Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 3 Mar 1904 1
CESSNOCK.
————
At the Cessnock Police Court yesterday morning, before Messrs EAL Sharpe, PM, and George Brown, JP, Charles King, 50, a farmer, of Mount View Pokolbin, was committed to stand his trial at the Maitland Circuit Court on the 6th April, on a charge of having committed a serious offence at Pokolbin on the 26th February. Bail was refused.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 4 Mar 1904 2
CESSNOCK.
————
Some surprise was expressed in this district at the action of Mr Sharpe, PM, in refusing to grant bail to Charles King at the Cessnock Police Court on Wednesday after accused’s committal on a serious charge. Accused men in the Maitland district have been released on bail when the charges against were of a much more serious nature. In one instance bail was given to two men on a capital charge. King is a well-known resident, in a sound financial position, and had previously borne an excellent character.
Mr H Russell, of West Maitland, the contractor for the erection of Mr Edwin Pepper’s new hotel near the Aberdare railway terminus, will commence work to-day, and expects to complete his contract in six months.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Maitland Daily Mercury, Wed 6 Apr 1904 3
THE CIRCUIT COURT.
The April sittings of the Maitland Circuit Court opened this morning at East Maitland before his Honor Justice Owen. Mr CE Manning was the Judge’s Associate and Clerk of Arraigns. Mr CEB Maybury, the Sheriff, was present. Mr JB Peden prosecuted for the Crown, and with him was Mr Hamilton, of the Crown Solicitor’s Office. The barristers present were: Messrs R Cowan, W Tighe, JC Gannon, and R Windeyer. The solicitors at the court were: Messrs RW Thompson, JHF Waller, WA Read, JR Carlton, WJ Enright, F Hooke, and Macartney Abbott. Mr EAL Sharpe, PM, Mr DG D’Arcy (acting governor of the gaol), and Superintendent Cotter were also present.
One juror was fined £2 for non-attendance. Another was excused owing to the serious illness of his wife. The plea of business needing urgent attention was not sufficient to ensure the excuse of a third juror.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Maitland Daily Mercury, Sat 9 Apr 1904 4
THE CIRCUIT COURT.
(Before his Honor Justice Owen.)
…
Saturday, April 9.
The business of the court was resumed at ten o’clock this morning.
The Sheriff (Mr CEB Maybury) left at mid-day, and Mr John Lee, JP, acted as Deputy-Sheriff.
…
ALLEGED UNNATURAL OFFENCE.
Charles King, 59, a farmer, on bail, was charged with having, on February 26, 1904, at Marrowbone Creek, committed an unnatural offence.
Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by the Right Hon GH Reid, KC, and Mr R Windeyer, instructed by Messrs Waller and Howell.
Accused challenged one juror, and the Crown ordered another to stand aside.
The Crown Prosecutor briefly outlined the case for the Crown.
Evidence was given by Constable Kell, of Ellalong. The constable was returning from Pokolbin to Cessnock when, as he alleges, he saw the accused committing the act [of bestiality ] with which he (King) was afterwards charged. Accused appeared to be under the influence of drink, and when told he would have to go to Cessnock, he said, “Oh, I will go anywhere.” While riding along the road, King said—“This will be a terrible disgrace for an old man like me.” Adding that he was affected physically, and that what the constable had mistaken for a criminal act was one bearing a perfectly innocent aspect. Witness admitted having had several drinks that day, but contended he was perfectly sober.— Cross-examined by Mr Reid, witness said he had eight drinks of wine on February 26. The glasses varied in size, but were not large. He had no brandy in the morning. He had told Mr Waller at the police court that he had had only one drink that day; but he had meant up to dinner-time.—
Mr Reid: Do you mean to say that Mr Waller did not say anything about the afternoon.—
Witness: if he did I misunderstood him. I thought I was only asked about the morning.—Witness, continuing, said he had gone to the Police Magistrate and constable Nowland after the hearing in the lower court, and had told them that he had made a mistake – that he had had a drink with Mr Tulloch. He had done that because he had expected to be asked about the afternoon.—
Mr Reid: Oh you expected to be asked, and yet you gave these answers in the police court? Was it not because you knew affidavits had been obtained from all the people who gave you drink that day—February 26?— Witness admitted knowing that subpoenas had been issued calling upon these people to appear at court. He remembered Constable Nowland telling him he had better report having had a drink with Mr Tulloch; but he could not remember Mr Waller saying that he would have to report having had other drinks. Examined further, witness said he had once gone to King’s place looking for a stolen beast, but had not found any trace of it. He could not remember whether Mrs King was so indignant that she threw a piece of beef at him, and told him to cook it for himself. There were not more private places than the one where he saw accused on Feb. 26. It was not far from the main road. He did not tell King that two other men had also witnessed the offence. The nearest house was 700 or 800 yards away.—
To the Crown Prosecutor: before the case closed in the lower court, he wanted to mention some of the people who had given him drink, but the magistrates would not allow him to be recalled.—
Mr Reid: How many? Witness: I don’t know.—
Mr Reid: Surely you remember.—
Witness: I wanted to name some of them, but don’t remember just who they were.—
Mr Reid: Well after that I will ask you no more. (Laughter).
Constable Nowland, of Cessnock, also gave evidence. Accused had appeared stupid or dazed when he first saw him on the night of February 26. Constable Kell was perfectly sober. He had said at the police court that he had never seen Constable Kell under the influence of drink. Accused explained to him what he was doing when Constable Kell came up to him in the creek. He had found that what accused said as to his physical condition was correct.—
To Mr Reid: What accused affirmed as to his action on February 26 was quite feasible in the circumstances.
This was the case for the Crown.
For the defence.
Dr JW Harbison, who had examined accused, said he was suffering from rupture on the left side. When the infirmity made itself apparent—as it might at any time—it needed immediate attention. Delay might render an operation necessary.
Accused [Charles King], who lives at Pokolbin, about five miles from Cessnock, gave evidence on oath. He said he was a farmer, winegrower, and dairyman. He had a wife and 10 children. He had lived there since he was 16 years of age, and no-one could say a word against his character. He had been lifting grapes on February 26, and had strained himself. He was perfectly sober on that day. In the afternoon he was riding along the road when his old complaint troubled him, as it had done twice before that day. It was very painful, and he had to get off his mare and lie down, feeling very queer. He got up after resting himself, and was just trying to get on the mare again when Constable Kell came up. The first thing the latter said was – “It has been very warm to-day, Charlie.” Accused replied that it had. They rode together for nearly half a mile, Kell complaining that he did not feel well. The latter then made the charge against him, not having previously mentioned the matter. King denied it point blank, and explained what he was doing. Kell said – “Pooh! There were two other men in the paddock who saw you also.” When Kell said, “You had better come to Cessnock,” King replied, “Oh, you can find me at home any time.” He hesitated to go, but a neighbour – Robert Elliott – coming along he decided to go, thinking he would have company home. Kell appeared to have had drink, but was not drunk. As to the charge made against him, there was not the slightest foundation for it.
James Henry Brunker, auctioneer, who has known accused about 25 years, said he had always found him an upright and honourable, and very inoffensive man.—
To the Crown Prosecutor: He had seen him under the influence of drink, but he had never injured anyone, and was always clean in his language.
John Gillies, member of the Legislative Assembly for West Maitland, having known accused for 30 years, had found him a well-living man, and one of the best residents of the district where he resided.
Counsel addressed the jury, and his Honor summed up.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and prisoner was discharged.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Mon 11 Apr 1904 5
MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
———◦———
Saturday, April 9.
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Owen.)
The court re-opened at 10 am.
————
…
NOT GUILTY.
Charles King, 59, farmer, on bail, was charged with having, on the 26th February, at Marrowbone Creek, committed a serious offence. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr GH Reid, KC, and Mr R Windeyer, instructed by Mr JHT Waller. Accused challenged one juror, and the Crown ordered one to stand down.
After giving evidence as to the alleged offence, Constable Kell said he was perfectly sober when he arrested accused. He had several glasses of wine. Accused was stupid with drink.
To Mr Reid: He (witness) had never been drunk during his official career. He had never been under the influence of drink. He had wine at the eight vineyards named by Mr Reid. He did say at the Cessnock Police Court that he only had one drink of wine that day, but he only meant up to dinner time. If Mr Walker asked him about the whole day he misunderstood him. That very day, after he gave his evidence, he admitted he had made a mistake. He had heard that affidavits had been made by the people from whom he had received wine. He had no motive in not mentioning the names of the other people from whom he had received drink. After the police court proceedings Constable Nowland told him he had better report that he had another drink, but he did not hear Mr Walker say that there would be other drinks to report. At one time previously witness and another constable went to accused’s house to look for a stolen heifer, which was not there. When he charged accused with the present offence he did not say that two men in the paddock saw the offence committed. Mr Elliott was with him and accused for some distance along the road, and could speak as to accused’s sobriety. He did not know if Elliott was a witness.
Constable Nowland saw accused at the police station, Cessnock. He was in a stupid or dazed state. Kell was sober.
To Mr Reid: accused had a wife and ten children, besides grandchildren. Kell was a moderate drinker.
Dr Harbison gave medical evidence.
Accused [Charles King] said he was a farmer, vigneron, and dairyman. He had a wife, 10 children, and 12 grandchildren. He had lived in the district for over 40 years, and there was no one, who could say a word against his character. On the day in question he was lifting some buckets of grapes, and strained himself. He was sober. He had to get off his horse twice before he got to Marrowbone Creek. Just as he was about to get on his horse to go home Constable Kell appeared. The rode along the road for about half a mile, and then Kell made a charge against him. He (accused) denied the charge. Kell said that two other men in the paddock saw him (accused). Kell was not drunk, but he appeared to have had some drink. He (accused) was innocent of the charge.
Evidence as to character was given by James H Brunker and John Gillies, MP, who had known accused for over 25 years as an honest, industrious, clean-living man.
After hearing addresses and his Honor’s summing-up, the jury retired, and returned in about half an hour with a verdict of not guilty. Accused was discharged.
1 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 3 Mar 1904 p. 6.
2 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 4 Mar 1904 p. 6.
3 The Maitland Daily Mercury, Wed 6 Apr 1904, p.5.
4 The Maitland Daily Mercury, Sat 9 Apr 1904, p.5. Emphasis added.
5 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Mon 11 Apr 1904, p. 6. Emphasis added.