Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c07/h03/mnt/178353/domains/unfitforpublication.org.au/html/plugins/system/gantry/gantry.php on line 406
1905, Ram Sukh - Unfit For Publication
Text Size

 

 

Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, Tue 25 Jul 1905 1

POLICE COURT.

    At the local police Court on Friday, before Mr W[illiam] S[mith] Arnott, PM., and Mr AA Loder, JP.

THE HINDOO AND THE BOY.
RAM SUKH COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

    At the local police court yesterday morning, before Mr WS Arnott PM., Ram Sukh, a Hindoo, was charged with having attempted at Murwillumbah, on Sunday 23rd inst., to committ [sic] an unnatural offence upon William Groves, a boy aged 17 years. Mr Mason appeared for the defence.

    Sergeant Kane deposed: On Sunday, 23rd inst. from information given him by Constables Hannah and McCrea, he accosted the accused, Ram Sukh, on the school hill. A conversation ensued, in which the Sergeant asked the accused if he had seen some boys down in the scrub about 2 hours ago. Accused replied that he had not. Further questioned, he said “me see 4 or 5 boys’ me not know what they want to do; me go away; they go away.” The sergeant asked him if he had seen one boy, Willie Groves, in the scrub? To which Ram Sukh replied, “me no see one boy; four or five boys.” Witness then told constable McCrea to take the Hindoo to the Police Station, and himself went in search of Willie Groves, whom he saw at his father’s residence. Witness had a conversation with him, and in consequence of what he told him, witness asked the lad to accompany him to the Police Station, where he got Dr Goldsmid, Govt. Medical Officer, to examine him. Witness then arrested the accused, Ram Sukh, on a charge of attempting to commit an offence on Willie Groves. The accused shook his head in dissent but made no reply. Witness produced a plan of the locality where the alleged offence was committed.

    Mr Mason asked the bench to allow him to cross-examine the sergeant at a later date, which was acceded to.

    William Groves, labourer, residing with his father at Murwillumbah, deposed: He had just turned 17 years of age. He remembered yesterday at about 12 o’clock, when the people were coming home from church. He then, in company with other boys, saw the accused under Hartmann’s shop. The accused came up to them, and gave him (Groves) and the others some nuts out of his pocket, and talked to them for a while. Witness then went up the Queensland Road, intending to go home to his dinner; and on looking back saw the Hindoo standing at the RC Church gate. He cane after witness, and overtook him before he got to the turn-off, along the Queensland road. They walked along together, till witness was about to turn off the police paddock to go home, when the accused stopped him and asked where Mr Hill lived. Witness replied that he lived straight up past their (Grove’s) place. The accused asked witness to show him the way, and was told to go down the main road. Witness was going away when the Hindoo stopped, and pointing towards the scrub, said “this way short cut,” to which witness replied “all right.” Witness then went over towards the scrub, through the bottom of the police paddock, and on looking saw the accused going around the road by Grove’s place – the way witness had shown him. Witness then went towards the scrub, and was just turning around to come back when the Hindoo came up behind him and said “how much further have you to go to Hill’s.” Witness replied “not just further; just out of the scrub.” The Hindoo then caught witness by the arm and made improper overtures to him. The accused said he would give witness half-a-crown not to make a noise, to which witness would not agree. He the knocked witness down, who fell on his stomach. The accused tried to undo witness’ and his own clothes, and attempted an improper act. Witness asked the accused to let him up as there was someone coming. The Hindoo saw some boys coming, and jumped up, ran away. The boys passed witness and went after the Hindoo. The accused spoke good English, and understood everything witness said. Witness also understood everything accused said.

    William Cash, labourer, encamped at Murwillumbah, deposed: Yesterday he was at the place marked as the School Hill on the plan produced. From his position on the hill he could see all over the Queensland road. He knew the accused by sight, having seen him yesterday on the Queensland road, in the company of young Groves. They were walking from Murwillumbah towards the police paddock. They stood on the corner of the road leading up to Groves’ place for a few minutes. The Hindoo then walked along the road past Groves’ while young Groves went out on the Queensland road, past the police paddock. Groves went through the paddock situated at the back of the police paddock, towards the scrub. When witness and those with him saw Groves and the Hindoo go towards the paddock they suspected something was up. There were three others besides himself, and they walked out along the fence of the police paddock to the scrub, on the other side of the swamp. In going through the scrub they jumped up on a log, and as they did so witness heard something in the bushes. He looked in the direction and saw the accused, Ram Sukh, running away. He was arranging his clothes as he ran, and carried his loosened turban in his hand. They ran after him as far as Murdering Creek, where they gave up the chase, and returning to Murwillumbah, reported the matter to the police.

    Frank Moon, who was in the company of the previous witness when the alleged offence occurred, gave corroborative evidence.

    Dr Joseph Albert Goldsmid, Govt. Medical Officer, residing at Murwillumbah, deposed: On Sunday afternoon 23rd inst. by order of the police, he examined Willie Groves with the latter’s own consent. The doctor detailed the result of his examination. There were no marks of violence about the boy, the only indications of the alleged offence being freshly caked earth on the clothes and body, and slight excoriation of a membrane, which might or might not have been caused, by the attempted assault. Witness also examined the accused but found nothing showing any offence.

    The doctor replied to several questions put by the sergeant, which concluded the case for the prosecution.

    On the advice of his counsel, the accused reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, to be held at Grafton on the 10th of August.

    Mr Mason applied for bail, as he there was a chance of getting it from some of accused’s countrymen. His Worship said it was a serious offence, and fixed bail at £100, two securities of £50, or one in £100.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tweed Times and Brunswick Advocate, Wed 26 Jul 1905 2

POLICE COURT.
Monday, 24th July.

    BEFORE Mr Arnott, PM.

UNNATURAL OFFENCE.

    Ram Sukh, a Hindoo, was charged with having attempted to commit an unnatural offence on a lad (whose name we omit) on Sunday 23rd inst. Sergeant Kane (who arrested accused in company with Constables McCrea and Hanna) prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and also gave evidence. A large number of people were present, and the PM very rightly ordered the Court be cleared. Mr Mason defended accused, who is a typical sample – as far as appearances go – of the average Hindoo. Besides Sergeant Kane, the lad on whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, William Cash (a labourer), who gave important evidence, Frank Moon – whose evidence corroborated Cash’s, and Dr Albert Goldsmid (Govt. Medical Officer) also gave importance evidence. Acting on the advice of his counsel, the accused reserved his defence. He was accordingly committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions to be held at Grafton on 10th August next. Mr Mason applied for bail, as he thought accused’s countrymen would go bond for him. The PM remarked that it was a serious charge, and he would have to make the bail heavy. Bail was fixed at self in £100 and two securities of £50 each, or one in £100.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Depositions for Ram Sukh 9 Oct 1905 Lismore trial 3


(a) Town.


Letter from Bench of Magistrates at (a) Murwillumbah

 

transmitting Depositions

(b) Name in full of accused.

in the case Rex v(b) Ram Sukh

(c) Offence.

(c) Buggery

 

(d) Town.

Police Office(d) Murwillumbah

 

24th July 1905  

 

Sir,

 

I have the honor, by direction of the Bench of Magistrates,

 

to transmit herewith under separate cover the Depositions, and other documents in the

(e) Name of accused

case of (e) Ram Sukh

(f) “His” or “her”

who has been committed to take (f) his

(g) “Circuit Court,” or 
“Quarter Sessions.”

trial at the (g) Quarter Sessions

to be held at (h) Grafton

on Thursday

(h) Town where Court 
to be held.

the 10th day of August 1905

The accused is (i) has been allowed bail self in £100 and two sureties of £50 or one in £100

(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.)

(k) 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 (k) Bernard Kane, William Groves, William Cash, Frank Moon, Dr Joseph Albert Goldsmid

 

(l) Short description to enable identification.

The Exhibits enclosed are (l) is Exhibit “A” Plan of locality

 

I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,

 

 

[Signed] WS Arnott

 

Clerk of Petty Sessions

The Under Secretary,

Department of the Attorney General and of Justice.

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Re Case Crown versus Ram Sukh Crown subpoena for service on Frank Moon

No. 5 Police Station
4th October 1905.

    Senior Constable Scott reports that the witness Frank Moon is with his father at St Peters and has not been heard from for the past two months.

[Signed] Thos Scott, Senior Constable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

New South Wales Post and Telegraphs.
State and Interstate Lines.

    Telegram from Tumbulgum Station, addressed to Police Lismore. Cash does not know for certain Moon’s whereabouts. Believe his is either with Thos Hunter Gillett Grafton or with his father Park Road St Peters.

[Signed] Laidman.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Station Grafton.
September 2nd 1905.

Rex versus Ram Sukh buggery – Lismore Circuit Court

    Sergeant Deane reports that Frank Moon, a witness in the above case called here yesterday to say that he was leaving for Newcastle on Monday next, where he will be found if required to give evidence. This case was put off from last Court and Moon says he has not yet received the subpoena TO ATTEND Court.

[Signed] Duke Deane, Sergeant.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Will Mr Day please cause the attached Crown Subpoena to be served on Frank Moon, and then forward the original with attached reports to the Clerk of the Peace, Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Station Murwillumbah.
21st August 2905.

The King versus Ram Sukh Crown Subpoena for William Cash and Frank Moon.

    Crown Subpoena for William Cash, and Frank Moon, are forwarded herewith. They both left Murwillumbah on the morning of the 4th instant. Cash said he was going to work for Mr Loder but did not say which Mr Loder. If Cash is located no doubt he will be able to tell where Moon is, as they are mates.

    Description Cash About 19 years of age, 5 feet 8 inches high, clean face, dark hair, and complexion, medium built, dressed in dark clothes, grey felt hat with black band. Has small swag, his present address is said to be care of Parr, Storekeeper, Terranora.

    Moon about 19 years of age, 5 feet 7 inches high, medium built, florid complexion, clean pimpled face, white canvas shoes and grey clothes.

    The above described men are important Crown witnesses in above case of Ram Sukh, charged with an unnatural offence.

[Signed] B Kane, Sergeant.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Station Newcastle.
22nd September 1905.

Subject – Crown Subpoena for Service on Frank Moon to attend Lismore Circuit Court on 4th
October next.

    Senior Constable James Turnbull reports that careful enquiries have been made but no trace of the witness Frank Moon can be obtained about Newcastle up to the present. The inquiry will be continued and if any information as to his whereabouts received a report will be furnished immediately.

[Signed] James Turnbull, Senior Constable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Office Tallebudgera.
4th October 1095.

Officer in Charge Police Lismore

Memo

    The attached subpoena was served by me on the witness William Warren on the 30th ultimo. He resides at Currumbin Creek sixteen miles from Tweed Heads on this side. He states he would not attend as he had no means to take him to Lismore.

[Signature illegible] Sergeant.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Station, Murwillumbah.
September 29th 1905.

Re Subpoenas for Gillett and Warren.

    Constable McCrea reports that he has been unable to serve the subpoenas of Gillett and Warren The King versus Ram Sukh as they have both left Murwillumbah; Warren resides at Crumbin [sic] Queensland near Tallebudgera and Gillett is said to have been seen at Coraki about a week ago, where his mother is said to reside. As the Court is held on the 4th October the Constable forwarded the subpoenas to Coraki and Tallebudgera Police for service with a request that the usual Affidavit of Service be endorsed and returned to Lismore District.

[Signed] JJ McCrea, Constable.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lismore 23rd February 1905.

The Clerk of the Peace, Office of the Clerk of the Peace, Sydney.

Dear Sir,

Rex versus Ram Sukh.

    We are in receipt of yours of the 21st instant and as requested now send you the consent of the accused to the depositions for Dr Goldsmith being admitted as evidence at the trial.

We have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servants.
[Signed] McIntosh & Best.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lismore,
23rd September 1905.

Rex versus Ram Sukh

    Acting under the advice of my Counsel, Mr JC McIntosh I will be prepared to admit on my trial for attempting to commit sodomy at the sittings of the Lismore Circuit Court on the 4th October 1905, without reserve, the depositions of Dr Goldsmith taken at the Police Constable Murwillumbah on the 10th August 1905.

[Signed] Ram (his X mark) Sukh.

Witness:– [Signed] J Mcgregor Dunn, JP.

    As Counsel for the above named accused I have advised the accused and hereby undertake to admit the depositions of Dr Goldsmith as referred to above.

[Signed] McIntosh & Best.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lismore 14th August 1905

The Clerk of the Peace, Office of the Clerk of the Peace, Sydney.

Dear Sir,

Rex versus Ram Sukh

    We beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 10th instant.

    We have not yet got a copy of the depositions in the case but as soon as we do will communicate with you again in plenty of time to countermand the Doctor’s Recognizance to appear at the Court should the accused admit his deposition.

We are, yours obediently.
[Signed] McIntosh & Best.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lismore 6 September 1905.

The Clerk of the Peace, Office of the Clerk of the Peace, Sydney.

Dear Sir,

Rex versus Ram Sukh.

    We are in receipt of yours of the 4th instant.

    We have not been able to get our client in since we last wrote you to obtain his signature to the admission but have perused the depositions in the case and have been in correspondence with Mr Mason who represented accused at the Police Court, and we have now to state that so far as the defence is concerned we will not require the attendance of Dr Goldsmith at the Circuit Court but will admit his deposition.

    We have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servants.
[Signed] McIntosh & Best.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

New South Wales Post and Telegraphs.
Telegram.

Lismore 16/9 Clerk of Peace, Sydney

    Ram Sukh’s Recognizance for appearance Lismore Circuit Court completed today. Fincham, Deputy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lismore 7th August 1905.

The Under-Secretary, Justice Department, Sydney.

Sir,

Re Ram Sukh

    We are in receipt of your wire saying that the Attorney General approved the change of venue from Grafton Quarter Sessions to the Lismore Circuit Court and we have informed the accused thereof and he is to appear in Lismore tomorrow morning to have fresh bail entered into for his appearance at the latter Court.

    Thanking you from your promptitude in the matter.

    We have th honor to be Sir, your obedient Servants.
[Signed] McIntosh & Best.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Court House, Grafton.
4th August 1905.

Sir,

    I have the honor to forward herewith an application by Mr GH Mason, Solicitor, Murwillumbah for the services of an interpreter in the case noted in the margin (The King versus Ram Sukh (attempted unnatural offence) Quarter Sessions, Grafton 10th August 1905).

    The local Inspector of Police informs me that Charles Pearce of Palmer’s Island, Maclean, is a competent and reliable interpreter of th Hindu language, and that his services are available.

    I have the honor to be Sir, your obedient Servant.
[Signed] HFW Fletcher, Deputy Clerk of the Peace, Grafton.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Recognizance of Bail on Committal for Trial.

Rex versus Ram Sukh.
Lismore Circuit Court, 4th October 1905

State of New South Wales, Lismore
TO WIT.                                           }

Be it remembered, that on the 10th day of August, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five, Ram Sukh of Lismore, in the State of New South Wales, labourer and Milki Ram of Gundurimba near Lismore in the said State, freeholder, personally came before me, the undersigned, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said State, and severally acknowledged themselves to owe Our Sovereign Lord the King the several sums following (that is to say); the said Ram Sukh in the sum of one hundred pounds; and the said Milki Ram the sum of one hundred pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively, respectively, to the use of our said Lord the King, his Heirs and Successors, if the said Ram Sukh shall fail in the conditions indorsed.

[Signed] Ram (his X mark) Sukh, Milki (his X mark) Ram.

Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first above mentioned, at Lismore, in the said State, before me.
[Signed] W[illiam John] M[ackie] Fincham, JP.

Condition in Ordinary Cases.

    The condition of the within written Recognizance is such, that whereas the said Ram Sukh was on the 24th day of July 1905, charged before WA Arnott Esquire, Police Magistrate at Murwillumbah with attempting to commit the crime of buggery and was thereupon committed to take his trial at the Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Grafton on the 10th day of August 1905; and whereas the Attorney General for the said State of New South Wales has directed that the said Ram Sukh shall take his trial upon the said charge at the Circuit Court to be holden at Lismore on the 4th day of October 1905 if therefore the said Ram Sukh will appear at the next Circuit Court to be holden at Lismore in and for the State of New South Wales, on Wednesday the 4th day of October 1905, at nine of the clock in the forenoon, and then and there surrender himself into the custody of the Keeper of the Gaol there, and plead to such information as may be filed against him for or in respect of the charge aforesaid, and take his trial upon the same, and not depart the said court without leave, – then the said

Recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.
[Signed] WM Fincham, JP.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Murwillumbah, 2nd August 1905

HFW Fletcher, Esq
Deputy Clerk of the Peace
Grafton

Dear Sir

Rex v. Ram Sukh

    I am desirous of ascertaining whether you have a Hindoo interpreter at Grafton and if you would suggest that Amir Khan of Lismore Contractor, be subpoenaed to interpret in this matter. I also wish subpoenas to be issued for me to William Warren of Murwillumbah Farmer and another man of the same place whose name I have not yet ascertained to give evidence for the defence and would thank you let me have them for service as soon as you can.

Yours faithfully
GH Mason [Solicitor for accused]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

New South Wales Post and Telegraph.
State and Interstate Lines.

Telegram from Lismore Station addressed to Under-Secretary of Justice Sydney. Re Ram Sukh committed trial Quarter Sessions Grafton 10th instant accused desires trial Lismore Circuit Court October bail bonds same as before can be taken before registrar Lismore please wire if same can be arranged so advise Murwillumbah witness great saving of expense thereby.

[Signed] McIntosh & Best, Solicitors for the accused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Perhaps the Attorney General will approve of this application. There will be a slight saving of expense by trial at Lismore.

[Initialled] WRB, 5.8.05.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PM Murwillumbah

Forwarding Recognizance of bail in the case Rex versus Ram Sukh.

Justices Act, 1902.

    Whereas Ram Sukh was on the 24th day of July 1905 committed by me to the Gaol at Grafton in the State of New South Wales, charged with attempting to commit the crime of buggery on one William Groves at Murwillumbah in the said State, on the 23rd day of July 1905. I hereby certify that I consent to the said Ram Sukh being bailed by Recognizance himself in £100 and two sureties of £50 each or one in £100. Dated this 27th day of July 1905.

[Signed] WS Arnott, PM, Murwillumbah.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

New South Wales Post and Telegraph.
State and Interstate Lines.

Telegram from Murwillumbah Station, addressed to Clerk of Peace Sydney.

Rex versus Ram Sukh defendants solicitor willing accept my Police Court depositions can you excuse my attendance Grafton 10th please reply.

[Signed] J Goldsmid.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Replied that Dr Goldsmid need not attend at Grafton Quarter Sessions as deposition will be admitted.

[Initialled] WRB, 3.8.05.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE.

Northern District,

Murwillumbah Station.
24th August 1905.

Relative to antecedents of:–
Name: Ram Sukh
Offence: Attempt to commit buggery
Committed for trial at: Grafton Quarter Sessions
Date: 10th August 1905.

    Sergeant Kane reports:– that as far as he can ascertain, above named offender has been in Australia about 4 years, 2 years of that time he spent in Port Douglas, Queensland the remaining 2 years he has resided on the Tweed River. Nothing is known against his character, previous to the present charge.

[Signed] B Kane, Sergeant.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Police Charge, No. 05/114

Court of Petty Sessions, Murwillumbah
24th July 1905.

Ram Sukh

Attempting to commit buggery on William Groves near Murwillumbah on 23rd July 1905.

    Committed to take his trial at the next Court of Quarter Sessions to be held at Grafton on 10th August 1905. Bail allowed self in £100 and two sureties of £50 each or in £100.

[Signed] WS Arnott, PM.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Depositions of Witnesses.

New South Wales, Murwillumbah
TO WIT.                                             }

The examination of Bernard Kane of Murwillumbah in the State of New South Wales, Sergeant of Police William Groves of Murwillumbah labourer William Cash of Murwillumbah labourer Frank Moon of Murwillumbah labourer and Joseph Albert Goldsmid of Murwillumbah medical practitioner, taken on oath this 24th day of July in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five at the Murwillumbah Police Office, in the said State, before the undersigned, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the said State, in the presence and hearing of Ram Sukh who was charged this day before me for that he the said Ram Sukh on the 23rd day of July in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five near Murwillumbah in the said State, he the said Ram Sukh did attempt to commit buggery on one William Groves.

1

    Mr [GH] Mason for defence: This deponent Bernard Kane on his oath, saith as follows:–

    I am a Sergeant of Police and am stationed at Murwillumbah. Yesterday the 23rd instant from information I received I accompanied by Constables McCrea and Hanna I went in search of accused. I saw him at the school hill. I said to him “Where were you about two hours ago?” He said “Me over at the creek, me work over there.” I said “Did you see any boys down in the scrub about two hours ago?” He said “Me see four or five boys, me no know what they want to do, me go away, they go away.” I said “Did you see one boy Willie Groves

2

in the scrub?” He said “Me no see one boy, four or five boys.” I then told Constable McCrea to take him to the Police Station and I went in search of Willie Groves. I saw Willie Groves at his father’s residence. I had a conversation with him; in consequence of what he told me, I asked him to accompany me to the Police Station, where I got Dr Goldsmid the Government Medical Officer to examine him. I then arrested the accused on the charge of and charged him with attempting to commit buggery an on Willie Groves. He made no reply but shook his head.

    Exhibit “A”: I produce a plan of the locality.

3

    By Mr Mason: He shook his head when I charged him in token of dissent.

[Signed] B Kane.

Taken and sworn at Murwillumbah this 24th day of July 1905 before.
[Signed] WS Arnott, PM.

4

This deponent Willie Groves on his oath, saith as follows:–

    I am a labourer and reside at Murwillumbah with my father. I am 17 years of age. I have just turned 17. I remember yesterday about 12 o’clock, when people were coming from church. I saw accused on under Hartmann’s Photography Shop. He came up to me. And was talking to me there. I went out the Queensland road going home to dinner. I saw the Indian standing at the Roman Catholic Church gate. He came after me and overtook me before I got to the turn-off road towards home. We were walking along together and I

5

was going to turn off at the Police Paddock to go home when accused stopped me and asked me where Mr Hill lived. I told him he lives straight up past our place and he asked me to come and show him where he lived. He asked me which way to go to Hill’s. I showed him the road past our place. He pointed towards the scrub and said “This way short cut,” and then I said “All right.” I then went over towards the scrub, through the bottom of the Police Paddock. I looked round and saw him accused going round the road by our place, the way I showed him. He said “You go first people somebody with think something bad.” I then went over

6

to the scrub. When I saw accused going around the road by Hill’s I did not go towards Hill’s but went over to the scrub to get a fishing rod. I was just turning round to come back when the Hindoo (accused) came up to me. He said “How much further you got to go to Hill’s?” I said “Not much further, just out of the scrub.” He then caught me by the arm, and said “Do you like jiggi jiggi?” I said “No, I do not.” He caught hold of me and knocked me down. He pulled me towards the scrub and told me he would give me 2/6 not to make a noise, this was before he knocked me down. I was not agreeable

7

and told him to leave me go. He then knocked me down, he caught me by the neck and I fell on my stomach and then he tried to undo my trousers. He did so, at the back of the braces. He pulled my trousers down and undid his trousers and he laid on the top of me and he tried to get into me and I was singing out for him to let me up. He would not. I then saw the boys coming, and told him to let me up as someone was coming. He looked up and saw them coming himself, he then jumped up and ran away. After the boys passed I went away. The boys went after accused. Accused spoke good English and could understand every

8

thing I said. I could understand all he said. I understand plan produced exhibit “A”. It was at the red marks in the plan that the accused assaulted me. The red marks indicate the scrub accused gave me and some other boys some nuts at Hartmann’s shop.

    No questions.

[Signed] W Groves.

Taken and sworn at Murwillumbah this 24th day of July 1905 before.
[Signed] WS Arnott, PM.

9

This deponent William Cash on his oath, saith as follows:–

    I am a labourer and am camped at Murwillumbah. I remember yesterday the 23rd instant at about 12 o’clock. At this time I was at red cross on plan produced, exhibit “A” marked School Hill. From this place you can see over the Police Paddock, the scrub and the Queensland Road. I know accused by sight, he was on the Queensland Road at about 12 o’clock yesterday with young Groves. They were walking towards the Police Paddock from Murwillumbah. They walked to the Police Paddock and stood at the corner of the road

10

that leads round to Groves’. They stayed there a few minutes. I saw the accused walk along the road past Groves’ and young Groves went out along the Queensland Road past the Police Paddock. He cut through the paddock at the back of the Police Paddock (Burke’s Paddock) towards the scrub marked on plan exhibit “A”. When we saw him go out through the paddock we suspected something. I Three others and myself walked down along the Police Paddock fence out to the scrub. This is the scrub on the other side of the swamp. We walked along a bit and stopped talking, we walked through the scrub

11

I was ahead. We jumped up on to the log. I heard something in the bushes, and looked up and saw accused jump up and running away. As he went he was buttoning up his trousers, his turban was off and he was dragging it in his hand. We ran after him to Murdering Creek. We then left him and came and made a report to the Police.

    By Mr Mason: The log we stood on is shown on plan produced exhibit “A” by a blue mark in the scrub. Accused ran directly away from us in a straight line towards the creek.

[Signed] William Cash.

Taken and sworn at Murwillumbah this 24th day of July 1905 before.
[Signed] WS Arnott, PM.

Exhibit “A”, R v. Ram Sukh, 1905. Photo: Peter de Waal
Exhibit “A”, R v. Ram Sukh, 1905. Photo: Peter de Waal

12

This deponent Frank Moon on his oath, saith as follows:–

     I am a labourer and am camped on the School Hill Murwillumbah. I remember yesterday the 23rd instant at about 12 o’clock I with three others was on the Church Hill at red cross on exhibit “A” marked School Hill. From this place we had a good view of the Police Paddock the Queensland Road and the scrub. While I was there I saw accused and Willie Groves on the Queensland Road, down which they were walking. They stopped at the Police Paddock corner for a little while. I saw

13

one of them pointing towards the scrub. The accused went up along the road by Groves’ place and young Groves went along the Queensland Road just past the Police Paddock. He then went through Burke’s Paddock straight towards the scrub. I and the three others left the hill and went down towards the scrub to see where they went. We went into the scrub a good way and saw the Hindoo and young Groves in the scrub. The Hindoo was the first I saw. I saw him get up and run away with his turban off. He was doing the fly of his trousers up as he went. I saw young Groves pulling his trousers up. We followed

14

accused, who ran away, towards a creek. We left then and came up to the Police Station and made a report.

    No questions.

[Signed] Frank Moon.

Taken and sworn at Murwillumbah this 24th day of July 1905 before.
[Signed] WS Arnott, PM.

15

(F. 2 – “Justices Act, 1902.”)

Statement of the Accused.

State of New South Wales, Murwillumbah
TO WIT.                                                       }

Ram Sukh (hereinafter called the defendant) stands charged before the undersigned, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the said State, this 24th day of July in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five for that he, the said defendant, on the 23rd day of July 1905, near Murwillumbah in the said State, did attempt to commit buggery on one William Groves and the said charge being read to the said defendant, and the witnesses for the prosecution, Bernard Kane, William Groves, William Cash, Frank Moon and Joseph Albert Goldsmid being severally examined in his presence, and (the depositions of the said witnesses having been read to him), the said defendant is now addressed by me the said Justice 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 against you in evidence at your trial; and you are also informed, and are to clearly understand, that you have nothing to hope from any promise of favour, and nothing to fear from any threat which may have been holden out to you to induce you to make any admission or confession of your guilt, but whatever you now say may be given in evidence against you upon your trial notwithstanding such promise or threat.” Whereupon the said defendant saith as follows:– “I reserve my defence.”

Taken before me and read over to the said defendant at Murwillumbah in the said State, the day and year first above mentioned.
[Signed] WS Arnott, PM.

16

G. 190.

New South Wales,
TO WIT.                       }

REX.
versus
Ram Sukh

Offence,— Buggery

    The accused stands committed to take his trial at the next Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Murwillumbah, in the State of New South Wales, on the day tenth of August 1905. Bail allowed the accused in £100 and two sureties in £50 each, or one in £100

[Signed] WS Arnott, PM 

JP.

Dated at Murwillumbah Police
Office, Murwillumbah
in the said State,
this tenth
day of August
AD 1905
4g 416 - 88

17

    Accused committed for trial Grafton Quarter Sessions on Thursday the 10th August 1905. Bail allowed accused in £100 and two sureties of £50 each or one in £100.

[Signed] WS Arnott, PM.

18

“Justices Act, 1902.”

Recognizance to give Evidence.

State of New South Wales, Murwillumbah
TO WIT.                                                    }

Be it remembered, that on the 24th day of July in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five Bernard Kane a Sergeant of the Police Force, stationed at Murwillumbah in the State of New South Wales, William Groves of Murwillumbah in the said State, labourer William Cash of Murwillumbah in the said State, labourer Frank Moon of Murwillumbah in the said State, labourer Joseph Albert Goldsmid of Murwillumbah in the said State, medical practitioner personally came before the undersigned, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said State, and acknowledged themselves to owe Our Sovereign Lord the King the sum of

FORTY POUNDS EACH,

of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, for the use of our said Lord the King, his heirs and successors, if they the said before mentioned persons shall fail in the condition indorsed.

[Signed] B Kane, J Albert Goldsmid, Joseph Groves, William Cash and Frank Moon.

Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first above mentioned, at Murwillumbah in the said State, before me.
[Signed] WS Arnott, PM.

The condition of the within written Recognizance is such, that whereas one Ram Sukh was this day charged before William Smith Arnott Police Magistrate one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said State, for that on the 23rd day of July 1905 near Murwillumbah in the said State, he the said Ram Sukh did attempt to commit buggery on one William Groves.

If, therefore, they the before mentioned persons shall appear at the next Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Grafton in and for the State of New South Wales, on Thursday the 10th day of August 1905, 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 Ram Sukh for the offence aforesaid, to the jurors who shall pass upon the trial of the said Ram Sukh.

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

19

Recognizance of Bail on Committal for Trial.

State of New South Wales, Lismore
TO WIT.                                             }

Be it remembered, that on the 29th day of July, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five Milkhi Ram of Gundurimba, in the State of New South Wales, farmer and freeholder, and Harman Singh, of Lismore in the said State, dealer and freeholder personally came before me, the undersigned, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said State, and severally acknowledged themselves to owe Our Sovereign Lord the King the several sums following (that is to say); the said Milki Ram the sum of fifty pounds; and the said Harman Singh the sum of fifty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively, respectively, to the use of our said Lord the King, his Heirs and Successors, if one Ram Sukh shall fail in the condition indorsed.

[Signed] Harman Singh.

Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first above mentioned, at Lismore, in the said State, before me.
[Signed] WM Fincham, JP.

Condition in Ordinary Cases.

    The condition of the within written Recognizance is such, that whereas the said Ram Sukh was on the 24th day of July 1905, charged before WS Arnott Esquire, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said State, with attempting to commit the crime of buggery if therefore
the said Ram Sukh will appear at the next Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Grafton in and for the State of New South Wales, on Thursday the 10th day of August 1905, at nine of the clock in the forenoon and then and there surrender himself into the custody of the Keeper of the Gaol there, and plead to such information as may be filed against him for or in respect of the charge aforesaid, and take his trial upon the same, and not depart the said court without leave, – then the said Recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.

[Signed] WM Fincham, JP.

20

Recognizance of Bail.

New South Wales, Casino
TO WIT.                                 }

Be it remembered, that on the 29th day of July, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five Ram Sukh, late of Murwillumbah, in the State of New South Wales, personally came before me, the undersigned, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said State, and acknowledged himself to owe Our Sovereign Lord the King, the sum following (that is to say); the said Ram Sukh the sum of one hundred pounds, of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied of his goods and chattels, lands and tenements, respectively, to the use of our said Lord the King, his Heirs and Successors, if he the said Ram Sukh shall fail in the condition indorsed.

Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first above mentioned, at the Police Office, in the said State, before me.
[Signed] EJ Pownall, JP.

Condition in Ordinary Cases.

The condition of the within written Recognizance is such, that whereas the said Ram Sukh was on the 24th day of July instant, charged before William S Arnott Police Magistrate Esquire, exercising the power of two of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said State, with attempting to commit buggery if therefore the said Ram Sukh will appear at the next Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Lismore Grafton in and for the State of New South Wales, on Thursday the 10th day of August 1905, at nine of the clock in the forenoon, and then and there surrender himself into the custody of the Keeper of the Gaol there, and plead to such information as may be filed against him for or in respect of the charge aforesaid, and take his trial upon the same, and not depart the said Court without leave, – then the said Recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.

[Signed] EJ Pownall, JP.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Subpoena]

Edward the Seventh, by the Grace of
God, of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, and of the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender
of the Faith, Emperor of India.

New South Wales,
TO WIT.                   }

To: Sergeant Kane, William Groves, William Cash, Frank Moon all of Murwillumbah

    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 Wednesday the fourth day of October, next, by Nine of the Clock in the forenoon of the same day, at the Circuit Court in our State of New South Wales, in the Court House, situate in at Lismore
there to testify the truth, and give evidence, on the part of the Crown, before Our said Justices, touching a certain information to be preferred against

Ram Sukh

in the case of Attempting to commit an unnatural offence
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 Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Chief Justice of Our said Court, at Sydney, this tenth day of August in the fifth year of Our Reign and in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five.

For the Prothonotary
WH Hazelton
Clerk of the Supreme Court.

Crown Solicitor

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Subpoena] 4

Edward the Seventh, by the Grace of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
God, of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, and of the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender
of the Faith, Emperor of India.

New South Wales, Lismore
TO WIT.                              }

To:  Mr Buchanan, Mr Warren, Mr Gillett of Murwillumbah

    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 Wednesday the fourth day of October, next, by Nine of the Clock in the forenoon of the same day, at Lismore in our State of New South Wales, in the Court House, situate in Lismore
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

Ram Sukh

in the case of Attempted sodomy
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 Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Our Chief Justice of Our Supreme Court of New South Wales, at Sydney Lismore, this twenty ninth day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five.

For the Prothonotary
WM Fincham
Clerk of the Supreme Court.
A commissioner of the said Supreme Court and Clerk of Petty Sessions at Lismore

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[On the depositions’ cover sheet is the following]

Circuit Court
Quarter Sessions
Grafton
Lismore
10th August 1905
October 1905
No. 343 7
Depositions. No. 113
Rex
v.
Ram Sukh (on bail)
Attempted sodomy
Committed at: Murwillumbah
on: 24th July 1905

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Court. Circuit Court, Lismore
Date. 9th October 1905
Cor. Walker Judge.
Plea. Not guilty
Verdict. Not guilty
Judgment.
C Delohery, Crown Prosecutor
Note.– In event of postponement, it should be stated whether accused admitted to bail.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

23 July 05 Murwillumbah William Groves
S. 80 Attempt to commit buggery
[Initialled] RBO
27.7.05
Attempt to commit buggery
[Initial illegible]
11.8.05
subpoenas except Dr Goldsmid; Letter McIntosh re Dr Goldsmid dep 10/8/05

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, Tue 1 Aug 1905 5

ON DIT
———◦———


    That the alleged offence up before the local Bench, [see 25 and 26 Jul 1905 above], the other day ought to pretty well convince river people as to what these Hindoos really are.

    That if a public agitation to clear such low-down Asiatics out of the country is much longer delayed On Dit will have to start one himself.

    That when he thinks of these filthy wretches being employed in the milking yard On Dit blushes for the white men who employ them.

    That the debate on the Yellow Peril in the Methodist Church to-night should prove interesting.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Northern Star and Richmond and Tweed Rivers Advocate, Sat 7 Oct 1905 6

SUPREME COURT.
LISMORE ASSIZE.
Before His Honor Mr Justice Walker. 7
Wednesday, October, 4, 1905.

    The first Assize, or, as it is more commonly known, Circuit Court, was opened at Lismore on Wednesday morning last by His Honor Mr Justice Walker. Mr C Delohery (instructed by Mr Kidson, of the Crown Law Office) being the Crown Prosecutor. His Honor was attired in his scarlet and fur robes.

    At the opening of the Court there was a large attendance of spectators, including several ladies. The bar present consisted of Messrs Delohery, Sheridan, Nicholas, Warren, and Young, and the solicitors present were Messrs NJ Simmons, Dowling (Grafton), Redford (Kyogle), AM Sullivan, McIntosh, Best, Somerville, and PP Jones. The jury-box was occupied by the Mayor (Alderman McKenzie), several of the aldermen and a number of magistrates.

    On the Judge taking his seat the Mayor rose and said, “May it please your Honor. With your Honor’s permission I beg to extend to you on behalf of the citizens of Lismore a hearty welcome to the town. We know that it is not a thing to be proud of to have a heavy criminal list, but we feel that the establishment of a Circuit Court here is a recognition of the importance of our town. We trust that your Honor will have a pleasant stay in the town and district, that your arduous labourers may be lightened as much as possible, and that you may have a safe return.”

    Mr Simmons said that on behalf of the legal profession of the district he was pleased to welcome his Honor to preside at the first Circuit Court in Lismore. He was proud that a gentleman of his Honor’s ability had been appointed to the duty, and he trusted that he would be again sent hither. The appointment of a Circuit Court at Lismore was a recognition of the importance of the town, at which the citizens must feel gratified. The town, as his Honor could probable see was a progressive one. He might mention that the first court house was a building with a shingle roof, which was also used on Sundays as a Roman Catholic chapel. Then there had been another one, and then the present building was erected. His Honor would readily see how absolutely inadequate was the court house, and now that an Assize Court had been established here and the importance of the town and district recognised it was to be hoped that another court house would be erected. He trusted his Honor’s stay in the district would be pleasant, and that he would leave it with pleasant memories.

    His Honor thanked the Mayor and Mr Simmons for their kind expressions regarding himself. Unfortunately the occasion was not graced by the presence of his Honor the Chief Justice, but, as they were aware, through the absence from the State of his Excellency the Governor the reins of government had fallen to [the Chief Justice] Sir Frederick Darley, who was consequently unable to be present as he had originally intended. The misfortune of the Chief Justice in this respect was his (Mr Justice Walker’s) good fortune, and he had to express his pleasure at that his first visit to Lismore. He congratulated the citizens that their town had attained the dignity of being appointed an Assize town, which was only due to its importance. He hoped it would never be a cause of regret that Lismore now divided Circuit honours with Grafton. There was certainly one thing which Lismore should ask for – but whether the request would be granted was a different question – and that was a new court house. It was quite plain even from the slight opportunity he had of seeing it that the building was quite inadequate for the work to which it had now to be devoted. He believed that even before the Assize the unsuitableness and inadequateness of the building had been felt. He hoped that before long Lismore would see in its midst the administration of justice adequately housed. He once more thanked them for their kind expressions and good wishes towards himself.

    There were only a few jurors who did not answer their names, and his Honor announced that all except one had given good excuses for not having answered. In the case of Mr C Yabsley the only excuse he had before him was a statement in a telegram, which was insufficient, and he would therefore fine Mr Yabsley £3. If, however, the facts stated in the telegram were verified by an affidavit, he would direct the Sheriff to remit the fine.

    Mr C Delohery then handed to his Honor his commission as Crown Prosecutor.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Lismore Chronicle and Richmond River Courier, Tue 10 Oct 1905 8

LISMORE CIRCUIT COURT.

Saturday, October 7.

    Before his Honor Mr Justice Walker.

Monday, October 9.

ALLEGED ABOMINABLE OFFENCE.

    Ram Suk, [sic] a Hindoo, was indicted on a charge of having at Murwillumbah, on July 23, assaulted one William Groves with intent to commit an abominable offence.

    The accused who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr Sheridan, instructed by Mr Mason.

    Jury: Joshua Browne, W Harris, A Cameron, GM Milne, Russell Barton, WL Boyce, W Robinson, G Cottee, C Anderson, TJ McIntyre, A Harrison, and J Weir.

    The evidence in this case is unfit for publication.

    The case had not concluded when we went to press.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Northern Star and Richmond and Tweed Rivers Advocate Wed 11 Oct 1905 9

SUPREME COURT.
LISMORE ASSIZE.
Before His Honor Mr Justice Walker.

MONDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 9th.

    After our issue on Monday afternoon went to press the following cases were dealt with:–

AN ACQUITTAL.

    Ram Suk [sic] was arraigned on an indictment charging him with having at Murwillumbah on July 23rd assaulted one William Groves with intent to commit an abominable offence.

    The accused was defended by Mr Sheridan (instructed by Mr Mason and Mr McIntosh), and pleaded not guilty.

    Ata M Shah was sworn in as interpreter.

    The jury consisted of the following gentlemen:– Messrs. Joshua Bourne, Wm. Harris, A Cameron, GM Milne, Russell Barton, WL Boyce, W Robinson, G Cottee, C Anderson, TJ McIntyre, A Harrison, and J Weir.

    The material part of the evidence was unfit for publication.

    In defence, the accused [Ram Sukh] went into the witness box, and considerable difficulty was experienced in swearing him. Eventually the difficulty was overcome. He deposed that without any cause one of the Crown witnesses asked him if he had any money, and when he said he had none the person in question pulled his turban off and made it catch in a barbed-wire fence. Witness said that while he tried to lift up his turban the boys (the Crown witnesses) picked up sticks, whereupon he “started to make noise.” A Mr Warren and another man then called to witness, and he went to them, and in consequence of what they said he went to Murwillumbah and to the police. station twice, but saw no one, and the constable and afterwards Sergeant Kane came and arrested him. He knew nothing at all about the charge made against him.

    Joseph E Buchanan, farmer, residing at Murdering Creek, deposed that on Sunday, July 23rd, he saw the accused. (The ?) witness at the time was in company with a man named Warren, sitting outside witness’s house. Accused was crossing a paddock. Four young men or lads were there following the accused. They had sticks in their hands. Witness next saw the accused getting through the wire fence, and he lost his turban. The four youths followed him down to the creek opposite witness’s house. He heard one of the boys say, “You black -----, if you don’t give us £50 we’ll knock your brains out. If you don’t give us £50 we’ll send you up.” Warren then went down to the creek to ask them what they were “knocking” the Hindoo about for. One of them in reply said that they had caught the accused committing a certain crime. Warren advised them to tell Groves’s father or the police. Then they left, and afterwards the accused went off in the direction of the town.

    This concluded the evidence for the defence.

    Sergeant Kane, recalled for the Crown, deposed that some time before he arrested the accused he saw him walking along the middle of the street. From that position it would be impossible to see if anyone was in the police station. When the accused was overtaken he was going from the police station.

    At this stage (7.15 pm) the court adjourned for dinner. On resuming, Mr Sheridan addressed the jury for the defence, and the Crown Prosecutor replied. His Honor then summed up.

    After a retirement of 10 minutes the jury returned into court with a verdict of not guilty , and accused was thereupon discharged.

    The court then adjourned till 9.20 am the following day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Lismore Chronicle and Richmond River Courier, Fri 13 Oct 1905 10

LISMORE CIRCUIT COURT.
Monday, October 9.

    Ram Suk, charged with attempting an abominable offence at Murwillumbah, was found not guilty and discharged.

    When the jury announced their verdict a number of Hindoos in the gallery commenced to “demonstrate,” but their jubilancy was nipped in the bud by the stentorian cry of “Soilence in the Coort.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, Tue 21 Nov 1905 11

LOCAL AND GENERAL
———◦———

DISTRICT COURT.

    The District Court sits at Murwillumbah to-day, commencing at 10 am. Judge Armstrong will preside. A big list of cases is set down for hearing, and the Court will probably not conclude till Wednesday. Besides a number of small debts cases two appeals from decisions given by Mr Arnott, PM, are to be fought, viz, Groves v. Jimmy Williams, in which the former was convicted and fined for stealing oranges from the Garden of Eden, and Curran v. Mills, a matter of disputed wages. A claim for damages in connection with the recent Terranora cane fires is to be heard, and also a libel action, in which Ram Sukh, a Hindoo, sues the proprietor of the Tweed Herald for damages alleged to have been sustained through certain pars. The last-named case will be heard before a jury of four.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 22 Nov 1905 12

LIBEL ACTION BY A HINDOO.
———◦———

Murwillumbah, Tuesday.

    Before Acting Judge Armstrong and a jury of four, Ram Sukh, a Hindoo, sued the proprietor of the “Tweed Herald” for alleged libel, claiming £25 damages. Plaintiff had been committed by the local Bench to stand his trial at Grafton Court on a charge of attempting to commit a certain offender. Defendants, alluding thereto, published strong denunciation against the employment of Asiatics. The Hindoo was subsequently acquitted, and he then brought this action, but did not go into the witness-box. The jury awarded him £1 damages, and the Judge has reserved his decision, on the application of plaintiff’s solicitor, for a certificate for costs.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tweed Times and Brunswick Advocate, Wed 22 Nov 1905 13

DISTRICT COURT.
———◦———
(Before Mr Acting Justice Armstrong.)
———

    The District Court opened at the Court House yesterday morning.

    The legal profession was represented by Messrs John Sheridan (Sydney), FAA Russell, CE Weigall, Nicholas, J Young, and Warren (barristers); and Messrs GC Halliday, P Street, CB Halliday, GH Mason, Sullivan, and Weigall (solicitors).

RAM SUKH v. NICKLIN.—LIBEL.

    Mr Mason for plaintiff, Mr Sheridan (instructed by Mr Street) for defendant.

    JURY.—Jas King, Rowland Chas Knight, George Skinner, and Patrick Smith.

    This was a case in which Ram Sukh sued George F Nicklin with that he, on Tuesday, 1st of August, 1905, falsely and maliciously printed and published of the plaintiff in a a [sic] newspaper called the Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, printed and circulating at Murwillumbah and surrounding districts, the following words:—

That the alleged hideous offence up before the Bench the other day ought to pretty well convince River people as to what these Hindoos really are; and

That if a public agitation to clear these low-down Asiatics out of the country is much longer delayed “On Dit” will have to start one himself; and

    The words complained of were:—

That when he thinks of these filthy wretches being employed in the milking yard “On Dit” blushes for the white men who employ them.

    Defendant pleaded “not guilty,” but admitted the publication of the words complained of and contended that there was no libel, and that the said words were published in the public interest.

    Counsel for plaintiff addressed the Jury at length, and produced copies of the Tweed Herald of different dates, showing the paragraph complained of and also a report of the subsequent trial of Ram Sukh at Lismore Circuit Court. He then addressed the jury with regard to the libel law, and dealt with the facts of the case. He contended that the words complained of were not only defamatory, but unjustifiable, and defendant published them at a time when the case was subjudice, and that he was liable. He concluded by asking the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff.

    William Smith Arnott, police magistrate at Murwillumbah, deposed: On 24th July, 1905, Ram Sukh was charged before me with attempting to commit an unnatural offence on a boy; he was committed for trial at Grafton Quarter Sessions; should say that the paragraph published in the Tweed Herald (produced) referred to the case of Ram Sukh.

    By Mr Sheridan: I don’t know that there have been any similar cases in this district.

    Bernard Kane , sergeant of police stationed at Murwillumbah, deposed: Was here on or about 23rd July; from information received I arrested Ram Sukh on a criminal charge; accused was charged before the local court and was committed for trial at Grafton Quarter Sessions; defendant was not tried at Grafton; attended the Lismore Circuit Court on 6th October; defendant was tried and acquitted; think that the paragraph complained of referred to Ram Sukh.

    Arthur Ernest Pacey, painter, residing at M’bah, on oath, deposed. Know defendant and plaintiff in this case; the words complained of conveyed the inference that they referred to the case of Ram Sukh.

    By Mr Sheridan: Read the par on the day of the issue of the paper; didn’t say anything to Ram Sukh about the paragraph; infer from the “par” that he was charged with committing the offence.

    No evidence was called for the defence.

    Counsel for defendant in addressing the jury contended that the fact of Ram Sukh not going into the witness-box to testify to the pain of body and mind and the damage his reputation has suffered, showed that there were visible signs of someone else having brought the case before the court from some ulterior motives. He also contended that the paragraph referred to Asiatics as being undesirable generally, and that there was no libel on any particular individual, and no one individual had grounds for prosecution. He further thought it almost extraordinary thing that the plaintiff didn’t go into the box and prove his case, and what injury he had sustained, and that defendant was entitled to express his opinion in the freest way on questions of importance to the public, at any time, so long as they were bona fide. He asked the jury to return a verdict for defendant.

    Counsel for plaintiff quoted certain cases with respect o libel on a class. Mr Sheridan intimated that the digest of one of the cases quoted was dissimilar in some respects to his knowledge of the case, and asked His Honor to note the objection.

    His Honor said that he could only go on what he had before him, and that if Counsel desired to raise objections he should put forward a digest of cases.

    His Honor summed up, and instructed the jury that what they would have to decide was, what damages the plaintiff was entitled to. The libel before the jury was a serious one, and the damages claimed were £25. From the evidence before the Court it was shown that the charge against Ram Sukh was the only one of that character in the district for a considerable period, and the jury could only come to the conclusion that the article referred to plaintiff in this case. It was a serious charge, and he wished the jury to note that the words complained of were published while the case was sub judice, and also the fact that defendant had not gone into the box to prove what damage he had suffered.

    The jury retired and returned with a verdict for plaintiff with £1 damages.

    Mr Mason applied for costs, but Mr Sheridan objected. His Honor said that no paper was entitled to express such strong opinions on a case while sub judice and the words complained of were very serious.

    His Honor reserved his decision with regard to costs.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Morning Post, Fri 24 Nov 1905 14

NEW SOUTH WALES.
————

HINDOO LIBEL CASE.

    At the District Court, Murwillumbah, to-day, Ram Sukh, a Hindoo, sued the proprietor of the Tweed “Herald” for £35 [sic] damages. Plaintiff had been committed by the local bench for trial on a serious charge, and defendant, alluding to the charge, published a strong denunciation of the employment of Asiatics. Sukh was acquitted and brought the action. He was awarded £1, and the decision as to costs was reserved.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, Fri 24 Nov 1905 15

THAT LIBEL ACTION.
———◦———
VEREICT [sic] FOR PLAINTIFF.
————
RAM SUKH AWARDED TWENTY
SHILLINGS, WITHOUT COSTS.
————

    Ever since the Tweed Herald was established it has fought in season and out of season, for a White Australia and more especially for a North Coast district, free of alien races. Our task has always been a difficult one, but we have never lost heart. Even this week, after a set-back by the verdict of a jury we shall not toss up the sponge and acknowledge defeat. Let not the alien population of this district and their white skinned supporters and advocates lay the flattering unction to their souls that the result of this week’s libel action will cause us to alter our policy in the slightest degree. If we did no, we would expect supporters of our White Tweed policy—and fortunately they are legion—to shrink from us with horror and disgust. No! let the men and women of this district, who view the aliens as we view them—a menace to our prosperity and our social and political life,—rest assured that the verdict on Tuesday last will, in the future, spur us on to greater efforts to rid this “God’s Garden” of ours of the black spot on its otherwise fair escutcheon. We believe that this trouble of ours will have the effect of ultimately doing good to the cause we love so well—A White Australia—and if so, we have not fought in vain.

    We shall make no comments on the case to-day. The weather is hot, so are we.

DISTRICT COURT.
———◦———
Tuesday, Nov 21st.
———
Before Mr Acting Justice Armstrong.
————

    The District Court commenced its sittings on Tuesday at 10 am.

    There was a large attendance of the public, the Court-house being crowded.

    There were no less than six visiting barristers present from Sydney, viz Messrs J Sheridan, FA Russell, C Weigall, EW Warren, J Young and Nicholls. District solicitors were represented in the persons of Messrs Weigall (Mullumbimby), AM Sullivan (Lismore), P Street, GH Mason, and C and GC Halliday.

————————
LIBEL ACTION.
————
RAM SUKH Versus NICKLIN.
————

    This was a case in which Ram Sukh, a Hindoo, sued Geo F Nicklin, proprietor of the Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, a newspaper circulating throughout the Tweed and Brunswick districts, for damages to the amount of £25, alleged to have been sustained by the publication of certain pars on 1st August last, to wit

That the alleged hideous offence up before the Bench the other day ought to pretty well convince River people as to what these Hindoos really are; and

That if a public agitation to clear such low-down Asiatics out of the country is much longer delayed “On Dit” will have to start one himself; and

That when he thinks of these filthy wretches being employed to the milking yard “On Dit” blushes for the white men who employ them.

    Mr Mason appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J Sheridan, instructed by Mr Street, for the defence.

    The following jury were selected and sworn: Jas King, Rowland Chas Knight, Geo Skinner, and Patk Smith.

    The defendant pleaded “not guilty,” but admitted the publication of the words complained of, which, however, were a fair comment on a matter of public interest, and no libel on the plaintiff. There was no special defence.

    Mr Mason addressed the jury at length on the legal aspect of the question, explaining what “libel” meant, how it applied and how it affected an individual. To be libellous words must be published, and then it must be proved not only that they were intended for a particular person or persons, but that they did some damage or in some way caused loss and annoyance and pain of both body and mind. He then dealt with the facts of the present case, and produced copies of the Tweed Herald of August 1st and Oct 13th respectively, the one containing the alleged libel, and the other the account of Ram Sukh’s acquittal by his Honor, Mr Justice Walker, at Lismore Circuit Court. After reading out the words complained of, Mr Mason explained their significance; these words, the plaintiff, said were defamatory, and had injured him, and had affected his case so that it was taken from Grafton Quarter Sessions to Lismore. The plaintiff was tried for his alleged offence and acquitted, and knowing this full well the defendant had made no public apology for the words complained of. When the words were published it was with the wilful intention of prejudicing Ram Sukh in the eyes of the people of this district, and was altogether an unjust comment on a matter then sub judice. It was the usual practice to give every man British fair play, and not to consider him guilty till he was actually found so; yet the defendant disregarded all this, all British fair play, and solely in order to do Ram Sukh injury had published the words complained of while he was charged with an offence of which he was not proved to be guilty, and of which he was afterwards acquitted. Therefore the plaintiff came to this court, and to them as jurymen, and asked for justice, and for damages in accordance with the injury sustained to his character and the pain caused to both body and mind.

    At this stage Mr Sheridan again admitted the publication of the paragraph set out in the complaint.

    William Smith Arnott, Registrar, deposed that he was police magistrate at Murwillumbah on the 24th July last when the plaintiff in this action was charged before witness with attempting to commit an unnatural offence on a boy. He reserved his defence and was committed to take his trial at Grafton Quarter Sessions. Before this time no other Hindoo had ever been charged with a similar offence. Witness saw the words “alleged hideous offence up before the Bench the other day” but would not like to say they had reference to Ram Sukh. Also saw the words “ought to pretty well convince river people as to what these Hindoos really are;” thought they referred to Ram Sukh’s case. Saw the other words, and thought they meant what they said. “Filthy wretches” witness thought meant low-down Asiatics.

    By Mr Sheridan: Did not know of his own knowledge that there had been other charges of a filthy nature here against Hindoos. Had heard that the Byron Bay, Alstonville, Coraki and other creamery companies had issued notices prohibiting Hindoos from being employed in the milking yards.

    Sergeant Kane deposed that he was stationed here in July last. About the 23rd July he arrested Ram Sukh for an unnatural offence and brought him up before the police court the following day. Evidence was given, and plaintiff reserved his defence and was committed for trial at Grafton Quarter Sessions. Plaintiff was tried at Lismore before his Honor Judge Walker, and was acquitted. Witness saw the par, “That the alleged hideous offence, &c.” and knowing that Ram Sukh was up that day, thought the words referred to him. During the year there had been no other offence of this nature here.

    By his Honor: Had been Sergeant here for seven years.

    Mr Sheridan said that he admitted at once that the words “alleged hideous offence,” &c, referred to Ram Sukh.

    Arthur E Pacey, painter, M’bah, deposed that he knew both parties in this case; witness saw the par “That the alleged hideous offence,” &c, and to his mind it conveyed the meaning that the man was guilty of committing the offence; as far as he could see, the second par meant that the Hindoos were not fit to work in the milking yards.

    By Mr Sheridan: These words took the Hindoos as a whole. Had never heard that Ram Sukh had been employed in the milking yard. Read the words in the paper the day they were published, but said nothing about them to Ram Sukh or anyone. Noticed the word “alleged” in front of the other words; did not put any meaning on it, but took the par as a whole. The meaning of the par was that Ram Sukh was supposed to have committed the offence.

    This was the plaintiff’s case.

    Mr Sheridan, addressing his Honor and the jury, said that his learned friend had brought into the court a case the like of which he had never heard of before, a case which made himself, his client, and other people look ridiculous. A most noticeable thing was that Ram Sukh, the plaintiff in this case, and who had suffered such terrible injury and pain, did not go into the witness box at all; one would have thought that he was the very person to go in and give evidence explaining how he was “injured and suffered great pain of both body and mind.” Ram Sukh seemed to be playing a very minor part in the matter. It must be plain and obvious that the action was not one of Ram Sukh’s, but that it was an action on the part of someone who brought it forward for the paltriest of reasons—to make money out of others. Ram Sukh’s name was being used for an ulterior purpose by one who hoped to profit by the action. With regard to black labor and the employment of Hindoos in the milking yard, and its bearing on this case, he would point out that Mr Nicklin had simply put before the people of this district his attitude on the subject, which was that these people were truly an undesirable class to be employed in the milking yard. His attitude had always been consistent upon this, and therefore when he published the words complained of he was only voicing the opinions he had voiced time and again previously. Either one or two things could be implied in this case—that Ram Sukh was guilty of that charge made against him, or that an abominable conspiracy had been trumped up against him. Why then did he not go into the witness box and manfully disprove the things said of him, instead of leaving his Counsel to do all the fighting for him. No, Ram Sukh was not going into the witness-box to try and prove anything, and this showed what an undesirable class of people these Hindoos really were. Mr Mason had made out that the publication of the words complained of had prejudiced Ram Sukh’s trial, and affected his case so much that it was sent on from Grafton to Lismore. This fact might throw some light on their (the jurymen’s) minds; he knew all about the case and could tell them it had not been affected in the least by the words complained of; it would be absurd to think that a newspaper published at Murwillumbah could effect the trial of a man at Grafton, 200 miles away. As for the transference of the case to Lismore, Mr Mason ought to know very well that it was done for obvious reasons, purely to convenience witnesses who had to come from Murwillumbah, and also to save expense to the Crown. The words complained of were intended to apply to the whole community of Hindoos, and not to one only. He would point out that a libel on a class did not entitle all the members of that class to bring an action. He had heard people say that lawyers were a lot of thieves, but that did not entitle him to an action. General remarks about Parliament, and about the aldermen of a Council might be made, but this could not be used as a cloak for an action, as the remarks referred generally and not to a particular individual. So then everything said by Mr Nicklin of Ram Sukh applied to every Hindoo in the district. “On Dit would have to start an agitation himself” could not have any reference to Ram Sukh. The other words, “alleged hideous offence, etc” and “filthy wretches in the milking yard, etc” did not refer to Ram Sukh but to every Hindoo in the district. There was not one tittle of evidence to show that Ram Sukh had even been in a milking yard in his life; how then could he have been injured in this respect. The word “alleged” had a meaning well known to every man in every British community; therefore when Mr Nicklin said “alleged hideous offence” he expressed no opinion. Ram Sukh had no right to anything but a farthing damages, ie, if they thought he had been injured at all by the words complained of. In considering their verdict they must bear in mind that the defendant in this case represented one of the most potent organs in the world—the press; he was entitled to put into the press his opinions of anything of public import as long as he did not intend to injure any particular person. It was for them to say if the liberty of the press in this district were to be restricted in such things as that under consideration, which was simply an expression of opinion in a matter of public interest. Ram Sukh had to satisfy them that Mr Nicklin had exceeded the right which every man in the community possessed; he had no greater right than any other man. But he had a perfect right to express his opinions as long as those opinions were bona-fide. This was simply a case to get money out of Mr Nicklin. They would send plaintiff out of court about his business, and teach people that actions of this king were not to be brought lightly forward.

    Mr Mason wished to make an explanation regarding the personal attack on himself.

    Mr Sheridan objected; he would hear his learned friend upon law, but nothing else.

    Mr Mason referred his Honor to several cases likely to assist him in the one before the Court. His Honor requested cases from Mr Sheridan in support of his side, but the latter regretted his inability to supply them, owing to a letter concerning the matter going astray.

    His Honor, in summing up, said that in this case it must be considered first of all whether there had been a libel upon plaintiff, and if they came to that conclusion they must consider what damages they would assess the plaintiff. In publishing a libel such as this it could not be regarded as a light matter—in saying by certain On Dit pars that plaintiff and his compatriots were not desirable people to live in the district. The plaintiff had only claimed £25, and he therefore had assessed the damage himself. They had heard the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff, given perhaps with more or less hesitation, but each witness seemed to have had the plaintiff in mind when he read the article complained of, as the person against whom this article was directed. The article was in consequence of a police court case, and on which the plaintiff was acquitted. It was quite reasonable to suppose that the plaintiff was the man in the mind of the writer of the alleged libel, and was one of those whom if a public agitation to clear them out of the country were much longer delayed On Dit would have to start one himself. It was a serious thing for a writer in the press to single out a class and point them out as undesirable to reside in a district. Of course it was only fair and reasonable that the press could comment on matters of public interest. But if the matters included a reference to private individuals it might mean that damage had been done. It was for them to consider what damage had been done in this case. They would bear in mind that there had been no other trial recently of this nature, and that this was written before the trial took place, which seemed an indication of the unimpartial frame of mind in which the article was written. If they thought first of all that the plaintiff was referred to, then it was for them to say what damage had been done to him. The plaintiff had not gone into the witness box to say what damage had been done. If they could not give him £25 they could give him half of £25.

    The jury retired, but in about 20 minutes returned to ask his Honor if a verdict carried costs. His Honor replied that it did; £10 or over carried costs, as a matter of course, but anything under that amount was left to the judge, who, if he considered the circumstances of the case warranted costs, could impose them.

    Not having made up their mind, the jury retired again, then returned shortly after with a verdict for £1 damages.

    Mr Mason applied for costs, which Mr Sheridan opposed, pointing out that the law provided that if the damages awarded were lower than forty shillings no costs were to be allowed.

    His Honor considered the matter was in his hands, but would not give his decision then.

——————
LIBEL ACTION COSTS.
———

    The question of costs was considered on Wednesday night.

    Mr Sheridan, addressing His Honor, said there was little doubt that so far as the plaintiff was concerned he had sustained no injury. Certainly the paragraphs had been published, but when the plaintiff went before a Lismore jury he was acquitted of the charge against him. He wished to point out to his Honor that though a considerable time elapsed between the publication of the paragraphs and the hearing of the case in Lismore, defendant Nicklin was not asked for an apology as he should have been. And then there was the fact that plaintiff was not put into the witness box in order to establish his character. Under these circumstances he contended his Honor would not allow costs.

    Mr Mason said with regard to an apology, defendant could have tendered it under the Defamation Act , but he failed to do so. And so far as putting the plaintiff into the witness box was concerned, he intended doing so and had endeavoured to secure the services of an interpreter.

    Mr Sheridan: There was a man present at the court who could have acted as interpreter.
His Honor said no newspaper was justified in expressing opinions about anyone of a defamatory character, whether he be a white man or an Asiatic. Much had been said and written with regard to the Asiatic, but he is here and while he remains he is entitled to the most absolute rights before the law that other people enjoy, and no newspaper has a right to treat him in a different way to that of others. He could not imagine that a newspaper of the standing of the one in question endeavoured to wilfully wrong the plaintiff, but at the same time it was guilty of a great indiscretion. He thought a letter should have been written to the proprietor asking for an apology. He had to consider the fact that no such letter was sent, that no action was taken until the trial had passed by in Lismore, and the fact that the plaintiff was not put into the witness box; but he did not wish to give a verdict that would create the impression that he condoned the publication of comments on cases that were Sub Judice. The enormity of such an offence could not be too much emphasised.

    At this stage Mr Mason submitted several references, and after hearing argument on them his Honor refused costs. He remarked that he would not encourage actions of the kind being brought into court.

    Five columns of court cases will be found on our back page.

————————
COURT CLIPPINGS.
———

    Counsel Warren: I suppose you are not a scholar—know nothing about measurement of areas, etc?
    Witness (taken back): No, I’m not; I know nothing about areas, but can form pretty correct ideas.

————

    Mr Mason (very heatedly): Did you ever say that, sir—yes or no.
    Witness (angrily, and at the top of his voice): Yes!
    His Honor: Witness, do not raise your voice so. Mr Mason, I wish you would not raise your voice when addressing the witnesses.

————

    Sample of Cross Examination:
    Counsel Warren: What did you measure the area with?
    Witness: A tape measure.
    Counsel Warren: What sort of a tape measure?
    Witness: A new one.
    Counsel Warren: Brand new?
    Witness: Yes, brand new.
    Counsel Warren: How much did you pay for it?
    Witness (testily): That’s my business.
    Counsel Warren: You keep a fruit shop?
    Witness: I do not.
    Counsel Warren? You swear that?
    Witness: I do.
    Counsel Warren: Did you ever keep one?
    Witness: Never.
    Counsel Warren: Do you live in a fruit shop?
    Witness: I do not.
    Counsel: What, sir; do you mean to say you do not live in a fruit shop?
    Witness (stolidly): I do.
    Counsel Warren: You swear that?
    Witness: I do.
    Counsel Warren: Do you sell fruit or deal in it?
    Witness: I do not.
    Counsel Warren (nonplussed): Then did you never have anything to do with a fruit shop?
    Witness: My wife kept one once.
    Counsel Warren: When did she give it up?
    Witness: About three months ago.
    And then counsel got on to something else, while the court wondered what the fruit shop had to do with the measurement of a disputed area.

————

    Barrister Sheridan: you milk about 30 or 40 cows.
    Witness: Yes.
    His Honor: What’s that; how many?
    Barrister Sheridan: From 30 to 40 your Honor. (To witness): How many milkers have you in your family? (Loud smile from the court).
    Witness (scratching his head): Let me see; they all milk except Mary; about seven or eight.
    His Honor: (putting it down); How many milkers in his family: about seven or eight. (The Court smiles very audible.)
    His Honor: I shall have to adjourn Lismore Court till Thursday. It will take us till to-morrow (Wednesday) to finish up here. I did not expect such a heavy list.
    Mr Mason: Unless you [sic] Honor will sit this evening.
    His Honor: What!
    Mr Mason: Would your Honor go on with the business of the Court this evening?
    His Honor (decisively). No; I will not. I’m not going to work unreasonable hours. (No more said.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tweed Times and Brunswick Advocate, Sat 25 Nov 1905 16

DISTRICT COURT.
———◦———
(Before Mr Acting Justice Armstrong.)
———

    The District Court which was opened on Tuesday and adjourned the same evening, resumed on Wednesday last.

    In the case of Ram Sukh v Nicklin, for libel, no costs were allowed, His Honor contending that costs were included in the verdict of the jury. His Honor stated by the way that Asiatics were entitled to all the provisions of the law, and that no newspaper had a right to treat them any different to anyone else; also the fact of defendant commenting on a case when sub judice showed very great indiscretion.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Brisbane Courier, Thu 30 Nov 1905 17

MURWILLUMBAH AND DISTRICT.
———◦———
DISTRICT COURT.

    MURWILLUMBAH, Nov 24.—The District Court was resumed on Wednesday morning, before Mr Acting Justice Armstrong.

    In the libel action Ram Sukh v. Nicklin, his Honor, after hearing argument from counsel, decided to refuse costs to the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff did not go into the witness-box to prove his character weighed considerably with his Honor, also the fact that the proprietor of the “Tweed Herald” had not been given the opportunity to publicly apologise. His Honor also did not wish to encourage defamation actions of this nature.

 


1     Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, Tue 25 Jul 1905, p. 5. Emphasis added.

2     Tweed Times and Brunswick Advocate, Wed 26 Jul 1905, p. 6.

3     SRNSW: NRS880, [9/7090], Supreme Court, Papers and depositions, Lismore, 1905, No. 113.

4     Two subpoenas calling defence witnesses were found in the file, these have been combined into one here.

5     Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, Tue 1 Aug 1905, p. 5.

6     The Northern Star and Richmond and Tweed Rivers Advocate, Sat 7 Oct 1905, p. 2.

7     Judge WG Walker’s notes, (2/7352 & 2/7353), for this case, could not be located at SRNSW.

8     The Lismore Chronicle and Richmond River Courier, Tue 10 Oct 1905, p. 5.

9     The Northern Star and Richmond and Tweed Rivers Advocate, Wed 11 Oct 1905, p. 4. Emphasis added.

10   The Lismore Chronicle and Richmond River Courier, Fri 13 Oct 1905, p. 6.

11   Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, Tue 21 Nov 1905, p. 4. Emphasis added.

12   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 22 Nov 1905, p. 10.

13   Tweed Times and Brunswick Advocate, Wed 22 Nov 1905, p. 2. Emphasis added.

14   Morning Post, Fri 24 Nov 1905, p. 2.

15   Tweed Herald and Brunswick Chronicle, Fri 24 Nov 1905, pp. 4, 5. Emphasis added.

16   Tweed Times and Brunswick Advocate, Sat 25 Nov 1905, p. 5.

17   The Brisbane Courier, Thu 30 Nov 1905, p. 2.