Ann Don

F, #7369, b. 1834, d. 19 Dec 1922
Birth*1834 
Married NameBrown. 
Marriage*1858 Spouse: Charles Brown. VIC, Australia.
 
Death*19 Dec 1922 Salisbury House, Upper Beaconsfield, VIC, Australia, #D12035 (age 88) [par Alex DON & Jean SOMERVILLE].1,2 
Death-Notice*13 Jan 1923BROWN.—On 19th December, 1922, at the residence of her son-in-law, R. Blackie, Salisbury House, Upper Beaconsfield (suddenly), Ann, relict the late Chas. Brown, senr., Grenville Foundry, beloved mother of Jean, Mary (Mrs Thompson), Annie (Mrs Blaikie), Margaret (Mrs Manners), Helen (Mrs Paine), Alex. (N.S.W.), Agnes (Mrs Sanders), Euphemia (Mrs Shirley); also beloved sister of Alex. Don (Ballarat); aged 89 years.3 

Family

Charles Brown
Children 1.Jean Brown b. 1858, d. 11 May 1937
 2.Annie Brown+ b. 1862, d. 24 Jun 1935

Newspaper-Articles

  • 22 Dec 1922, Mrs Ann Brown, aged 88, passed away at Salisbury House, the residence of her daughter, Mrs Blaikie, last Tuesday night. Deceased took ill at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and at about 10 p.m. suddenly became worse, and Dr Langmore was sent for. Unfortunately Mrs Brown died a few minutes before the doctor arrived. The deputy coroner was advised, and on the report given said no inquest was necessary. The remains will be interred in the Ballarat Cemetery.1

Citations

  1. [S188] Newspaper - Berwick County Times / The Times "22 Dec 1922, p1."
  2. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985 "parents as Alex DOW & Jean SOMERVAILE."
  3. [S14] Newspaper - The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), Sat 13 Jan 1923, p4.
Last Edited3 Mar 2018

Charles Brown

M, #7370
Marriage*1858 Spouse: Ann Don. VIC, Australia.
 

Family

Ann Don b. 1834, d. 19 Dec 1922
Children 1.Jean Brown b. 1858, d. 11 May 1937
 2.Annie Brown+ b. 1862, d. 24 Jun 1935
Last Edited3 Mar 2018

Amy Elizabeth 'Murtal' Hochstein

F, #7375, b. 1865, d. 4 Jul 1943
Married NameCarr.1 
Married NameDe Goey. 
Note*1864 Parents married #M2173 - listed as Charles HOSHETEIN & Elizabeth Ann JORDAN.2 
Birth*1865 Geelong, VIC, Australia. [par Charles HOCKSTEIN & Elizabeth JORDAN]3 
Marriage*13 Mar 1883 Spouse: Johannes Cornelius De Goey. VIC, Australia, #M1212.4
 
Widow27 Nov 1901Amy Elizabeth 'Murtal' Hochstein became a widow upon the death of her husband Johannes Cornelius De Goey.5 
Marriage*1902 Spouse: Henry Carr. VIC, Australia, #M1902.1
 
Death*4 Jul 1943 Kew, VIC, Australia, #D7137 (Age 77.)6 
Death-Notice*6 Jul 1943CARR.-On July 4, at a private hospital, Myrtle Amy Elizabeth, relict of Henry Carr (contractor), dearly beloved mother of A. Leopold de Goey, loved mother-in-law of Jean Parkes de Goey, mother of Leopold Francis (deceased), Herbert Cornelius (deceased), Rupert Leslie (deceased), Evelina Wilhelmina (deceased), and Cecil Norman (deceased). —Till the morn breaks and the shadows flee away. (Sydney papers, please copy.)7 

Family 1

Johannes Cornelius De Goey b. 1856, d. 27 Nov 1901
Children 1.Leopold Francis De Goey b. 1884, d. Apr 1884
 2.Evalina Gerardina De Goey b. 1885, d. Dec 1885
 3.Herbert Cornelius De Goey b. 10 Feb 1888, d. 22 Sep 1894
 4.Leopold Albert De Goey b. 1 Nov 1889, d. 1944
 5.Cecil Norman De Goey / Carr b. 1891, d. 6 Nov 1912

Family 2

Children 1.Leslie Hinton De Goey / Carr b. 1893, d. 1893
 2.Unnamed Female De Goey b. Jun 1895, d. Jun 1895
 3.Rupert Havilock De Goey / Hochstein b. 1897, d. Jan 1898

Newspaper-Articles

  • 26 Feb 1894, IF Mrs. M. DE GOEY has any feeling left for her sorrow-blighted husband she will SEND him her ADDRESS to enable him to refute the accusation brought against him in the Divorce Court.8
  • 27 Feb 1894, A more remarkable story has seldom been heard in the divorce court than was told to Mr Justice Williams on Friday in connection with a petition by Johannes C. De Goey, an importer in Market street, Melbourne, for a divorce from his wife on the ground of her misconduct with Henry Carr, a contractor, residing in Brighton. The co-respondent entered a defence in which he pleaded that the petitioner had condoned his wife's misconduct, but neither he nor the respondent appeared in the court, and the petition might have succeeded but for the intervention of the wife of the co-respondent. This lady alleged that from the year 1887, some four years after the petitioner's marriage, till close up to the present time, her husband had been improperly intimate with Mrs De Goey, to the knowledge and with the consent of the petitioner, who received the proceeds of his wife's infamy; that her husband and Mrs De Goey went to Adelaide in the latter part of 1892, and lived there for two or three months as man and wife; and that in December of that year the petitioner signed a receipt as follows : -" Received from H. Carr the sum of £1500 as compensation in full for the loss of my wife and home, and two children which I thought were mine; and that I will not trouble H. Carr in the future." Mr Justice Williams expressed a desire to see the respondent and co-respondent, but was informed that Carr had disappeared, and it was broadly suggested that Mrs De Goey was in his company. The judge said there was the clearest evidences of condonation, and dismissed the petition.9
  • 22 Mar 1894, IN the SUPREME COURT of the COLONY of VICTORIA.-1893, No. 107.-Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Jurisdiction.-Between JOHANNES CORNELUS DE GOEY (Petitioner) and AMY ELIZABETH DE GOEY (Respondent) and HENRY CARR (Co-respondent) -I, AMY ELIZABETH DE GOEY, of Melbourne, the respondent in the above divorce suit, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare
    1. That my husband, Johannes Cornelius De Goey has always been a good and confiding husband to me, and that I do not believe that at any time he had the slightest suspicion of my relations with the co-respondent, as alleged in the affidavit of Mrs. H. Carr (wife of the co-respondent), but trusted me implicitly, and I have all along maintained this to all my friends and relatives.
    3. That on seeing my husband's advertisements appearing In "The Argus" and "Age" I voluntarily offered to do anything in my power to relieve him from the opprobrium of public opinion which the report of the trial would naturally cast upon him, and I make this declaration of my own free will.
    4. That at the time when my husband discovered my infidelity he was almost out of his mind with grief, and ready to do anything to rid himself of my presence, and also Carr's; and, as his home was broken up, said he did not care what became of it, and it was then that Carr offered him the £1500 as compensation, which he accepted, and signed the receipt for it.
    5. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an act of the Parliament of Victoria rendering persons making a false declaration punishable for wilful and corrupt perjury.
    Mrs. AMY ELIZABETH DE GOEY
    (Known as M. de Goey).
    Declared by the said Amy Elizabeth De Goey at Abbotsford this twenty-first day of March, 1894, before me, Jno Gallan, J.P.
    INSERTED by HER SORROWING RELATIONS in JUSTICE to her heart broken husband, J. C. De Goey.10
  • 4 Apr 1895, THE DE GOEY CASE. ALLEGED FALSE REGISTRATION.
    At the City Police Court yesterday, before Mr Panton, P. M. , and a bench of justices, a married woman named Amy Elizabeth De Goey was charged with wilfully making a false declaration with regard to the birth of her child.
    Dr M'Inerney appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Gillott defended.
    Dr M'Inerney, in opening the proceedings, stated that the accused was married to Cornelius James De Goey on March 13, 1883. They lived together for several years, and there were children born of the marriage. Some time ago, however, accused became intimate with Mr Carr, a contractor of Fitzroy, and a child was the result of the intimacy. Proceedings were then taken in the Divorce Court, and it was shown in the evidence taken there that Carr had given Mrs De Goey's husband £1,500 as a solatium.
    Mr Gillott objected to these statements as having no bearing on the actual charge against the accused.
    The evidence was then gone on with, and a clerk from the Government statists office produced certified documents concerning the marriage of the accused, and also the birth of a child registered as Leslie Hinton Carr.
    Ellen Prendergast, deputy registrar of births and deaths at East Melbourne, stated that the accused came to her to register the birth of a child, but as it was born in another district she told her that she would have to get permission from the registrar-general. On May 30 1893, accused came again with the neccesary authority and registered the child as Leslie Hinton Carr. She stated further that Henry Carr was her husband and the father of the child. The permission which the accused had received from the registrar-general's office to register the child had been destroyed by witness.
    Mary Ann Carr, wife of Henry Carr, stated that she knew Mrs De Goey, and had accused her of living with Mr Carr. She called on her three weeks after the birth of the child, and upbraided her with her sinful conduct. From the way she spoke she appeared to be under the impression that Carr had turned against her.
    Mr Gillott.-You have a very strong feeling against the accused, and you are taking proceedings against your husband in another court?-Yes.
    Mr Gillott -Are you quite sure that at the interview you had with accused she said that Carr was the father of the child, in spite of what she has just now told me that she did not?-Yes.
    Accused (excitedly). -It is false.
    Mr Gillott-Is the child dead? Witness.-Yes.
    Constable O'Meara stated that he arrested accused at Geelong, and on being told the nature of the charge against her she said, "I don't know why I did it, I'm sure. I am very sorry."
    Mary Griffin, sister of the accused stated that the latter had told her that she had buried a little boy, and there was one thing she was sorry for, that she had registered it in a wrong name. Her sister also told her that Mr De Goey would not allow it to be registered in his name, and had threatened her with violence if she did so. Mr Carr had also objected to his name being used, but she averred that the latter was the father of the child, and she also said that she thought she had done right in registering it in his name.
    Accused reserved her defence, and was commuted to take her trial at the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, to be held on the 17th inst.
    Bail of one surety in £50 was allowed.11
  • 7 May 1895, ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE. THE SEQUEL TO A STRANGE STORY. A QUESTION OF ALIMONY. CARR V. CARR.
    One of the most extraordinary divorce cases that came before the Victorian Court last year was that of De Goey v. de Goey, in which J. C. de Goey applied for a divorce from his wife, Amy Elizabeth de Goey on the ground of her adultery with Henry Carr, a well-to-do contractor, residing at Brighton. It appeared that the co-respondent was a married man with grown up children. Mr de Goey failed to obtain his divorce, because Mrs Carr came forward and showed "collusion" between the petitioner and the co-respondent, inasmuch as her husband had paid Mr de Goey £1,500 as "compensation" for the loss of his wife.
    The sequel to this remarkable suit came before Mr Justice Williams in the Divorce Court yesterday, when Mrs Mary Anne Carr petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Henry Carr, on the ground of his adultery with Amy Elizabeth de Goey. The petition stated that the petitioner was now 47 years of age and the respondent 50 years. They were married in 1867, and had seven children living, of whom four were grown up.
    Dr. M'Inerney and Mr F J Tucker appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Woolf for the respondent.
    Mr WOOLF said his client admitted the adultery, and desired to be heard merely on the question of alimony.
    Dr M'INERNEY said that the petitioner had made repeated efforts to wean her husband from his infatuation for Mrs de Goey, but they had all failed. In August last, when divorce proceedings were threatened, he made a statutory declaration of his intention to renounce and abandon his acquaintance with Amy Elizabeth de Goey and not to pay any money on her behalf, adding that if he broke his promise his wife was to be at liberty to sue for divorce. The promise was broken, and this suit was the result. The respondent was possessed of considerable property, and the petitioner was entitled to a substantial allowance as alimony.
    The petitioner, in the course of her evidence said that she and her husband lived happily together till five or six years ago, when he became disagreeable towards her, and was often away from home. The first proof she received of his infidelity was a statement by himself in January, 1893. He had been away all the Christmas holiday, and when he came back she was cross. She asked him where he had been spending his time, and he said, "I am living with Mrs de Goey. I have bought her from her husband. She said, "You don't mean de Goey's wife?" He said "Yes." She said, "I know you have been going there a great deal, but I did not dream of this." She thought he was out of his mind - his statement was so incredible. He said, "If you keep quiet for three weeks and don't make any fuss, I shall try to get her husband to take her away." Thinking there was something wrong with his head she promised. He left home again, and she waited for five weeks, seeing him occasionally. At last she demanded to know where he was living, and he said "Don't ask me. The poor devil is dying, and I can't tell you where she is. There's a baby to be born." She then went to Mr de Goey, and then found Mrs de Goey in a house at Hawthorn, with a baby, of which she said the respondent was the father. Next day witness saw her husband. He said, "So you have been to that woman?" She said, " Yes, and I was very much surprised to see her surrounded by such luxuries and my poor children as they are."
    He said, "If you go there again I shall smash you." Witness was told that her husband was then allowing Mrs de Goey £10 a week. The two of them afterwards went to live at Carlton as Mr and Mrs Carr, and then at Fenwick street, Clifton Hill, where he bought her a cottage for £550 and made her a present of it. When witness commenced divorce proceedings last year the respondent made the statutory declaration already referred to. He afterwards took witness with him on a trip to Sydney, but after the first week he became very disagreeable, told her that he did not like her after having lived with Mrs de Goey, and finally returned to Melbourne and resumed his relations with Mrs de Goey. When she married the respondent they were both poor, and they worked up together. He built the Brighton Coffee Palace containing 70 rooms, near the North Brighton station, and settled it upon her; but it was heavily mortgaged. He had many properties besides, and made large profits as a nightsoil contractor.
    Cross-examined.-I don't know that my husband owes £30,050. He has paid £159 within the last few months in tradesmen's bills for me. I should be surprised to hear that he has not £1 left for himself. He is able to give plenty to Mrs de Goey. I am keeping two of my children. I now get £4 a week from the coffee palace, my husband allows me £3 7s., and I live in a villa belonging to him worth about 25s a week.
    Mr Justice WILLIAMS -So that you are now receiving equal to £8 12s a week?
    Witness.-Yes.
    Charles Llewellyn Rees, a son-in-law of the petitioner, gave evidence as to the respondent's circumstances.
    This closed the petitioners case.
    Henry Carr, the respondent was then examined on his own behalf as to his financial position. The coffee palace cost £12,000 to build, and the furniture cost £2,000. The amount of the mortgage on it was £7,500. He had several other properties in that district, but his liabilities at present amounted to £30,050. Last year he received about £11,000 for nightsoil contracts, and the profit was probably about £3,000. When he first told his wife of his relations with Mrs de Goey she said she would never forgive him unless he cast the woman off and never gave her another sixpence. He said he was willing to cast her off, but would not leave her in want. The £1,500 was paid to Mr de Goey to stop his mouth. It was false to say that he (Carr) ever bought the woman. De Goey wrote the receipt. He (Carr) had nothing to do with the form of it.
    After a consultation, Mr Woolf said his client was willing to pay the petitioner £4 per week for herself and the two children upon her assigning to him her interest in the property settled upon her.
    Mr Justice WILLIAMS-She is better off than that now.
    Mr WOOLF.-Yes, but she is getting far more than she is entitled to. Mr Carr will increase it to £5.
    Mr Justice WILLIAMS - Well, Dr M'Inerney will you consider that?
    Dr M'INERNEY.- Yes, but my client says that this man's statements are grossly incorrect, and that he is really a wealthy man.
    The respondent was then cross-examined. He admitted having taken Mrs. de Goey to Adelaide (the trip coating £60), to Portarlington and to Geelong.
    Mr Justice WILI IAMS said the case must stand adjourned till next day. In the meantime the parties might put their heads together and see if they could not come to some arrangement.12
  • 21 May 1895, ALLEGED FALSE REGISTRATION. MRS. DE GOEY CHARGED.
    Amy Elizabeth De Goey, aged about 32, was placed on her trial yesterday morning at the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Holroyd, on a charge of false registration.
    Mr Finlayson prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr Purvis, QC, and Mr. Schutt defended the accused.
    The case for the prosecution was that the accused gave birth to a male child at Riversdale road, Hawthorn, on the 26th March, 1893, and on the 30th May, 1893, registered it in the name of Leslie Hinton Carr, and stated that it was the child of herself, Murtal Carr, and of her husband, Henry Carr. Her maiden name was Amy Elizabeth Hochstein, and she was married at Geelong on the 15th March, 1883, to Johannes Cornelius De Goey under the name of Murtal Hochstein. At the time of the birth of the child in question her husband was still alive.
    Evidence in support of the case for the prosecution was taken. The prisoner, by the advice of Mr. Purvis, then withdrew her plea of not guilty, and the jury, by direction of the judge, returned a verdict of guilty.
    Mr. Purves addressed the Court in favour of the prisoner. He said she had undoubtedly been the victim of circumstances, but she had been merely immoral and had not intended to do injury to anyone, in registering the child. It was the child of Henry Carr. The latter had been divorced from his wife, and Mrs Carr, his wife, was the informant against the prisoner, and the facts against the latter were elicited, no doubt, in the course of inquiries that were made to support the Carr v. Carr divorce case. He (Mr. Purves) submitted that this case was one in which the ends of justice could be met without sending the prisoner to gaol, as she had already suffered severely through what she had endured in the present prosecution.
    Mr. Justice Holroyd said he did not intend to send the prisoner to gaol. He then ordered that she should be admitted at liberty on her own recognisance of £50 and one surety of £50 to come up for sentence if called upon to do so in the future.
    Henry Carr became the surety for the prisoner, and she was then released from custody.13

Citations

  1. [S3] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Edwardian Index Victoria 1902-1913.
  2. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  3. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888 "listed as HOSTEINE."
  4. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888 "as Murtal HOCHSTEIN, born Geelong & John Cornelius De GURY, born Holland."
  5. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  6. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
  7. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 6 Jul 1943, p2.
  8. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 26 Feb 1894, p1.
  9. [S14] Newspaper - Bairnsdale Advertiser and Tambo and Omeo Chronicle, 27 Feb 1894, p2.
  10. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 22 Mar 1894, p7.
  11. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 4 Apr 1895, p6.
  12. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 7 May 1895, p6.
  13. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 21 May 1895, p7.
Last Edited23 Mar 2019

Johannes Cornelius De Goey

M, #7376, b. 1856, d. 27 Nov 1901
Birth*1856 Netherlands. 
Marriage*13 Mar 1883 Spouse: Amy Elizabeth 'Murtal' Hochstein. VIC, Australia, #M1212.1
 
Naturalisation*1895Johannes Cornelius De Goey was naturalized in 1895.2 
(Witness) Civil Case1900 1900/560 Frederick Theodor Trinkaus Mary Louisa Maude Trinkhaus v Johannes Cornelius De Goey ; 1900/561 Frederick Theodor Trinkaus v Johannes Cornelius De Goey.3 
Note*Aug 1900 Caleb Wheeler see court case. 
Death*27 Nov 1901 Melbourne East Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, #D14598 (Age 45) [par Johannes Cornelius De GOEY & Mary].4 
Death-Notice*29 Nov 1901DE GOEY.—On the 27th November, at the Melbourne Hospital, John, aged 45 years. Sydney papers please copy.
THE Friends of the late Mr. JOHANNES CORNELIUS DE GOEY are respectfully invited to follow his remains to the place of interment, the Melbourne General Cemetery. The funeral to leave "Claretta," Erin-street, Richmond, THIS DAY (Friday), the 29th inst., at 4 o'clock p.m.
HERBERT KING, Undertaker, Lennox-street, Richmond. Tel. 912.5 

Family

Amy Elizabeth 'Murtal' Hochstein b. 1865, d. 4 Jul 1943
Children 1.Leopold Francis De Goey b. 1884, d. Apr 1884
 2.Evalina Gerardina De Goey b. 1885, d. Dec 1885
 3.Herbert Cornelius De Goey b. 10 Feb 1888, d. 22 Sep 1894
 4.Leopold Albert De Goey b. 1 Nov 1889, d. 1944
 5.Cecil Norman De Goey / Carr b. 1891, d. 6 Nov 1912

Newspaper-Articles

  • 26 Feb 1894, IF Mrs. M. DE GOEY has any feeling left for her sorrow-blighted husband she will SEND him her ADDRESS to enable him to refute the accusation brought against him in the Divorce Court.6
  • 27 Feb 1894, A more remarkable story has seldom been heard in the divorce court than was told to Mr Justice Williams on Friday in connection with a petition by Johannes C. De Goey, an importer in Market street, Melbourne, for a divorce from his wife on the ground of her misconduct with Henry Carr, a contractor, residing in Brighton. The co-respondent entered a defence in which he pleaded that the petitioner had condoned his wife's misconduct, but neither he nor the respondent appeared in the court, and the petition might have succeeded but for the intervention of the wife of the co-respondent. This lady alleged that from the year 1887, some four years after the petitioner's marriage, till close up to the present time, her husband had been improperly intimate with Mrs De Goey, to the knowledge and with the consent of the petitioner, who received the proceeds of his wife's infamy; that her husband and Mrs De Goey went to Adelaide in the latter part of 1892, and lived there for two or three months as man and wife; and that in December of that year the petitioner signed a receipt as follows : -" Received from H. Carr the sum of £1500 as compensation in full for the loss of my wife and home, and two children which I thought were mine; and that I will not trouble H. Carr in the future." Mr Justice Williams expressed a desire to see the respondent and co-respondent, but was informed that Carr had disappeared, and it was broadly suggested that Mrs De Goey was in his company. The judge said there was the clearest evidences of condonation, and dismissed the petition.7
  • 22 Mar 1894, IN the SUPREME COURT of the COLONY of VICTORIA.-1893, No. 107.-Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Jurisdiction.-Between JOHANNES CORNELUS DE GOEY (Petitioner) and AMY ELIZABETH DE GOEY (Respondent) and HENRY CARR (Co-respondent) -I, AMY ELIZABETH DE GOEY, of Melbourne, the respondent in the above divorce suit, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare
    1. That my husband, Johannes Cornelius De Goey has always been a good and confiding husband to me, and that I do not believe that at any time he had the slightest suspicion of my relations with the co-respondent, as alleged in the affidavit of Mrs. H. Carr (wife of the co-respondent), but trusted me implicitly, and I have all along maintained this to all my friends and relatives.
    3. That on seeing my husband's advertisements appearing In "The Argus" and "Age" I voluntarily offered to do anything in my power to relieve him from the opprobrium of public opinion which the report of the trial would naturally cast upon him, and I make this declaration of my own free will.
    4. That at the time when my husband discovered my infidelity he was almost out of his mind with grief, and ready to do anything to rid himself of my presence, and also Carr's; and, as his home was broken up, said he did not care what became of it, and it was then that Carr offered him the £1500 as compensation, which he accepted, and signed the receipt for it.
    5. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an act of the Parliament of Victoria rendering persons making a false declaration punishable for wilful and corrupt perjury.
    Mrs. AMY ELIZABETH DE GOEY
    (Known as M. de Goey).
    Declared by the said Amy Elizabeth De Goey at Abbotsford this twenty-first day of March, 1894, before me, Jno Gallan, J.P.
    INSERTED by HER SORROWING RELATIONS in JUSTICE to her heart broken husband, J. C. De Goey.8
  • 25 Sep 1894, DE GOEY. —On the 22nd inst., Herbert Cornelius, the only comfort of his already sorrow-blighted father, J. C. de Goey. He died stammering, "Mamma." Gone, and the only light of his father's life gone with him.9
  • 22 Sep 1897, DE GOEY. —In loving memory of my generous little Herbert, who died on the 22nd September, 1894.
    He was my all, the only light of his father's life.
    And now a dreary shroud surround me and invest.
    With sad remembrances all my hours of rest.
    -His lonely father.10
  • 7 Apr 1900, WIRE NETTINGS NOW LANDING, Ex Afric
    TRUE RYLAND'S WARRINGTON MATTRESS WIRE
    In Beautiful Order,
    At PRICES CUT TO THE BONE.
    JOHN DE GOEY, 20 Market-street
    --
    WIRE-NETTING, 48on; 2in; 20/ ; 36in. 15/ ; and true Ryland's make, John de Goey, 20 Market-st.
    --
    WIRE-NETTING, few miles, 36in. 1½in; 17 ; true Ryland's rabbit proof ; old price. Don't delay to secure.11
  • 9 Jun 1900, POLICE INTELLIGENCE. THREATENING LANGUAGE.
    Frederick Trinkaus, a farmer of Upper Beaconsfield was charged in the City Police Court yesterday, before Mr Panton, P. M., Captains Garside and Russell, Messrs R Power and S. Lancashire, J.P.'s, with using threatening words to John C. De Goey, importer of Market-street, on Thursday afternoon. Complainant stated that about 1 o'clock defendant entered his shop, and after calling him a Boer and a —— Dutchman, threatened to shoot him. Mrs Trinkaus was in a back room at the time. Defendant then went away, but soon returned, and as he again made use of threats he was given in charge. He did not take away defendant's wife from Upper Beaconsfield during his absence in Tasmania. Mrs. Trinkaus was in his house when her husband came, but she was not living there then, and was not there now. In reply to Mr Kane, who appeared for defendant, witness said he took Mrs Trinkaus away in order that she might have the protection of the Sisters of Mercy (Laughter). Mrs Trinkaus was in his shop on Thursday, and heard defendant say he would shoot her unless she returned to Tasmania with him. Defendant was fined 40/ , with 25/ costs, and a stay for seven days, in order to have the decision reviewed, was refused. The fine was paid, and soon afterwards he was arrested on a charge of threatening the life of De Goey, and will be brought before the same Court to-day.12
  • 11 Jun 1900, POLICE INTELLIGENCE. A QUESTION OF BAIL. DR M'lNERNEY INDIGNANT.
    Theodore Trinkaus, the farmer and miner who was fined £2, with, £1/5/ costs, in the City Police Court, on Friday, by Mr. Panton, P. M. for using threatening words to Josephus Cornelius de Goey, importer, of Market-street, on Thursday afternoon, was brought before Messrs S. Lancashire, B. Cherry, and B. Buzolich, J. P.'s, in the same court, on Saturday, charged with threatening the life of J. C. de Goey.
    Mr. Field Barrett represented de Goey, and Dr M'Inerney and Mr. Kane appeared for the defendant. As soon as the case was called, Dr M'lnerney raised the objection that the proceedings were bad, as the defendant had been punished on Friday for threatening to shoot complainant. He pointed out that the warrant showed no new ground of complaint, and that it was contrary to the fundamental principles of law that a man should be punished twice for the same offence. Mr Barren replied that the clerk of the court dictated the warrant, that on Friday defendant was punished for using threatening words in a public place, or within the hearing of persons passing by the shop in Market- street, and that on that day (Saturday) he was brought before the Court to be bound over to keep the peace.
    The Chairman.-We will adjourn the case, so that Mr Panton can deal with it.
    Dr M'lnerney protested against an adjournment, and urged that as the warrant was bad the case should be dismissed. Defendant, who was a very clever metallurgist, had assured him that he would leave Melbourne at the earliest moment. De Goey, on oath declared that he was in fear of his life; that he did not believe defendant would leave the country, and that a doctor had seen Trinkaus, and said he would not like to take any responsibility, as he was sometimes a raving lunatic, and might shoot six men.
    Dr M'lnerney said De Goey, by such unfounded statements, only showed the malicious spirit that animated him.
    The Chairman (interrupting).-The case will he remanded till Tuesday, so that Mr Panton can deal with it. Bail would be fixed, accused in £50, and one surety in a like amount.
    Dr M'lnerney protested against the unfairest of keeping defendant in gaol to suit Mr Panton's convenience. Bail could not possibly be obtained. Defendant should be released on his own bail.
    Mr Lancashire.-We remand him until Monday, then.
    Dr M'Inerney.-That is not much better, for you are still putting him in gaol for two days.
    Mr Lancashire.- That is not much. We shall not alter our decision.
    Dr M'Inerney.-All I can say is that this is a most extraordinary proceeding, and I hope something will be done to prevent a similar thing occurring again. No bail whatever, certainly not of that amount, has been asked for by the other side, and the man is simply to be sent to gaol because he cannot get any, and because the Bench intend to suit the convenience of someone else. As you will not alter your decision, I cannot compel you; but I can enter my earnest protest against it. There is nothing like being obstinate, und that is the only way I can characterise what has been done.
    The defendant was then remanded till this morning, and on the bail stated.13
  • 12 Jun 1900, POLICE INTELLIGENCE. AN EXITABLE WITNESS
    The case of Theodore Trinkaus, charged with threatening the life of J.C. De Goey, was again before the City Court yesterday, Mr Field Barrett appeared for the prosecution, and Dr M'Inerney for the defence.
    The complainant gave evidence that, on Thursday last, defendant came to his place of business and accused him of harbouring Mrs. Trinkaus. Witness told him that, though he might murder people in Tasmania, he would not be allowed to do so in Melbourne. Witness also told him that he had made up his mind to protect his defendant's wife.
    "Mr Panton P.M.- Have you been afraid of defendant? -Yes, sir; and I am still afraid of him.
    Has he shot anybody?-Yes (with great excitement), he has murdered one already.
    Have you any cause to go near defendant's home?-No; not now. He asked me to sell his farm.
    Then you will not go there?-Not while defendant is there.
    To Dr M'Inerney. - Mrs Trinkaus was on my premises when defendant called, but she was not preparing the dinner.
    Beating the witness-box and shouting loudly, witness said his dinner was supplied from the Federal Coffee Palace on the day the threats were made.
    Continuing, witness said he had brought Mrs Trinkaus from Beaconsfield to his place because he wanted to protect her from her husband, who was going to shoot her. Witness was well acquainted with the superioress of the South Melbourne Convent, and --
    Dr M'Inerney.-Oh; never mind that.
    Witness.-Ha! Ha! You do not like to hear that; you crucified me once before.
    When did you bring Mrs Trinkaus to your house?-Two or three days after her husband went to Tasmania.
    You say defendant has murdered one person already?-Yes. (striking the box), and I will prove it.
    Where is the proof?-Oh; that's for the detectives to find out; not John De Goey.
    Cross-examined with regard to an advertisement which appeared in "The Argus" some time ago over his signature, witness at first denied having authorised its insertion, but subsequently admitted that he had, but added that he was beside himself at the time owing to his best friend getting hold of his wife, and the death of his father.
    Dr M'Inerney.-You gave a receipt for £1,500 and signed the transfer of your wife to another?- I did; but the money went to the hospital.
    Mr Panton, P.M. (to witness).-You are such an excitable specimen of humanity that you do not want the protection of this court. The case is dismissed, and you go about your business.
    The summary dismissal of the charge against him so affected the defendant that he left the court crying loudly.14
  • 17 Aug 1900, DE GOEY AGAIN. HE WANTS DAMAGES. FROM FARMER WHEELER. SAYS HE WAS ASSAILED. AND BADLY USED. DEFENDANT'S COUNTER-CLAIM.
    A curious claim end counterclaim, arising out of an occurrence at Beaconsfield on the 7th July last, came before Judge Hamilton and a special jury of four in the County Court to-day. Johannes Cornelius de Goey, barbed wire merchant, of Melbourne, claimed from Caleb Wheeler, farmer, of Upper Beaconsfield, the sum of L249 damages, for that on the date mentioned defendant "did unlawfully and violently assault plaintiff, whereby he was put to medical an other expense, and suffered grievous pain and injury.'' Of the L249 claimed L10 was mentioned as special, damages for medical expenses incurred.
    Defendant, while paying into court the sum of L1, together with 4s 3d costs, denied liability, and counterclaimed the sum of L99 for damages resulting from an assault alleged to have been committed on him by de Goey at Beaconsfield on the 7th July.
    Mr Engleson (instructed by Mr Palmer) appeared for De Goey; Dr. M'Inerney was for the defendant, Wheeler.
    Plaintiff's case was opened by Mr Engleson, after the precaution had been taken of ordering the witnesses out of court. Counsel narrated the circumstances of the alleged assault, when plaintiff visited a property at Beaconsfield in which he was interested, and whither he had previously sent a Chinese to take charge. On the way he met the Chinese, who told him something about Wheeler. De Goey and the Chinese went on to the property, and did some work to the house which was there. Wheeler then turned up, and catching hold of De Goey, proceeded to punch him severely. Several of the plaintiff front teeth were knocked out, and, fearing that there would be murder, the Chinese hit Wheeler with a bamboo cane or stick, causing him to relax his hold. De Goey then in attempting to get away, was shockingly kicked by defendant, and suffered frightful agony that night and for same time afterwards. Counsel added that defendant would probably now attempt to justify his conduct by blackening the plaintiff's character, and he would very likely attempt to bring in the name of Mrs Trinkaus. The defence and counterclaim counsel characterised as "bluff."
    Dr. M'Inerney raid the defence was— (1) No assault; (2) If assault, it was in self-defence; (3) that the plaintiff was a trespasser on the ground of Mr and Mrs Trinkaus, and defendant was engaged in assisting them, by their authority, to eject plaintiff, and used no more violence than was necessary for that purpose.
    Dr. Charles Bage, of South Yarra, said he was called to attend plaintiff on the 9th July. He was bruised in certain parts, and was limping and in pain. Two of his front teeth were broken. Witness attended him for a week or eight days, and again examined him on the 14th inst., when he found the patient was still suffering from the injuries to the inside of his thigh. These could have been caused by a kick from a man. It would be hard to say how long the tenderness would last. The medical fees alone would be L8 8s.
    To Dr. M'Inerney: I have known De Goey for seventeen years. He is a nervous and excitable man. I have not observed any delusious in the man, but I have observed his rapidity of thought. (Laughter.)
    Dr. M'Inerney: And variability of imagination.
    Dr. Bage: It is rather difficult, when called to give evidence, to give an essay on the man's character. (Laughter.)
    Judge Hamilton: You are not asked to do so, doctor.
    Witness: I am glad to hear it, your Honor.
    Dr. M'Inerney: Does not a quick imagination in a man magnify his injuries?
    Witness: No; one man would feel tender and still walk about and forget about it. Another, man would—Magnify the tenderness?— No: I would say he would appreciate it more fully (Laughter.)
    Counsel cross-examined witness in detail as to the injuries he had found on the plaintiff, and extracted the witness's opinion that the injuries had been caused by a blow.
    Counsel proposed to read some letters, but Mr Eagleson objected.
    Judge Hamilton: If they refer to any scandalous matter, I won't let them in.
    Dr. M'Inerney: Very well, sir.
    PLAINTIFF IN THE BOX.
    Plaintiff stated that on the 7th July he went to Upper Bcaconsfield to look at some property in which he was interested. He got out at Narre Warren, and drove with a Mr Witt and a boy to the property. On the way Witt got out at the Cyclists' Hotel, and witness and the boy went on. They met a Chinese whom witness had previously sent up, and he told witness something. All three then drove on to the house, and witness and the Chinese got out, leaving the boy Congel in charge of the horse. Witness had a buggy lamp in one hand and a hammer in the other. He and the Chinese went into the house, and witness nailed up the windows and closed the other doors. Then he went to the back door, and was met by Wheeler, who said, "Have you got your revolver on you?"
    Witness said, "No." Wheeler immediately gripped him around the neck with one arm; and struck him repeatedly on the mouth. Witness was half-choked and could not strike back, but he screamed.
    The Chinese must have hit Wheeler, who let go. Witness said, "Let me go quietly; I cannot fight two men." Then he tried to make for the fence, accompanied by the Chinese. There were thorns growing
    around the fence, and just as witness was crawling through, Wheeler gave him a most unmerciful kick which caused him to scream in agony. Finally witness got through the fence, and was followed by Wheeler, who threatened to kick him again. At length, plaintiff said, he scrambled into the trap and drove away with the Chinese and the lad to the hotel, where he stayed on the Saturday and Sunday night. He suffered great pain from the effects of the kick and from the breaking of his teeth.
    Mr Eagleson: Did you give Wheeler the slightest provocation for this assault?
    Witness: No.
    Is this a transfer from Mrs Mary Louisa Trinkaus to you of the property you mention?— Yes.
    Counsel read the transfer of the property to plaintiff, dated 8th of June of this year.
    Judge Hamilton: Is this the property where you say the assault occurred?
    Witness: Yes.
    DE GOEY CROSS-EXAMINED.
    Dr. M'Incrney: This transfer was signed by Mrs. Trinkaus?— Yes.
    In consideration of the sum of L100?—
    Yes.
    Was that paid?— No, only L50 in cash, because I learned from her that there was a mortgage of L100 by Trinkaus.
    Where was Mr Trinkaus at this time?
    —In Tasmania.
    Was Mrs Trinkaus stopping at your business place?— (Emphatically) No, doctor.
    Was she sleeping any night at all in your place?— No, doctor; oh, no.
    Well, where did she stop?— At the Federal Coffee Palace.
    Judge Hamilton: -What on earth has this got to do with the question of the assault?
    Dr. M'Inerney: It is intended to show that the transfer did not come off on the 8th, as stated, and plaintiff had no title to the property.
    Judge Hamilton: Well, but this questioning will not show that. These transfers don't come off when people are in bed. (Loud laughter.)
    Witness was next questioned as to an I.O.U. he had given to Mrs Trinkaus for L100, which he had afterwards put in his safe. "Yes," said the plaintiff, wearily, "but you know you got the key of my safe, Dr. M'Inerney"," and there was much laughter.
    Dr. M'Inerney: But you've got the key now and the I.O.U. for L100.
    Plaintiff: Yes. but I'm L50 to the bad and haven't got the farm. (Laughter.)
    Did Mr Trinkaus go to your shop?— Yes.
    And find his wife there with you?
    Judge Hamilton: Now, really you must keep to the point. Dr. M'Inerney, or I must tell the witness to go away.
    Dr. M'Inerney submitted that he had a reason for asking the question to test the witness's credit.
    Plaintiff, looking appealingly at counsel: Doctor, I am feeling very bad. I am so sore.
    Dr. M'Inerney: Well, you may sit down if you like.
    Witness rubbed himself ruefully, and declined the invitation.
    Dr. M'Inerney: Did not Trinkaus threaten your life if you went to Beaconsfield?
    —No. no, no; but he did threaten my life in Market street— he threatened to shoot me.
    Judge Hamilton again interposed, saying those matters had nothing to do with the case.
    Dr M'Inerney: I will follow your Honor's direction. (To witness): Did not the Chinese send you word that the Trinkaus family would not have you on the property?— The Chinese telegraphed to me, saying something like this: "Wheeler throw me over the fence; what am I to do?" (Great laughter.)
    Did you not fire a revolver near Trinkaus's house?— No, not near, about a mile away. I shot a rabbit, and brought it home. (Laughter.)
    Is this your letter written to Mrs Trinkaus?
    Mr Eagleson objected to the letter going in.
    Judge Hamilton: Unless there is something in the letter that bears upon the case, I shall stop this cross-examination altogether.
    Dr. M'Inerney: I am going to show that he is utterly unworthy of belief.
    The letter was handed to the Judge, who read it and returned it with the remark: "I don't see that it's got anything to do with the case."
    Dr. M'Inerney: Very well. sir. (To witness): Now I'll ask you if you are the Mr De Goey who had a divorce case against his wife?
    Witness : Am I to answer that question, your Honor?
    Judge Hamilton: How does this bear on the case?
    Witness commenced to speak again.
    Judge Hamilton: Will you hold your tongue, sir. I can't see what this divorce matter has to do with the case. Very high persons indeed would be challenged on questions of belief if that is to be the test of truth in a Court of Justice. (Laughter)
    Dr M'Inerney : It is not alone because of that, but because of the facts contained in it. I want to show that this man is unworthy of belief, unworthy of getting damages under any circumstances.
    Judge Hamilton: If you are going to put it that way, that he is unworthy of getting damages in any circumstance, for an assault, then I will have to exercise the discretion that is reposed in me by Act of Parliament, and stop this thing altogether.
    Dr. M'Inerney: If you are going to take that extreme step—
    Judge Hamilton: I don't know that it
    is an extreme step. I have given rather
    extreme liberty in this cross-examination.
    Dr. M'Inerney: I have not asked any question that did not bear to this man's credit.
    Judge Hamilton: Well, I shall rule this question out.
    Dr. M'Inerney: If your Honor rules I am bound.
    Judge Hamilton: Of course, you must be bound.
    Dr. M'Inerney: And I must not bring this letter out?
    Judge Hamilton: No. I don't think you should. I don't like stopping counsel, but the law puts this duty upon me, that unless it is clear to me that matters ought to be brought out, then I must stop them.
    Dr. M'Inerney (resuming his seat): Then, I won't ask any more questions.
    De Goey left the box with a profound sigh of relief.
    OTHER WITNESSES.
    Frank Wisewould, solicitor, gave evidence relating to the transfer of the property by Mrs Trinkaus to de Goey, about which he had been committed by the latter.
    Peter Witt, a blacksmith, said he had driven with plaintiff on the 7th July from Narre Warren as far as the hotel, and later on went on to the property spoken of. As he got near, he heard de Goey screaming out. And coming up to the buggy, saw plaintiff seated in it. Wheeler and Trinkaus were on the road, and witness called Wheeler a coward. They told witness to clear out, that he had no business there.
    In reply to his Honor, witness said that Mr and Mrs Trinkaus were living together at this time.
    The Court then adjourned for lunch.15
  • 18 Aug 1900, AMUSING ASSAULT CASE FOUR NATIONALITIES REPRESENTED. A CHINESE COMPLICATION.
    Johannes Cornelius De Goey, barbed wire merchant, of Market-street, Melbourne, whose name will be remembered by many in connection with an extraordinary divorce case eight years ago, on Friday sued, before Judge Hamilton and a jury of four in the County Court, to recover £249 damages for assault from Caleb Wheeler, of Upper Beaconsfield, farmer. He alleged that the defendant violently assaulted him on July 7 at Upper Beaconsfield, and caused him to suffer "grievous pain and injury."
    Wheeler (states the "Argus") counter-claimed £99 damages from De Goey for assaulting him or causing him to be assaulted by his servant-a Chinese-at the same place on the same day. He paid £1 4s 3d into court in full satisfaction of De Goey's claim, and costs.
    Mr Eagleson (instructed by Mr H. S. Pyman) was for De Goey.
    Dr M'Inerney represented Wheeler.
    For the plaintiff it was alleged that he understood he had an interest in property at Upper Beaconsfield, and had sent a Chinese there to dig round the fruit trees and attend to the place generally. He himself went up later, and on his arriving at the house late in the evening of July 7 Wheeler rushed out, and, getting his head in chancery with one arm, punched it violently with the other hand. The faithful Chinese, fearing his master would be murdered, struck Wheeler on the head with a bamboo. As Wheeler drew off he struck De Goey again with his fist on the mouth, knocking several teeth out. As De Goey was in the act of escaping through the fence Wheeler kicked him cruelly in such a way as to cause him subsequent weeks of suffering. Defendant denied the assault. If there was assault it was in self-defence.
    Plaintiff was a trespasser, and defendant was engaged by the owners of the property, a Mr and Mrs Trinkaus, to eject him. In doing so he used no more violence than was necessary. According to the statement of defendant's case, a Mrs Trinkaus was at the bottom of the whole case. Plaintiff, it was asserted, had induced Mrs Trinkaus to sign a transfer to him of property at Beaconsfield, which had been put into her name by her husband. In return plaintiff gave her an IOU for £400. Subsequently Trinkaus and his wife went to live on the property, and De Goey came to claim it, sending a Chinese before him. The Trinkauses sought the help of Wheeler to turn the Chinese off, and afterwards De Goey forced an entrance. Wheeler, with Trinkaus, turned him out, and Wheeler kicked him as he disappeared. De Goey then gave the word to "charge" to the Chinese, who charged with a bamboo held like a bayonet. With that he struck Wheeler on the head. Wheeler had had a sore head ever since.
    Charles Bage, M.B., testified to the plaintiff's injuries. Cross-examined, he said he had noticed during years of attendance De Goey's nervous excitability and "rapidity of thought."
    Dr M'Inerney-"Rapidity of thought" is excellent. Did you observe any variability of imagination?
    Witness (turning to the judge)-I came here to give evidence, and hardly to write an essay on a man's character.
    Judge Hamilton (testily)-Well, you needn't write it. Nobody wants you to. Don't do it. (Laughter.)
    Witness (smiling)-Thank you. (Turning)-May I go? (Laughter.)
    Dr M'Inerney-Oh, dear, no. (Laughter.)
    A man with a nervous temperament would make more of an injury than another man?
    Witness-A man not of a nervous temperament would walk about with an injury, and only feel it when he thought of it, whereas a more nervous man would--
    Dr M'Inerney-Magnify it.
    Witness (smiling)-No, appreciate it more fully. (Laughter.)
    Plaintiff was cross-examined by Dr M'Inerney. This transfer of land is signed by Mrs Trinkaus, and you were to pay her £400? How did you pay her?-I paid her £50. I found there was a mortgage of £100 on the property.
    Was Mrs Trinkaus lodging or staying at your house?-(Vehemently)-No, sir; no, sir; no, sir.
    Did your Chinese advise you of what was happening at Beaconsfield?-Yes, he telegraphed to me, "Wheeler will throw me over the fence. What will I do?" (Loud laughter.)
    Dr M'Inerney sought to go into matters connected with certain divorce proceedings in 1892 and City Court proceedings in connection with Mr and Mrs Trinkaus some months ago, but Judge Hamilton ruled the questions inadmissable.
    Dr M'Inerney-If your Honor rules that I'm done. (Laughter.)
    Ah Gee gave evidence as to the assault. He was at a loss what to do when he saw two men holding and hitting De Goey "like a cat playing with a mouse"-(laughter)-so he decided to tap one of them on the head with a bamboo. (Laughter.)
    Mrs Trinkaus said De Goey worried her into signing the transfer. He gave her an IOU for £450, which she handed back into his keeping.
    Friedrich Theodore Trinkaus drew a startling picture of De Goey calling on his Chinese army of one to "charge," and of the Chinese "charging" with his bamboo at the "ready" like a bayonet.
    He continued:-"He is a big Chinese; I'm only a little fellow, but I'll manage him. (Laughter.) He say to me, 'No more fightee' - (laughter) - but every time I let him go he lifted his stick again. He was a strong fellow, but he lost his waistcoat and his hat, and said, 'Me go, me go.' (Laughter.) I said 'I'm glad of it. Good-bye.' (Laughter.) Wheeler was glad too." (Laughter.)
    To Dr M'Inerney.-Wheeler was too much of a Britisher to kick De Goey as he went through the fence. (Laughter.) I didn't do so either. I am a Saxon. We act like men. (Laughter.)
    De Goey cleared the fence in a bound like a young deer - (laughter) - and landed in some flax bushes - (laughter) - but "John" was not so clever, and hung half-way over. (Laughter.)
    To Mr Eagleson.-I am a Britisher now. (Laughter.)
    My three brothers have proved themselves brave men in the German army. (Laughter.)
    The case stands adjourned until half past 10 on Monday morning.16,17
  • 21 Aug 1900, DE GOEY AGAIN. HE WANTS DAMAGES. FROM FARMER WHEELER. SAYS HE WAS ASSAILED. AND BADLY USED. DEFENDANT'S COUNTER-CLAIM. SOME SCATHING COMMENTS BY JUDGE HAMILTON.
    The curious claim and counterclaim, arising out of an occurrence at Beaconsfield on the 7th July last was again before Judge Hamilton and a special jury of four in the County Court to-day. Johannes Cornelius de Goey, barbed wire merchant, of Melbourne, claimed from Caleb Wheeler, farmer, of Upper Beaconsfield, the sum of L249 damages, for that on the date mentioned defendant "did unlawfully and violently assault plaintiff, whereby he was put to medical and other expense, and suffered grievous pain and injury." Of the L249 claimed L10 was mentioned as special damages for medical expenses incurred. Defendant, while paying into court the sum of L1, together with 4s 3d costs, denied liability, and counterclaimed the sum of L99 for damages resulting from an assault alleged to have been committed on him by De Goey at Beaconsfield on the 7th July.
    Mr Eagleson (instructed by Mr Palmer) appeared for De Goey; Dr. M'Inerney was for the defendant, Wheeler. Further evidence was submitted for the defence. Mr Trinkaus was recalled, and in reply to Dr M'Inerney, said that a cheque for L5 from Mr de Goey was handed to him on the 18th July by Mr Wheeler. Witness passed it over to Dr M'Inerney, who sent it back to de Goey.
    DEFENDANT IN THE BOX.
    Caleb Wheeler, the defendant in the action, said that he was an architect, residing at Beaconsfield. On the 7th July, he met Trinkaus in the morning, and again in the evening. About five o'clock they went to Trinkaus's house, and saw de Goey knocking at the back door with a hammer. A Chinese was with him, holding a buggy lamp. Witness said to de Goey, "When are you going to cease worrying this unfortunate man? You have worried him body and soul these last three months. When are you going to stop?"
    De Goey made some sort of an answer, and Trinkaus gave him a slight push, saying, "Go off my property." De Goey raised his hammer, and as witness advanced he said he would knock his (Wheeler's) brains out. Witness caught hold of him, and at the same time received a blow from the hammer on the point of his shoulder. Plaintiff sang out, "Charge! charge!" to the Chinaman. "You would really think he was leading a regiment of cavalry," added the witness, amidst laughter. Wheeler went on to say that as de Goey advanced upon him witness rose his foot, and kicked him. Next, the Chinese lifted the bamboo he was carrying and struck witness on the head. De Goey then made for the fence, which was two-railed, with four-feet palings nailed on. The palings were close together, and de Goey got over by putting his feet on the rails and springing over. One of the palings was broken by the top rail, and another by the lower rail. He could not say, but he believed these were broken by de Goey. The latter sang out, "Come down to Market street, and I will take it out of you." Witness replied, "You take it out of me! You were never the man yet that could stand up to an Englishman." De Goey made some remark about getting someone else to do it, and walked away to the buggy, he called out for witness to return his cuffs, and Wheeler said: "If you say I took the cuffs I'll punch your d— head." Meanwhile Trinkaus, after dealing with the Chinese — (laughter) — took the hammer from de Goey. The Chinese was seated in the buggy, and sung out to do Goey, "Come on, no more fightee!" (Laughter). Witness declared that it was untrue and impossible that he kicked de Goey as the latter was trying to crawl through the fence. "It is untrue, also," continued the witness, "that I knocked his teeth out. I never closed my fist. If I had hit him as he said he would never have been known (Laughter.) He would never have been alive to tell the tale. (Loud laughter.)
    Dr M'Inerney: Well, you have a good opinion of yourself?
    Witness (a short thick-set man): Yes, to that extent. (Laughter).
    HE IS CROSS-EXAMINED.
    Mr Eagleson: This blow on the head has not affected your memory?
    Witness: I am glad to say it has not.
    How far could you see that night?—About ten or twelve yards.
    Counsel questioned witness as to his movements after the Court adjourned last Friday afternoon, but Wheeler was unable to say what he and Mr and Mrs Trinkaus did or talked about, though he was sure they did not discuss the evidence. Pressed by Mr Eagleson, witness admitted that they had had some little chat over the case, but they really had never discussed the evidence, either before the case or during the hearing, or after the adjournment.
    Mr Eagleson: Then you did not know what Trinkaus was going to swear at all?
    Witness: I did not.
    Then he might have sworn that you did kick De Goey?—Well, so I did. I'm not going to deny it; but it was a light kick, for it only just stopped my boot. (Laughter.)
    Now, Trinkaus swore that De Goey cleared the fence at a bound?— He did not get over the fence as smartly as that.
    He got over as I described.
    You said that if you had punched De Goey in that way he would have been dead?— Probably he would, seeing the sort of man he is. It would be cruelty to punch a man like that. (Laughter.)
    Then you're pretty good with your hands?— No; I never had a fight in my life.
    Did you dare him to come back?— No; I warned him not to attempt to return, or else he would be turned off as quickly as he was this time.
    What boots were you wearing at the time?— Ordinary blucher books that I use when working.
    Where are they?— They're at Dr M'Inerney's. (Laughter.)
    Judge Hamilton : Did you ask de Goey whether he had his revolver?— No, sir; I did not.
    Jesse Sykes, a contractor, residing at Beaconsfield, said that he had seen Wheeler about half-past five in the local hotel. Trinkaus was with him. Wheeler showed witness a lump on the back of his head about the size of a small hen's egg.
    This completed the evidence in the case.
    THE SUMMING UP.
    Judge Hamilton, in summing up to the jury, said that a great deal in this case had been made of the title of Trinkaus to his property. His Honor continued: That was no excuse, however, for the attempts that were made to get in a whole lot of most objectionable and detestable matter, which was quite unnecessary for the purposes of this case. If Trinkaus had a good title he could have proved it; it was not necessary to implicate his wife; and when you go even as far as this, you see what unpleasant people we are dealing with, whether you find for plaintiff or defendant. She, this Mrs Trinkaus, is accused of certain conduct of a very indiscreet nature. While her husband is away in Tasmania, she meets the plaintiff, and proceeds to deal with her own private property, without consulting her husband or letting him know anything about it. The plaintiff tries to carry out the bargain, but in some manner it goes off. It is also said that there was a sum of L5 paid for farm implements. Well, it turns out, when we look at the list of things claimed, that there is no farm property at all; there is simply a list of household furniture, which winds up with "a dog named Fanny." (Loud laughter.) Then, when we learn of the plaintiff giving this woman L15 for pocket money we can quite understand that there were strong grounds for animosity between the two men, but Trinkaus has forgiven all this, he was with his wife, and you would think it was unnecessary to raise it again. Yet time after time I was persecuted, and the court almost defied, by the defendant's persistence in attempting to bring these things out. They returned to the thing again and again, like the proverbial hogs wallowing in the mire. (Sensation.) And after forbidding it, when the woman gets into the box I have a pitying appeal to know whether I shall allow it. Indeed, there is no more sense or shame than in ordinary dogs or tom cats. (Laughter.) His Honor then proceeded to briefly review the evidence, pointing out that it was for the jury to say whether the plaintiff had been improperly assaulted, or had merely been turned off the properly with no more violence than was necessary. Referring to the defendant's boast of what harm he would have done if he had really struck the plaintiff. Judge Hamilton satirically remarked, "Like a great many other men who have never been in a fight, he thinks he would do a great deal if he got into one."
    (Loud laughter.)
    The jury consulted for a few minutes in the box, but decided to retire and consider their verdict more fully.
    THE VERDICT.
    The jury deliberated for twenty-five minutes, and upon returning the fore man stated: We find for the plaintiff in both cases, damages, one farthing. (Laughter).
    Dr. M'Inerney: Which plaintiff?
    Judge Hamilton: What do you mean, gentlemen?
    The foreman: We find for de Goey in the one case, and Wheeler in the other. (Laughter).
    Judge Hamilton (laughingly): Is that so, gentlemen?
    The foreman (gravely): That is so.
    Dr. M'Inerney: There is a rule in the court which won't allow of a verdict being entered under a penny.
    Judge Hamilton: Well, I'll enter up for one penny. No, I won't; I shall grant no costs. (Loud laughter.)
    Then a smiling audience filed out, and the case was at an end.18
  • 21 Aug 1900, THE DE GOEY CASE. "CONTEMPTUOUS DAMAGES."
    What are known as "contemptuous damages" were awarded by a jury of four in the County Court yesterday in the case in which Johannes Cornelius De Goey claims £249 damages for assault at Upper Beaconsfield on July 7 from a farmer named Caleb Wheeler, and in which Wheeler counter-claimed £99 damages from De Goey for an assault on him by De Goey's Chinese servant, Ah Gee.
    Judge Hamilton, in summing up, said he could find no excuse for the attempts that had been made to bring in much most objectionable and detestable and unnecessary matter. Time after time he had been persecuted and the Court almost defied by the persistence of the defendant's party in attempting to bring those matters in. They returned to the things again and again, like the proverbial hogs wallowing in the mire. There seemed to be no more sense of shame than ordinary dogs or tom cats. The jury awarded plaintiff one farthing damages on the claim, and the defendant one farthing damages on the counter-claim.
    Judge Hamilton was about to enter up judgement for one penny in each instance, when he suddenly remarked, "No, I won't; I shall grant no costs."
    Mr Eagleson (instructed by Mr Pyman) was for De Goey, and Dr M'Inerney was for Wheeler.19

Citations

  1. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888 "as Murtal HOCHSTEIN, born Geelong & John Cornelius De GURY, born Holland."
  2. [S33] Australian Government: http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/search/index.aspx, 1895/B3748 - file held in Canberra.
  3. [S34] PROV (Public Records Office Victoria), VPRS 267/ P7 unit 1287, item 1900/560.
  4. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  5. [S16] Newspaper - The Age The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), Fri 29 Nov 1901, p1
    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article192218763
    The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), Fri 29 Nov 1901, p10
    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article192218789
  6. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 26 Feb 1894, p1.
  7. [S14] Newspaper - Bairnsdale Advertiser and Tambo and Omeo Chronicle, 27 Feb 1894, p2.
  8. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 22 Mar 1894, p7.
  9. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 25 Sep 1894, p1.
  10. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 22 Sep 1897, p1.
  11. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 7 Apr 1900, p7.
  12. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 9 Jun 1900 p15.
  13. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 11 Jun 1900 p6.
  14. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 12 Jun 1900, p6.
  15. [S14] Newspaper - The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 - 1954), Fri 17 Aug 1900, p1
    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article241474132
  16. [S14] Newspaper - Examiner (Launceston), 20 Aug 1900, p3.
  17. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 18 Aug 1900, p15.
  18. [S14] Newspaper - The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 - 1954), Tue 21 Aug 1900, p4
    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article241480916
    The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 - 1954), Tue 21 Aug 1900, p4
    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article241480895
    The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 - 1954), Mon 20 Aug 1900, p2
    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article241480237
  19. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 21 Aug 1900, p6.
Last Edited24 Mar 2019

Leopold Francis De Goey

M, #7377, b. 1884, d. Apr 1884
Father*Johannes Cornelius De Goey b. 1856, d. 27 Nov 1901
Mother*Amy Elizabeth 'Murtal' Hochstein b. 1865, d. 4 Jul 1943
Birth*1884 Melbourne, VIC, Australia, #B5661.1 
Death*Apr 1884 South Yarra, VIC, Australia, #D6198 (Age 3M.)1,2 

Grave

  • St Kilda Cemetery, St Kilda, VIC, Australia3

Citations

  1. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  2. [S48] Index of burials in the cemetery of St Kilda,
    buried at St Kilda on 20 April 1884.
  3. [S48] Index of burials in the cemetery of St Kilda,
    location unknown - tenure may have expired.
Last Edited23 Mar 2019

Evalina Gerardina De Goey

F, #7378, b. 1885, d. Dec 1885
Father*Johannes Cornelius De Goey b. 1856, d. 27 Nov 1901
Mother*Amy Elizabeth 'Murtal' Hochstein b. 1865, d. 4 Jul 1943
Birth*1885 Malvern, VIC, Australia, #B21526.1 
Death*Dec 1885 South Yarra, VIC, Australia, #D14032 (Age 5M.)1,2 

Grave

  • St Kilda Cemetery, St Kilda, VIC, Australia3

Citations

  1. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888.
  2. [S48] Index of burials in the cemetery of St Kilda,
    buried at St Kilda on 23 Dec 1885.
  3. [S48] Index of burials in the cemetery of St Kilda,
    location unknown - tenure may have expired.
Last Edited23 Mar 2019

Herbert Cornelius De Goey

M, #7379, b. 10 Feb 1888, d. 22 Sep 1894
Father*Johannes Cornelius De Goey b. 1856, d. 27 Nov 1901
Mother*Amy Elizabeth 'Murtal' Hochstein b. 1865, d. 4 Jul 1943
Birth*10 Feb 1888 Malvern, VIC, Australia, #D4463.1 
Birth-Notice*3 Mar 1888DE GOEY.— On the 10th February, at Albany-road, Toorak; the wife of J. C. De Goey of a son.2 
Death*22 Sep 1894 Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, #D1894 (Age 6.)3 
Death-Notice25 Sep 1894DE GOEY. —On the 22nd inst., Herbert Cornelius, the only comfort of his already sorrow-blighted father, J. C. de Goey. He died stammering, "Mamma." Gone, and the only light of his father's life gone with him.4 

Newspaper-Articles

  • 22 Sep 1897, DE GOEY. —In loving memory of my generous little Herbert, who died on the 22nd September, 1894.
    He was my all, the only light of his father's life.
    And now a dreary shroud surround me and invest.
    With sad remembrances all my hours of rest.
    -His lonely father.5

Citations

  1. [S1] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Pioneer Index Victoria 1836-1888 "indexed as Herbert Cornelius DelFoey."
  2. [S14] Newspaper - Illustrated Australian News (Melbourne), 3 Mar 1888, p46.
  3. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  4. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 25 Sep 1894, p1.
  5. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 22 Sep 1897, p1.
Last Edited23 Mar 2019

Leopold Albert De Goey

M, #7380, b. 1 Nov 1889, d. 1944
Father*Johannes Cornelius De Goey b. 1856, d. 27 Nov 1901
Mother*Amy Elizabeth 'Murtal' Hochstein b. 1865, d. 4 Jul 1943
Birth*1 Nov 1889 Malvern, VIC, Australia, #B32838.1 
Birth-Notice*23 Nov 1889DE GOEY.— On the 1st November, at Elizabeth-street, Malvern, the wife of J. C. De Goey of a son.2 
Marriage-Notice*12 Dec 1931DE GOEY-THOM -On the 31st October, in Melbourne, Leopold Albert de Goey, only son of Mrs Carr, Melbourne, and the late Johan Cornelius de Goey, Esquire, Amsterdam, Holland to Jean Parkes Thom only daughter of Mr and Mrs J. G. Thom, Gleneira road, Caulfield.3 
Death*1944 Fitzroy, VIC, Australia, #D10516 (Age 55.)4 

Citations

  1. [S2] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Federation Index Victoria 1889-1901.
  2. [S14] Newspaper - Leader (Melbourne, Vic. : 1862 - 1918, 1935), Sat 23 Nov 1889, p42
    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article198058795
  3. [S11] Newspaper - Argus 12 Dec 1931, p17.
  4. [S5] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Death Index Victoria 1921-1985.
Last Edited23 Mar 2019
 

NOTE

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