if not entirely, upon the evidence of the prosecutrix herself, who was not a girl of intelligence. She was unable to read or write, although she had attended a Public school, and in sifting her evidence he asked them not to take it as that of a bright child, but to weigh it carefully. It was for them to consider and weigh the evidence carefully. Upon them the responsibility rested. We have no desire to offend the good taste of our readers by repeating the evidence, which was of shocking character, as detailed, in full, and purpose to merely indicate the effect of such evidence. It seemed that the prosecutrix, who was born on the 15th October, 1873, had resided with her father and mother and sisters at Stockton, near Newcastle, and had attended school, but could not read or write, and was unable to say when she left school, neither could she give any idea of the date she went to service with a Mrs Taylor. The girl alleged that her father had carried her into a bedroom and behaved to her in the manner charged against him, but she was by no means certain as to the period when the offence was committed. She could fix no date. Prosecutrix was cross-examined at some length y Mr Moriarty. Her statements were somewhat contradictory. She admitted that she never made any complaint to her eldest sister, Maggie, with whom she slept, or to her mother at any time. When before the magistrates at Newcastle she did not say that her aunt, Betsy Thoroughgood, put her up to it. Her aunt said that she would give her father (the accused) in charge whenever she could. She complained to someone else about the offence.

    After the girl had given her evidence, his Honor asked the Crown Prosecutor if any jury would be likely to convict the accused on the testimony of the girl. It may have taken place or it may not, but in the face of the evidence was it likely the jury would convict the accused?

    The foreman of the jury said that in view of the evidence they could make nothing clear of the case.

    The Crown Prosecutor: I am unable to strengthen the testimony of the girl, beyond offering the doctor’s evidence as to the girl being violated by someone.

    The jury at once acquitted the accused, who was discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 11 Jun 1889 9

MAITLAND QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
MONDAY, JUNE 10.
————
(Before Mr District Court Judge McFarland.)
————

A CASE FROM STOCKTON.
The Girl’s Evidence Breaks Down.

ACQUITTED.

    Thomas Singleton was arraigned on a charge of carnally knowing his own daughter, Sarah Selina Singleton, a girl then over the age of ten, and under 16 years of age, at Stockton, in May, 1888.

    The accused, it will be remembered, was committed for trial in the Newcastle Police Court on May 14th, and as much of the evidence as was compatible with decency appeared in our issue of the following day. The circumstances of the case were extremely disgusting, and the alleged crime was stated to have been perpetrated some time in May, 1888. During the girl’s evidence in the police court she states that her father had assaulted her twice, and tried to repeat it a third time, although she could fix no dates.

    Mr Moriarty, instructed by Mr Readett, appeared for the accused.

    When the jury were being empanelled, the accused challenged two. Mr Moroney was chosen foreman.

    Under severe cross-examination by counsel, the girl’s evidence completely broke down. She could remember nothing of the places where she had worked as a servant girl, and stated, laughingly, that she could neither read nor write, although she had been at school for some years. She swore that her father had only assaulted her once, and when detailing the disgusting circumstances she several times smiled, and once openly laughed.

    In answer to His Honor, she stated that her father never cautioned her not to tell her mother, whereas in the police-court she stated differently. More than a year elapsed before she told anyone, and she admitted that she had almost forgotten it.

    His Honor then asked the Crown Prosecutor if he thought that there was any need to ask a jury to even consider such evidence. The girl had contradicted herself from beginning to end, and it may be that she was telling lies, or it may be that she was telling the truth, but she could not even remember the year when it was committed, and on her unsupported evidence he thought that very little reliance could be placed. She had never even told her mother, and seemed a strange girl.

    The Crown Prosecutor stated that he could offer no additional evidence beyond that of the doctor, and fully realised that the girl’s evidence was contradictory and unreliable.

    The foreman of the jury then asked the girl if her father had really told her not to tell her mother, and she answered, “Yes, he did.” It was then pointed out that only some few minutes before the girl had stated that her father had not warned her.

    The police having no objection, the Crown Prosecutor stopped the case.

    His Honor directed the jury, and a verdict of not guilty was given without retiring, and the accused was accordingly discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 11 Jun 1889 10

MAITLAND QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
(By Telegraph.)
(From our Correspondent.)
———

West Maitland, Monday.

    The Maitland Quarter Sessions were opened in the Courthouse, East Maitland, this morning, before Judge McFarland. Mr WH Coffey prosecuted for the Crown. The other barristers present were Messrs James Moriarty, AB Shand, and Wilfred Blackett.

    Thomas Singleton was acquitted on a charge of assaulting his daughter.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Thomas Singleton, Gaol photo sheet 11

SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5985], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1875-1930, No. 685, p. 200, R5129.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 685

Date when Portrait was taken: 6th June 1889

Name: Thomas Singleton

Native place: Tomago

Year of birth: 1851

Arrived       Ship:
in Colony }   Year:

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Laborer

Religion: Church of England

Education, degree of: Nil

Height: 5' 10"

Weight     On committal:
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Brown

Colour of eyes: Blue

Marks or special features:

Where and when tried: Newcastle PC
14th May 1889

Offence: Carnally knowing his daughter age 14 years

Sentence: For Trial at Maitland Quarter Sessions 10th June 1889

Remarks:—To Court 10th June 1889—acquitted

(No. of previous Portrait ... ) 

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

 

 

 

 

None recorded

 

 

 


 

Thomas Singleton, 1890

 

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 2 Oct 1890 12

MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
————
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1.
————
(Before his Honor Mr Justice Stephen.)

    The Court re-opened at twenty-five minutes to ten o’clock.

JURORS FINED.

    James Russell, Newcastle, contractor, and WC Tucker, JP, Cardoness, Vacy, who were fined on the two previous days, were ordered to forfeit the sum of 60s each for non-attendance as jurors.

LARCENY.

    Thomas Singleton surrendered to his bail to answer the charge that he, on the 14th September last, at Stockton, did steal certain copper and certain muntz metal, in weight 475lbs, the property of Charles Anderson.

    Accused pleaded not guilty, and was undefended.

    The prosecutor, a general dealer, carrying on business at Newcastle, purchased some months ago a very old vessel, the Moonta, and kept her in the North Harbour for a time. He took as much metal as he could off the vessel above the water line. On Saturday, the 13th September, he engaged a tug to take the vessel outside and let her drift on to the beach, in order to remove the reminder of the metal. She lodged about 150 or 200 yards from what is known as the Beach road, outside the north breakwater. Prosecutor left the boat between half-past 5 and 6 o’clock in the evening. She was then very nearly among the breakers and almost touching bottom. Next morning between the hours of 6 and 7 o’clock the vessel was lying broadside. He missed a large quantity of copper from the boat. He then communicated with the police on the following day, and shortly before 7 o’clock in the evening a man named Jacobson, a general dealer, was found be prosecutor carting copper, several hundred weight, on the road leading from Stockton to Raymond Terrace. It seemed that about 5 o’clock that evening Jacobson was passing the accused’s place and gave his horse a drink at the swamp near Singleton’s residence accused was lying down on the grass, and he came towards the prosecutor, who said, “Halloo, Tom, what’s up now?” Singleton said he had some copper for sale, and added, “I suppose I have got too much for you.” Jacobson replied, “I don’t know; the more the merrier. How much have you got.” Accused said, “I suppose 5 or 6 cwt.” Jacobson remarked, “Where the dence did you get all that from?” The reply was, “I got it off an old punt up the bay. What are you giving a pound for it?” Jacobson said, “Three half-pence,” and they went behind accused’s house to look at it. Accused then called out to another man, “we can only get three half-pence per lb.” The other said, “That’s not enough; we can get twopence.” The men talked together, and they agreed to sell it to the prosecutor for 1½d per lb. The weight was 475lbs, and accused took £2 10s 4d for it. Jacobson put the metal on his cart, and was proceeding towards home, when he was met by the prosecutor, and after a conversation the latter communicated with the police. Constable Deffell interrogated the accused in the presence of Jacobson and Anderson about 10 o’clock at night in the vicinity of Jacobson’s house. Jacobson recognised Singleton as the man who sold him the copper. Accused said, “Yes, I sold the copper; what’s the row about?” The constable asked him where he got it. Singleton answered, “I got it off a lighter at the beach at Yellow Tom’s Island.” He was asked by Deffell who owned the lighter. The response was “I don’t know, me and my mate went up and saw, her there, and stripped the copper off her. We broke some of the lighter up, and brought it home for firewood. I had it stacked at the back of my house for four or five weeks, and it’s my property.” Anderson said “The copper is mine. I can swear to it.” A milkman, John Dempsey, was doing his rounds on Sunday, the 14th instant, shortly after six o’clock in the forenoon, and saw the accused on the Stockton road, leading towards Fullerton Cove, with a cart containing wood. Frederick Tongue gave similar evidence.

    Accused made no statement, and his Honor summed up, reviewing the circumstances given in evidence. It was for the accused to account for the reasonable possession of the copper.

    The jury, after brief deliberations, found the accused guilty, he made no statement.

    His Honor said it was a very clear case. He would take it for granted, as there was nothing known against him that it was the first offence, and considering his age (his Honor) hoped it would be the prisoner’s last. The sentence was twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour in Maitland Gaol.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thomas Singleton, Gaol photo sheet 13

SRNSW: NRS2326, [3/14011], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1873-1922, No. 90/590, p. 109, R5128.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 90/590
90/48

Date when Portrait was taken: 26 November 1890

Name: Thomas Singleton

Native place: Tomago

Year of birth: 1851

Arrived       Ship:
in Colony }   Year: BC

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Laborer

Religion: Ch of E

Education, degree of: R&W

Height: 5' 10"

Weight     On committal:
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Brown

Colour of eyes: Blue

Marks or special features: Wreath on right arm

Where and when tried: Maitland Q.S. CC
1 Oct 1890

Offence: Larceny

Sentence: 12 months HL

Remarks:

(No. of previous Portrait ... ) 

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

Newcastle

Maitland Q.S

Newcastle PO

Newcastle Q.S

Newcastle

14

10

16

  9

  9

  5

  6

  5

  3

  3

1889

1889

1892

1896

1896

Carnally known own daughter

Carnally known own daughter

Drunk &
Obscene Language

Stealing

Attempt to commit bestiality

 

Fined

Acquitted

5/- or 24 hours      |
40/- or 14 days C   | Concurrent

12 months L

5 yrs PS

 


 

Thomas Singleton, 1896

 

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 10 Mar 1896 14

QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
MONDAY, MARCH 9.
———
(Before Judge Backhouse.)
———

    The Quarter Sessions opened yesterday, Judge Backhouse presided, and Mr WH Shaw the Deputy Sheriff, sat with him. Mr AF Dawson prosecuted for the Crown. The other legal gentlemen who were present during the day were:– Mr AR Watt (barrister), Mr HJ Brown, J Windeyer, WA Reid, TF Low, WA Sparke, TD O’Sullivan, and JFH Waller (West Maitland), solicitors.

LARCENY.

    Thomas Singleton was charged with the larceny of six copper air tanks, the property of James Clark, on January 6. There was a second count of having the tanks in his possession, knowing them to be stolen.

    Accused, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty.

    Mr A Asher was appointed foreman of the jury.

    Arthur William Bailey deposed that he was in the employ of James Clark. On January 4 he went to the wrecked ship Durisdeer, and brought away a lifeboat, in which there were seven copper air tanks. A few days later he saw the boat again, and discovered that six tanks were stolen. The pieces of copper produced were similar to the copper tanks missing from the boat.

    John Baird, marine store dealer, deposed that he knew the accused, who came to his place of business in January last and asked witness what he gave for copper. Witness replied 2d per lb, and at accused’s request, sent his cart for it. He returned in 20 minutes with pieces of copper produced, for which witness paid 15s 8d.

    Harry Samuells, foreman for Mr Clark, said that when the boat was left at the boat dock there were seven tanks in the boat.

    John Crompton, a driver in the employ of Mr Baird, deposed that he went with accused to a place near Russell’s Foundry and obtained the copper produced from a boat. The copper was taken to his employer’s yard. Accused was the only person near the boat.

    Constable Knight deposed that after the accused was committed for trial on the charge of stealing, he (witness) asked him if he had taken a painter out of the boat. Accused said “No; I only took the tanks out of the boat.”

    Accused, who had nothing to say, was found guilty, and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, with hard labour.

 


 

Thomas Singleton, 1898

 

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 10 Mar 1898 15

NEWCASTLE QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
MARCH SITTINGS.
———
(Before His Honor Judge Murray.)
———

    The March sittings of the Newcastle Quarter Sessions were commenced yesterday morning, his Honor Judge Murray presiding. The members of the legal profession in attendance were: Messrs W Tighe, R Cowan, and Edmund H Sheppard, barristers at law, and Messrs HJ Brown, J Windeyer, WA Reid, RA Mackenzie, GW Mitchell, AH James, TF Low, HV Harris, TD O’Sullivan, and T Cronin, solicitors.
    Mr AF Dawson prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr WH Shaw, Deputy Sheriff, occupied a seat alongside his Honor.
    During the business of the sessions, Drs HK Bean and Andrew William Nash were sworn in as justices of the peace.

AN UNNATURAL OFFENCE.

    Thomas Singleton, aged 47, a fisherman, of Nelson’s Bay, was presented on a charge of having committed an unnatural offence on 12th January last.
    After the evidence had been tendered, His Honor stated that one of the witnesses (Alf Layman) must have committed the most horrible form of perjury, if the accused was, as he had pleaded, not guilty.
    The jury, after consideration of the case for about half an hour, found the accused guilty of the attempt at bestiality.
    The prisoner was remanded for sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Sat 12 Mar 1898 16

NEWCASTLE QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
SENTENCES BY JUDGE MURRAY.
———

    The prisoners who pleaded guilty, or were found guilty at the Quarter Sessions, were sentenced yesterday by his Honor Judge Murray.

UNNATURAL OFFENCE.
———
Five Years’ Penal Servitude.
———

    Thomas Singleton, aged 47, the fisherman, of Nelson’s Bay, found guilty on a charge of attempting to commit an unnatural offence on 12th January last, was sentenced to five years’ penal servitude.

    The accused protested that he was not guilty of the crime. The charge was the result of spite by other fishermen.

    The acting gaoler stated that the prisoner had served 12 months for larceny, and acquitted on a charge of carnally knowing a little girl.
His Honor remarked that the offence was most disgusting. The prisoner was not fit to be at large. His Honor was sorry he could not impose the proper kind of punishment. The wife and family would not regret the prisoner’s absence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thomas Singleton, Gaol photo sheet 17

SRNSW: NRS2397, [3/6010], Parramatta photographic description book, 1880-1930, No. 603, p. 18, R5137


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 603
Parramatta

Date when Portrait was taken: 24-3-1898                                       

Name: Thomas Singleton

Native place: BC Tomago

Year of birth: 1851

Arrived       Ship: –
in Colony }   Year: –

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Laborer

Religion: C of E

Education, degree of: R & W

Height: 5' 10"

Weight     On committal: 148
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Brown

Colour of eyes: Blue

Marks or special features: Wreath on right-arm

Where and when tried:

Offence:

Sentence:

Remarks:

(No. of previous Portrait ... ) 

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

Maitland Q.S

Maitland CC

Newcastle PO

Newcastle Q.S

Newcastle

10

  1

16

  9

  9

  6

10

  5

  3

  3

1889

1890

1892

1896

1896

Carnally know his own daughter

Larceny

Drunk &
Obscene Language

Stealing

Attempt to commit bestiality

Acquitted

12 months C

5/- or 24 hours      |
40/- or 14 days C   | Concurrent

12 months L

5 yrs PS

 

 


1     The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Sat 11 May 1889, p. 5. Emphasis added.

2     Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Sat 11 May 1889, p. 2.

3     Singleton Argus, Sat 11 May 1889, p. 2.

4     Singleton Argus, Wed 15 May 1889, p. 4. Emphasis added.

5     The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 16 May 1889, p. 8.

6     Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 16 May 1889, p. 7.

7     The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 6 Jun 1889, p. 4. Emphasis added.

8     The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 11 Jun 1889, p. 4. Emphasis added.

9     Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 11 Jun 1889, p. 3.

10   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 11 Jun 1889, p. 8.

11   SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5985], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1875-1930, No. 685, p. 200, R5129.

12   The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 2 Oct 1890, p. 4.

13   SRNSW: NRS2326, [3/14011], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1873-1922, No. 90/590, p. 109, R5128.

14   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 10 Mar 1896, p. 6. Emphasis added.

15   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 10 Mar 1898, p. 6.

16   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Sat 12 Mar 1898, p. 2.

17   SRNSW: NRS239, [3/6010] , Parramatta photographic description book, 1880-1930, No. 603, p. 18, R5137