Below also see: Douglas Krygger, 1923,
Krygger v. Graham, 1923,
Douglas Krygger, 1925,
Douglas Krygger, 1925,
Douglas Krygger, 1927 – Indecent assault
Donald Douglas, 1938
The Argus, Sat 20 May 1922 1
CHARGES AGAINST BOOKSELLER.
Walter Douglas Krygger, 2 aged 28 years, news agent, of Marin-street, Gardenvale, was charged in the Brighton Court on Friday, before Mr R Knight, PM, and a bench of honorary magistrates, on four counts of having committed serious offences, and on five counts of having committed acts of gross indecency. It is alleged that the offence took place between September 27, 1921, and May 1, 1922. At the suggestion of Mr Knight, Superintendent McCormack, who conducted the prosecution, agreed to proceed with two of the more serious charges, on the understanding that if Krygger were committed for trial to adjourn the remaining cases pending the trial. Mr KH Sonenberg appeared for Krygger.
On both charges Krygger was committed for trial at the Supreme Court on June 13, the remaining cases being adjourned for eight weeks. Bail was fixed at one surety of £100, and a personal surety for a similar amount, for each case.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Thu 10 Aug 1922 3
CHARGES NOT PROVED.
Walter D Krygger, a young man, was presented for a second time before the Court of General Sessions yesterday on a charge of having committed an offence against a boy. Deputy Judge Leon presided, and Mr TC Brennan appeared for the defence. The jury found Krygger not guilty, and he was discharged.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Thu 21 Sep 1922 4
CHARGE NOT PROVED.
Before Acting Judge Leon in the Court of General Sessions yesterday, Walter D Krygger, a young man, was presented on a charge of having attempted to commit an offence against a boy. He was found not guilty, and was discharged. Mr TC Brennan appeared for the defence.
Douglas Krygger, 1923
Examiner, Tue 21 Aug 1923 5
CHARGE OF STEALING
———◦———
THE CASE DISMISSED.
———
A young man, Walter Krygger, appeared in the City Police Court yesterday before the [Launceston] Police Magistrate (Mr EL Hall), charged with having on August 2 stolen a number of articles comprising linenware, blankets, cutlery, tumblers, and a clock, to a total value of £10 from the premises of Rev Father John Graham at Invermay-road. Defendant was represented by Mr VC Hall and pleaded not guilty.
The first witness was Emma [Clara] Turner, housekeeper for Father Graham. She said that she had been originally employed by defendant, who lived at the house while Father Graham was on the mainland. On August 1 she left the house but returned on August 8 on Father Graham arriving back. On her return she missed a quantity of goods similar to those in court.
To Mr Hall—Why did you leave the house? Because I didn’t think things were going on as they should.
Detective Burke said that on August 10 a report was received as to the goods having been stolen, and on the same afternoon he and Detective Brown located the defendant, who admitted having taken the articles, but said that he did not steal them, as they were given to him by Father Graham to use wherever he went. The detective arranged to meet defendant at another place, where he said he had sold the articles. The articles (produced) were thus recovered.
Mr Hall—Defendant was quite open to you about the matter?—Yes.
Otherwise you would have had great difficulty in locating the goods?—Yes.
Edward Rye Cullen said that defendant brought some things to his place in a motor car, and asked his wife if she [sic] could leave them there. Later defendant said he had no further use for them, and as they were things which witness required he offered to buy them, and defendant agreed to sell for £7.
John Graham said he was a retired Roman Catholic priest. He had engaged defendant as his manager and secretary about April 9 last. On August 4 he ordered him out of his house. Defendant had no authority to remove the articles.
Mr Hall—You missed the things on the 2nd and accused was at the house on the 4th. Did you say anything to him about them?—No.
Why?—That is my business.
Witness said the reason why he did not report the theft to the police before August 10 was because he wanted to make quite certain that they were stolen, and he had made enquiries himself.
Mr Hall—After defendant left the house you subsequently got a letter from him giving his address?—Yes. He did not tell accused he could take what he liked out of the house.
Mr Hall—Was there not an understanding that defendant would take some things the value of which would be taken for an amount you owed him?—Certainly not.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
Mr Hall submitted that there was no case against defendant. Father Graham’s attitude in the box would indicate that his evidence was unreliable, whilst defendant’s attitude had been quite open all through.
The defendant, [Walter Krygger] in evidence, said that on August 1, when Father Graham returned, witness told him he was going to leave the house. Early next morning he informed Father Graham that he had been converted, and was going to join the Salvation Army. Father Graham abused him for three hours. He told Graham he was going to live closer in the city, and was going to some people who were not too well off, and that he would like to take some things. Graham said he was welcome to them. He would not want them, as he was going to sell off. He added, “I owe you enough money. I can never repay you, so you can take half of what is here.” He took the articles while Father Graham was in the house. The first thing he knew of any trouble was when the police visited him. He changed his mind about going to live with the people mentioned, and having no use for the articles they offered to buy them, and he sold them for the £7.
The magistrate said defendant did not dispute taking the goods away, but he disputed that he took them feloniously. It seemed strange that Father Graham should have missed the articles on the 3rd, but did not seem to have reported it until the 10th. The magistrate did not know who was telling the truth, and he could not convict accused of having “feloniously” taken the articles. The case would be dismissed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Mercury, Tue 21 Aug 1923 6
POLICE COURT NEWS.
———◦———
…
ALLEGED THEFT.
A young man named Walter Krygger appeared at the Launceston Police Court yesterday before the Police Magistrate (Mr EL Hall), in answer to a charge of having on August 2 stolen a quantity of household linen, valued at £10, the property of Father John Graham. Detective Brown prosecuted, and Mr VC Hall appeared on behalf of the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Emma Clara Turner (housekeeper), Detective Burke, and Edward Rye Cullen gave evidence for the prosecution, also the Rev Father John Graham, a retire Roman Catholic priest, who said that the defendant had been in his employ as manager since April. On returning from Melbourne at the beginning of August witness ordered defendant out of his house. The following day witness missed the articles from his house. Witness did not report the theft until August 10, because he wished to obtain sufficient proof of the defendant’s guilt.
Defendant, [Walter Krygger] in evidence, said that when Father Graham returned from Melbourne on August 1, he (Krygger) informed him that he was going to leave the house. On asking for a few articles to take with him Father Graham replied that he could take what he liked. He accordingly took the goods away in a motor car in full view of Father Graham.
In ordering the charge to be dismissed, the Police Magistrate said that, in view of the evidence submitted, he could never convict the defendant of feloniously stealing the goods.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Mercury, Sat 8 Sep 1923 7
WHO TOLD THE TRUTH?
———◦———
To the Editor of “The Mercury.”
Sir.—In a charge of “Feloniously stealing” preferred against one Walter Krygger and heard in the Police Court at Launceston on Monday August 21, Mr Hall, in summing up, declared that “he didn’t know who was telling the truth—Father Graham or the accused.” As to the justice or injustice of the verdict, I am not at present inclined to criticise. That may come later on. My present object is to question the words of Mr Hall, PM, as quoted above, and to call them a most gratuitous insult offered by Mr Hall to every clergyman in Tasmania and elsewhere—be he simply priest, clergyman, bishop or archbishop, or any other dignitary of any church soever. The oath, which is the calling on God to witness that what he who swears is to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is considered and held by the Catholic Church—as it should be held by every other Church to be a most sacred thing, because God is Essential Truth, and it would be a most abominable sin to ask Him to witness to a lie. As a young Jew—a visitor from the mainland—declared to me only a few days ago: “If Mr Hall, PM, could thus make light of, or question so flippantly as he did, my oath, he (Mr Hall) could just as flippantly question the oath of his Rabbi—a thing which, he continued, the Jewish community would not suffer or pass by in silence. Moreover, to question, as Mr Hall did, the oath of a clergyman, is to make a farce of the oath altogether.” Thus a Jew, and, he was right. Mr Hall should have been discreet in the choice of his words, and he could have easily managed that by summing up in such words as these: “That the weight of evidence was not sufficient to convict the accused, and he would therefore give him the benefit of the doubt.” Now, to one or two points on the case itself. Whereas Krygger, the accused, declared on his oath that I was in my house on Thursday August 2, at 11.30 am, and then gave him the things. I was in the office of the deputy-sheriff in the city transacting business.
Yours, etc.
JOHN GRAHAM.
110 Invermay-road, Invermay, Aug 31.
We have omitted portion of this letter which deals with matters of evidence in the case, that are not capable of publication.—Ed. “Mercury”
Krygger v. Graham, 1923
Examiner, Fri 14 Sep 1923 8
CLAIM FOR WAGES
———◦———
£208/10/- INVOLVED.
———
LAUNCESTON BUSINESS MATTER.
———
Remarkable evidence was heard at the Launceston Supreme Court under the Local Courts Act jurisdiction yesterday in the case before Mr Justice Ewing in which Walter Krygger proceeded against Father John Graham for the recover of £208 10s salary alleged to be due to him as manager of the block of shops known as the Broadway, Invermay-road.
Mr VC Hall represented plaintiff, and Mr JF Heritage appeared for defendant.
It was set out that in April last Krygger was engaged by Father Graham at a salary of £8 10s a week to manage four shops known as the Broadway at Invermay. There was an understanding that employment would terminate after one month’s notice by either side. Krygger contended that he had served defendant in the capacity of manager until August 6, when he was dismissed without notice. He had not received any wages. The sum claimed included £30 which plaintiff had lent Father Graham at his request on May 15.
The defence was a complete denial of any liability to pay plaintiff the amount stated, and that Krygger had not lent Father Graham the £30 mentioned. Father Graham admitted that he had employed plaintiff at £7 10s a week. The salary had been paid.
[Walter] Krygger gave evidence at length in support of his claim. He told how he had come to be employed by Father Graham as manager of the Broadway block of four shops. One shop had been opened as a hair dressing saloon and another as a boot shop. Both had closed down within a period of three weeks. He had gone to Melbourne to make purchases of goods for these shops, but they were not opened because Father Graham could not pay for the goods. He had been living at Father Graham’s house at 110 Invermay-road before he went to Melbourne. When he returned Father Graham slammed the door in his face and ordered him away from the house. They had disagreed because he had been converted and joined the Salvation Army.
His Honor commented that Krygger seemed to be on a good wicket. He was managing shops which were not open, driving Father Graham’s car (he claimed under instructions in the course of the conduct of the business), and living at Father Graham’s house. Krygger was claiming a salary for managing the shops, and yet the shops had not been opened. Still the contract was there.
To Mr Heritage, Krygger said that he got the £30 from Melbourne. It was part of a separate income of £5 a month collected by the Mercantile Agency, Flinders-street, Melbourne. They had been collecting for him for 12 months. He also had a large amount of money with him when he came from Sheffield, where he had been managing a shop at a salary of £5 a week. He left Sheffield because his employers, York, Smith, and Co, told him that they could not pay him £5 a week. Before coming to Tasmania he had a business at Brighton, Victoria, and sold out for about £900. After correspondence between him and Father Graham he took charge of Father Graham’s business, managing a hairdressing business for three weeks, a bootmaker’s business for two weeks, and doing other work. All the time he was in Father Graham’s employ he did not get a penny in salary. Father Graham owed money all over the place. Defendant went to Melbourne the first week in June in the interests of the business, and returned on August 1. During that time plaintiff lived partly in Father Graham’s house and later in the Launceston Hotel for a week. He had bought groceries, fuel, and other necessaries for the conduct of the house while he was there, but moved because there was no housekeeper to look after the house. While Father Graham was in Melbourne he (witness) wired for money, and had received £12 to carry on the house. The household articles he bought were still on the premises.
Continuing, Mr Heritage cross-examined Krygger at length concerning money transactions that had taken place between plaintiff and defendant, and with regard to certain large sums of money which Krygger was to have received from Father Graham to pay debts in connection with the shops. Counsel submitted that on witness’s own admission he had received £91 from Father Graham, and had accounted for £41 only. What had happened to the £50 difference?, he asked.
Krygger held that counsel for the defence had not calculated his expenses correctly, and that he had accounted for the whole £91.
His Honor remarked that Krygger had not given every satisfaction in the manner in which he had accounted for his expenditure of Father Graham’s money. His attitude in the matter was not very charitable and it did not seem that his conversion was complete.
Charles Edward Best, clerk at WA Blackett’s office, financial agent, produced a cash book which showed Father Graham’s signature for £25 and Krygger’s signature for £15. On May 19 a cheque for £50 was handed to Father Graham, who was accompanied by Krygger. On June 6 another cheque for £50 was given to Father Graham. He thought that Krygger was with Father Graham, but he could not swear it.
The case will be continued at 10.30 this morning.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Mercury, Fri 14 Sep 1923 9
SALVATIONIST SUES
PRIEST.
———◦———
BUSINESS DISAGREEMENT.
——
CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL
DISMISSAL.
——
Launceston, September 13.
Before Mr Justice Ewing, at a sitting of the Supreme Court in the Local Courts Jurisdiction to-day, a young man named Walter Krygger sued the Rev Father John Graham for £208 10s. The circumstances under which the amount was payable, as set out in the plaint were as follows.—In April, 1923, the defendant contracted to employ the plaintiff, at a salary of £8 10s per week, I the capacity of business manager in supervising businesses carried on at four shops on the Invermay-road, until the employment should be terminated by a month’s notice on either side. The plaintiff served defendant in such a capacity, yet had not been paid any salary, also that defendant, without any notice, wrongfully dismissed plaintiff on August 6, and, further, that on May 19 plaintiff lent defendant £30 at the latter’s request, and the same had not been repaid, although demanded. The amount was made up as under:—17 weeks’ salary at £8 10s, £144 10s, four weeks’ salary in lieu of notice, £34; and money lent, £30.
Defendant filed a defence, in which he denied contracting to employ the defendant as set out in the plaint; also that he did not wrongfully dismiss him; and also that the plaintiff did not lend him £30. Defendant admitted, however, that he did employ plaintiff at a salary of £7 10s per week as business manager, but that all sums owing had been duly paid and satisfied.
The case for the plaintiff was conducted by Mr VC Hall (instructed by Messrs Ritchie, Parker, Alfred Green and Co), while Mr JE Heritage appeared for the defendant.
Plaintiff, [Walter Krygger] who wore the colours of the Salvation Army in his coat, described himself as a business manager, living at 84 Frankland-street. He said that on April 9 last, in anser to a newspaper advertisement, he came to Launceston, and had a personal interview with the defendant, during the course of which the latter said he wanted a manager for a hairdressing shop at Invermay, and offered £6 10s per week as salary. Witness accepted the position, but later on defendant said he contemplated opening three other shops, namely, bootmaker, drapery, and chemist, and asked if he would agree to manage the lot. Witness said he would, but not for £6 10s. Defendant inquired how much, and witness said £8 10s. Defendant then replied, “That would suit me. I’d have given you £10 if you had asked.” Proceeding, witness said that it was stipulated that the agreement was subject to a month’s notice on either side. The hairdressing business was then opened, but was closed three weeks later. Defendant then went to Melbourne for the purpose of buying stock for the other shops, and returned on August 1. Before leaving, a number of Father Graham’s cheques had been returned to the drawer, and defendant begged witness if he had any ready money to assist him in honouring them. Witness then paid £30 to Father Graham’s credit at the National Bank. Under the terms of their agreement witness was to live at Father Graham’s house, but while the latter was away in Melbourne witness became converted to the Salvation Army, and could no longer live with him. Witness had subsequently called upon defendant for his money, but the door had been slammed in his face, and on August 6 defendant wrote him a letter (produced), stating that all relations both business and friendly, were at an end.
Witness was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr Heritage, and admitted that he was out of work at the time Father Graham engaged him, having just previously been discharged from the employ of York, Smith, and Co at Sheffield, where he was receiving £5 per week as manager.
Questioned as to where he got the £30 to lend defendant, witness said he received an allowance of (£25 ?) per month from the Russell Gardiner Mercantile Agency, Melbourne, and previous to coming to Tasmania had a shop of his own at Brighton, which he disposed of for about £990.
In further cross-examination, Mr Heritage sought to elicit from witness an explanation of how he had disposed of (£50 ?) received by him on defendant’s behalf while the latter was in Melbourne.
The answer given led His Honor to remark that evidently the business between the two had been conducted in a very loose manner.
This closed the plaintiff’s case, and the Court adjourned until next day.
Plaintiff was requested by His Honor to produce, if possible, his bank pass-book.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Examiner, Sat 15 Sep 1923 10
CLAIM FOR £208 10s WAGES
———◦———
£16 10s ALLOWED ONLY
———
JUDGE'S CRITICISM OF PLAINTIFF.
———
Undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary stories of a business partnership ever told in Launceston court was that concluded before Mr Justice Ewing at the Supreme Court under the Local Courts Act jurisdiction yesterday, when the case in which Walter Krygger proceeded against Father John Graham for the recovery of £208 10s, salary alleged to be due to him as manager of the block of shops known as the Broadway, Invermay-road, was finalised.
Mr VC Hall represented plaintiff and Mr JE Heritage appeared for defendant.
Father John Joseph Graham, a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, said that in April last he was carrying on business in shops at Invermay as tobacconist and hairdresser, through others. As a consequence of an advertisement he saw in a newspaper he communicated with Krygger at Sheffield, telling him that he was prepared to engage him as manager of the Broadway at a salary of £7 10s a week. The wages board award was £6 or £6 10s. Krygger accepted the engagement. The hairdresser’s shop lasted three weeks and the bootmaker’s shop for two weeks under his management. Krygger said he was in need of money, and witness gave him £10 to start off with. Soon after that both went to Melbourne, and Krygger bought goods for the shops. Between the time witness engaged Krygger and left for Melbourne they both stayed at the Launceston Hotel, living for a few days at the house on Invermay-road. In Melbourne Krygger stayed with friends and witness at the Federal Coffee Palace, Collins-street. On April 27 witness gave Krygger a cheque for £10. It was untrue that Krygger had given him money to go to Ballarat. Witness was not in need of money. In fact, witness gave Krygger money at different times, and Krygger took witness’s car to Ballarat on two occasions at witness’s expense. Witness did not give Krygger authority to pay £12 for groceries and other household goods. He never refused Krygger money when he asked for it. They returned to Launceston together, and lived at the Launceston Hotel, witness paying £32 17s 6d for Krygger’s board. Witness also drew two cheques for £50 each and £25 cash from Mr WA Blackett. The first cheque of £50, drawn on May 19, was given to plaintiff to place in witness’s account at the bank. Plaintiff did not carry out instructions, bringing £50 in cash back. Witness asked “Why did you not do as I told you?” He replied, “What is the use?” Krygger then banked £30, under instructions, to cover cheques witness expected from Melbourne. Witness gave Krygger £10 of the other £20 and kept £10 himself. During this time Krygger could not strictly be termed as acting as manager, as the shops had not started. On June 6 witness drew another cheque of £50 from Mr Blackett’s and gave it to plaintiff to bank. Plaintiff again failed to carry out instructions but brought £50 back in cash. Witness once more asked him why he did not do as he was told. Krygger replied, “You just leave the money with me. I will take care of it for you.” Witness reprimanded Krygger telling him that he could look after his own money. He was ill that day, and gave Krygger £20, he thought.
Proceeding, Father Graham said he went to Melbourne on June 11 and sent Krygger £37 soon after arrival. He received telegrams from Krygger, signed “Wally,” and asking for another £20. While he was away plaintiff had instructions to open up the tobacconist’s shop. Krygger did not acknowledge receipt of any money in his letters and he did not open the tobacconist’s shop. It was not correct that when £100 worth of goods were stolen from the shop he begged Krygger not to report the matter to the police. Krygger had authority to sell only certain articles of surplus furniture. He, however, did not keep to instructions in this respect. He also bought window blinds costing £23, but did not as he claimed buy any fuel. Witness had paid Krygger his salary, and had never received requests for wages. Krygger had not lent him £30, and never mentioned anything about having private means or that his family was well to do. In fact, he said that his mother had very meagre means. Before witness left for Melbourne in June he knew that Krygger was going with the Salvation Army people. Witness expressed pleasure at the young man going with the Salvation Army people, and that fact certainly did not influence him in severing partnership.
To counsel for plaintiff—He did not have a cure as a Roman Catholic priest. He had received a certain letter from the Bishop. He would produce the letter.
His Honor—I do not see how Father Graham’s relations with his Bishop are relevant to the case. I will not admit the letter.
Mr Hall—Am I precluded from showing that this man’s word cannot be relied upon?
His Honor—The letter may not be satisfactory. You can test Father Graham’s credibility in the proper way, but not by putting in what people may write about him. This is the first time I have ever been asked to allow a man’s credibility to be attacked by a letter from another man who is writing concerning his character.
Cross-examination was continued. Father Graham said that when he gave a cheque on April 27 he did not know he had no money to meet it. He thought he had plenty of money to pay the amount.
Mr Hall produced certain of Father Graham’s memoranda papers relating to “£10 Ballarat” and to the number of the cheque drawn on April 27.
“Where did you get my papers? I would like to know how you got them,” asked Father Graham in surprise.
His Honor—It seems evident that Krygger has some of your private papers.
Mr Hall—Why did you say in letters that you would shoot the car across to Victoria if necessary to beat the dirty crew. Whom did you refer to as “the dirty crew?”
Witness—I made use of those words in reference to Heathorn’s as a result of misleading things plaintiff had told me of them. I have since apologised to them.
Mr Hall produced other correspondence in which Father Graham referred to Launceston business men as “dirty sods.”
Under further cross-examination Father Graham said he had used lotteries to raise money. He had paid £25 deposit on £2500, the cost of the Broadway shops. He did not own Kerslake any money on the house. At the end of July he had £212 banked in Melbourne.
His Honor—I do not like to interfere with you, Mr Hall, but there is a terrible lot of this that does not affect the question of how much in wages Father Graham owed plaintiff.
To Mr Hall—Witness knew that Krygger was keeping house and did not object. He did when he came back from Melbourne, though. He knew Krygger was running his car on business, but was not aware that he had made certain trips into the country. It may have cost Krygger a small amount in correspondence, but he did not keep him in touch with everything. When witness returned from Melbourne there was no row between them. On August 4 he ordered Krygger out of the house and later wrote telling him that “business” and private relations had ceased. He objected to Krygger charging him for groceries and other utensils he (plaintiff) bought, and also to the manner in which he used the car.
To Mr Heritage—He had been sued by business people here because Krygger had told them that he had cleared out to Victoria, and would not return. At Heathorn’s alone, Krygger had run up an account of over £70 in three months for motor expenses, £50 being for petrol alone.
Walter Krygger, recalled, under cross-examination on his National Bank of Australia and Commonwealth Savings Bang [sic] passbooks, said he sold some of the tobacconist’s stock to Teague, Launceston, for £5. The remainder of the stock he placed in a shed at the back of the house. He did not remember helping Harry Mahon carry a large case of tobacco from the shed to the car, or remarking that he intended smoking all the cigars himself. About £30 worth of goods had been stolen from the shed. From June 14, three days after Father Graham went to Melbourne, to August 6, he paid in £67 to the National Bank. That amount was made up by £33 from his mother in various lots, some being transferred from the Commonwealth Savings Bank account. He had also put in other amounts. He had paid in £82 to the Commonwealth Bank in the period also when Father Graham was in Melbourne. Part of the money in the National Bank, £35 15s, was Father Graham’s.
His Honor—No wonder some of Father Graham’s cheques were dishonoured when Krygger was not paying defendant’s money to his account.
Henry Joseph Mahon, 102 Elizabeth-street, land agent, said that about June 5 or 6 he met Father Graham and Krygger a the Launceston Hotel. On June 7 Krygger have him a ride in a car out Invermay-road as far as Thurlow’s store. Witness later went along to the Broadway Stores and help Krygger load a heavy box of pipes, tobacco, and other hairdressing articles into the car. Krygger intimated that he intended smoking the cigars himself.
In giving judgment Mr Justice Ewing said that plaintiff had sued defendant for £208 10s, that amount being made up by £144 10s, seventeen weeks’ wages at £8 10s; £34 salary in lieu of notice, and £30 money lent. He had as closely as possible applied the rule of the onus of proof, assuming that he believed that neither witness was more reliable than the other. Having applied that rule, he had come to a conclusion, and he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that as far as plaintiff was concerned, after hearing the manner in which he had given his evidence, looking at the whole structure of his case, and hearing the evidence of the witness Mahon, he was a man who was not worthy of believing. He (His Honor) believed that to a ver large extent Krygger had taken advantage of the foolish contract made with him and Father Graham. Plaintiff had taken advantage of the fact that when he applied the rule of the onus of proof Father Graham was not in a position to prove very many items that otherwise he would have been able to prove. He had come to the conclusion that plaintiff was not discharged; that he has made up his mind to break with Father Graham, as he himself had expressed it, because he could not see his way clear to live with him on account of the vast amount of Christian principle which he told the court he had lately imbued. Therefore he would strike out the item for £34. He believed Father Graham when he said that £7 10s and not £8 10s was agreed upon as the salary. He would strike out the item of money lent, £30, because he believed Father Graham in preference to Krygger, and further than that, the whole of the circumstances with regard to the cheques, the payments into the bank, and the cashing of the cheques, brought him to the irresistible conclusion that, although Krygger said the money was his and not Father Graham’s, plaintiff had lied. The result was largely Father Graham’s fault for conducting his business on such loose lines. Had he observed more regular methods he (his Honor) had not much doubt that the verdict would have been in his favour. As it was, however, he found a verdict for plaintiff on the material that was before him for £16 10s. He would refuse to give any costs whatever, because of what he thought to be Krygger’s discreditable conduct in the case. Not only had Krygger imposed upon Father Graham, but he had cast slurs upon his character, which, whatever Father Graham might be, were not justified according to the material before him.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Mercury, Sat 15 Sep 1923 11
PRIEST & SALVATIONIST.
———◦———
UNTENABLE CASE AT
LAUNCESTON.
———
JUDGE'S CAUSTIC COMMENTS.
———
Launceston, September 14.
“I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, after hearing the manner in which he gave his evidence, and looking at the whole structure of his case, he is a man who is not worthy of believing.” This was the caustic manner in which Mr Justice Ewing delivered judgment to-day in the case in which Walter Krygger sought to recover from the Rev Father Graham, £208 10s, alleged to have been due to him as manager of a block of shops known as The Broadway, Invermay-road. Mr VC Hall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr JE Heritage for defendant, who denied liability.
Plaintiff’s evidence had been taken the previous day, and when the Court resumed this morning, Father [John Joseph] Graham elected to give evidence. He stated that in April last he was financing a business proposition at Invermay, and employed plaintiff as manager of four shops at a weekly salary of £7 10s. At the time of the engagement plaintiff said he was in need of money, and witness advanced him £10 (cheque produced). Shortly afterwards they visited Melbourne for the purpose of buying stock, and witness paid all fares and expenses. He also paid plaintiff several sums of money. Upon returning to Launceston they stayed at a leading hotel, and witness paid plaintiff’s account, amounting to £32 17s 6d. On May 19 witness received a cheque from WA Blackett, and handed it to plaintiff to pay into witness’s account at the bank, to cover two or three cheques which he had drawn. Plaintiff, however, failed to carry out the instructions, and cashed the cheque. On June 3 plaintiff acted similarly in respect of another cheque for £50. Subsequently witness again visited Melbourne, leaving plaintiff in charge of affairs in Launceston. During his absence he sent plaintiff £37, and on July he received a telegram (produced), asking for a further £10. This he sent, and returned to Launceston. He found that over £100 worth of stock was missing from his tobacconist shop, and plaintiff begged him not to report it to the police.
Mr Heritage: Krygger says he left off living with you because you were angry concerning him accepting the religious beliefs of the Salvation Army.
Witness: That is not so. I have the greatest admiration for the Salvation Army, and made no protest whatever.
His Honor: What religion was Krygger?
Witness: Anglican as far as I know, but his religious beliefs did not concern me.
His Honor remarked that plaintiff’s explanation seemed a weak one as a reason for leaving off living with Father Graham. The Salvation Army, he understood, did not concern itself about denomination.
Mr Hall cross-examined witness concerning the amount of money alleged to have been paid to plaintiff. “You had,” he asked, “an Overland car on the hire-purchase system from Heathorns.”
Witness: Yes.
Is this your handwriting (letter produced) in reply to Krygger informing you that Heathorn’s intended to take repossession of the car? Yes.
Counsel then read a passage from the letter as follows: “We must save the car, and if necessary will ship it to Victoria rather than let the dirty crew get it,” and asked, “Who did you mean by dirty crew”.
Witness: Heathorn’s, for the way plaintiff represented them to me, but when I came back I found that my impression of them was wrong, and was only due to the way plaintiff misled me.
Mr Hall: Do you think it proper for a man of your cloth to refer to anyone as a dirty crew?—Yes, under the circumstances.
How much money did you owe Kerslake at the time?
Witness replied that he owed Kerslake £250 and said that he had contracted to buy further property valued at £2,500.
In reply to a further question, witness remarked that the reason cheques of his were dishonoured was because plaintiff collected the money and failed to pay it into witness’s banking account. The reason why action was taken against witness by local firms for the recovery of money was that plaintiff had spread the rumour while witness was in Melbourne, that he had cleared out. Plaintiff ran up a petrol account amounting to £70 in witness’s name during the three months he was absent from the State.
This closed the case for defendant, and plaintiff [Walter Krygger] was placed in the witness box for re-examination.
Mr Heritage: The tobacco and stuff stolen from defendant’s shop while he was in Melbourne—what did it amount to?
Witness: About £30.
At the request of his Honor plaintiff’s bank passbooks were then produced, and disclosed that an account had been opened at the National Bank three days after Father Graham went to Melbourne, on June 14, and that on August 22 the account was in credit to the extent of £67. The other book, a Commonwealth Savings Bank book, showed that when he entered defendant’s employ on May 14, plaintiff had £4 1s in that account, and that on August 6 the account had increased to the extent of £82.
His Honor: You got that £139 from somewhere. You say you received no wages. Where did it come from?
Witness gave an unsatisfactory reply, which drew from His Honor the remark: “No wonder Graham’s cheques were dishonoured when you were collecting his money and paying it into your own accounts.”
In delivering judgment, His Honor said that plaintiff claimed £208 10s made up as follows: 17 weeks’ wages at £8 10s per week, four weeks’ wages in lieu of notice, and money loaned £30. “I may say,” continued His Honor, “that I have as closely as possible applied the rules of onus of proof, assuming that I believe that neither witness is more reliable than the other, and even applying that rule, I have come to a certain conclusion. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that as far as plaintiff is concerned, after hearing the manner in which he gave his evidence, and looking at the whole structure of his case, he is a man not worthy of believing.”
His Honor ruled against plaintiff respecting the alleged wrongful dismissal and money loaned. “Plaintiff,” he said, “was not discharged, but made up his mind, as he put it himself, to break with Father Graham because he could no longer see his way clear to live with him on account of the vast amount of Christian principle which he tells me he has lately imbued.” He gave a verdict for plaintiff for £16 10s, remarking that the result was generally Father Graham’s fault for having conducted business on such loose lines.
His Honor refused plaintiff any costs because of what he considered to be his discreditable conduct in this case.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Examiner, Wed 12 Dec 1923 12
SALVATION ARMY FUNCTION
———•———
On Monday evening the annual celebration of the Life Saving Scouts took place in the Salvation Army Hall in Elizabeth-street. On this occasion it took the form of a Christmas dinner tendered to the scouts by their leader, Mr W Krygger, the officers and local officers of the corps being present by invitation, beginning at 7.15 pm, with a sit down dinner. The opening prayer was led by the young people’s sergeant major, Mrs A Buller, followed by grace being sung. The first toast on the programme, that of the “King,” proposed by the scout leader, was honoured, followed by the National Anthem. The next toast, that of the “Visitors,” proposed by Patrol Leaders A Fell, S Russell, W George, and supported by the scout leader, was then honoured. This was acknowledged by the bandmaster, Mr E Cullen, who also proposed the toast of “The Scouts,” this being acknowledged by the scout leader, on behalf of the scouts. In acknowledging the toast the leader spoke of the work of the past year, comparing the increase in discipline, efficiency, and the increase in numbers. The scouts have made great progress, the old members being retained, and quite a number of new ones joining. The club had been fortunate in securing basket ball and fixtures, also parallel bars and horizontal bars. The next toast, rather in the nature of a sad one to army people, was then honoured. The officers of the corps, Commandant and Mrs Woods, are leaving this city, and next Sunday week will be conducting their farewell services. It was thought a very appropriate occasion in which to bid them good-bye and God-speed. This toast, proposed by the band sergeant, Mr A Buller, who very feelingly referred to the great work performed by the officers, of their great fight during their two years’ stay in Launceston, of difficulties met and conquered, of how they, being so deeply spiritual, had endeared themselves to the people of the corps, as no other officers had ever done before them. What was our great loss would be someone else’s gain. Of how when duty called they were always there. He wished them God-speed and good-bye. This toast was supported by the sergeant-major of the corps, Mr D Cullen, sen, also by Captain Davies, of the Maternity Home, the secretary of the corp [sic], Mr L Parsons, and the scout leader, Mr W Krygger. “God Be With You Till We Meet Again” was very feelingly sung, and Commandant Woods made an acknowledgement. He was sorry to go, but where God led he must follow. He had tried to do his duty, and if he had been a help to anyone he was more than satisfied. A presentation of a silver shaving set was than made by Commandant Woods, on behalf of the scouts, to their scout leader, Mr W Krygger, and the leader in acknowledging it said he was out to help them spiritually and physically and morally. He was their friend, and if he could see those boys grow up to be good and useful citizens, with the love of God in their hearts, he would be more than amply repaid. The dinner then closed with prayer, and a demonstration was held in the big hall. Later on a sit down supper was partaken of, and parcels of cake and food distributed by the scout leader between the boys. The whole function was a great success, the boys having a rare treat. It was of a private nature, only the scouts and the officers of the corps, including the local officers, being present by invitation of the scout leader.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Examiner, Wed 19 Dec 1923 13
THE SALVATION ARMY
———•———
SUNDAY SCHOOL FESTIVAL.
———
On Sunday the Salvation Army Sunday School held its annual festival in hall, Elizabeth-street, the service for the day being led by Brigadier Garbutt, the divisional commander. At the morning service Mrs Garbutt addressed the children in a delightful and interesting way, and she was attentively listened to. The brigadier spoke on the life of Samson in the morning meeting, and gave very helpful addresses at the afternoon and evening meetings. He is a forceful speaker, carrying deep conviction, and he was given a splendid hearing. The feature of the day was the singing of the children, which was probably better than ever before. The children rendered a service of song, which was greatly appreciated. The brigadier was a great help, and encouraged the children greatly in their singing by giving short addresses to allow of the children having the day’s services as their own. The children and orchestra were under the conductorship of Mr Krygger, and the splendid response and attention given the conductor spoke volumes for the way in which they had been trained. In the afternoon and evening services the primary children gave separate items. A trio, “The Guiding Light,” was given by Captains Stowe and Davies and Mrs Buller. The young people’s sergeant-major, Master Horace Crawford, sang “The Honour of His Name,” and Miss Winnie Woods “Love, Heavenly Love.” These items were with full orchestral accompaniments. The hall in the evening was packed to the doors. The collection for the day, a record, went to the young people’s work. The decorations, a beautiful effect in white and pink, were carried out by Mr W Krygger, with Captain Stowe, Mesdames Buller, Cullen, and Kelb, also Scouts Fell, Kelb, Ramsdale, and Hall assisting.
On Monday evening a first-class programme was given to a full hall. Brigadier Garbutt thanked all who helped to make the festival such a success, and said it would be repeated on Sunday week, December 30. The brigadier is shortly leaving Tasmania, being transferred to Victoria. Commandant Wood, who will be conducting his last service in Tasmania on Sunday evening here, also spoke a few words. Mrs Buller, Mrs Gilbert, and Mrs Cassidy also addressed the children. The conductor took the opportunity to thank all who had stood so firmly by him helping to make everything so beautiful and successful. On concluding the children cheered him. A flashlight photo was taken and the children received their presents.
Douglas Krygger, 1925
The Mercury, Thu 25 Jun 1925 14
ABSCONDING AGENT
WARRANT FOR ARREST.
Walter Douglas Krygger was to have appeared at the City Police Court yesterday morning on a charge of misappropriating as an agent £6 17s, moneys of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Hobart, but when the Court assembled Chief Detective Inspector Oakes announced that he was not present, and applied for a warrant for the arrest of Krygger. He said that the total amount of defalcations was £30. Krygger was previously summoned to appear on June 17, but on that date his solicitor appeared for him and presented a certificate to the effect that he was in hospital, where it was supposed that his appearance denoted that he might be suffering from pneumonia. The case was accordingly stood over until that day, and as there were no signs of him he (Mr Oakes) had made inquiries, with the result that he had ascertained that Krygger left the hospital about June 20, and had since stowed away on a vessel for Sydney. He was, however, well known to the detectives on the mainland.
The application was granted.
Douglas Krygger, 1925
The Brisbane Courier, Tue 13 Oct 1925 15
ALLEGED THEFT.
Walter Douglas Krygger (30, draper) was remanded for a week by Mr HL Archdall, CPM, in the Police Court yesterday, on a charge of having, on October 2, stolen 5/, the property of Arthur Clarke, as Commandant of the Salvation Army.
Mr T McLaughlin pleaded not guilty for the defendant.
Sub-inspector Head said that there were other charges of the same nature pending against the defendant.
Krygger was allowed bail, self in £20, and in one surety of £20.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Brisbane Courier, Tue 20 Oct 1925 16
SALVATION ARMY VICTIMISED.
“I have already been in gaol for ten days, and in my own opinion I have been sufficiently punished,” Walter Douglas Krygger, on remand, told Mr HL Archdall, CPM, in the Police Court yesterday. The CPM, however, thought differently, and sentenced Krygger to two months’ imprisonment, with hard labour.
He pleaded guilty to having stolen, between August 21 and October 10, £3 13s 6d, the property of General Bramwell Booth.
Sub-inspector Head said that the defendant came from Sydney with a recommendation to the Salvation Army from a Sydney officer. He told a hard-luck tale, and was given a position as canvasser for the Army Self-Denial Fund on a commission of 20 per cent. He failed to account for three sums, which totalled the amount mentioned in the charge. When questioned by detectives he admitted having stolen the money.
“The Salvation Army was willing to assist you, and trusted you,” said the CPM to the defendant, “and then you robbed them. The Salvation Army does not deserve such treatment as you adopted.”
Douglas Krygger, 1927
Tweed Daily, Sat 13 Aug 1927 17
TRAVELLER COMMITTED.
———◦———
INDECENT ASSAULT ON BOYS.
————
At Tweed Heads Police Court yesterday, before Mr WC Geikie, PM, Douglass Krygger, commercial traveller, on remand from Tenterfield, appeared to answer two charges of indecent assault on two lads at Tweed Heads on July 13 last. After hearing evidence, the PM decided that prima facie cases had been made out.
Accused, who reserved his defence, was committed, on each charge, to stand his trial at the Quarter Sessions, to be held at Lismore, on Monday, September 5. Mr CW Skinner appeared for accused.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Daily Examiner, Mon 15 Aug 1927 18
LOCAL AND GENERAL
———◦———
…
TRAVELLER COMMITTED.
At Tweed Heads Police Court on Friday, before Mr WC Geikie, PM, Douglas Krygger, commercial traveller, on remand from Tenterfield, appeared to answer two charges of assault on two lads at Tweed Heads on July 13 last. After hearing evidence, the PM decided that prima facie had been made out. Accused, who reserved his defence, was committed, on each charge, to stand his trial at the Quarter Sessions, to be held at Lismore, on Monday, September 5.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Tweed Daily, Thu 18 Aug 1927 19
POLICE COURT.
———◦———
(Before Mr WC Geikie, PM)
At Murwillumbah Police Court on August 15, Douglas Krygger, described as a commercial traveller, was charged with having committed an unmentionable offence against a male person, on Condong Road, on a recent date. After hearing the police and other evidence, accused was committed for trial to the Lismore Quarter Sessions on September 5 next. Bail in £100 or two securities of £50 each was allowed.
On a second charge of indecent assault, also against a male person, at Murwillumbah, Krygger was also committed for trial, with similar bail.
Pending his trial or the finding of bail, accused was remanded to Grafton gaol.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Brisbane Courier, Tue 6 Sep 1927 20
SERIOUS CHARGE.
———◦———
FIVE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.
———
Lismore, September 5.
Before his Honour Mr Justice Mocatta, at the Quarter sessions to-day, Walter Douglas Krygger (31), described as a commercial traveller, representing a Brisbane firm, pleaded not guilty to a serious charge, at Tweed Heads. He was convicted, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Daily Examiner, Tue 6 Sep 1927 21
FIVE YEARS GAOL
———◦———
FOR ASSAULT ON YOUTH
————
Case at Lismore Sessions.
————
Lismore, Monday.
Reproduction: Peter de Waal
At the Quarter Sessions to-day before Judge Mocatta, Walter Douglas Krygger, 31, described as a commercial traveller, representing a Brisbane firm of stationers, was charged with indecently assaulting a 15 year old boy ay Tweed Heads on July last. He was also charged with assault with intent.
Defendant was found guilty on both counts.
In sentencing him to five years’ hard labor on exch count, sentence to be concurrent. The Judge said defendant had pursued a system of revolting beastliness, and no defence was more deserving of punishment. He had corrupted, demoralised and debased respectable boys who, had he been a man, he would have encouraged in the path of virtue.
Four other cases of a similar nature against the defendant were not proceeded with.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Northern Star, Tue 6 Sep 1927 22
QUARTER SESSIONS.
LISMORE SITTINGS
The Quarter Sessions opened at Lismore yesterday before his Honor Judge Mocatta. Mr RJ Browning acted as Crown Prosecutor.
Dr R Kellas, Deputy Sheriff, occupied a seat on the bench.
…
A Serious Charge
Walter Krygger was charged on two counts with committing a serious offence at Tweed Heads on July 15. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was unrepresented.
Defendant complained that he had made application for assistance under the Poor Prisoners’ Defence Act , and had received no reply. He also required a copy of the evidence taken at the Police Court in order to conduct his defence.
The Crown Prosecutor stated that the solicitor who conducted defendant’s case at Tweed Heads was supplied with a copy of the deposition. However, the defendant could peruse his (the Crown Prosecutor’s) copy.
The following jury was empanelled:—Messrs JB Burley, G Brown, GE Thoroughgood, WW Seccombe, GH Myers, T Mortimer, EEP Fryer, GHC Watson, GR Stratford, A Myers, Alex McLean, RC Gibson.
The principal Crown witnesses were four boys whose ages ranged from 13 to 16 years.
Defendant, [Douglas Krygger] who stated he had been a commercial traveller on the northern rivers for the past two years, denied the charge, and said that on the day of the alleged offence he was not at Tweed Heads. He never left Murwillumbah.
To the Crown Prosecutor: He was at a party at a minister’s place at Murwillumbah on the night of July 15. The minister’s wife and other ladies were at the party, but he did not bring them as witnesses. His proper name was Walter Douglas Krygger. He was christened Walter James, but he never used “James.” At the time of his arrest he was travelling for Watson, Ferguson and Co, of Brisbane, and prior to that was with Morgan’s, Ltd.
The Crown Prosecutor: Were you in Sydney in September, 1925? – I may have been. I don’t know.
Were you in trouble there? – That has nothing to do with this case.
In September, 1925, you were convicted in Sydney of having goods in your possession supposed to be stolen? – Yes, a book and a packet of cigarettes.
Were you in Brisbane in October, 1925? – I don’t remember. Possibly I was.
What were you doing in Brisbane? – I can’t recollect.
Wat [sic] occupation have you been following? – Salesman and commercial traveller.
Were you at Brisbane Police Court on October 19, 1925, sentenced to two months’ hard labour for stealing? – I don’t remember, but I was sentenced.
WJ Trevan and Thomas Martin, of Murwillumbah, gave evidence as to seeing defendant in Murwillumbah on the afternoon on which the offence was alleged to have been committed.
The jury, after a retirement of five minutes, returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.
Sergeant Aspery produced records showing that in Sydney in October, 1925, defendant was sentenced to one month for having goods in his possession supposed to have been stolen, and fined ₤3 for hawking without a licence. At Brisbane the following month he was sentenced to two months’ hard labour for stealing.
Defendant was then arraigned on four separate charges of a similar nature, [indecent assault on William Hourigan , indecent assault on Rupert Kafon , (aka Rupert Kafoa), indecent assault on Lawrence Lindley Carter, and indecent assault on George Toy], and to each of these he pleaded not guilty.
His Honor said he could not conceive anything more horrible and disgusting. No offence was more deserving of punishment than that of which defendant had been convicted. The sentence would be five years’ hard labour on each count, sentences to be concurrent.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 6 Sep 1927 23
COUNTRY NEWS.
———◦———
…
SENTENCED FOR INDECENT ASSAULT.
Lismore, Monday.
Before Judge Mocatta, at the Quarter Sessions to-day, Walter Douglas Krygger, (31), described as a commercial traveller, representing a Brisbane firm, pleaded not guilty to a charge of indecently assaulting a 16 year old boy at Tweed Heads. He was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Douglas Krygger, Gaol photo sheet 24
![SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5991], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1875-1930, No. 2026, p. 258, R5132.](../../images/trials/1922-Krygger-5991-gaol-photo-2026.jpg "SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5991], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1875-1930, No. 2026, p. 258, R5132.") |
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
No. 2026
Maitland
Date when Portrait was taken: 23 Sep 1927
Name: Douglas Krygger
|
Native place: Ballarat Year of birth: 22-3-1897 Arrived Ship: Trade or occupation Religion: Presbyterian Education, degree of: R & W Height: 5' 7¼" Weight On committal: 161 Colour of hair: Brown Colour of eyes: Brown |
Marks or special features: |
|
(No. of previous Portrait ... ) CONVICTIONS |
|||||
|
Where and When |
Offence. |
Sentence |
|||
|
Central PC Brisbane PS Lismore Q.S |
6 19 5 |
9 10 9 |
1925 1925 1927 |
Have supposed stolen property Stealing Assault with intent to commit buggery |
1 month H.L. Sentence Suspended 2 months H.L. 5 years H.L. |
Donald Douglas 1938
The Cessnock Eagle and South Maitland Recorder, Tue 18 Oct 1938 25
INSULTING WORDS TO YOUNG BOY
————
MUSICIAN FINED AND BOUND OVER
————
REMARKABLE CASE AT CESSNOCK COURT.
————
At Cessnock Court yesterday Donald Douglas, 46, alias Douglas Krygger, of Northcote-street, Kurri Kurri, was proceeded against on a charge of offensive behaviour. The charge arose out of a remark which was alleged to have been made by the defendant to a young boy. It was contended by the prosecution that the remark complained of constituted an overture of an improper nature.
Sergeant Booth said that at about 1 pm on July 28 he and Constable Roach saw the defendant in Main-street, Cessnock, and Constable Roach told defendant that a boy had complained to the police that he (Douglas) had made a suggestion to him in the street that morning. Witness said that the boy was then over at the police station, and he asked Douglas if he had any objection to going over to the station to see what the lad’s complaint was. Douglas replied, “No. Will you let me run in to the hotel for a minute?” Witness said, “We will go over to the station. You can follow after.” On arriving at the station, where two boys were waiting, witness said to one boy, “What is the trouble son?” The boy was crying. The boy said, “I was down Vincent-street a while ago and this man was sitting in his car. He called out to me and called me over, and asked me if I knew where a certain person lived.” The boy replied, “Yes, I think he lives at Abermain.” Defendant, the boy alleged, then said to him, “How would you like to earn two shillings?” The boy said that thinking defendant wanted him to go a message, he indicated to defendant that he would like to earn the money. Defendant asked the boy to jump into his car and at the same time made a certain remark, the nature of which, the boy said, caused him to become frightened and run away to his mate. Douglas said, “I have never seen these boys in my life before, and they have not spoken to me.” The elder boy then said to defendant, “I do not know what you said to my mate, but you’re the man; you were wearing that red tie and you were carrying a pair of black gloves in your pocket, the same as you have got now. Defendant said, “You are mistaken, my boy.”
The younger boy then said, “Yes, sergeant, and he has got some papers in his pocket and one of the papers has a name written across it, because I saw it.” Defendant said, “I will turn my pocket out and you can see.” Douglas then turned some papers out of his pocket and put then on the counter. Witness examined them and did not find the name referred to on any of them.
“These are the Papers!”
Just then, Sergeant Booth went on, Constable Roach came in with a handful of papers, and said, “This man went over and left these in the hotel after he left us in Main-street, and came to the office.” The younger boy said, “These are the papers, Sergeant, and that one there (pointing) has the name of ‘——‘ written on it.” Witness examined the paper and found that it was so. Defendant took the paper in question away with him.
Witness said to defendant, “You hear what the boy says; you say you never spoke to him before. Can you explain to me how he could tell me that you had that piece of paper in you pocket?” Defendant made no reply. Witness said to defendant, “It seems to me that this boy’s statement is perfectly true and unfortunately it carries us no further than an inference of a certain nature.” Witness said to Douglas, “Why did you leave those papers in the hotel?” Douglas replied, “There was some papers that I wanted to leave there. I did not want to forget them as my car was standing in front.”
Constable Roach said that following a complaint made to him on July 28 he saw Douglas and had a conversation with him. He said to him, “are you the driver of this car parked here?” Defendant replied “Yes.” Witness said, “Two boys have complained to me that the man who was driving this car made a rude suggestion to him whilst he was parked in Vincent-street near the Regent Theatre.” Defendant replied, “I did not speak to the boys. What was I supposed to have said?” Witness said, “One of the boys states that the man who was driving or was seated in this car asked him if he would like to make a couple of shillings.” He also repeated to Douglas the offensive remark which the boy alleged defendant had made to him. Douglas sais, “It was not me; I would not do a thing like that.” Witness took defendant across the street to the boy, and the boy said, “That is the man that was seated in the car and spoke to me.”
A thirteen-year-old boy gave evidence that while he and another boy were “doubling” along Vincent-street on a bicycle, near the Regent Theatre, a man standing near a car beckoned to them. They jumped off the bike and went back. The boy identified the defendant in court as the man who spoke to him. Douglas, he said, asked him his name, and where he came from. The boy then detailed to the court the conversation out of which the charge of offensive behaviour arose. The boy stated that before making the suggestive remark complained of Douglas asked him to go for a drive. He said to defendant, “What about my mate; can he come too.” Defendant replied, “Someone might pinch his bicycle” He told Douglas that he would not leave his mate. The boy said he became frightened and called his mate over. He then told defendant that they had to hurry away to some sports. They then left Douglas. They saw a policeman in the street and told him something. The suggestion put to him upset him.
To Mr Nelson: He did not know that Douglas was a musician and he did not know that he sang under the name of Krygger.
Evidence was also given by another boy, aged 15, who identified defendants as the man who had spoken to his mate in Vincent-street. When his mate told him what Douglas had said to him, he (witness) said, “We’d better tell the police.” Witness had seen defendant at eisteddfods.
Mr Nelson contended that there was no case to answer. He submitted that there was really nothing in what the defendant said to the boy that constituted an improper overture.
The PM (Mr CG Carr-Boyd) said that it was questionable whether the alleged offence could be legally covered by a charge of offensive behaviour. He thought that a charge of insulting words would be a more fitting indictment. He said he would adjourn the case until the afternoon in order to give the matter consideration.
When the hearing was resumed after lunch, the PM indicated that he was of the opinion that the charge should be altered to one of insulting words.
Sergeant Jeffrey said that the circumstances of the case were such that he thought a charge of offensive behaviour was an appropriate charge, but he said that if the PM maintained that the charge should be altered the police would not oppose it.
The charge was then altered to one of insulting words, and Douglas, who had pleaded not guilty to the original charge, altered his plea to one of guilty.
When the magistrate asked if anything was known previously against the defendant, Sergeant Jeffrey stated that in 1927, at the Lismore Quarter Sessions, he was convicted of a charge of indecent assault of a male person and also on a charge of assault with intent to commit a serious offence. He received a sentence of five years on each charge, the sentences being made concurrent.
Remarking that in his opinion the words used to the boy amounted to an overture of very marked significance, the PM fined defendant £5, plus 16/- costs, in default 12 days.
Defendant was also bound over in the sum of £40 to be of good behaviour for 12 months.
The magistrate refused an application by defendant for time to pay the fine.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Maitland Daily Mercury, Tue 18 Oct 1938 26
PLEADED GUILTY
———◦———
INSULTING WORDS
CHARGE
————
FINE OF £5
Donald Douglas, 46, alias Douglas Krygger, of Northcote-street, Kurri Kurri, was proceeded against on charge of offensive behaviour before Mr CG Carr-Boyd, PM, at Cessnock Police Court. The charge arose from a remark made by the defendant to a young boy which, the prosecution contended, constituted an overture of an improper nature.
Douglas denied that he had made the remark complained of.
After hearing the evidence the PM said that it was questionable whether the alleged offence could be legally covered by a charge of offensive behaviour. He thought that a charge of insulting words would be a more fitting indictment.
Sergeant Jeffrey thought that the charge of offensive behaviour was appropriate, but the police could not oppose the PM altering the charge.
The charge was then altered to one of insulting words and Douglas pleaded guilty.
In answer to the PM, who asked if the defendant had had any previous convictions, Sergeant Jeffrey stated that, in 1927, at Lismore Quarter Sessions, Douglas was convicted on two charges, one of indecent assault on a male person and another of a similar type. A sentence of five years was imposed in each case, the sentences being made concurrent.
The PM said that his opinion was that the words used to the boy amounted to an overture of marked significance. He fined Douglas £5, with 16/- costs, in default of 12 days’ imprisonment, and ordered him to enter into a bond of £40 to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.
1 The Argus, Sat 20 May 1922, p. 20.
2 There are several references to Walter Krygger and other Krygger family members in: Falling In: Australians and ‘Boy Conscription’ 1911-1915, by John Barrett, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney 1979. There is also a High Court of Australia case, namely, Krygger v. Williams [1912] HCA 65; (1912) 15 CLR 366 (15 October 1912). Also there are articles, regarding the conscription issue, in Truth, (Mel, Vic), Sat 23 May 1914, p. 6, and Truth, (Mel, Vic), Sat 13 Jun 1914, p. 3.
3 The Argus, Thu 10 Aug 1922, p. 5.
4 The Argus, Thu 21 Sep 1922, p. 14.
5 Examiner, Tue 21 Aug 1923, p. 5. Emphasis added.
6 The Mercury, Tue 21 Aug 1923, p. 8. Emphasis added.
7 The Mercury, Sat 8 Sep 1923, p. 13.
8 Examiner, Fri 14 Sep 1923, p. 4. Emphasis added.
9 The Mercury, Fri 14 Sep 1923, p. 10. Emphasis added.
10 Examiner, Sat 15 Sep 1923, p. 15. Emphasis added.
11 The Mercury, Sat 15 Sep 1923, p. 15. Emphasis added.
12 Examiner, Wed 12 Dec 1923, p. 7. Emphasis added.
13 Examiner, Wed 19 Dec 1923, p. 8. Emphasis added.
14 The Mercury, Thu 25 Jun 1925, p. 3.
15 The Brisbane Courier, Tue 13 Oct 1925, p. 16.
16 The Brisbane Courier, Tue 20 Oct 1925, p. 12.
17 Tweed Daily, (Murwillumbah, NSW), Sat 13 Aug 1927, p. 4.
18 Daily Examiner, (Grafton, NSW), Mon 15 Aug 1927, p. 4.
19 Tweed Daily, (Murwillumbah, NSW), Thu 18 Aug 1927, p. 2.
20 The Brisbane Courier, Tue 6 Sep 1927, p. 9.
21 Daily Examiner, (Grafton, NSW), Tue 6 Sep 1927, p. 5.
22 Northern Star (Lismore, NSW), Tue 6 Sep 1927, p. 4. Emphasis added.
23 The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 6 Sep1927, p. 12.
24 SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5991], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1875-1930, No. 2026, p. 258, R5132.
25 The Cessnock Eagle and South Maitland Recorder, (NSW), Tue 18 Oct 1938, p. 5. Emphasis in original and added.
26 The Maitland Daily Mercury, Tue 18 Oct 1938, p. 7.