Anthony Pittorino, 1891 – Indecent exposure
Below also see: Anthony Pittorino, 1902 – Indecent exposure
Evening News, Thu 2 Jul 1891 1
APPLEALS AGAINST MAGESTERIAL
The following appeals against convictions and orders by magistrates will be heard at Darlinghurst Courthouse on Thursday: Police v. Mark Turner, larceny; police v. Samuel J. Wakeley, breach of Licensing Act; police v. Jemmy Thompson, slaughtering without a licence; police v. Theresa McMahon, larceny; police v. Peter McManus, breach of the Licensing Act; police v. Anthony Pittorino, obscenity; Francis Callaghan v. Benjamin Morson, fraudulent appropriation; Fanny Ellery v. Peter Ellery, wife desertion; Andrew Swan v. Patrick Lillis, killing a dog.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Australian Star, Fri 3 Jul 1891 2
SAMUEL WAKELY, licensee of the Gladstone Park Hotel, Leichhardt, who was fined £ [sic] and costs at the Central Police Court for Sunday selling on April 12 last, appealed against the conviction to Judge Docker, at the Darlinghurst Sessions yesterday, on the ground that the case had been tried before a court of petty sessions instead of the Licensing Court, and that such court of petty sessions was not the nearest court within the meaning of the Act. After discussion the appeal was dismissed, with £55s. costs.
The appeal of Anthony Pittorino, convicted of indecent exposure, was dismissed, without costs.
Anthony Pittorino, 1902 – Indecent exposure
The Daily Telegraph, Fri 10 Oct 1902 3
(Before Judge Rogers.)
Mr H Harris prosecuted for the Crown.
Anthony Pittorino appealed against his conviction at the North Sydney Court on July 24 for indecent exposure. Mr J. Gannon (instructed by Mr CA Walker) appeared on behalf of the appellant.
After hearing evidence his Honor quashed the conviction and sustained the appeal.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Evening News, Fri 10 Oct 1902 4
The following appeals against convictions were dealt with by Mr Acting Justice Rogers, at the Darlinghurst Quarter Sessions on Thursday:—Re Fred Marsden: Appeal against conviction; and fine of £1 for the alleged use of indecent language. The conviction was quashed, without costs.
Re Charles Denford and Norman Darrack: Appeal against conviction and sentence of six months’ imprisonment, on charges of being suspected persons. The conviction was quashed, without costs.
Re Anthony Pittorino: Appeal against conviction and sentence of six months’ imprisonment, on a charge of indecent exposure, quashed, without costs.
Re William Swanson v. J. Duncan, inspector of nuisances for the City Council: Appeal against conviction, and fine of £1 for sale of alleged adulterated milk. The appeal was dismissed, but the amount of the fine was reduced to 1s, without costs.
The necessity for the establishment of a sewage farm at Cootamundra is to be brought under the notice of the Minister for Lands on Monday, on which day Mr Barnes, MLA, will introduce a deputation on the subject.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Truth, Sun 12 Oct 1902 5
“A HIDEOUS THING.”
“GOOD LITTLE GIRLS.”
CHARGE AN ITALIAN FRUIT VENDER
WITH SHOCKING OBSCENITY.
Judge Rogers Quashes a Magisterial
A case in which an Italian, who is employed in a large fruit shop in North Sydney, was convicted by a Magistrate of having
OBSCENELY EXPOSED HIMSELF
to two little girls, was heard again, on appeal, last Thursday, before Mr Justice Rogers at the Metropolitan Quarter Sessions, Darlinghurst. It appears that sweetmeats are sold at the shop in question, as well as fruit, and, on the day of the alleged offence, two little girls went into the shop to purchase some toffee. While there, so the girls alleged, the accused, who wore an apron, suddenly shifted the apron, and exposed himself. On the hearing of the appeal, however, evidence was given by a traveller named William Lambert to the effect that he was in the shop on the day of the alleged offence when the girls went in. He was receiving payment of a sum of money due to his firm. He produced the cheque given in payment by the accused. Accused was not wear an apron, and
WAS NERVOUSLY PLAYING
with his watch chain, which was a way he had when paying money. What, however, threw even greater doubt on the testimony given by the girls against the accused, Anthony Pittorino, was the evidence adduced by Mr JC Gannon that the girls had first accused his brother Frank of the offence. It was admitted by the girls, who again gave evidence, that
THEY FIRST CHARGED FRANK
with the offence, but on seeing the brothers together changed their mind and accused Anthony. They stated that the reason why they changed their minds was that when they saw the brothers together it became clear to them (the girls) that they had erred in accusing Frank. The elder of the two girls was but 13 years old. She was greatly embarrassed in giving evidence, and frequently shed tears. She said that she was certain that
ANTHONY WAS THE MAN.
She also admitted to Mr Gannon that she at first was sure that Frank was the man, but was told that it was not he, because he was not in the shop.
The younger girl, who was about nine years of age, then gave evidence. She was asked to point out the accused, and, amid much laughter, appeared to look somewhat hard at the well-known solicitor, Mr Carter Smith. Mr Smith, I however, gravely assured his Honor that he could “'prove an alibi.” The girl then identified Anthony as the offender.
Anthony Pittorino, the accused, said that he came to Australia 10 years ago. He returned to Italy, but about two years ago again came to Australia. He said that
HE REMEMBERED THE GIRLS
coming in for toffee. There was no truth in their accusation. When they returned with a policeman they accused his brother, who said that he was not in the shop. The witness went out with his coat off and the constable said to the elder girl, “Is that the man?” The girl hesitated, but then said that witness was the man. So did the other girl.
Frank Pittorino gave corroborative evidence. He had two
DAUGHTERS OF HIS OWN—
one aged 12, and the other aged 11.
His Honor said that it was 'a most difficult case. The accused seemed to be a respectable man, notwithstanding a previous conviction for a similar offence. He (his Honor) could quite understand how such an offence might be inadvertently committed. The lady went and complained to the police. Perhaps some people were somewhat too hasty in making complaints; but, of course, where there was wilful exposure it was right to complain. The children might have made a mistake, but they were undoubtedly most respectable, good little children. He (his Honor) could not understand a man
DOING A HIDEOUS THING
such as the accused was charged with. There was, however, a doubt as to his guilt, and on the reasonable doubt principle he (his Honor) would give accused the benefit of it and quashed the conviction. The evidence also entirely exonerated the brother, Frank Pittorino.
1 Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 2 Jul 1891, p. 6. Emphasis added.
2 The Australian Star, (Sydney, NSW), Fri 3 Jul 1891, p. 3.
3 The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney, NSW), Fri 10 Oct 1902, p. 8.
4 Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Fri 10 Oct 1902, p. 3. Emphasis added.
5 Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 12 Oct 1902, p. 4. Emphasis added.