The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Mon 17 Jun 1895 1
MAITLAND QUARTER SESSIONS.
————
The June sittings of the Maitland Quarter Sessions was opened at East Maitland this morning before his Honor Mr District Court Judge Backhouse. Mr Dawson prosecuted for the Crown. Mr JN Brooks, PM, was the Deputy Sheriff and handed in his authority to act. The members of the bar present were—Mr Wilfred Blacket, Mr Windeyer, and Mr Watt. The lower branch of the profession was represented by Messrs RW Thompson, TA Hill, and JHF Waller.
On the names of the jurors being called over several did not answer. One man was dead. Two others were excused for valid reasons. In the case of Jas C Beattie, a fine of 40s was inflicted, but as he afterwards appeared it was remitted.
…
INDECENT ASSAULT.
Patrick Halpin was arraigned for that he, on the 9th June, at Pokolbin, did indecently assault Teresa Susannah Wells. He pleaded not guilty. The Crown was not prepared to go on with the case, and accused was remanded till the next court, or such other as the Attorney-General might think fit. Mr Hill, who appeared for accused, asked his Honor would he accept the same bail as before. His Honor said he would not. It would rest with the Attorney-General as to whether he would not be indicted on a capital offence.—The witnesses in the case were bound over to appear when the case was set down for trial.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Evening News, Tue 18 Jun 1895 2
MAITLAND QUARTER SESSIONS.
————
EAST MAITLAND, Monday.—The quarter sessions commenced at East Maitland to-day before His Honor Judge Backhouse.
…
Patrick Halpin, charged with indecent assault, was remanded to the next court.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 18 Jun 1895 3
MAITLAND QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
Monday, June 17.
————
(Before Judge Backhouse.)
————
THE Maitland Quarter Sessions opened at the Courthouse, East Maitland, at 10 o’clock yesterday forenoon. Mr Dawson prosecuted for the Crown. Mr Yard, of Raymond Terrace, was excused from attending as a juryman. Mr JC Beattie was fined 40s for non-attendance as a juryman, but the fine was subsequently remitted, as Mr Beattie came to the court and justified his absence.
…
REMANDED.
Patrick Halpin was charged that he did at Pokolbin on the 9th inst indecently assault Theresa Susannah Wells.
Mr Hill appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty.
His Honor said the Crown was not prepared to go on with the case at present, and accused was accordingly remanded to the next sittings of the Circuit Court.
Mr Hill asked that the accused might be allowed bail, and the Judge replied that under the circumstances he could not grant bail. It resolved itself into the question whether a capital charge should be brought against the accused.
The Court was adjourned until Wednesday morning.
…
QUARTER SESSIONS.
Judge Backhouse completed the list of cases for trial at the Maitland Quarter Sessions yesterday.
…
Patrick Halpin, on a charge of indecent assault, was remanded to the next court;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 24 Sep 1895 4
MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
————
Tuesday, September 24.
————
(Before Acting Judge Cohen.)
The Maitland Circuit Court opened at East Maitland this morning before his Honor Acting-Judge Cohen. Mr JC Gannon was Crown Prosecutor. Mr CE Nicholson, JP, acted as Deputy Sheriff.
The barristers present were:—Messrs Wilfred Blackett, Alex R Watt, R Windeyer, RR Waddy, Tom Rolin, Walter Edmunds, WP Crick; and the solicitors, Messrs RW Thompson, FAS Bowden, TA Hill, Julian Windeyer, WW Robinson, F Murphy, and J Kennedy.
Several jurors did not answer to their names. In the case of Frederick Revett, Mr RW Thompson said he was dead. A certificate from Dr Bennett was put in to the effect that Mr David James Campbell was too ill to appear; and Mr Thompson said Mr William Vickery had been ill for 15 or 16 weeks and was unable to appear. Mr Henry Burgoyne Tonkins was excused for deafness, and Mr George Clift on account of being away from the district. All theses jurors were excused from attendance.
His Honor said: I fine Mr Frederick Revett 40s .
Mr Thompson: He’s dead, your Honor.
His Honor: Then I won’t fine him.
Mr RW Thompson, addressing Acting-Judge Cohen, said he would like to say a few words of welcome and congratulation to his Honor. It was a personal pleasure to him to welcome his Honor to Maitland, but the duty should have devolved upon his old friend, Mr WH Mullen, who desired him to apologies for his absence–0-he was so unwell that he could not be present. They claimed his Honor as a Maitland man, because he had begun life in West Maitland as a business man, and from that time forward the people of East and West Maitland had been glad to see his Honor step by step going up the ladder and gaining the position he now held—a judicial position he was eminently fitted to hold. Every position in life his Honor had filled, nothing but a good name and entire credit has been the result. It was his personal wish that his Honor might be permanently appointed to the position in which he was now acting. He was sure from what he knew for 36 years of his Honor’s conduct that on the bench his conduct would be such that the very best traditions of the bench would be upheld. His Honor’s experience as a commercial gentleman before he went to the bar fitted him for taking a place on the bench. Everyone in Maitland who knew his Honor looked upon him as a personal friend, and were gratified to see him in his present position, and any decision he might give could not be questioned. He congratulated his Honor, and hoped his time in Maitland would be as pleasant as he was sure it would be to all the practitioners present and the public.
His Honor said: I beg to thank you, Mr Thompson, on behalf of that branch of the profession you represent, very warmly, and from my heart, for the very kindly welcome you have given me in the position I now occupy. I always had a feeling of affection for Maitland and the Maitland people, because one naturally brings to mind in the reminiscences of one’s career the first step he takes away from the parental home. Maitland was the place in which I first stepped out on the road on my own account, and during my residence of some seven or eight years there, I had always been treated with the greatest respect and affection by the people of Maitland. I have to thank the kindness and confidence of the electors of West Maitland for first helping me to public life. For over eight years I was particularly associated with West Maitland as its representative in Parliament. Ten years ago I ceased to be its member, as I had resolved to give the whole of my life to my profession, but I always think of the people of this district with feelings of the deepest respect and gratitude. I have now assumed a position of more responsibility, but one cannot but feel encouraged by the words of confidence you have been pleased to express not only on behalf of your own profession but on behalf of the people of this district generally, to whom I have been known. I can only say that my efforts will be devoted in upholding in its highest sense the traditions of the bench. If I fail, it certainly will be from want of judgment, and not from any want of desire in discharging my duties as a judge should discharge them. I express my painful regret at the absence of Mr Mullen, who is one of the earliest friends I met with in West Maitland, nearly 39 years ago, and from that day to this nothing but the kindest relations have existed between me and him. I thank you very heartily for your kind words and encouragement, and I hope my efforts will harmonize with your predictions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 26 Sep 1895 5
MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
(Before Acting-Justice Cohen.)
CARNAL KNOWING.
Patrick Halpin, in custody, was charged with that he, on the 9th June, 1895, at Pokolbin, did without her consent, ravish and carnally know Theresa Susannah Wells.
Mr WP Crick, for Mr TA Hill, appeared for accused.
Theresa Susannah Wells continued her evidence as follows after we went to press yesterday: Prisoner was outside too, and came from the end of the house to where witness was in the bush; he caught hold of witness by the two shoulders and drew her down, put his hand over her mouth and assaulted her against her will; she tried to get away from him but couldn’t; prisoner said if she told anybody he would kill her. Witness said she would tell, and prisoner said if she did he’d shoot her. Witness went inside alone, and prisoner remained behind. She said nothing about what happened until she told Constable Danks on Monday. On Monday she went to her uncle John’s three miles away, and then to the police station at Cessnock. Then she went to Greta, where she saw Dr Rogers, who examined her. Prisoner had assaulted her about a week previous to the time stated, also against her will. He told her then not to tell anybody, or he’d shoot her—he always said that. Before that Sunday night he had assaulted her eight or nine times—the first time was a couple of months before the 9th of June. —By Mr Crick: She always believed prisoner would shoot her; he had no gun at the time, but he used to have one; Charles Connoly 6 was her uncle; the first assault occurred in the day time in the paddock, while her aunt was at home; she ran down to the house after the occurrence; three years ago at Wallsend he had attempted to assault her, and she told her aunt (prisoner’s wife) about it; she was afraid to tell her auntie about what occurred on the Sunday night, but next day she told her uncle Charley to tell Constable Danks; she always told her aunty except that Sunday night; her aunt spoke to prisoner about it, and she went up to the paddock and jawed him, and then sent witness back with some tea; these assaults occurred sometimes in the house—once when her aunty was away to see Dr Rogers; it was two or three months before the 9th June when the assault occurred in the paddock; her aunty had three children; a girl, nineteen years of age was present at the house on one occasion when the assault occurred; there was one bed and a sofa in the bedroom, and on this occasion witness and the other girl were in the bed together; the prisoner’s wife did not come home that night, and prisoner assaulted the other girl first, and witness afterwards; this other girl lived at West Wallsend, and went up to Pokolbin for the grape vintage; on the Saturday night in June she told her aunty what occurred, and her aunty said, “O, go to bed;” at the Cessnock police court, witness said nothing about telling her aunty, but she said now she told her every time and her aunty and prisoner used to be jawing and beating one another, and then beat witness; witness had since been living with her uncle, John Connelly; she did not remember what she swore at the police court, but what she swore was true; at Cessnock witness swore that “once when prisoner assaulted her he told her not to tell anybody;” when she swore that it was not true—prisoner always told her not to tell anybody; witness said she was in the scrub one day with her brother and Charley Connelly; on Friday morning, the 7th June, prisoner and his wife left home to go to Maitland. Charley Connelly was not there when they left, but he knew they were going because prisoner told him to watch the house. Connelly came to the house about sundown and remained for the night; he slept on the sofa; witness never heard that her aunty charged Charles Connelly with having assaulted her when they were in the scrub at Christmas time; she did not remember being asked that at Cessnock; the night Connelly stopped at prisoner’s house he did not attempt to assault her; a little boy staying in the house with them did not make complaint to this effect to her aunt; Saturday, the 8th June, was the first time she complained to Charley Connelly of prisoner’s conduct; although Connelly slept in the house on Friday night she never mentioned the matter to him.
Dr Rogers, of Greta, stated that he was a duly qualified medical practitioner. He examined the previous witness on the 10th June. Her condition was such as is usual with unmarried women. He could not say if she had been tampered with.–By Mr Crick: He did not believe witness had gone through what she described with prisoner on the previous night; if anything had occurred it would most likely be without resistance.
Mr Crick asked that Charles Connelly be put in the box for the purpose of cross-examination.
The Crown Prosecutor said he did not intend to call Connelly, as he did not consider his evidence material.
His Honor said it was usual for the Crown to give notice to the other side when they did not intend to call witnesses, but there was no rule compelling them to do so.
The Crown Prosecutor said he had no objection, if Mr Crick wished, to put Connelly into the box.
Constable [Samuel] Danks re-called stated that when he arrested prisoner he did not examine his face to see if there were any marks or pinches on it.
Charles Mark Connelly stated he was a farmer.—By Mr Crick: Witness and his brother John went to the police about this case on Sunday afternoon after witness left prisoner’s place; witness often saw the girl, but she did not tell him until Friday, the 7th June, her uncle was illusing [sic] her; she did not say beating; witness slept at prisoner’s house on the Friday night; he did not know the meaning of intercourse; he never heard of such a thing in his life, although he was 28 years of age; witness slept at prisoner’s because he was asked to do so; he was present on Saturday night when prisoner and his wife came back from Maitland, but he said nothing to prisoner about it; witness was at the house again on Sunday, and later on went to his brother, and then to the police; this was word for word what he said to Constable Danks; Mrs Halpin did not say anything to witness about the case on Monday; he did not understand the meaning of “horrified,” but he was greatly upset when he heard about it; at present he was serving a sentence in gaol; he served several sentences of seven and eight days—a month was the longest he had received; he never old a prisoner in the gaol yard he had connection with the girl himself; he knew a girl named Maude Mitchell; he could not spell her name, but he could write his own name; he did not get anybody to write a letter to prisoner while he was in gaol; there was a plum tree about 27 yards away from prisoner’s house; he went there on Sunday and had his dinner and tea; there was ill-feeling between his brother John and prisoner over a mare; his brother John advertised prisoner’s property for sale.—By the Crown Prosecutor: He knew nothing of the piece of paper shown him by Mr Crick.
This was the case for the Crown. For the defence,
Theresa Halpin, wife of prisoner, after being told by his Honor that she need not give evidence unless she liked, stated that prosecutrix lived with her a little over two years; it was not true that prosecutrix made any complaint to her three years ago about her husband; nor that she complained two or three months ago, about something occurring in the paddock, and that witness gave her some tea to take up to him; she did not of prosecutrix going out of her house on the night of June 8th; her husband was never out of her house on the night of June 8th; her husband was never out of the house that night for any length of time; prosecutrix did not make any complaint to her about her husband; but she did complain of her uncle Charles Connelly,—the first time was a fortnight before Christmas; prosecutrix was crying when she came home, and witness threatened Connelly she would tell the police about it if ever it occurred again; Connelly stopped at her house on the Friday night without her permission, and did not tell witness on Saturday night or at any time about it; witness’ little boy told her something, in consequence of which she spoke to Connelly on the Sunday, and threatened to put the law in motion against him. On Sunday evening about four o’clock Connelly went away; the conversation she had with him was with reference to the prosecutrix; she told her husband something in the presence of Connelly. (The Crown Prosecutor objected to what was said being stated, and his Honor disallowed it, but at Mr Crick’s request noted the objection.) Witness asked the prosecutrix on the Sunday morning was her uncle Charley in on the bed, and she said “Yes, he was in there wanting to sleep in the bed with me;” witness mentioned that to Connelly in the presence of her husband, and told him she threatened him before that if he interfered with the girl again she would tell the police on him; and she said she would go down and tell the police then; her husband was alongside at the time of the conversation; the first she heard of this charge against her husband was when Danks came on Monday evening; the girl went away that morning, and she did not know where she had gone.—
By the Crown Prosecutor: Charley Connelly was her brother; the time she spoke to Connelly of his misconduct first was last Christmas. She said nothing about it until after the case against her husband. She never beat the girl for her having reported something about her husband; her husband never beat her; she had taken an active part in the case since her husband’s committal; before her husband was committed she never said anything about her brother Charley only to her husband; she spoke to Constable Danks about what the girl said about Charley—that a fortnight before Christmas the girl came home crying because her uncle Charley knocked her down and attempted to assault her; witness believed what the girl told her; she said her uncle would not let her go until
Charley King came along with a bullock which nearly ran over them; the first witness heard of the charge against her husband was when Constable Danks came to the house; the girl never showed witness the dress produced.
Patrick Halpin (accused) stated it was not true he assaulted the girl on Sunday night, the 9th June or at any other time—never attempted it or did so; on several occasions he beat the girl for misconduct, but never for any other reason; there was no truth in the statement that Mary Ann Jones and the girl had misconducted themselves with witness; he never gave Charles Connelly permission to sleep at his place; about a month before last Christmas he first heard of the girl’s misconduct; the second time was on Sunday, 9th June; the next evening when Constable Danks came to arrest him was the first time he had heard anything of the charge against himself. He was never charged with anything before in his life.—By the Crown Prosecutor: He looked after the welfare of the girl when he was at home as far as he could; her statements to-day as regards witness were made up; Mary Jones was six or eight weeks at his place about two months before Christmas, and he remembered the time he got up and went to bed; he remembered hitting the girl with a bag of corn he was carrying one day when they were corn-pulling, he remembered this because he was going to West Wallsend the next day. He beat the girl one day for taking an improper liberty with him.
Constable Danks, recalled by Mr Crick, stated that he knew about Mary Ann Jones; she lived in West Wallsend, but he did not subpœna her.
This was the case for the defence.
Mr Crick commenced his address to the jury at ten minutes past seven, and the court adjourned at half-past seven o’clock until this morning at 10.15, the jury having been locked up for the night.
———
Thursday, September 26.
The Court re-opened a at [sic–at a] quarter past ten o’clock.
Mr Crick continued his address to the jury. He put it to them that the girl’s story was a highly improbable one, and her evidence most unreliable, and he quoted authorities bearing on cases of a similar nature, showing how cautious a jury should be in receiving the uncorroborated testimony of a witness. He animadverted upon the absence of Mary Ann Jones, and John Connolly, who were not called by the Crown to give evidence, which should be material either in contradicting or affirming some of the statements made by the prosecutrix. He took it that the girl Jones would have contradicted prosecutrix as to the prisoner having assaulted her, and that was the reason she was not called. Then the doctor’s evidence did not show that the girl had been assaulted. He asked to have the prosecutrix’s depositions taken at the first trial in Cessnock, put in as evidence, which was allowed by his Honor. Mr Crick concluded his address of an hour’s duration by putting forward the theory that if the girl had been violated, she was a consenting party. The real culprit, he concluded, was the man Charles Connelly, who made the charge against prisoner in order to prevent a similar charge being made against himself.
The Crown Prosecutor replied in a brief but brilliant address. The jury, he said, had a high and noble duty to perform; they were there as the custodians of a man’s liberty as well as to protect the virtue of women from outrage. It did not matter what a woman’s character was, if she was a harlot she was entitled to the same consideration as that of the most virtuous woman in the community. Nothing had been brought against the prosecutrix’s character by the defence, which he contended would have been done if there was anything known against it. The case presented, if the facts sworn by the prosecutrix were true, a state of demoralization in the community in which the prisoner lived, which was almost beyond belief. The girl lived with the prisoner who was her uncle. She was an orphan, and who could she look to for protection while her parents were sleeping in their graves if not to her uncle. But it would appear that instead of protecting her he had made her the willing tool for the satisfaction of his own lust. The unfortunate wife was between the devil and the deep sea: on one hand she had to charge her brother with the committal of a capital crime in order to try and save the life of the father of her children. He contended from the evidence given on behalf of the Crown that the crime if committed at all was committed by prisoner. And he reminded the jury that it was the duty of the Crown not to try and put forward that evidence only which would tell against a prisoner, but to do what they could to bring forward anything which would establish his innocence. He asked the jury to carefully consider the evidence, to pay attention to the law of the case and the directions of his Honor, and to give prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt they might have in their minds.
His Honor then summed up, first touching on the law relating to the crime of rape, which virtually was the charge prisoner was being tried for. It made no difference so far as the law was concerned whether a man committed such a crime upon a girl who was a relative of his or upon a stranger—the moral aspect of the case was not considered. His Honor carefully reviewed and commented upon the evidence given for the prosecution and defence, and said if the jury had a fairly reasonable doubt to give prisoner the benefit of the doubt. They should give a most careful scrutiny of the evidence in view of the consequences to prisoner, but at the same time they were not to allow those consequences to influence them in coming to a decision. What they had to consider was not whether at any previous time misconduct had taken place between the girl and accused, but whether the crime of rape had been committed on the night of the 9th of June.
At ten minutes past two in the afternoon, his Honor concluded his summing up, and the jury retired. They returned into court after an absence of ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty, and prisoner was discharged.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 28 Sep 1895 7
COUNTRY NEWS.
———◦———
(From our Correspondence.)
——
THE RYLSTONE ELECTION.
——
Rylstone, Friday.
Mr Wall spoke on Thursday night to a fairly large audience. He discoursed for an hour, touching on the fiscal question. He ridiculed Mr Reid’s attitude toward the unemployed. Mr Wall also spoke yesterday at Cudgegong and to-dau at Lue and Botobolar. Mr RW Cox, of Bristowe Hill, is mentioned as a probable candidate.
————
Bombala, Friday.
The Bombala Co-operative Company will start work again on the 1st October. At a general meeting held to-day Messrs Newton and Stevenson were elected directors. The balance-sheet was adopted.
Broken Hill, Friday.
At an inquest yesterday on the body of James Holler, who died at the hospital on Wednesday from injuries received on the Proprietary by being run over by a truck on the 19th September, a verdict of accidental death was returned, no blame being attached to anyone. The jury added a rider that the Proprietary Company should see that the orders to men not to walk in front of trucks are strictly enforced.
The land board opened its sittings here yesterday, and will be in session for several days. Most applications dealt with were in connection with homestead leases, chiefly along the Darling and its neighbourhood.
Crookwell, Friday.
The Agricultural Society’s sports to-day were much interfered with by the weather, heavy rain having fallen last night. Only about 300 persons were present. The handicap trot, two miles, was won by Lyon’s Fairlight, 20 seconds behind, with Sullivan’s Little Wonder, scratch, second. In the first-class hunt McInnes’ Steeltrap was first and Hayes’s Orry second. In the second-class hunt McInnes’s Rock was first and Dr Stokes’s Lancet second. The handicap foot race, 100 yards, was won by W White, 9 yards, with Joseph Pinn, 6 yards, second.
East Maitland, Friday.
At the Circuit Court yesterday Patrick Halpin was charged with having committed an assault on Theresa Susannah Wells. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The accused was defended by Mr WP Crick. Lilly Louisa Mitchell was charged with murdering her illegitimate child. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty without leaving the box. Mr RW Thompson appeared for the defence.
The Circuit Court concluded its sittings at 10 o’clock this evening. Charles Connolly, charged with breaking and entering, was sentenced to three years’ hard labour in Maitland gaol. Thomas Youngnay, charged with maliciously setting fire to natural grass, was acquitted. George Eason, charged with perjury, was found not guilty.
Glen Innes, Friday.
In compliance with the request of the Minister for Lands, Mr E Black, of Furrucabad, in conjunction with the district surveyor, has undertaken to inspect and report on the special areas situated in the Glen Innes district with the view of reappraisement as provided under the new Land Act. It is proposed to hold monster meetings at Glen Innes and Inverell to urge the Government to proceed with the Glen Innes-Inverell railway without delay.
Lat night, in the presence of Captain Boam, DAAG, a number of members of the local rifle club were sworn in as a reserve corps affiliated to the local volunteer infantry company.
Greta, Friday.
The municipal council has received a grant of £130 for the purpose of making the approaches to the new bridge at the railway station. The money was given for the purpose of affording employment to local married men. Several of the unemployed single men this week intend going forest-thinning on the Murray with passes from the Mayor.
1 The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Mon 17 Jun 1895, p. 2.
2 Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Tue 18 Jun 1895, p. 5.
3 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 18 Jun 1895, pp. 6, 8.
4 The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 24 Sep 1895, p. 2. Emphasis added.
5 The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Thu 26 Sep 1895, p. 2. Emphasis added.
6 Varying spellings of Connoly, Connolly, Connelly are found in this article.
7 The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 28 Sep 1895, p. 9. Emphasis added.