Want v. Moss, 1889

Below also see: Simeon Alexander Moss – Bankruptcy, &c, 1889,
Simeon Alexander Moss, 1899 – Indecent assault,
Simeon Alexander Moss, 1899 – Assault,
Simeon Alexander Moss, 1900,
Ernest Vince, 1903,
Moss v. Ward, 1904,
Moss v. Hale, 1912,
Victoria Moss, 1926

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 26 Feb 1889 ¹

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

SUPREME COURT.—Monday, February 25.
    In Banco.—(Before their Honors Mr Justice WINDEYER, Mr Justice STEPHEN, and Mr Justice FOSTER.)

Want v. Moss

    Mr Rogers, QC, and Mr Cohen, instructed by Messrs Abbott and Dodds, appeared for the appellant (defendant), to move to make absolute a rule nisi to set aside the verdict in the above case, and to have a nonsuit granted, or a verdict entered for defendant. Mr Pilcher, QC, and Mr O’Connor, instructed by Mr J McLaughlin, appeared for plaintiff to show cause. The action, which was brought by John Henry Want, barrister-at-law, against Simeon Alexander Moss, was to recover damages for being deprived of the exclusive use and occupation of a certain box in the Theatre Royal, Sydney, known as the dress circle OP box, with the right of free ingress and egress to and from such box. The right was claimed by the plaintiff by virtue of a written agreement made with the late Samuel Lazar, under which the latter assigned to Mr Want the exclusive right of using this box for himself and his friends during the currency of his (Lazar’s) lease. After Lazar’s death, however, the defendant disputed plaintiff’s right to the box, and hence the action. The case was tried before Mr Justice Stephen and a jury of four in June last, when a verdict was, by consent, entered for the plaintiff with damages 40s, with leave reserved to the defendant to move the Full Court. It was now sought to have the verdict set aside on the following grounds:—1. That there was no evidence to support the verdict. 2. That the sole and exclusive right of the occupancy of the box, with the right of free ingress thereto, could only be conferred upon the plaintiff by deed, and there was no evidence of any such deed. 3. That the alleged lease of the said box with the right of ingress thereto and egress therefrom not being by deed, the plaintiff failed to prove the said right of occupancy and free ingress.

    After hearing Mr Rogers and Mr Cohen, and without calling on the other side, Mr Justice Windeyer said the facts of the case on which the Court were about to deliver judgment were briefly as follows: Mr Lazar, being the lessee for a term of years of the Theatre Royal, made an assignment of the residue of his term of a certain box in the theatre to the plaintiff. The defendant, after the plaintiff had had the use of the box for some time, endeavoured to obstruct him in the use of it, and the plaintiff then brought an action on the ground that he was prevented by the defendant from using this box under agreement made with the original lessee. It appeared that the document under which the assignment was made to the plaintiff was not under seal, but it gave the plaintiff in so many words the right of free ingress and egress to and from the box. A verdict having been given by consent for the plaintiff, a question of law was reserved for the Full Court as to whether plaintiff could avail himself of the power given to him under that document, inasmuch as it was not under seal, the contention being that the right to ingress and egress to and from this box was an incorporeal hereditament which could only be given under seal. It appeared to him that it was not even necessary that this right to ingress and egress to and from the box should have been given in the document by which Lazar assigned the right to use this box for the remainder of his term to the plaintiff. The law was quite clear that where a person granted to another anything he conveyed to him all that was necessary for the enjoyment of the right or privilege which he gave him. The case had been argued here as if this was a mere license given by Lazar to the plaintiff for the use of this box. That was not so. This document gave something more than that. It gave plaintiff an assignment of Lazar’s interest for the remainder of his term of lease in the box, and it was quite clear to his mind that whether this privilege of ingress and egress was inserted in the document by which Lazar made the assignment to Want it necessarily, by implication, gave the right to go to and out of that box. An attempt had been made to limit this right to cases where a lease had been made, and even to limit this right to cases where there had been a grant of a freehold. It appeared to him that there was no authority for such a contention, and he held that the law was founded upon the well-known maxim “quando aliquis aliquid concedit concedere, videtur et id, sine quo res ut; non potest.” This principle extended not only to cases of leases, but to cases where a man granted anything to another, and it was necessary in order that he should enjoy the right given to him that he should enjoy the further easement without which the right given to him could not be enjoyed. The law on this subject was set out in the case of Pomfret v. Ricroft , where the principle was laid down and commented upon in the first volume Saunders, page 326. In the judgement in that case the law was thus indicated: “He further held that in this case the plaintiff himself, being the lessee, might have repaired the pump; for although neither the soil nor the pump be granted to him, yet by the grant of the use of the pump the law has given to him this liberty; for when the use of a thing is granted, everything is granted by which the grantee may have and enjoy such use.” And that case was supported by the case of, Hinchcliffe versus the Earl of Kinnoul , 5 Bingham, 24. Lord Chief Justice Tindal there said: “The next question which then arises, and that upon which the determination of the present case rests, is whether the right of passing and repassing over the soil of the passage, and using for the purposes above-mentioned, did also pass to the lessees under this lease. And we are of opinion, upon the facts found in this special verdict, such right did pass as a necessary incident to the subject matter actually demised, although not specially named in the lease.” These cases established the well-known principle which is set forth in them, and they showed that the right to enjoy something which was a necessary incident to the thing granted, and without which the thing granted could not be enjoyed, extended not only to land in freehold, but to the granting of any right whatever. In this case it was quite evident that the assignment of this box to plaintiff would have been an absolutely worthless right without the right to go to it and come out of it, and under these circumstances it appeared to him that the contention of defendant that plaintiff could not maintain his action, inasmuch as this right of ingress and egress was not granted to him under seal, entirely failed, as it was not necessary that it should be alluded to in the grant of the box itself.

    Mr Justice STEPHEN and Mr Justice FOSTER concurred.
    Rule discharged with costs.

 

---

 

Simeon Alexander Moss – Bankruptcy, &c, 1889

 

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 18 Jul 1889 ²

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

(Before the REGISTRAR.)

…

CREDITOR'S PETITION.

    John Henry Want, of King-street, v Simeon Alexander Moss, of Allora, Bayswater-road. Petition to be heard on July 29.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Australian Town and Country Journal, Sat 20 Jul 1889 ³

CREDITORS’ PETITIONS.

…
    No. 1419. John Henry Want, of No. 167, King-street, Sydney, barrister-at-law, v. Simeon Alexander Moss, of Darlinghurst, no occupation. Petition to be heard July 29.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 29 Jul 1889 ⁴

LAW NOTICES.
TERM LIST FOR THIRD TERM.
SUPREME COURT, Monday, July 29.

…

BANKRUPTCY BUSINESS.

    Monday.—James Bell Smith, Archibald Russell, Henry Kendrick, certificate applications; CF Garvan v Edward Hobbs, hearing of creditors’ petition; re Frederick Blunt, the younger; ex parte Edward Terry, praying for a revival of petition (presented by Frederick James Hamilton on 17th June, 1889, under sub section 8 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1887; John Hay Goodlet v George Watson, the Trustees’, Executors’ and Agency Company, Limited, and William Templeton v John H Short; Lark, Son, and Co, v Joseph Levy and David Kruggmann, John Henry Want v Simeon Alexander Moss, hearing of creditors’ petitions. William Fesq v Charles Peisley; E, S, and A C Bank v Edmund Henry Taylor, ditto; William John Stephenson, application for directions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 30 Jul 1889 ⁵

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

In Bankruptcy.—(Before his Honor Mr Justice Deffell.)

…
    John Henry Want v. Simeon Alexander Moss. Mr Pilcher and Mr Davies appeared for the petitioning creditor; and Mr HE Cohen and Mr Field for the respondent. The petition was the result of the Supreme Court action Want v Moss, in connection with a box at the Theatre Royal, in which the petitioner obtained a verdict for 40s and costs. Mr Cohen raised the objection that a sequestration order could not be made in view of the fact that an appeal to the higher Court was pending. The rejoinder from the petitioning counsel was that Mr Want had offered and would give security for costs in the event of the appeal being decided against him. It was urged on the other side that the sequestration order would not benefit the petitioner at all seeing that he had no means or property to levy on. The respondent was examined with respect to documents and his means, and stated that he had neither property nor means, adding that the appeal was in the hands of his attorneys, no instructions having been given them by him in the matter. After hearing arguments from Mr Field, his Honor said that the judgment of the Supreme Court contained the following specific words:—“And it is further ordered that the plaintiff is hereby at liberty to carry into execution the said judgment.” It was therefore necessary for him to give full effect to them. The petitioner was entitled to succeed, and he accordingly made the order for the sequestration. He added that Mrs Moss was in a perfectly safe place, because the moment the act of bankruptcy took place she was master of the situation. No damnification could come to her. Mr Augustus Morris was appointed official assignee, and date of act of bankruptcy fixed at June 12.

    Re William Fesq v Charles Peisley. The hearing was adjourned till Friday.

    Re English, Scottish, and Australian Chartered Bank v Edmund H Taylor. The application was made by Mr Pilcher, and there being no objections the order of sequestration was made, Mr EM Stephen being appointed official assignee.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 21 Aug 1889 ⁶

LAW NOTICES.
SUPREME COURT.—Wednesday, August 21.

    Term List.—Bankruptcy Appeal: Simeon Alexander Moss.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 28 Oct 1889 ⁷

LAW NOTICES.
SUPREME COURT.—Monday, October 28.

    Term List for Fourth Term.
…
    Bankruptcy Appeals: Re Simeon Alexander Moss, &c, re Thomas James Baker, re Annie Faucett, Storey, &c, re Charles A Anderson and Co, &c.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 19 Nov 1889 ⁸

LAW NOTICES.
SUPREME COURT.—Tuesday, November 19.

    Term List.—After Equity Appeal.—Bankruptcy Appeals: Re Simeon Alexander Moss, re Tomas James Baker, re Annie Faucett Storey, re Charles A Anderson and Co, re Richard Thomas McAlister, re Henry C Colyer, deceased.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 20 Nov 1889 ⁹

LAW NOTICES.
SUPREME COURT.—Wednesday, November 20.

    Term List.—Bankruptcy appeals: Re Simeon Alexander Moss, re Annie Faucett Storey, re Richard Thomas McAlister, re Henry Cox Colyer, deceased.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 21 Nov 1889 ¹⁰

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.—Wednesday, November 20.
In Banco.—(Before their Honors Mr Justice STEPHEN, Mr Justice FOSTER, and Mr Justice MANNING.)

Re SIMEON ALEXANDER MOSS.

    Mr Cohen and Mr Field, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, appeared for the appellant, and Mr Pilcher, QC, and Mr Davies, instructed by Mr J McLaughlin, to show cause. This was an application to set aside the order of the late Judge in Bankruptcy, dated 29th July, for the sequestration of the estate of appellant, Simeon Alexander Moss, on the following grounds:—1. That his Honor was in error in the construction placed by him on the terms of the order of this Court made on the 2nd May, 1889, granting leave to Simeon Alexander Moss to appeal to the Privy Council from the judgment of the Court in the first action of Want v Moss. 2. That his Honor was in error in refusing to allow any evidence to be given in support of the fourth objection, and in refusing to allow any evidence to show that the petition was presented with an improper motive and for a collateral purpose. 3. And upon the facts appearing in evidence before his Honor at the hearing. 4. And upon the several grounds appearing in the affidavit of Simeon Alexander Moss.

    Before the case was gone into Mr Pilcher raised the preliminary objection that the memorandum of appeal was not signed by appellant’s solicitor, as provided for by the 41st rule of the general rules in Bankruptcy.

    The Court held the objection to be fatal, and dismissed the appeal, with costs.
…

The Sydney Morning Herald
Thursday, November 21, 1889.

…
    The Full Court, consisting of Mr Justice Stephen, Mr Justice Foster, and Mr Justice Manning, sat in Bankruptcy appeals yesterday, and disposed of three matters on the list. The appeal of Simeon Alexander Moss against the decision of the late Judge in Bankruptcy sequestrating his estate was dismissed upon a technical objection. The case is one arising out of the well-known litigation in regard to the right of possession of the Theatre Royal “OP Box.” In the matter of Annie Faucett Storey the Court reversed the decision of Mr Justice Deffell, who refused to declare void a sale and conversion by one Isaacs of the bankrupt’s goods. In the bankruptcy of RT McAlister, one Frank Grimley appealed against the decision of the same Judge, setting aside the sale and purchase by him of the bankrupt’s stock on the ground that it was the result of a collusive arrangement between himself and McAlister. The Court, however, refused to interfere with the order on the ground that they could not say it was unreasonable or not warranted by the facts elicited before the Judge in Bankruptcy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 23 Nov 1889 ¹¹

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.—Friday, November 22.
In Banco.—(Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr Justice STEPHEN, and Mr Justice FOSTER.)

…

(Before their Honors the Mr Justice STEPHEN, Mr Justice FOSTER, and Mr Justice MANNING.)

MR SIMEON ALEXANDER MOSS.

    Mr Cohen and Mr Field, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, appeared for the applicant Moss, and moved that the decision of the Court last Monday dismissing his appeal from the decision of the late Bankruptcy Judge on the ground of informality in drawing up the memorandum for the rule, be rescinded. The ground of the motion was that the applicant was taken by surprise and therefore had no time to argue the matter or cite authorities against the point raised. Mr Cohen asked that if the application was refused he should be allowed to move under rule 42 of the bankruptcy rules for leave to file a fresh memorandum.

    The Court held that they had no discretion in the matter, and refused both applications.

WANT v. MOSS.

    Mr Field, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, appeared for the appellant (defendant), and moved to make absolute a rule nisi for a new trial. Mr Pilcher, QC, and Mr O’Connor, instructed by Mr J McLaughlin, appeared to oppose the motion. The particulars of the case have been stated several times, and are well known. The plaintiff, John H Want, sued the defendants, Moss and wife, to recover compensation for the interference by them of plaintiff’s right to the use of the “OP” Theatre Royal box, under a lease from the late Samuel Lazar. Two actions were tried; the first was practically to decide whether the lease from Lazar, which had been set up by plaintiff, had really been executed, the document, according to plaintiff’s case, having been lost; and the jury found in his favour. On appeal by defendants to the Full Court, the verdict was confirmed.

    In the second action the main question was one of compensation, and the jury awarded plaintiff £100. It is against the latter decision that defendant is now appealing.

    Mr Pilcher, by way of preliminary objection, stated that since the order of bankruptcy had been made an appeal was pending, and until that was decided defendant Moss was not bankrupt. Notice was given to the official assignee under the sixth subsection of section 10, calling upon him to elect within four weeks whether he would proceed with the motion for a new trial. He had refused absolutely to do so, but the appellant was allowed by the Court to go on upon giving security. As the Court, however, had dismissed his appeal in the bankruptcy matter, the proceedings were at an end so far as defendant Moss was concerned, he being bankrupt, and Mrs Moss, being a married woman, could not proceed. The Court had already decided in reference to the 4th subsection of section 10, and there was no difference in the meaning of the word “proceeding” in the 4th subsection and the 6th.

    The case was not concluded when the Court adjourned.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 12 Dec 1889 ¹²

The Sydney Morning Herald
Thursday, December 12, 1889.

…
    In order to facilitate the hearing of suits in Equity, Mr Justice Manning has arranged with Mr Justice Owen to take the Equity cases of James v Bond and Coke v Proctor on Monday and Tuesday next in the Bankruptcy Court. The business in the Registrar’s Court in Bankruptcy was exceptionally heavy yesterday, and Mr Henry, although very unwell, was obliged to sit till nearly 5 o’clock. The examinations of John Francis Tabrett and Simeon Alexander Moss occupied a considerable portion of the sitting.
…

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
Wednesday, December 11.

…

(Before the REGISTRAR.)

…

THE THEATRE ROYAL OP BOX.

    Re Simeon Alexander Moss. This was a public examination. The bankrupt said he had filed his statement, and did not wish to amend it. In answer to Mr Hanbury Davies, the bankrupt said that he stated in his schedule of assets that his wearing-apparel was worth only £20; he had no other property; the watch and chain he was wearing were included in the £20; he was married in 1885 and had followed no occupation; he had not done anything since then and he was practically living on his wife’s property; he had had no property of his own since he had speculated in shares but never made any money; he had speculated in silver shares, but had lost consistently; it was not a fact that he made £1000; he never made 6d, and could furnish an account of the stocks; his wife had shares in various mines; occasionally he wore a pin belonging to his wife; his watch was worth about £1; he paid cash for what little clothing he had, and his tailors were Messrs Perry and Core; Mrs Moss had been paying the expenses of the recent litigation out of her own estate; she banked at the City Bank.

    At this stage the examination was adjourned till December 18.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 19 Dec 1889 ¹³

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
(Before the Registrar, Mr ARTHUR HENRY.)

…
    Re Simeon Alexander Moss. The bankrupt (in the course of examination by Mr Hanbury Davies, on behalf of the official assignee) deposed that he had acted as a broker for—not himself but for his wife; he joined the Exchange about six months ago; the only transactions he had had in reference to himself were shares in Terrible Dick, Webb’s, and Mount Costigan; he paid for them in cash; he sold those shares, and spent the proceeds. The examination was adjourned to February 17 next.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 8 Mar 1890 ¹⁴

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

(Before their Honors Mr Justice WINDEYER, Mr Justice STEPHEN, and Mr Justice FOSTER.)

WANT v. MOSS and WIFE.

    The Attorney-General (Mr GB Simpson, QC, who appeared for the first time in the case), and Mr Field, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, moved on behalf of defendants for a rule nisi calling upon plaintiff, JH Want, to show cause why the proceedings upon the judgment signed in the case on December 16 last should not be set aside as against the defendant, Simeon Alexander Moss, on the ground that his estated was declared bankrupt on July 29, 1889; and why the judgment of the Court should not be set aside as far as regarded Mrs Moss, or proceedings stayed against her on the ground that the Court, having held on November 29 that Mrs Moss had no interest in the proceedings, and therefore could not be heard in support of the motion for a rule nisi, such proceedings were unjust, inequitable, and an abuse of the process of the Court, and plaintiff should not be allowed to proceed thereon. The learned counsel also applied that in the alternative Mrs Moss should be allowed to proceed with the rule nisi. He recapitulated the facts of the case which have already been published from time to time, and said that his motion was intended not so much to re-open the matter as to protect the female plaintiff from suffering very great injustice by the order, an injustice which would be perpetual, and from which she could not in any way be relieved unless the Court granted this application he now made. The Court, consisting of Mr Justice Stephen, Mr Justice Foster, and Mr Justice Manning, decided (Mr Justice Stephen dissenting) that defendants could not be allowed to proceed with the rule nisi because the husband was bankrupt, and Mrs Moss had no interest in the matter, and if that judgment was allowed to stand, Mrs Moss, having been deprived of her right to move for a rule nisi, could be made insolvent to-morrow, and her separate property might be seized and sold after the execution which the plaintiff proposed to issue against her under his judgment, and her estate would become vested in the official assignee. As showing the importance of this matter, he might mention that the costs of the action amounted to £862 3s 8d, so that the amount of the judgment debt with the verdict of £100 would be very nearly £1000; yet in the face of that fact, these defendants had never had an opportunity of being heard, and great injustice would be done to them if the application he had submitted was not granted.

    Mr Justice WINDEYER said he was of opinion that the application must be refused. The ground upon which it virtually rested was an assumption that the judgment of the Court on the last occasion when the matter was before it, namely, the 29th November, was erroneous. He was not a member of the Court that gave that decision, but he had read the judgment of their Honours, and he had no hesitation in saying that he entirely concurred in the conclusion at which the majority of the Court arrived; and until that judgment was set aside by a court of competent authority it must remain the law. The judgment given on the 29th November appeared to him to be entirely in accordance with the judgment of the Court on a previous occasion when the same matter was before it in another shape, and it was a strict corollary of that decision. That being so, it was not open to the female defendant to argue that she should be allowed to proceed upon what had been termed her rule nisi. Then, it was said that she had not been heard; but it was quite clear that counsel appeared on the last occasion for both defendants, and the matters now referred to were obviously matters which should have been brought before the Court at that time. They were reasons which, if valid, might have induced the Court to come to a different conclusion; but it was manifestly unjust to allow a party to bring forward half his arguments when the matter was before the Court, and then when the decision was against him come to the Court and say “Oh, I forgot to submit a number of other considerations which I now wish to bring before the Court in order to show that the Court were wrong in their decision.” They ought to have been adduced at the time if they were material. He might also point out that no ground had been shown for bringing plaintiff before the Court. Under these circumstances the application must be dismissed.

    Mr Justice STEPHEN and Mr Justice FOSTER concurred.

    Application dismissed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 21 Apr 1890 ¹⁵

LAW NOTICES.
———◦———

…
    In Bankruptcy.—Before the Registrar in Bankruptcy, at 11 o’clock: Adjourned Applications for Certificate of Discharge; Richard Gaddes, Richard Lanyon Trevena and Nicholas John Trevena, ex parte Richard Lanyon Trevena. Applications for Certificate of Discharge: Simeon Alexander Moss, Thomas Mudiman. Adjourned Single Meetings and Public Examinations: James Grant. Adjourned Public Examinations: Samuel Solomon, John Wearne, Peter R Ryan, Evelyn Albert William Thurlow. Re James G Kitchen, hearing on proof of Susan Cordingly; Charles Braddock, extension of time for account and plan. At 2.30, Taxations: Re Woodman and Collins, re Chas Jackson, re TH Slater, re William Wiley, re Hewitt.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 22 Apr 1890 ¹⁶

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
…
(Before the Registrar.)

CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS.

…
    Re Simeon Alexander Moss. On the application of Mr Schrader, who appeared for the official assignee, and no objections having been filed, a certificate of discharge was ordered to issue.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 24 Sep 1890 ¹⁷

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

In Equity.—(Before his Honor Mr Justice OWEN,
Chief Justice in Equity.)

…

WANT v. MOSS.

    Mr Walker, Mr O’Connor, and Mr L Owen appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr AH Simpson and Mr BR Wise for the defendants.

    This was a suit arising out of the proceedings in relation to the OP Box at the Theatre Royal. The plaintiff is John Henry Want and the defendants Simeon Alexander Moss and Victoria Moss, his wife. The plaintiff had brought an action at common law against the defendant, Simeon A Moss, to recover damages for wrongfully interfering with the plaintiff’s rights under a lease of the OP box, and in such action the plaintiff obtained a verdict for nominal damages and costs, subject to the Court being of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to a verdict under and by virtue of his claim to the lease, and it was agreed that, pending the decision of the Court the defendants might use the box on Monday, Wednesday and Friday nights. The defendant SA Moss thereupon obtained a rule nisi calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the said verdict should not be set aside, and the verdict entered for the defendant; and the plaintiff having shown cause, the Court adjudged that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed in the action, and discharged the rule with costs, the costs of the said action were duly taxed and final judgment entered for the same, together with the said verdict in favour of the plaintiff, but the defendant, SA Moss, neglected to pay the costs and damages. Notwithstanding the said decision and final judgment, the defendants persisted in using the OP box on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday nights, and the plaintiff then proceeded with another action against the defendants jointly, which had been commenced on the 18th June, 1886, to recover damages for the defendants’ illegal acts, and in such last-mentioned (?) the plaintiff obtained a verdict for £100, the jury finding that the plaintiff had a lease as claimed by him, and final judgment had been signed in the said action against the defendants for £816 14s 8d, the amount of the verdict and final costs, but the plaintiff had been, unable to recover the same in consequence, he alleged, of the said Simeon A Moss being possessed of merely minimal assets, and of the separate property of Victoria Moss being vested in the trustees for her separate benefit. Notwithstanding the common law (?) and judgments, the defendants now claimed the right to the OP box on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, although the plaintiff had by himself and by some one acting under his instructions made (?) to the defendants or one of them for the exclusive use of the box. The plaintiff now sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of, or in any way using the box without the plaintiff’s consent, and to restrain the defendants from in any way preventing the plaintiff using the box or exercising his full right of ingress thereto and egress therefrom, to which he was entitled by his lease. The plaintiff prayed that an account might be taken of the damages suffered by him by reason of the illegal acts of the defendants or either of them, and that the amount of such damages might be paid by the defendant, SA Moss, to the plaintiff so far as the last named defendant was able or liable to pay the same, and that such part of the damages as he was unable, or not liable, to pay, might be charged upon and paid out of the separate estate of the defendant, Victoria Moss.

    The defendant, SA Moss, denied that any lease such as that the plaintiff claimed to hold existed. He did not admit that either he or his wife had been guilty of any illegal acts. He denied that the procedures in the two actions-at-law had been correctly stated, and he submitted that under the verdict in the second action the plaintiff was estopped from claiming anything more than a right to use the box in question on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday nights in each week. Since the verdict in the second action neither SA Moss nor his wife had, he alleged, interfered with such user.

    The defendant, Victoria Moss, submitted that the verdict in the firs action-at-law, which was against her husband only, could not affect her rights; that the verdict in the second actions stopped the plaintiff from claiming any right to use the box on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday evenings; that she was in no way estopped by any of the proceedings at law, or in any other way, from disputing the plaintiff’s right, and that even if any act of hers amounted to a tort; or a beach of contract against the plaintiff, which she did not admit, her separate estate could not be made liable for the same, and that in any case her separate estate could not be made liable for illegal acts on the part of her husband for which his estate was insufficient to pay; and in the circumstances the suit against her ought to be dismissed with costs.

    The case stands as part heard.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 25 Sep 1890 ¹⁸

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
…
In Equity.—(Before his Honor Mr Justice OWEN,
Chief Justice in Equity.)

…

WANT v. MOSS (Part Heard).

    Mr Walker, Mr O’Connor, and Mr Langer Owen, instructed by Mr John McLaughlin, for the plaintiff, John Henry Want; and Mr AH Simpson, and Mr BR Wise, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, for the defendants, Simeon Alexander Moss, and Victoria Moss, his wife.

    This was a suit arising out of the proceedings in relation to the OP Box at the Theatre Royal. The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from taking possession of or in any way using the box without the plaintiff’s consent, and to restrain the defendants from in any way preventing the plaintiff using the box, or exercising his full right of ingress thereto and egress therefrom, to which he was entitled by his lease.

    Argument was continued, and the case stands as part heard.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 12 Jun 1891 ¹⁹

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

In Equity.—(Before his Honor Mr Justice OWEN,
Chief Justice in Equity.)

WANT v. MOSS and WIFE.

    Mr Gregory Walker and Mr Langer Owen, instructed by Mr John McLaughlin, appeared for the plaintiff, Mr John Henry Want; and Mr AH Simpson and Mr Wise, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, appeared for the defendants, Simeon Alexander Moss and Victoria Moss (his wife).

    The statement of claim set out that a lease was granted to the plaintiff by Samuel Lazar on October 9, 1881, by which the plaintiff was entitled to the free box at the Theatre Royal, together with the free right of ingress and egress for 21 years. On the death of Samuel Lazar probate to the will was granted to Victoria Moss, then Victoria Lazar, and within a comparatively short time of the granting of the probate the female defendant commenced to dispute the plaintiff’s right to the “OP” box. Ultimately an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants by which the plaintiff should have the free use and enjoyment of the box on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday in each week. This agreement was acted upon until April 1886, when the defendants wholly repudiated the agreement. On April 30, 1886, the defendant, Victoria Moss wrote to the plaintiff claiming the sole use of the box, and she also communicated with Messrs Williamson, Garner, and Musgrave, the sub-lessees of the Theatre Royal, and instructed them to prevent the plaintiff’s entrance to the box. The defendants took possession of the box and refused to allow the plaintiff to use it. The plaintiff thereupon brought an action in the Supreme Court to recover damages from the defendant Simeon Alexander Moss, for wrongful interference with his rights, and obtained a verdict for nominal damages, with costs. It was agreed that pending the decision of the Court the defendants might use the box on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday nights in each week. The defendants appealed against the decision of the Court, but the appeal was dismissed with costs. The defendants neglected to pay the costs, and notwithstanding the decision persisted in using the box on the nights stated. The plaintiff then proceeded with another action to recover damages for those illegal acts, and he obtained a verdict for £100 and costs, which amounted to £816 14s 8d. The plaintiff was unable to recover this amount in consequence of the male defendant being possessed of merely nominal assets, and the separate property of the female defendant being vested in trustees for her separate benefit. Notwithstanding this judgment the defendants now claimed the right to use the box on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday nights in each week, although the plaintiff had demanded admittance. The plaintiff claimed that each of the defendants, their tenants, agents, and servants might, during the continuance of the plaintiff’s lease to the box, be restrained by injunction from taking possession or in any way preventing the plaintiff’s use of the box; and accounts be taken as to the damages suffered by the plaintiff, and that such damages be paid by the defendant, Simeon Alexander Moss, and what he was unable to pay might be charged to Victoria Moss; plaintiff asked that the defendants might be ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

    The defendant, Simeon Alexander Moss, in his statement of defence, did not admit there was a lease between the plaintiff and Samuel Lazar for 21 years; but he believed the lease was to continue only during the currency of a sub-lease then about to be granted to Messrs Williamson, Garner, and Musgrove. He did not admit that either he or his wife had ben guilty of illegal acts. Under the verdict in the second action at common law the plaintiff was estopped from claiming anything more than the right to use the box only on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday nights in each week.

    The defendant, Victoria Moss, in her statement of defence, did not admit the lease between the plaintiff and Samuel Lazar. In the second action at common law the first count claimed the right to the exclusive use of the box; and the second count claimed the use of the box on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday nights. The first action was brought against her husband, and could not affect her right; and on the second action the plaintiff was estopped from using the box on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday nights, and since the last action she had not interfered with the plaintiff’s use of the box on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday nights.

    The case stands part heard.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 23 Feb 1892 ²⁰

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.—Monday, February 22.
In Banco.—Before Mr Justice INNES, Mr Justice
STEPHEN, and Mr Justice MANNING.)

ADMISSION OF A BARRISTER.

    On the motion of Mr Pilcher, QC, Mr Francis John Brownlow Bethune, of the Inner Temple, was admitted to the Bar of New South Wales.

WANT v. MOSS and WIFE.

    Mr Pilcher, QC, Mr Walker, Mr O’Connor, and Mr Langer Owen, instructed by Mr John McLaughlin, appeared for appellant (plaintiff); and Mr AH Simpson and Dr Sly, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, for the respondents (defendants). This was an appeal by John Henry Want against the decision of the Primary Judge on the 30th June, 1891, dismissing his suit against Simeon Alexander Moss, and Victoria Moss his wife. The original dispute between the parties arose out of the claim set up by the plaintiff to the exclusive use of the “OP Box,” Theatre Royal, for the residue of the lease of the theatre named from Wm F Wilshire to the late Samuel Lazar. The lease was dated the 31st August, 1877, and was for a term of 21 years, so that it has several years yet to run. Plaintiff alleged that the lease of the box was granted to him by Samuel Lazar in October 1881, but this was disputed by the defendants. Ultimately an agreement was arrived at, whereby it was agreed that in consideration of the defendants ceasing to dispute the plaintiff’s right to the box, the plaintiff should have full and undisturbed enjoyment of the OP box on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday in each week, and the defendant, Victoria Moss (then Victoria Lazar), should use and enjoy the same on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday in each week during the remainder of the plaintiff’s lease. This agreement, however, the defendant Victoria Moss considered was only to continue during the currency of a sub-lease to Messrs Williamson, Garner, and Musgrove, which expired on the 6th May, 1886, and after that date she refused to recognise plaintiff’s claim to the box. On the 18th August, 1886, the plaintiff commenced an action at law against defendants for trespass, and on the 26th August of the same year he commenced an action against defendant SA Moss alone. The last-mentioned action was tried in April 1888, when a verdict by consent was entered for the plaintiff, with damages 40s, and this decision was subsequently upheld by the Full Court. The first-mentioned action against both defendants was tried in June 1889, when a verdict was returned for the plaintiff on the first and second counts, with £100 damages, and for the defendants on the third count. The jury also handed up the following findings in writing: “We find the plaintiff had a lease given by Samuel Lazar for the balance of Lazar’s lease from Wilshire , for which valuable consideration was given by Want to Lazar, but that plaintiff subsequently arranged to allow defendants the use of the box on three nights a week, viz, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and was consequently only entitled to it on the other three nights per week, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Defendants did interfere with plaintiff’s rights, for which we assess the damages at £100.” Since the verdict in the second case defendants had not interfered with the plaintiff’s right to the box on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday in each week; but they claimed the right to the box on alternate nights, whereas the plaintiff claimed the exclusive use of the box during the whole of the week, and instituted a suit in Equity to restrain defendants from taking possession of or in any way using the box during the continuation of the lease without his consent. Plaintiff also asked for an account for damages, and that the damages might be paid by SA Moss so far as he was able, and that the balance should come out of Mrs Moss’ separate estate. Mr Justice Owen (Primary Judge), in the concluding portion of his judgment, said: “There were only two contentions as to the agreement—that of the defendants, that it was to continue only during the term of the sub-lease to Williamson, Garner, and Musgrove; and that of the plaintiff, that it was to continue during the whole term of his lease from Lazar; and it appears clear to me that the jury found in favour of the plaintiff’s contention. That being so he is bound by the finding of the jury. It was further contended that the plaintiff was entitled to treat the agreement as rescinded because the defendants had refused to be bound by it, upon the principle referred to in Freeth v. Burr , 9 CP, 208, that where the acts and conduct of one party to an agreement evince an intention not to be bound by the agreement, the other party is free to rescind the contract. But I do not consider that the defendants have evinced any such intention. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants was only as to the duration of the agreement, and since the verdict of the jury the defendants have not refused to be bound by the agreement, for they have allowed the plaintiff the use of the box on the three nights mentioned in the agreement. Nor has the plaintiff elected to treat the agreement as rescinded, for he has sued on it and recovered a verdict. That being so, he cannot now turn round and say that he has elected to rescind the agreement, because before and during the action the defendants contended that the agreement had expired by effluxion of time. For all these reasons I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged trespass, and that the suit must be dismissed, with costs. He also said that Mrs Moss’ separate estate was not liable for costs. The plaintiff, while abandoning that portion of the appeal which affected Mrs Moss’ separate estate, sought to have the decree set aside on the following grounds:—1. That his Honor was in error in admitting in evidence the alleged special findings of the jury in the common law action of Want v Moss and Wife. 2. That the decree was against evidence and the weight of evidence. 3. That in any case the plaintiff was entitled to a decree against the defendant Simeon Alexander Moss. 4. That the suit ought not to have been dismissed with costs.

    Mr Pilcher having addressed the Court on behalf of appellant, Mr Gregory Walker followed on the same side; and, after luncheon, counsel on both sides, at the invitation of the Bench, met their Honors in consultation.

    Upon resuming Mr Justice Innes said that at the invitation of the Bench the counsel on both sides had had a consultation with them about the case, and it had been arranged that the matter should stand over until Wednesday next, with a view possible, and probably, of some settlement being arrived at in the meantime. A suggestion had fallen from the Court that some settlement should be come to, and in furtherance of that the Court had had a conference of counsel on both sides.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 25 Feb 1892 ²¹

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.—Wednesday, February 24.
In Banco.—Before Mr Justice INNES, Mr Justice
STEPHEN, and Mr Justice MANNING.)

…

WANT v. MOSS and WIFE (Part Heard).

    Mr Pilcher, QC, Mr Walker, Mr O’Connor and Mrs Langer Owen, instructed by Mr John McLaughlin, appeared for appellant (plaintiff); and Mr AH Simpson and Dr Sly, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, for the respondents (defendants). This was an appeal by John Henry Want against the decision of the Primary Judge on the 30th June, 1891, dismissing his suit against Simeon Alexander Moss, and Victoria Moss his wife. The case was opened on Monday last, and was then adjourned at the suggestion of the Bench with a view to a settlement being arrived at between the parties. The particulars of the case have already been given. The dispute arises out of a claim by the plaintiff to the exclusive use of the OP Bx, Theatre Royal.

    Mr Pilcher said that the argument would have to go on. There had already been 11 applications to the Full Court, in every one of which Mr Want had succeeded, and they had been barren of results.

    The arguments were then resumed, and had not concluded at 4 o’clock, when the case was further adjourned until the following day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 26 Feb 1892 ²²

LAW REPORT.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.—Thursday, February 25.
In Banco.—Before Mr Justice INNES, Mr Justice
STEPHEN, and Mr Justice MANNING.)
————

WANT v. MOSS and WIFE (Part Heard).

    Mr Pilcher, QC, Mr Walker, Mr O’Connor, and Mr Langer Owen, instructed by Mr John McLaughlin, appeared for appellant (plaintiff); and Mr AH Simpson and Dr Sly, instructed by Messrs Sly and Hamilton, for the respondents (defendants). This was an appeal by John Henry Want against the decision of the Primary Judge on the 30th June, 1891, dismissing his suit against Simeon Alexander Moss, and Victoria Moss his wife. The case was opened on Monday last, and was then adjourned at the suggestion of the Bench with a view to a settlement being arrived at between the parties. The particulars of the case have already been given. The dispute arises out of a claim by the plaintiff to the exclusive use of the OP box, Theatre Royal.

    Arguments were resumed and concluded.

    Mr Justice Innes said the Court did not think it had any doubt as to what its decision would be in the matter; but, looking at the circumstances of the case, it would be as well that a written judgment should be delivered. This would be done in the course of a few days.

    Mr Walker: Are we to understand from that, your Honor, that the Court is against the appeal?

    Mr Justice Innes: I only say that our minds are pretty well made up. I particularly couched my statement in the way I did, so that neither side should have the least intimation what our decision would be.

    Judgment accordingly reserved.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 29 Jul 1893 ²³

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

(Before the Acting Registrar Mr Salusbury.)

EXAMINATIONS.

    Re Simeon Alexander Moss. Mr Montagu appeared on behalf of a proved creditor. The bankrupt deposed that he was bankrupt between four and five years ago. He got his certificate. His present bankruptcy was caused by losses in theatrical speculations in January last. He had about £150, and borrowed £1050 from his wife. In January, 1893, he was worth £150. He made the engagements for the “Falka” season. He was not his wife’s manager. He looked after her interests. He paid the salaries in the “Falka” season. There was no arrangement that Mrs Moss should get the profits of the season if there were any, and that she should not lose on the season. He paid no rent for the theatre. The season lasted five weeks. The receipts were expended in wages. The stage carpenter, Mr Locke, was a creditor for wages. David Jones and Co’s debt was for fitting-up the theatre. They were applying to make their claim a charge against the estate of his wife. During the last 12 months he had not made any presents of jewellery to anyone. Most of the debts in his estate arose in connection with the “Falka” season. By Mr Charles Locke (a proved creditor): The carpet was taken by Mrs Moss. Everything was taken by Mrs Moss. The scenery belonged to her. Witness paid for most of it. The watch and chain and pin, which witness had worn, had belonged to his wife’s brother. He had handed the watch, the chain, and the pin to Mrs Moss. They were always hers more or less. The £150 was the balance of an overdraft of £222 at the Commercial Bank in London. That overdraft was partly used to bring him and his wife back from London. His wife and he guaranteed the overdraft. The further examination of the bankrupt was adjourned till 8th August.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 11 Aug 1893 ²⁴

LAW NOTICES.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.—Friday, August 11.

…

    Before the Registrar in Bankruptcy.— At 10: JJ Drinan, examination under section 30. Single Meetings: Sarah Jane Hearne, James Jordan Gascoigne, Edward Distin Bradridge, John Keage, Simeon Alex Moss, William Cooper. Public Examinations: Joel Goldberg, John Foster Foster.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 27 Sep 1893 ²⁵

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

In Bankruptcy.—(Before his Honor Mr Justice
MANNING.)

CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS.

…
    Re Simeon Alexander Moss. There was no appearance, and the application was struck out.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 24 Feb 1894 ²⁶

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL.
———◦———

London, Feb 22.

    The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has dismissed the appeal, Want v Moss.

————

    In this case the plaintiff, John Henry Want, had succeeded against defendants, Simeon Alexander Moss and Victoria Moss, at Common Law in regard to his right to use the OP Box at the Theatre Royal, Sydney, on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. He subsequently instituted a suit in Equity to obtain a decree for an injunction to restrain defendants from taking possession of or in any way using the box in question without his consent. He also asked for an account for damages, and that such damages might be paid by SA Moss as far as he was able, and that such part of the damage as he was not able to pay might be a charge upon and be paid out of Mrs Moss’ separate estate, and that the costs of the suit might be provided in the same way. The Judge in Equity dismissed the suit with costs, and on appeal the Full Court confirmed this decision. Plaintiff then took the case to the Privy Council, and, as our cablegram informs us, the appeal has been dismissed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 18 Feb 1897 ²⁷

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

(Before the Registrar, Mr ARTHUR HENRY.)

…

MEETINGS AND EXAMINATIONS.

…

    Re Simeon Alexander Moss. The bankrupt said he had no occupation, and lived on his wife’s income. He was bankrupt four years ago, and received his certificate. He attributed his bankruptcy to a judgment obtained against him. This was his third bankruptcy. The meeting was closed, and the public examination declared concluded.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 18 Aug 1897 ²⁸

LAW NOTICES.

…
    Before the Registrar in Bankruptcy—At 11: Certificate application—Simeon Alexander Moss, Michael Henry, George Davidson, George William Graham. Mary Chapman v Frederick Fennell, hearing of creditor’s petition. Allan Harley, motion for release. Single meetings—John Rayner, James Denison Campbell, Mark Davis.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 19 Aug 1897 ²⁹

BANKRUPTCY COURT.
(Before the Registrar, Mr Arthur Henry.)

…

CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS
ADJOURNED.

    Simeon Alexander Moss, to 15th September; Michael Henry, to 13th October; George Davidson, of Mudgee, to the 19th August.

 

---

 

Simeon Alexander Moss, 1899

 

The Bowral Free Press, Wed 13 Sep 1899 ³⁰

ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT 

    At the Bowral Police Court on Saturday last, before Mr W[illiam] S[tewart] Caswell, PM., Simon [sic] Alexander Moss (of Bowral) was charged with committing an indecent assault on a male person. Senior-Sergt. Banks prosecuted. After the evidence as to the arrest (which was effected by Constable Gallagher and McGregor at the Bowral railway station on Friday evening) was given by Constable Gallagher, the accused on the application of the police was remanded till today (Wednesday) 2 pm., bail being refused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bowral Free Press, Sat 16 Sep 1899 ³¹

ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT

    Simeon Alexander Moss, of Bowral, was on Thursday last at the Bowral Police Court committed for trial at the next Goulburn Quarter Sessions [sic] on the 9th October, for alleged indecent assault. In the interest of public morality, we refrain from publishing the evidence, which was quite unfit for publication. The case lasted two days. The following were on the Bench the first day: Messrs WS Caswell, PM., Capt Chatfield, AJ Harrison, RS Mackenzie, and JJ Campbell, JsP; and on the second day: Messrs WS Caswell, PM., and RS Mackenzie, JP., Sergt Banks conducted the case for the prosecution, while Mr Rawlinson (of Rawlinson and Hamilton, Sydney) appeared for the defence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Sat 16 Sep 1899 ³²

CHARGE OF ASSAULT.

    AT the Bowral Police Court, on Thursday, Simeon Alexander Moss was committed to take his trial at the Goulburn Assizes on 9th October on a charge of indecent assault.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Depositions for Simeon Alexander Moss 10 and 11 Oct 1899 Bathurst trial ³³

(a) Town.	LETTER from Bench of Magistrates at (a) Bowral
	transmitting Depositions
(b) Name in full of accused.	in the case Regina v. (b) Simeon Alexander Moss
(c) Offence.	(c) Indecent assault with intend to commit the abominable crime of buggery
(d) Town.	Police Office, (d) Bowral
	September 15th 1899
	Sir,
	I have the honor, by direction of the Bench of Magistrates,
	to transmit herewith the Depositions, and other documents in the
(e) Name of accused	case of (e) Simeon Alexander Moss
(f) “His” or “her”	who has been committed to take (f) his
(g) “Circuit Court,” or “Quarter Sessions.”	trial at the (g) Circuit Court
	to be held at (the) Goulburn	on Monday
(the) Town where Court to be held.	the ninth day of October 1899
	The accused is (I) confined in the gaol at Goulburn (Bail refused)
(I) “Is confined in the Gaol at …,” or “has been admitted to bail” (with full particulars as to sureties, addresses, occupations, and amounts, as set out in Recognizance.)
(and) As in Recognizance, both for Crown and defence, specifying also what witnesses gave evidence but were not bound over, with reason for omission.	The Witnesses bound over are (and) James Gallagher, Ernest Lake, Henry Lake, Patrick Collins, Ellen Walsh, Charles Fox, Sarah Louisa Hopkins and Sylvia Mable McGlynn.
(l) Short description to enable identification.	The Exhibits enclosed are (l) “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, viz two notes from accused to arresting Constable. Two letters from accused to Ernest Lake – Packet 10 obscene photographs.
	I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant,
	[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.
	Clerk of Petty Sessions
The Secretary,
Attorney General’s Department.
N.B.– When a Police Constable acts as Clerk of Petty Sessions, this letter should be signed by one of the Committing Magistrates
4g 201-90

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Memo:

Crown Solicitor’s Office,
Sydney 21st August 1900.

Reg. versus Simeon Alexander Moss

    Herewith, as requested, depositions in the case of the above named accused person. Tried at Goulburn in October last to be returned when finished with.
[Signed] Geo Colquhoun.

    The depositions in the above case are returned herewith, with thanks.
[Init] BC, 5/9/1900.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In your reply 00/12597.

Department of Justice,
Sydney, 20th August 1900.

Memo.
    Will the Crown Solicitor be so good as to favour me, for the Minister’s perusal, with the depositions in the cases of Regina versus Moss, for indecent assault, heard at the Goulburn Circuit Court in October last.

[Signed] George Miller, Under-Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ashfield Station.
6th October 1899.

Refer attached subpoena from Goulburn for service on Cripps Junior.

    Sergeant L Parkinson reports, that neither Thomas Cripps or his son ever carried on business in Balmain, nor are they identical with Cripps Junior who the subpoena is for, or known him but they state that an Arthur Cripps a baker and pastry cook carried on business in Moruya and they have no knowledge of the man Simeon A Moss.
[Signed] Louis Parkinson, Sergeant.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5/10/99

Very Urgent
    Thomas Cripps who carried on the business of a pastry cook at Manly is said to be now residing in Dunmore Street, near Croydon Park.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Balmain Station
5th October 1899

Re present address of Mr Cripps, baker and pastrycook

    Senior Constable Stuart respectfully reports, that inquiry has been made in Balmain with a view of ascertaining the address of the above named person, Thomas Cripps of 124 Darling [Street], is a labourer and is employed at the Jubilee Dock and goes by the name of Flood. His wife informed Constable Dunlop that Cripps’s father was a baker and pastry cook, and the last she knew of him he was in business at Manly.
[Signed] D Stuart.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bowral, 4.10.99

Re attached subpoena for service on Ettie Reynolds and Cripps

    Constable Gallagher begs to report:– that Ettie Reynolds is said to be living with her mother whose address is 29 Fulham Street, Newtown. Mr Hue, baker at Rutherford has been seen, he states that in June last Cripps wrote to him from Moruya and told him, he was then about to leave there and come to Sydney. His present address cannot be ascertained.
[Signed] James Gallagher, 1st Class Constable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Memo.
The attached subpoenas are for service upon Ettie Reynolds, late of Bowral, now living with her mother in Sydney. (The McCourt, boot maker, Bowral, knows Mrs Reynolds’ address)

    Cripps, pastrycook and baker, Balmain. (Hill, a baker at Rutherford’s Bowral knows Cripps’s address)
[Signed] John (Gandy ?)
1st Class Constable, 3-10-99.

Very urgent Perhaps the Officer-in-Charge at Bowral will be good enough to ascertain the correct address of the witnesses, and forward them with subpoenas for service to Mr Superintendent Reid, Sydney.
[Signed] R (?), Inspector, Goulburn 3/10/99

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Subpoenas] ³⁴

New South Wales
TO WIT                   }

Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c.

To: Cripps, Junior of Balmain; Ettie Reynolds of Sydney; James Lake, Senior, Company’s Farm, Soapy Flat, Mittagong; The McCourt, Bootmaker, Bowral; Arthur McClung, Argyle Mills, Goulburn; Mrs Mary Clout, c/o Mr Netts, Muskvale – (or present address); The Lake: Sutton via Queanbeyan (School Teacher); May Bensley, c/o Mrs Ward, Railway Crescent, Bowral; Constable McGregor, Bowral; Mrs Mary Skillion, c/o Constable Gallagher, Bowral; Mrs J Lake Company’s Farm, Soapy Flat, Mittagong; J Lake Junior, High Range, Mittagong; P Lake, High Range, Mittagong; S Lake, High Rang, Mittagong; ER Bensley, Haigh’s Grocery Store, Bowral; A Pryor, Victoria Street, Bowral; C Pryor, Victoria Street, Bowral; O George, GPO, Bowral; Samuel Scott, Victoria Park Bowling Club, Newtown; Mark Hart, c/o Mrs Lane, 31 Great Barcom Street, Darlinghurst; Constable Woods, St Mary’s via Parramatta; Ernest Griffiths, Glen Quarry, Kangaloon.

    Greetings:–
We command you and every of you, firmly enjoining you, that laying aside all pretences and excuses whatsoever, you and every of you be and appear in your proper persons, before Our Justices assigned to hold Pleas before Us, on Monday the 9th day of October next, by Nine of the Clock in the forenoon of the same day, at Goulburn in our Colony of New South Wales, in the Court House, situate in Montague Street there to testify the truth, and give evidence, on the part of the Prisoner, before Our said Justices, touching a certain information to be preferred against

Simeon A Moss

in the case of Attempting to commit buggery ³⁵
and that you so appear, from day to day, until the case is tried; and this you, or any, or either of you, are not to omit, under the penalty of One Hundred Pounds, to be levied upon your and every of your Goods and Chattels, Lands and Tenements, if you, or any, or either of you shall fail in the premises.

    Witness the Honorable Sir Frederick Darley, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Our Chief Justice of Our supreme Court of New South Wales, at Sydney, the 3rd day of October in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety nine.

For the Prothonotary
(Signed) Francis Cox Baylis
Clerk of the Supreme Court.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SA Moss, No. 8.
Sec. 60

Assault with Intent
Indecent Assault on Male Person.

    Three counts charging same offence on different dates 26 June, 2 September, 5 September.

    Assault not of ordinary kind for it is immaterial whether consent or not.

    Serious case. Accused a man of 38 years, occupying good position, corrupts mind of lad, teaches him at that susceptible age the foulest practices and when lad tries to break away from his influence follows him up, induces him to give up employment and return to his house where he makes further endeavours to befoul his body and degrade his mind. Fortunately found out and lad has now a chance to live a clean decent life.

    Ernest Lake, 20 years old. Employed Rutherford’s in Bowral. Goes swimming near Moss’s place. Gets to know Moss. April. He tells him of travels and practice of buggery in places where he has been. Shows photographs. Tells him it is quite natural. Moss gets him to stay in his house. No-one else at home. Proposes to bugger him. Makes other indecent proposals entering his penis in his mouth. Used hand. Tells him to ask for week’s holiday. This is refused. Induced him to leave situation and go to Sydney. Stayed in Sydney at Australia [Hotel] a week, same room, bath together, more indecent proposals.

    To Bowral. 27 May accused went to stay with Lake senior. Shared bed with Ernest Lake. More indecency. About 26 June Lake went to stay at Moss’s. Moss slept in same bed, although 2 in room. Assaulted Lake by catching hold of his penis. First Charge.

    Later M. came again to stay at L’s place. More indecency.

    28 August. Lake goes to Goulburn.

    29 and 30 M. writes letters. Are they such as ordinary person would write. Are they not rather in nature of love letters.

    2 September Observe nearness of dates. M goes to Goulburn induces Lake to stay with him. Locks bedroom door. Proposes indecencies. Struggles. M. caught him by throat.

    2nd Charge. On Monday induces Lake to return to Bowral. Stayed at accused’s house.

    Tuesday 5th More indecencies. M. caught hold of Lake’s penis and put it in his mouth. Struggle.

    Charge 3. Fri. 8th. Father inquired. He said that father glad he was there. M. proposed going Sydney. Entered train at Burradoo to escape observation. Left at Bowral, made statement to Gallagher.
That is Lake’s story. What corroboration is there? From nature of case difficult almost impossible to procure.

    Two servant girls at Moss as to sleeping in one room & using bath together. One of them as to complaint by Mrs M of filthy conduct in bath and brutal treatment of Mrs Moss by husband.

    Lake Senior As to sleeping in same room. 2 visits. Moss’ evasive answer as to Ernest’s whereabouts.

    Boots and barmaid at Royal. Saw them together on 2nd sleeping in same bed.

    Employer at Goulburn as to seeing them together.

    Sergeant Gallagher. Frequent conversations with Moss. Lake’s name invariably mentioned. April. Moss said he was to have taken Lake to Sydney. Afterwards saw Lake and Moss in Sydney train together. On 8th Sept when Ernest left train I had interview in S.M.’s room. Sent in two notes. Produced. Arrest same evening. Accused asserted innocence said he had never slept with Lake at his house, had slept with wife. If true easy to call evidence. On 9th M. made charge against Lake. Gave reason for going to Goulburn. Denied L. was with him at Royal Hotel at all.

    Personal appeal to Gallagher to use influence to get him off.

    Stephen Art. 11 & Art. 12. p. 19. Makin. 14 L.R.I.P.C.10 W.N. B4
Essence of charge is indecency. How show that unless going fully into relationship between them.

    If contended that verdict of indecent assault bad because evidence amounts to some greater crime. See Keightley, 14 L.R 45.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Superintendent’s Office
Sydney, 7th October 99

Respecting Attached Subpoena for service on Constable Wood.

    Sergeant Kelly begs to state that Mr Superintendent Lenthall of the Eastern Police District has sent a telegram to Constable Woods directing him to be in attendance at the Circuit Court Goulburn on Monday morning next; therefore it is not necessary to send on the subpoena and, in any case, if posted to him it would not reach him before the time he should have left his Station to be in time for the Court at Goulburn.
[Signed] Thos Kelly, Sergeant.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE.

Eastern District,

Wollongong Station.
21st October 1899.

Report relative to antecedents of:–
Name: Simeon Alexander Moss
Offence: Sodomy
Committed for trial at: Circuit Court Goulburn
Date: 9th October 1899 

    Senior Constable Noble 4982 reports:– That he was stationed at Bowral from the 18th March 1886 until the 1st August 1989 and on a Saturday night about 5 years ago Moss was accused in Bowral by one Arthur Duprez with having attempted to commit an indecent assault upon him Duprez who also accused Moss with having attempted to commit a similar offence upon one William Pearce who was at that time an employee of Hill Brothers, store keepers, Bowral.

    Moss denied having done anything of the kind and after having an argument over the matter he (Moss) was taken to Hill Brothers yard by Arthur Duprez and 4 other persons and brought face to face with Pearce and he (Pearce) fully bore out what Duprez said: Mr Pearce then said “Bert”, meaning WB Hobson, (who was also in Hill Brothers’ employ) knows more than me about him. “Hobson” (who was in bed at the time) was brought face to face with Moss and he admitted that Moss had committed a grossly indecent assault upon him. The Senior Constable wanted to prosecute Moss for this assault at the time but it was deemed inexpedient to do so by his superior officers in consequence of the offence having been committed over 6 months before. (Hobson’s address if wanted can be obtained from Hill Brothers). Moss’s assault upon Hobson was committed consistent in Moss putting Hobson’s penis into his (Moss’s) mouth and excited the carnal passions of the former. Moss was also strongly suspected to have had criminal relations with one Mark Hart a coach man at Bowral and in effecting his purpose was supposed to have stayed at the Hotel Australia Sydney with him for some days. Hart was known frequently to visit Moss’s house at Bowral. Moss is known by the soubriquet of Cocky Moss and Moss the “poofter” and it was a matter of notoriety that he has been concerned in sodomitical practices for a number of years past.
[Signed] Charles Noble, Senior Constable.

1

Moss Vale
October 5th 1899

    Patrick Cassidy states that about 9 months ago Moss and I were at a ball held in the (?) Hall, Moss Vale. When the dance was over, I said to Moss, “How are you going home?” He said “By the first train in the morning.” I said “There is a spare bed in my room, you can sleep in it till train time”, he agreed. We went to the room together. I said “That will be your bed.” He said “That bed of yours is big enough for the two of us.” He then said “Did you ever have connection with a man? If you did you would never go with a woman.” I said “What do you mean?” He said “Have connection with a man instead of a woman.” I said “I thought you were a different man from that.” He said “You are the only man I have been with that I could not do it to

2

or he would not do it to me.” I remonstrated with him about his conduct and told him to clear out. When he saw that I was getting wild he went over to the other bed and lay down. I afterwards met him in Bowral and he said “You are a funny fellow after that night. You are the only man that I met I could not do it to or he would not do it to me.”
[Signed] Patrick Cassidy.
Witness [to signature] Jas Torpey, 1st Class Constable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Station
Bowral October 2nd 1899.

Re Simeon A Moss. Committed Goulburn Circuit.

    Constable Gallagher begs to report.

    That a man named Duprez to whom Moss made an indecent proposal has gone to South Africa. Two other men, Pearce and (Loves ?) the former of whom he is said to have assaulted have both left the district and their addresses are unknown. Another man named Bert Hopson who it is alleged was also assaulted by Moss is now manager for Marks and Company, Grocers, Ashfield. A statement can no doubt be procured from him. Attached is a statement from Mark Leslie Hopson.
[Signed] James Gallagher, 1st Class Constable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Percy Frederick Lake states:– On the 15th of July last I met Simeon Alexander Moss at the Grand Hotel Bowral between 9 and 10 o’clock at night. He spoke to me and we had a drink together. I then said to him “It is time I was home” and I then left for the Bowral Hospital where I was employed, Moss saying he would go some of the way with me and we walked up Bong Bong Street together. When we had gone some distance he asked me to go to his house and sleep with him but I would not. We then turned from Bong Bong Street into the street leading past the Hospital. When we had gone a short distance Moss stopped and said he wanted to make water and a few seconds after he said he could not as he had the “capital horn”. He turned around to me and said “What do you think of that?”, showing me his penis which he was holding in his hand. He came over to where I was and said to me “You feel it.”
[Signed] Percy Frederick Lake.
Dated this 2nd day of October 1899.
Witness [to signature], John Henry Wilkinson, 1st Class Constable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Mark Leslie Hopson (aged 17) states:–

    About 2 years ago Moss asked me to go on a message. He said he was going to give me a note and asked me to come into the dining room (?) he wrote it. He went in and he locked the door. He then said “Do you like a shilling or two or some lollies?” I said “Yes, when I can get them.” I was sitting down and had my hat in my hand. He took it from me and put it on the table. He asked me to come to the window and look through and see if I could see Mrs Moss coming while he wrote the note. When I looked through the window he caught hold of me round the waist and tried to unbutton the front of my trousers. He said “Let me feel you for a shilling.” I struggled and got away from him, unlocked the door and got out. He followed and tried to catch me.
[Signed] Mark Leslie Hopson.
Witness [to signature] James Gallagher, 2.10.99.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Urgent

Crown Solicitor’s Office,
Criminal Branch,
Sydney, 29 September 1899.

Memo. 
    Have the goodness to forward replies to the following queries:–
    Can statements be obtained from the persons who allege that the accused named in the margin (Simeon Alex Moss Goulburn Circuit Court) committed indecent offences upon them and made indecent proposals to them.
    It is desired to have the fullest information – the statements being signed if possible by the persons from whom they are obtained as the Crown may in the event of the accused tendering himself as a witness, wish to question him as to the complaints referred to.
    Constable Gallagher of Bowral has charge of the case
[Signed] W[illiam] R[ichard] Beaver, Clerk of the Peace.

1

Court House Goulburn
16 September 1899.

Sir
    I do myself the honour to state for the information of the Honorable the Attorney General, that on the 15th instant I committed for trial at Bowral, one Simeon Alexander Moss for an attempt to commit an abominable offence (?) (?). From the evidence is that the offence was actually perpetrated and that the informer was an accomplice.

    I have reason to believe that the defence will be either that the informer being an accomplice is not sufficiently corroborated or that his evidence is (incidental ?).

    The practice of the Committing Magistrate writing

2

with the deposition has fallen into disuse but the order to do so has never been rescinded and as the case is important I thought it better to draw the Attorney General’s attention to the fact.

    Moss has been a resident of Bowral district for some years and has been suspected of some crimes for a long time. The Police and others have for the last 3 years reported their suspicion to me. They have however only been able to obtain proofs in the present case.

    The informer, Lake, is the son of a reputable farmer residing near Bowral.

    I have the honour to be Sir, your most obedient Servant.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell, PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Jurisdiction, in Chambers

In the matter of the application of Simeon
Alexander Moss for bail.
And in the matter of the Queen versus
Simeon Alexander Moss.

    The 25th day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety nine.

    Let the Crown Solicitor or his Counsel attend before the Judge sitting in Chambers at the Supreme Court House King Street Sydney this day at 4 o’clock in the afternoon or soon thereafter as Counsel can be heard to show cause why the abovementioned Simeon Alexander Moss should not be admitted to bail upon the grounds appearing in and by the affidavit of Thomas Rawlinson sworn and filed here on this day.

[Signed] MH Stephen Jnr.
Thomas Rawlinson, Attorney for Applicant, Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Cor. Walker. J.
    Bail allowed self in £300 two sureties in £150 each or one in £300. Recognizance of accused to be entered into before PM or CPS, of sureties before Chamber Magistrate or SM Sydney.
[Signed] John Jillett.
25:9:99.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE.

Eastern District,

Bowral Station.
September 18th 1899.

Report relative to antecedents of:–
Name: Simeon Alexander Moss
Offence: Indecent Assault with intent to commit abominable crime of buggery
Committed for Trial at: Goulburn District Court
Date: October 9th 1899

 

    Constable J Gallagher (No. 5988) reports:–
    That it is not definitely known if this offender has been previously convicted, but it has been stated that he received a sentence of 2 years in Victoria, no authentic information on this point is obtainable.
    During the past five years, he has on no less than three occasions been accused of committing unnatural offences. Statements from many others have been received of indecent proposition having been made to them by him. He at all times has been fortunate enough to evade arrest, and although he has been a social outcast in Bowral for at least 3 years he has maintained a bold front and continued his base practices in a defiant manner. Letters and papers found in accused’s room show him to be a criminal of a monstrous type. Not only has he committed disgusting offences but he has also been a swindler of the lowest order.
[Signed] James Gallagher, 1st Class Constable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(M., 11 and 12 Vict., Cap. 42.)

 Depositions of Witnesses.

TO WIT.     }

The examination of James Gallagher Police Constable of Bowral in the Colony of New South Wales, Ernest Lake shop assistant of Bowral High Range, Henry Lake farmer of High Range, Patrick Collins, boots of Goulburn, Ellen Walsh, barmaid of Goulburn, Charles Fox, grocer of Goulburn, Sarah Louisa Hopkins servant of Bowral and Sylvia Mable McGlynn, servant of Bowral in the said Colony, taken on oath this 14th day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety nine at Bowral in the Colony aforesaid, before the undersigned, [one] of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said Colony, in the presence and hearing of Simeon Alexander Moss who is charged this day before me for that he the said Simeon Alexander Moss on the fifth day of September at Bowral in the said Colony, did assault Ernest [Edward] Lake with intent wickedly and against the order of nature to commit the abominable crime of buggery with the said Ernest Lake.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell, PM.

1

In the Matter
Regina versus Moss

    James Gallagher duly sworn saith as follows:– I am a Police Constable stationed at Bowral. On the 8th instant about 20 minutes past 6 pm I arrested the accused Simeon Alexander Moss at the railway station Bowral on a charge of ³⁶ indecent assault on Ernest Lake, a male person. I said “Mr Moss I have received certain information. I now arrest you on a charge of ‘indecent assault’ on a male person”. Accused said “This is strange, I can’t understand it.” I brought

2

him towards the Station. When near the Court House, prisoner said “Tell me again why I am arrested like this.” I repeated the charge and he replied “Why me assault Ernest Lake? I have told you all along all about him, you know as well as I do he has been running after all the girls in the town.” I then took prisoner into the charge room and charged that he did on the 5th day of September at Bowral in the Colony of New South Wales, indecently assault Ernest Lake a male person. I then locked him up on that charge. This morning at 10 o’clock I recharged him “That on the 5th day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety nine he did

3

assault Ernest Lake with intent to wickedly and against the order of nature to commit the abominable crime of buggery with the said Ernest Lake – prisoner replied “It is not true.” I pray for a remand until 2 pm on Wednesday next for the production of further evidence. Henry Lake, Ernest Lake, Miss McGlynn are mature witnesses.

[Signed] James Gallagher.

Taken on oath before me this 9th September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell, PM.

    Prisoner Simeon Alexander Moss remanded to Berrima Gaol until Wednesday 13th September until 2 pm.
    Bail refused.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell, PM.

4

    James Gallagher – Constable of Police recalled and duly sworn saith as follows:– I have heard my former deposition read. It is true on the 8th instant at 10 pm I was in the lock up cell yard at Bowral. Prisoner called out to me “It is very unkind of you Mr Gallagher to treat me like this, not to come and see me.” I said “What do you want?” He replied “Come here, I wish to have a conversation with you.” I then said “Before you commence a conversation with me I warn you that anything you may say to me here may be given against you in witness.” He said “Take a message to my wife, tell her to come at once.” I said “It is too late now, I will do it in the morning.” He said “You know I am not guilty of this Mr Gallagher. I have told you about Ernest Lake all along. He has heard what Noble has been saying about

5

me which has caused him to make these statements.” I said “Can you tell me why you took him to your house and slept with him?” He replied “Does he say he slept with me?” I said “Yes.” He went on to say “It is a lie. I slept in Mrs Moss’s room every night this week. I have been in every night at 7 o’clock except one, I was out on Monday night till 12 o’clock.” I said “You have repeatedly told me you and Mrs Moss have not slept together for a considerable time.” He said “I have slept with her all this week and she can prove it.” I then said to him “Why did you tell Mr Lake this morning that Ernest had gone to Moss Vale when you knew he was in your house?” He replied “Ernest told me to say so. He did not want to see his father. I asked him to see his father and write to him.” I then said “Why did you get out of the train at Burradoo?” He replied “Ernest asked me to do so as he did not want his father to see him.” On the 9th

6

inst. I took accused in the train from Bowral lock up to Moss Vale. On the way from the lock up to the railway station prisoner said “If I can being evidence that Ernest Lake had connection with a girl of under 12 years of age will you have him arrested?” I replied “Certainly, if the evidence is sufficiently strong.” He said “I will wait to see my Counsel.” He then said “Do you know why I went to Goulburn? I went to see the little red headed girl at the Royal. I cannot give this as a reason Mrs Moss would get a (chance ?) on it.” I cautioned him again and said “Did you sleep with Lake at the Royal Hotel Goulburn on Saturday and Sunday night last?” He replied “No! I did not!” I said “Did you have a drink with him there?” He said “He was not at the Royal Hotel with me at all and,” he continued “you don’t think I’m guilty of this?” I said “It would be hard to understand young Lake going away to Sydney with you as your friend and taking him there to get a good billet as you assert and his suddenly turning round to lay such a terrible

7

charge against you unless he had grounds for doing so?” He replied “Although Noble and his brother Jim (Lake’s brother) he said it is a plot. In the train he said I have always been good friends with you Mr Gallagher and have spoken well of you. I know you have influence with the Magistrate and the Lakes. Think to me and I won’t forget you. ³⁷ On the morning of the 8th at the Courthouse Gate Bowral about half past 11 o’clock accused came up to me and said “Have you seen old Mr Lake this morning?” I said “No! Is he in town?” He said “Yes he was down at my place this morning and asked for Ernest. I told him he was at Moss Vale. Ernest did not want to see him, they had been quarrelling at him. He said he may go to Moss Vale this afternoon to see Miss (Salkelds ?) before he goes away. He is going to Sydney within this evening. That evening I was on the Bowral platform and I then saw prisoner and Lake in this train together. Old Mr Lake was with me he said to Ernest “Come out here”. Moss said “Don’t you get out, stop here.” Ernest Lake got out of the carriage and Moss followed

8

him. I said to Ernest Lake in accused’s presence “Come on with me, Lake.” Walked with me and his father to the Station Master’s Office. When then in consequence of something Mr Lake said to his son the Lakes made a statement which I took down in writing – while taking that Moss sent in the 2 letters now produced. ³⁸ A and B. On the 13th April last I had a conversation with prisoner about Ernest Lake leaving W Rutherford. In that conversation prisoner said “I and Ernest Lake had it arranged to go to Sydney. I was to take him round and introduce him to some of my friends and get him into the mounted police. Lake had been with Rutherford for 5 years. He asked him for a fortnight’s holiday and was refused. Ernest is leaving on the 22nd of April. I saw Moss and Ernest Lake in the same carriage leave Bowral in the Sydney midday train. About a month afterwards I saw accused in the street at Bowral and had a conversation with him. Having reference to Ernest Lake accused said “You should see Ernest Lake. The flesh is falling from his cheeks. There are dark rings under his eyes. He is killing himself riding a (cuban ?) woman

9

out there. It is a pity to see a fine young fellow ruined by a woman like that.” We had different conversations about Lake and during the last 5 months I never had a conversation with him that he did not introduce Lake’s name.
[Signed] James Gallagher.

Taken on oath at Bowral this 13th September 1899 before us [sic].
[Signed] W Steward Caswell, PM.

10

    Ernest Edward Lake duly sworn saith as follows:– I am a general shop hand at present residing at High Range with my father, a farmer there. I knew the accused Simeon Alexander Moss now before the court. I first met him last summer when I was employed by Rutherford, a storekeeper at Bowral. I met him frequently up to about Easter last and used to go swimming in the river below his place. On one occasion I told him I wished to get away from Rutherford. He asked me what I would like. I said, the Mounted Police. He said, “Come to my house and talk the matter over.” I went there a little before last Easter.” While there accused told me where he had travelled and what he saw and how the men went together instead of with women, that it was quite natural. I met him frequently at this time until I left Rutherford. He asked me to go to his house and stay with him. I left Rutherford about the 22nd of April last and shortly before that I stayed a night at accused’s house. His wife was not there at home, only accused and I were in the house. He

11

took me into his wife’s bedroom. He brought into the room a bottle of Vaseline. He said “I can easily do it with a little Vaseline.” I said I didn’t believe him that kind of thing. I said “What good will it do me?” He wanted to take my penis in his mouth. I refused. He asked me to take hold of his penis with my hand. I refused. He wanted me to use my hand on his, in place of having a woman. I refused. Shortly after this accused proposed I should ask my employer for a week’s holiday to go to Sydney. My employer refused leave. I told the accused, he said “Go back and tell your employer you are going.” I then gave my employer notice and left him about the 22nd of April. I went with accused to Sydney on 22nd of April. I had about three pounds with me. I wanted to get into the Mounted Police. We went to the Hotel Australia and both occupied the same room and bed. He there tried again to take my penis in his mouth. He tried several times. We went into a bath in the Australia together. He there again asked me to put my penis in his mouth. I refused. He tried to coax me and then left off. I returned

12

to Mittagong on the 29th of April. I left accused in Sydney. He paid for my board at the hotel. About 3 weeks later I went to accused’s place for some photographs. I saw accused then. He (first ?) spoke about the Mounted Police and said “I have done a lot for you and the only concession you can make is to put my your penis in my mouth. That is not much.” On the 27th of May last my brother and myself were in Bowral and accused returned home with us and stayed for a fortnight at my father’s. We occupied the same bed. He there again wanted to take my penis in his mouth. He said it was safer than going with a woman. He talked about the Mounted Police and said it was the only concession I could make. About a fortnight later at the Grand Hotel accused met me there and proposed I should get employment in the town. A day or two after I came into town and slept at accused’s place. Mrs Moss was then at home. He put me in an upstairs room and again slept in the same room and bed. There were 2 beds in the

13

room. Accused said there were not enough clothes on the other bed and he should sleep with me. He again wanted me to put my penis in his mouth. He caught hold of me by the penis. I put him away from me. I slept three nights at his place and we slept together every night. He attempted to do the same thing every night. On the 29th of June I returned home, and a few weeks afterwards accused came to my father’s place. He stayed 3 nights. We slept together then, no-one else in the room. He made the same proposition again said – he had done a great deal for me and it was the only concession I could make to him. About 3 weeks ago I went to Moss’s place again. I stayed about half an hour. He made the same indecent proposal again. I would not allow him. I returned home that evening. I went to Goulburn on the 28th August. I saw accused on the Bowral platform that day I was going. I obtained employment at Goulburn. Accused came to Goulburn on 2nd September and I saw him outside my employer’s shop. Accused said the best thing I could do was to come back. I said nothing.

14

I saw accused that evening again. He asked me to tea – about 11 o’clock at night I went with accused to the Royal and had a drink with him. He said I had to go and sleep with him that night. I said I was going home. He said “If you can’t stop come up and see my room.” I went to the bedroom. He pulled me in and locked the door. He said “You have to sleep with me tonight.” I refused to undress. He wanted me to let him put his penis in his mouth. He pulled my coat and vest off. I undressed and got into bed. Accused got into the same bed. He wanted me to put my penis into his mouth. I refused. He struggled with me. He caught me by the throat. I told him if he wanted anything to go and get a woman. He said “I would rather have you. You’ll get no sleep till you let me.” He called me a contemptible a dog. He struggled with me from time to time until about 1 o’clock. On the next day, Sunday, I had my meals with accused and went out driving with him. I slept with accused on Sunday night in the same room again. He made no

15

proposals to me that night. On Monday he asked me to leave my employment and come to Bowral. I came with him, he paid my fare. On arrival at Bowral I went to accused’s house and stopped till Friday. Accused slept with me. Mrs Moss was at home on the Tuesday night. That 5th September he made indecent proposals and put my penis into his mouth and struggled with me. He wanted me to take hold of his penis with my hand. On Friday morning last accused went down stairs and when he returned he said my father and brother had been there and my father was pleased I had been there. Accused proposed he and I should go to Sydney that day. I remained there. We entered the train at Burradoo. Accused said we should not be noticed in the train. There would be a crowd at Bowral platform. Accused paid my fare. At Bowral my father called me out of the train and I made a statement to Constable Gallagher. I received the 2 letters produced, C & D from accused.

[Signed] Ernest E Lake.

Taken before us [sic] this 13th September 1899 at Bowral before me.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

16

In the matter Regina versus Moss
    Charged with having attempted an abominable offence.
    Remanded till 14th September 1899.
Bowral, this 13 September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

17

    James Gallagher recalled on his oath saith as follows:– This morning the ³⁹ 14th in company with Senior Sergeant Banks I searched a drawer in accused’s bedroom. Amongst other things I found in the drawer under a sheet of newspaper the obscene photographs ⁴⁰ now produced, 10 in number. The drawer was locked. I obtained the key from prisoner’s person when I searched him.

    By Mr Rawlinson Prisoner’s Solicitor: No questions.
[Signed] James Gallagher.

Taken on oath before me at Bowral this 14th September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

18

    Henry Lake duly sworn saith as follows:– I am a farmer residing on a farm at High Range, 10 miles from Bowral. I know Ernest Lake, he is my son. I know accused. The first time I saw him was on the 27th of last May. He came to my place and slept a fortnight or more. I gave up my bedroom which accused occupied. My son Ernest slept with him. He stayed 2 nights at my place about the 19th of July. He had the same room and my son Ernest slept with him again. About a week afterwards I saw accused in Goulburn. He had a conversation. He suggested that I should turn him out to get his own living. On Friday last from something I heard, I went to accused’s home about 9 o’clock in the morning. I saw accused but not my son. I said “Is Erny in?” Accused said “No!” I went to Moss Vale yesterday. I said I believe he is here. Accused again said – he had gone to Moss Vale. I said “By what

19

authority did you go to Goulburn and bring him away from his place?” He replied “I did not go to being him away.”
    No questions.
[Signed] Henry Lake.

Taken on oath before me at Bowral this 14 September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

20

    Ernest Edward Lake recalled on oath saith as follows:– When at accused’s place he showed me some obscene photographs like those produced. This was about the 22nd of April last. He said when he observed me the photographs, “That is the way they used to do it in the places I travelled.”

    By Mr Rawlinson Solicitor: I am 20 years of age when first time I spoke to accused was when I went swimming some time before Easter. I refused to go with accused but have slept with him some 2 or 3 nights at a time. I told my brother and uncle what had happened some time last May. I lived at home after that.
[Signed] Ernest E Lake.

Taken on oath before me at Bowral this 14th September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

21

    Patrick Collins duly sworn saith as follows:– I am “Boots” at the Royal Hotel in Goulburn. I know accused Moss. I know Ernest Lake. I saw both at the Royal Hotel Goulburn last Saturday week. It would be the 2nd September accused had a room there. On Monday morning I noticed 2 had slept in the bed. On Sunday night accused asked me to call him. I did so and afterwards I saw accused and Lake coming from the direction of the room. Five minutes after accused left for the train. I went to his room and examined it. I saw two had slept in the bed. One of the pillows had not been used.
[Signed] P Collins.

Taken on oath before me at Bowral this 14th September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

22

    Ellen Walsh duly sworn saith as follows:– I am barmaid and assistant waitress at the Royal Hotel Goulburn. I was there on 2 September inst. I know accused and Ernest Lake. On Sunday night the 3rd inst. I saw Moss and Lake at tea together at the Royal Hotel Goulburn. On Sunday night accused said to me “I have a friend stopping with me.” I didn’t want to lose sight of him.
[Signed] Ellen Walsh.

Taken on oath before me at Bowral this 14 September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

23

    Charles Fox duly sworn saith as follows:– I am grocer residing at Goulburn with my mother who keeps a restaurant in Goulburn. I know Ernest Lake. He stopped a week at my mother’s. I saw accused there with Lake. They had dinner on the 2nd September. I did not see them again till Monday night. They came in about 10 o’clock. They were upstairs together for a few minutes. When they came down Lake said “I am going away, good night.”
    No questions.
[Signed] Charles Fox.

Taken on oath before me this 14th September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

24

    Sarah Louisa Hopkins duly sworn saith as follows:– I am a domestic servant employed at Mr Moss. I am at W Haigh at present. I went to Mr Moss on the 15th of April of this year. Ernest Lake came to Mr Moss the first week I was there. About a fortnight after this Lake came and slept one Saturday night. He slept in accused’s room and accused slept in the same room. Lake slept in the house several times afterwards and slept always in the same room. Mr Moss had another room. On one occasion Lake slept at accused’s for 3 nights. I left 8th July
and while I was there Moss and his wife occupied separate rooms. Every morning Lake was at accused. He and accused went to the bathroom together and occupied the bath. On one occasion Mrs Moss spoke to accused about going to the bath with Lake and said to me in presence of accused “Scald out the bath well after such

25

filthy brutes.” The words Mrs Moss used to her husband, “I don’t care about going to the bath after Lake has been there,” or words to that effect. Moss (accused) said to his wife “If you don’t keep your tongue off me I’ll knock you down the b---- stairs. On another occasion Mrs Moss instructed me not to cook any breakfast while Lake was there. Accused heard this and said to me “This is your fault.” Mrs Moss said to him “How dare you speak to my girl?” Accused caught her by the arm and screamed at behind her back and said “I’ll show you who is boss here.”

    No questions.

[Signed] Sarah Louisa Hopkins.

Taken on oath before me this 14th September 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

26

    Sylvia Mable McGlynn duly sworn saith as follows:– I am a domestic servant at Mrs Moss’s place. I have been there 6 weeks. I know Ernest Lake by sight. I remember Lake coming with accused to the latter place on Monday the 4th instant. Lake slept there until Friday evening following. Whilst there Lake slept in accused’s room. Two persons used the room. There were two beds then, both used. Lake and accused used the bath together and were there no less than an hour. I don’t think accused and his wife occupied the same room at night while I was there.

    No questions.

[Signed] SA McGlynn.

Taken on oath before me at Bowral this 14th Sep 1899.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(N., 1 & 12 Vic., Cap. 42.)

Statement of the Accused.

New South Wales, Bowral
TO WIT.                              }

Simeon Alexander Moss stands charged before the undersigned, one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the Colony aforesaid, this 14th day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety nine for that he, the said Simeon Alexander Moss on the 4th day of September 1899 at Bowral, in the said Colony, did assault Ernest Lake with intent wickedly and against the order of nature to commit the abominable crime of buggery with the said Ernest Lake and the examinations of all the witnesses on the part of the prosecution having been completed, and the depositions taken against the accused having been caused to be read to him by me, the said Justice, (by/or) before whom such examination has been so completed; and I, the said Justice, having also stated to the accused and given him clearly to understand that he has nothing to hope from any promise of favour, and nothing to fear from any threat which may have been holden out to him to induce him to make any admission or confession of his guilt, but that whatever he shall say may be given in evidence against him upon his trial, notwithstanding such promise or threat; and the said charge being read to the said Simeon Alexander Moss, and the witnesses for the prosecution James Gallagher, Ernest Lake, Henry Lake, Patrick Collins, Ellen Walsh, Sarah Louisa Hopkins, Charles Fox, Sylvia Mable McGlynn being severally examined in his presence, the said Simeon Alexander Moss is now addressed by me as follows:– “Having heard the evidence, do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you desire to do so; but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence against you upon your trial;” whereupon the said Simeon Alexander Moss saith as follows:– “I reserve my defence.”

Taken before me, at Bowral, in the said Colony, the day and year first above mentioned.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

G. 190.

REGINA.
versus
[Left blank]

Offence,— Assault with intent to commit Buggery

    The accused stands committed to take his trial at the next Court of Circuit to be holden at Goulburn, on the ninth day of October 1899. Bail allowed the accused in £ and two sureties in £ each, or one in £ refused.

[Signed] W Steward Caswell, PM.

JP.

Dated at Bowral Police
Office,
this fourteenth
day of September
AD 1899.
4g 416 - 88

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(O. 1 11 & 12 Vic., Cap. 42.)

Recognizance to give Evidence. ⁴¹

New South Wales, Bowral
TO WIT.                              }

Be it remembered, that on the fourteenth day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety nine James Gallagher a Constable of the Police Force, of Bowral in the Colony of New South Wales, Ernest Lake, Shop Assistant of (?) in the said colony, and Henry Lake of (?), Patrick Collins, Boots of Goulburn, Ellen Walsh, Barmaid of Goulburn and Charles Fox, Grocer of Goulburn, Sarah Louisa Hopkins, Servant of Bowral, Sylvia Arabella [sic] McGlynn, Servant of Bowral in the said Colony personally came before the undersigned, one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the Colony of New South Wales, and acknowledged himself to owe Our Sovereign Lady the Queen the sum of

FORTY POUNDS EACH,

of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied on his Goods and Chattels, Lands and Tenements, to the use of our said Lady the Queen, her Heirs and Successors, if she the said before mentioned Anna Schmidt shall fail in the condition indorsed.

Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first above mentioned, at Bowral in the said Colony, before me.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell, PM.

The condition of the within written Recognizance is such, that whereas Simeon Alexander Moss was this day charged before WS Caswell, PM., Esquire, one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said Colony, with
on the fifth day of September 1899 at Bowral in the said Colony did assault Ernest Lake with intent wickedly and against the order of nature to commit the abominable crime of Buggery with the said Ernest Lake.

If therefore, they the before mentioned persons shall appear at the next Court of Circuit to be holden at Goulburn in and for the Colony of New South Wales, on the ninth day of October next, at nine of the clock in the forenoon, and then and there give such evidence as they know, upon an information to be then and there preferred against the said Simeon Alexander Moss for the offence aforesaid, to the Jurors who shall pass upon the trial of the said Simeon Alexander Moss.

Then the said Recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.
[Signed] W Steward Caswell, PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[On the depositions’ cover sheet is the following]

Circuit Court,
Goulburn
9th October 1899
AG’s No. 218
Depositions.
CS’s No. 8
Regina
v.
Simeon Alexander Moss
Assault with intent to commit an unnatural offence
Committed at: Bowral
on: 14th September 1899

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Cor: Owen J
10th & 11th Oct 1899
Plea - Not guilty
Verdict - Not guilty

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Indecent assault upon a male
(1) June 26; (2) September 2; (3) September 5.

[Initialled] C[harles] G[regory] W[ade, Crown Prosecutor]
18/9/99

[Initialled] B[ernard] R[ingrose] W[ise, QC, Attorney-General]
19.9.99

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice W Owen’s notebook   ⁴²

103
[pp 104-105 are blank]

[Bathurst] October 10th 1899
Regina v Simeon Alexander Moss. Indecently assaulting Ernest Edward Lake, 26th June, 2nd September, 5th September.
Plea. Not Guilty
Hamilton for accused.
Hunt addressed the Jury.

    Ernest Edward Lake examined by Hunt. I live at High Range near Bowral with my father – about 10 miles from Bowral – farmer. I know accused. I first met him last summer at Bowral. I was general shop hand at Rutherford’s store Bowral. I used to go down to the creek swimming & accused used to come down looking on. I met him one day at station & told him I would like (a change ?) ⁴³

106

I would like to get into the Mounted Police. He said come down to my place & talk the matter over. I went. It was before Easter. He made indecent proposals to me. He asked me to stop & go up to his room & asked me to stop (objected to – I admit it). He told me about his travels & what they did there – & shewed me certain obscene cards – (cards produced) – those are the same ones – prosecutor Tendered – objected to – I admit them, put in Exhibit A. ⁴⁴ He said that is how they used to do it in places he travelled in. He told me about a woman he met on the continent. After this I saw him almost every day. I had to pass his place every day going to my employment. I was at Rutherford’s till 22nd April. I went to Sydney when I left him – accused proposed that I should ask

107

for a week’s holiday to go to Sydney & try to get into Mounted Police. I went to Sydney the same day as I left. Accused went with me. We went to Hotel Australia. I paid my own fare to Sydney. Moss paid my Bill at the Hotel. We occupied the same room there. There was only one bed – we both occupied it. I stopped there a week. He made indecent proposals to me while I was there. I used the bathroom there – Moss went with me. He made the same proposals again. I went back first. I saw Moss again in about 3 weeks. He said it was the only concession I could do for him after what he had done for me – & wanted me to allow him to put his penis in my mouth. I remember the 27th May. Moss went back home with my brother Jim & me – Jim is older

108

than me. He stayed there about a fortnight. He slept in the same bed with me. He wanted me to let him put his penis in my mouth. He said it was the only concession for what he was doing & I ought to meet him a little. 2 or 3 weeks after I met him in the street, Bowral. He asked me to go to the Grand Hotel. He spoke about the Mounted Police & said it was the only concession I might allow him. He spoke about a young fellow leaving a situation & that I ought to come into Bowral to be on the spot – Hayne’s stores. He said I could stop at his place. I came in again 2 days after & stopped at Moss’s place. Moss was at home. I used Moss’s room. It was Mr Moss’s room. Mrs Moss had a separate room. Moss slept in the same bed with me. He said he would not

109

sleep in the other bed because there was not clothes enough on it. He turned down the clothes in the morning to make it appear someone had slept in it. He used to do this every night. When in bed he made the same proposal that I should put my penis in his mouth. He said in places he travelled in it was quite mutual. He told me the other men’s names he had been with. He wanted He caught hold of me & struggled with me to get my penis in his mouth. He caught hold of me by the throat. This was near the latter end of June. I don’t remember the exact date. I stayed there from Monday to Thursday – we shared the same bed. He tried it on every night. I went to Mittagong & from there home. I saw Moss again about a month after in Bowral.

110

Moss went to my father’s place on Wednesday & left on Friday, a few days before the ⁴⁵ Quarter Session in Goulburn. We shared the same bed. He asked me again to let me put my penis in his mouth. That was the only concession for all he was doing for me & my brother. I went to Bowral. I was there for half an hour at Moss’s house – about 20th, week after Moss visited my father’s house. He said that was the only concession & I ought to meet him a little. I left Bowr the district near end of August & went to Goulburn. I left on Monday, the last Monday in August. Moss was on Bowral platform – I was in the train. He came up to the carriage & asked me not to go to Goulburn & to stop at Bowral. I came to Goulburn & got work

111

at Higgins Baker’s. I drove the cart. I received letter from Moss at Goulburn (letter produced). I got it on the Thursday. ⁴⁶ Put in Exhibit B. I got more letters from him. The 2nd letter I got on Friday – ⁴⁷ Put in Exhibit C. On Saturday when I came out to get my dinner about ½ past 1, Moss was on the footpath. He told me there was a vacancy in Bowral & that I ought to go back. He remained with me till I came out from dinner. He met me again when I came out from work about 7 o’clock pm. He asked me to go down the street & have tea with him. I was staying at Mrs Fox’s restaurant. I went to have tea with him after a lot of persuasion. We walked about the town Moss & till nearly 11 o’clock. Moss asked me then to go into Royal Hotel & have a drink. We went.

112

I was going home & Moss asked me to go & sleep with him. I refused. He said if you won’t stop, come & see what a nice room you get here. I went. When I got up he pulled me in & locked the door & took the key out & said you have got to stay with me tonight & wanted me to undress & go to bed. I refused & said I wanted to go home. He caught hold of me & pulled my coat & waistcoat off. I struggled with him. About 12 o’clock I (?) & went to bed. There was only one bed. Moss wanted to let me put my penis in his mouth. I said I did not believe in that kind of thing. He struggled till about 2 o’clock. I told him if he wanted anything to go & get a woman. He got me by the throat & I got him by the wrist.

113

He said no, I would rather have you & you will get no sleep tonight till you let me. I went to sleep then. He abused me & called me a contemptible dog. On Sunday I could not get away from him & stayed all day. On Sunday night I slept at the Royal again – nothing happened. On Monday he asked me to come to Bowral & I would get a billet at Hayne’s – & he would pay the fare. I went to Bowral to his house. We shared the same room. On Tuesday he made the same proposal. He also wanted me to take his penis in my mouth. He also wanted me to take hold of his penis with my hand. He struggled with me & got my penis into his mouth. I stayed there till Friday evening. On Friday morning Moss said

114

my father & Jim had been there & they were quite pleased I was there. Moss said he would take me to Sydney & get a billet. I was to go on Wednesday. On Friday evening we started for Sydney at Burradoo. Bowral is ½ mile from Moss’s house. He said if we went from Burradoo we could get away without being noticed. He paid the fare. At Bowral my father & Jim asked me to come out. I went out. I went into the Parcel Office. Constable Gallagher, my father & Jim were there. I got other letters. I kept some of them. (Looking on paper) I know the writing – Moss’s handwriting. Put in Marked (a) for identification.

    Cross-examined by Hamilton. I am 20 years old. I was working at home before I went to Bowral. I have uncles Will & Jim.

115

Uncle Jim worked at Rutherford’s. He had been in the Mounted Police. I was anxious to get into the Mounted Police. I worked 3 years & 1 month at Rutherford’s. While in Bowral I knew Ellie Reynolds. I did not touch her or any other girl. I took her to Kangaloon on the cart. Nothing improper occurred. I told Moss I had had nothing to do with her. He asked me if I had. I know a girl who was a schoolmistress. I know an anonymous letter was written about her & my name was mentioned in it. I was only an acquaintance of her, nothing improper. The letter accused me of being improperly intimate with her. It was not true. Nothing about Jim in the letters. No one to his face accused Jim of improper conduct. Such accusations were abroad.

116

I said to accused why did he tell such lies about me, there was not a word of truth about it. I was very angry with him. He said he (did ?) not want (me ?) to (tell ?) him when my brother wrote weeks ago about what was going on. I did not say I was going to do accused a harm because of the accusations. I said I would tell the truth about it. I spoke first to my father about the false accusations. It was in the end of July. I spoke again about it. My father never spoke to me about the other girl that I remember. I spoke to him about her. He spoke about another girl. Moss told him. My father said he knew it was a lot of lies from the start. I had no improper relations with any girl. I had stopped at his house on 2 occasions

117

before I went to Sydney. At the Hotel Australia I saw the night watchman in the hall. I did not see him in the corridors. Moss told me he was the night watchman. I stopped at the hotel every night in Sydney. I did not stop at any other place at night. I did not tell Moss so. I slept in same bed in Father’s house with Moss: there were 2 beds. An uncle was there a few days. My father, mother, Jim & Stanley Lake – Herbert Lake was not there. There are 4 bedrooms – Father & mother in one room, Moss & I in the next room. I don’t know who slept in the other rooms. Moss & I slept in Mother’s room. A little girl generally sleeps in the other bed – she slept with Mother these nights. Stanley did not sleep in the room with Moss & me. Jim slept with

118

Stanley. When at home Jim & I sleep together. On Referendum Day Beasley said if I came into town he would take me out to school. I did not ask Moss to let me stay for a few days to see if Beasley passed as schoolmaster. Moss persuaded me to go 7 stop with him so as to get the billet at Hayne’s. He wanted me to stop with him altogether. He said he was going to get me a billet but he never did. When in Sydney he took me to Inspector Clarke. The Inspector said I was too young, to wait a bit. Moss said he came out to my father’s place to try a horse – & about a brother of mine who was in trouble – to which he pleaded guilty. Moss said he interested himself about my brother. My father was very grateful for what he did & made him present of

119

fruit trees. On 27th August Moss came (running ?) to see me. I told him if I did not get a billet I would go to try to get a place at Hayne’s. On 28th August I did not ask him to lend me money. Moss did not say he was going to a christening. I don’t remember telling (McLary ? passim) that I was going to leave Higgins. McLary did not say as you have decided to leave it is the best thing you should go. Moss did not say as this is lending me £1 I have to (go to ?) (the mill ?) in the morning first. I did not say I will repay you out of my wages if I get into Hayne’s. I did not say I will get my luggage to the hotel so that I can clear out from my lodgings without anyone knowing I am leaving Higgins. I went to my lodgings for my things with Moss

120

& McLary. I told McLary that a man told me he had a railway ticket which he would sell cheap & I said it’s no use I’m going the other way. I don’t remember saying that I did not know the man & he might tell Higgins. A man told me he knew someone who had a ticket. I said it was no use to me. I don’t remember telling McLary why I said it was no use to me. I put my parcel in a little room & we went & had a drink at the bar. There were 2 girls there. I don’t remember if there were men there. Moss went into the bar with me. I don’t remember his talking with any man. He talked with the girls. I don’t know whether he got anything from any man – pack of cards or anything. On Saturday night I remember going into the bar – not at 12 o’clock. I was

121

not there on Saturday night when the bar finally closed & they all left the bar. I told Moss if he was certain I could get the billet at Bowral, I would come. I did not tell him I was going to leave Higgins. I signed the letter produced – Letter marked (b) for identification. Moss got up before me on Friday 8th September. He did not come up & say here is your father & brother. I had intended going in to Moss Vale by the early train. Moss did not persuade me to go out & see them. He said he would tell the servant to say I had gone yesterday. I did not say I would start from Burradoo. The train was a cheap excursion train. It was arranged that Wednesday that I was to go by it. Moss said Gallagher said it was best for me to go away from my relations here & that I was to try to get into the artillery.

122

Moss gave me no money. He gave me things – a hat – & he paid my fares. He appeared anxious to get me a situation – away from the place. I don’t think he tried to get a place for my brother. He was always on friendly terms with me except when we quarrelled about the accusations about the girls. I told abo in May about the proposals by Moss to my uncle brother Jim & my uncle Jim. My uncle Jim has been in the Police & is now maintenance man. He lives 4 miles from father’s place. After that accused stayed at my father’s place in May 7 again in [sic] 23rd July. The same proposals were made at my father’s place. Accused made certain promises & held out certain inducements & said Gallagher & Banks were helping him to get me into a

123

position, and that they knew all about his going in for that kind of business – meaning these proposals. That is what made me hold my tongue. That w Accused said they knew all about it & would do all they could for him.

    Re-examined. I have seen the anonymous letter about the schoolmistress – the letter produced is the one. It is in Moss’s handwriting Marked Put in Exhibit D. ⁴⁸ I first saw it after the girl got it. I said then it was Moss’s handwriting when I saw the envelope, before the letter was taken out. There is no ground for suggesting I had improper relations with this girl. My father said he never got any information from anyone but Moss about the
girls. I left Goulburn with Moss at 25 to 7 am. Moss at a mill on the way to the station. On 8th September I don’t know what Moss did but he said what

124

he had done made it a lot lighter for him. I don’t know the (particulars ?) of what he did, but he said he had talked the matter over with Gallagher & Banks. Looking on document. It is Moss’s handwriting. Marked (c) for identification.

    Cross-examined by Hamilton. I told my brother Jim the anonymous letter was in Moss’s handwriting. My brother Jim said he did not mind getting into the Mounted Police if nothing better turned up. He did not say he was annoyed that Moss had taken me to Sydney to try to get into the police as I was the young one. I went to Berrima with Banks & Jim. I never heard that Banks said Jim was not the cut of man. I never told Moss Jim was annoyed at not getting in. I spoke about the anonymous letter to my brother, the girl, & my uncle.

125

I don’t know if Griffiths got into the Mounted Police. Moss said he had written about getting him in. There was no conversation that my brother Jim was annoyed that Moss had got Griffiths in.

    Henry Lake by Hunt. Father of last witness – farmer at High Range near Bowral. I know accused. On 27th May I first saw him at High Range. He came there with my son Ernest. He stayed till 13th June. He occupied my bedroom. My son Ernest slept there with him. The last 2 nights Ernest objected to sleep with him. I did not then know the reason. About the 18th July Moss came to my place again & stayed there 2 nights & one day. Ernest shared the room with him then. I then went on 20th July to Moss’s place. I went to Goulburn & Moss advised me to turn him out of home

126

to earn his own living, that Jim & he were only conspiring to mislead me, and to help to clear a piece of ground. He conversed with me at his own place about a schoolteacher on 21st July. He said he & his brother had improper relations with her. No one told me but Moss. I went to Moss’s house at 9 o’clock on Friday 8th September. I saw Moss. I said is Ernest here? He said no. I said where is he then? He said in Moss Vale. I said by whose authority did you go to Goulburn & take him away from his place. He said I did not & never saw him till I saw him on the platform going away. I did not say I was glad my son was staying with him. I asked him again if Ernest was there for I don’t believe you. I believe he is staying here.

127

    Cross-examined by Hamilton. I gave evidence at Police Court. I don’t remember saying that Moss said he had only seen Ernest on the platform.

    Re-examined. I conversed w I have had no conversation with Gallagher as to evidence to be given by me.

    Sarah Louise Hopkins  examined by Hunt. Servant – formerly with accused. I went there on 15th April last. I know Ernest Lake. He was at the house continually. He stayed there. He always occupied same room with accused. Mrs Moss had separate room. I left on 8th July. While I was there Moss & his wife did not use the same room. Lake & Moss went together every morning to the bathroom & stayed there about an hour. Mrs Moss once spoke to Moss about going into the bath with Lake. She said she did not like going into the bath

128

after they had been there. Moss said if you don’t keep your tongue off me I will knock you down these stairs. Mrs Moss instructed me not to do any cooking while Lake was there. Moss objected.

    Cross-examined by Hamilton. There were 2 beds in Moss’s bed[room]. Moss dressed in his own room. I believe he shaved in the bathroom. There was hot & cold water there. No other man there but Lake in my time. It was the only room used while I was there. No one else stopped there of a night.

    Sylvia Arabella ⁴⁹ McGlynn examined by Hunt. Servant with Moss. I left last Wednesday week. I was there 8 weeks. I know Ernest Lake by sight. I remember his coming on Monday the 4th September. He stayed from Monday morning till Friday afternoon.

129

He occupied Moss’s room. So far as I know Mr & Mrs Moss occupied separate rooms. Lake & Moss used to be in the bathroom together, never less than an hour.

    Cross-examined by Hamilton. I could not say if Moss shaved there. I was there some time before Lake came. Moss used the bathroom. There were 2 beds in the room. They both looked as if used when I went into the room. No one else stayed there the night.

    Re-examined. I could not say how long Moss stayed in the bathroom when Lake was not there.

    Patrick Collins examined by Hunt. Boots at Royal Hotel Goulburn. I know Moss & Ernest Lake. I saw them together at the Royal. I don’t remember the date. I remembered it when I gave evidence before. I saw them in the night before Moss was staying there. Lake

130

had no room engaged there. They left by the express by the in morning. I saw them on Friday afternoon about 2 o’clock and again about 7 pm. On Monday after Moss left I noticed the bed. It looked as if 2 had slept in the bed. Lake was with him on Monday morning. I called him at 6 o’clock & I made him & Lake a cup of tea.

    Cross-examined by Hamilton. I saw them coming from the direction of the room. Moss’s room was round the corner. I saw them in the passage. Both the pillows had been used & one unused put back on the one used. There were 4 pillows – 3 used & one not used. It was about 10 to 11 pm when he asked me to call him. He paid me for what he had. He was not sure then that he was going to stop. He paid again for his room.

131

He reminded me a young man was going to take tea. There was one pair of boots outside his door when I called him.

    Re-examined. The pillows on On the far side there were 2 pillows that had the mark of a head on it. The pillows on the near side – the lower pillow had the mark of a head, the top pillow was full as if not used. The mark of the head was on pillow.

    To Hamilton. 3 pillows were dented in & one was not.

    Ellen Walsh examined by Hunt. I was barmaid & assistant waitress at the Royal Hotel. I saw Moss there & Lake. I saw them at the Hotel. I saw Moss on Sunday afternoon & afterwards Moss & Lake at tea. I was speaking to Moss in the afternoon. He said he had a friend staying with him & the friend wanted to go home & change his clothes but he did not want to lose

132

sight of him if He & that he would not allow him to go home. I can’t (?) the date. I gave e

    Cross-examined by Hamilton. I gave evidence at Bowral. I forgot part of the conversation at Bowral. I was standing at the door on Sunday afternoon. I had a sister there. Before tea Moss was there alone – About 5 o’clock Lake came & they had tea together. I did not see Lake bring a parcel into the hotel.

    Charles Fox examined by Hunt. Grocer at Goulburn. I live with my mother who keeps a restaurant. I know Ernest Lake. He stayed about a week at our place. I have seen Moss. I saw him with Lake one day at our place. I think on a Saturday about 3 weeks before 2nd September. I saw them next Sunday night. Lake & Moss came into the

133

restaurant. They went upstairs about 5 minutes. Lake said he was going away.

    James Gallagher  examined by Hunt. 1st Class Constable at Bowral. I know accused & E. Lake. I have seen them together on different occasions – generally since 15th April – before that on a few occasions. While Lake was at Bowral I saw them frequently together. About the 15th April I had conversation with Moss about Lake. He said Rutherford, a friend of Noble (a former constable) was no good. Ernest Lake & I had arranged to go to Sydney. I was to introduce him to some of my friends. On 22nd April I saw the 2 leave Bowral in the same carriage. After they came back I had conversation with Moss about Lake. He said you should see Lake, the flesh is falling from his cheeks,

134

he has dark (lines ?) round his eyes. He is killing himself (riding ?) a certain woman (having her). It is a pity seeing a young fellow killing himself with a woman like that. About a week or a fortnight after he came to me on a Sunday & said I found out today that Ernest Lake is going to get work at (?) – when I take a thing in my head I am not going to be done in. I went to Mr Cockburn who is in charge of the works there & said to him there are married men in this town with families who are out of work & I think you should employ them. Ernest Lake is going out to you for work, don’t you put him on. His father & I have arranged that I am to get him a good billet, but he is willing to

135

sacrifice his prospects & stay out there because he & his brother are riding the same woman. On one occasion accused came to me & asked me to write to Lake to come in. He is sulking & won’t answer my letter. Beasley is leaving Haynes & I could get him his place. I am trying to get Beasley into the Education Department. On 4th September Moss & Lake came out of the Express & met me. Moss said I want you to do me a favour. Go to Haynes & ask him to put Lake on in (Connor’s ?) place. He followed me about the street & implored me to go in to Haynes. I went there & when I came out Moss asked me if I thought he would get the billet. I said no I thought Haynes did not think him competent to take Connor’s place.

136

About 20 minutes past 6 on the evening of 8th September I said to accused I saw Moss & Lake together in the train at about 6 o’clock on the 8th September. Mr Lake senior said to his son Erney come out here. Lake got out & Moss followed. Lake & his father went into the Station Master’s office. Moss stayed in the booking office. He was stopped by me. I received 2 notes from Moss, while I was taking the statement of Ernest Lake. The letter produced is the first one I received. Put in Exhibit E. ⁵⁰ After that, 2 or 3 minutes after, I received this letter produced. Put in Exhibit F. ⁵¹ The train had gone. Moss told me there was another train for Sydney due that night. I came out to the

137

booking office & said to Moss that in consequence of a statement I received from Ernest Lake I arrest you on a charge of an indecent assault on Ernest Lake a male person. Moss said this is strange. Then took him to the charge room & when heard there Moss said tell me again why I am arrested. I repeated the charge & he said why me assault Ernest Lake, you know as well as I do he is running after all the girls in Bowral – don’t break my wife’s heart. I formally charged him & locked him up. On the morning At 10 o’clock pm the night of the arrest I was in the cell yard. Moss called out you are very unkind Gallagher to treat me like this. I said what do you want? He said

138

come here I wish to have conversation with you. I went to the cell door & said before you commence a conversation with me I warn you that anything you say now may be used as evidence against you. He said take a message to my wife & tell her to come at once. He went on to say you don’t think me guilty you know I am not guilty of this, Gallagher, I have told you about Ernest Lake all along. He has heard those things which Noble has been saying about me & has caused him to make these statements. I then said why did you take Lake to your house & sleep with him? Moss said does he say I slept with him? I said yes. He replied it is a lie. I have slept with Mrs Moss every night this week & been in at

139

7 o’clock every night but one. On Monday night I was out till 12. I said you frequently told me that you have not slept with Mrs Moss for a considerable time. He answered, I did so this week & she can swear it. I then said why did you tell Mr Lake that his son was at Moss Vale when you knew him to be in your house. He said Ernest told me to do so, he did not want to see his father – I asked him to see his father & to write to him. I then said to him why did you get into the train at Burradoo? He said Ernest asked me to do so, he did not want his father to see him. I had a conversation with Moss on the way to Moss Vale from the Bowral lock up. He said if I can bring evidence that Ernest Lake had connection with a girl under 12 years

140

will you have him arrested. I said yes, if the evidence is sufficiently strong. He said I’ll wait & see my counsel. He then said do you know why I went to Goulburn? I went to see the little red headed girl at the Royal – but I cannot give that as a reason as Mrs Moss will get a divorce on it. I said now Moss I am going to ask you a few questions & I warn you that your answers may be used in evidence – so you need not answer me unless you choose. Objected to – I admit the evidence. I said did you sleep with Ernest Lake at the Royal Hotel Goulburn on Saturday & Sunday night last? He said no, I did not. I said did you have a drink with him there? He said no, he was not there with me at all. He said you don’t think

141

me guilty of this? I said it would be hard to understand young Lake going away to Sydney with you as your friend & to get him a good billet as you assert, suddenly turning round & laying such a terrible charge against you unless he had grounds for doing so. He said it was all through Noble & his brother Jim Lake. It is a plot – I cannot see through it now, but but when my mind gets clearer it will. In the train Moss said to me I have always been your friend, & have spoken well of you. I know you have influence with the magistrates & Lakes, stick to me Mr Gallagher & I’ll not forget you. On the 8th September in the morning I had interview with Moss. He came to the court house

142

& said did you see old Mr Lake this morning. I said no, is he in town? He said yes, he was down at my place this morning & asked for Ernest. I told him Ernest was in Moss Vale. He does not wish to see his father – they have been quarrelling at home. He may go to Moss Vale this afternoon. He leaves here for Sydney tonight. After the arrest on the 14th September I visited Moss’s house & opened a drawer. I took the keys from prisoner – the drawer was locked – & I opened it. Looking on Exhibit A. I found the 10 obscene cards in the drawer. ⁵² Put in Exhibit G. I also found the pencil document produced. ⁵³ Put in Exhibit The. I also found in the drawer the document marked (c) for identification. ⁵⁴ Exhibit I.

143

Moss never had told me of any improper relation between himself & Ernest Lake.

    Cross-examined by Hamilton. I have been at Bowral 14 months on 8th October. I succeeded Noble, removed to Woolongong [sic]. I do not know why he was removed. I have a general knowledge – I was told he was not removed in consequence of Moss’s complaint – Moss did make a complaint against him. I frequently saw Moss. I played the part of a friend to find out certain things. I asked a girl to go to his house & he did not know why she went – not one of the witnesses today. Moss several times spoke about billets for Ernest Lake. I can say he interested himself about Stanley Lake. I did not say the Lakes were liars – I said Stanley Lake’s version of the case for which he was tried was untrue.

144

I never heard of Jim Lake’s desire to get into the Mounted Police. I was told Griffiths got into the Mounted Police. Moss went to Sydney with him. More than On every occasion he met me lately Moss spoke in a jealous sort of way about Lake going with girls. After he came back Moss said he had been to the falls on a shooting expedition. He told me he was going to Goulburn. I think I saw Moss at night 3 times when he talked about going down by the cheap train on Friday. I knew of his movements to a great degree from his own lips. I told for the first time today the particulars of the conversation about Cockburn. On the morning of the (?) ⁵⁵ I charged Moss with attempted buggery to which he replied it is not true. I have not had Lake examined by a doctor – I believed

145

it was not necessary. Moss did not say he had been in Mrs Moss’s room every night. He frequently said he did not sleep with Mrs Moss. I did not say “He slept with in Mrs Moss’s room.” I said “He slept with Mrs Moss every night.” That part of the deposition is not correct. I said to Moss, Did you have a drink at the Royal Hotel? He said he was not with him at the Royal Hotel at all. I am positive he did not say he did not have a drink with me at the Royal at all. I told Moss about the anonymous letter. Moss came to me on Sunday & said he was likely to get into trouble about what he said. I told him someone received an anonymous letter. He laughed & said Is that so? Some of the Lakes spoke to me about it.

146

    Ellen Walsh recalled – to Hamilton. I was not in the bar on Friday Sunday night – I was there on Saturday night up to 10.30. There were no gentlemen playing dominoes. I don’t remember a commercial traveller named Dane travelling in Canadian whiskey. My sister was barmaid at the time.
Crown case closed
    Ernest Lake recalled – to Hamilton.
    Exhibit D. I handed it to Constable Gallagher.
    To Hunt. I asked the girl for it.
Crown case closed.

147

    Simeon Alexander Moss examined by Hamilton. No occupation. Before my marriage I had not been long from England. I was not doing anything. I have been 15 years 14½ years in Sydney. I have been married 14 years. I have lived about 5 years in Bowral. I have known James Lake the uncle for years. I made the acquaintance of Ernest Lake in January last. His uncle said he had to find a place for his horse. I offered the use of my place for his horse. I saw him every day from January to the 20th April when he came to feed his horse. I knew he was working at Rutherford’s. He told me from the first that he was going to leave Rutherford’s because they removed him from the counter to outside work. He said he was so fond of horses he would like to get into the Mounted Police. I said I thought he was young.

148

I advised him not to leave Rutherford’s during the winter months but to apply for a holiday. He & I went to Sydney on 22nd April. He never spent a night at my place – he was to have come on the Saturday night, Easter, but he did not come. He was then working at Rutherford’s. He came to feed his horse at 6.30. He had tea with me, he went to Bowral with me & was to have come back with me but did not do so. At 10.45 on the same Saturday he met me at the Grand Hotel. He said he would not go out in the morning but he had been out with (May ?) Beasley. He went home with Crips. That was the I shewed him through the house that evening before I did not shew him the photos.

149

I never shewed them to anyone but Gallagher. They don’t belong to me. I had them under a sheet of paper in a drawer locked in hopes of giving them some day to the owner in England. I did not make indecent proposals to him or sleep in the same bed with him before the visit to Sydney. Lake applied for a holiday but he was disappointed & gave notice. He left Rutherford. We arranged to go to Sydney on the 22nd April. I stayed at the Hotel Australia. Lake did not stay with me – I had a single room. There is a night hall porter & a night watchman. He is accountable for everyone in the rooms. He had to give an account to the manager. He said he was staying at Castlereagh Street. He used to come to see me every morning.

150

The only meal he had with me at the Australia was a counter lunch at the bar. I took him to Inspector Clarke & to Detective (Hughes ?). They Clarke said he thought he was too young but would see what he could do for him later on. He stopped 8 days & I stopped 16 days. I saw him as far as the train, no further. I gave him no presents or money. He paid for what he wanted. He said his money was running out, that is why he had to leave Sydney. I did not see him from the time he left Sydney till 20th May. He was 20 minutes there. He came on Monday 22nd May & stayed a night – the first time he stayed. He slept in the spare bed in my room. My room is always occupied by male

151

visitors – when they come. I always wash & dress in the bathroom. I never thought of such a thing as asking him to put his penis in my mouth or that it was the only concession. We always talked of women – never of anything else. The first time he came Collins was servant. He was learning to shave & it would take him ¾ hour to shave. I had to wait for the water to get heated again. When I was at his father’s place he shared the same bed with me. I deny that I made indecent proposals. There was only a thin partition between the bed & his father’s bed – with cracks – his mother slept in the next room. The next time he came in was about 9th June when his brother’s case was on. He stayed 2 nights then.

152

I went back with him to his father’s place & he drove me back on the Tuesday. He came again on Monday the ⁵⁶ 26th June. He stayed in my house 3 nights. He came to see if Beasley had passed as a teacher – she would apply for his billet. He slept in my room but not in my bed. I did not say I would not sleep on the other bed as there were not enough clothes. I did not turn down the clothes of the other bed. I never made the indecent proposals. I did not say it was mutual. he I did not mention the names of the men he was in I had been with. I did not struggle. I did not do as he says on any of the nights. In July I was at Lake’s place. I went on the 18th July with (Prior ?). We intended to return

153

next day – they persuaded me to stay till the Thursday. The day I went there Lake had been to my house. I shared the same bed again – no indecent proposals then. I did not say it was the only concession for what I had done for him & his brother. On 14th August he came to see me me to get some photos of himself. He did not go into the house – only to the door. I made no indecent proposals. He told me of the trouble about the girl. He asked me why I told his father about him & this girl. I said it did not want me to tell your father. When you make He said Jim was most annoyed. The first I heard of it was on the 18th when Ernest told me of it. I (?) On the 26th August. I heard of his I saw an aunt of his I first heard of his going to Goulburn – next day Sunday

154

he told me that if he was taken on by Higgins he would be going by the train & would I see him at Bowral station. I saw him next day. He said he had got through his money & asked if I had change. I said I would send him some stamps. I gave him some (cigars ?). I said I was soon going to Goulburn. On Saturday I wrote to him. I received from him letters (b) for identification (?) (?) I went to Goulburn on 2nd September. I arrived a little after 1 o’clock. I went to the Argyll Mills ⁵⁷ to see McLary. He was not there. I went to his house & met Lake crossing the road. I did not know where the shop was where he was working. I had something to eat with him. I arranged with him to meet me at 7 o’clock & McLary was to meet me also.

155

I met Lake a little way from the Bank of NSW about 7 o’clock. He said Higgins has only given me 15/- for a week – & he owes me 25/- a week – could I not make him pay my railway fare? I said no. We had a fish tea together. We met McLary as we came out. We played billiards. Lake had 3 drinks, port wine & brandy. We walked up to where Lake was stopping. We all three parted there – Lake I thought went home. I saw him no more. I turned back to the hotel alone. I went into the bar parlour & stayed there till a little after 12 o’clock. They were playing dominoes. A commercial traveller was a bit jolly & treated us with drinks. He got some cards about Canadian whiskey with puzzles – the barmaid & a solicitor & his father & Overton

156

the actor were there. After they left the proprietor & I had a drink together – & I went up to my room. It is not true young Lake slept with me that night. I did not ask him to stay – or say “Come up & see my room.” I did not pull him in or lock the door – or take the key. I did not struggle with him or take his coat & waistcoat off. He did not say if you want anything you had better go & take a woman. I did not say he would get no sleep till he consented it. Next Sunday we went for a drive to McLary & got back about 1.30. Lake asked me where the WC was. I shewed him. I went into my room to wash. He came back from the WC & washed his hands. We were in the writing room & he

157

left about 2 o’clock. I was with Miss Walsh & had afternoon tea – at 4 o’clock – two visitors came. I said the young fellow won’t know where to find me. Lake & I had tea together & McLary came in the evening. Lake said he knew on Monday night he would get the sack & thought he had better clear out. I said if you are going to leave you have a chance to get with Haynes. I had conversation with McLary & came back to Lake. He said I said McLary was lending me £1 or to go to the mill. Lake wanted me to lend him his railway fare. He said as soon as I get work he would repay me. He said he had better take bring his things up so that he might not be seen clearing out in the morning. We 3 went to where he lived. He went to get his things. When he came down There is a young fellow there

158

McLary left & Lake & I went back to the Royal where he left his parcels. He left them about ¼ to 11. I was in the bar parlour till 12 o’clock. Same people there. I met Lake at top of passage turning to my room. I went to have some tea. Lake did not sleep in my room that night. ⁵⁸ I got the £1 from McLary. I bought Lake’s ticket. It was arranged that if he did not get into Haynes he could stay at my place & go down by the cheap train on Friday. He stayed till Friday. He slept in the spare bed. I made no indecent proposals. The things he I did not take his penis in my mouth. I never thought of such a thing. When I saw Mr Lake at the house, Ernest Lake was in bed. I told him his father & Jim were there.

159

He said I won’t see them. He said I’ll write from Sydney – it looks as if they were going to take me home. I said why don’t you go. He said go & tell them I have gone to Moss Vale. I said if I tell them that you must go. He ought to have gone by the early train only he was too lazy. Old Lake said is Erny here? I said he is gone to Moss Vale. He said when will he be back. I said during the day – because he is going to Sydney by the cheap train today. He said He said by whose authority did you go to Goulburn & take him from his place. I said I did not take him from his place. I told him I did not say I had not seen him at Goulburn till on the platform going away. I told him all the circumstances. Lake first said it was his intention to take the train from Moss Vale & I from Bowral.

160

I said in the crowd we shan’t meet. In the afternoon he said he would go from Burradoo. At 4 o’clock I said I would go too by Burradoo. I sent 2 notes in to Gallagher. The train waited a long time. The train did not go till 4 or 5 minutes before the train started. ⁵⁹ I did not tell Gallagher I slept with Mrs Moss all that week. Gallagher never cautioned me. I did not tell Gallagher that Lake was not at the Royal Hotel with me at all. I told Gallagher on the Monday that I had seen a good deal of Lake at Goulburn & that he would have been stranded there for want of his fare. Exhibit D. I don’t think it is my handwriting. It is not. Lake told me on 27th August a letter had gone to Sydney.

161

He said his name, my name & hers was named. He told me in Goulburn she had received a letter, anonymous, that his brother Jim had seen it before he did. Exhibit The. Is in my handwriting. I wrote it on Monday 4th September from a copy Lake provided. There is not a word of truth in the charges Lake has made. When he came for his photos on the 14th August he was annoyed that I should have told his father – also about having told his father about Reynolds. He said Jim was put out because I had got Griffiths into the Police & he had a set because of the break with the lady.

    Cross-examined by Hunt. It is a conspiracy to ruin me. I have carried on theatrical business about a year before going to Bowral. I was looking after my wife’s affairs. I had a little (money ?). ⁶⁰

162

Nothing bringing in an income. I have no business or profession. The owner of 3 of the photos is dead. I kept those 3. They are all the same size. The owner of the photos was Bagshaw. He stayed till end of 1897. He was thoroughly sober till the last week. He was not fined in Bowral. I knew him well in Sydney. He was fined there. It was in 1897. I paid some of his fine. Sexton lent me some of it. I paid the fine & costs, but not all with my own money. I think £10 covered everything. I knew his people in England by reputation. I wrote to his uncle in England. I may have said I paid £20 to keep him out of gaol. His uncle asked me to write. He left him in my charge. I did not say I was reforming him. He was 26 years old.

163

    Hunt asks to be allowed to cross-examine as to character. I refuse.

    I had some drafts of letters in my drawer – sometimes I keep my receipts. I think the receipt of the Australia Hotel was among my papers which Gallagher took. We went to the Circus & the Tivoli. Lake made no promise when he went to Sydney. I can’t say Exhibit G is a copy of a letter I sent Lake. I may have written with the intention to send it – I did not send it. When he left there was no employment in prospect. If he stayed I would have tried to get him employment. I always cautioned him about going girls under age. It does not refer to any promise before we left Bowral that I would allow him to have improper connection with him in Sydney. I can’t think what I meant

164

when I said you must reconsider all that took place in Sydney & his promise &c. I did not advise him to let me have influence over him like Scott. I know Scott very well. I was more kind with Percy Lake than many of those. I was on friendly terms with the I said the manager of the Australia Hotel was very kind to me. I asked Ernest Lake to tell me his feelings about what he wanted to get. I did not think he was right for the Mounted Police. Exhibit I. I wrote something of that kind to Scott. I got Griffiths the position last August. He is 28 & married. Scott (was ?) was going to some (to ?) employment & if that did not suit he would try for the foot police. On 18th July I first

165

heard of the anonymous letter. Exhibit D is not my writing – I first saw it in court. It is not the copy Ernest Lake shewed me. I made the copy at my house. He asked me to copy it. He said Jim had some set on me. (Witness is asked to write “some of the best families of New South Wales”, “wait until tomorrow”, “a new position in the department”) ⁶¹ Put in Exhibit And. I did not know the man to whom the lady was to be engaged. I made a copy of a letter Lake gave me to copy at the same time as the other. I copied it the same day. I made a (bad ?) sort of copy & I copied it again. I was in a hurry. Looking on papers. Those are the 2 copies I made. ⁶² Put in Exhibit L. I swear I did not compose those letters. They are not drafts of a letter I wrote. I proposed to keep them by on account of the trouble Jim was making.

166

I don’t know that any trouble could come to me from the letter to the young lady. I did not try to make mischief between her & her lover because she had influence over Lake out of spite. Exhibit D. I did not notice if it was correctly spelt when I copied it. “position” – “possion”. That is not the way I should spell it. Exhibit G. is a hurried scribble. The word “possion” is there. My name is in the other letter that Lake gave me to copy. I never wrote an anonymous letter. I did not write it myself. Exhibit L. is a copy of a letter Lake gave me. I don’t see anything in Exhibit L. to do me harm. I suppose I made a mistake when I ran my pen through a line. Exhibit L. The pencil part is the copy. The other was written partly from memory before he gave me the copy.

167

He gave me both at the same time. He told me what was in the letter first. He read some of it & then we were disturbed. He gave me a copy afterwards. I did not at first ask for a copy. The letter to the lady I did not write out first. Exhibit L. He told me the words “he is more like a stallion than a man” was in it. They were not in it. I told him he was making fun of me. I spell scandal “scandle”. I may have so spelt it in a hurry. I wrote to Lake on 29th August in view of the vacancy that was likely to arise at Haynes. Exhibit B. I wanted him to keep from children. I was disappointed with him when I wrote to Scott. I don’t know what I meant by the words “You have treated me so badly. I willingly forgive you.” &c. I did not mean that he had refused me connection. I had an idea

168

of going to Goulburn. It He cried in the train & I tried to build him up about. I wanted Lake to get employment. I would have done anything I could for him as they were more than kind to me. They called me “Alick”. I promised him the stamps on the Monday. I did not think of the stamps, it struck me I had promised him. I enclosed it in an envelope in my handwriting. Exhibit C was not enclosed in an envelope in my handwriting because Rutherford would know he was trying to get in at Haynes. He would know my handwriting. He would know as well if anyone else wrote it. There have been rumours that the Post Office opened letters. I was in Goulburn on 24th, 25th and 26th July in Stanley Lake’s case. ⁶³ I did not go to Goulburn to get Ernest Lake back to Bowral to have him near.

169

I heard the commercial traveller’s name. I don’t remember it. I waited up here to find out the traveller’s name. I wrote to my solicitor frequently. I did not mention the name of the traveller. I thought I would find Overton here – he said he was living here. I have not found him. On Sunday morning Lake came to the hotel just after 10. On Sunday night I can’t say where Lake slept. He left just before 11. I knew he had taken his clothes from 2 o’clock. Lake was coming up to my room in the morning just before 6. I did not tell Lake Senr. a lie, quite. His son had promised to go to Moss Vale. I heard Lake Senr. say the only complaints he received of women was from me. Exhibits G & F. I wanted E. Lake to go to Sydney because he had his ticket. He said he would not go back.

170

He seemed afraid of his brother & that his brother had a set on me. I was pleased to do anything for him. I persuaded him to see his father. I asked Lake Senr. to come in when he came in the morning. Looking on the photos Exhibit A. I don’t know one from another. I have had 3 from the beginning of 1897, the rest from the end of 1897. I have had one letter from Stanley Lake. The signature looks like his to the paper produced. Marked (d) for identification. I remember Duprez. I know Percy Lake. I think he comes next to Ernest. I know Mark Hobson. I never made indecent proposals to any of them. I know Patrick Cassidy. I have not seen him to speak to for years. I never made indecent proposals to him. I Mark Hobson used to come every Saturday to work at

171

odd jobs. I never remember him being in the house. I never tried to unbutton his trowsers. I never offered him 1/- to feel his person. I never offered Stanley Lake 2/6 to have connection with him. I never heard my a nickname at Moss Vale “Ruchter [sic] Moss” or “Cocky Moss”.

    Re-examined. I never heard of any suggestion of improper conduct towards these men before tonight. Lake Senr. laid out an orchard for me & gave me fruit trees. They were extremely kind. I have not the command of much money. I left in my drawer 2 receipts for my bill at the Australia Hotel in April – £2-8 for 16 nights.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice W Owen’s notebook   ⁶⁴

1

[Bathurst] October 10th [1899]
Regina v Moss continued.
Moss re-examined.

    Arthur McClary ⁶⁵ examined by Hamilton. I work at a mill in Goulburn. I remember 2nd September. I met the accused & arranged to see him that night at the hotel. I met him & Lake with him between 7.15 & 7.30. We 3 were together till about 11 o’clock. At 11 o’clock we were on our road home. I was When I left we got as far as Bank of NSW I know where Lake said he was stopping. I shook hands & left – nothing was said except that I said I was running light & had better get. Lake lodged nearly opposite. On Sunday I took Moss & Lake out for a drive. I was to meet at the hotel at 10.30. Moss came out on the balcony. Lake came down

2

with Moss. I left them after 1 o’clock. I came back after tea about 7.15. That evening Moss said something to me & I spoke to Lake. We had a yarn about Lake’s leaving. He spoke of working at Higgins. Lake said he would not know his rounds in the morning & he would get the sack – so he might just as well leave. I said he might just as well leave as he had made up his mind. Nothing was said to Lake about money matters. Moss had conversation with me about money. Moss said nothing to Lake about money. We arranged to go up to Lake’s place for Lake’s clothes. I don’t know what he said about his clothes. Lake came down with a parcel & said a chap up there offered me a ticket cheap to go to Sydney

3

but to put him off I said I was going the other way. On Monday at the mill I gave lent Moss £1 in consequence of what was said at the hotel. Nothing was said about it in Lake’s presence.

    Cross-examined. I am a friend of Moss. He had not been at my house that trip. I am a married man.

4

[Bathurst] October 11th 1899
Regina v Moss continued.

    In the deposition of Ellen Walsh these words only occur, “I have a friend stopping with me. I don’t wish to lose sight of him.” In Ernest Lake’s deposition, as to the Tuesday on 5th September he does not say “his penis in my mouth.”

    Percy Hamilton Munkley examined by Hamilton. Solicitor in Goulburn. I was in the Royal Hotel on Saturday night 2nd September. I left just on 11 o’clock. I was with Overton, an actor. I remember a representative of a Canadian whiskey. He had much better cards & puzzles. There were others in the bar at the time.
Case for accused closed.

5

    Ernest Lake recalled. I never received any hints from Gallagher as to the evidence I was to give. I know

    Exhibits D & L. I did not give accused a copy of D. I gave him no anonymous letter to that lady to copy. Exhibit L. I did not give the original or a copy of Exhibit L. to copy.

    Gallagher recalled. I never gave hints to Lake as to what evidence he should give, nor did he give me any hints. It was on the 14th September I examined Moss’s house & found those photos. (Admitted Lake gave evidence at Police Court on 13th September)

Case in reply closed.

    Hamilton – Apart from suspicion of the truth of these charges, the expressions in the letters would mean nothing. Accused honestly attempted to get work for Lake. Lake intended

6

to leave Rutherford before anything occurred. Letter by Lake as to Higgins – that he did not intend to remain there. Moss was trying to get work for him in Sydney. He was getting work for others – no evidence of difference in station social position. Saturday night was the 2nd September. No evidence of his being at Goulburn with Lake on that night. Lake is an accomplice – Jury & cannot convict unless corroborating evidence. The anonymous letter was the cause of these charges. Improbability of the words used. No gratification to Moss if this request complied with.

    Hunt Regina v Puckeridge 14th (?) ’69

I sum up

Jury retire 2.42
  “   return 6.38
Verdict not guilty.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Tue 10 Oct 1899 ⁶⁶

GOULBURN CIRCUIT COURT.
MONDAY AFTERNOON.
Before his Honor Mr Justice Owen.

…

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10.

    His Honor took his seat at 10 o’clock.
…

CHARGE OF INDECENT ASSAULT.

    Simeon Alexander Moss, on remand, was charged with having committed an indecent assault on Ernest Edward Lake, a lad 20 years of age, at Bowral, on 26th June, 1899. A second count charged him with committing a second offence at Goulburn on 2nd September; and there was a third count charging him with a third offence at Bowral on 5th September.

    Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hamilton, instructed by Mr Betts.
Accused six jurors, and the Crown ordered seven to stand aside.

    Before the case was commenced the Crown-Prosecutor asked his Honor to make a suggestion from the Bench that it would be better for the morals of the people if all decent-minded persons would abstain from listening to the case.
His Honor said he had no power to order the court to be cleared during the trial. Of course, the court must be open to the public, but at the same time he was informed there would be a great number of abominable matters brought out, and he thought it right that the people who were present should be told the nature of the case, and perhaps it might be better for them to remain out of court.

    The majority of those present took his Honor’s suggestion and left.

    A request by Mr Hamilton, that the accused might be allowed to leave the dock, was refused.

    The Crown-Prosecutor opened the case at length, and said it was a most revolting one. He said that Moss was a middle-aged man of good style and appearance. He was married, and lived in a very good house at Bowral, not having any business and being apparently an independent man. Lake was the son of a farmer living at High Range, about 10 miles from Bowral, and had been employed in one of the shops in Bowral. Subsequently Lake took a position in Goulburn, and accused came to Goulburn and took him away with him.

    The principal witness was in the box all the morning, being subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.

    Evidence was also given by Henry Lake, father of Ernest Edward Lake; Sarah Louise Hopkins and Sylvia McGlynn, formerly domestic servants at accused’s; Patrick Collins, boots at the Royal Hotel, Goulburn; Ellen Walsh, recently barmaid and assistant waitress at the Royal Hotel; Charles Fox, grocer, living in Goulburn; and Constable Gallagher, of Bowral.

    The case was proceeding as we went to press.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Goulburn Herald, Wed 11 Oct 1899 ⁶⁷

GOULBURN ASSIZES
TUESDAY.
Before His Honor Mr Justice Owen.

…

CHARGE ON INDECENT ASSAULT.

    Simeon Alexander Moss, a middle-aged man of respectable appearance was charged with indecently assaulting Ernest Edward Lake at Bowral on 26th June; a second count charged Moss with a similar offence at Goulburn on 2nd September; a third charge the committal of a like offence at Bowral on 5th September.

    Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hamilton, instructed by Mr Hamilton of Sydney, assisted by Mr Betts. Seven jurors were ordered to stand aside by the crown and six were challenged by prisoner.

    The Crown-Prosecutor asked his Honor to suggest that it would be better if all decent-minded persons would abstain from listening to the case.

    His Honor said he had no power to order the court to be cleared during the trial. Of course, the court must be open to the public, but at the same time he was informed there would be a great number of abominable matters brought out, and he thought it right that the people who were present should be told of the nature of the case, and perhaps it might be better for them to remain out of court.

    The majority of those present took his Honor’s suggestion and left.

  Ernest Edward Lake, living with his father at High Range, near Bowral, deposed that last summer he was employed at a store in Bowral and used to go to the creek swimming; Moss used to come there and look on; one day witness said he would like to get into the mounted police, and Moss invited him to his place to talk the matter over; witness went and prisoner asked him to go to his room and there made indecent proposals; on 22nd April witness left his employment at prisoner’s suggestion and went with him to Sydney to try to get into the police; they stayed at the Hotel Australia, Moss paying the bill; witness stayed a week at the hotel, during which time prisoner made improper proposals; about three weeks after witness returned to Bowral he again saw prisoner, who said witness should make a concession to him after what he had done for him; at the end of May Moss went to stay at witness’ father’s and improper proposals were again made; afterwards witness went to work at another store in Bowral and stayed at prisoner’s house; prisoner repeated the proposals; prisoner attempted to assault, but witness resisted; witness left the house and returned home; at the end of August witness left the Bowral district and came to Goulburn; prisoner was on Bowral platform when witness left and tried to persuade him to remain in Bowral, but he refused; witness obtained employment as driver with Mr Higgins, baker; he received the letters produced from Moss; on 2nd September prisoner met witness in Goulburn in the dinner hour and wanted him to go back to Bowral to a vacancy there; he left and returned in the evening and took witness after much persuasion to the Royal Hotel to have tea with him; when they reached the door prisoner pushed witness into the room, locked the door, and put the key into his pocket; he refused to allow witness to leave the room; he attempted another assault and witness resisted; witness remained with prisoner all the next day because he could not get away; witness returned to Bowral at Moss’s request, he promising to pay his fare and to get him a situation in a store there; witness stayed several days with prisoner during which time he made further proposals and attempted to effect them, but desisted when witness resisted; he told witness that his father and brother were very pleased to hear that he was stopping with witness [sic]; on 8th September witness and prisoner went to Burradoo on their way to Sydney, but witness’ father came to the train and told him to get out and he did so.

    Witness was cross-examined at length by Mr Hamilton about his relations with certain females, and about which Moss wrote to Mr Lake senior. The object was to show that the present prosecution was the result of spite; but witness denied this was so.

    Henry Lake, farmer, High Range, and father of Ernest Lake, deposed that on the 27th May, Moss came to the witness’s place with Ernest and stayed there for a fortnight occupying the same room for the first twelve nights; then Ernest refused to sleep with Moss; later on Moss advised witness to turn his son Ernest out and make him earn his own living as he and his brother Jim were misleading witness; on the 21st July prisoner said Ernest was carrying on improperly; witness knew this to be untrue; a week later he asked Moss for his son Ernest; prisoner said he was not there and that he had gone to Moss Vale; witness then asked him by whose authority he had taken his son away from employment in Goulburn; he replied that he had not seen him except when he was going away.

    Sarah Louise Hopkins, and Sylvia McGlynn (domestics) deposed that Lake had occupied the same room as Moss while staying at the latter’s place.

    Patrick Collins, boots at the Royal Hotel, Goulburn, and Ellen Walsh, assistant waitress, deposed that Moss and Ernest Lake had stayed together at the Royal Hotel on 3rd September and left next morning.

    Charles Fox, grocer, Goulburn, deposed that Lake and Moss had dinner at his mother’s restaurant on 2nd September; next evening they again came and shortly after Lake said he was going away.

    Constable Gallagher, stationed at Bowral, deposed that since April last he had seen Moss and Lake together; about the middle of April witness had a conversation with Moss about Lake, and told him he was going to take Lake to Sydney and introduce him to his friends; they went away about a week afterwards; prisoner was arrested on the evening of 8th September; he and Lake were in the train going to Sydney; Lake’s father told his son to get out of the train and Moss told him not to do so; Ernest Lake left the train and went into the station master’s office with witness and his father; Moss wanted to follow but witness stopped him; young Lake made a statement, while in the office witness received two letters produced signed by prisoner, asking him to get young Lake out so as they could get away to Sydney; witness then went on the platform and arrested Moss; he replied “this is strange.”

    Prisoner [Simeon Alexander Moss] deposed that he had known Ernest Lake’s uncle for years, and he became acquainted with Ernest in January; he saw him daily till April; he told witness he wanted to get into the mounted police; witness told him he thought he was rather young but he would see what he could do for him; witness never showed Lake the photos (produced), and they did belong to witness; their owner is in England and witness kept them locked in a drawer; on 22nd April witness and Lake went to Sydney; witness stopped at the Hotel Australis , but Lake never stopped there; Lake said he was staying in Castlereagh-street; witness took Lake to Inspector Clarke to see if he could get him into the mounted police, but the Inspector said he was too young; Lake returned to Bowral before witness and the latter did not see him till the end of May when he stayed at witness’ and slept in a spare bed in witness’ room; witness never made indecent proposals to Lake; it is not true that Lake slept with witness at the Royal Hotel, Goulburn, on 2nd September; the whole of the charges were untrue, and were a conspiracy concocted against him because of his having spoken to Mr Lake senior about Ernest’s relations with girls.

    Prisoner was cross examined at great length about certain practices, all of which he denied.

    Arthur McClung, miller, Goulburn, gave evidence of an unimportant character.

    At this stage, 9.15 pm, the court adjourned till next day.

WEDNESDAY, [11 OCTOBER 1899]

    Mr Hamilton addressed the jury at considerable length. He contended that the charges against prisoner were of a character easily made, but difficult to answer. He claimed that the heinousness of the crime had aroused in Constable Gallagher’s mind suspicions of Moss’s actions which were not borne by calm consideration, and that Moss’s actions were only those of a man desirous of obtaining work for a young man in whom he took an interest in. He argued that the crown had not proved the charge, as there was no evidence to corroborate Lake’s, which was of the most improbable character.

    The Crown-prosecutor replied in an exhaustive address of over an hour. He maintained that Moss’s demeanour under cross-examination showed that his evidence was unreliable, and that his denials of Lake having stopped with him at the Hotel Australia, Sydney, and the Royal Hotel, Goulburn, were uncorroborated. He pointed out that in various particulars Lake’s evidence was born out by that given by McClung for the defence.
His Honor summed up and directed the jury that in arriving at a verdict they would have to decide which of the two, Lake or the prisoner, they could believe, and so far as the other witnesses were concerned they would only have to consider their testimony in a corroborative light. In regard to the defence raised of a conspiracy against prisoner in revenge for his disclosures about Lake’s improper relations with females, they would have to bear in mind that the charges threw discredit upon a man making them, where as if he were actuated by a spirit of revenge he could have preferred a charge in which his character would not have suffered. He reviewed the evidence given for the crown and for the prisoner, and pointed out where it bore out the charge, or was in favor of prisoner. He said there was evidence which if they believed it, would confirm Lake’s statement of the alleged offences. The onus lay with the crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The jury retired at 3.45 and returned at 6.30 with a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.

    On leaving the court Moss was re-arrested by Constable Gallagher on another charge of a similar nature committed on another boy of the Lake family.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 11 Oct 1899 ⁶⁸

CIRCUIT COURTS.
———◦———

…

Goulburn, Tuesday.

    The Circuit Court was continued to-day. Alfred Williams, whose name was deposed to be Arthur Bright, was convicted of obtaining from Andrew Gibson Finlay, auctioneer, by false pretences, a cheque for £10. William Bennett, found guilty of assault, was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude. The Court was occupied all day in hearing a charge against Simeon Alexander Moss of having committed an assault.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Thu 12 Oct 1899 ⁶⁹

TO-DAY’S POLICE COURT.
————

BEFORE the Police-Magistrate and Mr Oliver.
…

ALLEGED ASSAULT.

    Simeon Alexander Moss was charged with having at Bowral on 21st July, 1899, assaulted with intent Stanley Lake.

    Mr HA Hamilton , barrister, instructed by Mr Betts, appeared for the accused.

    Constable Gallagher, stationed at Bowral, deposed that at about 7 o’clock pm, yesterday he arrested accused in the passage of the Court-house, Goulburn; he made no reply, but tried to pull away from witness; witness took him to the charge room of the police office and again charged him with the offence; when charging him Mr Hamilton, a solicitor, from Sydney came into the room and said to witness, “I warn you, Constable Gallagher, against asking this prisoner any questions;” he then turned to prisoner and said, “Don’t say anything; if you have got any letters on you give them to me;” witness said, “Any letters he has on him I will keep;” Mr Hamilton said, “You show me that statement;” witness said “I will not;” Mr Hamilton interfered with the arrest; he said “Gallagher, you don’t want to take him now – he will not run away;” he stood between accused and witness when witness had hold of the accused.

    The PM: A very foolish thing.

    Mr Hamilton: I hope your Worship will not make that remark; I was present and it is absolutely untrue.

    Constable Gallagher: It is true.

    Constable Gallagher continued the evidence: Prisoner at the lock-up said “I have not opened my mouth;” Mr Hamilton, who interfered with witness, was solicitor in another case for the accused; on the 14th September when the prisoner was in custody on another charge (Mr Hamilton objected to reference to another charge, but the PM allowed the reference)’ witness searched a drawer in accused’s house and found the ten obscene photographs produced; they were not shown to accused; they were produced in court in another case, but prisoner did not ask for them.

    The PM said it was a most extraordinary case. He thought it was laid down that if a magistrate had any doubt about certain evidence it was his duty to place it on the depositions and leave it to the Attorney-General to produce it or not as he wished.

    Constable Gallagher produced 20 letters and a telegram which he took from accused, and put them in; he did not know the nature of the letters; he arrested accused in consequence of a statement made by Stanley Lake to witness on the 6th September; at the lock-up after his interference Mr Hamilton was ordered out by Constable Beezley.

    Henry Lake, farmer, residing at High Range, about ten miles from Mittagong, deposed that accused lived at Bowral, about ten miles from witness’s; witness’s son Stanley would be fifteen years old next January; he got into trouble lately; on the 18th July prisoner came to his place; he said he came with references to Stanley’s case; he said he had had a conversation with Senior-sergeant Banks; accused said he would like to get Stanley to his place for a week so that he could give him a character, that the senior-sergeant had said that was the best thing he could do and would go a long way in helping him; witness gave accused a few fruit trees on the 20th July took them over to accused’s place; witness’s son was with him; they stopped the night at accused’s place; next morning accused gave Stanley a Waterbury watch; after seeing Constable Gallagher Stanley made a statement; he made no statement next day.

    To the Police-Magistrate: Stanley [Lake] ⁷⁰ was under committal at the time for shooting cattle.

    The case was remanded till Monday.

    Mr Hamilton applied for bail. He pointed out that in a previous case bail had been granted, not by his Worship, but by a judge of the Supreme Court.

    The PM said that the chief witness had not given his evidence.

    Inspector Fenton, who conducted the case for the prosecution, objected.

    Bail was refused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 12 Oct 1899 ⁷¹

CIRCUIT COURT.
———

…

Goulburn, Wednesday.

    At the Circuit Court to-day the jury in the case of Simeon Alexander Moss, charged with assault, retired shortly before 3 o’clock, returning at about half-past 6 with a verdict of not guilty. Alfred Thomas Riley and John Francis Chamption were charged with stealing £9 from the shop of TW Tinson in Goulburn. They pleaded not guilty, and were acquitted.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Goulburn Herald, Fri 13 Oct 1899 ⁷²

GOULBURN POLICE COURT
———◦———
Thursday.

Before the PM, and Mr Oliver.

ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT.

    Simeon Alexander Moss was charged with committing at Bowral, on 21st July, an indecent assault on Stanley Lake. Mr Hamilton, barrister of Sydney, instructed by Mr E Betts, appeared for accused.

    Constable Gallagher deposed that he arrested accused on the above charge in the passage of the Goulburn court-house the previous evening; prisoner tried to pull away; took him to the lock-up and there charged him as above; Mr Hamilton, barrister of Sydney, came in and warned witness against asking prisoner any questions; in consequence of Mr Hamilton’s interference Constable Beezley ordered him out; Mr Hamilton had also interfered with prisoner’s arrest, stating that he would not run away; on 14th September witness obtained the obscene photographs produced from a drawer in prisoner’s house; on 17th September he found a pot of vaseline in prisoner’s bag which he had obtained from the railway station; the letters produced were found on prisoner when arrested last evening; in consequence of a statement made at Bowral by Stanley Lake on 6th September witness arrested accused.

    Henry Lake, farmer of High Range, deposed that his son Stanley would be fifteen years old next January; accused came to witness’s place on July 18 and stayed two nights and a day; at this time Stanley was under committal for shooting cattle and accused said he would like him to come to his place for a week so that he could give him a character; on 20th September witness, Stanley and Moss went to the latter’s place at Bowral and stayed there a night; for certain reasons his son slept in the same room as Moss; next morning accused gave Stanley a Waterbury watch; witness and his son returned home that morning; last Friday Stanley made a statement to witness after being seen by Constable Gallagher, prisoner was remanded to Monday next for the production of further evidence.

    Bail was refused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bowral Free Press, Sat 14 Oct 1899 ⁷³

THE ASSAULT CASE.

    At the Goulburn Circuit Court on Tuesday last, before his honor Mr Justice Owen.

    The case against Simeon Alexander Moss, charged with committing an assault on Ernest Edward Lake at Bowral was heard. The evidence in chief was of a similar nature to that given at the Bowral Police Court a few weeks ago, after which accused Moss gave evidence on oath and categorically denied the whole of the charges, his evidence in chief occupying and hour and a half.

    In answer to the Crown-Prosecutor accused said there was not one word of truth in the charges and the whole thing was a conspiracy got up to ruin him; accused had no profession; he had been in the colony for about 15 years; he had been married for about 14 years and he had been engaged looking after his wife’s estate; he was in the theatrical line for about a year before he went to Bowral five years ago.

    The Crown-Prosecutor asked permission to cross-examine accused as to his moral character, but his Honor refused the application, as he said it would be going beyond the meaning of the Act.

    Mr Hunt continued his cross-examination on the facts of the case and he was not finished when the court adjourned at 10 minutes to 7 o’clock.

    The court resumed again at 8 o’clock and sat till about 10 pm. The Crown-Prosecutor continued his cross-examination at length and Arthur McClung was called for the defence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    On Wednesday, October 11, his Honor took his seat at 10 o’clock.

    Evidence in reply was given by Ernest Edward Lake, who denied certain statements made by the accused in the course of the evidence. Constable Gallagher was also recalled.

    Mr Hamilton in his address to the jury, said that such charges were very easily made but exceedingly difficult to answer. He asked the jury to pay the greatest attention to the facts. He contended that the constable’s mind had been biassed from first to last, and he had looked upon incidents which naturally were without suspicion in themselves in the light of suspicion and taken them as evidence of what he had in his own mind. If it were not for his having suspicion the actions of accused would not be open to any attack. A number of letters had been brought before the court written by accused to young Lake, and the advocate for the crown had sought to show that certain expressions in them meant something of an improper nature. He asked them not the act on suspicion, and if they looked at the letters carefully they would see there was nothing in them for force them to the conclusion that anything improper had taken place. On the other hand he contended they simply showed an honest interest in the young man on the part of the accused and an endeavour to get him into employment. It had been said that accused had taken him away from his work, but he submitted the evidence was just to the contrary. He knew a great deal of comment would be made on the letters, and he urged the jury not to put the meaning on them that they were asked to do. In dealing with the story told by Lake, he asked the jury straight out not to believe him. He submitted it was altogether incredible and so wildly improbable that he believed that no jury would act on it. Takin Lake’s story as true, the they must look upon him as a willing party and in the light of an accomplice, and the law was clear as regards an accomplice. His Honor would doubtless tell them that if they looked upon Lake in the light of an accomplice they could not convict accused unless there be some fact deposed to independently altogether of Lake’s evidence, which, taken by itself, led to the inference that a crime had been committed. He submitted there was none. A certain anonymous letter and a pencil copy of it in accused’s handwriting had been put in and he held that the circumstances surrounding that letter supplied the motive for the whole of the false charges. Rightly or wrongly the Lakes believed that accused was the author of the calumnies in question, and he held that young Lake formulated the charges in a spirit of revenge.

    The Crown-Prosecutor, in reply, said that his learned friend had laid down a remarkable view of the law of corroboration. He did not know how he could say that some fact altogether independent was necessary.
His Honor remarked that the law as to an accomplice was very clear. In order to induce a jury to believe an accomplice there should be evidence confirmatory at least of some of the leading points of the story from which the jury might be able to presume that he had told the truth as to the rest. That was the law as he would lay it down. But how Lake could be regarded as an accomplice he did not know.

    The Crown-Prosecutor then proceeded to review the evidence and argue on the question of corroboration. He said that his learned friend had attacked Constable Gallagher and had accused him of worming himself into the confidence of accused and putting spies into his house, but he submitted that the constable had only done his duty. If a constable had reason to believe that crimes of that kind were being committed in his district surely it was his duty to resort to every possible means to find out the criminals. In dealing with such crimes a constable should be allowed the fullest latitude. The advocate for the defence had asked them to say that Lake had “faked” his story out of a spirit of revenge, but he asked them whether any adequate inducement had been offered Lake to concoct such an abominable story. If not his learned friend’s arguments fell to the ground. Cross examination was the test of truth and he contended that accused’s demeanour in the box showed that his evidence was unreliable. As to the letters ent by accused to Lake they were more like love letters than anything else and showed conclusively that accused endeavoured to obtain an influence over the young fellow. The Crow-prosecutor concluded an exhaustive address at 1 o’clock.

    Upon the court resuming at 2 o’clock his Honor commenced his summing up. He reviewed the evidence and said there was a distinct denial on the part of the accused all through. It was for the jury to say which side they believed. As to the alleged conspiracy against accused he said they had to consider the probability of Lake making a charge which threw discredit on himself, when if he were actuated by a spirit of revenge, he could have preferred a charge in which his honour would not be so implicated.

    The jury retired at 3.45 and returned at 6.30 with a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.

    On leaving the court Moss was re-arrested by Constable Gallagher on another charge of a similar nature committed on another boy of the Lake family.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Tue 17 Oct 1899 ⁷⁴

MONDAY’S POLICE COURT.
————

BEFORE the Police-Magistrate [William Stewart Caswell] and Messrs CH Roberts and Oliver.
…

CHARGE OF INDECENT ASSAULT.

    Simeon Alexander Moss, on remand, was charged with having committed an indecent assault on Stanley Lake at Bowral on 20th July last.

    Mr Rawlinson, of Sydney, and Mr Betts appeared for accused.

    Constable Gallagher, recalled, produced a number of letters which he said he found in accused’s house on 14th September with the photographs; some of them had been produced in the first case.

    To Mr Rawlinson: Stanley Lake was in trouble some little time ago, and pleaded guilty to a charge at the last Goulburn Quarter Sessions; witness still adhered to his former statement that Mr Hamilton, the barrister for the accused, interfered with the arrest; witness did not get definite information of the charge until Friday week; he heard something about it some two months before.

    Henry Lake, father of the boy, re-called, deposed that when he was at accused’s house with Stanley he saw Mrs Moss once standing at the back door, but she did not come to meals; witness had had no quarrel with accused; accused gave Stanley a written character at the Quarter Sessions; he was present at the court, and he wanted witness to let Stanley stop a day with him in Goulburn.

    To Mr Rawlinson: Stanley has been living at home since the trial; he went to see Constable Gallagher on Friday week; when he came back he said he had made a statement; witness did not know that he went in for that purpose; there had been frequent conversations at witness’s home about the first case; Stanley was present sometimes, but never made a statement.

    Stanley Lake deposed he was 15 years old; he recollected accused coming to his father’s place on a Saturday in June last; on 20th July witness and his father went to accused’s place to plant out some fruit trees, and they stopped there for the night, when the assault was committed; he gave witness a watch fort not saying anything.

    To Mr Rawlinson: Witness’s brother’s case was talked of very often at home, but witness never mentioned his own; he told Constable Gallagher of it because he asked him about it; witness was subpoenaed for the defence at the Assize Court, but was not called.

    Mary Kearnan deposed that she was in accused’s employ when Mr Lake and his son stopped at the house. The court was cleared while she was giving her evidence.

    This concluded the evidence for the prosecution and Mr Rawlinson addressed the Bench in favour of accused’s discharge. He said no jury in the world would convict a man on the evidence before the court. He asked the Bench to put aside altogether what had been said in reference to the accused outside and to decid on the evidence before them.

    The Bench decided to commit accused to the higher court, which was accordingly done. The date of the next Quarter Sessions at Goulburn has not yet been fixed. so the date of the trial could not be given. Bail was allowed – accused in £300 and two sureties of £150 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bowral Free Press and Berrima District Intelligencer, Wed 18 Oct 1899 ⁷⁵

2ND CHARGE OF ASSAULT
AGAINST SA MOSS.
————

AT the Goulburn Police Court on Monday last, 16th inst, before Mr WS Caswell PM, and Messrs CH Roberts and Oliver, JsP.

    Simeon Alexander Moss, on remand, was charged with having committed an assault on Stanley Lake at Bowral on 20th July last.

    Mr Rawlinson, of Sydney, and Mr Betts appeared for accused.

    Constable Gallagher, recalled, produced a number of letters which he said he found in accused’s house on 14th September with the photographs; some of them had been produced in the first case.

    To Mr Rawlinson: Stanley Lake was in trouble some time ago, and pleaded guilty to a charge at the last Goulburn Quarter Sessions; witness still adhered to his former statement that Mr Hamilton, the barrister for the accused, interfered with the arrest; witness did not get definite information of the charge until Friday week; he heard something about it some months before.

    Henry Lake, father of the boy, recalled, deposed that that when he was at accused’s house with Stanley he saw Mrs Moss once standing at the door, but she did not come to meals; witness had had no quarrel with accused; accused gave Stanley a written character at the Quarter Sessions; he was present at the court, and he wanted witness to let Stanley stop a day with him in Goulburn.

    To Mr Rawlinson: Stanley has been living at home since the trial; he went in to see Constable Gallagher on Friday week; when he came back he said he had made a statement; witness did not know that he went in for that purpose; there had been frequent conversations at witness’s home about the first case; Stanley was present sometimes, but never made a statement.

    Stanley [Augustus] Lake deposed he was 15 years old; he recollected Moss coming to his father’s place on a Saturday in July last; on 20th July witness and his father went to accused’s place to plant some fruit trees, and they stopped there for the night, when the assault was committed; Moss gave witness a watch not to say anything.

    To Mr Rawlinson: Witness’s brother’s case was talked of very often at home, but witness never mentioned his own; he told Constable Gallagher of it because he asked him about it; witness was subpoenaed for the defence at the Assize Court, but was not called.

    Mary Kearnan deposed that she was in Moss’s employ when Mr Lake and his son stopped at the house. The court was then cleared while she gave her evidence.

    This concluded the evidence for the prosecution and Mr Rawlinson addressed the bench in favour of Moss’s discharge. He said that no jury in the world would convict a man on the evidence before the court. He asked the Bench to put aside altogether what had been said in reference to the accused outside and to decide on the evidence before them.

    The Bench decided to commit accused to the higher court, which was accordingly done. The date of the next Quarter Sessions at Goulburn has not yet been fixed, so the date of the trial could not be given. Bail was allowed—accused in £300 and two sureties of £150 each.—Goulburn Post.

 

---

 

Simeon Alexander Moss, 1899

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 30 Nov 1899 ⁷⁶

METROPOLITAN QUARTER
SESSIONS.

    The cases set down for trial at the Metropolitan Quarter Sessions which commence at Darlinghurst to-day before Judge Fitzhardinge are as follows:—Martin Nelson, assault and robbery; James Brown and George Cox, stealing; George Lloyd, larceny; William O’Halloran, maliciously wounding; John Thomas Tucker, malicious injury to property; Frederick Lester, forging; Elizabeth Cox, breach of the Children’s Protection Act; Cecil Gall, false pretences; Clara Mary Paine, false pretences; Robert Johnstone and John James, stealing; James O’Toole, housebreaking; Simeon Alexander Moss, indecent offence; Hans Christian Larsen, false pretences; Thomas Palmer White and Frederick Oscar Wilshire, conspiracy; Frederick Williams, being found at night in a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 5 Dec 1899 ⁷⁷

LAW NOTICES.
SUPREME COURT.—Tuesday, December 5.

…

QUARTER SESSIONS.

    Simeon Alexander Moss, indecency; Susan Allen, stealing from the person.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 6 Dec 1899 ⁷⁸

QUARTER SESSIONS.
(Before Judge Fitzhardinge and juries of 12.)

    Mr WL Merewether Crown prosecutor.
…

ALLEGED ASSAULT.

    Simeon Alexander Moss was charged with attempting to assault Stanley Augustus Lake, at Bowral, on July 21 last. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Hamilton, instructed by Messrs Rawlinson and Hamilton.

    The jury found a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Thu 7 Dec 1899 ⁷⁹

MOSS ACQUITTED.

    At the Sydney Quarter Sessions on Tuesday, before Mr Justice Fitzhardinge, Simeon Alexander Moss was charged with attempting to assault Stanley Augustus Lake, at Bowral, on July 21st last. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Hamilton, instructed Messrs Rawlinson and Hamilton. The jury found a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.

 

---

 

Simeon Alexander Moss, 1900

 

The Bowral Free Press, Sat 11 Aug 1900 ⁸⁰

BOWRAL POLICE COURT.
Friday August 10, 1900.

    Before Messrs WS Caswell, PM., RS Mackenzie, and A Stephen, J’sP.
    Mrs Sant v. SA Moss, for threatening language.
    Mr Betts appeared for accused and Mr Elliott for complainant.
    The accused agreed to enter into his own recognizance for £30 for three months. Costs to be as arranged.
    Simeon Alexander Moss was charged with stealing a bicycle the property of AE Lee, Sydney.

    Moss objected to his worship sitting on the Bench as a complaint against him had been lodged to the Minister for Justice.– The PM said he would take all risks in sitting on the Bench.

    Senior Constable Gallagher deposed that about 8 pm on the 4th August in consequence of information received went to the residence of accused in company with Constable McGregor and J Sutton: Sutton knocked at the door, which was opened by Mrs Moss; Accused came out when called, but rushed back again, followed by the deponant; [sic] accused went into the sitting room and throwing himself on the floor called out, “help, help, he’s killing me, rouse the neighbours, bring in the servants, come on everybody, come on Ida dear: (the accused interrupting said, “Is it likely I would say that to a girl who had only been in the house two days.”) Mrs Moss came in and throwing herself down said “don’t you touch him”; Moss on rising was asked by Gallagher if he had a “James” bicycle in the house to which he replied “yes, I have,” on being asked where he got it said “I’ll answer no questions,” he was then arrested on suspicion of having stolen it; leaving Constable McGregor in charge of the prisoner Gallagher found the bicycle (produced) in a lumber room; on being asked where the handles were accused said “I don’t know, I’ll answer no questions;” accused was then taken to the lockup on a charge of stealing; next morning he still refused to state where the handles were: Mr Lee identified the bicycle as his in the presence of accused the same day.

    To Mr Betts: There had been no ill-will on Gallagher’s side towards accused; he only watched as a policeman; he may have known that complaints had been lodged against him, but had not seen the papers officially; it was not true that accused threw himself on a chair in his house; the constable used no violence whatever.

    To the Bench: When the bicycle had been recovered it had no handles on.

    Alfred Ernest (aka Edward) Lee deposed that he was a clerk residing at Darlinghurst, about the 28th February a “James” bicycle of his was stolen; the matter was reported to the police; accused at that date was boarding at his house and had been there for about two months, on the 28th February the deponant [sic] and his family left the house to see the Contingent off, two servants being left in charge; on the way to the wharf accused was met in Orwell-street; in conversation accused said he was returning to the house to fill a whisky flask to give to some members of the contingent he knew; accused was again met about an hour and a half later on Cowper wharf when he said the flask had been filled, but was again empty. Lee on returning home at six o’clock did not miss anything; the bicycle had been left in his wife’s bedroom, behind a screen; wanting it on the 3rd March he went to look for it but found it gone; he valued the machine at about £12, for the next few weeks accused continually used to say “have you heard anything about the bike yet; now’s your time to recover it, keep the police moving.” Lee had asked accused if he would know the bike on seeing it again to which he replied, “yes”; accused had told him he wanted a bicycle very much but could not afford to buy one; and had offered the deponant’s brother-in-law £4 for a machine; accused left his place on the 21st March; the bicycle produced was the property of Lee; he knew it by the repairs, but handles, bell, brake, lamp, and pump were missing; it was a black bird brake on the left side, which had been put on by his brother-in-law Rokes; accused carried a latch key and could enter Lee’s room, which was the first door on entering the house.

    To Mr Betts: There were about 14 lodgers in the house on Feb 28; the deponant was away that day for about 3½ hours; every lodger had a latch-key; accused was number 19, and Lee’s 17; there were two numbers to the one house; the screen almost covered the bicycle; Lee’s had not been behind the screen from the 28th February to the 3rd March; the theft was of frequent conversation at the table; he had never said he could not identify the bicycle, but did not know the number, nor did the person from whom it was bought; there were two oil cups on the rear hub, one of which was broken; he further identified it by the twin roller chain, the gear was a 66½, and by the saddle.

    The Con Gallagher: There is an indentation on the left lower stay, caused by head of crank; several of the contingent (accused’s friends) had casually visited the house, but not on the 28th February; he could not swear that there were not other similar handles and pedals.

    To the Bench: Accused left Lee’s house on 21st March, but returned on the 20th April and stayed till the 28th.

    Myra Lee gave evidence corroborating that given by her husband, Alfred E Lee, but added that she could remember the bicycle being screened by a net skirt behind the folding doors on account of accidentally knocking it over; she knew the bicycle (produced) to be her husband’s by certain marks; three weeks after the theft accused left the house, saying that he was going to a station at Wilcannia; on leaving the house with her husband to see the troops, a maid and a boy of 18 were left in charge; the latter left about a month after the theft.

    Thomas William Henderson deposed he was a bicycle importer at 40 Park-street, Sydney; the bicycle (produced) was the one sold to Lee in June, 1899; he knew it by an indentation on the lower stay, and a double roller chain; the bicycle was second hand when he sold it to Lee.

    James Sutton deposed that he was a plumber at Bowral; about the 4th May one of his men, McCarthy, who had been working for accused, brought the bicycle (produced) to him; it then had on drop handles with a brake on the left hand side, which was unusual; accused afterwards came for the machine and took it away, saying that it belonged to a man who had gone to South Africa, but he could purchase it for £10 or have the use of it till he returned; on the 4th August the deponant was at accused’s house when he was arrested; Moss, on coming to the door rushed back, and throwing himself on the floor cried out “Murder, help, bring in the neighbors [sic] and servants;” the bicycle may have been a week at Sutton’s shop for repairs; there was no violence used during the arrest ; accused had told him he did not like the handles and wished to get straight ones, and also asked the cost; accused on being asked where he got the bicycle from refused to answer any questions; accused had told the deponant that someone had afterwards stolen the handles.

    Ada Florence Buchan deposed that she was a nurse girl for Mrs Lee, residing at Woolloomooloo; she was at Mrs Lee’s the day the contingent left and saw a bicycle between the folding doors but missed it the following day.

    To Mr Betts: She never mentioned the fact that the bicycle had gone to Mr and Mrs Lee, she thought Mr Lee must have taken it to the office; the bicycle was partially hidden from view by a covering hanging from two nails.

    The accused reserved his defence, and was committed to the Darlinghurst Quarter Sessions on 17th September.

    Court adjourned at 6 pm till 9.30 on Saturday (this) morning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bowral Free Press, Wed 15 Aug 1900 ⁸¹

BOWRAL POLICE COURT.
Saturday August 11, 1900.

    Before Messrs WS Caswell, PM., and RS Mackenzie JP.

    Police v. SA Moss, for stealing a hat the property of Leslie Brown.

    Senr.-Cons. Gallagher deposed that on 4th inst he was at the house of accused in Bowral; in consequence of information the deponent asked accused where he got the hat (produced) marked “A,” and he replied he would answer no questions, where upon the constable took possession for the purpose of identification; he found the hat on a stand in the hall; accused said he had other straw hats, and asked Mrs Moss to go up stairs and bring down another one; and the hat (produced, marked “B”) was handed to him; the next day (Sunday, 5th) whilst in custody accused was charged with stealing the hat A the property of Leslie Brown, Sydney.

    To Mr Betts: Deponent believed the residence wherein accused lived was owned by Mrs Moss, but he did not know who owned the furniture; he had no search warrant at the time; the hat was hanging just inside the front entrance door.

    To Bench: Accused had previously been arrested on another charge before the hat was found.

    Leslie Augustine Brown deposed that he lived at 17 Orwell-st., Paddington; he was a tram conductor; he knew the accused, Moss, and became acquainted with him at Mr Lee’s boarding house between the 20th and 28th April last, who was then boarding there; about that time he missed a straw hat, and the one produced marked “A” was his; it was left on the mantlepiece in the smoke room; when the hat was missed next morning he asked accused if he saw anything of a hat, to which he replied “I saw one there (pointing to the mantlepiece), but it seems to have disappeared;” accused’s hat was in the same spot as the deponent had left his; accused said “as you are in want of a hat I will give you mine,” to which he replied, “I don’t want your hat, I want mine;” the day after this occurrence he decided to take the hat offered him by accused; the hat had not been recovered nor had he seen it again till at Bowral; no one had authority to touch his hat; the hat accused gave Brown was still in his possession, but it was rather small; the hat was not as good as his own; the deponent’s hat was valued at 4/6.

    To Mr Betts: He had had his hat about three days; accused was at the boarding house about a week the hat was lost; the hat accused gave him had only lately been thrown aside; there was nothing peculiar; the deponent had no private mark of any kind on his hat; the name of the firm was in the hat, but it had been taken out; other hats sold by the same firm are similar, and have (sanitary ?) lining; the reason he swore to the hat being his was because it answered in every respect to the one lost.

    Myra Lee deposed that she was a married woman residing at 17-19 Orwell-st., Darlinghurst, with her husband; accused was at her boarding house from January till March, and returned about the end of April, staying about a week; during that time a hat was lost, the property of one of the boarders exactly the same as the one produced; the day accused left the deponent said it was a curious thing Brown losing his hat, to which he replied “there is no need to grumble, I have given him a hat as good as his own;” Mrs Lee said to him “how do you know how good Brown’s hat was, and that you had no call to give him a hat?” he said “O, I had it and it did not fit me; he was asked how he came by a hat that did not fit, but the reply could not be remembered; accused left almost immediately in a cab.

    That was the case for the police.

    Mr Betts submitted that there was not sufficient evidence to commit for trial; there was nothing in or on the hat that would lead to its identity; a jury could not possibly convict on the evidence given; he hoped the Bench would not put the country to the expense of a trial.

    The accused was committed for trial at the Darlinghurst Quarter Sessions on September 17.

    The Bench at this stage allowed bail for the case police v. Moss for alleged stealing of a bicycle in two sureties of £40 each, and for the case of alleged stealing of a hat one in £10 and self in £20.

.....................................................

    SA Moss was charged with stealing a mat the value of £3 3s, the property of Mrs Sant.

    Senr. Cons. Gallagher deposed that on 6th August, in searching (by virtue of a search warrant) the house of accused he found in a room the mat produced and took possession; on morning of 10th inst. he saw accused in the lockup, Bowral, and showing him the mat asked him where he had got it, to which je replied he bought it at either one of Bradley’s or Lawson’s sales in Sydney, when furnishing his house; deponent said to him “if Mrs Moss said you bought it about four years ago is that correct?” he had no answer; Mrs Sant claimed the mat in the presence of accused, as did also her daughter (Miss Dryborough), who was also present; he was then charged with stealing a mat on or about the 7th November 1896, the property of Mrs Sant, valued at £3 3s.

    To Mr Betts: If accused had said he bought the mat at Bradley’s or Lawson’s or “some other sale” he would have heard him; Constable McGregor was present.

    Mary Gillespie Sant was a lady residing in Bowral; she remembered having a sale of furniture in Bowral on the 7th November 1896; she knew accused, Moss, who was present at the sale; on that day an angora mat was lost; the mat produced was the one; it was not sold; there were three similar mats, but of different colors; [sic] when they were to be offered for sale one was missing, but was fruitlessly searched for; the other two mats were sold; accused bought about £7 worth of articles, and took delivery; the mat was never seen again till it was in the hands of the police on the 6th inst.

    To Mr Betts: There were a large number of people present at the sale which lasted the whole day; the mat with two others was bought at Farmer’s in Sydney nine months previous to the sale; the deponent was sure the mat produced was hers, and knew it principally by the dark lining.

    Stella Jane Dryborough deposed that she was residing with her mother, Mrs Sant, at Bowral; she remembered her mother having a sale of furniture, etc., in November 1896; a green angora mat was missed and could not be found; the mat produced was the one lost; she knew it by the lining and general appearance.

    To Mr Betts: Her mother had the mat about twelve months previous to the sale; there was nothing special about the lining.

    Mr Betts submitted that there not a particle of evidence to commit accused for trial; the presumption of stealing carried no weight; there was an interval of four years from the time the mat was alleged to have been stolen.

    The Constable [Gallagher] said it was a most reasonable case if a person got possession of a mat he should be prepared to give particulars re obtaining it, but in this case the accused refused to give any information.

    Accused reserved his defence and was committed for trial at Sydney on September 17th.

    Bail was allowed, one surety in £10, and self in £20.

.....................................................

    SA Moss was charged with stealing a number of military articles.

    On resuming after lunch,

    Senr. Cons. Gallagher deposed: On 5th August I went to the residence of accused in Bowral, and in a drawer in his room I found one pair leggings, 1 croop [sic–troop ?] belt, 1 oilcloth sheet, 1 under belt, 1 cap, 1 valise, 1 haversack, 1 bayonet frog; I took possession of them, as they all bore numbers and brands of the NSW military forces; about 8 o’clock on 5th inst. I showed the articles mentioned to accused and said “can you fell [sic] me how you came possessed of these articles of military uniform?” he replied: “I refuse to answer any questions;” I then charged him with stealing them; he made no reply; on Monday 6th inst., by virtue of a warrant, I searched accused’s house; in accused’s room I found the enclosed photo of accused in uniform.

    Myra Lee deposed that she was the wife of Alfred Ernest Lee, residing at 17 Orwell-st., Darlinghurst; she knew accused, who was boarding at her house during February of this year; she saw accused in uniform of Bushmen’s Contingent about four days after the contingent sailed; the uniform was similar to that produced; he also had a heavy military overcoat and a helmet; she saw him dressed as he appeared in the photograph; he came out dressed in uniform; deponent him how he got it; he said “some of the boys must have had it made and sent it to him, knowing that he would like one;” during the time the Bushmen were in camp he would bring home separate articles of uniform on different days; he said they were given to him; he used to call deponent and show the things to her.

    To Mr Betts: Some of the members of the Bushmen’s Contingent came to see accused at her house on different occasions; he made no secret of having the things other lodgers saw them.

    A remand was granted to Central Police Court on Tuesday week for the production of further evidence.

    Bail, self, £80, two sureties in £40 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 13 Sep 1900 ⁸²

LAW NOTICES.
Supreme Court.—Thursday, September 13.

…

QUARTER SESSIONS.

    Simeon Alexander Moss, stealing; Richard Holly and Patrick Doyle, assault and robbery.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 14 Sep 1900 ⁸³

QUARTER SESSIONS ⁸⁴
(Before Judge Fitzhardinge and juries.) ⁸⁵

    Mr WL Merewether Crown Prosecutor.

THEFT OF A BICYCLE

    Simeon Alexander Moss pleaded not guilty to a charge that on February 28, at Sydney, in the dwelling-house of Alfred Ernest Lee, he did steal one bicycle, the property of AE Lee, of the value of £5 and more; and (2) to receiving.

    Mr Hamilton and Mr Boyce, instructed by Mr Betts (Goulburn), appeared for accused.

    The case occupied the whole day, concluding at 6.10 pm. Evidence for the prosecution showed that the bicycle in question was in the possession of Mr Lee on February 28, and that it was missed a few days afterwards. Subsequently it was seen in the possession of accused at Bowral. It had been undergone some alterations. The bicycle was identified by Mr TW Henderson as one he had sold to Mr Lee, who had it for six months before it was stolen. Mr Lee and his wife also identified the machine by certain marks upon it. Accused was seen with the bicycle in Sydney, where he had offered it to Mr J Sutton for £10, and asked Sutton to alter the handles, as he did not like the shape. He told Sutton also that the bicycle had been given to him by one of the departing contingent for South Africa on February 17. When the police made a search at accused’s residence at Bowral, he threw himself upon the floor and called for help, alleging that the arresting constable had assaulted him. Accused gave evidence on his own behalf. He swore that the bicycle was given to him about February 17 by a friend going to the Transvaal to mind and use. He denied stealing it, and denied ever stating that it was entirely his own. After lengthy addresses by counsel, his Honor summed up. The jury, after a few minutes consideration, returned a verdict of guilty, and accused was remanded for sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bowral Free Press, Sat 15 Sep 1900 ⁸⁶

STEALING A BICYCLE.
Thursday, Sep. 13, 1900.

    At the Sydney Quarter Sessions before Judge Fitzhardinge and jury, Simeon Alexander Moss pleaded not guilty to a charge that on February 28, at Sydney, in the dwelling house of Alfred Ernest Lee, he did steal a bicycle, the property of AE Lee, of the value of £5 and more; and (2) to receiving.

    Mr WL Merewether, crown prosecutor; Mr Hamilton and Mr Boyce, instructed by Mr Betts (Goulburn) appeared for accused.

    The case occupied the whole day, concluding at 6.10 pm. Evidence for the prosecution showed that the bicycle in question was in the possession of Mr Lee on February 28, and that it was missed a few days afterwards. Subsequently it was seen in the possession of accused at Bowral. It had undergone some alterations. The bicycle was identified by Mr TW Henderson as one he had sold to Mr Lee, who had it for six months before it was stolen. Mr Lee and his wife also identified the machine by certain marks upon it. Accused was seen with the bicycle in Bowral, where he had offered it to Mr J Sutton for £10. and also asked Sutton to alter the handles as he did not like the shape. He told Sutton that the bicycle had been given to him by one of the departing contingent for South Africa on February 17. When the police made a search at accused’s residence at Bowral, he threw himself upon the floor and called for help, alleging that the arresting constable had assaulted him. Accused gave evidence on his own behalf. He swore that the bicycle was given to him about Feb. 17 by a friend going to Transvaal to mind and use. He denied stealing it, and denied ever stating that it was entirely his own. After lengthy addresses by counsel his honor summed up. The jury after a few minutes’ consideration, returned a verdict of guilty, and accused was remanded for sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 16 Sep 1900 ⁸⁷

SIMEON ALEX. MOSS.
A BOWRAL “BLOOD”
Pedalled off to Prison.
THROUGH ‘BONING’ A BIKE
After Many Brushes with the Law, Moss
“Goes Up” at Last – His Litigation
with Jack Want the “OP”
Box – Charges of Sodomy –
Scorches to “Quad” on
a Stolen “Jigger.”

    For the past 12 months Simeon Alexander Moss, the husband of Victoria Lazaar, of the Theatre Royal notoriety, has been very much in the hands of the police. He was twice charged and tried with the awful offence of sodomy – once at Goulburn and again at Sydney – but was acquitted each time, although evidence was given in support of the charges. Early in August he was arrested at Bowral at his wife’s house, on a charge of stealing a bicycle from the dwelling house of Alfred Edward Lee, of 17 and 19 Orwell-street, Potts’ Point, and was duly committed for trial. The case came on for trial last Thursday, before Judge Fitzhardinge and a jury of 12 and lasted until 6 pm, when the jury, after five minutes’ deliberation, found accused guilty.

    Moss pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hamilton and Mr Boyce, instructed by Mr Betts (of Goulburn). Mr Merewether prosecuted for the Crown.

THE CROWN CASE

    Alfred Edward Lee gave evidence that at the time the Bushmen’s Contingent were in camp at Kensington, the accused came down from Bowral and lodged at his house. On the 28th of February last, the day the contingent ended, Moss busied himself a great deal with some departing members of the troops, and obtained for complainant and his wife, Myra Lee, special tickets for the Cowper Wharf “select enclosure.” On their way to the wharf, after 2 o’clock, they met Moss returning to the house for a field-glass and a flask of whisky to

“TREAT THE BOYS.”

    The bicycle in question was in the children’s bedroom adjoining Mrs Lee’s bedroom, when they went out to see the Bushmen off. It was afterwards missed and they were mystified about its disappearance. The servant-boy and the servant-girl, who had stopped at home to mind the house, subsequently informed Mr Lee that Moss was the only person who visited the house that afternoon. Accused was not at first suspected of the theft. He took such a deep interest in Mr Lee’s loss of the bicycle, and sympathised so earnestly about it, affording every possibly help to elucidate the mystery, that he completely threw Mr Lee and the police off

THE TRACK OF THE GUILTY.

    It was not for a long time afterwards that a clue was obtained connecting Moss with the possession of the cycle. A friend of Mrs Lee’s at Bowral wrote to her that Moss was flashing about the high-toned country retreat on a bike. Inquiries were set afoot and Simeon was “pinched” by Senior-Constable Gallagher under sensational circumstances. Prior to the arrest Moss had the bicycle repaired by Mr Sutton, a local plumber, who was able to give the police an accurate description of it, particulars that corresponded with those in the “Police Gazette” off the stolen article.

THE SCENE AT THE HOUSE.

    On the night of the 3rd of August last Mr Sutton accompanied Constable Gallagher and another policeman to Mrs Moss’ house. Sutton knocked, and Mrs Moss opened the door. He said he wanted to speak to Mr Moss who appeared in response to his wife’s call. “Come in,” said Moss, and Sutton replied, “No, I want to speak to you out here.” Moss stepped out and the police confronted him. When he caught sight of Gallagher he rushed back into the front room, threw himself down on the carpet, and screamed blue murder, yelling at the top of his voice for the servants and neighbours to save him from the “murderous hands of Gallagher.” Mrs Moss joined in the screams, and flung herself upon the floor

ON TOP OF SIMEON,

crying out, “Don’t touch him,” and “What do you want him for now?” Gallagher said, “I’m not going to hurt him; don’t be afraid. I want to know where the bicycle is.” Learning from her that the machine was in the tool-house, Gallagher sought it out and Sutton identified it in Moss’ presence as the one he had repaired. Gallagher then took Moss into custody on a charge of stealing the bicycle. The prisoner refused to answer any questions or say where the handles, lamp and brake were. These, by the way, have never been recovered. The machine appeared in court in a dismantled condition, but there was enough of it intact to enable its positive identification, not only by Mr and Mrs Lee, but by the cycle-dealer who sold it some 18 months ago to Mr Lee, and established the ownership beyond all doubt by the production of his books containing the number and pattern of the bicycle. The preconcerted manner and professional thief-like instinct of Simeon Alexander Moss, as disclosed in the evidence, gives the case an interest of special importance. Apart from the theft of the bike, a further despicable theft of two sovereigns from

A FELLOW LODGER

in the complainant’s house – a “hotel-barber’s” game pointing directly to Moss – also came out in evidence, and came from the lips of a young man named Turner, who was called as a witness for the defence. This bit of evidence caused a sensation in court. The accused came from Bowral with his wife in February. She stopped with friends and he went into Mrs Lee’s boarding house. They returned to Bowral on the 22nd March. On the 20th of April Moss returned, and lodged with them for eight days, being ever

ANXIOUS AND SYMPATHETIC

about the missing machine, and pretending to go out of the way to search for the thief. Moss used to tell complainant how much he fancied a bike, and on one occasion was offered one for sale by Mr Lee’s brother-in-law. The day Moss stole the bicycle he used a clever ruse to get the servants out of the way. He said to them, at the time he ostensibly returned for the flask of whisky, “that there was a great sight down at the wharf and they ought to go up on the roof to see it.” This they did and remained viewing the scenes at the wharf and in the harbor for half an hour. Meanwhile, the cunning

CALCULATING CRIMINAL

got away with the machine unobserved. After a lapse of time, which enabled him to temporarily hide it, he re-appeared at Cowper’s wharf and joined Mr and Mrs Lee’s party just as the Bushmen were arriving. He was a great swell that afternoon, and played the part of a Potts’ Point and Bowral toff among the “Bushies” to the full height of his ambition. He was well provided with flash enclosure tickets, and posed as a somebody of influence, passing them among his acquaintances with an air of authority, and treating the boys from the whisky flask.

THIEVES AND SCOUNDRELS

can always secure privileges and passes which are denied to honest and worthy citizens. The evidence at the trial was very voluminous, necessarily so, as the police left no loop-hole in perfecting and completing the chain of circumstantial evidence. Mr Barrister Hamilton failed to shake the testimony of Mr and Mrs Lee, the two servants, the plumber and his assistant, Constable Gallagher and Mr Henderson, who sold Mr Lee the bicycle. Mr Sutton, the plumber, in answer to the Crown Prosecutor, said:–

    When Moss came outside to the door and caught sight of the police he rushed back into the house and threw himself on to the floor. Gallagher and I went in after him and saw him throw himself down in a terrified state. He yelled out

“MURDER!” “HELP!” “SAVE ME!”

and called to the servants to come to his rescue and to get the neighbours to save him. Mrs Moss, on seeing the police, threw herself upon the accused, and the two remained on the floor for a couple of minutes.

    Was any violence used by Constable Gallagher to accused? No.

    Did Moss get up? Yes; they both got up off the floor, and Gallagher asked, “Have you got a bicycle here?” Moss said, “Yes,” but when asked, “Where did you get it,” said “I refuse to answer.” Mrs Moss told us where it was and Gallagher went out of the room for it.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

    Mr Hamilton: Was Moss not frightened of Gallagher? I don’t know.

    I suppose you know that Gallagher had Moss in his custody on some charges of which he was acquitted? Yes.

    Do you know that Moss made a complaint about Gallagher’s violence to him? No.

    Wasn’t Mrs Moss frightened also? I don’t know.

    Didn’t she cry out, “Help, help?” No.

CONSTABLE GALLAGHER’S EVIDENCE.

    Deposing to the arrest the witness said: I followed accused into the house and into the sitting-room where he threw himself down and called out “Murder,” “Help,” “He’s killing me,” and called out to the servants, “Rouse the neighbours,” “Bring in everybody,” “Don’t let him murder me.” Mrs Moss flung herself down on the floor in front of accused, crying out, “Don’t touch him; what do you want him for now.”

    Mr Merewether : What did you say? I said, “Don’t be afraid, I won’t hurt him; have you got a bicycle.” They answered, “Yes.” I said to accused, “Stand up,” and asked him where he got the bicycle, and he replied, “I won’t answer any questions.” I arrested him on suspicion of stealing the bicycle. It was identified by Mr Lee the next day.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

    Mr Hamilton: Before this arrest, had Moss complained to the department that you had used violence on him? I knew he made a complaint to the Justice Department; it was never referred to me; I did not hear of it officially.

MOSS GIVES EVIDENCE.

    The interest in the case had been worked up to a somewhat exciting degree when the accused entered the box to give evidence on his own behalf. He wore the same haughty, indifferent and bleary-eyed appearance which characterised him throughout the famous case of Want v. Moss [1889] , in which the well-known QC fought the accused and his wife for years in order to establish his right to the “OP” (opposite prompt) box of the Theatre Royal – a right which was conferred on Mr Want by Sam Lazaar, the noted impresario and father of Victoria Lazaar, the accused’s wife – and a right which the courts upheld, beginning in a gentle and

MUCH-INJURED VOICE,

he said in answer to his counsel’s questions:–

    I reside with my wife in Bowral, and have done for some time past.

    I believe you have a large house and one well kept up? – Yes. I stayed at Lee’s in February. I know several members of the contingent, and I was in the habit of going to the camp at Kensington.

    Did you know Trooper Heath, of the Bushmen’s Contingent, and also Trooper Turner? Yes.

    Did Heath have a bicycle? Yes.

AN INGENIOUS DEFENCE.

    What did he do with it when he was going away to South Africa? He sent it to me at Mr Lee’s house, 19 Orwell-st, before he sailed.

    How long was it in Mr Lee’s house? From 5 pm till 7 pm that day. After dinner I took it to carrier Bartlett’s house for storage.

    Who was with you at Cowper’s Wharf on the 28th, when the contingent sailed? A Mr Turner, brother of a member of the contingent.

    Did you leave him to go to your lodgings during the afternoon? Yes; I said I would run up to the house, get the field-glasses; and fill the flask with whisky to give the boys a drink.

    Did you meet the Lees when you were going to the house? Yes; I met them a Butler’s Stairs. I went to the house, got the whisky, and returned to the wharf in about 15 minutes from the time I left Turner. I did not touch any bicycle at the house.

BICYCLE SENT TO BOWRAL.

    When did you next see the bicycle? I saw it on the carrier’s cart on the 28th of April. It was going to Redfern Station to be sent to Bowral, to my house.

    Did you have any other bicycle than this one you got from Trooper Heath? No.

    What became of the handles? I took them off to clean them after having the machine repaired by Mr Sutton, and they were stolen one night from the tool-house. I heard someone about the house that night. A spade was also stolen.

FRIGHTENED OF GALLAGHER.

    When Gallagher came to the house, were you frightened of him? Yes, I was afraid to go about Bowral during the day time.

    Have you sought the protection of persons in order to avoid Gallagher? Yes.

    Have you imagined he might be violent to you? Yes, I have had experience of him before.

    Have you written to Heath since he went away to Africa about the bicycle? Yes, he left it with me to mind, with the option of purchase, for £10.

    When it was brought to Lee’s house, who took it in for you? The young man-servant, Jim.

MAULED BY MEREWETHER.

    Mr Merewether : You say Mr Heath sent the bicycle to Mr Lee’s house to you? Yes.

    And the James M’Naughton received it for you? Yes. (This evidence was absolutely denied by the witness M’Naughton).

    Did you tell Mr Lee or anyone in the house that Heath had given you his bicycle? No, I couldn’t say I had a bicycle, because it really wasn’t mine.

    Never said a word about it? I don’t think so. I went out soon after dinner to take the bicycle to Bartlett the carrier’s store.

    The same night? Yes; I don’t know that anyone in the house saw it.

    How was it you didn’t wait till the morning to take it to Bartlett’s store in Darlinghurst, instead of to his private house on the South Head-road? I don’t know; there was no room for it at Lee’s house.

PRISONER’S PRETTY PICTURES.

    Producing photos of the accused dressed in the uniform of a Bushman, with a dandy cap listing rakishly to starboard, Mr Merewether proceeded:–

    Who supplied you with the military clothing in which you appear in this photo? My friends of the contingent, who went away.

    Who, and what are their names? Heath, Turner, young Chanter and others.

    His Honor: Is this your photo? Yes.

    What is the uniform? A trooper’s.

    His Honor: It looks to me like a staff sergeant’s dress.

    Mr Merewether : Who gave you the cap? One of my friends – Turner, I think.

    Uniforms supplied to regular members of the contingent? Yes.

    Who gave you the field jacket? I bought it at Anderson’s, the tailors, and I have a receipt for it. (As this clothing forms the subject of another charge, it was not gone into any further, being irrelevant to this case).

THE ARREST AND SCENE.

    Why were you frightened of Gallagher when he went to the house? Because he made a rush at me.

    Did he commit violence on you? Yes.

    In what way? He got hold of me by the arm and hurt me.

    Was that after you threw yourself on the floor? I didn’t throw myself on the floor; I threw myself into a low arm-chair.

    What Mr Sutton says is untrue, then? Yes; I wasn’t on the floor.

    Why did you call “Murder” and “Help”? I didn’t call “Murder”; I only called “Help.”

    In that also, Mr Sutton’s evidence is untrue? Yes.

    What did your wife say? Mrs Moss said to Constable Gallagher, “You are a wicked man.”

    What was the evidence that caused you to lie down and call for “help?” Because I didn’t know what he was going to do with me.

    Why didn’t you say, “I got the bicycle from Heath?” Because Gallagher took me by the arm and arrested me for stealing a bicycle.

    How did you first

COME INTO COLLISION

with the police? Gallagher brought some cases against me last year. Previous to that time, Gallagher used to visit my house, and was very friendly.

    Was there anything in connection with a cheque that was sent to your wife? No; that was money due to me, and I took the cheque.

    Did you open a letter addressed to your wife and appropriate a cheque for £9 2s. 6d.? No, the letter came open.

    What did you do with it? I kept it.

    And cashed the cheque? Yes.

    Did you tell your wife? Some time afterwards, yes.

    You cashed it before you told her? Yes.

    Is it not a fact that your wife knew nothing about the letter and cheque, until the letter was found in your pocket when you were first arrested? My wife knew it before. Until now I never thought anyone but my wife and myself knew anything about the matter.

FORGED HIS WIFE’S NAME.

    Is it not a matter of notoriety in Bowral that you opened the letter and took the cheque? No.

    Did you not forge your wife’s endorsement upon that cheque? No.

    Will you swear to that, sir? I think I put on it “V Moss per SA Moss.”

    And got it cashed? Yes.

    Will you swear that you didn’t forge the name of your wife? I will not swear it. It was money owing to me at the time of the cases brought against me last year.

THOSE AWFUL CHARGES.

    What cases? Assault cases.

    What sort of assault? With a young man.

    Yes, but what kind of assault? I don’t like to say when there are ladies in the court.

    His Honor (emphatically): You mean charges of buggery? Yes.

    His Honor: Then why don’t you say so at once.

TURNER’S MISSING SOVEREIGNS.

    Did a young man named Turner sleep in the same room as you at Mrs Lee’s house? Yes, one night.

    Did you hear that he missed a couple of sovereigns out of his trousers’ pocket? No. I heard that a man named Turner missed two sovereigns at the encampment.

    After a great deal more evidence by the accused, Mrs Moss, Harry Bartlett, carrier, Mrs Moss’ servant, and Horace Turner were examined.

    Mrs Moss was spared any cross-examination, as she looked dreadfully distressed and ill.

HORACE TURNER’S EVIDENCE.

    Horace Samuel Turner said he was in Sydney seeing his brother off with the Contingent in February last. He met accused with his brother and Heath. He never remembered Heath saying anything to Moss respecting a bicycle; but he heard Heath mention something about clothes. Witness remembered Moss leaving him at Cowper Wharf to go home for a flask of whisky, and returning with it. He went to Moss’ lodgings at Lee’s house after seeing the contingent off.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

    Mr Merewether: Did you occupy the same room as Moss at Lee’s house at any time? Yes, I slept there one night.

    Did you hear Moss get up during the night? Yes, about daylight.

    Was anyone else sleeping in the room? No.

    Did you miss anything? Yes.

    What was it you missed? Two sovereigns.

    When did you miss them? When I dressed for breakfast.

    Are you certain the sovereigns were in your pocket when you undressed and went to bed? Yes. I counted my money and looked at the sovereigns to see they were all right.

    And no one but the accused and yourself were in that room? Nobody else.

    You heard Moss moving about at daylight? Yes.

FLAT CONTRADICTIONS.

    After the defence was closed the Crown recalled Mrs Lee, the servant, M’Naughton and Mr Sutton, and they gave flat contradictions of much of Moss’ own evidence. M’Naughton denied ever taking a bicycle into the house for Moss, no such thing ever happened. Mr Sutton was positive that Moss did throw himself down on the floor, and not on to an arm-chair – Moss did call out “Murder.”

    Mr Hamilton addressed the jury at length on behalf of the accused, and his Honor occupied an hour in an exhaustive summing up.

    The jury took no time in settling the matter, for after five minutes’ retirement there was a loud and ominous knock. They had agreed, and their verdict was

“GUILTY,”

and prisoner turned a sickly green colour.

    His Honor said that as there were three other charges of stealing against the prisoner, he would wait the action of the Crown in the matter before passing sentence.

    Mr Boyce: Would your Honor fix a time for the passing of sentence, as we wish to bring evidence of character on the prisoner’s behalf.

    His Honor: For the present I will simply remand the prisoner for sentence.

THREE MORE CHARGES

    In addition to the charge of stealing the bicycle, of which he was convicted at Darlinghurst on Thursday last, Moss is under committal from Bowral on several other charges of stealing.

STEALING A HAT.

    At the Bowral Police Court on Saturday August 11, before Messrs WS Caswell, PM, and RS M’Kenzie, JP, Moss was charged with stealing a hat, the property of Leslie Brown. After evidence of arrest had been given by Senior Constable Gallagher, the prosecutor, Leslie Augustus Brown, a tram-conductor, stated he was a lodger at 17 Orwell-st, the residence of Alfred E Lee (prosecutor in the bicycle case), and missed the hat produced towards the end of April. Moss was present when he spoke of the missing hat, and offered to lend or give him one. He didn’t see the hat again until it was shown him by the police at Bowral – it was positively his property. Mrs Lee gave evidence. At the time the hat was mentioned as missing Moss said, “There’s no need to grumble, I’ve given him a hat as good as his own.” “How do you know how good Mr Brown’s hat was?” she asked, and he answered, “Oh, I had it on and it didn’t fit me.” Accused was then committed for trial.

STEALING A MAT.

    He was further committed on a charge of stealing an angora mat, the property of Mary Gillespie Sant, of Bowral. She identified the mat in court as her property; it was stolen on the 7th of November, 1896, during a furniture sale at her house, when accused bought £7 worth of furniture. She missed the mat after the sale, and never saw it again till it was in the possession of the police at Bowral. Moss refused to tell the police where he got it. He was duly committed for trial.

STEALING MILITARY CLOTHING.

    He was also charged with stealing a number of military articles and clothing, the property of the New South Wales forces. Mrs Lee, of Orwell-st, testified to seeing the accused in military uniform, four days after the Bushmen’s Contingent sailed. Moss also had a heavy military overcoat and a helmet; she saw him dressed as he appeared in the photograph. She asked him how he got the uniform, and he replied nonchalantly, “Some of the boys must have had it made and sent it to me.” While the bushmen were in camp accused used to bring home various articles of uniform at different times – he always said they were given to him. On this charge also he was committed for trial.

FINDING THE ARTICLES.

    All these articles were found in Moss’ house by Constable Gallagher at the time of his arrest for stealing the bicycle. The night of the sensational scene described above in the trial at Darlinghurst, Constable Gallagher took away several things on suspicion of being stolen property. The following day he went through the house with a search warrant, and dropped on the military articles and accused’s photos in military costume. These three additional charges will no doubt be heard during this week. His Honor may defer pending sentence in the bicycle conviction until the additional charges have been heard and decided.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 20 Sep 1900 ⁸⁸

QUARTER SESSIONS
(Before Judge Fitzhardinge and juries.)

    Mr WL Merewether Crown Prosecutor.
…

SENTENCES.

    Simeon Alexander Moss found guilty of stealing in a dwelling-house, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour in Goulburn Gaol, at the expiration of which sentence the prisoner to enter into a recognisance of £50 and find two sureties in £25 each to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for two years, in default of which imprisonment for a further period of three months.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bowral Free Press, Wed 26 Sep 1900 ⁸⁹

Simeon Alexander Moss
A Bowral “Blood”
After many Brushes with the Law, Moss “Goes Up” at Last.
Scorches to “Quod” on a Stolen “Jigger”.
Sentenced to 12 Months “Hard”.
Severe Comments by Judge Fitzhardinge.
Who Characterises Moss’ Conduct
In most Scathing Terms.
(Abridged from Sydney Truth.)

    For the past twelve months Simeon Alexander Moss has been very much in the hands of the police. He was twice charged and tried with an awful offence – once at Goulburn and again at Sydney – but was acquitted each time, although evidence was given in support of the charges. Early in August [1900] he was arrested at Bowral, at his residence, on a charge of stealing a bicycle from the dwelling-house of Alfred Edward Lee, of 17 and 19 Orwell-street, Potts’ Point, and was committed for trial. The case came on for trial on Thursday, 18th instant [1900], before Judge Fitzhardinge and a jury of 12, and lasted until 6 pm, when the jury, after five minutes deliberation, found accused guilty.

    Moss pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Hamilton and Mr Boyce, instructed by Mr Betts (of Goulburn.) Mr Merewether prosecuted for the Crown.

THE CROWN CASE

    Alfred Edward Lee gave evidence that at the time the Bushmen’s Contingent were in camp at Kensington, the accused came down from Bowral and lodged at his house. On the 28th of February last, the day the contingent sailed, Moss busied himself a great deal with some departing members of the troops, and obtained for complainant and his wife, Myra Lee, special tickets for the Cowper Wharf “select enclosure.” On their way to the wharf, after two o’clock, they met Moss returning to the house for a field glass and a flask of whisky to

“TREAT THE BOYS.”

    The bicycle in question was in the children’s bedroom when they went out to see the Bushmen off. It was afterwards missed and they were mistified [sic] about its disappearance. The servant boy and servant girl, who had stopped at home to mind the house, subsequently informed Mr Lee that Moss was the only person who visited the house that afternoon. Accused was not at first suspected of the theft. He took such a deep interest in Mr Lee’s loss of the bicycle, and sympathised so earnestly about it, affording every possible help to elucidate the mystery, that he completely threw Mr Lee and the police off

THE TRACK OF THE GUILTY.

    It was not for a long time afterwards that a clue was obtained connecting Moss with the possession of the cycle. A friend of Mrs Lee’s at Bowral wrote to her that Moss was flashing about the high-toned country retreat on a bike. Inquiries were set afoot and Simeon was “pinched” by Senior Constable Gallagher under sensational circumstances. Prior to the arrest Mr Moss had the bicycle repaired by Mr Sutton, a local plumber, who was able to give the police an accurate description of it, particulars that corresponded with those in the Police Gazette the stolen article.

THE SCENE AT THE HOUSE.

    On the night of the 3rd August last Mr Sutton accompanied Constable Gallagher and another policeman to Mr Moss’ house. Sutton knocked, and Mrs Moss opened the door. He said he wanted to see Mr Moss, who appeared in response to his wife’s call. “Come in,” said Moss, and Sutton replied, “No, I want to see you out here.” Moss stepped out, and the police confronted him. When he caught sight of Gallagher he rushed back into the front room, threw himself down on the carpet, and screamed blue murder, yelling at the top of his voice for the servants and neighbours to save him from the “murderous hands of Gallagher.” Mrs Moss jointed in the screams, and flung herself upon the floor

ON TOP OF SIMEON,

crying out, “Don’t touch him,” and “What do you want with him now”? Gallagher said, “I’m not going to hurt him; don’t be afraid. I want to know where the bicycle is.” Learning from her that the machine was in the tool-house, Gallagher sought it out and Sutton identified it in Moss’ presence as the one he had repaired. Gallagher then took Moss into custody on a charge of stealing a bicycle. The prisoner refused to answer any questions or say where the handles, lamp and break were. These by the way have never been recovered. The machine appeared in court in a dismantled condition, but there was enough of it intact to enable its positive and absolute identification, not only by Mr and Mrs Lee, but by the cycle-dealer who sold it some 18 months ago to Mr Lee, and established the ownership beyond any doubt by the production of his books confirming the number and pattern of the cycle. The preconcerted manner of Moss, as disclosed in the evidence, gives the case an interest of special importance. Apart from the theft of the bike, a further despicable theft of two sovereigns from

A FELLOW LODGER

In the complainant’s house – a “hotel barber’s” game, pointing directly at Moss – also came out in evidence, and came from the lips of a young man named Turner, who was called as a witness for the defence. This bit of evidence caused a sensation in court. The accused came from Bowral with his wife in February. She stopped with friends, and he went into Mrs Lee’s boarding house. They returned to Bowral on the 22nd March. On the 20th April Moss returned, and lodged with them for eight days, being ever

ANXIOUS AND SYMPATHETIC

about the missing machine and pretended to go out of his way to search for the theft. Moss used to tell complainant how much he fancied a bike, and on one occasion was offered one for sale by Mr Lee’s brother-in-law. The day Moss stole the bicycle he used a clever ruse to get the servants out of the way. He said to them, at the time he ostensibly returned for the flask of whisky, “that there was a grand site down at the wharf, and they ought to go up on the roof to see it.” This they did and remained viewing the scene for half an hour. Thus Moss got away with the machine unobserved. After a lapse of time, which enabled him to temporarily hide it, he re-appeared at Cowper’s wharf and joint Mr and Mrs Lee’s party just as the Bushman were arriving. He was a great swell that afternoon, and played the part of a Potts’ Point and Bowral toff among the “Bushies” to the full height of his ambition. He was well provided with enclosure tickets, and posed as a somebody of influence, passing them among his acquaintances with an air of authority, and treating the boys from his whisky flask.

THIEVES AND SCOUNDRELS

can always secure privileges and passes which are denied to honest and worthy citizens. The evidence at the trial was very voluminous, necessarily so, as the police left no loop-hole in perfecting and completing the chain of circumstantial evidence. Mr Barrister Hamilton failed to shake the testimony of Mr and Mrs Lee, the two servants, the plumber and his assistant, Constable Gallagher, and Mr Henderson, who sold Mr Lee the bicycle. Mr Sutton, the plumber, in answer to the Crown Prosecutor, said:–

    When Moss came outside to the door and caught site of the police, he rushed back into the house and threw himself on the floor. Gallagher and I went in after him and saw him throw himself down in a terrified state. He yelled out,

“MURDER!” “HELP!” “SAVE ME!”

and called to the servants to come to his rescue and to get the neighbours to save him. Mrs Moss, on seeing the police, threw herself upon the accused, and the two remained on the floor for a couple of minutes.

    Was any violence used by Cons. Gallagher to accused? No.

    Did Moss get up? Yes; they both got up off the floor, and Gallagher asked, “Have you got the bicycle here? Moss said “Yes,” but when asked, “where did you get it?” said, “I refuse to answer.” Mrs Moss told us where it was, and Gallagher went out of the room for it.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

    Mr Hamilton: Was Moss not frightened of Gallagher? I don’t know.

    I suppose you know that Gallagher had Moss in custody on some charges of which he was acquitted? Yes.

    Do you know that Moss made a complaint about Gallagher’s violence to him? No.

    Wasn’t Mrs Moss frightened also? I don’t know.

    Didn’t she cry out, “Help, help!” No.

CON. GALLAGHER’S EVIDENCE.

    Deposing to the arrest the witness said: I followed accused into the house and into the sitting-room, where he threw himself down and called out, “Murder,” “Help,” “He’s killing me,” and called out to the servants, “Rouse the neighbours,” “Bring in everybody,” “Don’t let him murder me.” Mrs Moss flung herself down on the floor in front of accused, crying out, “Don’t touch him, what do you want him for now?”

    Mr Merewether: What did you say? I said, “Don’t be afraid, I won’t hurt him; have you got a bicycle?” They answered, “Yes.” I said to accused, “Stand up,” and asked him where he got the bicycle, and he replied, “I won’t answer any questions.” I arrested him on suspicion of stealing a bicycle. It was identified next day by Mr Lee.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

    Mr Hamilton: Before this arrest, had Moss complained to the Department that you had used violence to him? I knew he had made a complaint to the Justice Department; it was never referred to me; I did not hear of it officially.

MOSS GIVES EVIDENCE.

    The interest in the case had been worked up to somewhat exciting degree when the accused entered the box to give evidence on his own behalf. He wore the same haughty, indifferent and bleary-eyed appearance which characterised him throughout the famous case of Want v. Moss [1889], in which the well-known QC fought the accused and his wife for years in order to establish his right to the “OP” (opposite prompt) box for the Theatre Royal – a right which was conferred on Mr Want by Sam Lazaar, the noted impressario [sic] and father of Victoria Lazaar, the accused’s wife – and a right which the Courts upheld. Beginning in a gentle and

MUCH INJURED VOICE.

he said in answer to the counsel’s questions:–

    I reside with my wife in Bowral, and have done for some time past.

    I believe you have a large house and one well kept up? Yes. I stayed at Lee’s in February. I knew several members of the contingent, and I was in the habit of going to the camp at Kensington.

    Did you know Trooper Heath of the Bushmen’s Contingent, and also Trooper Turner? Yes.

    Did Heath have a bicycle? Yes.

AN INGENIOUS DEFENCE.

    What did he do with it when he was going away to South Africa? He sent it to me at Mr Lee’s house, 19 Orwell st., before he sailed.

    How long was it in Mr Lee’s house? From 5 pm till 7 pm that day. After dinner I took it to Carrier Bartlett’s for storage.

    Who was with you at Cowper’s Wharf on the 28th when the contingent sailed? A Mr Turner, brother of a member of the contingent.

    Did you leave him to go to your lodgings during the afternoon? Yes: I said I would run up to the house, get the field glasses, and fill the flask with whisky to give the boys a drink.

    Did you meet the Lees when you were going to the house? Yes: I met them at Butler’s Stairs. I went to the house, got the whisky, and returned to the wharf in about 15 minutes from the time I left Turner. I did not touch any bicycle at the house.

BICYCLE SENT TO BOWRAL.

    When did you next see the bicycle? I saw it on the carrier’s cart on the 28th of April. It was going to Redfern Station to be sent to Bowral, to my house.

    Did you have any other bicycle than this one you got from Trooper Heath? No.

    What became of the handles? I took them off to clean them after having the machine repaired by Mr Sutton, and they were stolen one night from the tool house. I heard someone about the house that night. A spade was also stolen.

FRIGHTENED OF GALLAGHER.

    When Gallagher came to the house were you frightened of him? Yes, and I was afraid to go about in the day time.

    Have you sought protection of persons in order to avoid Gallagher? Yes.

    Have you imagined he might be violent to you? Yes, I have had experience of him before.

    Have you written to Heath since he went away to Africa about the bicycle? Yes, he left it with me to mind, with the option to purchase for £10.

    When it was brought to Lee’s house, who took it in for you? The young man servant, Jim.

MAULED BY MEREWETHER.

    Mr Merewether: You say Mr Heath sent the bicycle to Mr Lee’s house to you? Yes.

    And that James McNaughton received it for you? Yes. (This evidence was absolutely denied by the witness McNaughton).

    Did you tell Mr Lee or anyone in the house that Heath had given you the bicycle? No; I couldn’t say I had a bicycle, because it really wasn’t mine.

    Never said a word about it? I don’t think so; I went out soon after dinner to take the bicycle to Bartlett the carrier’s store.

    The same night? Yes; I don’t know that anyone in the house saw it.

    How was it you don’t wait till the morning to take it to Bartlett’s store in Darlinghurst, instead of to his private house on the South-Head-road? I don’t know; there was no room for it at Lee’s house.
PRISONER’S PRETTY PICTURES.

    Producing photos of the accused dressed in the uniform of a Bushman, with a dandy cap listing to starboard, Mr Merewether proceeded:–

    Who supplied you with the military clothing in which you appear in this photo? My friends of the contingent who went away.

    Who, and what are their names? Heath, Turner, young Chanter, and others.

    His Honor: Is this your photo? Yes.

    What is the uniform? A trooper’s.

    It looks to me like a staff sergeant’s dress.

    Mr Merewether: Who gave you the cap? One of my friends, Turner, I think.

    Uniforms supplied to regular members of the contingent? Yes.

    Who gave you the field jacket? I bought it at Andersons’, the tailors, and I have a receipt for it. (As this clothing forms the subject of another charge, it was not gone into any further, being irrelevant to the case.)

THE ARREST AND SCENE.

    Why were you frightened of Gallagher when he went to the house? Because he made a rush at me.

    Did he commit violence on you? Yes.

    In what way? He got hold of me by the arm and hurt me.

    Was that after you threw yourself on the floor? I didn’t throw myself on the floor; I threw myself on a low arm-chair.

    What Mr Sutton says is untrue then? Yes; I wasn’t on the floor.

    Why did you call “Murder” and “Help?” I didn’t call murder; I only called “Help.”

    In that also, Mr Sutton’s evidence is untrue? Yes.

    What did your wife say? Mrs Moss said to Constable Gallagher, “You are a wicked man.”

    What was the violence that caused you to lie down and call for help? Because I didn’t know what he was going to do with me.

    Why didn’t you say, “I got the bicycle from Heath?” Because Gallagher took me by the arm and arrested me for stealing a bicycle.

    How did you first

COME INTO COLLISION

with the police? Gallagher brought some cases against me last year. Previous to that time Gallagher used to visit my house, and was very friendly.

    Was there anything in connection with a cheque that was sent to your wife? No; that was money due to me, and I took the cheque.

    Did you open a letter addressed to your wife and appropriate a cheque for £9/2/6? No; the letter came open.

    What did you do with it? I kept it.

    And cashed the cheque? Yes.

    Did you tell your wife? Sometime afterwards, yes.

    You cashed it before you told her? Yes.

    Is it not a fact that your wife knew nothing about the letter and cheque, until the letter was found in your pocket when you were first arrested? My wife knew it before. Until now I never thought anyone but my wife and myself knew anything about this matter.

FORGED HIS WIFE’S NAME.

    Is it a matter a notoriety in Bowral that you opened the letter and took the cheque? No.

    Did you not forge your wife’s endorsement upon that cheque? No.

    Will you swear that, sir? I think I put on it “V Moss per SA Moss.”

    And got it cashed? Yes.

    Will you swear you did not forge the name of your wife? I will not swear it. It was money owing to me at the time of the cases brought against me last year.

THOSE AWFUL CHARGES.

    What cases? Assault cases.

    What sort of assault? With a young man.

    Yes, but what kind of assault? I don’t like to say it when there are ladies in the court.

    His Honor (emphatically): You mean charges of buggery? Yes.

    Then why don’t you say so at once?

TURNER’S MISSING SOVEREIGNS

    Did a young man named Turner sleep in the same room as you at Mrs Lee’s house? Yes, one night.

    Did you hear that he missed a couple of sovereigns out of his trousers’ pocket? No; I heard that a man named Turner missed two sovereigns at the encampment.

    After a great more evidence by the accused, Mrs Moss, Harry Bartlett, carrier, Mrs Moss’s servant, and Horace Turner were examined.

    Mrs Moss was spared any cross-examination, as she looked dreadfully distresses and ill.

HORACE TURNER’S EVIDENCE.

    Horace Samuel Turner said he was in Sydney seeing his brother off with the Contingent in February last. He met accused with his brother and Heath. He never remembered Heath saying anything to Moss respecting a bicycle; but he heard Heath mention something about clothes. Witness remembered Moss leaving him at Cowper wharf to go home for a flask of whisky, and returning with it. He went to Moss’s lodgings at Lee’s house after seeing the contingent off.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

    Mr Merewether: Did you occupy the same room as Moss at Lee’s house at any time? Yes, I slept there one night.

    Did you hear Moss get up during the night? Yes, about daylight.

    Was anyone else sleeping in the room? No.

    Did you miss anything? Yes.

    What was it you missed? Two sovereigns.

    When did you miss them? When I dressed for breakfast.

    Are you certain the sovereigns were in your pocket when you undressed and went to bed? Yes. I counted my money and looked at the sovereigns to see that they were all right.

    And no one but the accused and yourself were in the room? Nobody else.

    You heard Moss moving about at daylight? Yes.

FLAT CONTRADICTIONS.

    After the defence was closed the Crown recalled Mrs Lee, the servant, McNaughton and Mr Sutton, and they gave flat contradictions of much Moss’s own evidence. McNaughton denied ever taking a bicycle into the house for Moss; no such thing ever happened. Mr Sutton was positive that Moss did throw himself down on the floor and not on to an arm chair – Moss did call out “Murder.”

    Mr Hamilton addressed the jury at length on behalf of the accused, and his Honor occupied an hour in an exhaustive summing up.

    The jury took no time in settling the matter, for after five minutes’ retirement there was a loud and ominous knock. They had agreed, and their verdict was

“GUILTY,”

and the prisoner turned a sickly green color.

    His Honor said that as there were three other charges of stealing against the prisoner, he would wait the action of the Crown in the matter before passing the sentence.

    Mr Boyce: Would your Honor fix a time for passing of sentence, as we wish to bring evidence of character on the prisoner’s behalf?

    His Honor: For the present I will simply remand the prisoner for sentence.

------------------

    It was close upon 4 o’clock last Wednesday [19 September 1900] when Simeon Alexander Moss emerged from the bowels of Darlinghurst gaol through the floor of the courtroom to receive his just punishment for stealing a bicycle from the dwelling of Mr AE Lee, of Orwell street, Potts’ Point. He had been convicted the previous week, and was awaiting the pleasure of the Court in fixing the time, term, and place which are to separate him from the outer world for some time to come. Like all clever, cunning, callous, calculating criminals who imagine they can euchre Justice indefinitely, and then escape a severe gaoling on the first offence plea, and under the First Offenders’ Act , Simeon looked anything

BUT MENTALLY WORRIED

when he was requested to stand up and face his Honor Judge Fitzhardinge. He was fortified in the belief and hope that his counsel could work the First Offenders’ Statute in his favor. He had himself titivated for the occasion, his little dark moustache being elegantly pointed to set off his immaculate and “gentlemanly” appearance, and he never changed a feature during the terrific ordeal which eventuated, until the last moment, when the judge refused to entertain his appeal not to send him to Goulburn gaol. This was a complete crusher to the cowardly cur who didn’t hesitate to go into the witness box during the trial and attempt to brand the prosecutor and all the witnesses as

DIABOLICAL CONSPIRATORS

against his liberty. Had he been deserving of any sympathy, one might have felt that his request to stay in Darlinghurst Gaol ought have been conceded, but knowing his character, no one could entertain the smallest pity for him. “Truth” has watched his capers for many years in Sydney, and it always struck us that time alone was required to see him in his present predicament. When his Honor was ready, he asked the Crown Prosecutor if it was intended to go on with the

THREE OTHER CHARGES

of stealing against the prisoner. Mr Merewether replied that he wished to arraign him on the charges and take his pleas, but would not proceed with them. The Associate duly read the indictments – (1) stealing a mat, (2) stealing a hat, and (3) stealing various articles of military clothing and equipment, the property of the Government of New South Wales; and the prisoner, knowing the charges were not to be proceeded with, jerked out “Not guilty” to each, while his junior counsel, Mr Boyce, chuckled at the ridiculous formality.

    The Associate: Have you anything to say before his Honor proceeds to pass sentence on you on the charges of stealing a bicycle, of which the jury have found you guilty?

    Mr Boyce: Will your Honor allow me to offer a few remarks in this matter?

    His Honor: Yes, if the prisoner does not wish to speak for himself. Do you wish to say anything, Moss?

    The prisoner: No, your Honor.

FIRST OFFENDERS ACT.

    Mr Boyce: The application I would make in this matter is that the accused should be dealt with under the provisions of the First Offenders’ Act –

    His Honor (emphatically): “You may save yourself the trouble; I won’t entertain such a thing.

    Mr Boyce: I know he has been up before your Honor before –

    His Honor: It is not that at all that is in my mind. The evidence shows that this crime in which he has been found guilty was one of great premeditation. During the hearing of the charge he had no hesitation in going into the witness-box and branding three witnesses as perjurers, while at the same time he was fully

CONSCIOUS OF HIS GUILT.

Through the lips of his counsel he had no hesitation in saying to the jury that these three who gave evidence against him, had entered into diabolical conspiracy to convict an innocent man. The prisoner well knew that he had committed the crime, and he knew his counsel were holding up to the jury these witnesses as perjurers. That being so, it is impossible for me to deal with the accused under the [First Offenders’] Act you mention.

    Mr Boyce: I admit the inferences your Honor draws are deducible from the verdict.

    His Honor: There can be no other inferences.

    Mr Boyce: The accused with the exception of this verdict – although he has been charged before – is a man with no record against him.

    His Honor: No doubt.

    Mr Boyce: There were charges brought against him, but your Honor directed the jury to dismiss them from their minds.

    His Honor: Quite so.

FAKING A CHARACTER.

    Mr Boyce: I have several letters of character which I would like your Honor to peruse. Perhaps I had better read them. One letter is from Mr BB Nicoll, who says: “I have know Mr Moss for 15 years as a man of honest and upright character, always honest in money matters, and I have known him to be a gentleman in every way.”

    I also have a letter from Mr JM Chanter, a well-known member of Parliament, who writes in these terms:– “Having been requested to appear at the court to speak for Mr Moss, I regret I am unable to attend personally, but desire to say I have known Mr Moss for many years, and always considered him a man of high character, and always heard him spoken of as such.”

NO HIDING OF NAMES.

    I have another letter from a well-known resident of Bowral, where Mr Moss has lived for many years, and he says–

    His Honor: Who is it?

    Mr Boyce: Mr William Alcorn, JP, who says:– “I have known Mr Moss for six or seven years, and at any time I have met him I always found him to be a gentleman.”

    There is another letter from Hill Bros., a firm in Bowral–

    Prisoner (to Mr Boyce): The biggest firm in Bowral.

    Mr Boyce: Which says: “During five years we have been dealing with Mr Moss, and always found his conduct satisfactory.” There is also a letter from the prisoner’s wife. Of course she is a women having a strong interest in the result of the sentence, and your honor may not consider it of the greatest moment. She points out that the prisoner is a man of

DELICATE CONSTITUTION,

and says that any lengthened incarceration will prejudicially affect his health. In the matter of the cheque referred to in the evidence, she points out that the police took the matter up of their own wishes. I submit your Honor will have no regard to the indictments which have been withdrawn?

    His Honor: No.

    Mr Boyce: I am instructed to have a perfect defence to those charges.

    His Honor: I will assume you are innocent of them.

    Mr Boyce: I hope your Honor will take into consideration the previous good character of the prisoner, and bear in mind that it is not a case of stealing securities by thousands, nor the case of a burglar by night, nor robbery by day.

WHAT IS IT THEN?

    His Honor: It’s stealing from a dwelling.

    Mr Boyce: But a mere speculation (smiles in court) of a thing neither valuable nor rare. It is certainly not one of the most serious offences, and the magistrate at Bowral might, had he thought fit, have dealt with the case summarily.

    His Honor: Stealing from a dwelling is a charge a magistrate cannot deal with summarily.

    Mr Boyce : I trust your Honor will deal with the prisoner as leniently as possible.

    His Honor: Prisoner Moss – I have given this matter very great consideration, and I am now sentencing you only for the crime of which the jury on plain evidence have found you guilty. When you went into the witness box you had no hesitation whatever in saying that three witnesses against you were perjurers, and when your counsel, in addressing the jury, almost branded them as

PERJURERS AND CONSPIRATORS,

you treated the case as if it was one of indifference to you. As it appears to me from your evidence that you are reckless as to what you swear and do, I intend after you serve this sentence that you shall be bound over in your own recognisances, and in a substantial amount of two sureties, that you behave yourself for a further period of two years. The sentence is that you be imprisoned in the Goulburn Gaol with

HARD LABOR FOR 12 MONTHS,

and on the expiration of that term you enter into your own recognisance of £50 and two sureties of £50, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for two years. In default of entering into these recognisances, you are to be imprisoned for a further period of three months.

    Prisoner (to Mr Boyce): Get him to make it Darlinghurst instead of Goulburn gaol.

    Mr Boyce: Will your Honor say Darlinghurst instead of Goulburn gaol?

    His Honor: No, I will not.

    The Prisoner: I have been maliciously persecuted by a magistrate and a constable while under remand at Goulburn. I had to complain of the treatment of Mr Carrol, the visiting magistrate. Under his influence I was harshly treated in the Goulburn Gaol. I would ask not to be sent there.

GOOD GAOL TREATMENT.

    His Honor: That is a matter for the comptroller of the gaols. I inspected the Goulburn Gaol a few months ago, and the discipline there appeared to me to be admirable; prisoners were treated in a most humane and proper manner. That is why I am sending you there.

    The Prisoner: I was treated very harshly there by Mr Carrol, the visiting magistrate – –

    His Honor (sharply): Remove the Prisoner!

SIMEON GOES BELOW.

    Simeon shut up at once and did the Mephistophelian disappearing trick through the floor. Thus ends one stage in the career of a criminal as vile as ever strode the streets of Sydney. Since he was “boots” or rouseabout at Menzies’ Hotel, in Melbourne, 20 years ago, he has never been known to do a decent day’s work. When Mr Want, QC, put him through the Bankruptcy Court, for costs in the Want v. Moss [1889] “O. P.” box case, Moss gave evidence that he did not work for a living; that he had money, and was

KEPT BY HIS WIFE

who bought his clothes and allowed him a few shillings a week pocket money. When they lived in stylish lodgings in Bayswater road, Simeon was known as the “puppy dog,” and acted the part to perfection, carrying a pup about the streets in his arms. When he went to live at Bowral he endeavored [sic] to ingratiate himself with respectable people, but he was

BLACKBALLED EVERYWHERE.

A cupboard, well stocked with whisky and cigars, enabled him to make friends with a few young men who often visited his house to sample the grog and smoke. As a rule he affected the companionship of boys, called them “deah boys,” and linked arms in the streets, and otherwise conducted himself to the disgust of the residents. Bowral is thankful indeed to have got rid of him, and the people cannot sufficiently express their gratitude to Senior-Constable Gallagher and all interested in his conviction. He is in no sense deserving of the Crown’s leniency in withdrawing the other three charges, offences in which very strong evidence was arrayed against him. It is well known that

CONSIDERABLE INFLUENCE

was worked for the prisoner on account of his wife; but Truth trusts the authorities did not allow these intercessions to weigh with them in letting the prisoner go scot-free of the three additional charges. Had it been the case of a friendless individual in a police court charged with simple thefts of food, the probability is he’d have got more than 12 months, for every charge would have been driven home.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Simeon Alexander Moss, Gaol photo sheet ⁹⁰ 

---

Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details

No. 8152
E[ntry] Book 3864

Date when Portrait was taken: 14-9-1900

Name: Simeon Alexander Moss

Native place: Bungendore Year of birth: 1861 Arrived       Ship:  in Colony }   Year: BC Trade or occupation previous to conviction  } Gentleman Religion: C of E Education, degree of: R & W Height: 5' 7½" Weight     On committal: 168 in lbs     } On discharge:  Colour of hair: Dark brown Colour of eyes: Brown

Marks or special features: Several (bro sic–brown) moles outside both forearms scar inside heel right thumb. Blue spot high up on right temple mole on left side of chin brown mole inside left ear. Round scar outside left forearm

(No. of previous Portrait ... )  PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
Where and When				Offence.	Sentence
Sydney Q.S	13	9	1900	Stealing in a dwelling	12 months HL Goulburn Gaol then to enter into his own recognisance in £50 and fined 2 sureties of £25 each for his good conduct for 2 years in default further three months hl

     

---

 

Ernest Vince, 1903
 

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 6 Aug 1903 ⁹¹

METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
(Before Judge Heydon and juries.)
 

Mr H Harris was the Crown Prosecutor.
…

STEALING PROPERTY.

    Ernest Vince pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing from the house of Dora Donohoe, Sydney, on May 26, a pistol, travelling bag, six razors, two theatre passes, certain money, and other articles, the property of Simeon Alexander Moss. He was found guilty, and, being an old offender, was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude.

    The prisoner was charged with stealing from the house of Joseph L Henderson, Sydney, on May 24, a railway pass, a pair of trousers, six keys, a cane, and the sum of 14s, the property of George Stewart Briner, MLA. He withdrew his plea of not guilty, and confessed to the crime, and was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude, sentence to be concurrent with the previous one.

 

---

 

Moss v. Ward, 1904
 

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 1 Jul 1904 ⁹²

DISTRICT COURT.
(Before Judge Heydon.)

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION, ETC.

Moss v. Ward

    Mr Cahill appeared for the plaintiff, Simeon Alexander Moss, and Mr Russell (Messrs Sly and Russell) for the defendant, Henry Rowland Ward, trading as the British Imperial Goldsmiths. This was a claim for £13 18s, commission on sales, and for a week’s salary. Defendant paid £3 11s 4d into court, pleaded never indebted in regard to the other amount, and on a cross action claimed £8 16s. A verdict was given for plaintiff for £4 19s 2d over and above the amount paid into court, and a verdict was given for defendant for £8 16s, the amount claimed on the cross action.

 

---

 

Moss v. Hale, 1912
 

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 19 Apr 1912 ⁹³

DISTRICT COURT.
(Before Judge Rogers.)

ACTION FOR ASSAULT

Moss v. Hale

    Mr Curtis, instructed by Mr ER Abigail, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Coyle, instructed be Mr JW Abigail, for the defendant. This was an action brought by Simeon Alexander Moss, commission agent, against Samuel John Hale, manager for SJ Hale, Ltd, to recover £30 compensation for assault. The plaintiff, who said that among other things, he earned a commission by introducing customers to various firms, stated that he had been in the habit of doing business in that way for defendant. On February 22 last he went to him in order to obtain settlement of an amount claimed to be due for commission. Defendant said to him that he had on two previous occasions warned plaintiff not to visit his premises again, which plaintiff denied. Defendant then said that if plaintiff would not go he would throw him out of the window. Plaintiff, however, said he did not think he would do that, and defendant then seized him violently by the throat and subsequently caught hold of him by the wrist, bruising it considerably. Eventually defendant let him go, and plaintiff left the premises. Plaintiff also said that he suffered from pain in the throat and wrist, and had to seek medical attention.

    The defendant in his evidence said that in October, when plaintiff called, he ordered him out of the office, and told him not to come again. At the end of November, or the beginning of December, plaintiff called again, when defendant reminded the man that he had already warned him not to come on the premises. He also denied plaintiff’s statement that he owed him anything, but said that if he did he had his remedy. He ordered him off the premises, and as he would not go he took him by the shoulder and arm and dragged him towards the stairs. Plaintiff went down three steps, then came up again, and placed an arm round the stair-post and held on, with his face close to it. He was, however, pulled away, and went down the stairs, and off the premises. Defendant denied that he seized plaintiff by the throat or had used any force beyond that necessary to eject him, and he also stated that plaintiff during his visit in November or December to the firm’s premises used abusive language and threatened to “show him up.”

    His Honor gave a verdict to the plaintiff with 40s damages, and said he did so because he thought a little more force was used than was necessary. He also thought the case ought to have been brought in the police court, and not the District Court.

 

---

 

Victoria Moss, 1926

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 10 Aug 1926 ⁹⁴

DEATHS.

…
    MOSS.—August 8, 1926, at her residence, 19 Holmwood-street, Newtown, Victoria, relict of the late Simeon Alexander Moss, late of Darlinghurst, in her 88th year. Minyon, this night only, 8 o’clock.

 

---

¹     The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 26 Feb 1889, p. 4.

²     The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 18 Jul 1889, p. 11.

³     Australian Town and Country Journal, Sat 20 Jul 1889, p. 11.

⁴     The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 29 Jul 1889, p. 7. Emphasis added.

⁵     The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 30 Jul 1889, p. 3.

⁶     The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 21 Aug 1889, p. 11.

⁷     The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 28 Oct 1889, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁸     The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 19 Nov 1889, p. 4. Emphasis added.

⁹     The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 20 Nov 1889, p. 4. Emphasis added.

¹⁰   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 21 Nov 1889, pp. 3, 6, 7.

¹¹   The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 25 Nov 1889, p. 15.

¹²   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 12 Dec 1889, pp. 6, 7, 11.

¹³   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 19 Dec 1889, p. 12.

¹⁴   The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 8 Mar 1890, p. 14.

¹⁵   The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 21 Apr 1890, p. 3.

¹⁶   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 22 Apr 1890, p. 3.

¹⁷   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 24 Sep 1890, p. 7.

¹⁸   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 25 Sep 1890, p. 7.

¹⁹   The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 12 Jun 1891, p. 4.

²⁰   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 23 Feb 1892, p. 3.

²¹   The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 26 Feb 1892, p. 3.

²²   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 25 Feb 1892, p. 4. Emphasis added.

²³   The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 29 Jul 1893, p. 13.

²⁴   The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 11 Aug 1893, p. 3.

²⁵   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 27 Sep 1893, p. 9.

²⁶   The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 24 Feb 1894, p. 9.

²⁷   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 18 Feb 1897, p. 7.

²⁸   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 18 Aug 1897, p. 5.

²⁹   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 19 Aug 1897, p. 3.

³⁰   The Bowral Free Press, Wed 13 Sep 1899, p. 4.

³¹   The Bowral Free Press, Sat 16 Sep 1899, p. 2.

³²   Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Sat 16 Sep 1899, p. 4.

³³   SRNSW: NRS880, [9/6986], Supreme Court, Papers and depositions, Goulburn, 1899, No. 218. Emphasis added.

³⁴   A large number of subpoenas are included in this file. To save repetition and space they have been combined into one above.

³⁵   The offence is variously described as: Attempting to commit buggery; Attempt to commit buggery; Attempted sodomy; Indecent assault on a male; &c.

³⁶   Mn: S to Moss’s trying to get billet

³⁷   Mn: Was this same day as arrest

³⁸   Mn: Exhibits A & B

³⁹   Mn: 14 September 1899

⁴⁰   Mn: Exhibit E

⁴¹   Three separate and identical Recognizances were found in the file. The names of all those described have been combined, for reason of space and to avoid repetition, in to one.

⁴²   SRNSW: NRS7524, [2/6413] , Judiciary, W Owen, J. Notebooks Criminal Causes 1897-1906, pp. 103, 106-171. Emphasis added.

⁴³   Incomplete word.

⁴⁴   Mn: A

⁴⁵   Mn: 25th July

⁴⁶   Mn: B

⁴⁷   Mn: C

⁴⁸   Mn: D

⁴⁹   Sylvia Mabel in transcript of depositions.

⁵⁰   Mn: E

⁵¹   Mn: F

⁵²   Mn: G

⁵³   Mn: H

⁵⁴   Mn: I

⁵⁵   Unclear – could be 9th.

⁵⁶   Mn: 26th June

⁵⁷   Correctly The Argyle Mill, Wm. Conolly & Sons.

⁵⁸   Mn: 5th September

⁵⁹   Meaning unclear.

⁶⁰   Incomplete word?

⁶¹   Mn: K

⁶²   Mn: L

⁶³   Goulburn Evening Penny Post,  Tue 27 Jul 1899, p. 2.

“GOULBURN QUARTER SESSIONS.
————

The above court opened this morning before his Honor Judge Fitzhardinge. Mr Harris prosecuted for the Crown.
…

SHOOTING CATTLE.

       Stanley [Augustus] Lake, aged about 16 years, was charged with that he did on 27th April, at Burragorang, wilfully kill five cows, the property of James Watts Parker, with intent to steal the skins of the said cows. He pleaded guilty and was remanded for sentence. Mr Elliott, of Moss Vale, asked his Honor to deal with Lake under the First Offenders’ Act. His Honor said he would hear the application when the prisoner was brought up for sentence.”
              Evening News, (Sydney, NSW),  Fri 28 Jul 1899, p. 6.

“COUNTRY SESSIONS.
————

…
        GOULBURN, Thursday.— The quarter sessions were continued yesterday, before District Judge Fitzhardinge.
…
       Stanley Lake, about 16, who on Tuesday pleaded guilty to shooting three oxen belonging to James Watts Parker of Burragorang, on April 7, with intent to steal their hides, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, the sentence to be suspended under the First Offenders’ Act on his entering into his own recognisance of £50 and two sureties of £25 each to be of good behavior for twelve months.”

⁶⁴   SRNSW: NRS7524, [2/6414], Judiciary, W Owen, J. Notebooks Criminal Causes, 1897-1906, pp. 1-6. Emphasis added.

⁶⁵   McClung in transcript of depositions.

⁶⁶   Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Tue 10 Oct 1899, p. 2.

⁶⁷   The Goulburn Herald, Wed 11 Oct 1899, p. 2. Emphasis added.

⁶⁸   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 11 Oct 1899, p. 8. Emphasis added.

⁶⁹   Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Thu 12 Oct 1899, p. 2. Emphasis added.

⁷⁰   Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Tue 13 Jun 1899, p. 4.

“COLEMAN’S EUCALYPTE EXTRACT.

…
       At the Bowral Police Court on Friday Stanley Lake, charged with shooting five head of cattle at Burragorang belonging to James Watts Parker, was committed for trial at the Goulburn Quarter Sessions, to be held on 25th July.”
       Goulburn Evening Penny Post,  Tue 25 Jul 1899, p. 2.

“GOULBURN QUARTER SESSIONS.
————

THE above court opened this morning before his Honor Judge Fitzhardinge. Mr Harris prosecuted for the Crown.
…

SHOOTING CATTLE.

       Stanley Lake, aged about 16 years, was charged with that he did on 27th April, at Burragorang, wilfully kill five cows, the property of James Watts Parker, with intent to steal the skins of the said cows. He pleaded guilty and was remanded for sentence. Mr Elliott, of Moss Vale, asked his Honor to deal with Lake under the First Offenders’ Act. His Honor said he would hear the application when the prisoner was brought up for sentence.”
       The Goulburn Herald,  Wed 26 Jul 1899, p. 3.

“THE QUARTER-SESSIONS
———◦———

…

TUESDAY.
SENTENCE.

       Stanley Lake (about 16), who pleaded guilty yesterday to shooting cattle was brought up for sentence.
       Mr Elliott, for prisoner, pointed to circumstances in the case to his youth as showing that the shooting was more a boyish freak than a crime, and asked his Honor to deal with him under the First Offenders’ Act.
       Henry Lake, father of prisoner promised his Honor that he would exercise greater control over his son in future if he were dealt with under the First Offenders’ Act.
       His Honor said he would do so.
       Sentence—Six months’ imprisonment, to be suspended on prisoner entering into his own recognizes of £50 and two sureties of £25 each to be of good behaviour for twelve months. The bonds were entered into before the deputy-sheriff in the police court, and prisoner was released.”

⁷¹   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 12 Oct 1899, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁷²   The Goulburn Herald, Fri 13 Oct 1899, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁷³   The Bowral Free Press, Sat 14 Oct 1899, p. 3.

⁷⁴   Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Tue 17 Oct 1899, p. 4. Emphasis added.

⁷⁵   Bowral Free Press and Berrima District Intelligencer, (NSW),  Wed 18 Oct 1899, p. 1. Emphasis added.

⁷⁶   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 30 Nov 1899, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁷⁷   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 5 Dec 1899, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁷⁸   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 6 Dec 1899, p. 4.

⁷⁹   Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Thu 7 Dec 1899, p. 2.

⁸⁰   The Bowral Free Press, Sat 11 Aug 1900, p. 2. Emphasis added.

⁸¹   The Bowral Free Press, Wed 15 Aug 1900, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁸²   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 13 Sep 1900, p. 8. Emphasis added.

⁸³   The Sydney Morning Herald,  Fri 14 Sep 1900, p. 3.

⁸⁴   Depositions for the Quarter Sessions trial could not be located at SRNSW.

⁸⁵   Justice Fitzhardinge’s notes could not be located at SRNSW.

⁸⁶   The Bowral Free Press, Sat 15 Sep 1900, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁸⁷   Truth, Sun 16 Sep 1900, p. 5. Emphasis added.

⁸⁸   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 20 Sep 1900, p. 8.

⁸⁹   The Bowral Free Press, Wed 26 Sep 1900, p. 4.

⁹⁰   SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6065], Darlinghurst gaol photograph description books, 1900, No. 8152, p. 229, R5108.

⁹¹   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 6 Aug 1903, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁹²   The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 1 Jul 1904, p. 4.

⁹³   The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 19 Apr 1912, p. 7.

⁹⁴   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 10 Aug 1926, p. 8.

---