Edward Tweddell

M, #4531, b. Jun 1847, d. 7 Jul 1929
Father*Edward Tweddell b. 15 Oct 1813, d. 19 Jun 1889
Mother*Ann Ellidge b. 1820, d. 13 Feb 1895
Birth*Jun 1847 Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northumberland, England, Jun Q [Newcastle T] 25 365.1 
(Migrant) Migration/TravelDec 1867 Sailing with Annie Plumtree Tweddell Elizabeth Ellidge Tweddell to Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Ship True Briton
Age 20.2 
Marriage*8 Apr 1873 Spouse: Louisa Gardiner. Wesleyan Church, South Yarra, VIC, Australia, #M1517.3
 
Marriage-Notice*22 Apr 1873TWEDDELL—GARDINER.—On the 8th inst., at the Wesleyan Church, South Yarra, Melbourne, Edward, eldest son of Mr E Tweddell, of this city, formerly of Newcastle on Tyne, to Louisa, eldest daughter of Florence Gardiner, Esq., of St Kilda.4 
Note*1887 "Croft Head" is situated at no. 13 Poath Road, Murrumbeena, and was built in 1887 for the accountant Edward Tweddell. It is historically and aesthetically significant.
It is historically significant (Criterion A) as a substantial and now rare (Criterion B) surviving late Victorian villa residence east of Booran Road within the Municipality and demonstrating the attraction of Melbourne's rural fringe as a residential location rendered accessible by the opening of the railway between South Yarra and Oakleigh in 1879.5 
Widower15 May 1925Edward Tweddell became a widower upon the death of his wife Louisa Gardiner.6 
Death*7 Jul 1929 Malvern, VIC, Australia, #D10468 (Age 82.)6 
Death-Notice*8 Jul 1929TWEDDELL. -On the 7th July at private hospital, Edward Tweddell, of 13 Paget street, Hughesdale, husband of the late Louisa and loved father of Edward (deceased), Marshall, Florence (Mrs. de Bibra), Margaret, Audrey (deceased) and Phyllis, aged 82 years.7 

Grave

  • St Kilda Cemetery, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, WESLEYAN, MONUMENTAL, COMPARTMENT A GRAVE 78, 78A, 798

Citations

  1. [S9] Free BMD. Index. Online @ https://www.freebmd.org.uk/.
  2. [S36] Inward & outward passenger lists to and from Victoria. Series: VPRS 14; 7666; 7667; 7786); PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), 271 006.
  3. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  4. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 22 Apr 1873, p4.
  5. [S50] Miscellaneous Source, vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/places/result_detail/35389.
  6. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
  7. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 8 Jul 1929, p1.
  8. [S48] Index of burials in the cemetery of St Kilda,.
Last Edited13 Apr 2016

Louisa Gardiner

F, #4532, b. 26 May 1848, d. 15 May 1925
Married NameTweddell.1 
Birth*26 May 1848 Auckland, New Zealand.1 
Marriage*8 Apr 1873 Spouse: Edward Tweddell. Wesleyan Church, South Yarra, VIC, Australia, #M1517.1
 
Marriage-Notice*22 Apr 1873TWEDDELL—GARDINER.—On the 8th inst., at the Wesleyan Church, South Yarra, Melbourne, Edward, eldest son of Mr E Tweddell, of this city, formerly of Newcastle on Tyne, to Louisa, eldest daughter of Florence Gardiner, Esq., of St Kilda.2 
Death*15 May 1925 Murrumbeena, VIC, Australia, #D6712 (Age 76) [par Florence GARDINER & Ann RAWALEYS].3 
Death-Notice*16 May 1925TWEDDELL. -On the 15th May, at her residence, The Croft Head, Poath road, Murrumbeena, Louisa, eldest daughter of the late Florence and Ann Gardiner, of St. Kilda, dearly loved wife of Edward Tweddell, and mother of Edward (deceased), Marshall, Florence (Mrs. C. B. de Bibra), Margaret, Audrey, and Phyllis. (Born at Auckland, New Zealand, May 26, 1848.)
TWEDDELL. - The Friends of the late Mrs LOUISA TWEDDELL are informed that her remains will be interred in the St Kilda Cemetery. THIS AFTERNOON leaving her late residence, Croft Head, Poath road Murrumbeena, at 2 o'clock.
J RAYBOULD, Undertaker.4 

Grave

  • St Kilda Cemetery, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, WESLEYAN, MONUMENTAL, COMPARTMENT A GRAVE 78, 78A, 795

Citations

  1. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  2. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 22 Apr 1873, p4.
  3. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
  4. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 16 May 1925, p36.
  5. [S48] Index of burials in the cemetery of St Kilda,.
Last Edited6 Apr 2016

Richard Ellidge Tweddell

M, #4539, b. Jun 1861, d. 2 Jan 1953
Father*Edward Tweddell b. 15 Oct 1813, d. 19 Jun 1889
Mother*Ann Ellidge b. 1820, d. 13 Feb 1895
Birth*Jun 1861 Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northumberland, England, Jun Q [ Newcastle upon Tyne] 10b 51.1 
(Migrant) Migration/TravelSep 1865 Sailing with Edward Tweddell Ann Tweddell to Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Ship Great Britain
Age 3 (as John.)2 
Marriage*10 Mar 1891 Spouse: Agnes Harriet Daniel. Wesleyan Church, New street, Brighton, VIC, Australia, #M554.3
 
Marriage-Notice*13 Apr 1891TWEDDELL-DANIEL.-On the 10th ult, at the Wesleyan Church, New street Brighton, by the Rev O Daniel, father of the bride assisted by the Revs D J Flockart and C H Ingamells, Richard Ellidge, younger son of the late Edward Tweddell of St Kilda to Agnes Harriet, elder daughter of the Rev George Daniel of Brighton. No cards.4 
Widower9 Feb 1892Richard Ellidge Tweddell became a widower upon the death of his wife Agnes Harriet Daniel.3 
Marriage*6 Oct 1896 Spouse: Annie Sivewright. Wesleyan Church, Dromana, VIC, Australia, #M6226.3
 
Marriage-Notice28 Nov 1896TWEDDELL — SIVEWRIGHT. —On the 6th October, at the Wesleyan Church, Dromana, by Rev. T. Kane, Richard Ellidge Tweddell, of St. Kilda, to Annie, only daughter of William Sivewright, of Dromana. No cards.5 
Widower27 Nov 1907Richard Ellidge Tweddell became a widower upon the death of his wife Annie Sivewright.6 
Marriage*1 Mar 1916 Spouse: Martha Lormer. "Alameth", Marlton Crescent, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, #M2891.7
 
Marriage-Notice*6 May 1916TWEDDELL-LORMER.- On the 1st March, at "Alameth," Marlton crescent, St Kilda, by Rev F J Nance, M.A., Richard Ellidge Tweddell, of St Kilda, to Martha, fifth daughter of Mrs Lormer and the late W J Lormer of Hawthorn. At home afternoon 11th, and afternoon and evening 18th May, Wallis road Caulfield.8 
Death*2 Jan 1953 East Malvern, VIC, Australia, #D283 (age 91.)9 
Death-Notice*6 Jan 1953TWEDDELL, Richard Ellidge. -On January 2, at a private hospital, beloved husband of Martha Tweddell, Jesmond Dane, 25 Wanda road, Caulfield, loved father of Edward, Colin, and Alan, aged 91 years. (Privately cremated ).10 

Newspaper-Articles

  • 10 Mar 1936, FIREMEN SEARCH FOR FIRE - City Office Damaged - Top Floor of Building
    Owing to the meagre information contained in a report received by the fire brigade last night that a fire had occurred in the city, valuable time was lost before firemen found the outbreak on the top floor of Broken Hill Chambers, at the corner of Queen street and Flinders lane. The fire began in a corner of an office occupied by Mr R E Tweddell, accountant and estate agent, and the flames spread through the ceiling to the roof before the alarm was given. Unable to find the outbreak when they searched the streets, the firemen were passing Broken Hill Chambers on a final inspection of the buildings in Flinders lane when a man in formed Second-officer Kemp that he had given the alarm.
    Spreading quickly up the wall of Mr Tweddle's office, the flames burst through the celiing and ignited a heap of inflammable rubbish which had been stored between the ceiling and the roof. The rafters were also alight. When the ceiling collapsed the burning rubbish fell into the office Mr A H Little, caretaker of Broken Hill Chambers, smashed the door of the office, and with a small hose kept the flames in check until the firemen arrived.11

Citations

  1. [S9] Free BMD. Index. Online @ https://www.freebmd.org.uk/.
  2. [S36] Inward & outward passenger lists to and from Victoria. Series: VPRS 14; 7666; 7667; 7786); PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), 250 011.
  3. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  4. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 13 Apr 1891, p1.
  5. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 28 Nov 1896, p1.
  6. [S3] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Edwardian Index Victoria 1902-1913 "father's name wrongly spelled as LIVEWRIGHT in index."
  7. [S4] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Great War Index Victoria 1914-1920.
  8. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 6 May 1916, p11.
  9. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
  10. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 6 Jan 1953, p10.
  11. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 10 Mar 1936, p9.
Last Edited7 May 2017

Agnes Harriet Daniel

F, #4540, b. 1857, d. 9 Feb 1892
Married NameTweddell.1 
Birth*1857 Melbourne, VIC, Australia.1 
Marriage*10 Mar 1891 Spouse: Richard Ellidge Tweddell. Wesleyan Church, New street, Brighton, VIC, Australia, #M554.1
 
Marriage-Notice13 Apr 1891TWEDDELL-DANIEL.-On the 10th ult, at the Wesleyan Church, New street Brighton, by the Rev O Daniel, father of the bride assisted by the Revs D J Flockart and C H Ingamells, Richard Ellidge, younger son of the late Edward Tweddell of St Kilda to Agnes Harriet, elder daughter of the Rev George Daniel of Brighton. No cards.2 
Death*9 Feb 1892 St Kilda, VIC, Australia, #D4226 (Age 35) [par George DANIEL & Cath BARGE].1 
Death-Notice*10 Feb 1892TWEDDELL.-On the 9th inst., at Waterloo-street, St. Kilda, Agnes, the dearly beloved wife of Richard Tweddell.
THE Friends of Mr. RICHARD ELLIDGE TWEDDELL are respectfully invited to follow the remains of his late dearly beloved wife to the Place of interment in the St. Kilda General Cemetery.
The funeral is appointed to move from his residence, Zurich, No. 18 Waterloo-street, THIS DAY (Wednesday, February 10), at 4 o'clock. W. R. CHURCHUS, Undertaker, 10 High-street, St. Kilda.3 

Grave

  • St Kilda Cemetery, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, WESLEYAN, MONUMENTAL, COMPARTMENT A GRAVE 78, 78A, 794

Citations

  1. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  2. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 13 Apr 1891, p1.
  3. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 10 Feb 1892, p1.
  4. [S48] Index of burials in the cemetery of St Kilda,.
Last Edited11 Apr 2016

Annie Sivewright

F, #4541, b. Sep 1873, d. 27 Nov 1907
Married NameTweddell.1 
Birth*Sep 1873 Manchester, Lancashire, England, Sep Q [Manchester] 8d 368.2 
Marriage*6 Oct 1896 Spouse: Richard Ellidge Tweddell. Wesleyan Church, Dromana, VIC, Australia, #M6226.1
 
Marriage-Notice*28 Nov 1896TWEDDELL — SIVEWRIGHT. —On the 6th October, at the Wesleyan Church, Dromana, by Rev. T. Kane, Richard Ellidge Tweddell, of St. Kilda, to Annie, only daughter of William Sivewright, of Dromana. No cards.3 
Death*27 Nov 1907 Balwyn, VIC, Australia, #D10992 (Age 34) [par William SIVEWRIGHT & Emily JONES].4 
Death-Notice*28 Nov 1907TWEDDELL.—On the 27th November, at Claremont crescent, Canterbury, of peritonitis, Annie, dearly loved wife of Richard Ellidge Tweddell, aged 34.
TWEDDELL.—The Friends of Mr. RICHARD E. TWEDDELL are respectfully invited to follow the remains of his late wife to the place of interment the St Kilda Cemetery.
The funeral is appointed to move from his residence Claremont crescent Canterbury, THIS DAY (Thursday, the 28th) at 3 o'clock, arriving at cemetery gates about 4.15.5 

Grave

  • St Kilda Cemetery, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, WESLEYAN, MONUMENTAL, COMPARTMENT A GRAVE 78, 78A, 796

Citations

  1. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  2. [S9] Free BMD. Index. Online @ https://www.freebmd.org.uk/.
  3. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 28 Nov 1896, p1.
  4. [S3] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Edwardian Index Victoria 1902-1913 "father's name wrongly spelled as LIVEWRIGHT in index."
  5. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 28 Nov 1907, p1.
  6. [S48] Index of burials in the cemetery of St Kilda,.
Last Edited7 May 2017

Annie Plumtree Tweddell

F, #4544, b. Jun 1855, d. 28 Mar 1939
Father*Edward Tweddell b. 15 Oct 1813, d. 19 Jun 1889
Mother*Ann Ellidge b. 1820, d. 13 Feb 1895
Married NameTaylor.1 
Birth*Jun 1855 Gateshead, Durham, England, Jun Q [Gateshead] 10a 515.2 
(Migrant) Migration/TravelDec 1867 Sailing with Edward Tweddell Elizabeth Ellidge Tweddell to Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Ship True Briton
Age 11.3 
Marriage*6 Dec 1899 Spouse: Robert Rintoul Taylor. Wesleyan Church, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, #M6629R.1
 
Marriage-Notice*13 Jan 1900TAYLOR--TWEDDELL. -On the 6th December, at the Wesleyan Church St Kilda by the Rev S J Hoban and the Rev J A Marsland, Robert Rintoul, younger son of the late Thomas Taylor, architect of this city, to Annie P., younger daughter of the Edward Tweddell, of "Graystone," Barkly-street, St Kilda.4 
Widow24 Mar 1919Annie Plumtree Tweddell became a widow upon the death of her husband Robert Rintoul Taylor.5 
Death*28 Mar 1939 Elsternwick, VIC, Australia, #D2622 (Age 84.)6 
Death-Notice*30 Mar 1939TAYLOR-On the 28th March at Elsternwick Annie P widow of the late Robert Rintoul Taylor of St Kilda and loved sister of Edward (deceased), Elizabeth (deceased), and Richard Tweddell. -At rest. (Privately interred.)7 

Newspaper-Articles

  • 4 Apr 1939, After the expiration of fourteen days from the publication hereof application will be made to the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria in its Probate jurisdiction that PROBATE of the WILL dated the ninth day of September 1933 of ANNIE PLUMTREE TAYLOR formerly of 30 Saint George's road Malvern, in the said State, but late of 88 Orrong road Elsternwick in the said State, widow, deceased, may be granted to Richard Ellidge Tweddell of 25 Wands road, Caulfield in the said State, accountant, the executor named in and appointed by the said will.
    Dated the third day of April 19398

Citations

  1. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  2. [S9] Free BMD. Index. Online @ https://www.freebmd.org.uk/.
  3. [S36] Inward & outward passenger lists to and from Victoria. Series: VPRS 14; 7666; 7667; 7786); PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), 271 006.
  4. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 13 Jan 1900, p9.
  5. [S4] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Great War Index Victoria 1914-1920.
  6. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
  7. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 30 Mar 1939, p10.
  8. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 4 Apr 1939, p12.
Last Edited6 Apr 2016

Robert Rintoul Taylor

M, #4545, b. 1854, d. 24 Mar 1919
Probate (Will)* Robert R Taylor. Gent. St Kilda. 24 Mar 1919. 173/741.1 
Birth*1854 Richmond, VIC, Australia, #B5664 [par Thomas TAYLOR & Henrietta Mary SAMPSON].2 
Marriage*6 Dec 1899 Spouse: Annie Plumtree Tweddell. Wesleyan Church, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, #M6629R.3
 
Marriage-Notice*13 Jan 1900TAYLOR--TWEDDELL. -On the 6th December, at the Wesleyan Church St Kilda by the Rev S J Hoban and the Rev J A Marsland, Robert Rintoul, younger son of the late Thomas Taylor, architect of this city, to Annie P., younger daughter of the Edward Tweddell, of "Graystone," Barkly-street, St Kilda.4 
Death*24 Mar 1919 Clifton Hill, VIC, Australia, #D1265 (Age 64) [par unknown].5 
Death-Notice*26 Mar 1919TAYLOR.—On the 24th March, Robert Rintoul, dearly loved husband of Annie P. Taylor, aged 64 years. (Interred privately.)
"Simply to thy cross I cling."
TAYLOR. —On the 24th March, 1919, Robert Rintoul Taylor, loved brother-in-law of Lizzie E Tweddell.6 

Citations

  1. [S35] Probate Records, PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), VPRS 28/P3, unit 1077; VPRS 7591/P2, unit 629.
  2. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  3. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  4. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 13 Jan 1900, p9.
  5. [S4] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Great War Index Victoria 1914-1920.
  6. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 26 Mar 1919, p1.
Last Edited11 Apr 2016

Martha Lormer

F, #4547, b. 1872, d. 1962
Married NameTweddell.1 
Birth*1872 
Marriage*1 Mar 1916 Spouse: Richard Ellidge Tweddell. "Alameth", Marlton Crescent, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, #M2891.1
 
Marriage-Notice*6 May 1916TWEDDELL-LORMER.- On the 1st March, at "Alameth," Marlton crescent, St Kilda, by Rev F J Nance, M.A., Richard Ellidge Tweddell, of St Kilda, to Martha, fifth daughter of Mrs Lormer and the late W J Lormer of Hawthorn. At home afternoon 11th, and afternoon and evening 18th May, Wallis road Caulfield.2 
Widow2 Jan 1953Martha Lormer became a widow upon the death of her husband Richard Ellidge Tweddell.3 
Death*1962 Camberwell, VIC, Australia, #D3218 (Age 90) [par William LORMER & Lucy Ann BLANCHARD].3 

Citations

  1. [S4] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Great War Index Victoria 1914-1920.
  2. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 6 May 1916, p11.
  3. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
Last Edited6 May 2017

Elizabeth Ellidge Tweddell

F, #4553, b. Dec 1852, d. 7 Aug 1937
Father*Edward Tweddell b. 15 Oct 1813, d. 19 Jun 1889
Mother*Ann Ellidge b. 1820, d. 13 Feb 1895
Probate (Will)* Elizabeth E Tweddell. Spinster. Malvern. 07 Aug 1937. 289/678.1 
Birth*Dec 1852 Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland, England, Dec Q [ Newcastle upon Tyne] 10b 24.2 
(Migrant) Migration/TravelDec 1867 Sailing with Edward Tweddell Annie Plumtree Tweddell to Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Ship True Briton
Age 14 (as Lizzie.)3 
Death*7 Aug 1937 Elsternwick, VIC, Australia, #D7002 (as Tweddell.)4 
Death-Notice*10 Aug 1937TWEDDELL.— On the 7th August, at private hospital, Elsternwick, Elizabeth Ellidge, elder daughter of the late Edward and Ann Tweddell, and loved sister of Edward (deceased), Annie (Mrs. Taylor) and Richard; aged 81 years. Privately Interred, 9th inst.5 

Citations

  1. [S35] Probate Records, PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), VPRS 28/P3, unit 2987; VPRS 7591/P2, unit 1018.
  2. [S9] Free BMD. Index. Online @ https://www.freebmd.org.uk/.
  3. [S36] Inward & outward passenger lists to and from Victoria. Series: VPRS 14; 7666; 7667; 7786); PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), 271 006.
  4. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
  5. [S16] Newspaper - The Age 10 Aug 1937, p1.
Last Edited11 Apr 2016

Blakely Robson

F, #4556, b. 1833, d. 22 Mar 1903
Note* Has small grandchildren in 1893. 
Married NameTyson. 
Married NameCrawford. 
Birth*1833 Felpham, Sussex, England, baptised 2 April 1833 [par Robert Moss ROBSON & Eliza Ann].1 
Marriage*16 Jun 1849 Spouse: Sydney Malone Crawford. SA, Australia.
 
Marriage-Notice*20 Jun 1849MARRIED. On Saturday the 16th instant, Mr Sidney M. Crawford, to Blakely, second daughter of P. Robson, Esq., Reed Beds.2 
Widow5 Nov 1864Blakely Robson became a widow upon the death of her husband Sydney Malone Crawford.3 
Marriage21 Dec 1878 Spouse: Peter Tyson. Hay, NSW, Australia, #M3246 or #M3426 NSW.4,5
 
Marriage-Notice*28 Dec 1878TYSON–CRAWFORD. —On the 21st inst., at Hay, New South Wales, by the Rev. S. Robinson, Peter Tyson, Esq., Corrong Station, to Blakeley, widow of the late Sidney M. Crawford Esq., J.P., Adelaide, S.A., and daughter of Captain R. M. Robson, late H.E.I.C.S.6 
Note1879 Peter Tyson Peter Tyson was born on 20 October 1825 at Appin, in the Picton district of New South Wales. He was the youngest of 11 children of William Tyson and Isabella (née Coulson). Peter’s father died at East Bargo in January 1827.
In the mid-1840s Peter Tyson’s older brothers – William, James and John – took up a pastoral run at the junction of the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee rivers.
On 2 April 1852 Peter Tyson and Margaret Ann Shiel were married at St. Mark’s church, Appin, NSW. Peter and Margaret Tyson probably joined Peter’s brothers on the Lower Lachlan soon after they were married. Their first child was born in January 1853 at “Tyson’s station” (later known as “Torrong”). The couple had the following children:
Emily Isabella, born on 4 January 1853 at “Tyson's station”, Lower Lachlan.
Alice Maria (twin), born on 12 September 1855 at “Tyson's station”.
Harriet Mary (twin), born on 12 September 1855 at “Tyson’s station”; died on 10 March 1864 at “Juanbung” station; buried on “Torrong” station.
John Alexander ("Jack"), born on 27 April 1857 at “Tyson’s station”.
Henry Francis, born about July 1859 at “Tyson’s station”; died as an infant on 31 March 1860.
Sarah Louisa Margaret, born on 8 January 1861 at “Tyson’s station”.
Susan Alonia, born on 4 July 1863 at “Toorong” station.
Victor Walter Seale, born on 23 December 1865 at “Tupra” station.
Albert Prince Edward, born on 30 November 1867 at “Corrong” station.
Arthur Charles Dennis, born on 27 February 1870 at “Corrong” station.
Over the ensuing years William, James and John Tyson extended their holdings to include land on either side of the Lower Lachlan River, as well as other Riverina holdings. The pattern of leaseholds of the three Tyson brothers was complex. Apparently William Tyson managed “Geramy” (held in the name of J. & W. Tyson) on the south side of the Lachlan; James Tyson (possibly with his brother John) held the land on the north side, which comprised the Tupra, Juanbung, Corrong, Tarwong and Til Til runs. During much of the 1850s Peter Tyson assisted James in managing this vast area. In late 1859 Peter Tyson paid £45,000 to his brother, with Peter taking “Corrong” and “Tarwong” and James Tyson retaining “Tupra” and “Juanbung”. James and Peter Tyson appear to have had a close relationship and continued in various business associations in successive years. John Tyson died in June 1860 at Deniliquin, aged 37 years; he left most of his estate to his older brother James.
Until early 1864 Peter and Margaret Tyson were based at “Toorong”, at the Lachlan-Murrumbidgee junction. An item in the Pastoral Times of 7 May 1864 reported that Peter Tyson was to manage all the Lower Lachlan stations while James Tyson is on a three-year tour of his other properties. At this point Peter Tyson and his family probably transferred to the homestead at “Tupra” (where they remained at least until early 1866).
The squatter George Desailly, who in partnership with his brother Francis, was attempting to develop back-blocks between the Lachlan and Darling rivers. George Desailly had a dam constructed during 1865 across the Lachlan River near Booligal in order to drive water through creeks that crossed his run.
At this spot two or three small creeks break out from the main stream, and the dam checking the natural course of the water drives it through these minor streams, and a great part of Mr. Desailly's run becomes inundated. As a consequence the parties below him, occupying Crown lands on both sides of the river, were deprived of their water rights… Mr. James Tyson had recourse to law proceedings, and commenced an action against Mr. Desailly, while Mr. P. Tyson, I believe, acting on his own behalf, as I am informed, proceeded with a force of eleven men to cut away the dam. The news of the intended attack had, long before the overt act, been made known to Mr. Desailly's party, who, it is alleged, instructed his men to resist, by force of arms if necessary, the destruction of the dam, he himself stating that he would, if present, shoot the first man attempting the destruction of the work. [Pastoral Times, 6 January 1866, 2(4-5)]
Nevertheless Tyson’s men succeeded in breaking the dam. It was afterwards “rebuilt on a smaller scale, and again cut away by order of Mr. Tyson”.
By late 1867 Peter and Margaret Tyson and their family had moved further upstream and were living at “Corrong” station. During 1868 and 1869 Peter Tyson served as a Sheep Director for the Hay District. In about 1870 “Til Til” was separated from “Tarwong” and sold. In late 1870 construction began on a “very imposing and commodious residence” at “Corrong”. The homestead was designed by a Melbourne architect and built by Witcombe Bros. of Hay, at a cost of £3,000.
In March 1875 a press report stated that Peter Tyson of Corrong had lately returned from Melbourne where he had been treated for rheumatism “and consequent contraction of the muscles”. He spent eight weeks under the care of three doctors.
We are glad to see that he has so far recovered as to be able to walk with the help of a staff… While in Melbourne Mr. Tyson replaced the watch he lost in the fire at the Punt Hotel by one of the best to be bought. It is of moderate size, winds without a key, and has a seconds arrangement which by one touch of a spring the hand jumps to 12 o’clock, by another touch it starts going, and by a third touch it stops upon the moment. The cost was 85 guineas. The guard at present consists of a bit of cotton tape, but Mr. Tyson (who is immensely rich) jocularly says that next time he goes to Melbourne – “if he can afford it!” – he will buy a suitable chain. So it will be seen that bodily illness has not destroyed the good humour of our friend. Mr. Tyson is one of the hardiest of our pioneers, and we wish him health to enjoy the fruits of his many years of toil under the burning sun on the once waterless wastes of Riverina. [Riverine Grazier, 17 March 1875, 2(3)]
Peter Tyson’s wife Margaret died on 1 September 1877 at “Coorong” station, aged 45 years. Tom Booth’s reminiscences do not mention this incident; by that stage Booth was probably working at George Esplin’s Tattersall’s Hotel. During his time at the hotel Tom made three trips to “Corrong”: to drive Peter Tyson (apparently severely hung-over) to his homestead; to drive Tyson’s governess out to “Corrong”; and, to deliver a telegram by horseback. The overall impressive is of an extremely disruptive period at “Corrong” homestead.
On 21 December 1878 Peter Tyson married Blakely Crawford at Tattersall’s Hotel in Hay. Mrs. Crawford was the widow of Sydney Crawford, former Police Magistrate of Adelaide. Shortly afterwards, however, on 28 March 1879, Peter Tyson died at St. Kilda in Melbourne, aged 53 years.
Upon the death of his brother, Mr. Peter Tyson, Mr. James Tyson, in conjunction with Mr. James Tyson, jun., took an active part in the administration of his estate until his brother’s youngest son became of age. [Obituary – James Tyson (Riverine Grazier, 6 December 1898)]
Mrs. Blakeley Tyson, widow of Mr. Peter Tyson, died on 22 March 1903, at her daughter’s residence at St. Kilda in Melbourne, aged 71 years [Riverine Grazier, 13 April 1903].7 
Residence*bt Jul 1892 - Mar 1898 Wood Grange, Upper Beaconsfield, VIC, Australia, Residence on PAK-129.8 
Land-UBeac*8 Jul 1892 PAK-129 (part). Transfer from John Sutton to Blakely Tyson. 13a 3r 38p.9 
Land-UBeac*21 Mar 1898 PAK-129 (part). Transfer from Blakely Tyson to Richard Noble. 13a 3r 38p (caveat lodged 1 Oct 1895.)10 
Death*22 Mar 1903 "Glenloth", St Kilda, VIC, Australia, #D3689 (Age 70) [dau of Robert ROBSON & Bessie LITTON].11 
Death-Notice*24 Mar 1903TYSON.-On the 22nd March at her daughter's residence, "Glenloth," St. Kilda, Blakely, relict of the late Peter Tyson, of Corong Station, Hay, and daughter of the late Captain Robson, H.E.C.S. of South Australia, in her 71st year.12 

Family

Sydney Malone Crawford b. 1 Aug 1823, d. 5 Nov 1864
Children 1.Eliza Ann Frances Crawford+ b. 29 May 1850, d. 1869
 2.Ann Tremlett Crawford b. 12 Jul 1852, d. 20 Jun 1854
 3.Sidney Mordaunt Crawford b. 28 Feb 1854, d. 28 May 1857
 4.Blakely Florence Crawford+ b. 3 Jun 1856, d. 3 Aug 1927
 5.Leila Isabelle Crawford b. 16 Mar 1858, d. 1947
 6.Rosaline Mary Crawford+ b. 5 Jan 1860, d. 29 Apr 1946
 7.Georgia Victoria Crawford b. 1862, d. 1870
 8.Edward James Frederick Crawford b. 1864, d. 1942

Newspaper-Articles

  • 29 Jul 1878, LAW REPORT. COUNTY COURT. MONDAY, JULY 22. (Before His Honour Judge Cope and a jury of four.) HENRY V. SUTTON.
    In this case Mr David Henry, money lender, sued Mr John Sutton, a bank clerk, for £121 10s. 6d., being the balance of money alleged to be due to plaintiff on a promissory note for £226 10s.
    Mr Molesworth and Mr Purves appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hood for the defendant.
    The defendant admitted signing the promissory note, but pleaded that it was given on the understanding that the plaintiff would not seize certain goods within four months—the current time of the bill—and that he did seize the goods within that time, and there fore defendant was not liable.
    It was decided that the case for the defendant should be taken first, and Mrs B. Crawford, formerly of St Kilda, boarding house keeper, gave evidence as to how the promissory note came to be given. She said that in May, 1877, she obtained £85 in money from the plaintiff, and he paid some debts amounting to about £70, winch she owed. In consequence of those advances and also for discount, she gave him a bill of sale for £200 over her furniture, which was worth £450. In December last he threatened to realise on his bill of sale unless she could get a good name with hers on a promissory note to cover the whole debt. She therefore obtained the name of the defendant, who had been a lodger in her house for some years, but it was on the distinct agreement that Henry would not seize the furniture during the currency of the promissory note. The latter was for £226 10s., the £26 10s. being for interest. On the 25th February, Henry seized her furniture and sent it to the auction-room of L. Barnard and Co., where it was sold. Henry allowed her a few days after seizing the furniture to try and raise the money due, but she could not get it. She never authorised Henry to seize or sell the goods. Mr Sutton, who was also examined, stated that he only signed the note on the distinct guarantee from Henry that he would not enforce the bill of sale during the currency of the promissory-note, and that he never authorised Henry to seize the goods. When they were seized he asked for the promissory-note back again, but Henry said he must wait till it was due. He told Henry that was all nonsense, because he had previously said he would return the note if he seized the goods. Henry, however, would not deliver it up to him. Had offered Henry £30 through Mr Hogg to settle the case, and Henry had offered to take £50. He valued the furniture seized at £400. S. P. Hogg, a valuator, said he valued the furni ture at between £300 and £400.
    The plaintiff and several witnesses were called to support his case. Henry said he seized the goods to prevent them being seized by the landlord or judgment creditors, and that he did so with the consent of both Mrs Crawford and the defendant. He denied that it was ever mentioned that he was not to seize the furniture while the note was current. He received from the auctioneer £158 15s 6d for the goods, and paid out of it £43 to the landlord and £4 for the expenses of removal. He also gave Mrs Crawford £5, and therefore sued for what was now owing to him on the note. Two men who removed the furniture from Mrs Crawford's house deposed that Mr Sutton con- sented to the removal of the goods. Mr L Barnard, who sold the goods by auction, said they realised £177, which was reduced to £158 odd for commission and expenses John E. Crook, a furniture broker, who was present at the sale, said the furniture fetched good prices. Mr Henry Tullett, of St Kilda, stated that he was agent for the landlord of the house Mrs Crawford occupied, and made an inventory of the furniture. He valued it at something under £200. Henry offered to Mrs Crawford in his presence that if she would pay the £200 he would forego all further claims. Henry also asked witness if his principal would give £200 for the goods, but he went over each item and found they would not realise £200. There was about £42 owing for rent at the time of seizure.
    The jury, after retiring for about 20 minutes, returned into court with a verdict for the defendant.13
  • 30 Jul 1878, People in pecuniary difficulties who may feel inclined to put themselves in the clutches of a money-lender for the purpose of obtaining temporary relief, would do well to read the particulars of the case of Henry v. Sutton, reported in our issue of Monday. It appears that a Mrs. B. CRAWFORD, who kept a boarding-house at St. Kilda, obtained from Mr. DAVID HENRY in May, 1877, a sum of £85, and payment of debts to the extent of about £70, giving him as security a bill of sale for £200 over her furniture, valued by her self at £450, by the defendant at £400, and by an expert at between £300 and £400. In December last HENRY threatened to realise under his bill of sale unless she could get a good name to a promissory note to cover the whole debt. A lodger named SUTTON, the defendant in the action, agreed to become responsible in the manner desired, but only on the dis- tinct understanding that the bill of sale would not be enforced during the cur rency of the note. On the 25th February, however, HENRY seized the furniture, in spite of the understanding, and sent it to the auction-room of Messrs. L. BARNARD and Co., where it was sacrificed for about £177. It is evident that the mart of Messrs. L. BARNARD and Co. is a good place for extraordinary bargains. As this was a distinct breach of agreement, the defendant asked to have his promissory note returned, but the request was refused on some shuffling excuse. Eventually an action was brought on it to recover £112 10s. 6d., being the balance said to be due after deducting the net proceeds of the furniture. At the trial the plaintiff and various witnesses were examined to show that Mrs CRAWFORD and Mr SUTTON were both consenting parties to the sale, that no promise had been given to abstain from proceed ings during the currency of the promissory note, that the furniture was not worth £200, and that it fetched good prices at auction As, however, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, we are driven to the conclusion that its members did not credit this evidence. For the sake of public morality we are very glad they did not. The moral to be drawn from the narrative is very clear. When a person finds himself in financial straits, it is little short of madness to have recourse to the assistance of gentlemen of whom Mr. DAVID HENRY is doubtless a very fair specimen. Mrs CRAWFORD obtained some £155 in May, 1877, and the promissory note due in April, 1878, a period of 11 months, was for £226 10s. This shows the interest to have been £71 10s., or at the rate of about 50 per cent, per annum. Sooner than accept such terms it would have been far better to sell the furniture in the first instance, as by doing so a fair value might have been obtained, and a third person would have been kept out of a mess. As it is, a usurer has been ostensibly defeated, but an unfortunate woman has been deprived of the means of making a liveli hood by the sale of her property for about half its value, and her friend has been put to the expense of defending an action.14
  • 1 Aug 1878, THE CASE OF HENRY V. SUTTON. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS.
    Sir,-As your article in yesterday's Argus is calculated seriously to injure me, and is based on an expample statement of the facts of the case, which is still sub justice, leave having been reserved at the trial to enter a verdict for me, I have to ask the public through you to withhold their judgment until the case is finally decided.
    I may, however, mention that the rate of interest charged on the renewal was 20 per cent., and that the amount paid to Mrs. Crawford and on her account and for removing caveats, was £175, and not £155, as stated in your article.
    The nature of the action and the rules of evidence debarred me from giving these facts as evidence on the trial.
    -I am, &c.
    DAVID HENRY.
    July 31.15
  • 2 Aug 1878, THE CASE OF HENRY V. SUTTON. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS.
    Sir,-As Mr. Henry, through your columns, appears to court publicity, may I trespass upon your valuable space in giving a few particulars which he has, no doubt inadvertently, left out. 1. He states that the interest charged upon the renewal was 20 per cent., but carefully abstains from informing you that the first transaction bore 60 percent, per annum, as I only received £85 cash, having given him a promissory note for £100, at three months' date.
    Mr. Henry goes on to say, that there were heavy expenses attending the " removing of caveats," in reply to which, I beg to state that after a careful personal inquiry I found that all law expenses had been settled by the creditors, whom Henry paid, with the exception of one item of £2 2s. In addition to this, I paid Henry the sum of £6 13s. 4d. for two months' interest, being at the rate of 40 per cent., which was never mentioned in Court.
    I think it only justice to the public to mention that one item which the defendant was sued for was an amount of £43 for rent, Mr. Henry thereby taking upon himself the obligations of the landlord, to whom he was not indebted, which amount, however, he in court acknowledged he had not paid.-Yours
    BLAKELY CRAWFORD.
    Aug. 1.16
  • 3 Aug 1878, THE CASE OF HENRY V. SUTTON. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS.
    Sir,-In reply to the letter of "Blakely Crawford" which appeared in your issue of to-day (August 2), in which she states that she only received £85 cash for a bill of £100 for three months, she must have forgotten that she ordered me to pay Messrs. Buckley and Nunn £5 to prevent them lodging a caveat, which would make it £90, and £10 was the amount charged for discount, making it 40 per cent as agreed ; which, as stated in my last letter, I reduced to 20 per cent, on renewing.
    Mrs Crawford has also forgotten that on her application to me for the money on security of the bill of sale she swore a statutory declaration before Mr George Lewis, JP, that all the furniture and effects were her own absolute property ; also that no person had a lien over the said furniture, and that there was no rent due, all of which I found to be untrue, as she had obtained part of the furniture from Messrs Cohen, Aron, and Co., on time payment, and at that time owed them a balance of £23 on the same, also Messrs Robertson and Moffat £44 9s; and instead of owing Messrs Buckley and Nunn £5, as she informed me, I found the balance due to them by her was £9 10s. 8d , and for which they at once lodged caveats, and would not remove the same without being paid in full, including their costs, and when Mrs Crawford states in her letter that I only paid £2 2s costs in one instance, and that the creditors paid the costs themselves, she again states what is untrue, as it was only Messrs Cohen, Aron, and Co. who agreed to accept the amount due without their costs.
    There were other creditors who applied to be paid, including Mr O'Donnell, of Fitzroy-street, St Kilda, grocer, to whom she owed £20 odd, and several other local tradesmen, whom she told she would pay them immediately she got the money from me, if they did not lodge caveats, but they were deceived, as she took all the balance herself, and has not paid them up to this day.
    As to the third paragraph in her letter, that I have taken upon myself the obligation of the landlord, namely, £43, rent due by her at the time of the removal of the furniture, I enclose you copy affidavit of Mr Henry Tullett, JP, of St Kilda, the agent for the landlord, whom she brought to my office the day after the furniture was removed, and ordered me to pay him the rent, acknowledging to him that she asked me to remove the goods to prevent judgment creditors from seizing the same.
    At the same time she borrowed from me £5 extra, embodying in the receipt for same an authority for me to sell the goods in question.
    -I am, &c,
    DAVID HENRY.
    Aug 2.17
  • 7 Aug 1878, THE CASE OF HENEY V. SUTTON. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS.
    Sir,-My only object in replying to Mr. Henry's letter, contained in your issue of the 1st ins., was to verify the just comments made by you on the above case, which had been called in question by him.
    From Mr. Henry's present letter it would appear that he paid Buckley and Nunn £14 10s. 8d.-£5 to remove a caveat and £9 10s. 8d. balance of account. This I again deny, as their solicitor has to-day assured me Henry's statement is false as to his paying them the £5.
    At the time I borrowed the money from Mr. Henry there was no rent owing, as he falsely states there was, and when giving the bill of sale, before making the statutory declaration, I told Henry I owed a balance to Cohen and Aron for furniture on time payment, which he promised to pay at my request, so that his statement that I concealed this from him is a base and deliberate falsehood.
    Another of his gross misrepresentations is that the amount owed to Mr. O'Donnell at this time is still unpaid, as he was paid directly I received the money from Henry.
    It is true I was served with a writ through Mr. Henry's friend and attorney, Mr. George Godfrey, at the suit of O'Donnell, just as I was going to give my evidence in the above case. But this amount was for goods purchased long after, which would have been paid long since had not my means of livelihood been so ruthlessly swept away.
    In reference to Mr. Tullett's affidavit, stating that my consent was given to the re moval of the furniture, I again give it my un qualified denial, as I did in my evidence in court.
    In the last paragraph of Mr. Henry's letter, he states that on a receipt for £5, which, being penniless, I took from him after he had carried away my furniture, I authorised him to sell it, I solemnly declare that when signing it no such condition existed, as all he asked me to do was to give him a receipt for £5.
    Having myself instituted an action against Mr. Henry, I will not here go further into the details of the grievous wrongs and persecution I have met with at his hands, but at the proper time and place will let the public judge of the cruel injustice that has been done me.
    I have heard of the bed being taken from under the dying. I believe it, as when Mr. Henry swept away my furniture I begged in wain for a bed to be left for myself and fatherless boy.
    The thanks of the public generally, especially women situated as I was, are due to you for bringing before them the facts of this case as they appeared in your issue of the 30th ult., and I trust they may serve as a warning to others who might be tempted to make shipwreck of their fortunes by seeking refuge in such a pitiless quarter.-I am, &c.,
    BLAKELY CRAWFORD.
    Aug. 3.18
  • 8 Aug 1878, THE CASE OF HENRY V. SUTTON. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS.
    Sir,-Mrs. Crawford, by her letter in your issue of this day, impugns the truth of an affidavit made by me in the matter at issue between herself and Mr. David Henry.
    Her memory, tenacious in other respects, fails to retain the explanation given by her at the first interview I had with her after the goods were removed, which explanation was to the effect that on a Sunday afternoon he (Henry) called upon her, made inquiry into her financial position, and upon her stating her embarrassments, persuaded her to consent to his taking the goods away, and the next morning, before she was dressed, vans came and the goods were removed.
    The parties engaged in the removal say she not only did not prevent, but absolute gave assistance, by screening them from observation, and inducing them to load up at the rear of the premises.
    Had she been opposed to the goods going, she could have sent a message, which would have reached me in five minutes, and I should have taken steps to prevent the removal of at any rate sufficient to have covered the rent, which to this day is unpaid.
    I was not aware until I read her letter that Henry did not leave so much as a mattress for her to sleep on. On the contrary, I gathered from her that she had taken sundry articles of furniture, &c., into the next house, and was sleeping there.-I am, &c.,
    HENRY TULLETT.
    St. Kilda, Aug. 7.19
  • 9 Aug 1878, THE CASE OF HENRY V. SUTTON. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS.
    Sir,--In reply to Mrs Crawfords letter in to-day's Argus, I lay before you the following facts and statutory declarations: -
    Paid to Buckley and Nunn, debt £9 10 8
    Paid to Mr Wvyburn, solicitor's costs 2 2 0
    £11 12 8
    Mrs Crawfords effort to twist my letter into meaning that I had paid £5 for removing caveat is most absurd. What I wish understood is this : -She informed me that Buckley and Nunns account was £5. I found she owed them £9 10s 8d , which I paid, together with £2 2s , Mr Wyburn's costs.
    Mrs Crawford states that at time of declaring declaration she owed no rent— no rent was due. The landlord's books, as he informs me, show that at the date of Mrs Crawford s declaration, there was a month and a half s rent due, about £20.
    I deny most distinctly Mrs Crawford having informed me (as alleged by her) that she owed Messrs Cohen and Aron any money, or that she purchased her furniture from them on time payment, I never heard their names in connexion with Mrs Crawford until I received notice of caveat by them against my filing her bill of sale to me. Notwithstanding my alleged "gross misrepresentations," I still adhere to my statement as to her not paying Mr O'Donnell's account after promising to do so.
    I leave Mr O Donnell to say if my statements concerning him are true or otherwise. She denies having given me permission to remove her furniture. Mr Tullotts sworn affidavit should suffice, but I send the statutory declarations of several persons present when she gave such permission. I send you no less than three statutory declarations showing that Mrs. Crawford could have retained any furniture she pleased before it was removed from her house, so that if she and her "fatherless boy" were deprived of any requisite it was her own fault. They also declare that when asked, she refused to keep any furniture, alleging that she intended going to Sandhurst or up country and that were anything left behind the landlord or other creditors would seize it. She got my man to secrete her boxes, bundles, and private luggage, in an empty house close by for fear of the landlord and others taking them (See declarations of van men.)
    As to Mrs Crawford's statement, that on paying her £5 I asked her for receipt for same only, and that she signed no authority for me to remove and sell furniture, I can only say that you have a copy of her authority, and you are welcome to see the original. I dictated the latter to my clerk, who wrote same out in her presence, and after hearing same read by me to her, he wit- nessed her signature thereto. The reason of my losing the case, Henry v Sutton, was through my not being allowed to call witnesses to support above statement, the action being on a bill of exchange against Sutton, but no such objection can be taken in the approaching trial Crawford v Henry, at the hearing of which I confidently look forward to justice being done to me.
    In conclusion, I may express my satisfac tion that all the foregoing statements are supported by the unimpeachable evidence of respectable witnesses, otherwise Mrs Crawford's efforts to excite public sympathy by impudent falsehoods and the dragging into the matter her "fatherless boy," the ruthless sweeping away of her means of livelihood and such like nonsense might prove successful.
    -I am., &c,
    DAVID HENRY.
    52 Collins-street east, Aug. 7.20
  • 20 Sep 1878, LAW REPORT. COUNTY COURT. THURSDAY, Sept. 19. (Before His Honour Judge Cope, and a Jury of Four.)
    CRAWFORD V. HENRY.
    THIS was an action brought by Mrs B Crawford to recover £1,000 damages from Mr David Henry, a money lender, for injuries sustained in consequence of the defendant having illegally distrained on her furniture, and sold it, whereby she was put to great loss, and was deprived of her means of obtaining her living.
    Mr MacDermott and Mr Hood appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Molesworth and Mr Purves for the defendant.
    The case was originally commenced in the Supreme Court, but it was sent down to this court for trial.
    Mr Macdermott, in stating the case, said that in May, 1877, Mrs Crawford required some money, and went to borrow it of the defendant. She received £85 in cash from him, and he paid off some of her creditors, whose claims amounted to about £80 more, making altogether £164 odd which he advanced to her. For those advances she gave him two bills one for £100 at three months, and the other for £100 at six months, and also secured him by giving a bill of sale over her furniture for £200. The first bill, which came due in August, 1877, was renewed, and in the following November, when both bills were due, a joint promissory note at four months was given by the plaintiff and Mr Sutton, a bank clerk, for £226, on the condi tion that the bill of sale should not be en forced during the currency of the joint pro missory note. In February last, however, before the promissory note was due, the de fendant went and seized all her furniture and took it away to an auction room in Collins street, Melbourne, where it was sold.
    Mrs. Blakely Crawford, the plaintiff, was called, and gave evidence that she was a widow, and had carried on business in St Kilda. In May 1877, she borrowed some money from the defendant. The amount of money she received from the defendant was £85 cash, and he paid some accounts she owed to creditors, winch made the money actually received £164 1s 8d. She then gave him two bills for £100 each, the first being due in August, 1877, and the second in November, 1877. In August the first bill was renewed, defendant charging £3 6s 8d for the renewal. With the two bills given in May witness also gave a bill of sale for £200 over her furniture as security for his loan. In November, when both the bills had become due, she found she could not pay them and the defendant agreed to allow her longer time if she could get some one to join her in a promissory note. She then got Mr Sutton, a bank clerk, to join her in a promissory note at four months for £226, and the note was given to the defen dant by witness herself, Mr Henry agreeing to accept it. On Monday, February 25th, before 7 o'clock in the morning, Henry came to her house and said he had come for the furniture. She said, "For God's sake don't take it, Mr Henry, I will do anything, but he said the vans were there and he would take it. Scarcely anybody in the house was up when the defendant came. There were 15 rooms furnished, and she valued all the furniture at £500. She was at the time of the seizure receiving £13 13s per week from five boarders, and had some more coming to board with her at the time. After the furniture was taken away she had no means of continuing her business. Henry made no demand for the money before he seized the furniture. He asked her if she consented to his removing the furniture, and she said she did not ; that he had ruined her, and she had no help for herself.
    Cross examined by Mr Molesworth -Mr Mooney was the landlord of her house, and Mr Tullett was Mr Mooney's agent. On the 25th February she owed nearly three months rent. The rent per month was £14 11s 8d. In January or February, before Henry put the bill of sale in force, Blanchard and Forbes had put in an execution in her house for £15 9s , but she paid that money immediately. Her furniture was insured in the Northern Assurance Company for £500. Henry came to her house on Sunday, the 24th February, but he did not then ask her for his money. She did not see him at all on Saturday, the 23rd February, and therefore he could not have asked her for the money on that day. Never told anybody that she consented to the furniture being taken away to save it from the landlord or judgment creditors. She could have borrowed the money to pay Henry off before he seized the furniture if she had only known that he wanted his money.
    John Sutton, bank clerk, stated that he had known Mrs Crawford about 10 years, and lodged at her house in November last. In that month witness gave his name to the promissory note at four months for £226, Henry agreeing that he would not enforce the bill of sale he had from Mrs Crawford until the note was due. In the course of conversation he had with Henry the latter said he thought the furniture would realise over £400 if a forced sale of it were made. Mrs Crawford's house was very well furnished.
    Charles Heath, a vanman, said that in February last he was engaged by Henry to remove some of the furniture from Mrs Crawford's. Henry had engaged some other vanman on the previous Saturday. Since the furniture was removed Henry had asked him to sign a document like the other vanman employed had signed, and he declined to do so.
    Samuel P Hogg, auctioneer and valuator, said he valued Mrs Hogg's [sic] furniture as if it had to be sold at auction, at £400. That was in November last.
    The plaintiff's case was then closed.
    Mr Molesworth submitted that there was no case, and the plaintiff must be nonsuited, because she had broken the covenants of the bill of sale which she gave to the defendant. The bill of sale contained, amongst other covenants, one that Mrs Crawford should not allow her rent to fall in arrears, and another that she should not allow any execution to be put in the house by a judgment creditor and the penalty for breach of either of those covenants con ferred on the defendant the right to enter plaintiff's house and take away the furniture mentioned in his bill of sale. Mrs Crawford had herself admitted that she had not only fallen in arrears with her rent in February, when the bill of sale was enforced but had also allowed an execution to be put in force in her house, and the defendant was there fore fully justified in seizing and taking away the furniture.
    His HONOUR said there was no doubt that the nonsuit points raised were good, and if they had been submitted at an earlier part of the case he should have stopped it from proceeding further, and time would thereby have been saved. The covenants referred to were put on the bill of sale to protect the defendant in regard to the property contained in his bill of sale, because if the rent were allowed to run on from month to month the landlord could have gone in the house and seized the furniture, and if execution of judgment creditors were allowed to be made in the house the defendant's security would be vitiated or altogether taken away. He then ordered a nonsuit to be entered up, and the costs of the case to be taxed.21
  • 16 Oct 1878, CHARGE OF EMBRACERY.
    At the City Police Court yesterday, before Mr Call, P.M., and Messrs Taylor, Hughes, Craven, Murphy, Wilton Saunder, Haven, and Marks, J P's, David Henry, William Ireland, William R Kissane and Henry Mann were proceeded against on an informa tion, sworn by Detective Duncan, charging them with conspiracy in attempting to influence the minds of certain jurors who were to appear at the County Court. The information read as follows :- "For that on the 16th day of September 1878 and on divers other days between that date and date of exhibiting this information, you unlawfully and wickedly did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together amongst your selves and with divers other persons, to pervert the course of justice by endeavouring to tamper with and prejudice the minds of certain jurors who had been summoned to attend the sittings of County Court at Melbourne to be holden in the month of September then and there to hear and determine certain issues to be tried before the said Court. Exhibited before me the day and date above mentioned, Melbourne, 9th October, 1878 -(Signed) F CALL, P.M."
    Serjeant Sleigh conducted the casw for the prosecution. Mr Purves and Mr Hartley Williams appeared for David Henry, Mr Macdermott for Ireland, Mr Woolf for Mann, and Mr Hood for Kissane.
    Mr Macdermott submitted that no de finite charge was set forth in the information against his client.
    Serjeant Sleigh said that as the defendants were now before the Court charged with conpiracy, it was for the Bench to inquire into the charge.
    Mr Call pointed out that if the information before the Court disclosed an offence, the Bench must proceed to hear the evidence in the case.
    Mr Macdermott pointed out that his client was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by "tampering with the minds of certain jurors," which was an ofence unknown to law, and therefore absurd. If the Crown intended to charge the defendants with the crime of embracery, it should have stated so. The names of the jurors were not given, and practically the complaint set forth amounted to nothing, inasmuch is no specific charge was stated. He considered that a man was justified in prejudicing the minds of a jury providing he did not do so in an unlawful manner. For example the minds of a jury might lawfully be prejudiced by an article in a newspaper.
    Mr Purves submitted that the information against his client was bad on the face of it. The information set forth that the defendant was charged with an offence committed after the swearing of the information, which stated that the defendants conspired together on the 10th September, and on divers other days between that date and the date of exhibiting the information, which was on the 9th October. Again, the cause which the jurors were summoned to decide at the County Court was not mentioned in the information. He therefore asked the Bench to dismiss the complaint against his client, who was charged with an impossible offence.
    Mr Call said that the substantial offence was an attempt to pervert the course of justice. If the complaint was considered indefinite after the evidence had been heard, the Bench would adjourn the case in order to allow the defendant time for his defence.
    Serjeant Sleigh, in opening the case for the Crown, stated that he would be able to lay before the Bench such trustworthy evidence which he considered would leave no alternative but to commit the defendants for trial on the charge of conspiracy set forth in the information. The defendants were charged with a crime in the words of Lord Chief Justice Kenyon, of the greatest enormity. He quoted from Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, and other legal authorities, to explain the exact definition of the offence of embracery, and pointed out that the defendants could be convicted whether the jurors sought to be influenced gave a verdict or not. The defendant David Henry, who was a well known money-lender, had some monetary transactions with a Mrs Crawford for whom a gentleman named Sutton became security. An action was filed in the County Court in which Mrs Crawford sued David Henry for illegal distraint and which resulted in the plaintiff being nonsuited. The action, how ever, was renewed, the plaint being returnable at the County Courton the 19th September, before a judge and jury. The list of jurors engaged in that case' could be obtained by any person on the payment of a small fee, and there was no doubt the defendant David Henry had so obtained a list of the jurors— as it would be given in evidence that Henry had interviewed several of the gentlemen who were to act as jurors in the case, and that he was accompanied in more than one instance by one or two of the other defend ants. The course of procedure was so ar ranged that one or other of the defendants would call upon aome of the jurors, and having entered into conversation in reference to the case in which they were engaged they would eudeavour to influence their minds so that the ends of justice would be defeated. It would be shown that Mr Terence Commins, the landlord of the Blue Bell hotel, in Little Collins street, who had been summoned to appear as a juryman at the County Court on the 19th September, was waited upon at his hotel by the defendants Henry and Mann shortly before that date. Mann had thought it prudent since that time to divest himself of his hirsute appendages, and appear before the Court clean shaved, but this course would not disguise him in the eyes of the witness, as no doubt Mann had intended to do. Having engaged a private room, Henry and Mann called for drinks, and after a while Mann entered into conversation with the landlord of the hotel in reference to the case of Crawford v Henry, upon which the defendant Henry walked out of the room, leaving Mann in conversation with Commins. Having satisfied himself that Commins had been summoned as a juryman at the County Court in the case in question, winch was then pending, Mann left and called again the following day, when he told Commins that he was going to call on all the jurymen engaged in the case. Com mins was no doubt considerably taken aback by such procedure, and told Mann that he would not suffer himself to be prejudiced by any proceeding of that kind. Mann retorted that persons were prejudiced against David Henry, as he was a Jew and a money lender.
    Commins replied that no matter what Henry was he considered Mann's conduct as altogether inconsistent. Evidence would also be brought forward to show that the defendant Ireland called upon another juryman, who had been summoned in the case, named Joseph Young, a contractor, residing in Carlton. Ireland having entered into conversation in reference to the case, asked Young if he thought honesty was always the best policy, and assured him that it would be worth his while to make friends with the defendant Henry, adding that money was easily made sometimes. Young immediately guessed the nature of Ireland's visit, and indignantly replied that he had always gained his living in an honest manner, and would not be influenced in giving his decision in the case in which he was engaged by David Henry or anybody else. On the 12th September the defendant Ireland had called upon another juror named William Frost, a carpenter residing in Derby street, Collingwood, whom he attempted to influence in an in- genious manner. Ireland gave Frost an order to make a window frame, the bill for which was to be lodged with the defendant Henry, who would pay the cost of the work. During the interview Ireland said to Frost, " Mr Henry is a friend of mine, and if you can do him a favour in his case I shall feel greatly obliged." Frost took the window frame to Ireland's place of business, and proceeded to Henry's office to obtain settlement of the account. The account was duly paid, and the conversation turned on the case in which Frost was engaged as a juror. During the conversation Henry said, "Mrs. Crawford has just called at my office, and has offered to take £20 to 'square' the matter. As you are one of the jurymen, if you can only do me a favour I shall feel obliged." On the 14th September the defendant Kissane purchased a hat from another juror, Thomas Smith, carrying on business in Clarendon street, Emerald hill, as a hatter, and as the purchase was the result of a wager, Kinsane requested Smith to call upon Henry for payment. The following day Smith pre- sented himself at David Henry's office, and having been shown into his private room, Smith was requested to be seated, Henry at the same time fastening the door. The ac- count for the hat was duly settled, and while Smith was in the act of writing out the re ceipt, Henry referred to the case of Crawford v Henry, and said, "Mr Smith, if you can do me justice in my case I shall feel obliged." He then went to an iron safe, from which he took several sovereigns, and offered the money to Smith as a bribe. Smith declined to accept the money, and left the room. The learned serjeant stated that he would now proceed to call several of the jurors referred to as witncases, and he believed that the evidence which would be tendered by them would be such as to leave no room for doubt in the minds of the Bench that the defendants bad been guilty of an unpardonable crime.
    Mr Hood submitted that the information set forth no complaint which his client could meet.
    Mr Call said that the Bench could not entertain the objection then, as they had de cided to proceed with the evidence.
    Serjeant Sleigh then called, Robert Clark Morgan, assistant registrar at the County Court who produced the proceedings in the case of Crawford v Henry, the hearing, of which commenced on the 19th September. The plaintiff was nonsuited, and the cause did not go to the jury. He produced the panel of the jurors who were summoned to attend at the sittings of the County Court commencing on the 19th September.
    The panel consisted of 16 jurors, only eight of whom answered on the first day. These were as follows:— Thomas Smith, hatter ; Joseph Young, contractor ; Herbert Hart, contractor ; William M'Nish, boardinghouse keeper ; Louis Maltzhan ; and Terence Commins, hotel keeper. Wm Frost was on the panel for the 24th.
    Terence Commins, proprietor of the Blue Bell Hotel, in Little Collins-street east, deposed that he was summoned as a juror to attend the County Court on the 19th September last. On or about the 16th September the defendants Henry and Ireland called upon him at his hotel. They asked for a room and were shown into a parlour. Having been supplied with drinks they entered into conversation about the case Crawford v Henry. Henry then left after which Ireland spoke to him about the case. From what he could remember of what took place, Ireland asked him if he was summoned as a juryman. Witness did not make any reply and Ireland said, "If you are not summoned on the jury I'll see you are and it might be worth your while. At this time another man entered the room and spoke to Ireland.
    Some further conversation was entered into about the case after which the defendants left the hotel. When speaking with Ireland, witness asked his name which the latter refused to give saying at the same time that he did business for David Henry. On the following morning Ireland called again and said "I am going around to see the jurymen." Witness replied, " If you do so you will not do yourself any good."
    Before leaving witness told Ireland that he would not be prejudiced in the matter. On the day the case was heard he saw the three defendants in court, except Ireland, who had left the court. He then made a complaint to the clerk of the court that he had been interviewed by the defendants prvious to the hearing of the case.
    Joseph Young contractor deposed that he was summoned as a juror to attend at the County Court on the 19th September. The day after he received the summons the defendant Ireland called upon him accompanied by another person. Ireland said that he had called about a case which was to be heard at the County Court. He said, "I am a friend of Mr Henry's and I wish to do him a good turn if I can. He is a decent man if you only knew him." Ireland then asked the witness, "Do you believe in honesty as being the best policy to which he rejoined, he always did. Ireland added, "It is not always the best ; and a few hundred pounds are made very easily some times." Taking a newspaper out of his pocket, Ireland read to him a portion of the case Henry v Sutton. Witness replied that he had read the case. The defendant then said that Henry could give him a good deal of work to which witness added that he did not wish to work for David Henry. The defendant again added that money was made very easily sometimes, and £200 or £300 would no doubt be very handy to him. Witness replied that whatever money he received would be earned honestly and added that as a juror he would do his best to do justice in any case brought before him.
    To Mr Macdermott -When the defendant entered my house he gave me plainly to understand what he wanted.
    Herbert Hart, contractor, deposed that he was one of the jurors summoned to attend the County Court about the middle of September. On the same day he received the summons two persons called upon him one of whom was the defendant Ireland who introduced the person who accompanied him as his son. Ireland requested some ladies who were in the room at the time to kindly leave, as he said he wished to speak privately to witness. Having satisfied himself that witness had been summoned as a juror to the County Court, Ireland said, " There is a case coming on during this sitting of the court in which a particular friend of mine is concerned."
    Witness made the remark that he was taking a most unusual course where a friend was concerned in a case and added "I don't know what I have to do in the matter." He said that his friend was a money lender and referred to certain correspondence that had appeared in the Argus in reference to the case of Crawford v Henry. Witness replied that he had read the correspondence on the subject. After remaining in the room for about half an hour he went away.
    Thomas Smith, hatter, carrying on business in Clarendon street Emerald hill deposed that he was summoned to attend the County Court as a juror on the 19th September. On the 19th September the defendant Kissane called at his place of business at about 8 o'clock in the evening and said, "I have had a bet of a new hat with Mr Henry, which I have won," and asked him if he knew Mr Henry to which witness replied that he did by repute only. Kissane then said he would fit a hat on and would arrange to go with him to Mr Henry for payment. An appointment was made, and he met Kissane in Collins street, near Henry's office, the following morning. Henry was out at the time and witness went away but returned shortly afterwards, and was shown into Henry's private room. Having explained that he had called with reference to the settlement of an account, the door was closed and afterwards fastened. Henry proceeded to pay the account, and witness receipted the bill. While witness was writing out the receipt, Henry questioned him about his business in Emerald hill and said he would be a good customer of his. Henry then said, by the bye did Mr Kissane men tion anything to you about the case coming on at the County Court in which I am concerned. Witness replied that he had not. Henry then referred to the previous case of Henry v Sutton and said, " If you should happen to be on a jury when the case of Crawford v Henry is before the court will you do me justice?" Witness replied that he would endeavour to do him justice which he would accord even to his greatest enemy. Witness was about to rise in order to leave when the defendant went to an iron safe in the room from which he took several sovereigns and placed them on the table before him. The defendant said I know you will do me justice, as you are a respectable man and requested him to "take the money for any extra trouble you might be put to on my account." Witness said that he could not think of doing such a thing. Henry rejoined that it was a thing which was often done and that it had been done lately in a great mining case. Witness then rose and went to the door. The defendant followed and, while opening the door said, "If you will see me through this case, I will make it right for you afterwards." Witness was on the jury in the case of Crawford v Henry, in which the plaintiff was nonsuited.
    To Mr Purves-Witness complained to the judge's associate that a certain person had attempted to influence his decision in the case in which he was engaged.
    At this stage of the proceedings the further hearing of the case was adjourned at 20 minutes past 5 o'clock until Tuesday next.22
  • 23 Oct 1878, CHARGE OF EMBRACERY.
    At the City Police Court yesterday, before Mr Call, P M, and Messrs Saunders, Craven, Knaggs, Noonan, Murphy, Hughes, Taylor, Marks, Pilley, and Dr Black, the hearing of the charge against David Henry, William Ireland, William R Kissane, and Henry Mann, for conspiracy in attempting to tamper with certain County Court jurors, was proceeded with Serjeant Sleigh prosecuted for the Crown, while Mr Purves ap peared on behalf of David Henry, Mr Theo dore Fink for Ireland, Mr Hood for Kissane, and Mr Woolf for Mann.
    "William M Nish, restaurant keeper in Bourke street east, deposed that he was summoned to attend as a juror at the County Court on the 19th September last. About the 16th September the defendant (Ireland) accompanied by another person, whom he could not recognise amongst the defendants now before the Court, called at his place of business, and having entered the dining-room, the person whom he did not know introduced the defendant (Ireland) to him, and said, "We want to see you on some private business." This was shortly before noon. M'Nish informed them that as his customers were about to come in just then to lunch, he could not attend to the defendants, who left, and returned at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. One of the defendants (he could not say which) said to him, "I believe you are summoned as a juryman to attend at the County Court on the 19th September." M'Nish replied in the affirmative, and the defendants referred to the case of Crawford v Henry, which was then pending. The conversation lasted for five or ten minutes, but M'Nish did not pay particular attention to what was said at the time, and could not exactly remember what took place. He, however, understood the defendants to say that the case of Crawford v Henry had been instituted for the recovery of certain damages for the illegal seizure of Mrs Crawford's furniture by Henry as distraint for rent. The defendants said it was not the money Henry wanted, but a verdict for the sake of principle. As near as he could remember, when the defendants left the diningroom together he heard them say, " We don't mind sending you a cheque for your trouble." The defendant Ireland called again the following day, and handed him an extract from the Argus containing a letter addressed by David Henry to the editor in reference to the case of Henry v Sutton. On the same dav, M'Nish happened to pass Ireland's shop in Bourke street, when he observed the person who had accompanied Ireland to his place the previous day standing on the footpath, opposite Ireland's shop door. As a matter of fact M'Nish attended at the County Court as a juror, but was not engaged in the case of Crawford v Henry.
    (Owing to the defective memory of this witness, his examination was carried on very slowly. Serjeant Sleigh ventured to suggest leading points of evidence to the witness, which Mr Purves strongly objected to.)
    William Linden Frost, carpenter, residing in Derby-street, Collingwood, stated that he was summonded to attend at the County Court as a juror on the 24th September. He received the summons on the 11th September, and on the same day the defendant Ire land, in company with another person called at his residence. As witness was not at home at the time they went away, and returned again about 8 o'clock the following morning. The other person, he be lieved, was Irelands son. The defen dant said to witness, "I want a win dow sash made for Mr David Henry ; what will you make it for?" at the same time producing a plan for the work. There was a footnote on the plan to this effect—"Bill to be sent to David Henry, money broker. Witness was about to say what the window frame would cost, when Ireland interjected, "Never mind, send the bill to Mr Henry." Before he left, Ireland asked him if he had been summoned as a jurjman at the County Court to which witness replied, " Yes, I received a summons yesterday." Ireland then made a statement to the following effect -"Mr Henry has a case coming on at the County Court in connexion with a lady at St Kilda, who had taken a large house and had it extensively fur nished. She applied to Mr Henry for £200 on the furniture. Mr Henry was quite satisfied with the genuineness of her application, but he wanted some person to become security for her. The following day she called upon Mr Henry, and told him she had obtained a gentleman to become security, and Mr Henry lent her the money. A few weeks afterwards this lady came to Mr Henry, apparently in great trouble, stating that she owed the landlord about £30 for rent, and he was about to seize the furniture in satisfaction of the amount Mr Henry went to the landlord, and found there was £30 owing for rent which he (Henry) had to pay.
    Mr Henry called at the house again, and it was arranged with Mrs Crawford's sanction that the furniture should be removed for sale by auction. The furniture was even- tually sold and as it did not realise the amount of Mr Henry's claim, he came upon the person who had become security for the balance, who, however, declined to pay the amount, as Henry had seized Mrs Crawford's furniture. After this statement Ireland said David Henry had a case coming on at the County Court, and assured the witness that if he could do him a favour he would greatly oblige him. Ireland again explained that Mrs Crawford had sought to recover damages from Henry, and represented her as a "perfect swindler." Witness having finished the window frame he took it to Irelands place, and left the bill with the defendant Henry at his private office. Henry handed him 12s 6d , the cost of the work, and offered him a chair. Henry then said he had lent Mrs Crawford some money on her furniture, and as he had to pay the landlord for the rent due, he had been compelled to seize the furniture, which was not done without some difficulty. He, however, obtained Mrs Crawfords sanc tion to its removal, and as the furniture did not realise the amount he lent upon it, he came upon a gentleman who had become security for Mrs Crawford, who refused to pay the balance. Henry then added, "This woman has sued me for damages. She was here a few days ago, and offered to square it for £20, and if you could do me a favour in the case I will be greatly obliged to you." Henry then referred to another case which was coming on at the County Court, in which he was engaged, and witness understood was coming on about the same time as the case in question. He had made a communication to one of the officers of the court in reference to a person having attempted to influence his decision as a juror.
    John Duncan, detective officer, deposed that he was instructed to make inquiries into the subject of the present case. On the 27th September, he saw the defendant Henry, who called at his house in North Carlton. He said, "You are making inquiries about my case, are you not." Witness replied, " I am." Henry then expressed a hope that he would not allow any of the particulars to appear in the newspapers. Witness replied, "No, it is not my business to supply information to the press." Henry added, "It is a very unpleasant matter, owing to the mistaken kindness of some friends. Some of my fuends, thinking the jurors would be prejudiced against me, ob tained the names of the jurymen empanelled to satisfy themselves, in order to ascertain from any of the jurors if they would be pre judiced against me. The last time I had a case before the Court a man named Hogg gave some of the jurors drink, and my friends were desirous of knowing if any of those jurors were again on the panel. If the jurymen have been called upon in reference to the case in which I am concerned, I know nothing of it." He further said he did not think the Attorney General would press the charge, and then left. A paragraph subsequently appeared in the papers, and the defendant Henry accosted him in the street, and asked him if he had supplied the infor mation. Witness replied that he had not done so. The defendant said that the Attorney General was a friend of his, and he did not think he would press the matter further. Henry also asked witness if he could advise him in any way in reference to the case. Witness told him that he was not in a position to give him any legal advice, and suggested that if the Attorney General was his friend he would probably be able to ad vise him in the matter. On the 9th October he served the defendant with the summons upon which he appeared before the Court, the summons being handed to Henry in his ofiice in Collins street east. Henry remarked, " All right, I will be there." Witness served the defendant Ireland with a summons the same afternoon. Ireland said, " I have got myself into this mess by assisting a friend, and doing a friendly action. It will be the last time I will do such a thing."
    Kissane was also served with a summons the same afternoon at the Clarence Hotel. On receiving the summons Kissane said that he never had anything whatever to say to any of the jurors which in his opinion might prejudice their minds. He admitted he had called upon Thomas Smith at his business place in Emerald hill and purchased a hat from him. The defendant Mann was served with his summons the following morning. At that time he had a full beard, whiskers, and moustache.
    William Considine, detective, stated that he was in company with Detective Duncan when he served the defendants Ireland, Kissane, and Henry with the summonses by which they were charged with conspiring to tamper with the minds of the jurors.
    This having concluded the case for the prosecution.
    Serjeant Sleigh said that as no evidence had been brought before the Court by which a conviction could be established against the defendant Mann, he would ask the Bench to dismiss the complaint against the accused.
    The Bench, without any hesitation, thereupon discharged Mann.
    Mr Purves then addressed the Bench at some length on behalf of his client. Accord- ing to the information the defendant was charged, in common with the three other defendants, with having conspired to defeat the course of justice, by endeavouring to tamper with and prejudice the minds of certain jurors who had been summoned to appear at the County Court. Throughout the whole of the proceedings, David Henry had been described as a money lender, and in that capacity he made his living by accommodat ing the public with money on certain terms of interest. No doubt there was a very broad feeling against him, inasmuch as he was a usurer. An endeavour had been made to prejudice the minds of the Bench by this means, and he would ask the magistrates to disregard the nature of the defendant's calling or profession. He did not consider that the evidence which had been laid before the Court was such as to justify the Bench in sending the defendants to take their trial on a charge of conspiracy. It was all very well for the learned ser jeant to come to that court and to treat every member of the bar to whom he was opposed with contemptuous indifference. Although he had resorted to every expedient known to a certain class of professional men in the old country for the purpose of proving that the defendants had been guilty of a "crime of the greatest enormity," as the learned Serjeant had termed it in his opening speech the main question they had to con sider was whether the defendants had been guilty of a charge of conspiracy to suborn jurors, as had been alleged. They were not charged with embracery, it would he observed, but with conspiracy to commit embraces, which was quite a different charge. Mr Purves then proceeded to review the evidence as given by the witnesses. As to the belief that the defendant Henry had obtained a list of the jurors who had been empanelled to at tend the County Court in the case of Craw ford v Henry, for the purpose of attempting to influence the decision they might be called upon to give in the case, he pointed out that any person had a right to obtain a list of jurymen in all cases before the Court. In this case the defendant had so obtained the list of jurors empanelled in order to find out their peculiar idiosyncracies, and if necesery to challenge the panel. As regards the evidence given by Commins, the landlord of the Blue Bell Hotel, there was nothing whatever to show that the de fendants had attempted to influence his de cision in the case. They merely went into a private room at the hotel for the purpose of some refreshment, and during their stay there the conversation turned on the case of Crawford v Henry, and as the landlord was a juror in the case it was only natural that they should have spoken to him about the case. In fact, it was merely a " fishing expedition. Ireland was a well known citizen and a respectable man ; and if he had had any intention of conspiring with the defendant Henry, it was not likely that he would have gone about the matter in the open manner that he did when he called upon the witness Joseph Young, at his residence in Carlton. Again, the evidence given by the witness Herbert Hart did not prove anything as against the defendants. The witness Thomas Smith, hatter, of Emerald Hill, had evidently been "blocked" by the detectives, judging from the cut and dried manner in which he had given his evidence. It was alleged that Kissane called upon Smith at his shop, and purchased a hat as the result of a wager about some mining stock with David Henry. The price of the hat was 16s 6d., and to suit his own purposes Smith had made out a dual account for the purchase. Henry paid Smith two half sovereigns, the recognised amount of the wager, and although Smith afterwards sent the difference to Kissane, he (Mr Purves) thought the transaction savoured of a little sharp practice on the part of Smith. Smith had also stated that when he entered Henrys private office the door was closed and securely fastened, and that during their con versation Henry went to an iron safe, from which he took several sovereigns and placed them on the table before Smith. As a matter of fact, the door was never fastened during the whole time Smith was closeted with the defendant, as the door had no lock to it. It would certainly be admitted that Henry placed the money on the table, but he did not offer any of it to Smith. Moreover, if Smith had been so tampered with as alleged, he could not understand how be could have acted as a juryman in the case with justice to himself without making a complaint to that effect until after the hearing of the case. The witness M'Nish, whose evidence had been as it were pumped into him by a sort of infiltrating process, had apparently no connexion with Henry' case whatever. The only material portion of his evidence was that put into his mouth by the learned Serjeant-namely, the statement of Ireland to the efiect that it was not the verdict for money that they wanted, but a verdict for the sake of the principle involved. The wit- ness Frost had been summoned to appear as a juror at the County Court on the 24th September, and it had been alleged as against Henry that he had conspired with Ireland to tamper with Trost, who was not engaged as a juror at all in the case of Crawford v Henry, which was tried on the 19th of September. There was, however, no necessity for a jury in this case, the plaintiff having been nonsuited. In fact, the case could never have gone to a jury, as the question involved was a point of law which no jury could determine. In reference to the evidence of Detective Duncan, it appeared very strange that proceedings had not been initiated until after a question in reference to the subject had been asked in the Upper House. Taking all the evidence into consideration, therefore, he did not consider that there was any case on which a jury would convict the defendants on a charge of conspiracy. He had no doubt that the disclosures made throughout the hearing of the case would do a great amount of good, but at the same time he did not think that the evidence was sufficiently strong to bring the minds of the Bench to believe that the defendants had con- spired together to commit an illegal action.
    Mr Fink briefly addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant Ireland, and urged that no evidence had been brought forward to show that his client had been guilty of conspiring with the defendant Henry, although he may probably have acted with him in a rather ill advised manner.
    Mr Hood submitted that no case whatever had been made out against the defendant Kissane, who had never attempted to tamper with the juror Thomas Smith in any way. He had no ulterior motive in purchasing the hat from him, which was merely the result of a wager with the defendant Henry, and if such had been proved to be the case he felt sure that Henry would never have placed himself in the power of Kissane for such a purpose.
    The Bench having consulted together for some little time.
    Mr Call said that the Bench were of opinion that the case was one to go before a jury and he then committed the defendants David Henry, Wm Ireland, and Wm Kissane, to take their trial at the Central Criminal Court on the 14th November.
    Serjeant Sleigh applied to the Bench that the defendants should be required to entet into recognisances for their appearance on the 14th November.
    Mr Godfrey, on behalf of Mr Purves, who had left the court, pointed out that as the defendants were well known citizens, and had been brought before the Court on summons, there was no necessity that they should be required to enter into recognisances.
    Mr Call said that the defendant Henry would he required to enter into his own personal recognisance of £200, and to find one surety of £200, while the defendants Ireland and Kissane would be admitted to bail in their own personal bonds of £100 each, and one surety of £100 each.
    The bondsmen having been obtained, the defendants left the court.23
  • 16 Nov 1878, CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD COURT-HOUSE -FRIDAY, Nov 15. (Before His Honour the Chief Justice) EMBRACERY CASE.
    David Henry, money lender, William Ireland, florist, and William R Kissane stock broker, were charged with conspiracy and embracery.
    Serjeant Sleigh and Mr C A Smyth appeared for the Crown, Mr Purves for Henry Mr MacDermott for Ireland and Mr Molesworth for Kissane.
    The defendants were allowed to occupy seats on the floor of the court.
    The presentment charged the defendant! with conspiring to defeat justice by attempting to bribe, tamper with, and solicit six jurors named Wm. M'Nish, Herbert Hart,Terence Cummins, Joseph Young, Wm Frost and Thomas Smith for the purpose of obtaining a corrupt verdict in the case of Crawford v Henry which was heard in the County Court in September last and also with embracery in its simple form. There were 17 counts presenting these two charges in various direct and general forms.
    Mr SMITH explained to the jury the nature or the charges and indicated the kind of evidence which would be adduced.
    Robert Clark Morgan assistant registrar at the County Court Melbourne examined by Serjeant Sleigh said he produced the "proceedings" in the case of Crawford v Henry. The case was set down for the 19th of September last. The present defendant Henry was the defendant in that case. Witness also produced the two jury panels for the sitting of the court referred to as also the precepts for issuing these panels. The cause of Crawford v Henry came on for hearing on the 19th of September before a judge and jury.
    The name of Thomas Smith was in the list of the jurors. The trial ended with a non suit. Certain communications were made to witness after the court rose by more than one juryman.
    Cross examined by Mr PURVES.-About 16 or 17 jurymen were on each of the panels. The case of Crawford v Henry was one of pure law, and there was nothing in it for a jury to detemine. The judge at the end of the case called upon any of the jurymen who had a complaint to make to do so but none came forward.
    Re examined -After the court rose Joseph Young, one of the jurors summoned, said to witness that some persons had been endeavouring to influence him with regard to Henry's case.
    Alfred Martin Ebsworth one of the pub lishers of The Argus, produced a letter signed "David Henry", which appeared in The Argus of August 9. The letter was dated August 7, and was in reply to a letter of Mrs Craw ford on the case of Henry v Sutton, which was published in that day's issue of this journal.
    Alexander Laurence, bank clerk, proved that the signature to the letter produeed was that of the defendant Henry.
    Terence Cummins proprietor of the Blue Bell Hotel, Little Collins street said he was summoned as a juror to the sitting of the County Court on the 19th of September. On the preceding Monday the defendants Henry and Ireland called at his house and spoke to him at the bar. They asked for a private room, and he showed them into one. Henry called for drinks and paid for them. They talked together about the case of Crawford v Henry. Henry eventually left and Ireland then spoke to witness about the case. He explained its nature, and said that Mrs Crawford had treated Henry very badly and that the latter had to sell her furnituie to protect himself. He inquired if witness was summoned as a juror, but witness made no reply. He then went on to say that he would see that he was summoned, and that he would make it worth his while. He stated also that the action was for £200. Witness asked if the property had realised that amount. Defendant replied that he awas under the impression had not but a third party whom witness did not now, came in and said that it did. This conversation lasted about 10 or 20 minutes. Asked Ireland who he was, and defendant replied that he was employed by Henry to do odd jobs. Next day Ireland called again by himself and had a drink. He said he was going round to see the jurymen. Witness remarked- "I dont think you will benefit yourself by doing so. If anything could prejudice me against the case it would be your conduct in coming to me. Witness attended the court on the 19th as a juror but was not placed on the jury. After a remark from the judge, witness made a complaint to the clerk of the court.
    Joseph Young, contractor Drummond street examined by Mr Smith said he was a juror at the County Court on the 19th September. A day or two after he had been served with his summons, the defendant Ireland and another young man called at his house. Ireland said he wanted to speak on private business and on being shown into a room said he had called concerning the case of Crawford v Henry. After stating that he knew witness had been summoned as a juior he read the letter-Henry's letter-in The Argus with regard to the case of Henry v Sutton. Witness remarked that he knew all about the case having read the report. Ireland then said "I am a friend of Mr Henry, and I wish to do him a good turn if I can. He is a decent man if you only knew him. Do you believe that honesty is the best policy?" Witness replied that he had always believed in that maxim. Ireland then said, "It is not always the best. A few hundred pounds are easily made sometimes."
    Witness observed, "That would depend upon how it was made." The defendant said, "You are a contractor. Mr Henry has a great deal of property and a great deal of work." Witness replied I don't want any of Mr Henry's work. He again spoke of Mrs Crawford defrauding people and asked again if witness believed in honesty, and witness answered that he did. He then remarked, " If you were ever going to build a house a few hundred pounds would be very handy." He spoke a good deal more on the case of Henry v Sutton. As he was going away witness asked him-"How do you know that I have got a County Court summons?" and he replied- That is a secret. Witness then told him- "You have no right to come to me or any other jury man, and you are acting illegally." He said he knew that and then left. Witness attended the County Court, but was not on the jury. Before leaving the Court, however, he made a complaint to one of the officers.
    To Mr MACDERMOTT- Never had any transaction with Henry.
    Thomas Smith, hatter, Clarendon street, Emerald-hill, examined by Serjeant Sleigh, said he was one of the jurors summoned for the County Court in September last. On the Friday previous to the sittings, the defendant Kissane called at his shop and asked if his name was Smith. On being answered in the affirmative he said "I had a bet with David Henry, of Collins street and have won a hat from him. I will fit on a hat, and as you dont know Henry I will go with you at any time you like to see everything right. In the meantime the hat can remain here and may be sent to my house in Ferrars- street afterwards. Arranged to go with him to Henry's office next morning and did so. The price of the hat was 16s 6d but at Kissane's request he made out two accounts for it one for 16s 6d and the other for 20s., the price of a betting hat. Found Henry absent on calling at his office. They came out again, and Kissane asked witness if he could make it convenient to call back. Witness returned some time afterwards and was shown by a clerk into a room where he found Mr Henry alone. Henry invited him to take a seat, told him the transaction with Kissane as to the hat was all right. Inquired how long he had been in business ; said he thought he knew his shop that he had some boys, and should after that be a customer. Witness re ceipted the bill for the hat, and re ceived from him two half sovereigns as payment of the same. When handing him the receipt he (Henry) said, "By the bye, did Kissane mention anything to you about a case in which I am concerned that is coming before the County Court shortly?" Witness replied that Kissane had not mentioned any case to him. The defendant said that Kissane might have mentioned a case brought against him by Mrs Crawford. He then explained how that case had arisen, and after speaking a good deal about it ended by saying, "If you should happen to be a juror in that case, will you do me justice?" Witness answered that he would endeavour to do that to any one Henry rejoined that he thought so as he (witness) was a respectable man, and con tinued, "You can see that this woman is a bad person, and that she has swindled me out of my good money. Witness then made a move to withdraw. Henry apologised for detaining him, asked him to remain a minute, walked to a large iron safe, and placed some sovereigns on blotting paper which lay on a table, saying, "Take this for any extra trouble you may be put to on my account." Witness said he could not think of doing such a thing as that. Henry said it was a common thing, and had been done in a recent mining case. As witness was then leaving, Henry accompanied him to the door, said "If you see me right, I shall see you right afterwards," and shook hands with him. Witness was on the jury which was empanelled for the case but there was no case for the jury. The hat he sold to Kissane was sent to that defendant's house, with 3s 6d. inside of it.
    To Mr PURVES -Could not say how many sovereigns the defendant Henry offered him.
    Herbert Hart, contractor, Park street, Royal-park, another of the jurors summoned to the September sittings of the County Court said that on the day he received his summons the defendant Ireland along with a younger man called on him and introduced himself by saying. "Are you not summoned as a juryman?"
    Witness said " Yes the children have just told me about a summons. You have got the news quickly." Ireland remarked, " A friend of mine has got a case in court. I take an interest in it and have come to you about it," on which witness observed that this was an unusual course to take. The defendant then said that the case had appeared in the papers ; that there were some letters in The Argus about it, and was pulling them out of his pocket when witness told him not to trouble as he had seen The Argus and that he knew he referred to a case about Henry and a lady at St Kilda. Ireland said "That is just the case." Witness asked, "What brings you to me and Ireland replied, "Well, I come to you on behalf of Henry." Witness said, " I am not judge or jury und I don't see what I have to do in the matter but if I am on the jury I will have an honest decision according to the evidence. I do not care what you say and I will not be influenced by Henry or anyone else." The conversation lasted half an hour. When Ireland tried to introduce the subject again witness stopped him, but he narrated the whole case and would not be checked. He stated that Henry had an order from the lady to take away the goods for which she was suing; that he took them away more to relieve her and a save her from other creditors than anything else ; that Judge Cope took strange views, sometimes one sided views, and sometimes influenced a jury very much. At the time Ireland called there were two or three ladies in the parlour, sitting down to some music. He said, "Ladies I want to speak privately to Mr Hart ; will you oblige me by leaving the room?" Witness said there was no occasion for them to retire, as it could not be anything par ticular but Ireland replied that he preferred to speak in private and the ladies left the room. The conversation then went on as stated.
    To Mr M'DERMOTT. - He had been thinking over the case since the police court proceedings and had added to the evidence he then gave.
    Wm M'Nish, restaurant keeper, Bourke-street, said he also was one of the jurors summoned in September last to the County Court. A few days before the sittings of the Court, Ireland called on him at about 12 o'clock along with another man. Ireland said he wanted a private interview and witness arranged to see him at 3 o'clock at which hour the two men returned. Ireland said he waited to see him on private business, and asked if he had a more private room. Wit ness said "No," and they sat down where they were. One of the men said, "I believe you are summoned on the jury?" and he having replied that he was the conversation turned on the case of Crawford v Henry. One said it was not the money they cared for, but a verdict that they wanted. The conver sation lasted five or 10 minutes. They spoke about Mrs Crawford running in debt with everyone. As they were leaving one of them said he would not mind sending witness a cheque. Ireland called next morning alone, and left a piece of a newspaper-a copy of Henry's letter to The Argus-saying that it would explain the case. Witness attended the County Court but was not on the jury. He made no complaint to the Court but he spoke to some friends about the matter.
    To Mr M'DERMOTT. -Could not say that either of the two men spoke with a foreign accent.
    Wm Linden Frost, carpenter, 43 Derby-street, Collingwood was summoned to the September sittings of the County Court as a juror. Ireland and another called on him the day he received the summons but found him absent. They called again next day. Ireland showed him a sketch of a window sash (produced). Said he wanted one made like it for Mr Henry, the money lender and when witness was considering what the cost of it would be he said, " Never mind, leave it at my place, and take the bill to Mr Henry, of whom he said, "I can assure you that you will find him to be a very decent man." Having then ascertained that witness had been summoned as a juior, he said that Henry had a case coming on with a woman who was a regular professional swindler and explained the nature of the case at length. He then said, "If you could do Henry a favour, he will be very greatly obliged."
    The sash was for Ireland's shop and it was made and taken there on the following Saturday. Ireland, on its delivery, asked him (Frost) to go into his office, make out the bill and take it to Henry, and he did so. The bill amounted to 12s 6d. On presenting it Henry said he had two cases coming on in the County Court, explained the one brought against him by Mrs Crawford and said, " If you would do me a favour I would be much obliged. Witness was not on the jury, but he complained to the Court.
    John Duncan, first class detective, stated that he had made inquiries into this case. On the 27th September, the defendant Henry called at his private residence in North Carlton said he had heard he had been making these inquiries and expressed a hope that no information would be given to the press. He then asked for advice and said the Attorney General was his friend. Witness recommended him to call on the Attorney General. On the 10th of October, in company with Detective Considine, witness served him with a summons to attend the Police Court. Also served Ireland, who on receiving his summons said, Well, this is the result of doing a friendly action. I shall not be so foolish as do anything of the kind again." Shortly afterwards witness found Kissane in the Clarence Hotel and in a conversation with him learned that he was the man who had bought the hat from Mr Smith of Emerald hill and therefore served him likewise with a summons.
    This was the case for the Crown and no evidence was called for the defence.
    Mr SMYTH reviewed the evidence and maintained that both embracery and con spiracy to corrupt jurymen had been proved against the defendants. There was no doubt that the defendant Henry was at the bottom of all this business, and that he had used the other men as his tools. A regular systematic attempt had been made to corrupt the jurymen and to befoul the fountain of public justice. The letter of Henry which appeared in The Argus, might have been written and published innocently enough, but it was quite another thing to show it to the jurymen who were expected to try the case, and to ask them to accept it as the true version of the affair ; and the evidence of direct bribery and solicitation was clear and distinct. If the jury believed the evidence adduced, they must find the defendants guilty ; and that the witnesses were all reliable was proved by the fact that none of them had been cross-examined even as to their veracity.
    Mr M'DERMOTT addressed the jury on behalf of Ireland. The whole three defendants, he said had been heavily handicapped by distorted views of the case having been pub lished in the press. So far as his client was concerned it was not even pretended that he was ever to receive one farthing for what he had done for Henry. In what he did he was solely influenced by a desire to do a good natural act for a friend. There was no evidence of conspiracy between him and the other defendants except that he was once seen in a public house with Henry, and that was an accidental meeting. The charge of embracery was more serious, but by scrutinising the evidence the jury would see that although Ireland had behaved foolishly, indiscreetly and improperly, yet there was no criminal intention to corrupt the jurors. His offence was one of a most unusual character. Very few knew that there was such a crime and if Ireland had committed a stupid mistake he had done it in ignorance of the law. The jury he trusted, would not take a harsh view of the case and would so far as his client was concerned acquit him.
    Mr PURVES on behalf of his client, the defendant Henry, said that the commencement of this unfortunate business was the appearance in The Argus of a letter from Mrs Crawford contenting the case of Henry v Sutton. A one sided statement of the case was thus published and it was only right that the other version of it should be stated by Mr Henry, and he accordingly wrote a letter to the same journal for that very natural action, however, he had been charged with embracery, but if he was guilty of that offence so also was The Argus, as by the publication of the first letter that journal had set before the public, from whom the jurymen were to be chosen a garbled or exparte statement of the case and one which was calculated to influence the minds of the jurors. But that Henry had no intention of tampering with the jurymen was evident from the fact that the case in question was not one that could go before a jury-a fact that his client as a businessman, must have been well aware of. Moreover, Mr Frost, one of the jurors he was said to have tampered with, was not on the panel from whom the jury was chosen. The panel he was on did not have to attend until four days later. But the whole case de pended upon whether the alleged offences had been committed with a criminal intention, and of this there was no proof. There had been no secrecy on the part of Henry, and no conspiracy, for the defendants had never been seen together. There was not a tittle of evidence against Kissane, and although it could not be denied that the other two had acted very improperly, they had offended in ignorance.
    Mr MOLESWORTH submitted that there had been no evidence affecting his client Kissane, except the statement of Mr Smith, the hatter, and Detective Duncan, with regard to the hat transaction and in these there was nothing of a criminating character. A jury could never convict on such testimony, and he therefore claimed the aquittal of his client.
    His HONOUR, in summing up, said it did not appear to him that there was any evidence to support the conspiracy or direct bribery counts. It was to the counts charg ing the defendants with endeavouring to tamper with and corruptly influence, that the attention of the jury should be specially directed. There was no statute law prohibiting the offence but it was not therefore to be considered lawful. We were going through a solemn mockery every day if such things went on, and it would be better to shut up the courts alto gether than to allow the people to come there for justice when that justice depended upon the extent men could be led astray.
    If bribes were given and accepted they were acted upon, and in that aspect the importance of this case could not be over-estimated. It was perfectly appalling to look forward to the injury that might result if such a system were possible in our community, for it would take away all confidence from our courts if it were supposed that the judge or jury might be corruptly influenced one way or the other. If there was a shadow of a doubt all confidence would be gone, and properly gone.
    The jury retired and after deliberating for about an hour, found Henry and Ireland guilty of embracery, and acquitted Kissane.
    Judgment was reserved until to day, and Henry and Ireland were lodged for the night in the Melbourne Gaol, whilst Kissane was discharged.
    The Court then adiourned.24
  • 20 Nov 1878, CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. (Before his Honour the Chief Justice.) Old Court-house.-Tuesday, Nov. 19. SENTENCES.
    THE ATTEMPT TO BRIBE JURORS.
    David Henry and William Ireland, who were convicted of embracery were placed at the bar.
    The associate asked Henry if he had any thing to say why sentence should not be passed.
    Henry, who could scarcely speak, was understood to say that he had been many years in Melbourne, and there had been nothing against him before. He had risked his life nine times and saved nine lives, for which he held the society's medal.
    Ireland in reply to the usual question, said he had nothing to say.
    His Honour, addressing the prisoners, said, You have both been found guilty of a most serious offence, which has been aggravated very much by the mode in which you endeavoured to commit it. You not merely tried to sap justice at its very springs, but you endeavoured to demoralise, so far as you could, six persons in this community, to corrupt them, to familiarise them with crime, and to render crime more probable. The punishment which I can inflict is fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. It is difficult to apportion exactly the amount of fine to be imposed on you. You, David Henry, have been described as a money broker, and it is quite ap parent from your free use of your money that you possess wealth. To fine you, there fore, only, would be no punishment ; to fine a rich man is comparatively no punishment. In the case of a poor man a fine may be a very serious punishment, almost amounting to imprisonment for life. If the punish ment of both of you were to be commensurate with the injury you endeavoured to inflict upon the community, it ought to be of unexampled severity. But that is not the true measure of punishment. It is to deter the offender and others from ever committing a similar offence. The punishment is in my discretion. I would prefer it were not so. I feel compelled in this case to draw a clear distinction between you. The one was the mover and the instigator ; the other the tool, but the willing, ready, and apt tool.
    I say I feel bound to mark my sense of your offence in such a way that others will never commit a like one. The sentence on you, David Henry, is that you be imprisoned in Her Majesty a Gaol, at Melbourne, for four years, that you pay a fine of £500 to the Crown, and that you be further imprisoned till that fine be paid, and that you, William Ireland, be imprisoned for two years, and pay a fine of £50, and be further imprisoned till the fine be paid.
    This concluded the business, and the Court adjourned sine die.25
  • 20 Nov 1878, A large crowd attended at the Central Criminal Court yesterday morning to hear the sentences to be passed on David Henry and William Ireland, convicted of the offence of embracery, or, in popular language, attempting to bribe jurors. Some prisoners were sentenced before them, and when Henry and Ireland were placed at the bar it was noticed that since his conviction, Henry had very much altered in appearance, in fact, looked quite ill. When asked what he had to say against judgment being pronounced upon him, it was some moments before he could be heard to say anything, and at last he faltered out that he had risked his life nine times, and saved nine lives. Ireland, on the other hand, said in a firm voice that he had nothing to say. The Chief Justice remarked that the offence was a very aggravated one, for it not merely attempted to sap justice at its springs, but there was an attempt to demoralise a number of citizens, and make them familiar with crime. If the punishment was to be measured by the enormity of the crime it ought in this case to be one of unexampled severity ; but the object of punishment was to deter the offenders and others from com mitting similar crimes in the future. A fine to a rich man was no punishment, and Henry was apparently wealthy ; Ireland was only a tool for Henry, and therefore there would be a distinction between the two sentences. Henry was then sentenced to four years imprisonment, and to pay a fine of £500 ; and Ireland to two years in prison ment, and a fine of £50, in each case imprisonment till the fine was paid. Henry seemed utterly astounded at the sentence.26
  • 19 Dec 1878, LAW REPORT SUPREME COURT. OLD COURT HOUSE -MONDAY, DEC. 16. SITTINGS IN BANCO-HILARY TERM. (Before their Honours the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Barry.)
    SUTTON (APPELLANT), HENRY (RESPONDENT).
    Appeal from County Court, Melbourne
    Mr Hood for the appellant, Mr, Molesworth for the respondent.
    David Henry sued John Sutton on a joint and several promissory note made in his favour by the defendant and Mrs B Crawford. The defence was that the note was obtained by fraud, and that there was no consideration for it. The case for the plaintiff was that Mrs B Crawford had owed him £200, for which he held two notes of hers and a bill of sale payable on demand; that he agreed to give up the two notes and to reduce the interest provided the defendant would join in giving the note sued on, which was dated 14th December, 1877, payable in four months. The defendant replied that an additional consideration was that plaintiff would not seize the furniture included in the bill of sale during the currency of the note sued on, and that he had broken that bargain by taking possession on the 25th February 1878. This further agreement was denied by the plaintiff. The jury gave a verdict for the defendant but the plaintiff applied either to have a verdict entered for him or a new trial ordered on the ground that even assuming the defendant's case to be the true one, there was only a partial, not total, failure of consideration for the note as Mrs Crawford had been allowed more time than was mentioned in the bill of sale. The judge granted a new trial, and the defendant appealed.
    The Court gave judgment.
    The Chief Justice said this was an appeal from an order of the judge of the County Court directing a new trial. The defendant was the joint and several maker of a promissory note payable to the plaintiff. His co-maker was a Mrs Crawford. According to the evidence for the plaintiff this note was taken by the plaintiff on his obtaining the additional name of Sutton as joint maker and the consideration, so far as Mrs Crawford was concerned was that she should pay a less rate of interest on a loan than she had previously been paying. According to the evidence of the defendant, the consideration for his making the note was the grant of further time to Mrs Crawford to pay off a bill of sale on her furniture, that the furniture should not be sold during the currency of the note. A few days after the note was made the furniture was seized and sold, so that there was a total failure of consideration for the note so far as he was concerned. The jury found a verdict for the defendant and apparently on the notes of evidence the verdict was right. The judge has, however, directed a new trial and it was a recognised principile that when a judge before whom a case is tried is dissatisfied with the verdict the Court will give way to his view and direct a new trial. In this case they must assume that the judge of the County Court was dis satisfied with the verdict. It appeared to him (the Chief Justice) that it was a question entirely for the jury that there was evidence both ways, and it was for the jury to say which they would believe. For himself, he would not have disturbed the verdict but acting on the recognised principle he had already referred to, he ought not to interfere with the decision of the judge who tried the case. The appeal would be dismissed but it was not a case for costs for the appellant came here on facts which prima facie justified the appeal. He may not have regarded the opinion of the judge in the same light as this Court did.
    Mr Justice BARRY said that in the case there was a singular mixture of the consideration given by Mrs Crawford and that given by Mr Sutton. The consideration to one was quite distinct from that to the other. It appeared to him that it was entirely a jury question whether the consideration for Sutton's signing his name was the giving of further time on the bill of sale. The judge who tried the case thought, however, that it was one for a new trial and therefore this Court ought not, on the principles referred to by the Chief Justice, interfere with that decision , but he (Mr Justice Barry ) thought it was very likely that another jury would give the same verdict as the last one had done.
    Appeal dismissed without costs; order for a new trial to stand.27
  • 3 Jan 1879, AN INTERESTING MARRIAGE. A marriage worthy of some notice took place at Hay, New South Wales, on the 21st December. The bride was connected with a certain cause celèbre which recently attracted unprecedented interest in this colony, namely, the pro secution and conviction of David Henry, late of Collins-street, money lender, for embracery. It will be remembered that David Henry's troubles in the civil and criminal courts originated in the alleged harsh and cruell manner in which he seized and sold the furniture, bedding, goods, and all the property belonging to Mrs Blakely Crawford, who had been keeping a boarding-house at St. Kilda. Mrs Crawford brought an action against Henry to recover damages for illegal distraint, and would, according to good legal opinion, have recovered substantial compensation for the way in which she had been sold out of house and home. It was for at tempting to bribe the jurors who were to try that action that David Henry was found guilty and sentenced to four years' imprisonment in Pentridge. However, before Henry's conviction Mrs Crawford, in order to earn a living for herself and her children, found it necessary to accept a situation as house keeper at an hotel in Hay. Here in the course of her duties she hecame ac quainted with Mr Peter Tyson, the well-known squatter, of Corrong station, a gentleman whose wealth is reputed to be something enormous, amount ing, according to some accounts, to £3,000,000. Mr Tyson has been living as a bachelor all his life, and the numerous collateral members of his family had not the slightest idea that he intended to marry until Mrs Crawford appeared on the scene. No won der such a marriage has caused quite a flutter in the circles through whom the squatting millionaire was accustomed to move. Mrs Tyson was the widow of the late Mr Sydney M. Crawford, J.P., of Adelaide.--Age. [The happy bridegroom in this case, we need not inform our local readers, is brother of Mr. James Tyson, of Heyfield.]28
  • 14 Jan 1879, MARRIAGE OF A WEALTHY BACHELOR.-A marriage worthy of some notice took place at Hay, New South Wales, on December 21 (says the Age). The bride was connected with a certain cause célèbre which recently attracted unprecedented interest in this colony-namely, the prosecution and conviction of David Henry, late of Collins-street, money-lender, for em- bracery. It will be remembered that David Henrys troubles in the civil and criminal courts originated in the alleged harsh and cruel manner in which he seized and sold the bedding, furniture, goods, and all the property belonging to Mrs. Blakely Crawford, who had been keeping a boarding-house at St. Kilda. Mrs. Crawford brought an action against Henry to recover damages for illegal distraint, and would, according to good legalopinion, have recovered substantial compensation for the way in which she had been sold out of house and home. It was for attempting to bribe, the jurors who were to try that action that David Henry was found guilty and sentenced to four years imprisonment in Pentridge. However, before Henry's conviction, Mrs. Crawford, in order to earn a living for herself and her children, found it necessary to accept a situation as housekeeper, at an hotel in Hay.
    Here in the course of her duties she became acquainted with Mr. Peter Tyson, the well known squatter, of Corrong station, a gentleman, whose wealth is reputed to be some- thing enormous, amounting, to some accounts, to £3,000,000. Mr. Tyson has been living as a bachelor all his life, and the numerous collateral members of his family had not the slightest idea that he intended to marry until Mrs. Crawford appeared on the scene. No wonder such a marriage has caused quite a flutter in the circles through which the squatting millionaire was accustomed to move. Mrs. Tyson was the widow of the late Mr. Sidney M. Crawford, J.P., of Adelaide.29
  • 15 Jan 1879, The following paragraph is from the Pastoral Times of Saturday last:-The Age must have mistaken Mr P. Tyson for Mr James Tyson when it states that Mr Peter Tyson has lived a bachelor all his life. Mr P. Tyson shows too plainly that he regards with favour wedded life. Doubtless the fact is that having had and lost an amiable wife, he felt life too lonely and has therefore made his present choice, in which all his friends with us wish him much happiness. We see the Age's version of Mr Tyson's marriage has already got into the Evening News of Sydney. The Age states that it is "no wonder such a marriage has caused quite a flutter in the circles through which the squatting millionaire was accustomed to move." Without doubt when Mr James Tyson does make up his mind to change his present busy life for the comforts of a domestic home, the event will make a flutter in the colonies: yet we do not know why it should. With all Mr Tyson's powers of making a happy home, the only wonder is that he is still proof against the fascinations of the fair sex.30
  • 4 Apr 1879, A ROMANTIC STORY. All newspaper readers will be familiar with the Crawford-Henry cases, tried some time ago in the Melbourne Supreme Court. Henry, the cormorant money-lender, had persecuted the widow out of house and home by his usurious exactions; and, not content with that, went so far as to tamper with a jury which was to finally close the series of actions. For thus interfering, he, with an accomplice, was indicted for the crime termed "embracery," convicted, fine a £500, and is now in Pentridge, with only about six months of four years' imprisonment completed. Mrs Crawford, who was, in 1871 and 1872, a boarding house-keeper in View-street, Sandhurst, it may he supposed was, after all these law actions, reduced to penury. There fore, to support herself and children, she was compelled to take, it is said, the position of housekeeper in a large hotel at Deniliquin. Whilst there engaged, she became acquainted with the well-known squatter Peter Tyson, a man of peculiar style and tastes, and reputed to be worth three millions in land and money. The wealthy squatter proposed to the widow, and was accepted. Previous to that era in his life Tyson had been reputed a misogynist, but whether he chivalrously stepped in as the widow's defender, melted at the tale of her wrongs, or whether at more than fifty five years of age he began to feel the gentle passion cannot of course be said. However, he married her, and the expectations of numerous aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces of the wealthy man fell to a discount. But married life was to him a thing of short duration. On the 27th inst, at the Esplanade, St. Kilda, he breathed his last, at the age of fifty-six, and was on Sunday interred in the Melbourne Cemetery. As his death must have been sudden, and perhaps unexpected, it is supposed he died intestate. Therefore his widow will be entitled to one-third of his enormous possessions, heiress to a million, if report is to be believed ; but supposing the intestacy to be correct, from statements reported as made by Tyson, he was only worth that sum himself, consequently her share will be about £330,000. Yet he may have made a will, consequently, until it is publlished, there is no saying what he was possessed of, or in what proportions he has left it to his relatives. In this short sketch there is a subject for a three volume novel. Thus, half a year ago we have the dispossessed and poverty-stricken widow, her persecutor thrown from his high state, ruined and imprisoned by the laws of his country, and now the perse cuted heiress in all probability has enough money to buy an English dukedom, or half a dozen little German principalities. Here is mutability.-Bendigo Independent.31
  • 6 Sep 1893, It has gone very hard with our old friend Jack the Digger during the past week. When last writing no hope could be entertained of his recovery, and until the end of last week his life was, humanly speaking, not worth an hour's purchase. Mrs. Tyson, of Wood Grange, who had kindly given him shelter, has been indefatigable in her attention to the sick man's wants, and the neighbors have watched by his bedside day and night. In fact, nothing that careful nursing and nourishing food could do has been left undone. Notwithstanding this, had not the ancient miner been blessed with an iron constitiution, it would have been impossible for him to last out the week. On Friday morning, however, a decided change for the better was noticeable, and as the day promised to be mild and warm it was decided to remove him to the Melbourne Hospital. All arrangements have been previously made in the hope that this might prove feasible, he was despatched in a covered waggonette to Berwick, and thence, accompanied by Constable Roberts, to his destination. News has since been received of his safe arrival, with the cheering additional information that the doctor thinks his recovery quite possible. Something more than a word of praise is due to the constable for the kind and humane manner in which he carried out the arragements connected with the transport of the patient from Beaconsfield to Melbourne.32
  • 17 Oct 1893, UPPER BEACONSFIELD, MONDAY.--Woodgrange, the residence of Mrs. Tyson, was this afternoon completely destroyed by a fire, wihich is supposed to have originated in the kitchen during the temporary absence of the inmates. There was only time to save a portion of the furniture, which together with the building, was insured in the Guardian insurance office.33
  • 18 Oct 1893, Some excitement was caused in Upper Beaconsfield on Monday afternoon about 1 o'clock, when it was discovered that the residence of Mrs. Tyson, "Wood-grange," was on fire. "The neighbors were soon on the spot, but from the first it was seen that no hope could be entertained of saving any part of the building. Every ones', energies were therefore concentrated on rescuing as much of the furniture as possible. So rapidly did the flames spread, however, that not many articles could be salvaged, and in about half an hour from the first alarm being given, the place was completely gutted. There is little doubt that the conflagration had its origin in the kitchen. Mrs Tyson and her grand-daughter were in the garden when the latter's attention was suddenly arrested by an extraordinary amount of smoke and flame issuing from the neigh borhood of of the kitchen chimney. The two at once hurried back to the house, but by the time they arrived, access to that part of the house was barred by the fierceness of the flames issuing therefrom. Mr. Noble, whose house is situate on the opposite side of the road, was soon upon the spot to render any assistance that might be in his power. However, it was at once evident that all that could be done was to rescue some portion of the furniture and a few valuables, from the other rooms. With the ready aid of his four sons and some of the other neighbors, who had already been attracted to the spot by the smoke and flames, a partial clearance was soon effected; but, such was the rapidity of the fire-fiends advance, that even the wearing apparel of the inmates (exeepting such as they actually wore) had, for the most part, to be abandoned to his rapacious maw. As one stood helplessly by, watching the giant tongues of flame lapping up the walls of the building as eagerly as a dog would a saucer of milk on a summer's day, it was pitiful to see the poor young girl trying to console her grandparent for the loss of their little home, whilst herself struggling to restrain the unbidden tear. And yet, amidst all the excitement, one could not avoid being amused at the touch of comedy presented by the eager question of the sturdy little boy of six, " Grandma ! have yen saved my overcoat ? there's a penny in the pocket !" and again shortly, "'Grandma ! have you saved the chaff for Peter (the goat) ?" And yet, on consider ation, these matters would naturally be as important to this young hopeful, as her diamonds to the lady of fashion, or his haystacks to the farmer. But there is not much time for indulging in such cogitations; for, although the building is lost beyond recall, there are others across the half chain road which the all devouring element will quickly appropriate given the slightest opportunity. We are soon on the alert therefore, ready to dash a bucket of water over any spot of the neighboring house or outbuildings which may ignite by the flying sparks which the westerly wind is carrying across the road. It was for tunate that such readiness was displayed, as by this means further devastation was certainly prevented on more than one occasion. Anxious were the glances that were cast up at the handsome pine trees adjoining "The Steyne" (Mr. Noble's residence), as they visibly shrink and shri vel under the deadly breath of the scorch ing sirocco. Thankful are we now for the heavy rains, which it has pleased Providence to send of late, and which now stand us in such good stead ; for had such a fire followed on a prolonged period of drought, good-bye to the pines and the contiguous property. To one whose ac quaintance with the destructive element has previously been confined to the fires of a great-city, acoompanied by the furi ous rush of the fire brigade with the shouts of their jehus, the roar and crash of tailing beams and masonry, the hissing of the water as it descends in streams on red-hut bricks and iron, and the din and confusion generally. To such, I say, there seems something unreal, something stage-like, to be compelled to stand by and let things take their course; to watch the woodwork quickly consuming in the bright flames, and then falling, almost without a sound, its substance gone, a mass of charcoal. So bit by bit the build ing goes; a little smoke forces its way be tween the weatherboards, then is visible an orange streak, a hundred streaks, and then the bare uprights are left amidst the bright glare, to follow a few moments after. The galvanised iron roofing comes down like so many sheets of cardboard, and the galvanised iron tanks, filled now with boiling water, are the only objects which cause any material sense of excite ment to the uninvolved onlooker, as they descend with something like a crash, precipitating a huge volume of scalding hissing fluid over the incandescent embers of what was but half an hour agone a dwelling place-a home. And thus in a few brief moments disappears, like "the baseless fabric of a vision, that about which a thousand memories and old associations may have twined themselves, and leaves us ashes.34
  • 21 Feb 1894, From R. Noble, suggesting that some trees on the road in front of his residence be removed, and the road levelled, as Mrs Tyson has moved her fence back to its proper position.--On motion of Crs Goff and Wilson; clerk of works to have necessary work done.35

Citations

  1. [S31] IGI "C070461."
  2. [S14] Newspaper - South Australian Register, 20 Jun 1849, p2.
  3. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  4. [S11] Newspaper - Argus.
  5. [S7] Registry of NSW Births Deaths and Marriages.
  6. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 28 Dec 1878, p1.
  7. [S50] Miscellaneous Source, http://users.tpg.com.au/hayhist/NewsletterFour.html
  8. [S185] Property Titles. ; PROV (Public Records Office Victoria).
  9. [S185] Property Titles. ; PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), C/T 2329-714 - Blakely Tyson of Croydon near Sydney New South Wales Widow.
  10. [S185] Property Titles. ; PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), C/T 2329-714 - Richard Noble of Upper Beaconsfield Gentleman - (caveat lodged 1 Oct 1895).
  11. [S3] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Edwardian Index Victoria 1902-1913.
  12. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 24 Mar 1903, p1.
  13. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 29 Jul 1878, p3.
  14. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 30 Jul 1878, p5.
  15. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 1 Aug 1878, p6.
  16. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 2 Aug 1878, p7.
  17. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 3 Aug 1878, p8.
  18. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 7 Aug 1878, p7.
  19. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 8 Aug 1878, p6.
  20. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 9 Aug 1878, p7.
  21. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 20 Sep 1878, p3.
  22. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 16 Oct 1878, p7.
  23. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 23 Oct 1878, p6.
  24. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 16 Nov 1878, p9.
  25. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 20 Nov 1878, p7.
  26. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 20 Nov 1878, p5.
  27. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 19 Dec 1878, p10.
  28. [S14] Newspaper - Gippsland Times, 3 Jan 1879, p4.
  29. [S14] Newspaper - Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton), 14 Jan 1879, p2
    This story appeared in most of the newspapers of the time.
  30. [S14] Newspaper - Gippsland Times, 15 Jan 1879, p3.
  31. [S14] Newspaper - Gippsland Times, 4 Apr 1879, p4.
  32. [S12] Newspaper - South Bourke and Mornington Journal 6 Sep 1893, p3 ; by Todea Africana.
  33. [S11] Newspaper - Argus The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Tue 17 Oct 1893, p6
    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8702129
  34. [S12] Newspaper - South Bourke and Mornington Journal 18 Oct 1893, p3 ; by Todea Africana.
  35. [S12] Newspaper - South Bourke and Mornington Journal 21 Feb 1894, p3.
Last Edited28 Jun 2018

Sydney Malone Crawford

M, #4557, b. 1 Aug 1823, d. 5 Nov 1864
Birth*1 Aug 1823 Steeple Aston, Oxfordshire, England.1 
Marriage*16 Jun 1849 Spouse: Blakely Robson. SA, Australia.
 
Marriage-Notice*20 Jun 1849MARRIED. On Saturday the 16th instant, Mr Sidney M. Crawford, to Blakely, second daughter of P. Robson, Esq., Reed Beds.2 
Death*5 Nov 1864 Sandhurst, VIC, Australia, #D8598 (age 41) [par James CRAWFORD & Ann TREMLETT].3 
Death-Notice*9 Nov 1864CRAWFORD.— On the 5th November, at Sandhurst, Victoria, Sidney M. Crawford, Esq., aged 40, years, late of this city.4 
Probate (Will)*24 Nov 1864 4/951. Brewer - [In will: May God bless her and protect her 'till we meet again - and watch over her and the dear children.].5 

Family

Blakely Robson b. 1833, d. 22 Mar 1903
Children 1.Eliza Ann Frances Crawford+ b. 29 May 1850, d. 1869
 2.Ann Tremlett Crawford b. 12 Jul 1852, d. 20 Jun 1854
 3.Sidney Mordaunt Crawford b. 28 Feb 1854, d. 28 May 1857
 4.Blakely Florence Crawford+ b. 3 Jun 1856, d. 3 Aug 1927
 5.Leila Isabelle Crawford b. 16 Mar 1858, d. 1947
 6.Rosaline Mary Crawford+ b. 5 Jan 1860, d. 29 Apr 1946
 7.Georgia Victoria Crawford b. 1862, d. 1870
 8.Edward James Frederick Crawford b. 1864, d. 1942

Newspaper-Articles

  • 2 Mar 1861, I am sorry to say that we are about to lose an old and respected resident, Sidney M. Crawford, one of our Justices of the Peace, who is leaving with his family for Melbourne. We shall not only lose a good neighbour, but the volunteers will lose in Mr. Crawford a captain whom they very highly regard.6
  • 29 Mar 1861, SOUTH AUSTRALIAN VOLUNTEER MILITARY FORCE. RESIGNATION.
    Sidney Malone Crawford, Esq., as Captain of the Goolwa Rifle Company.7

Citations

  1. [S80] Ancestry - Family Tree.
  2. [S14] Newspaper - South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA : 1839 - 1900), Wed 20 Jun 1849, p2.
  3. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  4. [S14] Newspaper - South Australian Register, 9 Nov 1864, p2.
  5. [S35] Probate Records, PROV (Public Records Office Victoria).
  6. [S14] Newspaper - Adelaide Observer (SA : 1843 - 1904), Sat 2 Mar 1861, p7.
  7. [S14] Newspaper - South Australian Register, 29 Mar 1861, p3.
Last Edited9 May 2017

Georgia Victoria Crawford

F, #4558, b. 1862, d. 1870
Father*Sydney Malone Crawford b. 1 Aug 1823, d. 5 Nov 1864
Mother*Blakely Robson b. 1833, d. 22 Mar 1903
Birth*1862 Sandhurst, VIC, Australia, #B11005.1 
Death*1870 Sandhurst, VIC, Australia, #D1457 (Age 7.)1 

Citations

  1. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
Last Edited9 May 2017

Edward James Frederick Crawford

M, #4559, b. 1864, d. 1942
Father*Sydney Malone Crawford b. 1 Aug 1823, d. 5 Nov 1864
Mother*Blakely Robson b. 1833, d. 22 Mar 1903
Birth*1864 Sandhurst, VIC, Australia, #B11519.1 
Death*1942 St Kilda, VIC, Australia, #D102 (age 77.)2 

Citations

  1. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  2. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
Last Edited9 May 2017

Blakely Florence Crawford

F, #4560, b. 3 Jun 1856, d. 3 Aug 1927
Father*Sydney Malone Crawford b. 1 Aug 1823, d. 5 Nov 1864
Mother*Blakely Robson b. 1833, d. 22 Mar 1903
Married NameDrake.1 
Birth*3 Jun 1856 "Blakely", SA, Australia. 
Birth-Notice*6 Jun 1856On the 3rd inst., at Blakely, Mrs. Sidney M. Crawford, of a daughter.2 
Marriage*30 Apr 1877 Spouse: Francis Gully Drake. All Saints' Church, St Kilda, VIC, Australia, #M1513.1
 
Marriage-Notice*9 May 1877DRAKE—CRAWFORD.—On the 30th ult., at All Saints' Church, St. Kilda, by the Rev J. H. Gregory, incumbent, assisted by the Rev. Frank Coghlan, chaplain to the Bishop of Perth, W. A., Francis Gully, second son of the Rev. T. Drake, Sutton-on-Trent, Newark, England, to Florence, eldest daughter of Mrs. Crawford, Belgravia, Fitzroy-street, St. Kilda.3 
Death*3 Aug 1927 Camberwell, VIC, Australia, #D8930.4 
Death-Notice*4 Aug 1927DRAKE.-On the 3rd August, at private hospital, Gleniris, Florence Blakley Drake, aged 71 years. (Inserted by her loving sons, George and Jack.)5 

Family

Francis Gully Drake b. 1855, d. Sep 1950
Children 1.Florence Millicent Drake b. 8 Mar 1878, d. 9 Apr 1953
 2.George Arthur Drake b. 12 Oct 1879, d. 1949
 3.Francis Joseph Drake b. 1 Jun 1886, d. 1955

Newspaper-Articles

  • 7 Nov 1896, STRANGE PLEA FOR DIVORCE. NOVEL CHARGE OF DESERTION
    The petition of Blakely Florence Drake for a divorce from her husband, Francis Gully Drake, accountant, on the ground of desertion, was heard by Mr Justice Hood in the First Civil Court yesterday.
    Mr Woolf, instructed by Messrs Westley and Dale, appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance for the respondent.
    The petition showed that the parties were married on the 30th of August, 1877, at All Saints' Church, St Kilda.
    Mr Woolf stated that the case was a most extraordinary one, the respondent for a period of six years having refused the petitioner her conjugal rights. In a letter which the respondent wrote to the petitioner, he stated:-
    " I think it is absolutely immoral for people to live together who are not joined by true love. To my mind it is neither more nor less than prostitution, even if the parties are husband and wife in the eyes of the law. "
    Counsel contended that where a husband brought cohabitation to an end, he was guilty of desertion, although he might continue to support his wife.
    Mr Justice Hood.-I am quite satisfied that such a case as this was never contemplated by the Legislature.
    Mr Woolf.-There are now no means by which a woman can get a decree for the restitution of her conjugal rights.
    Mr Justice Hood. - I will hear the evidence.
    Blakely Florence Drake, the petitioner, stated that she had the custody of her youngest child, a girl of 10 years, and that respondent had the custody of her other children, who were no 17 and 18 years of age respectively. After marriage she and respondent lived together in Dalgety-street, St Kilda, till one day in March, 1890, when he came to her and said he loved another woman, and could no longer live with her (witness). Some time before this, a lady who came from England had been staying in the house, and witness accused respondent of being fond of her. He did not deny it and suggested that witness and himself should in future occupy separate rooms. She objected, but he insisted on it. Once she went to his room, but he repulsed her.
    They occupied separate rooms for 10 months, when she grew tired of the life and went to her mother's at Beaconsfield, with her husband's consent. She invited him to go there, but he declined.
    Mr Woolf here read a number of letters from respondent to petitioner, in one of which he described his lady love as "thoroughly English and genial." (Laughter.) Petitioner (continuing) stated that she returned to Melbourne in July, 1893, and took a boardinghouse in Williams-road, Windsor. She got the money to furnish the place from her uncle. Respondent boarded with her, paying a guinea a week, but they occupied separate rooms. In December, 1895, she gave up the boardinghouse, and had been since living with her uncle, who supported her. She had received no money from her husband since the money for his board and lodging in 1895. She had never given respondent any cause to dislike her.
    Mr Justice Hood.-Did you ever accuse your husband of improper conduct with this lady?-No your Honour.
    Mr Justice Hood.-If I grant the decree what about the children ?
    Mr Woolf.-Petitioner would like to have the custody of the youngest child.
    Mr Justice Hood.-I'll consider the case. Judgment was therefore reserved.6
  • 5 Dec 1896, CURIOUS CASE OF TECHNICAL DESERTION. An Interesting Judgment.
    The petition by Blakely Florence Drake, of Acland-street, St. Kilda, for a dissolution of her marriage with Francis Gully Drake, accountant, on the ground of desertion, formed the subject of an interesting reserved judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Hood in the Victorian Supreme Court on Tuesday.
    Mr. Justice Hood said that the question for determination here was whether or not petitioner had established that her husband had been guilty of desertion without excuse for three years. The petitioner and respondent were married in April, 1877 and lived together without any serious trouble until 1890, and during this time three children were born. About March, 1890 respondent informed petitioner that as he loved another woman he could not any longer occupy the same bed with her, and since then he had never done so. In January, 1891, they gave up housekeeping, and petitioner went to reside with her mother at Beaconsfield. The two, however, corresponded, she continually urging him to join her and he as constantly refusing. Some of his excuses for not joining her were peculiar. He referred in one letter to his dislike to being trotted round as the hnsband of Mrs. Drake. In another he said that his coming up to her would not prevent people from talking, in a third he said he was of opinion that if he visited her her people would suppose that he could not live a fortnight away from his wife, a supposition which, he added with great candor, would be wholly absurd. All his letters displayed a fixed determination to have nothing more to do with his wife, and in one of them he expressed himself in the following words :
    " I think it is absolutely immoral for two people to live together who are not joined together by true love, and to my mind it is nothing more nor less than prostitution, even if they are husband and wife in the eye of the law." It would appear from this that while his ideas of morality allowed him to fall in love with a married woman, yet they prevented him from living with his wife, and apparently from even supporting her. Finding that her husband was fixed in his determination, petitioner in April, 1893, left her mother, and endeavored to maintain herself by keeping a boarding bouse in Windsor, the respondent then living, in Toorak. In July, 1893, he wrote suggesting that he should occupy a room in his wife's house and pay just the same as the other boarders did. Mrs. Drake at first refused to accede to such a novel request, but ultimately consented, in the hope of inducing him to resume cohabitation. Thereupon the husband became a boarder in the wife's house, occupying a separate room and paying her £1 1s. per week for his board, but not in any way acting as a husband towards her. She frequently endeavored to induce him to revert to their proper positions, but in vain, and the relations of the parties remained the same till April last, when the petitioner informed respondent that unless he agreed to live with her as her husband she could stay in the house no longer, and upon his refusal she left him and soon after commenced these proceedings. Upon these facts the question arose has there been desertion? It was contended for the petitioner that the refusal by respondent to cohabit with his wife would of itself entitle her to relief. There appeared to be little authority on this point. It seemed, however, clear that the wrongful denial of conjugal intercourse was not of itself a matrimonial offence, and it had been decided in America that such conduct did not amount to desertion. This decision had been adversely commented upon, and some of the reasons put forward in the judgment would not be supported in our courts. But, notwithstanding this, he thought that in the result it was correct. A mere refusal of intercourse was quite con- sistent with the maintenance of the matrimonial relation in every other respect, and therefore could not of itself amount to desertion. Desertion meant the "depriving either husband or wife of the society of the other. Both are entitled to live together ; both are entitled to enjoy the society of each other, and either is not to be deprived of it without just excuse.." (Sayers v. Sayers, 1 V. R. I. and M. 33.) " No one can desert who does not actively and wilfully bring to an end an existing state of cohabitation." (Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, L.R. 1 P. and D. 094.) The cohabitation referred to was not merely the matrimonial intercourse, but the living together in the ordinary relation of husband and wife. But while the wrongful refusal of intercourse fell far short of these definitions, and could not therefore of itself constitute desertion, yet it was an element in the offence, and might, when assisted by other facts, afford evidence more or less cogent, from which the required conclusions might be drawn. Accordingly he had to consider whether there were further facts which would when coupled with such refusal enable him to decide that the husband had deserted bis wife. He thought there were such facts. Respondent had wrongfully withdrawn from matrimonial intercourse. He had failed to support his wife. He had without just cause deprived her of his society and protection. He had treated her for years as though no tie whatever existed between them. By such conduct he thought respondent had wrongfully and intentionally brought to an end an existing state of cohabitation, and that was desertion. A further difficulty had next to be dealt with. Could a husband be said to desert his wife so long as they occupied the same house ? It seemed at first sight rather straining words to hold that a man might desert his wife while he lived in the same dwelling ; but upon consideration he had formed the opinion that he might. If a man left his wife, intending to desert her, the distance to which he removed from her was immaterial. He might be in the next house or in the next street or miles away, or his whereabouts might be utterly unknown. The important point was not whither he had gone, but had he abandoned the conjugal society, and wrongfully brought an existing state of cohabitation to an end ? This being so, if there was in reality an abandonment of the wife, there was none the less a destruction of the matrimonial tie, simply because the husband remained under the same roof with her. Such a fact would call for great vigilance in dealing with the evidence of abandonment, but that was all. The real question would still be, Had the husband terminated the conjugal relation ? Cohabitation might be put an end to by other acts besides that of actually quitting the common house. So when the respondent divorced his wife from his bed, held no converse with her except as a stranger, failed to support her and ignored her protests, it seemed to the court that he did in a most emphatic manner abandon his conjugal life. By such behavior he deprived his wife of his society and destroyed the matrimonial obligations just as completely as if he had fled to the uttermost parts of the earth, and he ought not to escape from the natural result of his actions simply because he condescended to reside as a boarder in his wife's house. He thought, therefore, that petitioner was entitled to an order nisi with costs, and to the custody of the youngest child, the others being old enough to decide for themselves.7

Citations

  1. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  2. [S14] Newspaper - South Australian Register, 6 Jun 1856, p2.
  3. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 9 May 1877, p1.
  4. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
  5. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 4 Aug 1927, p1.
  6. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 7 Nov 1896, p8.
  7. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 5 Dec 1896, p2.
Last Edited26 Mar 2017
 

NOTE

Many family sections show only the children who were associated with Upper Beaconsfield.