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, Charles Robert Pilley - Unfit For Publication
Text Size

 

 

Below also see: Charles Robert Pilley, 1911 – Expose person
Charles Robert Pilley, 1917,
Charles Robert Pilley, 1923,
Charles Robert Pilley, 1927,
Charles Robert Pilley, 1963

 

Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Thu 2 Feb 1905 1

GOULBURN QUARTER SESSIONS.
————
Wednesday Afternoon.
————

    Before his Honor Judge Fitzhardinge.

————
Thursday.

    The Court resumed at 9.30.

    Charles Robert Pilley, a youth, was charged with having on November 13, 1904, at Dalton, indecently assaulted Maud Mary Lawton, a girl then under the age of 12 years, to wit, 11 years and 3 months. There was a second count of intent.

    The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was undefended.

    The Crown Prosecutor stated to his Honor that the arresting constable was ill, but he would submit depositions.

    Mrs Lawton, residing at Nelanglo, near Gundaroo, deposed that on November 13, while staying at Dalton, she sent her little daughter on a message; when she left she was bright, but on her return was excited and crying; in consequence of what the child told her she sent for the police.

    To accused: She heard the girl say that he was the man.

    To his Honor: The girl was 11 years old last July.

    Maud Mary Lawton deposed that on the day in question she went from her grandfather’s place to Mrs Friend’s place, a short distance off; she stayed at Friend’s a little while and then started to return; when she got about half way home accused came up to her and asked her where she lived; witness, pointing, said “down There;” (witness gave particulars of the assault); she screamed all the time and after a while accused let her go; she went home and told her mother of what had occurred.

    To accused: She had never seen him before; she told the constable she was not quite sure what clothes the boy wore; she was not influenced by her uncle to say he was the boy.

    To the Crown-Prosecutor: The accused was the boy who stopped her.

    William George Friend, residing at Dalton, deposed that on the day the little girl called at his place; the little girl obtained some milk at witness’s place; the girl’s grandfather’s place was about three-quarters of a mile from his place; the country between the two houses was of a scrubby rough nature; when witness returned from answering the door when the girl knocked accused was not at the house and witness did not see him until some time later.

    Constable Mackie, stationed at Yass, deposed that he knew Constable Elton; at present Elton was waiting to undergo an operation in Yass Hospital.

    A constable deposed that he knew Constable Elton’s handwriting; witness Elton give evidence in the Police Court.

    Mr [George TS] Boileau, [Clerk of Petty Sessions] 2 read the depositions made by Elton, who stated that between the two houses there were marks indicating that a scuffle had taken place; taking accused to the spot he compared accused’s boots with the marks on the ground and found them similar; the girl identified the accused, who said that it was another man; in answer to some questions accused said that he was not about that place during the morning; the tracks led to Mrs Friend’s place.

    Accused [Charles Robert Pilley] went into the box and made a statement, in the course of which he said the Constable Elton asked if he had met a girl; they spoke about tracks and Elton said, “Never mind about them till we get to court;” the constable asked the girl if he was the boy who assaulted her and she said she did not know; when they were examining the track the policeman took witness’s boot off and put it into the track and afterwards alongside it; when he was taken to Friend’s place the constable kept on asking whether he would arrest him, but the girl’s grandfather, who was there, said, “Oh, wait a while, he’ll come round,” meaning the he (accused) would give them money.

    To the Crown-Prosecutor: He was never away from the house after the girl came for the milk; he had been imprisoned for three days in Gunning for bad language.

    Walter Friend, farmer, residing at Dalton with William George Friend, deposed that on the morning of November 13 he saw accused in the stable.

    To the Crown-Prosecutor: Between 9.30 and 10.30 am he never saw the accused.

    Addressing the jury accused denied any knowledge of the crime. He said it was a made up affair to get money from him, the grandfather of the girl believing him to have money.

    His Honor briefly summed up, and at 10.45 the jury retired.

    The jury had not returned when we went to press.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Goulburn Herald, Fri 3 Feb 1905 3

GOULBURN QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
Wednesday Afternoon.

BEFORE his Honor Judge Fitzhardinge.

————
Thursday.

    His Honor took his seat at 9.30

A SERIOUS CHARGE.

    Charles Robert Pilley, a youth, was charged with that he did at Dalton on November 13th, 1904, assault with intent Maud Mary Lawson, a girl of the age of 11 years and 3 months. Accused was further charged with indecently assaulting Maud Mary Lawton, at the same time and place.

    Mrs Lawton, wife of James Lawton, residing at Nelanglo, near Gundaroo, deposed that she and her daughter Maud were at Dalton on 13th November; witness sent her daughter to Mr Friend’s in Dalton; when she returned she was frightened and crying, and made a complaint to witness; she then sent for the police; subsequently Constable Overton brought the accused to witness and her daughter.

    To accused: When you were brought to the house, I heard Maud say that you were the man.

    Maud Mary Lawton deposed that she had been staying at her grandfather’s at Dalton; on 13th November witness went to Mr Friend’s for some milk; she got the milk, and he also gave her some strawberries; on her way home accused spoke to her; she was then about half way home; he asked her where she lived, and she pointed and said down there; accused made indecent proposals to her, and caught hold of her back; witness screamed and asked to be let go; accused did not desist; witness screamed again, and accused let her go, saying —“I will let you go this time.”

    To accused: She had never seen him before; she did not see him at Friend’s that day; the boy who interfered with witness came up in front of her; when the constable brought accused before her, he asked her if this was the one, and she said she was not quite sure; she believed the boy had patched trousers on; when the constable brought accused before her the second time her people did not influence her to say that he was the boy; witness said he was the boy.

    To the Crown Prosecutor: She was sure it was accused who assaulted her.

    William George Friend, orchardist at Dalton, deposed that his place was about three-quarters of a mile from where Maud Lawton was living; the country between the two places was of a scrubby nature; on the day Maud Lawton came to his place accused was doing general work, a knock came to the door, and witness answered it; when he returned accused had gone out of the house, and witness did not see him till some time later.

    To accused: Witness did not think accused and witness’ brother came into the dining-[room] at a quarter to eleven; it was not as early as that; witness had no fault to find with accused when he was working for him; his character was always good up to this case.

    Constable e Mackie deposed that Constable Overton, who had had charge of the case, was ill in Yass hospital.

    Constable Mangelsdorf deposed that the signature to the depositions produced was Constable’s Overton.

    Constable overton’s depositions were put in; they stated that when he brought accused to the girl she said she was sure he was the person who assaulted her; accused said she was making a mistake, it was not him; he examined tracks at the spot where the struggle took place, and the tracks corresponded with those of accused; he followed the tracks to Friend’s house.

    Accused went into the witness box and made a short statement to the jury. He denied the offence, and said he was not away from Friend’s after the girl left for home. When the constable asked him about the offence he denied it, and when the constable was taking him to the girl, accused asked him about tracks. The constable said it did not matter, it would do when the matter was before the court. When he was taken before the girl she said she did not think he was the boy. The accused complained of the manner in which the constable and Mr Carnell, the girl’s grandfather, examined the boot tracks. He said the constable put his (accused’s) boot in the track, and then placed it along the side to show that it was the same. The accused also said that Constable Overton kept on saying to Mr Carnell, “Will I arrest him?” Mr Carnell said, “No, not yet, he might come round.”
 Mr Carnell had previously said to witness, “have you any money to see you through this matter.” Accused said it did not matter to him (Carnell) if he had.

    To the Crown Prosecutor: He was not away from the house while the girl was there, nor for some time after she left; he received three days’ imprisonment in Gunning for using obscene language; witness was not a married man; he was working for wages.

    Walter Charles Friend, farmer and grazier, living at Dalton, deposed that he saw accused in the stable that day; it was about eleven o’clock.

    To the Crown Prosecutor: He did not know where accused was from nine o’clock till nearly eleven o’clock.

    The accused, in addressing the jury, drew attention to his statement regarding the way the tracks were examined. He also said it was strange that the constable kept on asking Carnell if he would arrest him (accused). He contended that Carnell was waiting to see if he would give any money to square the matter.

    His Honor briefly summed up, and the jury retired at a quarter to eleven.

    After twelve hours’ deliberation the jury returned into court at 11 pm. They were unable to agree, and were discharged.

    Accused was remanded to next quarter sessions or such court as the Attorney-General may appoint. Bail allowed, accused in £40 and two sureties of £20 each or one in £40.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Sat 4 Feb 1905 4

GOULBURN QUARTER SESSIONS.
————
Thursday.
————

    Before his Honor Judge Fitzhardinge.

JURY DISAGREED.

    In the case of Charles Robert Pilley, a youth, charged with assault with intent at Dalton. The jury were brought in at 11 pm on Thursday, and as they had been unable to agree after having been in retirement for 12 hours they were discharged. In answer to his Honor, the foreman of the jury said that there was not the slightest hope of coming to an agreement.

    His Honor thereupon, on the formal application of Mr S Betts (acting for the Crown Prosecutor), bound accused over in the sum of £40, with two sureties of £20 each, to appear at the next court of Quarter Sessions at Goulburn or such other court as the Attorney-General might appoint.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Tue 18 Apr 1905 5

GOULBURN CIRCUIT COURT.
————
Monday Afternoon.

    Before his Honor Mr Justice Pring.

ALLEGED ASSAULT.

    Charles Robert Pilley, a youth, was charged that he did on November 13th, 1904, last, at Dalton, assault one Mary Lawton, a girl then under the age of 14 years, with intent.

    There was a second count of indecent assault.

    To both charges accused pleaded not guilty. He was undefended, and did not challenge any of the jurymen. The Crown asked one juryman to stand aside.

    Constable Overton, stationed at Dalton, who has recently been ill, was allowed to sit at the legal table instead of going into the witness-box. He deposed that he saw the accused at Mrs Friend’s; he afterwards examined the track between Carnell’s and Friend’s and there saw tracks leading to a tree outside a gate in Carnell’s paddock; the tracks indicated that some person had stood at the tree for some time; he followed the tracks to a scrub about 150 yards, where there were appearances that a scuffle had taken place; he followed the tracks still further, and they went on to the track leading to Friend’s house; he covered the tracks with wood and bark to preserve them; witness saw accused at Friend’s and said, “Have you been in the direction of Carnell’s this morning;” accused said, “No, I went in the other direction;” witness asked accused if he were sure, and he said he was; witness said, “Are those the trousers you had on when you went out with the cows this morning—haven’t you a pair of patched trousers;” accused showed him a pair of old trousers; witness asked accused if he had met a little girl that morning; he said he had; at Carnell’s witness saw the girl Lawton with her mother; witness asked the girl if accused was the man; she said “That’s him;” witness said, “You’re quite sure about that?” she said, “Yes;” witness questioned the girl, who in answer said that she met the accused near the scrub, and he made indecent overtures to her; she screamed and accused said, “I’ll let you go this once;” accused said to the girl when she said what had taken place, “You’re concocting that—you made a mistake;” witness cautioned accused, and he and accused with two of the Carnells went back to Friend’s house; on the way back witness uncovered the tracks and compared the boots accused was wearing with the tracks he found; they corresponded in every way; accused said, “Oh, that track I made when I went up with you this morning;” when they got to Friend’s house accused said to one of the Friends, “I was with you in the stable all the time this morning, wasn’t I;” young Friend replied, “You went out of the stable;” accused subsequently admitted the tracks were his—he had made them this morning.

    To his Honor: It was about four or five hundred yards from Friend’s house to the scrub.

    To Mr Tighe: The tree he had mentioned was about two hundred yards further on.

    To accused: He went straight from Carnell’s to Friend’s; he took possession of the trousers, but did not produce them; the tracks were on Carnell’s side of the paddock; the girl did not at first say “I do not think you’re the boy;” the girl did not say, “Neither of these pairs of trousers is the pair the boy was wearing;” the scene of the scuffle was on the road; he did see a little girl’s tracks; he believed he had said, “There’s the little girl’s tracks going up the road;” no one influenced him to say anything against him (accused); he did not say, “You’ve got plenty of time to arrange things—he’ll be locked up for a couple of weeks.”

    Maud Mary Lawton, residing near Gundaroo with her mother, repeated the evidence she gave when accused was tried at the Quarter Sessions in January last. On that occasion Constable Overton was too ill to give evidence and another constable swore to certain depositions by Overton. At the first trial the jury disagreed.

    When Maud Lawton was commencing her evidence Mr Thomas asked his Honor’s permission to suggest questions to the accused. His Honor allowed Mr Thomas to act in this way.

    To accused: The constable did not tell me to say you were the boy.

    William G Friend repeated the evidence he gave at the last Quarter Sessions Court.

    To accused: I did not see in which direction you went; I do not remember the constable pointing out a little girl’s tracks going up the road; I have not known anything against your character.

    Andrew Carnell, farmer, living about two miles from Dalton, corroborated Constable Overton’s evidence as to a conversation with accused.

    To Mr Thomas: They had not agreed in their minds that accused was guilty; he put the boot into the track; the little girl did not say she was not sure that accused was the man; the boot made a very faint impression.

    To a juryman: The little girl was carrying some milk in a treacle tin; she brought it home without spilling it.

    Mrs Lawton, mother of Maud Lawton, said that her daughter told her something on November 13; she was in an excited state and was crying; witness heard the constable ask the girl if accused was the man; she said, “Yes, that’s the man.”

    To Mr Thomas: They had formed a very strong opinion of the boy’s guilt before the constable came; the boy was dressed in a dark suit.

    This closed the Crown case.

    Charles Robert Pilley, accused, deposed that he was sitting on the verandah of Friend’s house with William Friend; the little girl came to the house for milk; William Friend went with the little girl for the milk; that was about 10.30; witness went into his room and after cleaning his boots went to the stable, where he saw Walter Friend; he stayed with Walter Friend until the constable took him to Carnell’s; he denied stopping the girl or assaulting or attempting to assault her.

    To his Honor: He never left Friend’s house after 10.30 am.

    Witness continuing, said the constable asked him if he had been away during the morning; he told the constable that he had been away with the cows early in the morning; when the constable asked the girl if he was the boy who stopped her she said, “I don’t think it is;” the constable asked the girl if the strapped trousers were the ones he had on; the girl said they were not; he showed the other pair he had on underneath, and the girl said, “I don’t think either of the pairs are the ones he had on;” when he was returning from Friend’s the constable asked him if some tracks were his; he said they were, but they were made when he came with the constable from Carnell’s; these tracks were coming from Carnell’s; the constable put the boots in the track and then put it alongside, and said, “Oh, yes, they correspond;” they never stopped at the place where the constable said the scuffle occurred; he wore cossack boots with even soles; the tacks would not make any impression; at the Quarter Sessions in January the girl said she did not think it was he who assaulted her.

    After an adjournment of an hour and a half the court resumed, and Maud Lawton was recalled by Mr Thomas. The witness stated that at the sessions she had not said she told the constable that she was not quite sure that accused was the man; she said that the man had different clothes to accused.

    Messrs Wright and Snowdon (reporters) and Mr Clancy (sheriff’s office) were called to substantiate the statement of the accused with regard to the statement of the girl at the Quarter Sessions.

    Walter Friend gave evidence to the effect that accused came to his house at 11 am and stayed there till 12 noon.

    Mr Thomas, in addressing the jury, said that he appealed most confidently to them for an acquittal on the ground that the girl’s story was uncorroborated, and that the evidence brought out was too weak to rely upon.

    The Crown-Prosecutor having briefly addressed the court his Honor asked the Crown-Prosecutor if he pressed the first count. Mr Tighe replied that he would not press the point. His Honor prior to summing up on the second count said that considering the short time Mr Thomas had had to prepare his address was a very able one.

    His Honor’s summing up was brief. The jury were out only a few minutes, and on their return gave a verdict of not guilty.

    The court adjourned at 9.30 pm until 9.30 am next day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Goulburn Herald, Wed 19 Apr 1905 6

GOULBURN ASSIZES.
———◦———
Monday Afternoon

BEFORE his Honor Justice Pring.

SERIOUS CHARGE.

    Charles Robert Pilley, a youth, was charged with, that he did , at Dalton, on 13th November, 1904, indecently assault, with intent, Maud Mary Lawton, a girl 11 years of age. A second count charged accused with indecent assault.

    Accused who at this stage was undefended, pleaded not guilty.

    The crown challenged one juror.

    After several witnesses had given evidence, Mr Thomas appeared for the accused.

    The case was before the quarter sessions in February last, and the jury failed to agree. The evidence on this occasion was very similar to that given at the previous trial, and showed that the alleged assault must have been committed between 10.30 and 11 am.

    Constable Overton deposed the he examined tracks near where the girl said the assault took place, and he found that the tracks made by accused’s boots corroborated with them, he also said that Maud Lawton identified the accused as the young man who assaulted her.

    Maud Mary Lawton deposed that up to the day of the assault she had not seen accused; she was sure he was the young man who assaulted her.

    In answer to Mr Thomas, she said she did not say at the first trial, in reply to the accused, that when Constable Overton first asked her if the accused was the man, that she was not quite sure.

    Three witnesses were called to show that at the first trial the girl did say than when Constable Overton first asked her if the accused was the man, that quite sure.

    The accused denied committing any assault on the girl, and said he was with Mr Walter Friend from 11 o’clock until after dinner time.

    Walter Friend corroborated the accused’s statement as to the time accused met him and stayed in his company.

    Mr Thomas in a short and forcible address to the jury contended that the crown case had failed to establish accused’s guilt. He had no hesitation in saying it was very weak; and felt confident that on the evidence of the girl, which had been shaken, that the jury would not convict accused of such a serious offence. Mr Thomas commented on the fact that none of the little girl’s clothing, was put before the jury and suggested that in this case, or in others, the child, who according to her own evidence had soiled her pinafore with strawberry stains had fixed the blame on somebody and was prepared to swear anything she was asked. If the jury would remember the little girl generally said “yes” to accused’s questions, and acted similar when asked questions by the crown prosecutor. He also drew attention to the fact that the girl’s evidence had been materially weakened by the witnesses who swore that at the first trial she said she was not quite sure of the man when Constable Overton first asked her questions concerning him. Mr Thomas also referred to the evidence of Walter Friend, a disinterested witness who gave strong evidence in accused’s favour.

    The Crown Prosecutor having replied,

    His Honor asked if the crown would press the charge of indecent assault with intent.

    The Crown Prosecutor said he would not.

    His Honor then said all the jury would have to deal with was the second count of indecent assault. Mr Thomas, in a very able address, considering the short time he had had on the case, had summed up the situation clearly, and if the jury did not believe the evidence of the little girl, the case fell to the ground. His Honor also direction attention to the evidence of Mr Walter Friend, who in his opinion, helped the jury considerably in arriving at their verdict. Mr Friend stated, and they had no reason to doubt his evidence, that the accused met him about eleven o’clock, and was in his company until after twelve o’clock. If that were true, it was almost an impossibility for the accused to have committed the offence.

    The jury after a brief retirement returned a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Argyle Liberal and District Recorder, Fri 21 Apr 1905 7

GOULBURN CIRCUIT COURT.
————

THE above court was continued on Tuesday and Wednesday when the following cases were dealt with:—

    Charles Robert Pilley, a youth, was charged that he did on November 13th, 1904 last, att Dalton, assault one Mary Lawton, a girl then under the age of 14 years with intent. There was a second count of indecent assault. To both charges accused pleaded not guilty. After hearing evidence, the jury, after a retirement of a few minutes, returned with a verdict of not guilty and the accused was discharged.

 



Charles Robert Pilley, 1911

The Tamworth Daily Observer, Tue 14 Feb 1911 8

SUMMARY.
———◦———


    Two young men were yesterday fined by the Tamworth Bench for fighting in the main street on horseback. The police said there seemed to be a fued [sic] between them. One of the defendants said they only did it “just for a bit of fun.”

FIGHTING ON HORSEBACK.
———)◦(———
A “FUED” [sic] FETWEEN TWO MEN.
————

    A peculiar way of settling what was apparently a difference between two men was brought to light in the Tamworth Police Court yesterday morning, when Charles [Robert] Pilley and Phil Davis, both young men, were each charged with having behaved in a riotous manner in Peel-street on January 28th.

    They pleaded guilty.

    Constable [Anthony] Lavelle said that about 3 o’clock in the afternoon these people were on horseback having a fight in the main street.

    Asked by the PM if they were under the influence of liquor Constable Lavelle said they both seemed to be sober. There seemed to be a fued between the two men.

    The PM to defendants: How did you come to be fighting in this way?

    Defendant Pilley: It was just a bit of fun.

    Sergeant Caldwell said it looked very much in earnest. He saw it.

    The PM imposed a fine of 10/-, with 6/- costs or 7 days in each case.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Tamworth Daily Observer, Sat 25 Feb 1911 9

LOCAL AND GENERAL NEWS.
———:◦:———

OBSCENE CONDUCT.

    A young man named R[obert] C[harles] [sic] Pilley, aged 23, a horse–breaker, was at the police court yesterday morning sentenced to six months’ imprisonment of obscene conduct.

SUMMARY.
———◦———

    The young man, Charles Robert Pilley, who was yesterday sentenced to six months’ hard labour for obscene behaviour, was again before the Court this morning charged with escaping from custody. He was remanded.

LOCAL AND GENERAL NEWS.
———:◦:———

ESCAPING FROM CUSTODY.

    The young man, Charles Robert Pilley, who was yesterday sentenced to six months’ hard labor, in Maitland gaol for obscene behaviour, was this morning charged before Mr OA Edwards, PM, with escaping from the lawful custody of Constable [Joseph] Dorris, lockup-keeper, Tamworth, on the 25th inst. The police applied for a remand till Thursday, March 2nd, which was granted.

———
CONSTABL’s [sic] SENSATIONAL
EXPERIENCE.

    A sensational and extremely unpleasant experience befel Constable Dorris, lockup-keeper at Tamworth, early this morning. He had a prisoner named Charles Robert Pilley under his charge. This was the man who was yesterday sentenced to six months in Maitland gaol for obscene behaviour. He was to have been taken to Maitland by this morning’s train. At about 6 o’clock Constable Dorris took him his breakfast. The cell door can only be shut from the outside, consequently when the constable entered it was open. Pilley made a dash for the door and got out. The surprised constable was promptly after him. The escapee made off towards the river and got down near the laundry at the foot of Bligh-street. He jumped into the river and refused to come out, swimming down with the current. Constable Dorris crossed at a sallow place ahead of him, and went in after him, but the current was so strong and the river so deep there—being about 9 feet—that he was soon in difficulties. Pilley was also in trouble. The two were compelled to make for a snag in the middle of the river, and hang on. By this time a number of men had arrived on the bank, and a rope was procured and thrown out. Constable Dorris tied one end round Pilley, who was drawn to the bank in an unconscious state. The rope was then thrown to the constable, who was also pulled ashore. Pilley was so exhausted that he had to be conveyed back to the lock-up in a cart. Constable Dorris swallowed a great deal of water, and was greatly shaken up by his nasty experience and narrow escape. Only for the friendly snag, both constable and prisoner might have been drowned.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Raleigh Sun, Fri 3 Mar 1911 10

CURRENT NEWS.
———◦———

PRISONER RESCUES
CONSTABLE.

    A prisoner named Charles Pilley sentenced at Tamworth on last Friday on a charge of obscenity, escaped from the lockup on Monday morning. He ran through the main street towards the river, where he plunged in and commenced to swim to the other side. Constable Dorris called upon the prisoner to surrender, but the latter refused, and the officer then jumped into the water, but, after swimming some distance, got into difficulties and sank twice, whereupon Pilley went to his assistance and saved his life. Pilley then became exhausted himself, but was rescued by a number of the other police officials who had arrived on the scene.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Tamworth Daily Observer, Sat 4 Mar 1911 11

A GALLANT DEED.

ESCAPED PRISONER SAVES
CONSTABLE FROM DROWNING.
————

    At the Police Court on Thursday, a young man, 23 years of age, named [Charles] Robert Pilley, was brought up on remand and charged with escaping from the lawful custody of Constable Dorris on February 25.

    From the evidence adduced it appears that the constable, who is lock-up keeper, opened the door of the exercise yard early in the morning of that date to give prisoner (who was sentenced to six months in Maitland gaol) his breakfast. Prisoner rushed past him out into Darling-street, then along Peel-street to the foot of Bligh-street, the lock-up keeper following. A horseman took up the chase, and the prisoner jumped into the river and commenced to swim across. Constable Dorris ordered him to come out and he replied that he would if the constable would say nothing about the attempted escape. The constable, however, would make no promise and the prisoner swam away. Nothing daunted the constable crossed the river at a sallow spot and again called on him to surrender, and after some delay, he said he would. The constable directed the prisoner to land on the eastern bank and he, the constable, would cross the river again. In trying to cross, however, Constable Dorris was swept off his feet by the strong current which was then running, and sank in deep water. The escapee seeing the dangerous position of the constable call out “Are you done?” and on receiving the reply “yes,” came back, caught hold of the drowning man’s hand and managed to get him to a snag to which they both clung, utterly exhausted, until ropes were brought and they were pulled ashore.

    “Accused practically saved my life,” said the constable in his evidence.” Unless I had had assistance I should have been drowned.”

    The PM said he must say that although accused was a prisoner under sentence he had acted the part of a good and plucky man, and he (the PM) would strongly advise him, if he was without means, to make application for assistance under the Poor Prisoners’ Defence Act so that all these facts could be properly placed before the jury.

    Accused was then committed for trial at the Maitland Circuit Court on April 5.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Daily Mercury, Wed 5 Apr 1911 12

MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
———◦———
Wednesday, April, 5.
————
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Pring.
————

    The sittings of the Maitland Circuit Court were opened at the Courthouse, East Maitland, this morning, before his Honor Mr Justice Pring. Mr GS Walters, Deputy Sheriff, occupied a seat alongside his Honor. Mr CG Addison was Judge’s Associate, and Dr Coghlan acted as Crown Prosecutor, being instructed by Mr J Gonsalves, of the Crown Solicitor’s Office. Mr James Quaine, Governor of Maitland Gaol, and Sub-inspector Bear were also in attendance.

    Mr W Curtis was the only barrister in attendance, and the solicitors present were Messrs Jas HFF Waller and JP McCarthy.
Remanded for Sentence.

    Charles Robert Pilley was arraigned on an indictment charging him with having, on February 25 at Tamworth, escaped from the custody of Constable Joseph Dooras. Accused pleaded guilty, and was remanded for sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Daily Mercury, Fri 7 Apr 1911 13

MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
———◦———
Friday, April, 7.
————
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Pring.
————

    The criminal business of the Maitland Circuit Court was concluded at the courthouse, East Maitland, this morning, before his Honor Mr Justice Pring, when sentences were passed.

ESCAPING FROM CUSTODY.

    Charles Robert Pilley, who pleaded guilty to escaping from custody at Tamworth, had two previous sentences against him for stealing , and is now serving a sentence of six months for exposure.

    His Honor said prisoner’s record was by no means a good one, and so far as he could understand his character was not much. He appeared to be one of those men unfortunately of the larrikin type. The sentence of the court was that accused be kept in Maitland Gaol at hard labour for a period of four months, the sentence to commence at the expiration of the sentence he was now serving.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Tamworth Daily Observer, Sat 8 Apr 1911 14

MAITLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
————
“TEXAS JACK” GETS TWO YEARS.
————

West Maitland, Friday.

    At the Circuit Court to-day John Nicholson, alias “Texas Jack,” was sentenced to two years’ hard labor in Grafton gaol for improper assault on a little girl, aged three years and eleven months, at Quirindi.

    Charles Robert Pilley, charged with escaping from custody at Tamworth, was sentenced to four months’ hard labor. His Honor said the prisoner’s record was by no means a good one. So far as he could understand his character was not much. He appeared to be one of those unfortunately of the larrikin type.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 10 Apr 1911 15

CIRCUIT COURTS.
———

West Maitland, Saturday.

    The Maitland Circuit Court concluded on Friday, before Mr Justice Pring.

    Charles Robert Pilley, who pleaded guilty to escaping from custody at Tamworth, and who is now serving a sentence of six months, was ordered to be imprisoned in Maitland gaol for four months, to commence at the expiration of the previous sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Tamworth Daily Observer, Tue 18 Apr 1911 16

ASSISTING THE POLICE.
———◦———
WENT AFTER AN ESCAPEE.
————
YOUNG MAN’S ACTION REWARDED
————

    On February 25th last, a young man named Charles Robert Pilley was incarcerated in the Tamworth lockup on a sentence of six months’ hard labor for obscene behaviour. It was the intention of the police that day to escort him to Maitland gaol to serve his term. As is known, he broke out of the cell when Constable Dorris, lockup-keeper, went to give him his breakfast. He rushed past the constable, through the yard, and out into Darling-street. Constable Dorris was prompt in pursuit, but the prisoner had a fair start. In the street were several persons, and of course the moment they saw the constable in pursuit of this man they must have known what was the matter. Still, no one ventured to give chase, or to intercept the escapee. There was one exception. A young man named Henry John Bourke was on horseback holding a butcher’s meat basket. He handed his basket to someone, and galloped his horse after Pilley, who was making down Peel-street. The horse soon overtook the man, and headed him up. Pilley, seeing that he could not get away in that direction, turned towards the river and jumped in. When the constable came up Pilley declined to come out of the water unless he (the constable) would promise to say nothing about the escape. This Constable Dorris would not do, whereupon Pilley swam towards the other side. The constable crossed the river lower down at a sallow spot and waited for him. Pilley would not come out, and the constable went in after him. The story of how Constable Dorris got out of his depth and became exhausted, when Pilley went to his assistance and they both hung on to a snag till pulled out by ropes has already been told in the “Daily Observer.” At all events, Pilley was recaptured, and a week or so ago was sentenced to an additional four months for escaping from prison.

    The police greatly appreciated the assistance rendered in Pilley’s re-capture by young Bourke. Senior-constable Sinclair was in charge at the time, Sergeant Caldwell being away. The Senior-constable thought it only right to recognise Bourke’s action in some way, and all the members of the local police force thought so too. Therefore it was decided to present him with a watch and chain, and to this end every member of the Tamworth police force, from the Superintendent downwards, subscribed.

    On Sunday morning last most of the members of the force assembled in the mess-room at the police station, and Sergeant Caldwell made a presentation to Bourke of a silver English Lever watch and silver chain. The watch was inscribed—

    “Presented to HJ Bourke by the Tamworth police for meritorious service, 1911.”

    In making the presentation Sergeant Caldwell said the reason Mr Bourke was asked to come there was that the Tamworth police wished to express to him their gratitude for the assistance he rendered Constable Dorris, when a prisoner he had in custody escaped. He himself was absent from Tamworth at the time, but him read with great pleasure of the assistance Mr Bourke had given Constable Dorris in the trying experience. It was actually not so much the assistance given as the spirit in which he did it, while others were standing by merely laughed and offered no help to the constable whatever. The police always appreciated assistance, and in token of their appreciation on this particular occasion, they had individually subscribed, from the Superintendent down, in order to make him this small presentation. In presenting him with the watch, the Sergeant hoped Mr Bourke would be long spared to wear it. If he at any time wished to join the police force, they would be pleased to further the matter of his appointment.

    Senior-constable Sinclair supported the remarks made by the Sergeant, and said he happened to be in charge of the station on the occasion this affair occurred. The prompt action of Mr Bourke on this occasion saved him and the rest of the men on the station a considerable amount of work and trouble. All the police on the station were unanimous in the opinion that his services should be recognised—not altogether for the amount of work he did, but for the spirit in which it was done. It was done at the right time, when others who were acquainted with what was happening and had bicycles handy, stood and watched the chase, laughed, and finally rode away in the opposite direction. He thanked Mr Bourke for what he had done.

    In reply, Mr Bourke thanked the Tamworth police for the present. He had only done the proper thing in assisting Constable Dorris. He did not do it with any idea of being rewarded for it; he simply thought it was the correct thing to do.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Tamworth Daily Observer, Tue 5 Dec 1911 17

SNATCHED A HANDBAG.
———◦———
UNPLEASANT EXPERIENCE OF TWO
FEMALES
———
WHILE GOING HOME AT NIGHT.
———
PROMPT ARREST OF THIEVES AND
SHARP PUNISHMENT.
———

    A sensational experience befel [sic] two females on Friday night last, the details of which were told in the Tamworth Police Court yesterday morning, before Mr OA Edwards, PM.

    Henry Milford and Charles Robert Pilley were charged with stealing from the person in company, one hand bag and contents of a total value of 9/8½, the property of Mary Milligan, on December 1, 1911.

    Constable Phillpot deposed that about 10.30 am on the 2nd inst, in consequence of something he was told, he went to the Central Hotel, and saw the two accused in the bar. He said to them “Two young ladies were going home last night and one had her hand-bag stolen.” You two answer the description given by the ladies of the men who stole the bag.” At witness’s request they accompanied him to the lockup. Mrs Milligan came to the lockup and identified Milford as being the man who took her bag. Later on she returned with Miss Sams. Witness took both round to the yards where the two accused were. Miss Sams, pointing to accused Pilley, said: “I have known him for about 12 months and he answers the description of the man who took Mary’s bag. He had his head down when he snatched the bag.” Mrs Milligan again said she was certain accused Milford was the man who took her friend’s bag. Witness then charged them. Milford made no reply. Pilley said if he had known he would be identified he would not have stated he was in Milford’s company the previous night. Prior to charging the accused Constable Sinclair questioned them as to their movements the previous night, and they made the statement produced. The statement detailed their movements. Theses statement were read to both accused.

    To accused Pilley: I was told the robbery happened between 9.30 and 10.35. It took place in front of the gasworks. You said to me in the office yesterday that if you had known you were going to be identified you would not have stated you were with Milford.

    To accused Milford: The girl said in your hearing that she recognised you by your face and your bright clothes.

    Mary Milligan, a widow, in service at the Tamworth hospital, deposed: I remember last Friday night I was in Peel-street passing the gasworks going in the direction of the hospital, accompanied by Miss Sams. I was carrying a bag in my hand. I noticed two men following and they overtook us and one took my bag. Both of them ran away towards the river. I reported the matter to the police at once and yesterday I identified the accused Milford as being one of the men. Accused Pilley, I believe to be the man who took the bag, but I could not swear to him as he was stooping down when he took the bag. The bag contained 2/3¼, a pair of gloves, five stamps, a small purse and other articles, total value, 9/8½. The man who stole the bag wore a straw hat, similar to the one shown by accused Pilley. I saw more than one man with a straw hat that night. The men followed us on from Darling-street.

    To accused Pilley: I particularly noticed one man’s face. I do not remember seeing you before yesterday that I could swear to. It was accused Milford.

    To accused Milford: I did not notice the other man. I noticed your face. I had a good look at your face, but not at that of the other man.

    To the Bench: The other man was short and thickset, similar in appearance to accused Pilley. I do not know why I noticed Milford at Darling-street more than the other man.

    Mary Sams a domestic, employed at the Tamworth Hospital, corroborated the previous witness as to the robbery and expressed the opinion that accused Pilley was the man who took the bag. She, however, could not swear to him.

    To the Police: The man who took the bag was in a stooping position.

    To accused Pilley: I have known you for some time. I first noticed the two boys following at Jarman’s. I did not recognise you then. They were two yards away. I told Constable Phillpot that I could not swear to you. I took particular notice of the hat. I saw the two boys coming along. I noticed the dark suit and the hat, but I did not notice the faces.

    To the Bench: I could not sweat it was Pilley.

    To accused Pilley: I cannot swear to your face. I knew the hat was burnt brown when the bag was snatched.

    To accused Milford: I said at the lockup that I could not swear to your face. I cannot swear to you at all.

    To the Bench: The general appearance of the two accused is the same as that of the boys who took the bag. I have known Pilley for over 12 months. I have often spoken to him. I did not recognise him at all. I could not swear it was Pilley, but by his general appearance I should think it was.

    To the Police: It was a cloudy night. I did not notice the moon.

    To accused Pilley: I recognised you as soon as I saw you at the lockup. I talked the case over with Mrs Milligan.

    To the Bench: When seeing Pilley in the lockup I recognised him by his clothes and general appearance as to the man who took bag.

    Both accused elected to be dealt with summarily and pleaded not guilty.

    Pilley went into the box and deposed: My name is Chas Robt Pilley. I am a horse-breaker, residing at Tamworth. On the night in question, Friday, December 1, I never came north of the Central Hotel after 6 o’clock. From 7 to 8 o’clock Milford and I were sitting on the doorstep of the Central Hall. Then we went to the picture show, staying there about a quarter of an hour. We went back to the Central Hall and stayed there with “Pop,” Gallagher, Stewart Hammond, and a Mr Johnson, staying there about half an hour. I went to the back of the Central Hotel for about ten minutes, and, after talking to the cook, Milford and I went up the street. We went up to the Royal Hotel, staying talking there with “Texas Stue,” then went to the Criterion [Hotel] and came back to the Central [Hotel] sample-rooms. Between 9.30 and 10 o’clock I saw Constable Sinclair going towards the Imperial Hotel. Milford was with me all that time.

    To the Police: We did not go into the pictures. I have been out of employment about a week. I was to go to work this morning.

    I have been twice convicted of stealing, three months and two months. I was innocent both times. I got six months for indecent exposure and four months for escaping. I was also fined for fighting in the street on horseback.

    Accused Harry Milford corroborated Pilley’s evidence.

    To the Police: I had a shilling when arrested. I swore last Friday I had one shilling in the world. On Saturday I bought food with it. I also shouted two drinks, costing 6d. I got a shilling of “Pop” Gallagher on Friday, and a shilling of a chap standing beside me in the bar. I have been knocking about with Pilley. I was not north of the Central hotel after 6 o’clock.

    To the Bench: I have heard the evidence of Mrs Milligan when she says I was in company of the man who took the bag she is wrong.

    No witnesses were called.

    The PM said that after hearing the very positive evidence of Mrs Milligan corroborated by Miss Sams he had no doubt that accused were the two men, one of whom snatched the bag and the other assisted. An offence of this sort could not be passed over lightly. It was a serious thing that two young women could not go home without being molested and robbed. He therefore sentenced Milford to four months with hard labor in Maitland gaol, and Pilley to six months’ hard labor.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Charles Robert Pilley, Gaol photo sheet 18

1905 Pilley


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 1166
Parramatta

Date when Portrait was taken: 5th May 1911

Name: Charles Robert Pilley
(aka Charles Rillery)

Native place: Waverley NSW

Year of birth: 4 August 1888

Arrived       Ship:
in Colony }   Year:

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Labourer

Religion: C of E

Education, degree of: R & W

Height: 5' 1¾"

Weight     On committal: 124
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Light brown

Colour of eyes: Brown

Marks or special features: Scar right side of head scar back of right shoulder

(No. of previous Portrait ... ) 

CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

Glen Innes PC

Quirindi PC

Tamworth PC

ditto
Maitland CC

27

  8

13

24
  5

 8

9

2

2
4

1907

1908

1911

1911
1911

Stealing

ditto 

Riotous behaviour

Expose person
Escape from custody

3 months HL

2 months HL

16/- or 7 days HL

6 months HL
4 months HL  |  Accumulative

 



Charles Robert Pilley, 1917

The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express, Fri 23 Nov 1917 19

TUMBARUMBA.
————
(From Our Own Correspondent.)

Monday, November 19.

    On Sunday, 11th inst, a very large congregation from all of the parish attended a memorial service for the late Private ET Allen at St James’s, Munderoo. Many wreaths were placed in the sanctuary in token of sympathy. Mr RD Brand took the first part of the service, the rector concluding with memorial prayers and sermon based on Revelations 14th chapter, 13th verse:—“Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord.”

    A large number assembled in the shire hall on the night of the 8th inst to extend a hearty welcome to Private C[harles Robert] Pilley, 20 invalided home through illness without having actually entered the firing line. At a given stage the guest was invited to the platform, when the National Anthem was sung, and at the call of the chairman, Mr D McIntosh, the company stood for a space in memory of Private Frank Power. Thereafter, the Rev HJ Velvia, in appropriate terms, welcomed Private Pilley, followed by Mr CH Cunningham, the latter also forcibly appealing for recruits to replace the local fallen and returned. The guest duly responded. Songs were nicely rendered by Misses Lockwood, Murphy, and Williams, and after three cheers for Private Pilley and the singing of “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow,” the company indulged in dancing for several hours.

 



Charles Robert Pilley
, 1923 


The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 7 Aug 1923 21

WOMAN SHOT.
———◦———
DOMESTIC QUARREL AT
BATLOW.
————

Wagga, Monday.

    A shooting affray occurred at Batlow, resulting in a married woman, named Flora Pilley, receiving two bullet wounds in the head. It appears that the woman and her husband, Charles Robert Pilley, aged 34 years, quarrelled, and, it is stated, Pilley seized a revolver and rushed after his wife, who fled for safety. It is alleged that he fired two shots, which took effect in his wife’s head. Her father and James Ross, hearing shots fired, went to her assistance, and Pilley ran away. Mrs Pilley was removed to Tumbarumba Hospital. Her condition is serious, but not dangerous.

    Charles Pilley left a wallet with money at the residence of George Kellam, together with a note, which stated that his dead body would be found when the letter was opened. The police started out to search for the place in the hills indicated in the letter, but in the meantime Pilley evidently changed his mind, and, returning, gave himself up to the police.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express, Fri 10 Aug 1923 22

ALBURY & DISTRICT.
————————


    TUMBARUMBA SENSATION.—On Friday afternoon the residents of Tumbarumba were startled by the sensational circumstances surrounding the admission of Flora Matilda Pilley, a married woman, to the district hospital suffering from two bullet wounds in her head. It is alleged that her condition was the result of a quarrel with her husband, Charles Robert Pilley, who, it was said, had fired several shots at her with a revolver. Pilley immediately ran off, and evaded discovery by the police until noon on Sunday, when he gave himself up. Pilley, who is 34 years old, had in his possession a seven-chambered revolver. He was arrested and charged with shooting at his wife with intent to murder. It is stated that on Saturday Pilley went to “Waverley,” Mr Chilcot’s farm, and left a wallet containing some money and papers. These he asked to be left at Mr George Kellam’s. Among the papers was a will leaving every[thing] to Mr Kellam, and a note saying that the writer would be dead when the paper reached its address, and that his body would be found in the common. It was reported that the victim was progressing, and that the doctor did not regard her wounds as being serious. Her father and Mr J Ross were in the vicinity when the shots were fired. The police, under Sergeant O’Connor, spend a good deal of time searching for Pilley in the heavy rain before he turned up on Sunday morning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Wagga Wagga Advertiser, Fri 12 Oct 1923 23

CIRCUIT COURT.
———◦———
Thursday, October 11, 1923.
————
(Before Mr Justice James).
————

    The Circuit Court began its sittings at the Court House yesterday, and three cases were completed. Mr JR Hooton, instructed by the Crown Law Department, prosecuted for the Crown. The sittings will resume to-day and all civil jurors will be required at the Court House at 10 o’clock.

————
THE TUMBARUMBA SHOOTING.

    The recent Tumbarumba shooting affair culminated in the Circuit Court yesterday, when Charles Robert Pilley, a young man, was charged that on August 3, he feloniously wounded with intent to murder Flora Matilda Pilley, his wife, and was further charged that he feloniously wounded Flora Matilda Pilley with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty on both charges.

    Mr Alan Lloyd instructed by Mr JC Sheeky, appeared for the defence, both under assignment by the Crown.

    The Crown Prosecutor, Mr JR Hooton, in giving the details of the case to the jury, indicated the inharmonious relations which existed between accused and his wife. He described the quarrel which culminated in the shooting. He stated that two shots were fire, striking Mrs Pilley in the head. She was taken to the hospital. Pilley escaped into the bush, and was arrested two days later.

    Flora Matilda Pilley, wife of the accused, stated that she lived at the house of her father at Tumbarumba. When accused returned home, after an absence, on August 3, he asked witness to go with him to Batlow. She refused, because he was too cruel to her. Later in the day he came back, and witness, again refused to go with him, and Pilley took the baby boy away. That night he called and took some clothes for the baby. Next morning he called again, and abused her father and herself. Later in the morning he came to the house, and as witness opened the kitchen door he pointed a revolver at her. He said “I’ve got you now.” At that time there was no one else house. She again refused to go with her husband. Witness’s father then appeared, and she called out, “Quick, father, Charlie has a six-shooter.” She called out to Mr Ross, who was on the road. When Ross got within a chain of her Pilley fired a shot at her. It dazed her. He fired another shot and caught her in the temple. She remembered no more until she was being carried inside.

WIFE CROSS-EXAMINED.

    Mrs Pilley stated that the revolver produced was similar to the one in possession of her husband. She added that she had failed to agree with her husband since he returned from the war.

    Mr Lloyd: That’s what they all do.

    His Honor: You don’t believe that, do you gentlemen, that husbands and wives quarrel?

    Continuing, Mrs Pilley said that accused threatened to cut her throat during an altercation. He said, “No one else will get you if I can’t.” She told her father, and accused, when he found out grabbed her by the throat in her father’s presence.

    Mr Lloyd: I suppose after the first shot you don’t recollect anything?—I remember being hit by the second.

    His Honor: Did you see it fired?—No.

    Mr Lloyd: Did you see a pistol in his hand?—Well, he had something shiny.

    When the shooting occurred Mrs Pilley stated that her father was behind her.

    Mr Lloyd: Did not your father refer disparagingly to his being a returned soldier—I don’t think so.

    Mr Lloyd: Did he not assault your husband on frequent occasions?—No.

    Mr Lloyd: On one occasion your husband was taken to the hospital?—Yes, but it was the hit I gave him that did it.

    Mrs Pilley said that she was following her husband when the shooting occurred, and her father was behind both of them.

    Mr Lloyd: Could you say whether your father had anything in his hand?—I cannot say.

    Mrs Pilley said that as she got under the fence a shot hit her from the rear.

    Frederick Hahn, Mrs Pilley’s father, described how he came up to his house on the morning of August 3 and his daughter said, “You are just in time, father, Charlie has a revolver,” Pilley denied having a revolver and started to run, his wife following. He then pulled a revolver out of his coat and fired at her. She staggered up against a wire fence and accused fired another shot. Accused ran away into the bush. Ross and witness carried Mrs Pilley into the house.

    Continuing Hahn said that his daughter and her husband quarrelled on July 16 and he afterwards left home. He returned on August 2.

    Mr Lloyd: You and accused had frequent quarrels—During the last twelve months I have had arguments with him, but nothing that which occurred on July 16, when he got a black eye.

HIT WITH THE TONGS.

    Mr Lloyd: Who gave him the black eye?—I did.

    Mr Lloyd: What did she hit him with?—A pair of tongs.

    Mr Lloyd: Were there any firearms in the house?—No, only an old rifle that had been there for years.

    Mr Lloyd: Where were you when the shooting occurred?—Pilley was running, his wife was running after him, but I stopped.

    Mr Lloyd: Did you go into the room where the gun was?—No.

    Mr Lloyd: You saw the shot fired?—Yes. Pilley turned suddenly and said, “Stand back,” and fired.

    Robert A Ross, living in Tumbarumba, the next witness, said his house was about ten chains away from Hahn’s. coming home with Hahn on August3 he saw Pilley near the kitchen and his wife nearby. Hahn joined them, and Mrs Pilley and Hahn called him over. Pilley ran a distance and the turned, firing a shot at his wife. She half fell, and he stopped again and fired a second shot at her. He then ran away.

    Nr Hooton: You saw the two shots fired?—Yes.

    Witness said he could not swear that the revolver produced was the one Pilley had.

    Dr Todd stated that he examined Mrs Pilley on the afternoon of August 3. He found two wounds on her temple. In his opinion the wounds would have been caused by the revolver produced. Witness added, “From the wounds I formed the opinion that the shots had been fired from the side and slightly to the rear of Mrs Pilley.”

    Mr Lloyd: You were called previously to attend to accused, in July?—Yes, he had some bad injuries.

    Mr Lloyd: Did you know accused had suffered from cerebral spinal meningitis?—I have heard so.

    Mr Lloyd: Would that affect his mentality?—Well, people either die or completely recover from that disease.

    Sergeant John O’Connor, who effected accused’s arrest, said that on August 5, between 11 and 12, he saw accused standing near some briar bushes on the bank of the creek. He said, “Hullo, Pilley, how are things?” Pilley replied, “All right Sergeant.” He handed witness a revolver, which was empty. In answer to questions as to where he got it, accused stated that it belonged to Hahn and he had found it under the ticking on his wife’s bed. He did not intent to kill his wife, and had been waiting to find out if she was dead before he gave himself up.

    The associate read a letter written by the accused, addressed to George Kellem, in which he alleged that immoral relations had existed between Frederick Holme and his wife, which caused the whole trouble.

    Flora Pilley and Holme both denied these allegations.

    William Abbott Butcher of Tumbarumba, in evidence stated that on August 3, accused came to him and told him that he wished to give himself up to do the police and handed witness a box of cartridges, produced. These cartridge, fitted the revolver produced.

ALLEGATIONS BY ACCUSED.

    No witnesses were forthcoming for the defence and, after lunch, the accused made a statement from the dock to the court which contained some starling allegations. He said that since his return from the war, his father-in-law had quarrelled with him. Hahn had caused the estrangement between him and his wife. Hahn had been in the habit of carrying the revolver with him on the roads and he (Pilley), had found it on his wife’s bed. A day or two before the shooting, he had obtained work at Batlow and he drove 15 miles home through the snow, to fetch his wife; she refused to go with him, because her father had told her not to go. He went into Tumbarumba to have his war pension transferred to Batlow. He also saw a solicitor about getting a divorce, but the solicitor could do nothing for him, as he had acted previously in another matter for Mrs Pilley and Hahn. When Hahn heard of the contemplated divorce action, he said that before he would let a girl of girl [sic] of his go through the divorce court, he would blow both their brains out. Dealing with the shooting, Pilley said that his wife again refused to go with him. He walked to the house to get his harness and was walking away to tell his wife that he would get the police. He went on to say, “As I turned round, I saw Hahn pointing a riffle at me. I put my hands up and said to my wife, “duck.” As she did so, a shot was fired. I turned and saw her lying on the ground. I went to pick her up and another shot was fired. I am sure that I did not fire the shot. I intended to take her away and make a fresh home for her. I lost my head and ran away. Hahn fired the first shot, but I do not know anything about the second. As far as the letter is concerned I do not remember writing it. The first I remember of it, was being shown it at the lock-up.”

SPEECH FOR DEFENCE.

    Mr Lloyd in the course of his address to the jury, said: “Why was the accused running away? Obviously he was running because Hahn had a gun and was running after him. If the accused went there to shoot his wife, he would do it while there was no one there.” He submitted that there was no intent in the accused’s mind at the time. He certainly loved his children and treated his wife with regard. If there was intent, it was the intent of a mind, which at the time, the court would not call sane. The letter indicated a mind not quite sane. He submitted that the jury would find that there was no intent.

    The Crown Prosecutor did not address the jury.

    The jury after a retirement of two hours, returned a verdict of not guilty on both counts, but found him guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm, without intent.

    His Honor passed sentence of three years’ hard labor, the sentence to date from August 5.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Singleton Argus, Tue 16 Oct 1923 24

GLEANINGS.
———◦———

    At Wagga Circuit Court a sentence of three years’ hard labor was passed on Charles Robert Pilley, found guilty of having shot his wife and caused her grievous bodily harm.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express, Fri 19 Oct 1923 25

TUMBARUMBA SHOOTING.
———◦———
HUSBAND AND WIFE QUARREL.

    The sensational shooting at Tumbarumba on August 3 of Flora Matilda Pilley was recalled at the Wagga Circuit Court when Charles Robert Pilley, the husband of the victim, was charged before Mr Justice James and a jury with having feloniously wounded his wife with intent to murder her; alternatively he was charged with having feloniously wounded his wife with intent to commit grievous bodily harm.

    Flora Matilda Pilley, in evidence stated that domestic quarrels were frequent after her husband returned from the war. Her father and husband also quarrelled. On one occasion accused said, “I’ll strangle you, and no other man can get you.” The whole cause of the shooting was bad feeling between Pilley and witness’s father over Pilley going to war. Once they came to blows. On the day of the shooting Pilley came home and said, “I’ve got a job at Batlow, so pack up your things and come.” Witness refused. Describing the shooting she said, “Charlie fired a shot which got me in the head and dazed me. He fired a second shot which hit me in the temple, and I remembered no more.”

    Frederick Hulme, Pilley’s father-in-law, said the Pilley pulled out a revolver and fired at his wife. Witness and Pilley were bad friends—enemies even, and witness gave him a “black eye” on July 16.

    Sergeant O’Connor stated that when arrested Pilley said, “I was only waiting to see if my wife was dead before giving myself up.”

    Accused, [Charles Robert Pilley] from the dock, repeated his statement that since his return from the war his father-in-law had quarrelled with him. Hulme was in the habit of carrying a revolver. He (accused) had interviewed a solicitor regarding a divorce, and Hulme said, “Before I ever let a — returned soldier put a girl of mine through the Divorce Court I will blow both of your brains out.” When he went to get his wife to go to Batlow Hulme pointed a rifle at him, and then two shots were fired by him (accused). Pilley added, “I lost my head then and ran away.”

    The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both charges, but found Pilley guilty of having inflicted grievous bodily harm.

    Piley [sic] was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Charles Robert Pilley, Gaol photo sheet 26

SRNSW: NRS1998, [3/5968], Bathurst Gaol photographic description book, 1874-1930, No. 2708, p. 57, R5088.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 2708
Bathurst

Date when Portrait was taken: 27-11-1923

Name: Charles Robert Pilley

Native place: Waverley NSW

Year of birth: 4-8-1888

Arrived       Ship:
in Colony }   Year:

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Laborer

Religion: C of E

Education, degree of: R & W

Height: 5' 3½"

Weight     On committal: 126
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Light Brown

Colour of eyes: Brown

Marks or special features: Scar right side of head. Scar back right shoulder

(No. of previous Portrait .. 1166, Parramatta [& 2708 Bathurst])

CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

Glen Innes PC

Quirindi PC

Tamworth PC

ditto
Maitland CC

Tamworth PC

Wagga CC

27

  8

13

24
  5

  4

11

  8

  9

  2

  2
  4

12

10

1907

1908

1911

1911
1911

1911

1923

Stealing

ditto 

Riotous behaviour

Wilfully & obscenely expose person
Escape from custody

Steal from the person 

Maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm

3 months H.L.

2 months H.L.

16/- or 7 days H.L.

6 months H.L.
4 months H.L.  |  Accumulative

6 months H.L.

3 years H.L.
to date from 8/8/1923

 


 
Charles Robert Pilley, 1927


Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Mon 5 Sep 1927
27

HORSE STEALING
———
THREE MONTHS’ SENTENCE
————
PLEA FOR CLEMENCY FAILS
————

    Charles Robert Pilley was sentenced to three months’ hard labour at the Goulburn Police Court this morning on a charge of having stolen a draught mare valued at £10, the property of Elizabeth Feltham, of Marulan.

    Constable Bartholomew stated that he received Pilley from the Gundagai police. Pilley was shown a warrant for his arrest and admitted that he was the man referred to therein. Accused made a statement confessing to the theft.

    Accused pleaded guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily.

    Mr EF Thomas, who appeared for Pilley, appealed for clemency. Pilley, he said, was an ex-service man, and had suffered greatly from the effects of the war. In addition, he had had a great deal of worry of late, the house where his children were staying having been burnt down.

    Pilley, who had a long criminal history, was sentenced to three months’ hard labour, and was ordered to pay £5/1/8 costs, in default a further two months’ imprisonment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 7 Sep 1927 28

COUNTRY NEWS.
———◦———

GOULBURN POLICE COURT.

Goulburn, Tuesday.


    Charles Robert Pilley was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for stealing a horse valued at £10, the property of Elizabeth Feltham, of Marulan. He was also ordered to pay £5/1/8 costs. In default two months’ imprisonment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Charles Robert Pilley, Gaol photo sheet 29

SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5991], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1875-1930, No. 1961, p. 180, R5132.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 1961
Maitland

Date when Portrait was taken: 28-10-1925

Name: Charles Robert Pilley

Native place: Waverley NSW

Year of birth: 4-8-1888

Arrived       Ship:
in Colony }   Year:

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Laborer

Religion: C of E

Education, degree of: R & W

Height: 5' 1¼'

Weight     On committal: 126
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Light Brown

Colour of eyes: Brown

Marks or special features: Scar right side of head. Scar back of right shoulder

(No. of previous Portrait .. 1166 Parramatta 2708 Bathurst)

CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

Glen Innes PC

Quirindi PC

Tamworth PC

ditto

Maitland CC

Tamworth PC

Wagga CC

27

  8

13

24

  5

  4

11

  8

  9

  2

  2

  4

12

10

1907

1908

1911

1911

1911

1911

1923

Stealing

ditto 

Riotous behaviour

Wilfully & obscenely expose person

Escape from custody

Steal from person 

Maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm

3 months H.L.

2 months H.L.

16/- or 7 days H.L.

6 months H.L.

4 months H.L.

6 months H.L.

3 years H.L. 
to date from 8/8/1923

 


 
Charles Robert Pilley, 1963


The Public Trust Office, Sydney letter and response 8 Jul 1963
30

The Public Trust Office, Sydney letter 8 Jul 1963
The Public Trust Office, Sydney letter 8 Jul 1963

 

 

The Public Trust Office, Sydney response 8 Jul 1963
The Public Trust Office, Sydney response 8 Jul 1963

 


1     Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Thu 2 Feb 1905, p. 2. Emphasis added.

2     Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Fri 4 Aug 1933, p. 4.

OBITUARY
————
LATE GTS BOILEAU
————

       Mr George TS Boileau, whose death occurred in a private hospital at Brisbane on July 9 last at the age of 83, was well-known in Goulburn, where he resided for some time, holding the position of Clerk of Petty Sessions.

       Mr Boileau was born at Bengal, India. He was the eldest son of Colonel TT Boileau, of the 20th Hussars, India, who, with his wife and family, went through the Indian Mutiny of 1857 and who were in Lucknow at the time of its relief. Mr Boileau was a grandson of Major-General Boileau, who was responsible for the compilation of a set of interest tables now in universal use throughout the Lands Department in NSW.

       The late Mr Boileau was educated at Wellington College, England, and later at Sandhurst. Forsaking a military career, he came to Australia to gain colonial experience, and was for some time in Victoria on the properties of his cousin, Mr Sommerville Learmonth. He then went to New Caledonia, where he was connected with the cotton-growing industry for some time, but a severe attack of typhoid sent him back to England.

       When he had recovered he was sent to Mauritius to fill an important Government position, but had to resign owing to fever and ague. He again came to Australia and joined the civil service, in which he remained until his retirement.

       He was well past military age when the Great War broke out, but performed valuable home service in Sydney. On the return of his three sons from the Front he went with them to Queensland, where they purchased a property and carried on grazing pursuits until shortly before Mr Boileau’s death, he having taken up residence in Brisbane owing to ill-health.

       Mr Poileua [sic] was for many years a member of the Masonic Order, first joining the French Masonry in Mauritius at an early age. He later joined the Order in Australia.

       He is survived by a widow, who was formerly Miss Charlotte Ewing, youngest daughter of the late LT Carpenter, manager of the Royal Mint, Sydney; and also two daughters and six sons, one of whom is Mr HS Boileau, of Goulburn. There are two surviving sisters, Mrs Henderson, widow of the late Justice Hestian Henderson, who was for some time Chief Justice of Bombay, and Mrs Turner, wife of Major-General J Turner, of the Indian Cavalry, whose brothers, Colonel Herbert Boileau, is British Consul at Lucerne.”

3     The Goulburn Herald, Fri 3 Feb 1905, p. 2. Emphasis added.

4     Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Sat 4 Feb 1905, p. 2.

5     Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Tue 18 Apr 1905, p. 2. Emphasis added.

6     The Goulburn Herald, Wed 19 Apr 1905, p. 2. Emphasis added.

7     Argyle Liberal and District Recorder, (NSW), Fri 21 Apr 1905, p. 2.

8     The Tamworth Daily Observer, (NSW), Tue 14 Feb 1911, pp. 1, 2. Emphasis added.

9     The Tamworth Daily Observer, (NSW), Sat 25 Feb 1911, pp. 5, 9, 10.

10   The Raleigh Sun, (Bellingen, NSW), Fri 3 Mar 1911, p. 4.

11   The Tamworth Daily Observer, (NSW), Sat 4 Mar 1911, p. 7.

12   The Maitland Daily Mercury, Wed 5 Apr 1904, p. 5.

13   The Maitland Daily Mercury, Fri 7 Apr 1904, p. 7.

14   The Tamworth Daily Observer, (NSW), Sat 8 Apr 1911, p. 4.

15   The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 10 Apr 1911, p. 7.

16   The Tamworth Daily Observer, (NSW), Tue 18 Apr 1911, p. 2.

17   The Tamworth Daily Observer, (NSW), Tue 5 Dec 1911, p. 2. Emphasis added.

18   SRNSW: NRS2397, [3/6012], Parramatta photographic description book, 1909-1914, No. 1166, p. 89, R5138.

19   The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express, Fri 23 Nov 1917, p. 3. Emphasis added.

20   To view the digitised WWI service record (service number 2972, barcode 8017667) of Charles Robert Pilley go to: www.naa.gov.au

21   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 7 Aug 1923, p. 7.

22   The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express, Fri 10 Aug 1923, p. 22.

23   The Wagga Wagga Advertiser, Fri 12 Oct 1923, p. 4. Emphasis added.

24   Singleton Argus, Tue 16 Oct 1923, p. 1.

25   The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express, Fri 19 Oct 1923, p. 39. Emphasis added.

26   SRNSW: NRS1998, [3/5968], Bathurst Gaol photographic description book, 1874-1930, No. 2708, p. 57, R5088.

27   Goulburn Evening Penny Post, Mon 5 Sep 1927, p. 2. Emphasis added.

28   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 7 Sep 1927, p. 16.

29   SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5991], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1875-1930, No. 1961, p. 180, R5132.

30   NAA: B2455, Pilley Charles Robert, pp. 7, 9.