Charles Henry Richards and Victor Samuel John Langford, 1923

Below also see: Charles Henry Richards, 1925
Charles Henry Richards, 1926,
Charles Henry Richards, 1927,
Charles Henry Richards, 1929,
Charles Henry Richards, 1930,
Charles Henry Richards, 1931,
Charles Henry Richards and Harold Hayes, 1933 – Indecent assault
Charles Henry Richards and Walter John Cox, 1936,
James Haby and Charles Henry Richards, 1936
Charles Henry Richards, 1940,
Charles Henry Richards, 1952

 

Barrier Miner, Thu 25 Oct 1923 ¹

THEFT OF JEWELLERY.
———◦———
TWO YOUTHS CHARGED
————

    In the Police Court this morning, before Mr GA Stevenson, DSM, Charles Henry Richards (18) and Victor Samuel John Langford (17) were charged with stealing one diamond ring, one sovereign brooch, on gold wristlet watch, one gold curb bangle, one pearl brooch, and one pendant valued at £19/10/, the property of Rose Griff. Mr WP Blackmore appeared for the defendants and asked for an adjournment until this afternoon to allow him to see his clients.

    The magistrate granted an adjournment until 2.30 o’clock this afternoon.

    On resuming at 2 o’clock Constable ALW Hill deposed that at about 10 am yesterday he visited the home of the defendant Richards. He saw Richards, who was in bed. When told that witness had seen a man named Quinn at Thackaringa, who said he had purchased some jewellery from him and Langford, defendant said he had found it near the bicycle path in Mica-street. He said he was walking along Mica-street with Langford, and he kicked a parcel with his foot. He said the jewellery was wrapped up in brown paper. When asked what the parcel contained he said a wristlet watch and other jewellery. Defendant Richards stated that he picked up the parcel and threw the paper away in the street. When asked what he did with the jewellery Richards said he sold it to young Quinn and Smith. He said he gave the watch to Langford on Sunday last. Witness and the defendant Richards went to the defendant Langford’s residence. Witness went to see Langford and told him that Richards said that Langford was with him on Friday night last, and that they had sold some jewellery in Argent-street. Langford said: “We did sell some.” Langford said he had the watch and that he knew it belonged to Mrs Griff. Witness got the watch produced, and then took the two defendants to the Police Station. At the Police Station Langford said he found the watch when with Richards. When asked where he found it Langford said in Mica-street, near Walpole’s Hotel. This would be about half a block from Mr Griff’s residence. Langford said the jewellery was in a brown paper bag. The two defendants were then brought together and witness showed them the jewellery (produced). Langford said it was the jewellery they had found. Richards also said it was the jewellery. Langford said he had sold the ring for 5/- and a double sovereign brooch for 2/-. Richards said he got sixpence for the brooch, bracelet, and pendant. When asked if they had attempted to find the owner of the goods Langford said that they had looked in the paper, but did not see anything in it about the jewellery. Richards said he would make a statement. Witness wrote it for Richards, and he signed it. Langford when asked if he wished to make a statement said that he would not. Witness read the statement produced in the presence of both defendants. Langford said, “I sold some of the jewellery all right.” When charged, the defendants made no reply. Both defendants said that they found the jewellery.

    To Mr Blackmore: He saw Quinn before he saw the defendants. Both defendants said they found the jewellery in the same place in Mica-street. Witness made enquiries at Griff’s house and also made an examination of the house. There were no traces of a burglary at the house.

    Arthur Smith deposed that he was a porter employed at the Grand Hotel. He was in Argent-street on Friday night last at about 8.45 o’clock. He saw both defendants in Argent-street. Richards brought out a diamond ring and sold it to his mate named Quinn. He also sold Quinn a double-bar-brooch and a two-sovereign brooch. The brooches produced were the brooches sold. Quinn paid 8/- for the jewellery. Witness bought a bracelet pendant and ruby from Langford and gave him sixpence for them. Witness said to Richards, “Are these all right?” He said, “Do you think I’m goat enough to pinch them and sell them to you?”

    To Mr Blackmore: He did not hear them tell Quinn that they had found the jewellery. The sovereigns were shown to Quinn, not to him. Witness did not examine them closely. Richards sold the jewellery to Quinn, not Langford. Langford sold the jewellery to him. Witness and Quinn were sober. Witness did not drink. When Quinn and witness got up the street he looked at the sovereigns.

    Rose Griff deposed that she was a married woman residing with her husband, Philip Griff, in Mica-street. The jewellery produced was her property. She missed the property from her home at about 10 o’clock last Saturday morning. She saw it last on October 14. She kept some of the jewellery in a sideboard and some in the wardrobe. She saw some of the jewellery on Friday last at dinner time. She had had the wristlet watch for about 20 years, and had latterly had it repaired. The diamond ring was bought at the end of April. She had the sovereign brooch made to order. She valued the jewellery at about £19. She knew Langford. She gave no one permission to take the jewellery from her house. On Friday night she left home at about 7 o’clock. The doors were shut, but not locked. When she missed the jewellery she thoroughly searched the house for it.

    To Mr Blackmore: Her little girl sometimes wore the wristlet watch. She was at Langford’s on Friday night playing with the defendant’s sister. The only one in the house on Friday was the woman who helped clean up the house. She knew the defendant Langford to be a very nice boy. There were no initials on any of the jewellery.

    This closed the case for the prosecution.

    Both defendants pleaded not guilty, and elected to be dealt with by the magistrate.

    Charles Henry Richards, in a statement, said that with Langford he found the jewellery, and thinking that it was brummagen, [sic] sold it to Quinn and Smith.

    Langford made a similar statement.

    Sergeant Manns said that there was nothing against Richards, but Langford had been convicted about four years ago for stealing.

    Proceeding.
…

THEFT OF JEWELLERY.

(Continued from Page 1.)

TWO YOUTHS ARE CONVICTED
BUT RELEASED UNDER BOND
————

    In the Police Court this afternoon, before Mr GA Stevenson, DSM, the case was continued in which Charles Henry Richards (18) and Victor Samuel John Langford (17) were charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery, valued at £19/10/, the property of Rose Griff.

    The magistrate said he was satisfied that the boys were guilty of larceny.

    Mr Blackmore asked that the boys be treated as first offenders and a light fine inflicted.

    The magistrate said he would be prepared to give the defendants the benefit of the First Offenders’ Act.

    Sergeant Manns said that Mr Griff wanted the expenses incurred through having to go to Thackaringa by motor car.

    The magistrate sentenced both defendants to a month’s imprisonment, to be suspended under the First Offenders’ Act upon them entering into recognizances of £20 to be of good behaviour for 12 months, with a surety of £20, with costs of £1/13/9 each. Fourteen days were allowed in which to pay the costs.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards, 1925

 

News, Wed 9 Dec 1925 ²

FACING THE MUSIC
———◦———
Man With Violin and Case
————

    Charles Henry Richards, a young man, appeared before Mr EM Sabine, PM, in the Adelaide Police Court this morning on a charge of having had in his possession a violin case and bow which might reasonable be suspected of having been stolen.

    Accused was granted an adjournment until Monday, bail being allowed in a personal bond of £20 and one surety of a like amount.

    Det.-Sgt, Allchurch (police prosecutor) said that accused was seen by Plain-clothes Constables Francis and Stewart trying to dispose of a violin, with case and bow, to a secondhand dealer. When questioned by the police he said that the articles belonged to his father, but were now his property. When brought to the police station accused contradicted his first statement, saying that he had bought the violin from a man in the street for 12/-.

    The violin is fairly new. It has two catgut strings and one silver string, and was enclosed in a black leather case.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Register, Thu 10 Dec 1925 ³

POLICE.
ADELAIDE: Wednesday, December 9.
(Before Mr EM Sabine, PM.)

…
    Charles Henry Richards was charged with having been in unlawful possession of a violin, bow, and case on Tuesday. The prosecutor said the defendant was seen in a secondhand dealer’s shop in Hindley Street with the articles. He was questioned by a police officer, whom he told that the violin had belonged to his father, who was dead. Afterwards he said that it was the property of his sister, but later said he had told lies about it, and that he had bought it from a man in the street for 12/-. At the request of the defendant the hearing was adjourned until Monday. Defendant was granted bail in a personal bond of £20 and one surety of £20.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Advertiser, Tue 15 Dec 1925 ⁴

LAW COURTS.
————

…

LARCENY OF A VIOLIN.

    Charles H Richards, a young man, denied in the Adelaide Police Court, before Mr EM Sabine, PM, on Monday that he had stolen a violin worth about £8, the property of Jessie Stevens of Hindley-street, secondhand dealer. Mrs Stevens gave evidence that she missed the violin from her shop on December 9. It was in her possession on December 8 . The accused, who was arrested by Plainclothes Constable Francis, had previously been charged with having been in unlawful possession of the violin, case and bow, and the hearing had been adjourned. In the first instance he said the instrument had been the proper of his dead father. Later he said he bought it “in the street” for 12/- from a young man whose name he did not know. Detective-Sergeant Allchurch said there had been previous convictions against the accused. The accused was ordered three months’ imprisonment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Register, Tue 15 Dec 1925 ⁵

 

POLICE.
ADELAIDE: Monday, December 15.
(Before Mr EM Sabine, PM.)

    Charles H[enry] Richards, a young man, was charged with having stolen a violin, bow, and case, of the value of £8, the property of Mrs Jessie Stevens, licensed secondhand dealer, of Hindley street, Adelaide, on December 8. The prosecutor (Detective-Sgt Allchurch) withdrew a charge of unlawful possession which had been previously laid. He said the evidence would show that the defendant had been seen by Plainclothes Constables Stewart and Francis attempting to sell the violin to a secondhand dealer in Hindley street. The constables asked him where he obtained the instrument and who was the owner of it. At first he said it belonged to his father, but later asserted that he had bought the violin from a man in the street, and had tried to sell it because he was out of luck.

    Mrs Stevens deposed that she had not seen anybody take the violin, and she did not know the defendant. Richards, on oath, said he had bought the violin for 12/- from a man he knew by sight only. Cross-examined by the prosecutor, defendant admitted three previous convictions at Broken Hill. The PM found the defendant guilty, and ordered him three month’s imprisonment.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards, 1926

 

Barrier Miner, Thu 6 May 1926 ⁶

POLICE COURT.

    In the [Broken Hill] police Court this morning before Mr JR Thompson, JP, Charles Henry Richards (20), was charged with having had insufficient lawful means of support on May 5. He was remanded until Tuesday next. Bail was allowed in self of £40, with one surety of £40 or two sureties of £20 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Tue 11 May 1926 ⁷

ALLEGED THEFT
———◦———
DEFENDANT IS REMANDED.
————

    In the Police Court this morning, before Mr GA Stevenson, SM, Charles Henry Richards (20), on remand was charged with having had insufficient means of support on May 5. He was further charged with having at Adelaide, South Australia, on March 16 stolen goods to the value of £6, the property of Robert Burns Stevens.

    Sergeant Noble withdrew the vagrancy charge and asked for a remand until Friday on the second charge.

    The magistrate remanded the defended until Friday. Bail was allowed in self of £40 with one surety of £40, or two sureties of £20 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Fri 14 May 1926 ⁸

ALLEGED THEFT
———◦———
MAN REMANDED TO ADELAIDE
————

    In the Police Court this morning, before Mr GA Stevenson, SM, Charles Henry Richards (20), on remand was charged with having at Adelaide, South Australia, on March 16, stolen articles to the value of £6, the property of Robert Burns Stevens.

    Plainclothes-Constable AL Mitchell, of South Australia, produced the original warrant for the arrest of the defendant. He asked that the defendant be remanded to his custody for conveyance to Adelaide.

    Detective-Constable AL Hill deposed that at 3 pm on May 6 he saw the defendant at a billiard saloon in Oxide-street. At the Police Station witness asked him if he knew a man named Andrews. In answer to a question as to whether he knew anything of a kitbag stolen from the lost property office of the railway department, Adelaide, defendant said that Andrews gave him the bag. He pawned the bag and sold a camera. When asked if he would make a statement, the defendant asked witness to write down his statement, and on it being finished, the defendant signed it. The statement was as follows:—

    “I am a labourer at present out of employment. For several months past I have been in Adelaide, South Australia. About March 12 last I was in Adelaide. I was residing with my mother at Renown-park, Brompton. I met a young named ‘Roughy’ Andrews in front of the Pirie-street dance hall. It was about 7.30 pm one night. We used to go to dances before then, and I knew him fairly well. He worked in the lost property office of the Railway Department. There was no one else present. He said to me, ‘I know where you can get a few bob; I am working in the railway and there is a kitbag down there which has been there for months. If you come around to-morrow I will give it to you and you can keep the kitbag for me and do what you like with the rest.’ I said, ‘Will they be pinched.’ Andrews said, ‘No, they have been there unclaimed for months.’ I said, ‘I will go down to-morrow and get them.’ We went into the hall and danced till 11 pm. I did not see him any more that night. The following day about 2 pm I want to the railway station, and went to the counter at the lost property office. I saw ‘Roughy’ Andrews there. There was no one behind the counter with him. I said, ‘Have you got the bag?’ He said, ‘Yes, come in here.’ I went into a small room with him. He showed me a kitbag of brown leather on the floor. He said, ‘This is it.’ I said, ‘All right.’ Andrews said, ‘I will be down at the north-line station with the bag in a minute.’ I left him and went down the north-line platform. I waited there about 10 minutes and Andrews brought the bag along to me. He handed the bag to me and then walked away. I took the bag down to the bank of the Torrens and opened it. I found that it contained a folding camera, two hair brushes, a safety razor, half a bottle of hair oil, and some collars. I left the collars, hair oil and the pair of hair brushes on the bank of the river. I then had the bag, camera, and razor, and I went up Gawler-place to Hinton’s, a pawnbroker, and pledged the bag for 7/-. I got a ticket from the shop. I don’t know where the ticket is now. I told Hinton that the bag was mine and that I wanted to sell it. Two days afterwards I sold the camera to Laurie Brady, at the Palace billiard rooms, Rundle-street. I got 15/- for it. I told him it was mine. Before that I had pawned it at Hinton’s for 8/-. I gave the name of C Richards, ‘Katoomba Cottage,’ Renown-park, Brompton. I sold the razor to a young fellow named ‘Doctor’ in Rundle-street one night for 1/-. I don’t know his correct name. He associates with Cyril Asser, who drives a motor. I have never asked Andrews to steal anything for me. I had my home in Adelaide but I was not working at the time. This statement has been made voluntarily by me. It has been read over to me and was written at my dictation. I was asked to write it, but I asked Detective Hill to write it for me.”

    Continuing, witness said that on May 11 he read a provisional warrant to the defendant and he admitted he was the person referred to. He said he would have something to say in Adelaide.

    The magistrate ordered the defendant to be remanded to the custody of Plainclothes-Constable Mitchell to be conveyed to South Australia.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

News, Sat 15 May 1926 ⁹

ALLEGED LARCENY
————

    Charles Henry Richards was remanded until Thursday by Messrs AR Bushell and FW Harrow in the Adelaide Police Court this morning. He appeared on a charge of having on March 16, stolen a kitbag, camera, shaving set, hair brush, six collars, and a bottle of hair oil, valued at £6 the property of Robert Burn Stevens.

    Detective Strangways, who prosecuted, said that accused had been arrested at Broken Hill, and arrived in Adelaide this morning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Register, Sat 15 May 1926 ¹⁰

THEFT IN ADELAIDE.
Accused Remanded to Adelaide.

Broken Hill, Friday.

    In the Broken Hill Police Court this morning, before Mr GA Stevenson, SM, Charles Henry Richards (20), appeared on remand, charged with the theft at Adelaide of articles valued at £66, the property of Robert Burns Stevens, on March 16. Plainclothes Constable AL Mitchell produced the original warrant for accused’s arrest.

    Richards made a statement from the dock. He said he was a resident of Renown Park, Brompton. One night he met a young man called Andrews in front of the Pirie street dance hall. Andrews, who was employed in the lost property office in Adelaide, told him that a kitbag had been lying there unclaimed for months, and if he went around Andrews would give it to accused to keep for him. Richards could have the rest. Accused he went to the railway station next day, and met Andrews, who took him to a small room, and gave him a brown leather kitbag. Accused then went to the North Line platform, where Andrews brought him the bag. After waiting about 10 minutes accused took the bag to the Torrens bank, opened it, and left some of the contents there. He pawned the bag at Hinton’s, Gawler place for 7/-. Two days later he sold the camera to Laurie Brady, of the Palace billiard room, Rundle street, for 15/-. He also sold a razor for 1/- to a young fellow called Doctor.

    The Magistrate ordered accused to be remanded to South Australia.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Advertiser, Mon 17 May 1926 ¹¹

POLICE COURT—ADELAIDE.
Saturday, May 15.
(Before Messrs FW Harrep and AR Bushell.)

    Charles Henry Richards, who was arrested at Broken Hill on Thursday, was charged with having at Adelaide, on March 16, stolen a kitbag and other articles valued at £6, the property of Robert [Burns] Stevens. On the application of the police he was remanded for a week, bail being allowed on a personal bond of £25 and a surety of a like amount. The accused was brought down from Broken Hill under escort on Friday by Detective Strangways.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Register, Mon 17 May 1926 ¹²

IN THE COURTS.

…

ALLEGED STOLEN KITBAG.

    Charles Henry Richards, a young man, who had been arrested in Broken Hill, and arrived in Adelaide only that morning, was charged before Mr EM Sabine, PM, at the Adelaide Police Court on Saturday morning with having on March 16 stolen a kitbag, camera, shaving set, hairbrush, six collars and a bottle of hair oil, of the total value of £6, the property of Robert B Stevens. Accused was remanded on bail until Thursday.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Register, Tue 25 May 1926 ¹³

IN THE COURTS.

…

A MISSING KITBAG.

    During March a kitbag was missed from the Adelaide Railway Station, and it was not until a few days ago that the mystery of its disappearance was cleared up. In the State Children’s Court on Monday, Charles Henry Richards was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for the larceny of the kitbag, which contained articles to the value of £6. The arrest was made by Detective Strangways and PC Mitchell. A minor who was charged in connection with Richards was released under the provisions of the Offenders Probation Act . The case was heard by Mr W Hall, SM, and PC Taylor conducted the prosecution.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards, 1927

 

The Register, Tue 18 Jan 1927 ¹⁴

CHARGES AGAINST GYPSIES.
———◦———
SIX MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT.

…

POLICE.
ADELAIDE: Monday, January 17.
(Before Mr EM Sabine, PM.)

…
    Charles Henry Richards and Frederick [Walter] Webb were each fined £2, with costs, for having been present at the playing of an unlawful game, on January 15. They pleaded guilty.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Advertiser, Tue 5 Jul 1927 ¹⁵

INSUFFICIENT MEANS OF SUPPORT.

    Charles Henry Richards, aged 21, was arrested in the city on Monday afternoon by Detectives Walters and Melhuish and Plainclothes-Constables Stewart and McGrath, and later in the day was charged before Mr HM Muirhead, SM, in the Adelaide Police Court, with being without sufficient lawful means of support. Plainclothes-Constable Stewart said that during the past month he had seen the defendant almost daily in the streets of Adelaide in company with convicted persons and young men of bad repute. About a fortnight ago the witness saw Richards in Rundle-street, and asked him what he was doing for a living. He replied, “Nothing. I am living with my mother in Croydon.” The witness told him he had received a number of complaints about his conduct, and he had been told that he had snatched a purse from a woman in the street, and then run away. Richards promised to go to a station, and the witness told him that was the best thing he could do. He had not gone away, however. When arrested Richards, in reply to a question, said he had no money and he had no work. He had 4/- worth of tobacco in the form of packets of cigarettes on him, which he said had been given him by a man that morning. Asked where the man got the cigarettes, Richards replied, “I suppose he pinched them.” Detective Melhuish said there were five previous convictions against the defendant, including larceny and unlawful possession. A sentence of one month’s imprisonment was imposed, the warrant to be withheld for three days to enable the defendant to go into the country in search of work. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Register, Tue 5 Jul 1927 ¹⁶

IN THE COURTS.
———◦———
LAW NOTICES.

…

A WARRANT WITHHELD.

    Charged with having been without sufficient lawful means of support Charles Henry Richards (21), who was arrested in the city on Monday morning, by Detectives Melhuish and Walters and Plainclothes Constables Stewart and McGrath, appeared before Mr HM Muirhead, SM, in the Adelaide Police Court, later in the day. According to Plainclothes Constable Stewart, defendant, during the past fortnight, had been seen daily in the streets with convicted persons and young men of bad repute. Witness said about a fortnight ago he saw defendant in Rundle street, and asked him how he was obtaining a living. Richards answered that he was not working, but was living with mother, at Croydon. Witness told Richards that among a number of complaints he had received concerning him was one respecting the snatching of a purse from a woman when defendant was supposed to have run away. Richards said he would endeavour to secure a job on a station, but witness said he had not done so. Defendant, when arrested, said he had no money, and was not in work. In his possession, however, were packets of cigarettes to the value of 4/-, which he said, had been given him by a man that morning. When asked where the man had got them, defendant said, “I suppose he ‘pinched’ them.”

    Detective Melhuish said there were four convictions against defendant, including larceny and unlawful possession.

    Richards was awarded imprisonment for one month, the warrant too be withheld for three days to allow defendant to search for work in the country.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards, 1929

 

News, Sat 14 Sep 1929 ¹⁷

BEHAVED OFFENSIVELY
————

    As a result of a disturbance at a dance held in a cafe in Grenfell street last night Charles Henry Richards, laborer, of Adelaide, was fined £1 with £1-5/ costs by Mr EM Sabine, PM, in No. 1 Adelaide Police Court today.. He admitted a charge of offensive behaviour. He was arrested by Constable Sparks.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards, 1930

 

News, Sat 5 Jul 1930 ¹⁸

LABORER REMANDED
————

    A remand till Wednesday was granted by Mr HM Muirhead, SM, in No. 1 Adelaide Police Court today in the case in which Charles Henry Richards, Laborer, of Kensington, was charged with having stolen a hat, valued at £1-17-6, the property of James Edward Day.

    Bail was allowed in £25, and one surety of £25.

    Mr RA Lenthall prosecuted.

    Richards was arrested by Detective Lindsay and Plainclothes Constables McConnell and Delderfield.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Register News-Pictorial, Sat 12 Jul 1930 ¹⁹

NEWS IN BRIEF

…
    STOLE A HAT.—Charles Henry Richards, labourer, of Kensington, was fined 5/-, with £2/5/ costs, in the Adelaide Police Court yesterday. Richards had on a previous day been charged with having, at Hackney on June 30, stolen a hat, valued at £1/17/6.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards, 1931

 

News, Fri 6 Nov 1931 ²⁰

THREE MEN REMANDED ON
THEFT CHARGES
————

…
    Theft of field glasses yesterday at the Gorge was the charge on which Charles Henry Richards was remanded until Wednesday.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Advertiser, Sat 7 Nov 1931 ²¹

LAW COURTS
————

…

THEFT CHARGES ADJOURNED

…
    Charles Henry Richards was remanded until Wednesday on a charge of having stolen a pair of fiield glasses at the Gorge on Thursday.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Advertiser, Thu 19 Nov 1931 ²²

LAW COURTS
————

…

THEFT CHARGE DISMISSED

    Charles Henry Richards, unemployed, of Young street, Norwood, was charged before Mr EM Sabine, PM, in the Adelaide Police Court yesterday with having on November 5 stolen a pair of field glasses, valued at 35/-, the property of Ernest Orborn Bruce.

    The Police Prosecutor (Mr RA Lenthall) said the glasses had been taken from Bruce’s car outside the Gorge Kiosk, where a dance was being held. About 2.30 next morning . Richards was seen with the glasses under his coat by Constable Ryan in Grenfell street. Richards claimed that he found the glasses on the ground outside the kiosk. The case was dismissed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

News, Thu 19 Nov 1931 ²³

    A charge against Charles Henry Richards of having stolen a pair of field glasses valued at £1-15, belonging to Ernest Osborn Bruce, on November 5 was dismissed in No. 1 Adelaide Police Court.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards and Harold Hayes, 1933

 

Depositions for Charles Henry Richards and Harris Hayes 11 Sep 1933 Sydney trial ²⁴

1

[Brown envelope containing the following]
Rex v Richards and Hayes
Sydney Quarter Sessions, 4/9/33.
Exhibits 1 and 2.

2

Central Police Station,
5th August 1933.

    My name is Charles Henry Richards, I am a motor mechanic at present employed, and residing at 23 Bathurst Street, Sydney.

    About 8.40 pm this date I was standing on the footpath in Hyde Park, near the St James lavatory when a man whom I now know as Harold Hayes walked up to me and I said to him, “Can you give me a cigarette?” He said, “I am sorry old sport I don’t smoke.” He then walked into the lavatory and shortly after returned to where I was standing and said to me, “You can have a drink of gin if you want it.” I said, “All right.” We went to a seat in Hyde Park near the statue where Hayes took a bottle of gin from his pocket and we both had a drink out of it. After we had the drink I said to Hayes, “I’m going down the street.” He said, “Do you feel like a bit of nonsense?” I said, “Where are you going?” He said, “I don’t care.” I then said, “I’m not fussy either.” He said, “Where is the best place to go?” I said, “I suppose the Domain will be the best place.”

    We then went into the Domain and sat on a seat near a tree. Hayes said to me, “Do you want another drink?” I said, “I don’t like too much but I will have a try.” Both of us then had another drink of gin, Hayes then put his hand on me then undone several buttons of my fly and started feeling my privates. He then took his private out and showed it to me and said, “Mine is only a little one, if you will suck it for me I will suck yours after.” When he undone my fly I said, “It is too cold I won’t be able to get the horn.” I then started to suck his cock and after sucking it for a few seconds I stopped and sat up and had a spit. Hayes said to me, “I won’t be long now if you do it again,” and he pressed my head down on to his lap with his hand and I sucked his cock the second time, I then felt some warm stuff spurt into my mouth and I spat it out just as the constable, who I now know as Constable Walker caught hold of me. I have never seen Hayes before in my life. I make this statement of my own free will without any favours or threats being held out to me, and all that I have said is true.

Witness:— 

John A Walker, Constable, Charles H Richards.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[On reverse of 2 above is the following]

Exhibit No. 1 Rex v Richards and Hayes
General Police Court, Sydney 11.8.33

[Signature illegible], Deposition Clerk.

3

[3 and 4 below is the handwritten statement by Charles Richards]

Central Police Station
5 August 1933.

Charles Richards is my name I am a mechanic by trade present employed and residing at 23 Bathurst Street City. About 8.40 pm this date I was standing on the footpath in Hyde Park near the St James railway station a man I know now as Harold Hayes I said have you a cigarette he said I am sorry old sport he then went in the lavatory and came out and said you can have a drink of gin I said I don’t mind I then sat on a seat with the man Harold Hayes and we both had a drink. I then said I’m going down the street he then said do you feel like a bit of nonsense I said where are you going he said don’t care I then said I am not fussy either he said where is the best place he I said I suppose the Domain. After reaching the Domain we sat on a bench he said do you want another drink I said I don’t like it much but I will try to drink it. Both of us then had another drink Hayes then undone my fly and started to play with my private he then took his own out and said mine is only a little one. He said if I you suck mine and I will suck yours after.

[Signed] C Richards

4

When he undone my fly I said mine is too cold I shall not be able to get the horn. I then started to suck his cock for a few seconds and stopped at and spat on the ground. Hayes said I won’t be long now and pressed my head down on to his lap. I then felt some ho warm stuff spurt in my mouth and I spat it out just as Constable Walker could caught hold of me and have never seen Hayes before in my life I make this statement of my own free will without any favours or threats being held out to me and all that I have said is true

[Signed] C Richards.

Witnessed by:

[Signed] John A Walker, Constable

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[On reverse of 3 and 4 above is the following]

Exhibit No. 2
Rex v Richards and Hayes
General Police Court, Sydney, 11.8.33

[Signature illegible], Deposition Clerk.

6

C[riminal]. C[harges]. 4 and 5
Heard in conjunction by consent

CHARLES HENRY RICHARDS, 20.
HAROLD HAYES, 31
Indecent assault a male person.

MR SHEEHAN: (instructed by RD Meagher and Sproule) for defendant Hayes.

Defendant RICHARDS: in person.

POLICE PROSECUTOR: Sergeant Toole.

    This deponent, on oath, states as follows:

    My name is John Alfred Walker. I am a constable of police stationed at Petersham.

    At about 8.30 pm on the 5th August, 1933, I saw the defendant Hayes enter and leave the men’s lavatory at Hyde Park on three different occasions in a period of eight to ten minutes. After he left the lavatory the third time I saw the two defendants walking along St James Road. They walked into Hyde Park and sat down on a seat. I saw the defendant Hayes take a pocket bottle from his pocket. He handed it to Richards. Richards placed the bottle to his mouth and appeared to have a drink out of it. Richards then handed the bottle to Hayes and Hayes placed the bottle to his mouth and appeared to have a drink.

    The defendant Hayes then put the bottle in his pocket. Shortly after that they entered the Domain together and sat on a seat together in the Domain near a stree. [sic] I went to behind the tree near where they were sitting and on looking around I saw the defendant Richards with his head down near the fly of Hayes’s trousers. He was moving his head up and down. Shortly after Richards sat up and spat out on the ground. The defendant Hayes then said to Richards, “I won’t be long now if you will do it again” at the same time placing his hand on the back of Richards head and pressing it down towards his fly.

    Richards had commenced to move up and down again. I then walked to the seat where they were sitting and I saw the defendant Richards with Hayes’ person in his mouth. He was moving his head up and down on it. A few seconds after defendant Richards sat

7

up and spat on the ground. I then caught hold of the two defendants as they were sitting on the seat and said to them —“I have been watching you two dirty brutes and I saw you (meaning Hayes) with your person in this other man’s mouth.”

    Sergeant Russell then came over and caught hold of the defendant Hayes and pulled his overcoat from across his lap. His fly was undone, his person was exposed, and in a state of erection and all wet.

    Sergeant Russel said to him (in the presence and hearing of the other defendant)—“I could see this man (indicating Richards) sucking your person, and it is still in a state of erection and all wet”. Defendant Hayes said, “It is no good denying it. You have caught us at it”. Sergeant Russell said “We are going to take you to the Central Police Station and charge you with indecent assault”.

    They made no reply.

    Sergeant Russell then took defendant Hayes and I took defendant Richards. On the way to the Police Station Richards said to me—not in the presence of the defendant Hayes—“It was all his fault (indicating Hayes). He gave me a couple of drinks of gin and asked me to come down here and suck his cock and after I knocked off the first time he asked me to do it again and I said he wouldn’t be long”. I said, “Yes, I saw all that you were doing and I heard him ask you to suck it the second time”. Richards said “I am satisfied—you caught us red-handed, so I may as well tell the truth about it. And I had just finished him and sat up and spat it out when you caught me”. I said to Richards, “Would you care to make a statement as to what happened tonight?” He said, “Yes, I don’t mind, I will make one”. I then took him to the Central Police Station where I said to him—“Do you still wish to make a statement?” He said, “Yes.” I then said to him, “I want you to understand that you need not make a statement unless you wish, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence at your trial”. I then typed a statement which I now produce at his dictation. I read it over to him and thee signed it in my presence. (Tendered and marked Exhibit “1”)

MR SHEEHAN: I object to the statement, so far as my client is concerned.

BENCH: It will be admitted as evidence against Richards.

WITNESS: The two defendants were then charged with the present charge and they made no reply. I later said to Hayes this is a

8

statement which the other man made as to what happened tonight (showing him the statement, Exhibit, 1) I read the contents of the statement to him, and said “Do you want to make a statement”? “No, I can’t say any more than what’s there.” I later said to the defendant Richards (on his own then) “Would you care to make that statement in your own hand-writing. I want you to clearly understand that you need not do so unless you wish, but whatever you say will be taken down and may be given in evidence at your trial”. He said “Give me a pen and ink and I will soon write it.” I gave him a pen and ink and he wrote a statement out and I read it to him and he signed it.

    (Statement tendered and marked Exhibit “2”)

It is practically the same as the other statement. (Statement read) The second statement was copied partly from the first statement, Exhibit “1”. I supplied him with a copy of the typewritten statement. When first at the Central Police Station the defendant had on him a bottle containing gin.

    (Bottle and content tendered; mark Exhibit “3”).

When standing behind the tree I was about seven or eight feet away from the seat on which the defendants were. I was only a few seconds behind the tree.

TO BENCH: There was plenty of light around there and it was a real bright moon-lit night.

TO SERGEANT TOOLE: They were sitting with their backs towards me.

When I walked up behind them I only saw was only about six inches behind them and could see everything that was taking place. Sergeant Russel caught hold of the defendant Hayes and pulled his overcoat from across his lap. He was wearing his overcoat.

TO MR SHEEHAN: I left the Domain with my prisoner shortly after nine o’clock. I did not ask him his name. He walked to the police station. It may have been 9.30 when we got to the station. I gave the particulars at the station. I did not give the time I arrived at the station. I would only supply the time of the defendant’s arrest. I couldn’t say I looked at my watch. We were at the station half an hour or it may have been longer before the defendants were charged.

BENCH: The charge sheet shows that defendants were charged at 9.55 pm.

9

WITNESS: Sergeant Russell said to me, “It might have been better if you had got it in his own handwriting”.

Q.  Is it not a police instruction to get the defendant to write his own statement.

SERGEANT TOOLE: I object to the question.

WITNESS: I couldn’t say what the ordinary procedure is in those cases.

Q.  Have you read your Police Instructions lately? ----- I do not wish to answer that.

WITNESS: I said to Richards that Hayes was well known around there. I said to Richards—I did not say to Hayes “This man is well known to the police”.

Q.  Did you advise Richards to plead guilty? ----- No.

Q.  Can you tell me when you last typed a statement for a man and then got him to write it himself? ----- I have never done it.

WITNESS: I got the defendant to write a statement. I had supplied him with a copy of the typed statement. He asked me for that. The defendant Richards was never in the charge room when he made that. He was taken upstairs. I was present with him myself when he made the first statement. When he made the second one Sergeant Russell and I were there. I read the statement over after he had written them and before he signed them. Shortly after he started to write Exhibit “2” he asked for a copy of Exhibit “1”. I gave him the copy. I am not prepared to say to what stage he had got in his written statement before he asked for the typed statement. I wouldn’t say it was half way down the statement when he asked for the first statement. He may have been a quarter way down the statement. He had that statement. I couldn’t say whether he was copying from it or not. There was a bright electric light in the room. There was nobody else in the room at the time under my observation. It was shortly before 8.30 pm this night that I went to Hyde Park. I was in Hyde Park about fifteen yards from the lavatory on the Supreme Court side, more towards the direction of the fountain in Hyde Park. I was about fifteen yards away. I was on the foot-path in the park that runs past the Supreme Court entrance of the lavatory towards the centre of the park. There is no mistake about that. Sergeant Russell was standing with me part of the time. He remained there. We were both standing there when I saw the defendant Hayes

10

enter the lavatory the first time. After Hayes came out of the lavatory the first time he stood for a little while, then entered the lavatory the second time. I then followed him in. Went in after him. Hayes later left the lavatory, came out, and stood outside. I also came out shortly after. Hayes later entered the lavatory a third time. The same entrance, each time, the Supreme Court entrance I again followed him in. Sergeant Russell was standing at about the same place. They were in Hyde Park near a statue. They sat on a seat. We walked up together part of the way. I had joined Russell in Hyde Park. He was still standing on the foot-path. We followed behind. We were thirty or forty yards behind the defendants. I did not have a motor car with me. There was a PD [Police Department] car in the Domain. I could not say that the lights of the PD were flashed at night. I could not say what the PD car was doing there. I had not been riding in that car that night. I was there at the time I had hold of the two defendants. We didn’t bring them away in the car. I couldn’t say the car lights were flashed in the direction of the seats where the defendants were. The men were sitting on a seat with their backs to me. Just after they went there I saw Hayes produce a bottle. Hayes was sober. I stood for a few second behind them and watched. And after defendant Richards sat up I caught hold of the two of them. I did not say “I have caught you”. Neither of the defendants attempted to jump away. They both remained sitting on the seat. I don’t know who was in the PD car. I could not give you a description of them. They were in uniform. I do not know what station they were from. I do not know the number of the PD car. I do not know them personally or by reputation. I saw two in the front seat. I did not see any in the back seat—Russell was not one of them. Sergeant Russell’s Christian names are: “George Edward”. I don’t know if there was someone in the PD car named “Jack”. I couldn’t say if anyone spoke to any of the men in the PD car. I was there. I don’t know if someone said, “Here they are, Jack”. I would say that three or four buttons of Hayes’ fly were undone. I have been specially detailed for this class of work in the Domain. It did not strike me as important the number of buttons undone on the fly. I said Hayes’ penis was all wet.

Q.  You know under the Crimes Act that police have authority to take clothing for scientific investigation? ----- Yes.

11

WITNESS: I have heard of clothing being submitted to scientific investigation -----

    (At this stage, adjourned until 2 pm).

At 2 pm (witness continues).

TO MR SHEEHAN: I could not say if the overcoat had a belt on it or not. The overcoat was not done up—not the bottom part. I am not prepared to say the top part was not done up. On the way to the station Sergeant Russell did say something about not going too fast. Sergeant Russell did not say to me—“I don’t know what he will charge you with. I will have to evidence my mate. I think it will be offensive behaviour”. I did not hear Sergeant Russell say “I saw your head over his lap”. I did not hear Hayes say “That was not correct”. I did not shew the defendant Richards his statement, No. 2. He shewed him the statement, Exhibit “1”. I read the statement Exhibit “1” to him. Hayes did not say “That’s not right.” It was after that I had shewn him his first statement and had a conversation with him that I asked Richards to make out the second statement Exhibit “2.”

    I remember Hayes saying in the box “He asked for a drink of gin out of the bottle”. I have seen Hayes down there on numerous occasions. I have not seen him there for the past three months. I have not been there. I have not discussed this matter with Russell about this man not being down there before.

    With regard to Exhibit “2”—that statement was taken in a passage-way near the cells. No-one else was present in custody there when the defendant made the statement.

TO SERGEANT TOOLE: Sergeant Russell and I were not present the whole of the time in the Domain. Prior to the arrival of the PD car there I had no idea that I would come there.

NO QUESTIONS BY DEFENDANT RICHARDS.

(Read over and adhered to … BW).

[Signed] John A Walker.

Taken and sworn at Central Police Court, Sydney, this 11th day of August, 1933, before me.

[Signed] AC Atkinson, SM.

12

This Deponent, on Oath, states as follows:

    My name is GEORGE EDWARD RUSSELL. I am Sergeant of Police, stationed at No. 1 Station, Sydney.

    At about 8.30 on the 5th August, 1933, I saw the defendant Hayes near the men’s lavatory in Hyde Park. I saw him enter the lavatory on three different occasions. He then met the defendant Richards outside the lavatory and had a short conversation with him. They then walked away together up St James Road, and entered the park, Hyde Park, and sat on a seat near the statue. I saw the defendant Hayes take a bottle from his pocket from underneath his overcoat and hand it to the defendant Richards and they had a drink, both of them. Hayes put in back in his pocket then. They then left the park and went to the Domain, and sat on a seat there. Constable Walker left me and walked around to a tree just behind them, about six or seven feet away from them. I saw the defendant take the bottle from under his coat and hand it to Hayes, who had another drink. I was about 50 yards away. It was a bright moonlit night. The two defendants had a drink. I then saw the defendant Richards put his head down to the front of Hayes trousers and he was moving his head up and don. He then sat up straight again and after few seconds hi head went back down again. I saw Constable Walker walk out from behind the tree and stood behind them. The defendant Richards then sat up straight again and Constable Walker caught hold of the two defendants. I hurried over to them and caught hold of Hayes, and pulled his overcoat back from across the front of his trousers. His person was in a state of erection and wet and sticking out through the fly of his trousers. I said to Hayes—“I saw this man (indicating defendant Richards) sucking your person and it is still in a state of erection and all that”. Defendant Hayes said—“I can’t deny it. You caught us at it.” I then said—“I’m going to take you to the Central Police Station and charge you with indecent assault”.

    All that conversation took place in the hearing and presence of defendant Richards. On the way to the station I said to Hayes—“I’ve seen you on numerous occasions down there

13

(meaning the lavatory at Hyde Park) and one night we saw you go into the lavatory a dozen times in less than half an hour”. Hayes said “You never see me there on a Monday night”. They were then taken to the Central Police Station and charged with the present charge and they made no reply.

    Later Constable Walker accompanied by myself shewed the defendant Hayes the statement, Exhibit “1”, and said “This is the statement the other man made as to what happened tonight”. Constable Walker then read the statement to him and said “Do you wish to make a statement?” He said “No, I can’t say any more than what’s there”. I then went with Constable Walker to where Richards was in the cell. Constable Walker said to Richard “Will you make a statement in your own hand-writing”. He said “You can make a statement if you like, it’s for yourself to say, but whatever you say may be given in evidence at your trial”. Defendant Richards said “Give me a pen and ink and I’ll soon make one”. He was given pen and ink and wrote a statement out. Exhibit “2” is the statement. Later Constable Walker read that statement to Richards and he signed it.

    Walker in the Domain was about six or seven feet behind the defendants. We have been at the police station with the defendants before we charged them, for about ten minutes. 

(Read over and adhered to … BW)

TO MR SHEEHAN: I never had a statement typewritten and then got the defendant to write on out in his own hand-writing. I have never got anyone to make a statement before.

    When I saw the typewritten one I said to Constable Walker—“You should have got it in his own hand-writing”. I was in the charge-room when the typewritten statement was taken by Constable Walker. The defendants were charged after the typewritten statement was made. They were charged after the statement was made. When the defendant was asked to write out his statement he said—“Give me a pen and ink and I will soon write it out”. He did not say anything else. Constable Walker had the typewritten statement in his pocket I think. The defendant did not ask for anything else besides the pen and ink. It took the constable about ten minutes to get the typewritten statement. When the statement

14

was read over to the defendant, Hayes, he did not say “That is not right.” I went to Hyde Park and saw the defendant outside the lavatory and took up a position about twenty yards up from the lavatory. I sat on the railing. I saw the defendant come out three times from the lavatory. Think he went in out the same door all the time. On the Queen’s statue side I did not see the man Richards until I saw him standing outside on the foot-path. Before I went to the Domain I was with Constable Walker. Walker was behind the tree nearly five minutes before he walked over to the defendants. I ran across as soon as Constable Walker caught hold of them. I was in front of Constable Walker. I came to the front of the men. I was facing them. I could see the defendant’s head moving up and down. The head was only moving up and down a short distance. The light showed under the seat and then went out again. I ran across and caught hold of Hayes. Constable Walker had one defendant in each hand and I caught hold of Hayes. I did not see the bottle when I went over to them. I did no hear a voice say—“I have caught you”. Hayes did not take a step aside when I went up. A light flashed, from a PD car I think. There were two police there; they flashed a light on me while I was at the tree. I do not know who they are. No-one said “Here they are, Jack”. I did not take any notice of the police car. They put the light on me. I said—“Put that light out.” I did not want the defendants to see me. This was before I ran down to them. I had no conversation with anyone during the lunch hour about this light flashing. I could hear your voice this morning but I could not say what you were saying. When and lights went on the words “Here they are, Jack,” were never mentioned. The motor car was out on the grass. It may have come from the hospital way. I did not see it until it came up alongside of me. We walked to the Central Police Station. The men in the car were in uniform. There were two in the front seat. I did not notice anyone in the back seat. On the way to the station I did not tell Walker not to go so fast. I did not tell him to keep closer. I did not say to Hayes “I don’t know what we will charge you with. I will have to see my mate. I think it will be offensive behaviour.” I may have said “I saw your head over

15

his lap.” I said “I have seen you down here a lot”. He did not say “I do not come into town on the week nights, only on week-ends.” I said “I saw you drinking wine out of a bottle”. I said “You can’t usually drink wine”. I was assuming things when I said that. I couldn’t say the last occasion when I saw Hayes down there. It is two or three months since I saw him. I ave been away. I started work on 14th July. I haven’t seen him since before I went away on holidays. It might be three or four months or five months ago since I saw him I may have said to him “I saw you three months ago.” I have never spoken to him before that night. He did nothing except walk in and out of the lavatory. The defendant Hayes acquiesced to everything in the statement. I did not get him to sign the statement. His penis was in a state of erection when I went over. His penis could have been wet from the other man’s mouth. It did not suggest itself to me to have his clothing taken for scientific investigation. It was a dark overcoat he had on. It was not buttoned up. The overcoat was not buttoned up at the time. He had three or four buttons of his fly undone. I did not count the buttons. I caught hold of his person. I did not mention that in my evidence in chief. That Domain is No. 4 Division. I don’t know if there was a man named Jack in that car that night. I did not know were there. Constable Walker took Richards straight away when we got to the station.

    NO QUESTIONS BY DEFENDANT RICHARDS.

(Read over and adhered to).

[Signed] GE Russell.

Taken and sworn at Central Police Court, Sydney, this 11th day of August, 1933, before me,

[Signed] RC Atkinson, SM.

16

Surety previously accepted.

Recognizance to appear and receive Sentence.
(After Conviction at Quarter Sessions.)

New South Wales,
TO WIT.                    }

Be it remembered, that on the 11th day of September 1933 Harold Hayes of No. 1 Gibson Street Camperdown, in the State of New South Wales, labourer (hereinafter called the accused), and Edward William Hayes of 39A Hopetoun Street Camperdown, in the said State, storeman personally came before me, the undersigned, one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the State, and severally acknowledged themselves to owe to our Sovereign Lord the King the several sums following (that is to say); the said accused the sum of £50; and the said surety the sum of £50 each, of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements, respectively, to the use of our said Lord the King, his heirs, and successors, if the said accused shall fail in the conditions indorsed hereunder.

    The conditions of the within-written recognizance is such, that whereas the accused was on the 11th day of September, 1933, at the Court of Quarter Sessions holden at Sydney convicted before his Honor Judge Thomson Esq, chairman, of the offence of principle in the second degree in the felony of indecent assault on a male person, and was thereafter for his said offence only ordered to enter into a recognizance in the sum of £50, with one surety in the sum of £50, condition that he, the said accused, should appear at the said Court of Quarter Sessions holden at Sydney, or at such other place as may be appointed within the said State to receive sentence in respect of the said offence at any time within five years, from the said date if called upon to do so, by notice which may be sent by Registered Post to the accused at the address above mentioned or to such other address as he may notify the Clerk of the Peace.

[Signed] Harold Hayes, Edward William Hayes.

    If, therefore, the said accused will appear within the said period at the said Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Sydney aforesaid, or at such other place as may be appointed, to receive sentence in respect of the said offence if called upon to do so, then this recognizance be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.

    Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first above mentioned, at Sydney, in the said State, before me,

[Signed] P Fitzgerald, JP.

17

PRISONER’S APPLICATION OR STATEMENT.

State Penitentiary Gaol.
August 15 1933.

From prisoner, Charles Henry Richards, no -----

Has ask for his trial to be taken at an early date.

The above named prisoner respectfully makes application for an early determination of his case. He is pleading guilty and would be very grateful if his case could be dealt with as early as possible at the present session.

[Signed] Charles Henry Richards

Forwarded for consideration.

[Signature illegible], Superintendent, State Penitentiary, 15.8.33.

To the Clerk of the Peace, Sydney

    As this accused is in gaol and desires to plead guilty as soon as possible, perhaps the Attorney-General will direct a change of venue in this case to the present sittings of the court.

[Signature illegible], Clerk of the Peace, 16/8/33.

18

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE.

Metropolitan District,

Central Police Station,
14th August 1933.

Report relative to antecedence of:—

Name  Charles Henry Richards,
Offence  indecent assault on a male person.
Committed for Trial at  Sydney Quarter Sessions,
Date  4th September 1933.

    Sergeant 3rd Class GE Russell reports:—That Charles Henry Richards is a single man, 20 yeas of age, a native of South Australia, a motor mechanic by occupation, at present unemployed, in receipt of food relief and residing at 23 Bathurst Street, Sydney.

    For the past three and a half years prior to about the 28th April 1933, he was employed at his usual occupation by his brother Herbert James Richards, 67 Beatrice Street, Prospect, via Adelaide, South Australia, who conducts a carrying business at that address, when he had a disagreement with his brother and jumped the train, eventually arriving in Sydney about the 15th May, 1933, and has been unemployed every since. He has no friends or relatives in this State and he had never come under the notice of the police prior to his arrest.

    His fingerprints have been taken and there is no convictions recorded against him.

[Signed] George E Russell, Sergeant 3rd Class.

The Clerk of the Peace, Sydney.

Forwarded for information.

[Signed] WJ Keefe, Sergeant 2nd Class abs Inspector Russell, 15.8.’33.

19

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE.

Metropolitan District,

Central Police Station,
14th August 1933.

Report relative to antecedents of:—

Name  Harold Hayes.
Offence  Indecent assault on a male person.
Committed for Trial at  Sydney Quarter Sessions.
Date  4 September 1933.

    Sergeant 3rd Class GE Russell reports:—That Harold Hayes (correct name David Hayes) is a single man, 34 years of age, a native of Sydney, a labourer in the electrical department of the Tramways where he has been employed for the past sixteen years, and is residing with his parents and three unemployed brother’s at No. 1 Gibbons Street, Camperdown.

    During the past nine months he has been a constant visitor to the Men’s lavatory in Hyde Park, near the St James Railway Station, and I have seen him on numerous occasions entering the lavatory and standing about in the immediate vicinity, and one night he was seen to enter and leave the lavatory on twelve different occasions extending over a period of half an hour. He has been followed into the lavatory on many occasions only to find him standing near the cubicle without his clothes being disarranged and watching other men as they entered and left.

    His fingerprints have been taken and there is no convictions recorded against him.

[Signed] George E Russell, Sergeant 3rd Class.

The Clerk of the Peace, Sydney.

    Forwarded for information.

[Signed] WJ Keefe, Sergeant 2nd Class, abs. Inspector Russell 15.8.33.

20

Petty Sessions Office, Central Police Office
Sydney 11th August 1933

Rex v (a) Charles Henry Richards, Harold Hayes.

(Offence) Indecent assault on a male person.

Date of Committal: 11th August 1933 No. 1933/247-248.

Depositions and the other documents indicate of the above named accused, committed for trial at the (b) Quarter Sessions Court to be held at Sydney on the 4th day of September 1933, are forwarded under separate cover. Bail has been fixed by the Court at self in £50 with two sureties in the sum of £25 each, or one surety in the sum of £50.

The accused Charles Henry Richards is confined in the State Penitentiary at Long Bay.

The accused, Harold Hayes, has been admitted to bail with the following surety:—EDWARD WILLIAM HAYES of 39A Hopetoun Street, Camperdown, in the said State, civil servant in the amount stated above.

The witnesses bound over are (d) JOHN ALFRED WALKER, Constable of Police of Petersham Police Station. GEORGE EDWARD RUSSELL, Sergeant of Police of No. 1 Police Station, Sydney.

    (e) The exhibits in the case are as set on form G455 attached, and have been disposed of in the manner set out thereon.

[Signature illegible], Acting Clerk of the Peace.

The Under-Secretary of Justice, Sydney.

NB—When the police constable acts as Clerk of the Petty Sessions, this communication should be signed by one of the committing Magistrates.

(Special attention is directed to the necessity for strict compliance with the provisions of Circular 33, paragraphs 19 and 20.)

21

RECORD OF EXHIBITS.

Rex v Harold Hayes and Charles Richards
(Offence) indecent assault on male person
Exhibit No. 1 Statement by Richards
Exhibit No. 2 Statement in Richards’ handwriting
Exhibit No. 3 Bottle and contents

herewith
[Signed] GE Russell
[Signed] J Atwood
Deposition Clerk, 11 August 1933.

22

Depositions of Witnesses.

(To accompany all cases of committal for Trial.)

State of New South Wales,
TO WIT.                              }

The examination of John Alfred Walker of Police Station, Petersham in the said State Police Constable George Edward Russell, Sergeant of Police of No. 1 Police Station, Sydney taken on oath this 11th day of August 1933, at the Central Police Court, Sydney, 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 CHARLES HENRY RICHARDS (hereinafter called the accused) who is charged before me for that he the said accused on the 5th day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty three at Sydney in the said State, did indecently assault one Harold Hayes a male person.

23

CC. 4 and 5
Heard in conjunction by consent.

CHARLES HENRY RICHARDS, 20
HAROLD HAYES, 31.
Indecent assault on a male person.
MR SHEEHAN instructed by RD Meagher and Sproule for defendant Hayes.
Defendant RICHARDS IN PERSON.
POLICE PROS SERGEANT TOOLE.

This deponent on oath states as follows. My name is JOHN ALFRED WALKER. I am a Constable of Police stationed at Petersham.

    At about 8.30 pm on 5th August 1933 I saw the defendant Hayes enter and leave the men’s lavatory at Hyde Park on three different occasions in a period of eight to ten minutes. After he left the lavatory the third time I saw the two defendants walking along St James Road. They walked into Hyde Park and sat down on a seat. I saw the defendant Hayes take a bottle from his pocket. He handed it to Richards. Richards placed the bottle to his mouth and appeared to have a drink out of it. Richards then handed the bottle to Hayes and Hayes placed the bottle to his mouth and appeared to have a drink.

    The defendant Hayes then put the bottle in his pocket. Shortly after that they left the seat in Hyde Park together and entered the Domain together and sat on a seat together in the Domain near a tree.

    I went to behind the tree near where they were sitting and on looking around I saw the defendant Richards with his head down near the fly of Hayes’s trousers. He was moving his head up and down.

    Shortly after Richards sat up and spat out on to the ground.

24

The defendant Hayes then said to Richards “I won’t be long now if you will do it again” at the same time placing his hand at the back of Richards’ head and pressing down towards his fly.

    Richards had commenced to move up and down again. I then walked to the seat where they were sitting and I saw the defendant Richards with Hayes’ person in his mouth. He was moving his head up and down on it. A few seconds later defendant Richards sat up and spat out on to the ground. I then caught hold of the two defendants as they were sitting on the seat and said to them “I have been watching you dirty brutes and I saw you (meaning Hayes) with your person in this other man’s mouth.”

    Sergeant Russell then came and caught hold of the defendant Hayes and pulled his overcoat from across his lap. His fly was undone, his person was exposed and in a state of erection and all wet.

    Sergeant Russell said to him (in the presence and hearing of the other defendant) “I could see this man (indicating Richards) sucking your person and it is still in a state of erection and all wet”. Defendant Hayes said “It is no good denying it. You have caught us at it”.

    Sergeant Russel said “We are going to take you to the Central Police Station and charge you with indecent assault”.

    They made no reply.

    Sergeant Russell then to the defendant Hayes and I took the defendant Richards. On the way to the police station Richards said to me (not in the presence of the defendant Hayes) “It was all his fault (indicating Hayes). He gave me a couple of drinks of gin and asked me to come down here and suck his cock and after I knocked off the first time

25

he asked me to do it again and said he wouldn’t be long.” I said “Yes, I saw all that you were doing and I heard him ask you to suck it the second time”. Richards said “I am satisfied. You caught us red handed so I may as well tell the truth about it. And I had just finished him and sat up and spat it out when you caught me”. I said to Richards “Would you care to make a statement as to what happened tonight”. He said “I don’t mind. I will make one”. I then took him to the Central Police Station where I said to him “Do you dtill wish to make a statement?” He said “Yes”. I then said to him “I want you to understand that you need not make a statement unless you wish, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence at your trial”. I then typed the statement which I now produce, at his dictation. I read it over to him and he signed it in my presence.

Exhibit “1” TENDERED AND MARKED EXHIBIT “1”.

MR SHEEHAN: I object to the statement so far as my client is concerned.

BENCH: It will be admitted as evidence as against Richards.

WITNESS: The two defendants were then charged with the present charge and they made no reply.

I later said to Hayes, “This is a statement which the other man made as to what happened tonight (shewing him the statement, Exhibit, 1)” I read the contents of the statement to him and said “Do you want to make a statement”? He said “No. I can’t say any more than that what’s there”.

I later said to defendant Richards (on his own then) “Would you care to make that statement in your own handwriting. I want you to clearly understand that you need not do so unless you wish. But whatever you say will be taken down and may be given in evidence at your trial”. He said “Give me a pen and ink and I will sooon write it”.

26

I gave him a pen and ink and he wrote at statement out and I read it to him and he signed it.

Exhibit “2” statement tendered and marked Exhibit “2”.

It is practically the same as the other statement.

(STATEMENT READ).

The second statement was copies partly from the first statement Exhibit “1”. I supplied him with a copy of the typewritten statement.

When searched at the Central Police Station the defendant had on him a bottle containing gin.

Exhibit “3” Bottle and contents tendered marked Exhibit “3”.

When standing behind the tree I was about seven or eight feet away from the seat on which the defendants were.

I was only a few seconds behind the tree.

TO BENCH: There was plenty of light around there and it was a real bright moonlit night.

TO SERGEANT TOOLE: They were sitting with their backs towards me.

When I walked up behind them I was only about six inches behind them and could see everything that was taking place. Sergeant Russell caught hold of defendant Hayes and pulled his overcoat from across his lap. He was wearing his overcoat.

TO MR SHEEHAN: I left the Domain with my prisoner shortly after nine o’clock. I did not ask him his name. We walked to the Police Station. It may have been 9.30 when we got to the station. I gave the particulars at the station. I did not give the time I arrived at the station. I would only supply the time of the defendant’s arrest. I couldn’t say I looked at my watch. We were at the station half an hour or it may have been longer before the defendants

27

were charged.

BENCH:  The charge sheet shews that the defendants were charged at 9.55 pm.

WITNESS: Sergeant Russell said to me “I might have been better if you had got it in his own handwriting”.

Q.  Is it not a Police Instruction to get the defendant to write his own statement.

SERGEANT TOOLE: I object to the question.

WITNESS: I couldn’t say what the ordinary procedure is in those cases.

Q.  Have you read your police instructions lately.
A.  I do not wish to answer that.

WITNESS: I said to Richards that Hayes was well known around there.

I said that to Hayes Richards. I did not say to Hayes “This man is well known to the police”.

Q.  Did you advise Richards to plead guilty.
A.  No.

Q.  Can you tell me when you last typed a statement for a man and then got him to write it himself?
A.  I have never done it.

WITNESS: I got the defendant to write a statement. I had supplied him with a copy of the typed statement. He asked me for that.

    The defendant Richards was never in the charge room when he made that. He was taken upstairs. I was present with him myself when he made the first statement. When he made the second one Sergeant Russell and I were there.
I read the statements over after he had written them and before he signed them.

Shortly after he started to write Exhibit “2” he asked for a copy of Exhibit “1”. I gave him the copy

I am not prepared to say to what stage he had got in his written statement before he asked for the typed statement.

28

I wouldn’t say it was half way down the statement when he asked for the first statement. He may have been a quarter way down the statement.

He had that statement. I couldn’t say whether he was copying from it or not. There was a bright electric light in the room. There was nobody else in the room at the time under my observation. It was shortly before 8.30 pm this night that I went to Hyde Park. I was in Hyde Park about fifteen yards from the lavatory on the Supreme Court side, more towards the direction of the fountain in Hyde Park. I was about fifteen yards away. I was on the footpath in the park that runs past the supreme court entrance of the lavatory towards the centre of the park.

There is no mistake about that. Sergeant Russell was standing with me part of the time.

He remained there. We were both standing there when I saw the defendant Hayes enter the lavatory the first time. After Hayes came out of the lavatory the first time he stood for a little while, then entered the lavatory the second time. I then followed him in. Went in after him. Hayes later left the lavatory, came out and stood outside.

I also came out shortly after. Hayes later entered the lavatory the third time. The same entrance each time, the supreme court entrance. I again followed him in. Sergeant Russell was standing at about the same place.

They were in Hyde Park near a statue. They sat on a seat. We walked up together part of the way. I had joined Russell in Hyde Park. He was still standing on the footpath. We followed behind.

We were thirty or forty yards behind the defendant.

I did not have a motor car with me.

29

There was a PD car in the Domain.

I could not say that the lights of the PD car were flashed that night. I couldn’t say what the PD car was doing there. I had not been riding in that car that night.

It was there at the time I had hold of the two defendants.

We did not bring them away in the car.

I couldn’t say the car lights were flashed in the direction of the seat where the defendants were.

The men were sitting on a seat with their backs to me. Just after they went there I saw Hayes produce a bottle.

Hayes was sober.

I stood for a few seconds behind them and watched. And after the defendant Richards sat up I caught hold of the two of them. I did not say “I have caught you”. Neither of the defendants attempted to jump away.

They both remained sitting on the seat.

I don’t know who was in the PD car.

I couldn’t give you a description of them. They were in uniform. I do not know what station they were from. I do not know the number of the PD car.

I do not know them personally or by reputation.

I saw two in the front seat. I did not see any in the back seat. Russell was not one of them.

Sergeant Russell’s Christian names are “George Edward”. I don’t know if there was anyone in the PD car named “Jeff”. I couldn’t say if anyone spoke to any of the men in the PD car I was there.

I don’t know if someone said “Here they are Jack”.

I would say that three or four buttons of Hayes’ fly were undone.

I have been especially detained for this class of work in the Domain.

30

It did not strike me as important the number of buttons undone on the fly.

I said Hayes’s penis was all wet.

Q.  You know under the Crimes Act that police have authority to take clothing for scientific investigate.
A.  Yes.

WITNESS: I have heard of clothing being submitted to scientific investigation.

(At this stage adjourned till 2 pm.)

Witness continuing at 2 pm.

TO MR SHEEHAN: I could not say if the overcoat had a belt on it or not.

The overcoat was not done up. Not the bottom part. I am not prepared to say the top part was not done up. On the way to the station Sergeant Russell did say something about not going too fast.

Sergeant Russell did not say to me “I don’t know what we will charge you with. I will have to see my mate I think it will be offensive behaviour”.

I did not hear Sergeant Russell say “I saw your head over his lap”. I did not hear Hayes say “That was not correct”. I did not shew defendant Richards his statement No. 2. I shewed him the statement Exhibit 1”. I read the statement

Exhibit “1” to him.

Hayes did not say “That’s not right”.

It was after that I had shewn him his first statement and had a conversation with him that I asked Richards to make out the second statement Exhibit “2”.

I remember Hayes saying in the box “He asked for a drink of gin out of the bottle”.

I have seen Hayes down there on numerous occasions. I have not seen him there for the past three months. I have not been there. I have not discussed this matter with Russell about this man not being down there before.

31

With regard to Exhibit “2”. That statement was taken in a passage way near the cells.

No-one else was present in custody there when the defendant make the statement.

TO SERGEANT TOOLE: Sergeant Russell and I were not present the whole of the time in the Domain.

Prior to the arrival of the PD car there I had no idea that it would come there.

No questions by defendant Richards.

(Read over and adhered to, BW.)

[Signed] John A Walker

Taken and sworn at Central Police Court, Sydney, this 11th day of August 1933 before me,

[Signed] RC Atkinson, SM.

32

This deponent on oath stated as follows. My name is GEORGE EDWARD RUSSELL. I am a Sergeant of Police stationed at No. 1 Station Sydney.

At about 8.30 on 5th August 1933 I saw the defendant Hayes near the men’s lavatory in Hyde Park. I saw him enter the lavatory on three different occasions. He then met the defendant Richards outside the lavatory and had a short conversation with him.

They then walked away together up St James Road, and entered the park, Hyde Park, and sat on a seat near the statue. I saw the defendant Hayes take a bottle from his pocket from under his overcoat, hand it to the defendant Richards and they had a drink, both of them. Hayes put it back in his pocket then.

They then left the park and went to the Domain, and sat on a seat there.

Constable Walker left me and walked around to a tree just behind them, about six or seven feet away from them. I saw the defendant take the bottle from under his coat and hand it to Hayes who had another drink.

I was about fifty yards away. It was a bright moonlit night. The two defendants had a drink and then saw the defendant Richards put his head down to the front of Hayes’s trousers and he was moving his head up and down. He then sat up straight again and after a few seconds his head went back down again.

I saw Constable Walker walk out from behind a tree and stood behind them. The defendant Richards then sat up straight again and Constable Walker caught hold of the two defendants. I hurried over to them and caught hold of Hayes, and pulled his overcoat back from across the front of his trousers. His person was in a state of erection

33

and wet and sticking out through the fly of his trousers. I said to Hayes, “I saw this man (indicating defendant Richards) sucking your person and it is still in a state of erection and all wet”. The defendant Hayes said, “I can’t deny it. You caught us at it”. I then said, “I’m going to take you to Central Police Station and charge you with indecent assault”.

All that conversation took place in the hearing and presence of defendant Richards. On the way to the station I said to Hayes, “I’ve seen you on numerous occasions down there (meaning the lavatory at Hyde Park) and one night we saw you go into the lavatory a dozen times in less than half an hour”. Hayes said, “You never see me there on a Monday night”. They were then taken to the Central Police Station and charged them with the present charge and they made no reply.

Later Constable Walker accompanied by myself shewed the defendant Hayes the statement Exhibit “1” and said, “This is the statement the other man made as to what happened tonight”. Constable Walker then read the statement to him and said, “Do you wish to make a statement”? He said, “No. I can’t say any more than what’s there”. I then went with Constable Walker t where Richards was in the cell. Constable Walker said to Richards, “Will you make a statement in your own handwriting”? He said, “You can make a statement if you like, it is for yourself to say but whatever you say may be given in evidence at your trial”. Defendant Richards said, “Give me a pen and I’ll soon make one”.

He was given pen and ink and wrote a statement out, Exhibit “2” is the statement.

Later Constable Walker read that statement to Richards and he signed it.

Walker in the Domain was about six or seven feet behind the defendants.

34

We may have been in the police station with the defendants before we charged them for about ten minutes.

(Read over and adhered to, BW.)

TO MR SHEEHAN: I never had a statement written and then got the defendant to write one out in his own handwriting. I have never got anyone to make a statement before.

When I saw the typewritten one I said to Constable Walker “You should have got it in his own handwriting”.

I was in the charge room when the typewritten statement was taken by Constable Walker. The defendants were charged after the typewritten statement was made. They were charged after after [sic] the statement was made. When the defendant was asked to write out his statement he said “Give me pen and ink and I will soon write it out”. He did not say anything else.

Constable Walker had the typewritten statement in his pocket I think. The defendant did not ask for anything else besides the pen and ink.

It took the constable about ten minutes to get the typewritten statement.

When the statement was read over to the defendant Hayes he did not say “That is not right”.

I went to Hyde Park and saw the defendant outside the lavatory and took up a position about twenty yards up from the lavatory. I sat on the railing. I saw the defendant come out three times from the lavatory. I think he went in and out the same door all the time. On the Queen’s statue side. I did not see the man Richards until I saw him standing outside on the footpath.

Before I went to the Domain I was with Constable Walker. Walker was behind the tree nearly five minutes before he

35

walked over to the defendants. I run across as soon as Constable Walker caught hold of them. I was in front of Constable Walker. I came to the front of the men. I was facing them.

I could see defendant’s head moving up and down. The head was only moving up a short distance. The light showed under the seat and then went out again. I run across and caught hold of Hayes. Constable Walker has one defendant in eah hand and I caught hold of Hayes. I did not see the bottle when I went over to them.

I did not hear a voice say “I have caught you”. Hayes did not take a step aside when I went up. A light flashed, from a PD car I think. There were two police there they flashed the light on me while I was at the tree. I do not know who they are. No-one said “Here they are Jack”. I did not take any notice of the police car. They put the light on me. I said “Put that light out”. I did not want the defendants to see me. This was before I run down to them.

I had no conversation with anyone during the lunch hour about this light flashing. I could your voice this morning, but I could not say what you were saying. When the light went on the words “Here they are Jack” were never mentioned.
The motor car was out on the grass. It may have come from the hospital way. I did not see it until it came up alongside of me.

We walked to the Central Police Station. The men in the car were in uniform. There were two in the front seat. I did not notice anyone in the back seat. On the way to the station I did not tell Walker not to go so fast. I did not tell him to keep closer.

36

I did not say to Hayes “I don’t know what we will charge you with. I will have to see my mate. I think it will be offensive behaviour.” I may have said “I saw your head over his lap”.

I said “I have seen you down here a lot”. He did not say “I do not come into town on the week nights only on weekends”.

I said “I saw you drinking wine out of a bottle”.

I said “Your kind usually drink wine”.

I was assuming things when I said that.

I couldn’t say the last occasion when I saw Hayes down there. It is two or three months since I saw him. I have been away. I started work on 14th July. I haven’t seen him since before I went away on holidays. I have never seen him since I came back from holiday. It might be thee or four months or five months ago since I saw him. I may have said to him “I saw you three months ago”. I have never spoken to him before this night. He did nothing except walk in and out the lavatory. The defendant Hayes acquiesced to everything in the statement. I did not get him to sign the statement. His penis was in a state of erection when I went over. His penis could have been wet from the other man’s mouth.

It did not suggest itself to me to have his clothing taken for scientific investigation.

It was a dark overcoat he had on. It was not buttoned up. The overcoat was not buttoned up at the time. He had three or four buttons of his fly undone I did not count the buttons. I caught hold of his person. I did not mention that in my evidence in chief. That Domain is in No. 4 Division. I don’t know if there was a man named “Jack” in that car that night.

I did not know who they were.

37

Constable Walker took Richards straight away when we got to the station.

No questions by defendant Richards.

(Read over and adhered to, BW.)

[Signed] GE Russell.

Taken and sworn at Central Police Court, Sydney, this 11th day of August 1933, before me,

[Signed] RC Atkinson, SM.

38

Statement of the Accused.

(Justices’ Act, 1902.)
(Section 41.)

State of New South Wales, Sydney
TO WIT.                                        }

Harold Hayes (hereinafter called the accused), stands charged before the undersigned, one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in and for the said State, this 11th day of August, 1933, for that he, the accused, on the 5th day of August 1933, at Sydney in the said State, did indecently assault one Charles Henry Richards a male person and the said charge being read to the accused, and the witnesses for the prosecution, John Alfred Walker, Constable of Police of Petersham Station.

George Edward Russell, Sergeant of Police of No. 1 Police Station, Sydney being severally examined in his presence, and (or he having stated that he does not desire the depositions of the said witnesses to be read to him) the accused 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 trail; 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.” Where upon the accused saith as follows:—I am not guilty I reserve my defence.”

[Signed] Harold Hayes

Taken before the undersigned Justice and read over to the said defendant at Sydney in the said State, the day and year first above mentioned.

[Signed] RC Atkinson, Stipendiary Magistrate.

The accused committed for trial at the Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Sydney on the 4th day of September 1933, or at such other court to be holden at such place and time as the Attorney-General may appoint. Bail allowed accused in £50 with two sureties in £25 each or one in £50.

Dated at Sydney on the day first above mentioned.

[Signed] RC Atkinson, Stipendiary Magistrate.

39

Statement of the Accused.

(Justices- Act, 1902.)
(Section 41.)

State of New South Wales, Sydney
TO WIT.                                        }

Charles Henry Richards (Hereinafter called the accused), stands charged before the undersigned, - - of His Majesty’s Justice of the Peace in and for the said State, this 11th day of August, 1933, for that he the accused, on the fifth day of August 1933, at Sydney in the said State, did indecently assault one Harold Hayes a male person.

And the said charge being read to the accused, and the witnesses for the prosecution
    John Alfred Walker, Constable of Police of Petersham Police Station.
    George Edward Russell, Sergeant of Police of No. 1 Police Station, Sydney
being severally examined in his presence, and (or - - - he having stated that he does not desire the depositions of the said witnesses to be read to him) the accused 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 accused saith as follows:—I have nothing to say.

[Signed] C Richards.

Taken before the undersigned Justice and read over to the said defendant at Sydney in the said State, the day and year first above mentioned.

[Signed] RC Atkinson, Stipendiary Magistrate.

The accused committed for trial at the Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Sydney on the 4th day of September 1933, or at such other Court to be holden at such place and time as the Attorney-General may appoint. Bail allowed accused in £50 with two sureties in £25 each or one in £50.

    Dated at Sydney on the day first above mentioned.

[Signed] RC Atkinson, Stipendiary Magistrate.

40

“Justices’ Act, 1902.”

Recognizance of Witnesses to Give Evidence At Court of Quarter Sessions Or Gaol Delivery.

State of New South Wales, Sydney
TO WIT.                                        }

Be it remembered, that on the 11th day of August 1933 George Edward Russell of No. 1 Police Station Sergeant of Police, John Alfred Walker No. 11 Police Station Constable of Police, personally came before the undersigned, one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace of the said State, and acknowledged themselves to owe our Sovereign Lord the King the sum of £40 each, of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, to the use of our said Lord the King, his heirs and successors, if they the said before-mentioned persons shall fail in the conditions indorsed hereunder.

    The conditions of the within-written recognizance is such, that whereas Harold Hayes and Charles Henry Richards (hereinafter called the defendants) was this day charged before RC Atkinson, Esquire one of his Majesty’s Stipendiary Magistrates for the said State, with indecent assault upon a male person.

If, therefore, they the before-mentioned persons shall appear at the next Court of Quarter Sessions to be holden at Sydney in and for the State of New South Wales, on Tuesday the 4th day of September 1933 at 10 of the clock in the forenoon, or at such other Court, to be holden at such time and place as the Attorney-General may appoint, of which such last mentioned Court each of them shall receive due notice, and then and there give such evidence as they know, upon an information to be then the there preferred against the said defendant for the offence aforesaid, to the jurors who shall pass upon the trial of the said defendants, then the said recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.

(Signatures of persons bound over.)

[Signed] George E Russell, John A Walker.

Taken and acknowledged the day and year first abovementioned at Sydney in the said State, before me,

[Signature illegible], JP

41

Recognizance of Bail on Committal for Trial.

State of New South Wales, Sydney
TO WIT.                                        }

Surety accepted of affidavit of justification attached.

Be it remembered, that on this 11th day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty three Harold Hayes of 1 Gibbons Street Camperdown in the State of New South Wales, pastry cook (hereinafter called the accused) and his surety Edward William Hayes of 39A Hopetoun Street Camperdown in the said State, civil servant 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 accused the sum of £50, and the said surety the sum of £50 of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands and tenements respectively, to the use our Lord the King, his heirs and successors, if the said accused shall fail in the following condition, that is to say: that he the said accused shall appear at the next Court of Quarter Sessions, to be holden at Sydney in and for the said State, on the 4th day of September 1933 at nine of the clock in the forenoon, or at such other Court to be holden at such place and time as the Attorney-General may appoint, of which such last-mentioned court the said accused and the said surety shall receive due notice, 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 in such information, 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] Harold Hayes, E Hayes.

Taken and acknowledged, the day and year first abovementioned, at Sydney, in the said State, before me,—

[Signed] Gordon L Berry, JP.

42

Affidavit of Justification
(By a person offering as bail or surety).

Names of defendant—Harold Hayes
Offence—Indecent assault on male person.
No. of Case—CC 5 on 11.8.’33.

This deponent, Edward William Hayes being duly sworn on oath saith:—I am a civil servant I reside at 39A Hopetoun Street, Camperdown and have resided there for the past two, and I desire I offer myself as surety in the sum of £50 in the above case. I am the owner of household furniture which is ow at that address, of the value of one hundred pounds, over all my just debts and liabilities. There is no encumbrance of any kind whatever on the said household furniture

I am not bail or surety in any other case at present.

[Signature of Surety] E Hayes.

Taken and sworn at Sydney, in the State of New South Wales, this 11th day of August 1933. Before me—,

[Signed] Gordon L Berry, Justice of the Peace.

43

Charge Case No. - - -

Central 32

For hearing at the Central Police Court, on the 7th day of August 1933

from No. Central Police Station.

Name, occupation, and age of defendant: Charles Henry Richards, motor mechanic, 20.

Date and hour of apprehension: 5-8-33. Arrested 9. pm charged 9.55 pm.

Name of apprehending officer: Sergeant Russell and Constable Walker No. 1 Station.

In Charge Book signed, name and address of person signing it: Not signed

Act and section under which charge laid: 40-1900. Section 81.

Offence: At Sydney on the 5th day of August, 1933 indecently did assault, one, Harold Hayes, a male person.

Defendant in custody.

Police Prosecutor Sergeant Stinson.

Police ask for a remand until tomorrow.

Defendant is remanded to appear at this Court on 8th August, 1933. Bail not applied for.

[Signed] John Gibson, SM.

44

CC 9

Charles Henry Richards, 20
Indecent assault male person.

Mr Rooney instructed by RD Meagher Sproule and Co for defendant Hayes.

Police Prosecutor Sergeant Toole.

Mr Rooney I ask for a remand.

By consent.

Remanded to appear at this court at 10 am on 11th August, 1933.

Bail allowed self in £80 with two sureties in £40 each or one in £80.

[Signed] J Laidlaw, Stipendiary Magistrate.

45

Charge Case No. 5

Central 32

For hearing at the Central Police Court, on the 7th day of August 1933

From No. Central Police Station.

Name, occupation, and age of defendant:

Harold Hayes, pastry-cook, 31.

Date and hour of apprehension: 5-8-33. Arrested 9. pm. Charged 9.55 pm.

Name of apprehending officer: Sergeant Russell and Constable Walker No. 1 Station.

If charge book signed, name and address of person signing it: Not signed.

Act and Section under which charge laid: 40-1900, Section 81.

Offence: At Sydney on the 5th day of August, 1933, indecently did assault, one, Charles Henry Richards, a male person.

Mr Rooney instructed by RD Meagher Sproule and Co for Defendant A.

Police Prosecutor Sergeant Toole.

Mr Rooney I ask for a remand.

By consent.

Remanded to appear at this Court at 10 am on 11th August, 1933.

Bail allowed self in £80 with two sureties in £40 each or one in £80.

[Signed] J Laidlaw, Stipendiary Magistrate.

46

Record of Proceedings, S.153 “Justices’ Act, 1902,” as amended by the “Justices’ (Bail)

Amendment Act, 1918.”

New South Wales,
TO WIT.                    }

On this 6th day of August 1933 we, Harold Hayes of No. 1 Gibbons Street Camperdown and Edward W Hayes of 39A Hopetoun Street Camperdown and John Henry Geer of 25 Gibbons Street Camperdown do personally appear before Arthur Percival Johanson Inspector (or) Sergeant of Police (or) Gaoler of His Majesty’s Gaol at Central Police Station and acknowledge ourselves to owe to his Majesty the King the sums following, viz: 

the said Harold Hayes the sum of £80 and the said Edward W Hayes and the said John Henry Geer the sum of £40 each, to be made of our several goods and chattels, lands and tenements, respectively, if the said Harold Hayes shall fail in the following conditions that is to say: that he shall appear on the 8th day of August 1933 at 10 o’clock in the forenoon at the Central Police Office, before such Justice or Justices as may then be there, to answer to the charge of indecent assault on a male in respect of which he is now in custody, and further dealt with according to law

[Signed] Harold Hayes, Edward W Hayes, JH Geer.

Taken and acknowledged on the date first above written, before me,

[Signed] AP Johanson, Central Police Station.

47

Warrant on an Adjournment Remanding a Person Charged.

To the Senior Officer of Police a Sydney, in the Metropolitan Police District, in the State of New South Wales, to all other Police Constables in the said State, and to the Keeper of His Majesty’s Prison near Long Bay, in the said District and State.

Whereas Harold Hayes (aged 31, hereinafter called the defendant), was this day charged before J Laidlaw Esq, a Stipendiary Magistrate in and for the said District, with indecently assaulting a male person as it appears to be necessary to remand the said defendant:

    These are therefore to command you, and the said Officer of police, and all other police constable aforesaid, in His Majesty’s name, forthwith to take, safely convey, and deliver the said defendant to the said keeper at the said prison, together with this precept: and I hereby command you, the said keeper, to receive and safely keep the said defendant in your custody in the said prison until the 11th day of August 1933 when I hereby command you to have the said defendant at the Central Police Court, in the said District, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon of the same day, before such Stipendiary Magistrate in and for the said District, as may then be there, to answer further to the said charge, and to be further dealt with according to law, unless you shall be otherwise ordered in the meantime.

Bail allowed:—The defendant in £80 with two sureties in the scum of £40 each, or one surety in the sum of £80.

Given under my hand and seal at the Central Police Court in the said District, this 8th day of August 1933.

Recognizance of one surety in the amount of £40 has been taken at this office and is attached hereto.

[Signed] Gordon L Berry, JP.

48

Recognizance of Bail on an Adjournment of the Hearing.

Divisions 1 and 2 “Justices’ Act, 1902,” (Section 34 and 69.)

State of New South Wales, Sydney,
TO WIT.                                        }

Sureties previously accepted by Sergeant Johanson (Central) on certificates of Sergeant Weir No. 5.

Be it remembered, that on the 8th day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty three Edward William Hayes of 39A Hopetoun Street, Camperdown in the said State civil servant as surety in the said State 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 to our Lord the King the sum following, that is to say the sum of £40 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 the said defendant shall fail in the following condition, that is to say:—that he, the said Harold Hayes shall personally appear on the 11th day of August 1933, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon at the Central Police Court, Sydney, in the said State, before such Stipendiary Magistrate in and for the Metropolitan Police District in the said State as may then be there to answer to a charge of indecently assaulting a male person and to be further dealt with according to law.

[Signed] Harold Hayes, Edward Hayes.

Taken and acknowledged the day and year first above mentioned at Sydney in the said State before me,—by the said Edward William Hayes only.

[Signature illegible], JP

49

Recognizance of Bail on an Adjournment of the Hearing.

Divisions 1 and 2 “Justices’ Act, 1902,” (Section 34 and 69.)

State of New South Wales, Sydney,
TO WIT.                                        }

Surety previously accepted.

Be it remembered, that on this 8th day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty three Harold Hayes of 1 Gibbons Street Camperdown in the State of New South Wales pastry cook (hereinafter called the defendant) and his surety John Henry Geer of 25 Gibbons Street Camperdown in the said State motor driver, 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 to our Lord the King the several sums following, that is to say: the said defendant the sum of £80, and the said surety the sum of £40 each of good and lawful money of Great Britain, to be made and levied of their several goods and chattels, lands, and tenements respectively to the use of our said Lord the King, his Heirs and Successors, if the said defendant shall fail in the following condition that is to say:—that he, the said defendant, shall personally appear on the 11th day of August 1933, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon at the Central Police Court, Sydney, in the said State, before such Stipendiary Magistrate in and for the Metropolitan Police District in the said State as may then be there to answer further to a charge of indecently assaulting a male person and to be further dealt with according to law.

[Signed] Harold Hayes, JH Geer.

Taken and acknowledged the day and year first above mentioned at Sydney in the said State before me,—

[Signature illegible], JP.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 22 Aug 1933 ²⁵

LAW NOTICES.
———
Thursday, August 22.

…

QUARTER SESSIONS.

    John Marks, Victor Cohen, and Edwin Victor Hittman, larceny and receiving; Henry Cuthbert Gillard, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault (for plea only); Alfred Leslie Dacey, break and enter with intent to steal (for sentence on Thursday, 24th instant); Charles Henry Richards, indecent assault (for plea only).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 23 Aug 1933 ²⁶

QUARTER SESSIONS.
(Before Judge Curlewis.)

    Crown Prosecutor, Mr TS Crawford

(Instructed by Mr Roy V Edwards).

…

TO LEAVE THE STATE.

    Charles Henry Richards, motor mechanic, pleaded guilty to indecent assault.

    His Honor said he would give Richards a chance because it was possible he was drunk, but that was only one reason. The other reason was that Richards was not wanted in New South Wales. The State was well rid of a man of Richards’ type.

    Richards was bound over in £50 to be of good behaviour and appear for sentence if called upon within three years, a condition being that he leave New South Wales within a fortnight and not return.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 8 Sep 1933 ²⁷

LAW NOTICES.
———
Friday, September 8.
———

…

QUARTER SESSIONS.

    No. 1 Court.—George Leslie Brennan, break, enter, and steal, part heard; Frederick Thomson, found at night with intent to commit a felony; Harold Hayes, indecent assault; Herbert Godfrey Bourne and Stanley Graham, stealing, for plea only.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 9 Sep 1933 ²⁸

LAW NOTICES.
———
Monday, September 11.
———

…

QUARTER SESSIONS.

    No. 1 Court.—Harold Hayes, indecent assault; Joseph David, break, enter and steal; Sydney Williams, Claude Lewis, and Ronald Tubb, robbery; Thomas Williamson, break, enter, and steal; Charles Reynolds, break, enter, and steal (for plea only).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 11 Sep 1933 ²⁹

LAW NOTICES.
———
Monday, September 11.
———

…

QUARTER SESSIONS.

    No. 1 Court.—Harold Hayes, indecent assault; Joseph David, break, enter and steal; Sydney Williams, Claude Lewis, and Ronald Tubb, robbery; Thomas Williamson, break, enter, and steal; Charles Reynolds, break, enter, and steal (for plea only).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 12 Sep 1933 ³⁰

QUARTER SESSIONS.
(Before Judge Thomson, KC.)
(Senior Crown Prosecutor, Mr McKean, KC,
instructed by Mr GT Slawson.)

BOUND OVER.

    Harold Hayes, 34, labourer, charged with aiding and abetting in an indecent assault, on August 5, was found guilty, and was bound over in his own recognisance of £50 and a surety of £50 to be of good behaviour and appear for sentence if called upon within five years. Mr R Sproule, of Messrs RD Meagher Sproule, and Co, appeared for Hayes.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards and Walter John Cox, 1936

 

Barrier Miner, Mon 31 Aug 1936 ³¹

TWO MEN REMANDED
————

    Charles Henry Richards (30), laborer, and Walter John Cox, were each charged in the Police Court today with having on August 29 behaved in a riotous manner in a public place—Barratt’s Billiard Saloon in Oxide-street.

    Mr JJ Davoren appeared for Richards.

    Defendants were remanded till Friday on the application of the police.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Fri 4 Sep 1936 ³²

SEQUEL TO FIGHT
————
TWO MEN FINED
IN COURT

    Arising out of a disturbance in a billiard saloon on Saturday night two men appeared in the Police Court to-day before Mr R Donaldson, SM, charged with riotous behavior.

    They were convicted and each fined 10//6—in default, two days’ hard labor.

    Charles Henry Richards (30) and Walter John Cocks [sic] were each charged with having on August 29 behaved in a riotous manner in a public place—Barratt’s billiard saloon.

    Mr JJ Davoren appeared for Richards. Cocks was not represented by counsel.

    Both defendants pleaded not guilty.

    Constable [Patrick Joseph] Shelley said:—About 9 pm on August 29, with Constable Henry, I went to Barratt’s billiard saloon in Oxide-street. I saw the two defendants fighting. There was a number of men standing around them.

    I caught hold of Richards and said, “He had a shot at me and I am having one back.”

    Constable Henry arrested Cocks. They were taken to the Police Station and charged with the present charge.

    To the Magistrate: The men in the room numbered between 40 and 50. They had stopped playing and were watching the fight.

    Continuing, the witness said:—I went into the saloon at 9 pm. It was then open to the public.

    To Mr Davoren: I did not see any other men with blood on them. I do not know if it is right that Richards was “having one back.”

ATTRACTED BY NOISE

    We were attracted by the noise in the saloon, and entered by the backdoor. I saw each defendant strike four or five blows. They were all on the body.

    The loud voices attracted us into the billiard saloon. I said to Constable Henry, “Sounds like a brawl in here.”

    To the Magistrate: Both defendants were sober.

    Constable Henry, who was on duty with Constable Shelley on Saturday night, said:—We heard a noise in Barratt’s billiard saloon about 8.55 pm, and entered the saloon by the Crystal-lane entrance.

    I saw both defendants fighting. Constable Shelley arrested Richards. Cocks rushed for the door but was obstructed by a number of men who were watching the fight. I caught hold of him and he bent down and covered his face with his hands.

    As soon as he saw who I was he stood up. He said: “I did not want to fight but I was attacked.”

    To Mr Davoren: Defendant Cocks was bleeding from the mouth. I could smell drink on Cocks. He was rather talkative.

RICHARD’S DEFENCE

    Defendant Richards, of 165 Lane-street, said:—On August 29 I had been at the Palais de Dance and went into the billiard room to use the lavatory. I came back into the room by a back door directly opposite the Oxide-street door.

    As I entered Cocks accidentally bumped me. Ast the time I did not realise it was an accidental bump. I pushed him against a billiard table. He did not do anything.

    I was just going to hit him and walk through to the dance. I had my arm partly raised to strike. Just as he was lying back on the table and I had my arm raised, the police entered.

    I did not see them. I was grabbed from the back. Apart from the push there were no blows of any nature exchanged between Cocks and myself. I had no argument with Cocks that night. I had not met him before. I had no idea who he was.

AN EARLIER FIGHT

    I was told there had been a fight in the billiard saloon before I arrived. As I entered I saw two or three men with blood on them walk out. There were no marks on either Cocks or myself.

    To Sergeant [Patrick Luke] Carlon: It is a fact that I was playing pool there about 6.30 or 7 o’clock. There was not a disturbance then over tallies.

    There is an argument every night over the marbles but not a fight. I did not have much chance to see Cocks run away. The police had me around the neck and I could not see anything.

    Sergeant Carlon: You have been in a good number of fights in that billiard saloon in the last few weeks?

    Richards: No; I have never been in a fight in a billiard saloon yet.

DEFENCE BY COCKS

    John Walter Cocks, miner, of 38 Long-street, said:—

    I had been in the saloon five or eight minutes before Richards came in. Billiards and snooker were in progress. I was watching the game and leaning against a billiard table.

    Richards went out the back door, and as he came back I stepped back and bumped him.

    He pushed me. I said, “What is the matter.” He said, “I thought you were going to knock me one.” I said, “No; it was only an accident. I knocked you as I stepped back.” Just after that the police came in and arrested us for fighting.

    While Richards and I were talking all the men gathered round thinking it was going to develop into a melee. It was not to escape arrest. I did not know the police were there.

    To the Magistrate: There had not been any quarrel between Richards and myself. I did not know Richards.

    To Sergeant Carlon: That is the first time I’ve ever been in a billiard room in my life. I have never played billiards or snooker.

    Sergeant Carlon: That is had luck for your first time in a billiard saloon.

    Continuing his replies, Cocks said: I did not have blood on my face. I was not struck that night. I had a couple of drinks that day. I don’t remember Constable Henry saying to me this morning, “How is your mouth now?”

    The Magistrate: I think I am forced to the conclusion that the police evidence is correct—that there was a fight in progress. Defendants are convicted. You are each fined 10/6—in default, two days’ hard labor.

 

---

 

James Haby and Charles Henry Richards, 1936

 

Barrier Miner, Wed 5 Aug 1936 ³³

RELEASED ON
BAIL
————
ROBBERY SUSPECTS
GET BONDS

    James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30), who are to appear in the Police Court on Friday to face a charge of robbery and assault were last night released on bail following the necessary bonds being signed before two Justices of the Peace.

    On Friday last they were each charged with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400 and at the time of such a robbery did assault him. Mr JJ Davoren appeared on their behalf and asked that bail be allowed.

    The magistrate (Mr R Donaldson) allowed £700 bail in each case.

    Yesterday Mr Davoren made an application to have the bail reduced to £350, but the magistrate did not comply with the request.

    Mr Davoren said he would take some other action in an endeavor to obtain the release of the defendants.

    The defendants were released at 6.45 o’clock last night on £700 bail each.

    Mr Davoren to-day stated that the action taken by him to secure the release of Haby and Richards on bail was unusual. The almost invariable practice for the Clerk of Petty Sessions or the Gaoler to admit prisoners to bail. The law, however, provides that the bail may be taken by Justices of the Peace, acting quite independently of the Courthouse authorities, the police and the Gaoler. This is provided by the Justices Act. It has been law for many years, and the present Statutory provisions are based upon the old Statutes 11 and 12 Victoria C, 42, and 14 Victoria No. 43.

    Under the present Statute law Justices are authorised at any time before the expiration of the time for which the hearing was adjourned to discharge the defendant from custody upon his entering into a recognisance, with or without sureties, conditioned that he shall appears on the adjourned hearing of the case.
…

ALLEGATIONS
OF ROBBERY
————
SM REFUSES TO
REDUCE BAIL
———
COUNSEL TO TAKE
OTHER ACTION

    A strong plea for a reduction of the bail from £700 to £350 for James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30) was made by Mr JJ Davoren to Mr R Donaldson, SM, in the Police Court this afternoon.

    The magistrate declined to reduce the bail, and Mr Davoren said he would take further steps in an endeavor to obtain the release of the defendants.

    Haby and Richards were charged on Friday with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400, and at the time of such robbery did assault him.

    Mr Davoren asked the magistrate not to make the bail too heavy, but the magistrate fixed it at £700, and Mr Davoren was given permission to mention the matter later in the day.

    This afternoon Mr Davoren addressed the magistrate on the question of bail, and sought a reduction from £700 to £350.

    The defendants were brought into Court and Mr Davoren again made his application for a reduction.

    The magistrate asked Detective Ramsey if he knew any reason as regards the defendants why they should be refused the bail.

ALLEGED TERRORISING

    Detective Ramsey: I have been told there has been terrorising. I was at the races on Saturday and a man came to me and said a third person had said to him: “You have to give evidence in this case. My brother is not going to get seven years for this.” I asked him to point that man out to me but he did not.

    The officer also stated that he had been told Richards absconded from bail in Adelaide, but he was awaiting confirmation or otherwise of the report.

    Mr Davoren said the man referred to by Detective Ramsey was not a Crown witness and there was a possibility that he would be called for the defence. The defendants had been in gaol since the Thursday morning and they could not have possibly been connected with the matter.

    “Apparently there is no end to the objection we are going to be faced with in opposition to our request for bail,” added Mr Davoren.

    The Magistrate: I decline to interfere with the bail.

    Mr Davoren: Your Worship has already told me that you must grant bail in £350. You said that half an hour ago. You said you would reduce it to £350 in view of the representations made. Otherwise there would not have been any occasion to bring these men to court.

    The magistrate said that he had not made the statement.

    Mr Davoren: These are irresponsible statements. I say your Worship should not be influenced by them. I ask that these statements be supported by evidence.

    Mr Davoren said the police had adopted miserable tactics, and the statements were not supported by anything reliable.

    The Magistrate: The case is not clear enough for me to make an order for the bail to be reduced.

    Mr Davoren: I ask you to reconsider that.

    The Magistrate: No, Mr Davoren, I will not.

    Mr Davoren: Your Worship had made up your mind for the bail to be reduced to £350. Since then you have heard the two statements by Detective Ramsey. Either your Worship is being influenced by something else or by these irresponsible statements. It comes to that your Worship in refusing bail because of the police object to it.

    Mr Davoren said that the statements were in no way dealing with Haby, but only Richards.

    The magistrate said he would not alter the bail.

FURTHER ACTION LIKELY

    Mr Davoren: I am going to take further action. I am not saying this in a threatening manner, but I am going to take further in an endeavor to obtain the release of these men.

    After the Court had been closed one of the defendants adopted a threatening attitude towards Detective Ramsey.

    Mr Davoren said that he had been instructed that the men had been subjected to ill-treatment by officers.

    The Magistrate: The gaolers?

    Mr Davoren: No. Policemen at the Police Station. I ask that there be no repetition of this.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Fri 7 Aug 1936 ³⁴

BAIL REDUCED IN ASSAULT CASE
————————
Victim Not Yet Able
To Give Evidence
————
DEFENDANTS REMANDED

    The police requested for an adjournment in the robbery and assault charge against James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30) was strenuously opposed by their attorney (Mr JJ Davoren) when the case was mentioned before Mr R Donaldson, SM, in the Police Court to-day.

    The magistrate granted the adjournment, and, after Mr Davoren had addressed at length, reduced the existing bail from £700 to £400 each, with one surety for a similar amount, or two of £200 each.

    Haby and Richards were charged with having on July 29, robbed William Thomas Smith of £400 and at the time of such robbery did assault him.

    Mr JJ Davoren appeared for defendants.

    After they had been charged Detective Ramsey asked for a remand until Friday. Dr Dobbyn, he added, would give evidence of the condition of Mr Smith.

“VICTIM STILL SHAKY”

    Dr G[eorge] H[enry] S[awtell] Dobbyn ³⁵ said: I examined Mr Smith yesterday and found that he is improving. He is suffering from shock following concussion and general nervousness. He is rapidly improving, but I do not consider he will be able to give evidence for seven or eight days. He is still very shaky.

    To Mr Davoren: It is only his nervous condition following on the shock he received that prevents him from giving evidence to-day. I don’t think he would be able to give proper evidence.

    He was able to answer questions I asked him. He would not be able to collect his thoughts properly. He was able to understand questions I asked him and coherently answer them.

    He is not in his normal condition. I do not think his coming here and giving evidence would seriously impair his health.

    His general health would suffer by a cross-examination. I certainly do think it would do him harm if he gave evidence.

ADJOURNMENT OPPOSED

    Mr Davoren: I very strenuously oppose the remand sought by the police in this case. I anticipated that there might be a request for an adjournment, and yesterday I wrote to the police.

    Mr Davoren said that he made reference to the charge against Haby and Richards and informed them that any request for an adjournment would be opposed by him on behalf of the accused.

    Mr Davoren said that all the doctor purported to say was that the restoration to normal condition of Mr Smith might be retarded by him giving evidence. He did not attempt to say that it would be retarded but only that it might be.

    The Magistrate: That is all he could say.

    Mr Davoren: Admittedly. The position is that Mr Smith’s eventual recovery might be deferred by his giving evidence here. Every witness is submitted to a strain when they come to the court.

    The Magistrate: In normal health they can stand the strain.

    Mr Davoren: All the evidence says is that it would retard the normal restoration of his condition. That is not sufficient to ask for an adjournment. I submit it has not been shown that the present is not the first possible moment for the case to proceed. Your Worship will remember the circumstances in which these men were arrested. They were brought before the court on Thursday, remanded until Friday, then until Tuesday and again until to-day. It means that these men have been incustody [sic] now for eight days.

    If the evidence for the prosecution, he continued, could be proceeded with they should be forced to do so. The doctor’s evidence, he submitted, was unconvincing. He merely said that it would not do Mr Smith any good, but it might do him some harm.

“SHOULD GIVE EVIDENCE”

    “I submit,” added Mr Davoren, “that your Worship would direct that Mr Smith should come down and give his evidence. He could have a doctor here, and if he is found to be suffering a strain the matter can then be adjourned.

    “Even Mr Smith’s absence should not prevent the other evidence being given. I want to see this matter disposed of at the earliest possible moment. There is no reason at all why the case for the prosecution, even putting Mr Smith’s evidence outside consideration for the moment, should not be proceeded with immediately.

    “I do not see that Mr Smith will be subjected to any strain at all. From what I can see it is only a question of identity. I believe that his evidence will be of assault and robbery.

    “These men have found it very difficult to obtain their release. They do not want this matter hanging over them all the time.

    “I do urge this that in the first place there has been insufficient evidence on which an adjournment should be granted, and secondly, even if your Worship felt that Mr Smith’s evidence should not be taken now, there is no reason why the prosecution should not proceed with the evidence that is available. The probability is that when you take Mr Smith’s evidence the remaining witnesses will not be finished in one day.

    “I submit we should go as far as we can with the case to-day. It is our right to demand to proceed with the charge so far as that charge can be proceeded with at present.

    The Magistrate: Are the police able to give any estimate as to how long it will take?

FIVE WITNESSES

    Detective Ramsey: There are five witnesses. It would take the best part of a day.

    The Magistrate: It is proper that an adjournment should be granted.

    Mr Davoren: How does your Worship feel about the other evidence?

    The Magistrate: The case should all be heard in one day.

    Mr Davoren: There is no law to say that all the evidence should be taken at one time. Why doesn’t your Worship take into consideration that these men are in custody and they are entitled to have this case taken straight away? The police might not reach Mr Smith’s evidence to-day and the case will have to be adjourned in any case. I do press that there is no reason why the police should not go on as far as they can.

    The Magistrate: Is there any police objection why the case should not be proceeded with at once?

    Detective Ramsey: I ask that the case be adjourned on the ground that Mr Smith will be the second witness. I feel the case will finish in a day.

    Mr Davoren: It does not seem very likely. There are some aspects which will necessarily call for lengthy cross-examination. It is an offence that is viewed very seriously. It is probable that the case will have a very lengthy hearing.

    The Magistrate: I will remand the whole case.

    Mr Davoren said he did not know what view the police took now on the question of bail.

    The Magistrate: The likelihood of a more serious charge with the death of the man is diminished now.

    Mr Davoren asked to be allowed to confer with the police on the question of bail.

    On his return to the court he said that he had spoken with Inspector Elliot, and Detectives Ramsey and Gibbons, who felt that it was not the province of the police to say they would agree to a reduction of bail. They felt it was a matter for the court.

BAIL IS REDUCED

    “I understand that the only thing in the inspector’s mind, apart from the general circumstances of the case, is that the man is old and it is impossible to say what might happen,” said Mr Davoren. “I ask your Worship to reduce the bail. If your Worship will do that, I submit now that it is quite right to do so. It is perfectly clear from what the doctor said that as far as is humanly possible to anticipate, this man will be restored to health in a week.”

    Mr Davoren suggested that the bail should be reduced by half.

    The magistrate remanded defendants until August 21, allowing bail in each case in self of £400 with a surety for a similar amount, or two of £200 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Fri 21 Aug 1936 ³⁶

ALLEGED ROBBERY
AND ASSAULT
————————
Two Young Men Before
Police Court To-day

    Evidence of his questioning of James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30), who have been charged with robbery and assault, was given by Detective AH Ramsey before Mr R Donaldson, SM, in the Police Court to-day when the first evidence in the case was taken.

    The men had previously appeared before the court and were remanded on £700 bail each, and at another adjournment the bail was reduced to £400 each.

    Haby and Richards were charged with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400 and at the time of such robbery did assault him.

    Mr JJ Davoren appeared for defendants. Detective Gibbons conducted the police case.

    Detective Gibbons stated that one of the Crown’s witnesses was in Hospital and would not be available for a few days.

    Detective AH Ramsey stated:—About 12 noon on July 30 I saw the two defendants standing outside the Commercial Hotel. I said, “Get into the police car; I want you to come to the station.” They each said, “What for?”

    I said, “I’ll explain to you at the Police Station.” At the Police Station they were taken upstairs, and defendant Richards placed in a room opposite the detective office. I told constable Stanyer to look after Richards.

    I took Haby into the detective office and cautioned him. I said, “How long have you been back here?” He said, “About three weeks.”

“BITE PEOPLE FOR MONEY”

    He said he was not working, and had a room at the Crown and Anchor. I said, “Are you in receipt of the dole?” He said, “N.” I said, “Where do you get your money to buy meals?” He said, “I bite people for money.” He said he paid 7/6 a week for his room. I said, “Do you owe any money on your room?” He said, “Yes, I owe a fortnight.”

    I said, “Were you at the Democrat Club yesterday?” He said, “No, I never go up that end of the town.” He said he was quite sure. I said, “Where were you between 2 pm and 6 pm yesterday?” He replied, “I was in the Commercial Hotel having a few bets and a few drinks.”

    I said, “Where were you after that?” He said, “I went to the library to see if I could cadge my tea money.” I said, “Did you get your tea money?” He said, “No. I read the paper.”

    I said, “About 6 pm yesterday a man named Thomas Smith, a bookmaker, was assaulted and robbed of £400 in notes in the Hospital grounds. I have been informed that you and Richards were seen walking up Chloride-street at about 5.30 pm, and walk towards the Isolation Ward.”

“NOT WITH RICHARDS”

    He said, “I was never with Richards yesterday.” I said, “And furthermore you and Richards were seen in the Freemasons Hotel at 8 o’clock last night and had a creme dementhe [sic] drink and a barrel of beer, and tendered a £5 note to old Ted, the barman.”

(Continued in Page 3.)

…

GRAPHIC STORY
OF ASSAULT
AND ROBBERY
————————
Bookmaker Identifies His
Two Assailants
————
“ONE HELD MY THROAT,
OTHER ROBBED ME”

    Pointing to defendant Haby, who was sitting no more than two yards from him, William Thomas Smith, the victim of the alleged assault in the Police Court to-day, declared:—“That’s the man who garotted me. Haby was the man.”

    James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30) have each been charged with robbing and assaulting Smith.

    Smith told the court that while Haby held him by the throat, Richards struck him about the face and took £400 in notes from his inside waistcoat and coat pockets.

    During the hearing Haby and Richards showed keen interest in the evidence.

    Continuing his evidence, Detective Ramsey said he further questioned the defendant Haby.

    He said, “I was never in the Freemasons Hotel last night or yesterday with Richards.”

    I then took Haby in to Constable Stanyer and took Richards into the Detective Office.

    Richards told me he had been back about a month, but was not working, and had a room at the Crown and Anchor with Haby. He said he did get the dole. I said: “How do you live?”

    He said, “I have cobbers here, and my mother lives here.: I said, “Where were you between 2 pm and 6 pm yesterday?” He said, “I was at the Commercial Hotel. I had a few bets and a few drinks.”

    I said, “How much money did you have when you went there?” He said, “About 3/-” When he came away he said he had 36/-. I said, “Did you Haby there?” He said, “Yes.”

    He said he left the hotel about 5.30 pm and went to his room, had a shave and went back to the Exchange Hotel. That was about 5.40 pm.

    I said, “You were losing no time in going from the Commercial to your room, having a shave, and being back at the Exchange Hotel within 10 minutes.” He said, “That is right.”

    I said, “Who did you have a drink with at the Exchange Hotel?” He said: “Les Gough, a man named Payne, Sedunary, and Griff.”He said he left there about five minutes later and he and Gough had their tea at Pals Café about 5.50 pm.

    I said: “A ma named Thomas Smith was assaulted and robbed last night about 6 pm while in the Hospital ground, and you and Haby were seen to walk behind him up Chloride-street about 5.30 pm. You were later seen to enter the Hospital grounds from Thomas-street, walk through the trees towards the Isolation Ward.”

“NOT WITH HABY YESTERDAY”

    He said: “I was never with Haby yesterday. It is a lie. Bring the joker along that saw me.”

    I said: “You and Haby were at the Freemasons Hotel about 8 pm and had a creme de menthe drink and a barrel of beer, and Haby tendered a £5 note.”

    He said: “I was never in the Freemasons Hotel with Haby yesterday or last night.”

    I took the defendants downstairs, and said to Richards, “I’m quite sure you know something about this assault and robbery. I am going to charge you with vagrancy.” They were placed in the dock at the Police Station and I charged them with vagrancy.

    About 11.50 am on July 31 I saw defendants in the exercise yard at the Police Station. I said to them, “I have interviewed Mr Smith this morning, the man who was assaulted and robbed of £400, and he has named both of you men as the ones who assaulted him and robbed him of £400.

    Defendants were taken to the charge-room and charged with the present charge. They made no reply.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

    Mr Davoren: Do I understand from the evidence that you intended to charge them with assault and robbery when you took them to the Police Station?

    Detective Ramsey: Yes.

    You charged them with vagrancy merely for the purpose of holding them?—Yes.

    You opposed the granting of bail so that they would remain in gaol and not offer any obstruction while you were making inquiries?—Yes.

    You had no intention of proceeding with the prosecution for vagrancy?—No.

    You detailed lengthy conversations you had with defendants. Did you make any written notes?—No.

    Have you a clear memory of all the conversation?—Yes.

    You regard your memory as a good reliable memory?—Yes.

    You are prepared to say the conversations were word for word as you stated?—Yes.

    Was anyone present with you when you apprehended the men at the Commercial Hotel on July 30?—Sergeant Carlon and Constable Stanyer.

    Was anyone present at any of these conversations you had with either of the defendants?—No.

    Mr Davoren said there were some details of the conversation on which he wished to cross-examine Detective Ramsey later in the proceedings.

ASSAULTED MAN CALLED

    The next witness was the victim of the alleged assault, William Thomas Smith (67), registered bookmaker, residing at 97 Cummins-street. He said:—

    About 12.30 pm on July 29 I was betting at the Democratic Club on the Melbourne and South Australian races. When I went to the club I had £420 odd. I remained there betting all afternoon. After the races I made up my balance and found I had lost about £20.

    I left the Democratic Club about 5 o’clock and walked down Argent-street as far as the Exchange Hotel. I paid a debt of £6/5/- to a man in the hotel. I was speaking to another man at the hotel and then I walked up Chloride-street to the Caledonian Hotel. I went inside, talked for a while, and had two drinks. I left about twenty to six and walked straight up Chloride-street to Thomas-street.

    I went through the corner of the Hospital grounds. I went from Thomas-street to near the corner at Morgan-street when I heard a rustle behind me.

“CAUGHT BY THROAT”

    At the same time I felt hands come in contact with my forehead, come down over my face on to my throat. The hands were pressed on to my throat. Before pressure was applied I moved my head and saw the face of the person behind me.

Asked whose it was that he saw Smith pointed to Haby, and said: “That is the man who garotted me. Haby was the man. He had his hands on my throat.”

    Continuing Smith said:—I saw another man walking behind Haby, it was Richards. The next thing that happened was fists were flying like windmills. I got a smack on the nose, a cut under the eye from a blow, and another blow on the jaw. The blows were by fists. I was still held by the throat while I was struck.

    To the Magistrate: The pressure on my throat forced my tongue out. They choked me. Richards struck me. He was at my side when he struck me on the jaw. Then he came in front of me, and hit me on the nose and under the eye. It was Richards who hit me.

    Continuing, Smith said:—Richards said: “Let the old —– go.”

    When Haby let me go he struck me on the jaw from behind. That was the final blow that put me down.

    Before Richards said: “Let the old —– go,” Richards put his hand inside my waistcoat and ripped open the buttons and took the money from my inside pocket. Haby was then holding me by the throat. Richards also put his hand in my inside coat pocket and took money from there.

    He took £260 from my waistcoat pocket. I saw the bundles. In my inside coat pocket I had £140. Richards took that also.

    After the man let me go he struck me twice—both on the jaw. I fell. I heard the sound of them running away.

    I immediately tried to get up, and almost got upright when I fell. I saw them retreating towards Thomas-street. They were about 10 yards away.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE

    Dr G[eorge] H[enry] S[awtell] Dobbyn was interposed at this stage. In his evidence he stated:—

    I saw William Thomas Smith at his house in Cummins-street on the night of July 29.

    I found him suffering from shock. He had a lump on each side of the jaw, an abrasion on the bridge of the nose, and a slight cut under the left eye. He was in a very shaky condition, trembling, and seemed to be thoroughly upset. He complained about his shoulder and could not raise his arm properly. I saw him the next morning. His condition had improved a good bit, but he was still suffering from shock.

    The marks on Smith could have been caused by a blow from a fist. I examined Smith’s throat and found considerable bruising on it. In the morning the bruising had come out and the throat was quite black, the bruises extending to the cheek bone. They could have been caused by being caught by the throat with hands and squeezed. It would have caused considerable force to bruise the throat like that.

“RECOGNISED ONE MAN”

    To Mr Davoren: Smith told me he had seen one of the men and recognised him. There was no suggestion of him having recognised the other. I gathered he had only recognised one of the men.

    He did not volunteer any statement about the identity of his assailant. I think it was shortly after 7 o’clock when I saw him on July 29.

    Mr Davoren: Do you remember telling anyone that Smith had told you he was unable to recognise any of his assailants because a hand had been placed over his eyes?

    Dr Dobbyn: No.

    Do you remember Smith saying anything about a hand being placed over his eyes?—No.

    Do you think he said that?—No, I am sure he did not say anything about as hand being put over his eyes.

    Resuming his evidence, Smith stated:—I got up and fell down several times, and eventually got to the Morgan-street fence. I did not see the men again.

    I have known defendants for about 12 months. I have just known them to know their names and know who they are.

    Haby was dressed in a grey suit, and Richards in darker clothes.

    The suit of clothes and hat worn by Smith at the time of the alleged assault were produced. There were spots of blood on the hat, and mud and blood on the trousers and sleeve of the coat.

    In conclusion Smith said Haby and Richards were each wearing hats, Richards’s being darker than Haby.

    (The case was proceeding when this Edition went to press. Later details will be printed in the Latest Edition.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Fri 28 Aug 1936 ³⁷

ALLEGED ROBBERY
OF BOOKMAKER
————
DEFENDANTS ARE REMANDED

    Because the magistrate (Mr R Donaldson) had not returned from Tibooburra the case in which James Haby (22), and Charles Henry Richards (30), have been charged with assault and robbery, was to-day adjourned until 10 o’clock on Monday.

    Mr Donaldson left for Tibooburra on Wednesday, and when the case was before the court last week he thought he would be back in time to continue the hearing this afternoon.

    Mr SA Thornton, JP, sat on the Bench this afternoon, and remanded the defendants on bail of £400, with sureties.

    Haby and Richards were each charged with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400, and at the time of such robbery did assault him.

    Mr JJ Davoren appeared for defendants, and Detective Gibbons conducted the police case.

    Last Friday practically the whole of the evidence for the prosecution was completed, Detective Gibbons stating that only one witness remained. As the witness was an inmate of the Hospital it was intended to hold the court at the Hospital this afternoon.

    When the case was mentioned to-day, Mr Thornton said that as Mr Donaldson had not not [sic] returned from Tibooburra he was afraid he would have to stand the case over.

HEARING ON MONDAY

    Mr Davoren: I would like this case to be adjourned for as short a time as possible. I would like it heard on Monday.

    Detective Gibbons: Two other cases have been set down for Monday. There is a false pretences charge in which there will be seven or eight witnesses.

    Mr Thornton: This will have precedence over that. I think I had better put it down for Monday, and the Mr Donaldson may arrange some time to suit you.

    Haby and Richards were remanded until Monday, bail being allowed in self of £400 with a surety for a similar amount or two for £200 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Mon 31 Aug 1936 ³⁸

ASSAULT AND
ROBBERY?
————
POLICE COURT SITS AT
HOSPITAL

    A verandah at the Hospital was turned into a Police Court this afternoon when the case in which James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30) have been charged with robbery and assault, was continued before Mr R Donaldson, SM.

    Haby and Richards were each charged with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400 and at the time of such robbery did assault him. They were defended by Mr JJ Davoren.

    The witness at the Hospital was William John King, of Chapple-street, who said he knew Smith by sight and also knew Richards and Haby. Defendants and he (witness) were the best of cobbers. He did not remember seeing defendants in Chloride, Sulphide or Thomas streets or in the Hospital grounds on July 29.

    Detective Gibbons said that he was a hostile witness, but the magistrate said there was no reason for him making the statement.

    (Full details of to-day’s proceedings will be published in the Late Edition.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Tue 1 Sep 1936 ³⁹

ALLEGED ROBBERY
OF BOOKMAKER
————————
Another Adjournment
To the Hospital
————
MR DAVOREN HAS SOME
QUESTIONS TO ASK

    Stating that he had made further inquiries into his statement in the Court yesterday, Mr JJ Davoren, who appeared for the two men charged with robbery and assault of a bookmaker, in the Police Court to-day asked Mr R Donaldson, SM, to adjourn the cases to enable him to cross-examine the witness, William John King, who gave evidence at the Hospital yesterday.

    Mr Davoren yesterday afternoon said that statements had been made to him that were in the nature of serious allegations involving the prosecuting officers in the case.

    The case was adjourned to the Courthouse at 9 o’clock on Saturday morning when it will be further adjourned to the Hospital so that Mr Davoren can question King.

    The defendants were James Haby (22), and Charles Henry Richards (30), who were each charged with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400 and at the time if the robbery did assault him.

    Mr JJ Davoren appeared for both defendants. Detective Gibbons conducted the prosecution.

    “In this case,” Mr Davoren said, “I have made the inquiries that I referred to last evening, and I propose, with your Worship’s permission, to further cross-examine the witness King, who gave evidence at the Hospital yesterday.

    “I don’t know whether your Worship will find it convenient to again sit up there to-day. The Quarter Sessions will, of course, start at 2 o’clock.”

    The Magistrate: Further cross-examine? You did not cross-examine at all.

    Mr Davoren: That is so. I would like the case dealt with as soon as possible.

    The Magistrate: His evidence at present—in a certain event—will of course be regarded as immaterial.

    Mr Davoren: His evidence now undoubtedly would. I don’t know how long King will be in the Hospital.

    Detective Gibbons: He will probably be there for six weeks.

    Mr Davoren: Perhaps your Worship could allow the matter to stand awhile and we can find out how long he will be there. The arrangements yesterday were not satisfactory, and we will see if other arrangements can be made.

“WHAT IS THE USE?”

    The Magistrate: What is the use of it Mr Davoren? I am not asking that because I think it will be of no use. I realise that you have no desire to say more than a limited amount at present. Do you expect to cross-examine on points which go to question the honesty of the evidence of another witness?

    Mr Davoren: Yes.

    The Magistrate: Is there anything in that other witness’s evidence which needs challenging? It is entirely for you to say, but the court should have some idea. Is there anything of his evidence that actually goes to the question of a prima facie case or not?

    Mr Davoren: Except in an indirect way. Your Worship will anticipate what I mean.

    The Magistrate: I have formed an opinion, of course. You will let it stand over until later in the day so that you can find out some information?

    Mr Davoren: Would your Worship be disposed to sit up there again if some satisfactory arrangements could be made? I realise that yesterday we were sitting under difficulty there.

    “I think from the very nature of my intended cross-examination that it may take some time.

    Perhaps if your Worship just allows the matter to stand over for a few minutes I can speak to Detective Gibbons about it and we may be able to arrange a suitable date when this man has left the Hospital.”

    Mr Davoren and Detective Gibbons left the court room, and on returning Mr Davoren said he understood that Saturday morning at 9.30 o’clock would suit the police and the court.

ADJOURNED TO HOSPITAL

    The Magistrate: Then we will open the case at the Hospital. Is there any police objection?

    Detective Gibbons: No. There does not seem to be any other way out of it. I would ask your Worship to make the adjournment to the Hospital instead of coming here and then adjourning to the Hospital.

    Mr Davoren: I have no objection.

    The Magistrate: It could be done. Why can’t they be brought to this court and put in custody and taken to the Hospital?

    Detective Gibbons: There would be a waste of time.

    The Magistrate: We can adjourn the case until 9.15 am.

    Detective Gibbons: Make it 9 o’clock.

    The Magistrate: Defendants are remanded to this place at 9 o’clock on Saturday morning, September 5, and they can then be taken to the Hospital. Bail is as before.

    Each defendant was allowed bail in self of £400, with a surety for a similar amount, or two of £200 each.
…

ALLEGED ROBBERY
OF BOOKMAKER
————————
Hospital Patient Alleged
Hostile Witness
————
SOLICITOR HINTS AT SERIOUS
ALLEGATIONS

    The verandah of Ward 1 at the Hospital was yesterday afternoon converted into a miniature courtroom for the purpose of taking evidence from an inmate in connection with the police case against James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30). The men had been charged with having on July 29 assaulted and robbed William Thomas Smith of £400. The witness was William John King, who resided in Chapple-lane.

    During the hearing of the case, which had been adjourned to the Hospital from the Courthouse, Detective Gibbons, who prosecuted, referred to King as “a hostile witness.”

    Mr Davoren, who appeared for the defendants, later stated that statements had been made to him in the nature of serious allegations involving the prosecuting officers in the case. He did not deem it proper to proceed with the cross-examination on those matters without making further inquiries and hinted that on the resumption to-day he would question the officers on the allegations.

    Mr R Donaldson, SM, presided, Mr JJ Davoren appeared for the defendants, and Detective Gibbons conducted the cross-examination of King.

    Seldom has a court-room been established in such unusual circumstances. King has been an inmate at the Hospital for some time and was unable to get out of bed. Screens were erected around his bed, the magistrate sat on a chair beside him, but everyone else, other than the clerk, had to huddle round the bed as best they could.

KING’S EVIDENCE

    After the usual court formalities had been completed King told the magistrate that he resided in Chapple-lane. He knew Mr Smith by sight, but did not recall seeing him on any Wednesday in July. He could not recollect the night of July 29. He did not remember having seen Mr Smith at the Caledonian Hotel.

    He knew the defendants well. They were the best of “cobbers.” He had seen defendants frequently during July. He did not remember seeing defendants in Chloride-street. He had never seen them in either Sulphide or Thomas streets. He had never seen them in the Hospital grounds.

    Between midday and 6 pm on July 29 he was playing cards in the Reserve. He did not see either of the defendants on the day the alleged robbery occurred. The first he had heard of the robbery was when he had read an account of the incident in the press.

    The day following the alleged incident he did not see Detective Ramsey.

HOSTILE WITNESS?

    Detective Gibbons said witness was a hostile one. “He has made a statement and signed it,” he said.

    The Magistrate: No, witness is not hostile.

    Detective Gibbons: Were you at the Freemasons Hotel on the night of the robbery?—No.

    Have you seen either Richards or Haby since that night?—No, this is the first time I have seen them.

    Have you been interviewed by anyone at the Hospital?—No.

    Mr Davoren did not ask any questions and the court adjourned to the Courthouse again.

    When the case was resumed at the Police Court, Mr Davoren recalled Detective Ramsey.

SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS

    Mr Davoren said that there had just been made to him certain statements that were in the nature of serious allegations involving the prosecuting officers in this case.

    “I consider it improper at this stage to proceed on that without myself making further inquiries in order to know whether to act on it or otherwise. I have, however, certain other cross-examination with which I want to proceed now. I propose to proceed with that, and if I find that the matter reported to me warrants further cross-examination I will proceed with it.”

    Replying to Mr Davoren, Detective Ramsey said:—All Smith’s evidence was true as far as I know. I went to Smith’s residence about 6.40 pm on the day of the alleged offence. The conversation between us lasted about a quarter of an hour.

    He told me the whole account of the assault as he gave it in the court with the exception of the names of his assailants. I asked him who his assailants were, and he said, “ I’m too bad.” I asked hi mabout [sic] three or four minutes before I left.

    I had a conversation with him after he said he was too bad.

    Mr Davoren: During the time you were at his house you asked only once, “Who did it?” or words to that effect?

    Detective Ramsey: Yes.

    Did you ask for a description of the men who had assaulted him?—Yes.

    Was that before or after you asked him who had done it?—Before.

    Did you only ask him once for a description of the men?—I did.

COHERENT IN PARTS

    Did he recount his movements that day quite coherently?—It was in parts.

    And at other times incoherent?—There was nothing said.

    That is not incoherent. Do you realise that?—Yes.

    So there was nothing that he said that was incoherent?—What do you mean.

    Don’t you know?—No.

    Why did you say it was coherent in parts?—I took it for granted that you meant it continued without a pause.

    Was there anything mixed up or muddled while he was talking?—No.

    Did you have any difficulty in obtaining from him an account of what he had done?—Not up until the time when he entered the Democratic Club.

    Continuing his replies to Mr Davoren, Detective Ramsey said:—I had difficulty in obtaining what he had done from the time he left the Democratic Club until he got home. I realised that the most important thing was to ascertain the two men who were guilty.

    Mr Davoren: Why did you not press him for further information, either about their names or description?

    Detective Ramsey: I could see he was too bad.

    When you left that night were you aware that he had any suspicion who had done it?—I did not know what his mind was. I decided to give him time to allow his mind to settle down on what had happened.

    When you left him did you think he would be able to remember who had assaulted him?—I was hoping he would.

    Did you have any reason for hoping that?—Yes. It was my job and I wanted to clear it up.

CAUTIONED DEFENDANTS

    How did you caution defendants?—I said, “I am going to ask you certain questions which you need not answer, but anything you say maybe used in evidence.”

    Did you make any reference to the words that it would be taken down in writing?—No.

    You know they are in the usual caution. Why didn’t you use them?—I don’t know. They are the words I used.

    Detective Ramsey said the caution he gave to the defendants was the one he usually adopted. He was taught the caution with reference to the words, “taken down in writing.” He saw Smith about 11.30 am on Friday July 31, when he told him that Haby and Richards were his assailants.

    Mr Davoren: Haby and Richards at that time had been arrested and were in custody?—Yes.

    They had been arrested on the morning of July 30?—Yes.

    Haby and Richards had been before the court on the Friday morning by the time you saw Smith?—Not on the charge of assault and robbery before I saw Smith.

    At what day and what time did they first appear on a charge of assault and robbery?—About 12 o’clock on the Friday.

    Did you during your interview with Smith on Friday tell him that these two men had been before the court on a charge of robbery and assaulting him?—No.

    Why didn’t you?—I don’t know, but I didn’t say they had been before the court.

    Did you ever tell him they had been before the court?—On the following Thursday when I got the statement from him.

    Did he give you any indication that he knew?—No.

    Mr Davoren: That is all I want to ask at the moment. I don’t want to embark on the other matters now, but if there is any objection to the case going over I will proceed now.

    Although you thought this man’s life might be in danger are you going to assure the court that you did not ask him who the men were or for any description of the men?—I did not ask him.

    Isn’t it a fact that you did ask him who they were and he said he did not know?—No.

    When did you interview the witness King, who gave evidence at the Hospital to-day?—On Thursday night July 30th. He came to me. I don’t feel that I should say more at this stage.

    The Magistrate: We don’t know whether the questions would be admissible.

“WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE”

    Mr Davoren: I can assure your Worship they would be admissible on the question of credit. I don’t mind how short the adjournment is made.

    The Magistrate: I will remand the case until Tuesday at 10 o’clock, bail as before.

    Haby and Richards were released on bail in self of £400, or a surety of a similar amount or two of £200 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Wed 2 Sep 1936 ⁴⁰

COURT CASE WITNESS
LEAVES HOSPITAL
————

    William John King, of Chapple-lane, who on Wednesday gave evidence at the Hospital in the case in which Charles Henry Richards (30) and James Haby (22) are charged with having on July 29 assaulted and robbed William Thomas Smith of £400, was last night discharged from the institution.

    It will therefore, obviate the necessity for the court to adjourn to the Hospital when the case against the two men is resumed on Saturday morning.

    Yesterday Mr JJ Davoren, who is appearing for the two defendants, sought permission to have the court adjourned from the Courthouse to the Hospital in order that he may cross-examine King. This cross-examination, it is understood, will be carried out at the Courthouse.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Sat 5 Sep 1936 ⁴¹

“EVIDENCE MASS OF FABRICATION”
————————————
SOLICITOR’S OPINION AFTER
HEARING STATEMENTS
————————
Witness Accuses Police Officer Who
Was Absent Through Illness
————————————
ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY OF
BOOKMAKER FURTHER PROBED

    The expected allegations levelled at the prosecuting officers in the assault and robbery case were made by the witness King in the Police Court to-day before Mr R Donaldson, SM, in reply to questions by Mr JJ Davoren, who is appearing for the accused—James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30).

    At the conclusion of the witness’s evidence, however, Mr Davoren said it was plain that the witness’s evidence was a mass of fabrication, and on behalf of his clients and himself, he made it clear that they attached no blame to the officers.

    Part of the witness’ story was that he had been smacked in the face by Detective Gibbons and otherwise roughly treated during his questioning in the CIB office on the night of July 30. Subsequently evidence was given that on this night Detective Gibbons was off duty through illness.

    The evidence was concluded without accused going into the box, and the case was adjourned until 9.15 am Monday when Mr Davoren will address the magistrate on the question of whether there is a case for committal. They were each allowed £400 bail.

    Charles Henry Richards (30) and James Haby (22) were charged with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400 and at the time of such robbery did assault him.

    Mr JJ Davoren appeared for Richards and Haby.

    Mr Davoren said there were a few more questions he wished to ask Detective Ramsey before he cross-examined the witness King.

    Replying to Mr Davoren, Detective Ramsey said:—I first interviewed King on July 30. That was just after 6.30 pm. He went to the Police Station and asked for me. I was communicated with and went to the Police Station and found him there. I had other interviews with him following on that.

    I think I saw King pretty well every night until Wednesday. Those interviews were by arrangement. The first time I saw him was on July 30.

    I have known the witness since July 18 or 19. I knew he had convictions against him. I knew he had served sentences for larceny, one of six months. I had his official police record.

“NO CORRECTIONS”

    There is no part of the interviews I had with defendants Haby and Richards on July 30 that I wish to correct in any way. Anything I told defendants in the course of those interviews was quite correct.

    I had been informed that someone had seen defendants walking up Chloride-street about 5.30 pm on July 29.

    Mr Davoren: Who was that person?

    Detective Ramsey: It is a person whose name I don’t wish to divulge.

    Why?—When that person told me I said I would not bring him into it.

    Do you realise that it is your duty to bring all the information before the court?—Yes.

    You realise it would be most material evidence in support of the prosecution?—Yes.

    That in fairness to the accused you should bring everything before the court?—Yes.

    Yet you deliberately say you don’t wish to divulge the name of the person?—Yes.

    Does he live in Broken Hill?—As far as I know she does.

    You know her name?—I know her by a name.

    Was she the same person who saw them enter the Hospital grounds?—No.

    Who was that person?—I don’t want to divulge the name.

    A man or a woman?

    The Magistrate: You need not answer that question.

    Witness: A man.

    Mr Davoren: Dou [sic] you know that person’s name—I know his Christian name.

    Mr Davoren: Can you get him to give evidence, or is it that you won’t call him so that you can honor your promise?

    The Magistrate: You need not answer that question.

    Witness: I won’t answer it.

“SHOULD GIVE NAMES”

    Mr Davoren argued that Detective Ramsey should divulge the names of the persons. He took it on himself to decide what information he would give the court.

    “It is a most impudent attitude adopted in this court,” declared Mr Davoren.

    The Magistrate: We won’t have those comments at this stage.

    Mr Davoren: I am going to ask that he should divulge those names.

    The Magistrate: I won’t insist that he give the evidence.

    Mr Davoren: I am going to insist that he gives the names of those persons. The first consideration is to give justice to the accused. They are entitled to know the people who have evidence against them—evidence on which they were questioned.

    Mr Davoren (to witness): Quite deliberately you say you have decided to call no evidence from those persons?

    Witness: Yes. These persons confided in me and asked me not to call them.

    Mr Davoren: Is there any evidence in your power to place before the Court to establish that accused had a creme de menthe drink and a barrel of beer in the Freemasons Hotel and tended a £5 note to “old Ted,” the barman?—Yes.

    This evidence has not been called. You realise that?—Yes. That evidence was not told to me by merely one person.

    How many persons told you altogether?—Two.

    Mr Davoren said that he had served King with a subpoena to ensure his attendance. It was following a conversation he had with King after the hearing at the Hospital that he desired to cross-examine King, said Mr Davoren.

KING QUESTIONED

    William John King, replying to Mr Davoren, said: I recall that you came back to me after I gave my evidence at the Hospital. I gave you particulars which I have since adhered to and signed a statement. What I have told you in the statement is absolutely true.

    On the night of Thursday July 30, about 6.30 pm I left home and went to the Municipal Library.

    I was going into the library to read a newspaper. I was in the alleyway when Detective Ramsey came along. I was grabbed by the arm. I said: “What’s going on here?” Ramsey said: “I want you at the Police Station.” I said: “What for?” He said: “You will see when you get there.” I was taken to a room in the top storey. I was seated in a chair and then in came Detective Gibbons. He said: “What do you know about this robbery?” I said: “What do you mean?” He said: “I want you to sign certain documents here.”

    They were ordinary sheets of paper with typewriting on them, but I could not see what it was. I said, “Can I see what is written on them?” He said, “I don’t want any of your sarcastic —– cheek.”

    Gibbons smacked me across the mouth. I said, “I refuse to sign papers unless I see what is written on them.” He said, “Are you going to sign your name?” I said, “No.”

“WORTH A FEW QUID”

    Detective Ramsey was present during this. Gibbons said, “Come on Bill. It is worth a few quid to you.” I said, “No. I will not sign it.” Gibbons caught me by the right arm and screwed it very tightly.

    My arm ached with the pain, and I said, “Let go. I have to go in the hospital shortly to be operated on.” He said, “What for?” I said, “A rupture.”

    He said, “I’ll give you a punch where you have to be operated on.”

    Gibbons picked a pen up and forced it in my hand. Ramsey was standing up then. I was forced to sign my name on a line. I did actually sign it. Ramsey pulled another sheet of paper out of a drawer. That was also placed before me.

    To the Magistrate: I could see there was typewriting on it.

    Continuing, the witness said:—I was forced to sign my name on that. Gibbons pushed the pen into my hand.

    After my name was signed he said, “You can go now.” As I was walking out the door Ramsey gave me a push behind the neck, and said, “We shall be seeing you again.”

    I walked out the back way of the Police Station. I saw Detectives Gibbons and Ramsey at the Hospital about three or four days before I gave evidence at the Hospital.

“WILL MAKE IT HOT FOR YOU”

    Ramsey said, “Are you going to give your evidence?”: I made no reply. He said, “If you do not we will make things that —– hot for you that you will not want to stop in Broken Hill.”

    I said, “I know nothing of the assault, and I very seldom see Haby and Richards.” They then left.

    That is the only occasion I saw them in connection with the case.

    Mr Davoren: You realise the extreme seriousness of what you have said against the police?

    King: Yes.

    When you told me at the Hospital I pointed out the seriousness of the allegations to you?—Yes.

    You said that everything you have said is quite true? There is no invention in it at all?—Yes.

    On the day of July 29, you say you never saw either of the accused? Is that correct?—Yes.

    Have you known the two accused for years?—I have known them for several years.

    You knew Haby in Adelaide?—Yes.

    You returned from Adelaide about the middle of July?—Yes.

    When did you first see Haby?—On the Saturday night I returned. It was in the Freemasons Hotel .

    Did you see either Haby or Richards since that night until you gave your evidence at the Hospital?—No.

    How old are you?—Going on for 23.

PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED

    You have a number of convictions against you?—Yes.

    Two years ago you were convicted of being a suspected person and sentenced to six months?—Yes.

    Fourteen months ago you were convicted on a charge of stealing shoes and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment?—Yes.

    Also you were convicted in Adelaide in November last on a charge of stealing shirts and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment?—Yes.

    Before you were 21 I understand you had some five convictions and had also spent a considerable period in a reformatory?—Yes.

    When you signed those documents in the Police Station did you have any knowledge as to what either of them contained?—No, Mr Davoren.

    Did you ever intend to make any accusations against Haby or Richards in respect of July 29?—No.

    I understand that you say now that you know absolutely nothing about the movements of either one of the accused on that day?—Yes.

    Were you at the Police Station on August 5?—No.

    Detective Gibbons: Did you speak to Sergeant Connell before you spoke to Detective Ramsey?—No.

    You did not see Sergeant Connell on July 30?—No.

    Did you see me at the Police Station on July 30?—Yes.

    You are quite clear and sure?—Yes.

    You were forced to sign a statement?—Yes.

    Would you know that sheet again?—There was typewriting on it.

    Shown a sheet of paper by Detective Gibbons, King said the signature on it was his.

    Detective Gibbons: Were you asked any questions before you signed it?—No. It was handed to me sheet by sheet.

    Did you read any part of it?—Not at all.

    Portion of this statement refers to a conversation you heard between the two defendants at the GPO, Adelaide?—I heard no conversation between them at the GPO.

    It is in this statement?—I don’t know that.

    Do you see any reason why mention of that conversation should be in the statement?—No.

    Did you go anywhere with Detective Ramsey after you had signed the papers?—No.

    Did you go with Detective Ramsey to the old steam shed at the dam, where you thought the money might be planted?—No.

    Did you tell Detective Ramsey to search the back seat of Richards’s car because the money might be there?—No.

    Did you say to Detective Ramsey, “Rope McCarthy in. That —– had £25 in the two-up school last night”?—No.

    Did you say anything to Detective Ramsey about Haby being a dingo?—No, not at all.

    Did you ask George Wallace to find out where McCarthy was living?—No, never.

    Since July 29 have you ever accompanied me to any place where the money might have been planted?—No, not at all.

“THEY GOT ME IN ADELAIDE”

    Did you ever say to me: “The —– got me at Adelaide. They identified me and I done two months cold?—No.

    Did you do two months in Adelaide?—Yes.

    Were you identified?—Yes. Not in a line-up. Only from the witness box.

    Did either of the defendants identify you?—No.

    While you were in the Hospital did you write a letter to Detective Ramsey?—Yes.

    What was in the letter?—I said, “I know nothing of the assault and robbery case and I refuse to give evidence, as I know nothing of it. If you subpoena me I know nothing.”

    Can you recall where you were about 5.30 pm on July 29?—Yes. At home.

    Were you in Argent-street that day?—No.

    Were you in Chloride-street that day?—No.

    Were you in the Hospital grounds that day?—No.

    Did you see Haby or Richards on July 29?—No.

    You would not know how they were dressed?—No.

    Were you at Johnson’s Pictures that night?—No.

    Were you in the Freemasons Hotel that night?—No.

    Can you tell me when you were in Adelaide last?—Somewhere about June of this year.

    Can you recall speaking to both defendants at the Adelaide Post Office?—No.

    You did not hear any conversation in these terms between them: “We will go back to Broken Hill and send old Smith off. He’s easy”?—No.

    Do you quite realise the seriousness of all this?—Yes.

    You are not laboring under any strain as a result of you operation?—No.

    You still say I was in the detective office and forced you to make a statement on the night of July 30?—Yes.

    Detective Gibbons: I tell you that I was not on duty but was sick in bed. You still realise what you have said?—Yes.

    Detective Gibbons: I have these alleged forced statements signed by King. I’ll ask to tender them.

    Mr Davoren: In the circumstances I have no objection.

    Detective Gibbons: I ask leave to call Sergeant Connell in reply.

    Mr Davoren said he desired to further question Detective Ramsey and he would deal with the application for Sergeant Connell to give evidence.

    Replying to Mr Davoren, Detective Ramsey said:—When King saw me on July 30 he told me Haby and Richards were the men responsible for this assault and robbery. He was the first one to suggest that to me.

    He gave me that long elaborate story of all he knew and what he saw and a good bit besides.

“MASS OF FABRICATION”

    Mr Davoren: I make no accusations on behalf of the accused against the police in respect of what King has said. I have not the slightest doubt that King’s evidence is nothing but a mass of fabrication. He evidently told the police a story, and to justify himself afterwards he felt compelled to throw the blame elsewhere. I have no hesitation in saying that in the opinion of my clients and myself no blame is attachable to the police at all.

    Detective Ramsey said: Sergeant Connell was present when I interviewed King. He rang me at the Barracks, and told me to come down on July 30. Detective Gibbons was ill in bed. He did not see King on that day.

    King even went so far as to tell me places where defendants had previously planted stolen good. King’s statement pointed very obviously to the two accused being responsible for the assault and robbery.

    On the afternoon of July 30 and the morning of July 31 it was publicly known in Broken Hill that defendants had been arrested on a vagrancy charge with the prospect of the assault and robbery charge being preferred against them.

WT SMITH RECALLED

    William Thomas Smith, the victim of the alleged assault, recalled by Mr Davoren, said:—

    I know that the accused were arrested about midday on July 30. I first learned they had been arrested on the Friday, July 31.

    On the Friday I said to Detective Ramsey: “Haby is the man that garrotted me, and Richards is the man that robbed me.” He said something to the effect that he had them.

    That was the first time I had mentioned the names of Haby and Richards to Detective Ramsey.

    Mr Davoren: You heard King’s story?

    Smith: Yes.

    You see how hopelessly unreliable it is?—Yes.

    Now I want you to consider this case fairly; not from the money you have lost—I am not considering the money. It is the knocking about I got.

    Did Detective Ramsey tell you that he had Richards and Haby in —– ?

    Smith: No. He did not.

    Mr Davoren: He did not what?

    Smith: You are out for a catch.

    Mr Davoren: Oh, no! You are out for a catch.

    Smith: I told you before that I told Detective Ramsey Haby and Richards were the men before he said he had them arrested.

    Mr Davoren: Yes, but I am still not convinced. You anticipated I was going to ask that question?

    Smith: Yes.

    The Magistrate: It is always better to wait.

    Answering further questions by Mr Davoren, Smith said:—I don’t think it would have been more difficult to say “Haby and Richards” as “I’m too bad” in reply to Detective Ramsey’s question, “Who did it?”

    Mr Davoren: You knew that the one thing he wanted to know was who the men were?—Yes.

    Seeing it would have been just as easy to say “Haby and Richards,” why on earth didn’t you tell him?—I can’t tell you why. I simply didn’t do it.

    You can’t tell me why you did not do it on the following morning either—Thursday July 30?—I was too bad. I could hardly talk at all.

    Again it would have been as easy to say “Haby and Richards” as “I’m too bad”?—He did not ask me, and I was too bad.

    You knew what he was there for?—I did not know what he was there for.

    Be candid with me?—I am being candid.

“TRYING TO CATCH ME”

    Why didn’t you tell him?—I don’t know, just as I don’t know why you are trying to catch me.

    Mr Davoren: I am not catching you. You are doing it very well yourself.

    Smith: You have asked me the one question a dozen times.

    Mr Davoren: Yes. I have got a dozen different answers, and I am satisfied.

    Mr Davoren: Didn’t you know what he was there for on the Thursday morning?—I am not a mind reader.

    You knew that he was there in connection with the assault and robbery?—I suppose so.

    When did you make up your mind to tell Detective Ramsey who your assailants were?–When I felt well enough to talk about it.

    And that coincided with Detective Ramsey’s arrival on the Friday morning?—Yes.

    Just an extraordinary coincidence?—Yes, Mr Davoren, an extraordinary coincidence.

    Detective Gibbons: Will you allow me to call Sergeant Connell in reply to King’s evidence?

    The Magistrate: Is it necessary, in view of Mr Davoren’s statement?

    Detective Gibbons: Serious allegations have been made and I would like them cleared up.

KING’S STATEMENTS

    Sergeant Connell stated:—King came to the Police Station on July 30. He asked if Ramsey was about. I said he was at the barracks and I said I would ring him.

    King said he wanted to see him about that robbery. I said, “Do you know something about it Bill?” He said, “Yes. They’ve got the two right fellows all right. They’re a pair of stinking mongrels. I’ll rob a man, but I won’t rob an old man like that. Those two mongrels did me a bad turn once in Adelaide, and I did a good job over them at Holden’s.”

    I said, “How was that, Bill?” He said, “They had some stolen stuff and they asked me to put it off. They told me it was all right and I sold it. About two days later the detectives came to Holden’s and took me away from my work. Those two mongrels identified me in a line-up and told the detectives that I stole the stuff. I got two months. Now I am going to identify them in a line-up.” Detective Ramsey came in and took King away.

    To Mr Davoren: I have known King since he was a lad. He is unreliable. He is not properly balanced in my opinion. He is likely to do anything, especially under excitement. He is not the sort of person on whom reliance can be placed at any time.

    This concluded the evidence.

    Mr Davoren said he proposed to address on the question that there was no case on which to commit the defendants for trial.

    The case was adjourned until 9.15 am on Monday, each accused being allowed bail in self of £400, with one surety for a similar amount or two of £200 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

999Barrier Miner, Mon 7 Sep 1936 ⁴²

TWO MEN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL
ALLEGED ROBBERY
OF BOOKMAKER
————
DEFENDANTS DID NOT
GIVE EVIDENCE

    Despite Mr JJ Davoren’s plea that no jury of reasonable men would convict defendants, Mr R Donaldson, SM, in the Police Court to-day, committed James Haby(22) and Charles Henry Richards (30) for trial at the December Quarter Sessions on the robbery and assault charge, involving £400. He fixed bail at £500, but later reduced it to £400, at Mr Davoren’s request.

    In his address, which occupied 90 minutes, Mr Davoren dealt exhaustively with the evidence, and stated that the only evidence on which the magistrate could convict was that of Smith, the victim of the alleged assault. This, he submitted, was slender and unworthy.

    To-day’s proceedings attracted considerable interest, and were followed by an almost crowded gallery.

    Haby and Richards were each charged with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400, and at the time of such robbery did assault him.

    Mr JJ Davoren appeared for defendants and Detective Gibbons conducted the prosecution.

    Detective Gibbons said he wished to call Sergeant Carlon to give evidence in reply to the witness King’s evidence of the rough treatment he had allegedly received at the hands of the police.

    Sergeant PL Carlon said: I remember that in July Detective Gibbons was off duty from July 25 until July 30. He resumed on July 31. During that time he was attended by Dr Quinn. I saw a certificate from Dr George, Government Medical Officer, certifying that he was fit to resume on July 31.

    To the Magistrate: On July 30, the night in question, Detective Gibbons was confined to the barracks. I did not see him at the Police Station.

    The Magistrate: That evidence is designed to show that you were not in the CIB room on the night of July 30?

    Detective Gibbons: Yes.

    The Magistrate: It does not do it. As you are one of the few persons who knows whether you were in the CIB room or not on the night of July 30, perhaps you could give evidence.

DET-GIBBONS’S EVIDENCE

    Detective Gibbons said: I was not on duty on July 30, and I was not in the detective office at any time on July 30. I did not see King on July 30.

    I saw him on August 5. I said: “What do you want?” He said: “I came here to make a statement connecting Haby and Richards with it.”

    I typed a statement at his dictation. I gave it to him to read, and he said the contents were true. He then signed his name in two places. I witnessed his signature.

    To Mr Davoren: On August 5 I knew King’s record. I don’t know him as an irresponsible lad. I know him as a criminal.

    Addressing the magistrate Mr Davoren said that no prima facie case had been made out, and the defendants were entitled to a discharge.

    An examination of the evidence showed it to be unreliable, and no jury of 12 reasonable men would convict the defendants. There was a reasonable doubt.

“DUTY OF POLICE”

 

    “I submit,” said Mr Davoren, “it is the unquestionable duty of the police to bring before this court all the material evidence of a case. It is not for the police to decide what may be withheld, and what may be presented to the court.

    “It is their duty to bring forward anything that might have any bearing on the case before the court. They have not brought it to the court because it does not suit them.”

    The Magistrate: They did not say that it did not suit their case.

    Mr Davoren: The inference is there though. That is the only inference that can be drawn.

    “Detective Ramsey did not call the witnesses,” said Mr Davoren, “because he gave them his promise that he would not drag them into the case.

    “It is a most extraordinary procedure. I don’t hesitate to say that your Worship has not heard of it before. No adequate reason has been given to the court why these persons have not been called, I submit.”

    Mr Davoren argued that the prosecution had had an opportunity of questioning the people, and the defence should have that same privilege. Something might be brought out that would clear the whole matter up.

“MALICE OF KING.”

    They may have made statements to the police implicating accused just as the witness King had done. King had apparently in all malice gone to the police and made a statement and then said he knew nothing, and to clear himself made allegations against the police.

    “The position is now that we have both agreed that this man King is an irresponsible man prepared to say anything about anybody,” said Mr Davoren. “Who knows that the other people who made these statements to the police are not in the same position?

    “Who knows that it is not some conspiracy between people to place these men on this charge?” asked Mr Davoren.

    Mr Davoren cited several authorities in support of his contention that all material evidence should have been placed before the court.

    “The court is led to believe that there is some ulterior motive which explains the non-appearance of these witnesses before this court,” said Mr Davoren.

    “There is only one piece of evidence on which defendants can be committed, and that is Smith’s evidence,” said Mr Davoren. “That evidence of Smith is so slender and so unworthy—that is not used there in a reprehensible sense but use in the sense of either being reprehensible or incapable of giving reliable evidence to the court.

    “Here I submit the evidence is slender, and is of such an unworthy nature that it is unworthy of the court’s reliance.

    Mr Davoren said Smith’s evidence was in conflict with evidence given by three witnesses—Dr Dobbyn, his own clerk, McLernon, and Detective Ramsey.

    Mr Davoren dealt at length with Smith’s evidence, and asked how could Smith’s refusal to name his assailants until midday on Friday, August 31, be accounted for.

    He said that in the receptive mind in which Smith was the suggestion was probably made to him that Haby and Richards were in custody and Smith immediately alighted on them and said, “Yes. They are the men.” He knew them by sight, and possibly disliked them.

    The Magistrate: I think he did. Didn’t he say he would not be seen talking to one of them?

    Mr Davoren: Yes. He has probably reached the stage that he is convinced himself that they had done it.

    Where offences have been committed, Mr Davoren continued, the police look round for the most likely persons to have been responsible, and decided it would be appropriate to have Haby and Richards in custody on a charge of vagrancy.

    Mr Davoren’s address occupied one and a half hours.

    The Magistrate: I think there is a prima facie case.

    Mr Davoren: Well, there may be a witness that I might decide to call so that his evidence will be rendered available. Perhaps in that case your Worship will remand them to another day so that that witness will be available.

    The Magistrate: Is the witness in town?

    Mr Davoren: Yes. I am afraid I must leave in three-quarters of an hour by ‘plane. I am going to the Wentworth Quarter Sessions.

    The magistrate called on Haby to be charged. He then charged him with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400, and at the time of such robbery did use corporal violence to the said William Thomas Smith. He asked Haby if he wished to say anything in answer to the charge.

    Haby: I am not guilty. I wish to call evidence.

    Richards was similarly charged, and he also stated that he was not guilty and wished to call evidence.

    Mr Davoren, after speaking to the accused, said: I have just conferred with my clients, and will leave it to you Worship now to commit and will withhold the evidence.

COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

    The magistrate committed each accused to stand his trial at the Quarter Sessions pm December 8, allowing £500 bail.

    Mr Davoren: I submit that your Worship will not make the bail £500 at this stage. Your Worship will concede this much to me, that it is an extremely weak case, and there is not one thing that would induce the accused to avoid coming up for trial. I know your Worship feels in your own mind that a jury cannot possibly convict these two men.

    The Magistrate: If I did, Mr Davoren, I would not be committing them for trial.

    Mr Davoren: As a man, I mean, forgetting that you are a magistrate.

    Mr Davoren argued that the accused had attended the court each time, and there had not been the slightest suggestion that they would abscond.

    “I would ask your Worship to reduce the bail rather than increase it,” said Mr Davoren. Your Worship knows it is an extremely weak case.

    The Magistrate I will leave the bail at £400.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Wed 9 Dec 1936 ⁴³

ALLEGED ASSAULT ON BOOKMAKER
————————
VICTIM’S STORY OF LOSS
OF £400 FROM POCKETS

    A declaration that there were five or six men in the band, but only two assaulted him—Haby and Richards—was made by William Thomas Smith, bookmaker, to Judge Coyle and a jury of 12 in the Court of Quarter Sessions to-day when James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30) were charged with assaulting and robbing Smith.

    Smith stated that while Haby held him by the throat Richards struck him and “cleaned out his pockets” taking £400.

    The same interest shown in the Police Court proceedings was manifested in to-day’s hearing. The public gallery was packed.

    Charles Henry Richards (30) and James Haby (22) were each charged with having on July 29 robbed William Thomas Smith of £400 and at the time of such robbery unlawfully assaulted him. Each accused pleaded not guilty.

    Appearances:—Capt PV Storkey, VC, Crown Prosecutor, for the Crown; Mr JJ Davoren, for Haby and Richards.

    `The jury was:—Albert George Wadge, Thomas Edward Luxford Virgo, John Scougall, Horace Walter Stevens, William Joseph Percival, Roy Odgers, Arthur Delbridge, Andrew Leo Clarke, Stanley Walsh, Thomas Alfred Reece (foreman), John Wilfred Stanley Cockrum, Allan Hunter Heslop, Clifford Roy Moore Thompson.

    Richards challenged one juror.

    His Honor discharged the remaining jurors from further attendance.

    Opening the case, Captain Storkey briefly outline the facts, stating that the matter really boiled down to a question of identification.

BOOKMAKER’S STORY

    WILLIAM THOMAS SMITH, registered bookmaker, residing at 97 Cummins-street, was the first witness. He said that on the afternoon of July 29 he went to the Democratic Club with £420. He lost £20 on the day. When he left he put £260 in his waistcoat pocket and £140 in his inside coat pocket. He left the club about 4.45 pm and went to the Exchange and Caledonian Hotels, leaving the latter about 6 o’clock. He entered the Hospital grounds and walked towards Morgan-street. When 15 or 20 paces from the street he heard a rustle behind him and felt hands come down over his face on to his neck.

    “I turned round and looked right into the garrotter’s face,” said Smith. “It was Haby.

    “I also saw Richards coming at me, and he punched me on the mouth. I was punched again on the nose, which made it bleed, and under the eye.

    “Richards, the man who robbed me, delivered those blows. All the time I was held up by Haby.

    “Richards ripped open my waistcoat, put his hand in my inside pocket and took the money, and then cleaned out the other pocket.

    “After Richards had cleaned me out he said, ‘Let the old —– go.’ I then got another couple of blows on the jaw from Haby which almost put me out to it. I saw them retreating in almost the same direction I had come,” continued Smith.

    Smith said he fell down several times before he eventually got to Morgan-street and later reached home. He had known both accused by sight for about 12 months. On that afternoon—about 12.30 pm—he saw Richards by the Post Office and saw Haby at the Democratic Club just as he was leaving.

    The hat and suit—bespattered with blood—worn by Smith on the day of the assault were tendered as exhibits.

    Mr Davoren: You are positive of these men’s identity?

    Smith: Absolutely.

    You were positive that these were the two men when Detective Ramsey saw you?—Yes.

    Did you tell him these were the men?—No.

    You told him everything about the occurrence except the men’s names?—Yes.

    Why?—I was knocked silly.

    Smith told Mr Davoren that when Detective Ramsey saw him the following morning he was very muddled in his mind—his mind was not clear. He could tell Ramsey that he was bad, but it would not have been as easy to say, “Haby and Richards did it.” He knew now that Richards and Haby were arrested at midday on July 30. It was not until the morning of July 31 that he mentioned the names of Haby and Richards to Ramsey.

    Mr Davoren: As far as you know there were no witnesses of this assault?

    Smith: I know there were others there. There were five in the band, probably six.

    Mr Davoren: How about seven? (Laughter).

    Smith said he saw more than two men retreating—five or six—but Haby and Richards were the men who had assaulted him.

    Mr Davoren: Did you tell anything about these five or six men when the case was before the Police Court?

    Smith: I said in the Police Court there may have been more, but I did not know who they were.

    The depositions of DR GHS DOBBYN taken during the Police Court proceedings describing the injuries sustained by Smith and his condition on the night of the assault were admitted as evidence.

    CECIL PATRICK MCLERNON, of 520 Lane-street, who was employed by Smith at the Democratic Club on July 29, told how he had seen Haby in the Democratic Club as he and Smith were leaving that evening.

THE POLICE PART

    DETECTIVE AH RAMSEY was the third witness. He told of defendants’ apprehension outside the Commercial Hotel at midday on July 30. He said they were both taken to the Police Station and after being cautioned were subjected to questioning. Haby told the officer he had not been at the Democratic Club on July 29 but that between 2 pm and 6 pm that day he had been betting and drinking at the Commercial Hotel. Haby said he was not with Richards and denied following Smith up Chloride-street and entering the Hospital grounds with Richards.

    Detective Ramsey said he told Haby that he and Richards had been in the Freemasons Hotel on the night of July 29 and had tendered a £5 note in payment of drinks. Haby said he had not been at the Freemasons Hotel with Richards on the night of July 29.

    Richards told Ramsey he was with Haby at the Commercial Hotel on the afternoon of July 29 and went to the Exchange Hotel about 5.40 pm. Richards stated he was never with Haby in Chloride-street nor in the Freemasons Hotel with him that night. He said he knew nothing about the assault and robbery.

    Detective Ramsey said he charged Haby and Richards with vagrancy. About 11.50 am on July 31 he told the accused that Smith had identified them as the two men who had assaulted and robbed him. They made no reply. They were taken to the charge room and charged with the present charge.

    Replying to Mr Davoren, Detective Ramsey said: A man named King gave evidence in the Police Court. King committed perjury in this case. He told me something on the night of July 30. At the time I knew King had been convicted on several serious offences. In the Police Court I did say what King had told me was the origin of my suspicions against the accused. That was correct. I now realise that King was a worthless character. I knew King made incorrect statements about ill-treatment he said he received from the police.

    This concluded the Crown case.

(Continued In Page 3)

…

ALLEGED ASSAULT
JUDGE SAYS CROWN
CASE RESTS
ON VICTIM’S STORY

    In his summing up to the jury in the case in which James Haby (22) and Charles Henry Richards (30) were charged with assault and robbery involving £400, His Honor Judge Coyle in the Court of Quarter Sessions to-day said that the Crown case depended entirely on the evidence of Smith—the victim of the assault.

    Mr JJ Davoren, counsel for the accused, made a lengthy plea for his clients. The jury retired shortly before 3 o’clock to consider its verdict.

    In a statement from the dock, Haby said: “All I can say, your Honor and gentlemen of the jury, is that I am entirely innocent of this charge. I was never in the vicinity of the Hospital grounds on that day, and I was never with Richards that afternoon.”

    “Your Honor and gentlemen of the jury,” said Richards from the dock, “I am innocent of this charge. I was never in the Hospital grounds. I have witnesses to prove that. I was not with Haby that day.”

CALLED FOR DEFENCE

    A brother of accused Richards, ERNEST RICHARDS , butcher, of 644 Blende-street, said he saw Haby in the afternoon of July 29 at the Commercial Hotel. He left the hotel about 3 o’clock, went to the Post Office and Democratic Club, and returned to the Commercial Hotel, reaching there about 5.30 pm. He talked to Haby for a few minutes, and then Haby went up Argent-street. He again saw Haby a quarter of an hour later. He went with Haby to Haby’s room at the Crown and Anchor. They left the room about 6.30 pm and he left Haby about 6.35 pm.

    To Captain Storkey: Haby was with me at the Democratic Club about 5 o’clock. I am pretty often in Haby’s company. Before the alleged assault my brother had been back about a fortnight, and Haby a few days more.

    EVELYN ANDREWS said her mother kept the delicensed Crown and Anchor Hotel as a boarding house. On July 29—her father’s birthday—at about 6.30 pm she saw two men leave the room occupied by Haby and Richards.

    The third witness called for the defence was CLARENCE VICTOR SEDUNARY, registered bookmaker, of 534 Lane-lane, who said he saw Richards come into the bar of the Exchange Hotel about ten or five minutes to six on the evening of July 29. He left at 6.10 pm, and Richards was still there.

    Answering Captain Storkey, Sedunary said:—I suppose I have seen Richards 20 or 30 times in a hotel bar.

VISIT TO HOTEL

    THOMAS ROBERT EGAN, laborer, of 19 Wolfram-street, said he was in front of the Commercial Hotel after work on July 29 with two men named Carroll and Sharpe when Richards came along. He and Richards went to the saloon bart of the Exchange Hotel, where Miss Tweeddale was serving. They had two drinks. He left about 10 minutes to six.

    HERBERT HOWARD CARROLL, laborer, residing at 653 Blende-street, who was with Richards at the Commercial Hotel corner, and

    LESLIE CHARLES GOUGH, jockey, of 332 Cobalt-street, who was with Richards in the Exchange Hotel and had tea with him at Pals Café, also gave evidence.

    Replying to Captain Storkey, Gough said he had casually mentioned the matter to Egan.

    “I did tell Detective Ramsey that someone approached me, but I did not know who it was,” said Gough, “and said I would have to give evidence in the case. I later told Ramsey it was Richards’s brother who had approached me, and that he said he was not going to let his brother get seven years for that job.”

    Captain Storkey: You had nothing to fear at all, did you? You only had to come along and speak the truth.

    Gough: That is all.

    Mr Davoren: You were subpoenaed to give evidence to-day?

    Gough: Yes.

    Mr Davoren’s address to the jury occupied 55 minutes and Captain Storkey’s 15 minutes.

JUDGE SUMS UP

    In his summing up His Honor told the jurors that if they entertained a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused or either of them they were bound to give them or him the benefit of such doubt and acquit him or them. If the jury had no reasonable doubt then it was their duty to give a decision the other way.

    The judge drew attention to Haby’s statement to Detective Ramsey that he had been nowhere near the Democratic Club that afternoon and witness Richard’s [sic] statement that he and Haby went to the Democratic Club together.

    You have seen Mr Smith in the box, continued His Honor. “You are the judges from your knowledge of human life generally, and from the evidence, of course. You will examine him very carefully, because on his evidence depends entirely the Crown case.”

    His Honor said it was a well defined case, either Smith had made a dreadful mistake or the men committed the offence.

    The jury retired at 2.51 pm to consider its verdict.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards, 1940

 

Barrier Miner, Fri 7 Jun 1940 ⁴⁴

MAN ASSAULTED AND ROBBED
————————
FOUND ON FOOTPATH IN
ARGENT STREET
————
STICHES INSERTED IN CHIN
AT THE HOSPITAL

    When he was allegedly attacked by two men at the corner of Argent and Zebina Streets, between 6 and 6.30 last night John Henry Hunter was robbed of £19/12/- in cash and cheques. Hunter was found lying on the footpath by a passer by and later had three stiches inserted in his chin at the hospital.

    In the Police Court today a man faced a charge of assault and robbery. He was remanded until Wednesday, June 19.

    According to the police information Hunter was allegedly walking along Argent Street and when at the corner of Zebina and Argent Streets he was set on by two men.

    Hunter told the police that one man grabbed him about the throat and the other man seized him around the waist. He felt a hand on his hip pocket which was buttoned.

    He does not remember anything further until he was found on the footpath by a passer by. Later Hunter was taken to the Hospital and had three stiches inserted in his chin.

    The assailants allegedly stole a cheque and cash to the total value of £19/12/-.

    After the assault was reported to the police, Det Sergt D Truman and Detective F Hanson made inquiries and at 12.30 am arrested a man at his home. He appeared in the Police Court today charged with assault and robbery. The police are continuing their inquiries for the other man allegedly concerned in the assault.

MAN CHARGED IN
POLICE COURT

    Later this morning Charles Henry Richards (34), laborer, appeared before Mr MS Meagher, JP, charged with having assaulted John Henry Hunter and robbed him of £15/10/-, and a cheque to the value of £4/2/-, a total value of £19/12/-, and that immediately before the assault he did strike John Henry Hunter.

    Mr William C Beerworth, who appeared for Richards, said that he had received instructions only a couple of minutes before the proceedings opened and applied for adjournment.

    He suggested Wednesday week, as Det-Sgt Truman would be absent from Broken Hill next week and for the first two days of the following week there would be heavy court days.

    Mr Meagher granted the adjournment until Wednesday, June 19.

    On the question of bail, Mr Beerworth suggested that a lighter bail than £100 should be granted with a condition that Richards report twice daily to the police.

    Sgt [John Liddle] Phillipson: The police apply for substantial bail.

    Mr Meagher: What bail is obtainable?

    Mr Beerworth: My client could obtain a bail of £50.

    Mr Meagher: This is a very serious charge and that is not sufficient.

    Mr Meagher granted bail of £80 or two sureties of £40 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Wed 19 Jun 1940 ⁴⁵

ALLEGED ASSAULT
AND ROBBERY
————

    On the application pf the police, charges against Charles Henry Richards (34), laborer, were further adjourned in the Police Court today by Mr MS Meagher, JP.

    The magistrate (Mr AB Collins, SM) is at present in Tibooburra.

    Richards was charged with having on June 6 unlawfully assaulted John Henry Hunter and robbed him of £15/10/-, and a cheque to the value of £4/2/-, a total value of £19/12/-.

    Sergeant Phillipson made application for an adjournment until next week as one of the chief witnesses, Detective-Sergeant Truman, is still absent in Sydney.

    Mr William C Beerworth, who appeared for Richards, asked that the case be listed for late in the week to ensure that there would be no further adjournments.

    The case was adjourned until Wednesday, June 26. Bail of £80 was granted.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Wed 26 Jun 1940 ⁴⁶

POLICE AMEND
CHARGES
————
RICHARDS CASE IS
AGAIN ADJOURNED

    BECAUSE the police had not notified him that charges against his client had been amended, Mr William C Beerworth in the Police Court today applied for a further adjournment in a case in which a man faced charges of assault and robbery.

    Charles Henry Richards (34), laborer, was charged with having on June 6 unlawfully assaulted John Henry Hunter.

    There was a second charge of having stolen £19/12/-, the property of John Henry Hunter.

    The magistrate (Mr AB Collins, SM) granted the adjournment until 11 am on Monday. He said that there had already been too many adjournments. Today’s was the fourth adjournment.

    Sgt Phillipson intimated that the police were ready to go on.

    Mr Beerworth said that the police had not informed him that the charges had been amended until today in court. He would now have to call witnesses, one of whom was at a station outback.

    Previously Richards was jointly charged with robbing and assaulting Hunter. If convicted on this charge he would have had to be committed for trial.

    The magistrate can now deal fully with the case.

    The case was adjourned until Monday. Bail of £80 was made continuous.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Mon 1 Jul 1940 ⁴⁷

ASSAULT—ROBBERY
ALLEGED
————————
MAN’S STORY IN COURT

    How he had allegedly been set on by two men at the corner of Argent and Zebina Streets on the night of June 6, been knocked to the footpath by a punch on the chin, and then robbed of £19/12/-, was told to Mr AB Collins, SM, in the Police Court today by John Henry Hunter.

    Mr William C Beerworth appeared for Richards.

    Charles Henry Richards (34), laborer, was charged with having on June 6 unlawfully assaulted John Henry Hunter.

    There was a second charge of having stolen £19/12/-, the property of John Henry Hunter.

    Dr C[lara] Burgess of the Hospital staff, said that on June 6 she saw John Henry Hunter at the Hospital. He had a laceration on the chin which required three stiches.

    This could have been caused by a blow from a fist.

    Dr Burgess said that Hunter was not quite sober.

    Witness told Mr Beerworth the injury was not serious. It was on the left side of the chin.

    Hunter was not wearing his glasses. He was talkative.

    Dr Burgess produced the Hospital record showing that Hunter “was very drunk.” She agreed that was his (Hunter’s) condition when examined.

    Sergt Phillipson: Assuming that the injury was received at 6.30 and your examination was made at 7 o’clock, would it affect his condition?

    Dr Burgess: I don’t think so.

DETECTIVES STORY

    Detective Hanson said that about 9 pm on June 6, with Det-Sergt Truman, he interviewed Hunter at 518 Argent Street. About 12.05 am next day they went to a house at 422 Beryl Street where they saw the defendant.

    Richards was told to put on his coat and get into the police car. Defendant, when told the reason for the visit, and of the assault on the corner of Argent and Zebina Streets, and the robbery, said he had been home all night.

    Richards said he was home at 5.40 pm and had not been out since. He said that a woman at the house also said that defendant arrived home at 5.40 pm.

    Det-Sergt Truman then told defendant that they had been told at the Crown Hotel that Richards left about a minute to six.

    Richards then hit the seat of the car and said, “That’s right, I left about 6 o’clock and went up to get some papers.” He said he had only 4/- or 5/- in his possession. Defendant said he knew Hunter well.

    Richards was told to get dressed, and while he was doing so a search was made of the room. No stolen money was found.

    Hunter was later called to the Police Station and identified Richards as one of the men who had robbed him. Richards made no reply when charged with assault and robbery.

    On June 26 Richards was recharged. Hunter said he had three beers at the Palace Hotel about six o’clock.

    Det Hanson told Mr Beerworth that Richards had shown him a paper he said he purchased that night.

    Witness said he had been here for three years. Hunter had complained of two previous assaults when money was taken from him. They had not been reported to the police at the time.

    Det Hanson said that Hunter had been involved in a dispute over money at the Palais. [sic]

    Further questioned he said that an examination next day had shown blood stains at the Zebina Street corner. There was a light about 45 paces away. He said that to recognise anyone at the corner it would be necessary to be face to face. Tests had been made last Friday night at 6.15 o’clock.

HUNTER TELLS OF ATTACK

    John Henry Hunter, laborer, of 518 Argent Street, said he was in Argent Street on June 6. He was at the corner of Zebina Street soon after six o’clock. He had been at the Palace Hotel until about 10 to six and then walked home.

    At the corner he was seized from the back. He said he was grabbed round the throat and turned and saw the face of the defendant.

    Hunter said he had known Richards for about 15 years. He said another man grabbed him by the waist. Richards said “Have you got it?”

    Hunter said he felt a hand going into his hip pocket. The button on the pocket was broken off and a wallet containing £15/10/- in notes, a cheque for £4/2/-, and a receipt for £13 was taken. When he attempted to stop the money being taken, his hand was pushed away.

    Hunter said he received several blows which knocked him to the ground. Shown some broken glass he said it was his glasses.

    Witness said the next thing he remembered was when he was being treated at the Hospital. Hunter said he later gave a signed statement to Det-Sgt Truman.

    Witness told Sgt Phillipson he had about six drinks all day. He had three drinks at midday and three later. Hunter said he was sober.

    Hunter told the magistrate that only about £5/10- of the money belonged to him.

    Hunter said he was discharged from the Ozone Theatre, but not through drunkenness. He was reinstated and the second time he was discharged because of drink.

    Hunter said he had been previously assaulted and robbed in 1935, and about 18 months ago he had been robbed of several pounds. The first robbery, but not the second, had been reported.

    Questioned by Mr Beerworth, Hunter admitted that he had been discharged from the Palais for dishonesty. He said the money stolen was from union members.

    Hunter said he could not give details of the amount collected each day. He got his last cheque from the union in April. He said that £2 of the money was from his pension.

    Hunter was then closely questioned about his movements on the day of the alleged assault.

    At 12.30 pm the case was adjourned until 2.30 pm because the deposition clerk (Mr W Cox) had to relieve in the general office while Mr J Levett, another member of the staff, was examined for the RAAF.

    When the case was resumed this afternoon Mr Beerworth continued his cross-examination.

    Proceeding.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Mon 12 Aug 1940 ⁴⁸

MAN FINED AND
BOUND OVER

    “You have a decidedly unsavory record, but you still come before the court,” Mr AB Collins, SM, told Charles Henry Richards when he appeared before him in the Police Court today.

    Richards pleaded guilty to a charge of having been found drunk in Argent Street on Saturday night.

    “What is this man’s conduct about the town?” the magistrate asked.

    Constable Irwin, who arrested Richards, said that he was frequently half drunk and went in that condition to dance halls.

    “You will have to leave drink alone and perhaps a bond will help you,” the magistrate told Richards.

    He fined defendant £2, and ordered him to enter into a bond of £15 to be of good behavior for a period of 12 months.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Tue 10 Sep 1940 ⁴⁹

ALLEGATION OF ROBBERY
————————————
STORY OF ATTACK
IN CITY STREET
————
LOWER COURT EVIDENCE
NOT ALL CORRECT

    A Story of how he had allegedly been set upon by two men at the corner of Zebina and Argent Streets on the night of June 6 was told to Judge Stacy and the jurors in the Court of Quarter Sessions by John Henry Hunter today.

    Cross-examined by Mr William C Beerworth, Hunter admitted that some evidence he had given in the lower Court was not correct. He said he had since had time to recollect his thoughts.

    Charles Henry Richards was charged with that on June 6 he did unlawfully assault John Henry Hunter and rob him of a receipt and one cheque for the payment of £4/2/-, and an amount of £15/10/- the property of Hunter.

    Mr William C Beerworth appeared for Richards, who pleaded not guilty. Mr MC Moors prosecuted.

    Jurors in the case were: Messrs HG Bright, FH Thomas, HEP Wills, CA Kelly, SE Parham, JP Martin, HA Clarke, WJ Newgrain, AJ Phillips, C Jutsum, LAH Johnson, FW Reiss.

    Accused challenged one juror.

HUNTER’S EVIDENCE

    John Henry Hunter, of Argent Street, said that about 6 pm on June 6 he was at the corner of Argent and Zebina Streets about 150 yards from his home. The money had been collected from the Theatrical Employees’ Union of which he was secretary.

    At the corner he was suddenly grasped around the neck. He immediately turned and saw the face of a man. It was “Chook” Richards, the accused. Another pair of hands grasped him round the waist. Hunter said he felt a hand go to his pocket. He heard a voice say, “Have you got it.”

    The next he knew he felt a hard punch on the chin. He did not know any more until he was at the Hospital.

    Hunter said he was “fairly sober” and then that he was “sober.”

    Witness said he did not remember telling Det Hanson that he had only three drinks that day.

    Witness admitted to Mr Beerworth that he had eight or nine drinks.

    Hunter was closely questioned about incidents on the day of the alleged offence. He said that £10 of the money and the cheque belonged to the union.

    Mr Beerworth: Are you certain how the money was made up?

    Witness: I am sure how much there was in my pocket.

    Hunter told Mr Beerworth he was not sacked from the Ozone Theatre because of drunkenness. He denied being sacked by Mr Powell from the Palais.

    He said that he told the lower court that he had been sacked from the places. He had not had time to collect his thoughts.

    When the witness clashed with Mr Beerworth as to why he had told the lower court he was sacked. His Honor warned Hunter to answer the questions. He told him he would have to be put out of the court if he continued in such a manner.

    Hunter said that he did not see Richards several times every week from Christmas until the assault. He had made a mistake when he had said this in the lower court.

    Hunter was questioned by Mr Beerworth about his sight. He was shown some typed matter about a foot away from his eyes. He said he could not read it. That was about the distance the man’s face was from him.

    Witness denied that in the lower court he had said that the left arm of the man was over his shoulder.

    Hunter said he did not see the man who struck him. Both men were behind him.

    Mr Beerworth: If you had both men behind you how were you hit in the face?

    Witness: I turned around as the hold was released.

    You were very drunk and don’t know what happened.—No.

    You were very drunk and fell over—I wouldn’t like to say what I want to say.

    His Honor: Did you fall over?

    Witness: No.

DETECTIVE’S EVIDENCE

    Detective F Hanson told of a viist [sic] to Hunter’s home. Hunter was in bed. Soon after midnight they visited the home of the accused and questioned him. Richards said he left the Crown Hotel about 6 pm, bought a paper and then went home.

    Richards’ room was searched as he dressed. He was taken to the Police Station, where Hunter identified him as one of his assailants.

    Witness said that when he saw Hunter his face was flushed, but he could not say as to his sobriety.

    Hunter had shown him a pair of trousers. The button was missing from the hip pocket.

    Detective Hanson said he examined the street corner the next day. There were blood stains.

    From tests, he said, it would be impossible to see a man’s face clearly from a distance of more than one foot.

    The evidence of Dr Clara Burgess, of the Hospital, was read to the jury.

    That concluded the Crown case.

    Mr Beerworth asked permission to ask the jury whether they required to hear the evidence of the accused.

    The jury did so.

“MADE BIG MISTAKE”

    Richards said he was not guilty. He had not seen Hunter for eight months prior to the alleged assault. Hunter had made a big mistake.

    Accused said he was at the Crown Hotel from 2 pm to 4 pm, when he bought some meat. He then detailed his other movements on the day of the alleged offence. He said he left the Crown Hotel about two minutes to six, bought some papers from the Barrier Stationers, and then went home.

    Mrs Olga Hay, of 422 Beryl Street, said that on June 6 she had been to a friend’s home at Railway Town. Mrs Hay told how she had met Richards later. She left Richards about 5.30. He came home about 6 o’clock.

    The only occasion that he left home was to buy some bread. He was away for about five minutes.

    Albert Edward Carmody, yardman-barman at the Crown Hotel, said he began duty at 2 pm on June 6. He left about 5.5 pm. Richards was then playing cards with Mr Coates.

    Samuel Walker, of 230 Chapple Street, an employee of Press Bros, said the shop was a five-minutes walk from the Crown Hotel. He knew Richards at school, but was not a friend. Richards walked past the shop about 6 pm.

    Proceeding.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Mon 16 Sep 1940 ⁵⁰

NO EVIDENCE IS OFFERED

    When two charges against Charles Henry Richards of having allegedly assaulted John Henry Hunter and stole from him were called before Mr AB Collins, SM, in the Police Court today the police offered no evidence.

    Richards was discharged.

    Mr William C Beerworth appeared for Richards.

    Sgt Phillipson said that the defendant had appeared before the Court of Quarter Sessions on the charges and had been acquitted. The police did not desire to offer any other evidence.

 

---

 

Charles Henry Richards, 1952

 

Barrier Daily Truth, Tue 17 Jun 1952 ⁵¹

FUNERAL OF MR
CH RICHARDS
————

    The funeral of Mr Charles Henry Richards, who died at the Hospital on Saturday, took place yesterday afternoon. The cortege left the residence of his sister, Mrs L Hayes, 622 Beryl Street, at 4 o’clock for the Church of England Cemetery. Canon V Hartwig officiated at the graveside. The bearers were Messrs J Forth, D Winter, T Stokie, J Brewster, M Nancarrow, and R Picken.

    Baker and Woodman had charge of the arrangements.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Tue 17 Jun 1952 ⁵²

FUNERAL OF MR
CH RICHARDS

    The funeral of Mr Charles Henry Richards left the residence of his sister, Mrs L Hayes, of 622 Beryl Street at 4 pm yesterday for the Church of England Cemetery.

    Canon V Hartwig officiated at the graveside. Bearers were Messrs J Forth, D Winter, T Stokie, J Brewster, M Nancarrow and R Picken. Baker and Woodman conducted the funeral. 

 

---

¹     Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Thu 25 Oct 1923, pp. 1, 4. Emphasis added.

²     News, (Adelaide, SA), Wed 9 Dec 1925, p. 10. Emphasis added.

³     The Register (Adelaide, SA), Thu 10 Dec 1925, p. 7.

⁴     The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA), Tue 15 Dec 1925, p. 9. Emphasis added.

⁵     The Register (Adelaide, SA), Tue 15 Dec 1925, p. 17.

⁶     Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Thu 6 May 1926, p. 2.

⁷     Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Tue 11 May 1926, p. 2.

⁸     Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Fri 14 May 1926, p. 2.

⁹     News, (Adelaide, SA), Sat 15 May 1926, p. 1. Emphasis added.

¹⁰   The Register (Adelaide, SA), Sat 15 May 1926, p. 13.

¹¹   The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA), Mon 17 May 1926, p. 9.

¹²   The Register (Adelaide, SA), Mon 17 May 1926, p. 7.

¹³   The Register (Adelaide, SA), Tue 25 May 1926, p. 12.

¹⁴   The Register (Adelaide, SA), Tue 18 Jan 1927, p. 6.

¹⁵   The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA), Tue 5 Jul 1927, p. 17.

¹⁶   The Register (Adelaide, SA), Tue 5 Jul 1927, p. 13. Emphasis added.

17   News, (Adelaide, SA), Sat 14 Sep 1929, p. 3.

18   News, (Adelaide, SA), Sat 5 Jul 1930, p. 2.

¹⁹   The Register News-Pictorial, (Adelaide, SA), Sat 12 Jul 1930, p. 26.

²⁰   News, (Adelaide, SA), Fri 6 Nov 1931, p. 5.

²¹   The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA), Sat 7 Nov 1931, p. 11.

²²   The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA), Thu 19 Nov 1931, p. 13.

²³   News, (Adelaide, SA), Thu 19 Nov 1931, p. 9.

²⁴   SRNSW: NRS856, [10/38333], Depositions and other papers, Sydney Quarter Sessions, 1933, No. 808. Emphasis added. A number of, somewhat varying, police statements were found in this case, all have been included.

²⁵   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 22 Aug 1933, p. 5. Emphasis added.

²⁶   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 23 Aug 1933, p. 7.

²⁷   The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 8 Sep 1933, p. 8. Emphasis added.

²⁸   The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 9 Sep 1933, p. 10. Emphasis added.

²⁹   The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 11 Sep 1933, p. 7. Emphasis added.

³⁰   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 12 Sep 1933, p. 6.

³¹   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Mon 31 Aug 1936, p. 3.

³²   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Fri 4 Sep 1936, p. 3. Emphasis added and in original text.

³³   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Wed 5 Aug 1936, pp. 3, 6. Emphasis added and in original text.

³⁴   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Fri 7 Aug 1936, p. 1. Emphasis added and in original text.

³⁵   The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA), Sat 29 Mar 1941, p. 19.

“Dr GHS Dobbyn, of Broken Hill

Broken Hill, March 26.

    Dr George Henry Sawtell Dobbyn, 72, known as Broken Hills, grand old man, collapsed and died at his home in Cummins street this week. Until a few minutes before his death, following a heart attack. Dr Dobbyn was attending patients. Dr Dobbyn played polo with the local polo club for more than 40 years. He was one of the foremost players in Australia. He also took a keen interest in racing clubs. He was a committeeman of the Broken Hill Jockey Club for more than 20 years. For the past 10 years he was chairman of the Silver City Racing Club. He was also associated with the old LVRC. Dr Dobbyn was one of the oldest members of the Broken Hill Club, of which he was trustee. Dr Dobbyn had just taken up duties as acting Government Medical Officer in place of Dr WE George, who is in Adelaide. He always acted as State Medical Officer. Dr Dobbyn came to Broken Hill from Beechworth (Victoria), and practised here for more than 40 years. Mrs Dobbyn died about 18 months ago. Dr Dobbyn is survived by a daughter, Mrs Jack Symonds, and one son, Mr W Dobbyn, who is at present on active service.”

³⁶   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Fri 21 Aug 1936, pp. 1, 3. Emphasis added and in original text.

³⁷   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Fri 28 Aug 1936, p. 3. Emphasis added.

³⁸   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Mon 31 Aug 1936, p. 3.

³⁹   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Tue 1 Sep 1936, pp. 1, 4. Emphasis added and in original text.

⁴⁰   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Wed 2 Sep 1936, p. 3.

⁴¹   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Sat 5 Sep 1936, p. 3. Emphasis added and in original text.

⁴²   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Mon 7 Sep 1936, p. 1. Emphasis added and in original text.

⁴³   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Wed 9 Dec 1936, pp. 1, 3. Emphasis added and in original text.

⁴⁴   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Fri 7 Jun 1940, p. 4. Emphasis added and in original text.

⁴⁵   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Wed 19 Jun 1940, p. 1.

⁴⁶   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Wed 26 Jun 1940, p. 1.

⁴⁷   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Mon 1 Jul 1940, p. 3. Emphasis added and in original text.

⁴⁸   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Mon 12 Aug 1940, p. 1.

⁴⁹   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Tue 10 Sep 1940, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁵⁰   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Mon 16 Sep 1940, p. 1.

⁵¹   Barrier Daily Truth, (Broken Hill, NSW), Tue 17 Jun 1952, p. 5.

⁵²   Barrier Miner, (Broken Hill, NSW), Tue 17 Jun 1952, p. 2.

---