Below also see: Peter Woods, 1894
The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 25 Jul 1889 1
POLICE.
———◦———
Mr G O’Malley Clarke, SM, presided at the CENTRAL POLICE COURT yesterday.
…
Mr GWF Addison, SM, presided at the WATER POLICE COURT.
…
Captain Fisher, SM, disposed of 50 cases in the Small Debts Court. Peter Woods, 35, was charged with attempting to stab a special constable, Thomas Lant, [aka Tant] whilst in the execution of his duty. At about 9 o’clock the previous the prosecutor, who was a night watchman and special constable in Wynyard-lane, saw prisoner and two other men in Wynyard-lane. Prisoner had a bucket in his hand, and when he saw Lant he put it down. On being asked where he got the bucket from, he replied, “What has that to do with you.” The other men then went away, and he wanted to go too, but he was detained by prosecutor. He struggled and another man who came to the assistance of Lant, said, “He’s got a knife in his hand.” The knife was open. Prisoner had been seen begging in the lane, and so prosecutor thought he had stolen the bucket. Constable Flynn came shortly afterwards and Woods was given into his custody. Accused was committed to take his trial at the next Court of Quarter Sessions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 8 Aug 1889 2
QUARTER SESSIONS.—
WEDNESDAY.
(Before his Honor Judge WILKINSON.)
Mr Fitzhardinge prosecuted for the Crown.
…
CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING TO WOUND.
Peter Woods was charged with attempting to maliciously wound Thomas Taut. [sic] The circumstances were that Taut was a special constable, and met Woods in Wynyard-lane carrying a bucket, which Taut inquired about. Woods made a defiant answer, and pulled out his pocket-knife. The question for the jury was whether the knife was opened with intent to wound or for same [sic] purpose. The jury found the prisoner guilty with a recommendation to mercy on the ground of provocation. His Honor inflicted a sentence of three months imprisonment.
Peter Woods, 1894
The Cumberland Mercury and Parramatta Gazette, Sat 11 Aug 1894 3
RYDE POLICE COURT.
———
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7.
———
(Before Mr WM Macfarlane, PM.)
———
NOT A VAGRANT.
Peter Woods was charged with vagrancy on the Parramatta-road, Thornleigh, on the 31st ult.
Prisoner asserted that he was a labouring man, and had worked for Mr Terry for five weeks, at 4s a day.
Charge dismissed.
A DISGRACEFUL AFFAIR.
Peter Woods, the same man, was then further charged with wilfully exposing himself on the Parramatta-road, at Thornleigh, on the same date.
Senior-constable Banks having given evidence, stating that the place in question was a public thoroughfare, was cross-examined by prisoner.
Prisoner: Did you see me at Thornleigh?
Witness: No, I did not.
Prisoner: Well, how did you receive information about the matter?
Witness: I decline to answer that.
PM: You can’t ask that.
Prisoner: You don’t know I was drunk, do you, at Thornleigh?
Witness: I didn’t see you. Not to my knowledge.
Prisoner: Then how came you to trace my record?
PM: That has nothing to do with this charge.
Prisoner: Why didn’t you arrest me on the previous Tuesday, when you saw me?
Witness: I didn’t then know of the matter.
Emily Wear was then called, and deposed that she was the daughter of Jas Wear, of Thornleigh, and resided with her parents there. She was 14 years and six months old, and had left school. On the date in question she saw the prisoner—
PM: Is this evidence of the exposure?
Senior-constable Banks: Yes.
PM: Then clear the court.
Witness, after court had been cleared, proceeded to say she saw prisoner at about 6 o’clock in the evening on the Parramatta-road, where she was also. He came close to her, but didn’t speak to her. She was in company with a girl named Rose Semon. When prisoner came up to her he exposed himself. What occurred was that they were walking along the same side of the road as he, and they left that side, and went to the opposite side. Prisoner then came over into the middle of the road to them. She didn’t see him unbutton his trousers. He opened them and exposed his person. They then ran away. He was walking at the side of them in a most disgusting manner for a minute or two. They went of as quickly as they could. He didn’t expose himself until he got close to them. There were no other people near them at all. She knew the prisoner well. From something she had heard she had good reason to know him. She had previously identified him in the Ryde lockup. She saw him on the Saturday afternoon previous to that for the first time.
Cross-examined: She was in front of the Public school when she saw him, not very far from Mrs Osborne’s orchard. He wasn’t sitting down, but walking along, going the opposite way to them.
Senior-constable Banks here making a remark, prisoner shouted out—Now you be quiet. You mind your own business.
The PM interfered, saying prisoner must simply ask questions.
Rose Semon was next called, and said she also resided at Thornleigh, with her parents.
The previous witness having sat down in the court, prisoner got up and called out that he objected to her listening to the witness in the box.
Constable Pilsbury: The witness is right. You sit down.
Prisoner: Alright
Witness continued to state that she was 15 years and nine months. When prisoner was about six yards off she saw him undo his trousers with both his hands and expose himself. She had no doubt whatever about it. She thought prisoner by his walk was sober. He came right in front of them.
Cross-examined: All his buttons were undone in front except the top one. He didn’t attempt to interfere with them.
Prisoner said he wished to call his Worship’s attention to that.
The PM: It is fortunate for you that you didn’t.
Rose Wear was then called.
The PM: How many more witnesses have you?
Senior-constable: I have only the mother, now. I could bring 50 witnesses to prove the exposure, it being also made to a number of school children.
Witness, sworn, said she was nearly 12. She understood the nature of an oath. It meant that she should tell everything true.
Prisoner: Well, your Worship, as the other witnesses were not there on this occasion, I object to them paying attention to the little girl.
Witness said she was returning home from school and when in company with Grace Duffy and Annie Hepthorpe and her sister Eliza Wear, she saw prisoner sitting down reading a paper. When they came by him he said “Good afternoon. I am looking for work.” He then unbuttoned his trousers and exposed himself to her and the other girls, when they ran away, and she told her mother of the occurrence on reaching home. She was quite sure she saw him expose himself.
Cross-examined: It was between Thornleigh station and their shop, down towards Hornsby. She didn’t notice whether prisoner had his boots off. He was sitting with his legs crossed.
Selina Wear, wife of Jas Wear, storekeeper, on the Parramatta-road, Thornleigh, and mother of the two previous witnesses, deposed that the prisoner came to her store at about 4.45 the same afternoon, and appeared perfectly sober. He went, when he left, towards Hornsby. Her elder daughter, Emily, came in about 10 minutes of a quarter of an hour afterwards, and told her something.
Prisoner, who kept fidgetting [sic] about in the dock and making a noise, was told to stand quiet.
Prisoner (to constable): I can move about, can’t I? I can’t always stand in one position.
Witness said shortly after her daughter Rose came in from the opposite direction and also made statement to her. In consequence of that she gave certain information to the police. She had not the slightest doubt about prisoner being the man who came in.
Cross-examined: He bought several articles in the shop. Her daughters complained about him exposing himself, and described his conduct.
Prisoner asked if he did it on purpose to insult the children.
PM said it didn’t matter whether it was done for that purpose or not.
Witness couldn’t see how it could be an accident when he was committing the offence all along the road.
Prisoner, on being asked if he wished to make any statement, made a series of rambling incoherent remarks, in the course of which he said he wasn’t sure whether it was necessary or done for curiosity. He objected to any wilful wrong act of interference. It might have been done just for curiosity. It might have been just for a necessary purpose of his own. Asked if he wanted to call any evidence in his defence, prisoner said he didn’t see the necessity of that. He couldn’t call only the men where he was working.
PM committed prisoner for trial at the Parramatta Quarter Sessions, to be held on August 27.
Prisoner: I don’t see the necessity for that. (Laughter.)
PM: Take him down to the lock-up.
The witnesses were then bound over to appear at the Sessions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 28 Aug 1894 4
PARRAMATTA QUARTER SESSIONS.
MONDAY, AUGUST 27.
(Before his Honor Judge MURRAY.)
The Parramatta Quarter Sessions were opened yesterday morning. The charge-sheet was a light one. The names of the jury having been called over, his Honor said that he was obliged to fine AL McCredie and Charles Foreman, who had not answered to their names, £2 each.
…
INDECENT EXPOSURE.
Peter Woods was charged with having on the 31st July, 1894, indecently exposed himself at Thornleigh. The evidence showed that accused had on more than one occasion behaved in a most disgusting manner. His Honor severely commented on the case and sentenced prisoner to two years’ hard labour. Prisoner had a gaol record for a similar offence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Bathurst Free Press and Mining Journal, Wed 29 Aug 1894 5
BRIEF MENTION.
———◦———
…
Peter Woods, for indecent exposure at Thornleigh, was, at the Parramatta Sessions yesterday, sentenced to two years’ labor.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate, Sat 1 Sep 1894 6
PARRAMATTA QUARTER SESSIONS.
————
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1894.
————
The Parramatta Quarter Sessions commenced on Monday last, his Honor Judge Murray presiding, Mr Gonsalves acting as Deputy Clerk of the Peace, and Mr Dawson as Crown Prosecutor.
The names of the jury having been called over, his Honor said that he was obliged to fine Messrs AL McCredie and Charles Foreman, who had not answered to their name, £2 each. (The fine on Mr McCredie was subsequently remitted.)
…
INDECENT EXPOSURE.
Peter Woods was charged with having on the 31st July, 1894, indecently exposed himself at Thornleigh, within the view of several persons.
An order was made that all women and children should leave the Court.
On being asked how he pleaded, accused said he had “no confidence.” He might have done as had been said, but he knew nothing about it.
His Honor directed a plea of “not guilty” to be recorded.
Prisoner was undefended.
The Crown Prosecutor gave an outline of the case. Accused had been in the shop kept by Mrs Ware, in the afternoon of the 31st July; after he left, her children rushed in and told her something, which caused her to communicate with the police. The alleged offence was one of such an abominable character that, that if it were proved, and if it were shown that accused was in his right mind, he deserved very severe punishment.
Evidence for the prosecution was given by Selina Ware, her two daughters, Emily [Ware] and Rose Ware, Rose Semon, and Senior Constable Banks.
Senior Constable Banks proved the arrest of prisoner at Eastwood on the 4th August and charged him with having committed the offence on the previous Tuesday; he replied: “You can charge me with what you like.” Complaint was made to him by Mr Ware on the Friday previous.
Prisoner cross-examined the witness at great length and elicited the fact that to witness’s knowledge, prisoner had been previously convicted of a similar offence. Prisoner directed his examination mainly to the question whether his arrest on “Mr Terry’s land” without warrant or summons was legal.
His Honor told prisoner that Mr Terry’s land was not one of the refuges or sanctuaries of old, and the question of illegality did not affect the matter at all.
A statement made by the prisoner at the lower court was in and read.
At 1.15 pm, the court adjourned for luncheon, and on re-assembling at 2 o’clock,
Accused made a rambling statement in his defence. He assured the jury that he could not remember the actual circumstances of the case, but that, if he did expose himself, it was a matter of accident.
His Honor briefly addressed the jury, stating that if the evidence of the girls, which was practically unimpeached, were believed by them, they must convict the prisoner.
The jury found the prisoner guilty after a very brief consideration.
Prisoner was remanded for sentence.
…
SENTENCES.
————
Peter Woods was brought up for sentence.
Prisoner, in reply to the question whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, repeated a portion of his former statement.
The gaol records showed three convictions against prisoner: in 1887, he had been convicted of obscene language; in 1888 he was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment for exposing himself; again in 1889 to 3 months for an attempt to stab.
Senior Constable Banks gave evidence, in reply to His Honor, to the effect that prisoner had been guilty of misconduct, similar to that of which he had now been convicted, on several occasions, shortly previous to the 31st July.
His Honor, addressing prisoner, said he had been convicted of a disgusting and unnatural offence, and it was evident that he had actually committed a series of such acts. As long ago as in 1888 prisoner had been convicted of a similar crime, and in his Honor’s opinion there was not the slightest doubt that all that was said against him was well founded. Taking all the facts of the case into consideration, his Honor had no hesitation in saying that prisoner was a man who was unfit to be at large among his fellows, and it was his duty to pass a substantial sentence. Were it not for the morbid sentimentality, which unfortunately obtruded itself, whenever the subject was mentioned, creatures like the prisoner would not be imprisoned, but treated in a very different manner; in a way which medical men had frequently suggested, and which, he felt certain, the whole country was in favor of. Yet when a judge ventured to hint at anything of the kind, he was furiously attacked by the press, solely on sentimental grounds; he himself had on former occasion been held up to the country as a “tiger,” simply because in mercy to a man such as the prisoner, as well as to the community at large, he had thought it his duty to speak out plainly upon the subject. However, it was unfortunately impossible for him to do more than to send prisoner out of the road, to gaol. He sentenced Woods to two years’ hard labor in Parramatta Gaol.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Cumberland Mercury and Parramatta Gazette, Sat 1 Sep 1894 7
PARRAMATTA QUARTER SESSIONS.
———
(Before Judge Murray.)
———
The Parramatta Quarter Sessions were opened on Monday morning last, Judge Murray presiding.
Mr Arthur F Dawson was Crown Prosecutor; and Mr John Gonsalves
…
INDECENT EXPOSURE.
Peter Woods was charged with indecently exposing himself near dwellings, and on a public highway (on the Parramatta-road), Thornleigh, on the 31st of July.
The accused, who behaved—deliberately or otherwise—in a rather peculiar manner, said he couldn’t plead for want of confidence. He might have been standing near a tree for a necessary purpose.
A plea of not guilty was entered.
The evidence in this case was of a disgusting character. (It has been published before—modified, certainly, in deference to the claims of public decency and morality.)
The Crown Prosecutor outlined the case. If the offence were proved on the lines suggested by the prosecution— and if the man was in his right mind—he would deserve a very heavy penalty. Perhaps the speaker should not suggest what nature that punishment should take.
Selina Ware [sic], a married woman, deposed that her children made certain complaints to her on the day of the alleged offence. (On that day defendant bought certain goods at her store;—and she knew him by sight.) Certain things she had heard since, took place before and after she saw accused.
Emily Ware, [sic] a nice-looking girl about 15 years of age, deposed that, on the day in question, she went from her home to a place half-a-mile off for milk. When she was returning, she saw a man a quarter-of-a-mile from her mother’s place. He committed the offence complained of. Witness was with Rose Semon. Accused was five yards from them. He was near them for a minute or two. Witness and her companion hurried away. Accused was the man.
Evidence given by Rose Semon was corroborative of that sworn by the last witness. She was 15 years and 10 months of age. The occurrence took place near a Public school. Witness was going for her father’s cow at the time.
Rose Ware was also examined. She was near Duffy’s bridge, Thornleigh. Accused was sitting down on a bank, reading a paper. He said, “Good-day; I’m looking for work.” The man then repeated his disgusting conduct. She and her companion ran away. They got home after her sister Emily.
Senior-constable H[arrie] S[tuart] Banks (Ryde) deposed that he got certain information on the 3rd of August, from Mr Ware. Arrested accused at Eastwood. Accused admitted having been at Thornleigh. Arrested accused on the 4th of August. Arrested accused on Mr Terry’s land.
Accused: Do you think it was legal?
His Honor: That’s immaterial.
Witness: I thought I had a right to.
His Honor: Mr Terry’s land is not a place of refuge in the sense of the sanctuaries of old.
Accused argued with his Honor that “it was illegal.”
The Bench: Even if I found it was illegal, I’m not going to let you go now. The question is: Are you guilty of the offence with which you stand charged?
Accused: Did you have any information about me?
Witness: I found out that accused had been convicted previously of a similar offence. I had heard many complaints during the previous fortnight.
At 1.15 the Court was adjourned till 2 pm.
The Court having resumed,
Accused, Peter Woods, made a rambling statement to the jury, in which he professed to be unable to remember what took place on the occasion when he was said to have committed the offence complained of. If he exposed himself, it was, he said, by accident.
His Honor summed up briefly; and the jury retired for about 10 minutes, when they returned with a verdict of guilty.
Prisoner was remanded for sentence.
…
SENTENCES.
INDECENT EXPOSURE.
Peter Woods was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Peter Woods, Gaol photo sheet 8
![SRNSW: NRS2397, [3/6009a], Parramatta photographic description book, 1891-1897, No. 491, p. 83, R5136.](../../images/trials/1889-Woods-6009A-gaol-photo-491.jpg "SRNSW: NRS2397, [3/6009a], Parramatta photographic description book, 1891-1897, No. 491, p. 83, R5136.") |
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
No. 491
Parramatta
Date when Portrait was taken: 28 August 1894
Name: Peter Woods
(aka James Thompson)
|
Native place: Ireland Year of birth: 1851 Arrived Ship: Emily Trade or occupation Religion: R. C. Education, degree of: R&W Height: 5' 7½" Weight On committal: Colour of hair: Grey Colour of eyes: Grey Marks or special features: |
Where and when tried: Offence: Sentence: Remarks: |
|
(No. of previous Portrait ... ) PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS |
|||||
| Where and When | Offence. | Sentence | |||
|
Central PO Water PO Sydney Q.S Parramatta Q.S |
7 31 7 27 |
1 12 8 8 |
1887 1888 1889 1894 |
Drunk and obscene language Expose person Assault constable & injure property Indecent Exposure |
14 days C 3 months C 3 months HL. 2 years HL. |
|
By Remission 16/5/1896. Forwarded to the Hosp for Insane Parramatta on his discharge.
|
|||||
1 The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 25 Jul 1889, p. 4.
2 The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 8 Aug 1889, p. 4.
3 The Cumberland Mercury and Parramatta Gazette, Sat 11 Aug 1894, p. 2. Emphasis added.
4 The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 28 Aug 1894, p. 3.
5 The Bathurst Free Press and Mining Journal, Wed 29 Aug 1894, p. 3.
6 The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta), Sat 1 Sep 1894, p. 3. Emphasis added.
7 The Cumberland Mercury and Parramatta Gazette, Sat 1 Sep 1894, p. 7. Emphasis added.
8 SRNSW: NRS2397, [3/6009a], Parramatta photographic description book, 1891-1897, No. 491, p. 83, R5136.