Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c07/h03/mnt/178353/domains/unfitforpublication.org.au/html/plugins/system/gantry/gantry.php on line 406
1903, William Hamilton Newton - Unfit For Publication
Text Size

 

 

William Robert Rand, 1895

Below also see: William Hamilton Newton, 1903


The Argus, Mon 1 Apr 1895
1

A CLAIMANT’S ADVENTURES.
———◦———
AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY.

    A story more remarkable in some features than that of the man whose name is given as William Robert Rand, [aka William Hamilton Newton] the claimant of the estate of the deceased squatter Robert Rand, has probably not been heard since the historical one of Arthur Orton and the Tichborne properties. Robert Rand died intestate, and being a bachelor arrangements were made on behalf of his next of kin to get administration to the estate, which is sworn at £417,205 in New South Wales and £80,000 in Victoria. Probate was obtained in due course, but a claimant suddenly appeared, and, giving the name of William Robert Rand, said he was a son of the deceased squatter and was in consequence the heir-at-law to all the wealth. Confident of their ability to disprove the claimant’s assertions, the solicitors for the relatives scouted his pretensions, and without taking any notice of them went on with the administration of the estate. The claimant consulted Mr HH Budd, solicitor, in whose hands he placed his case, and having done so proceeded forthwith to furnish his proofs. A story of a romantic attachment, a marriage, a birth, and a subsequent breaking of the ties preceded the production of a Bible with inscriptions of letters and other documents. Everything seemed in order for the fighting of a battle royal, and an eminent barrister was called in for advice. He subjected the claimant to a cross-examination on many points connected with the story, and, failing to shake him in any, appeared quite convinced that the man had good ground upon which to base his pretensions. Everything was then set in train for the fighting of the relatives. Mr Budd went to Adelaide, to Albury, and to other places gathering evidence, and the claimant himself returned to South Australia to the scene of years of hardship. After his inquiries, however, Mr Budd did not proceed further in the matter. The claimant’s return to Melbourne was quite a royal progress, and, surrounded by a host of people whom he had attracted by bright promises, he reached Millicent-house, Millicent-avenue, Toorak, and lived there in style until arrested by Detectives Ward and McManamny on a charge of fraud.

    The history of the claimant’s early years of life is obscured, and no one seems to know where he passed them. He is over 50 years of age, and has the appearance of one who has known hard work for many years. He is illiterate, and says he cannot read or write, but he is, nevertheless, gifted with plenty of shrewdness. Where he was born none but himself seemed to know, but it is certain that for many years, probably well on to thirty, he has been fishing up and down the River Murray, from Albury to Adelaide. He married young and had several children. Then he and his wife separated, and about 21 years ago, believing that his wife was dead, he married again. Five years ago he learned that his first wife was alive, and though he did not cast off his second, he always referred to her under her former name and treated her as his housekeeper and not as his wife. Apparently the duties of the housekeeper were not onerous, and the “house” to be “kept” was merely a tent in the sandhills, and it was moved up or down the river as the exigencies of Rand’s employment necessitated. Always hard pushed to make a living, and sometimes even dependent on the charity of neighbours to keep from starvation, Rand suddenly developed a peculiar desire for the adoption of children, though he had as many of his own as would have satisfied most men. At the time of his arrest he had living with him a young man whose Christian name is George but whose surname is in dispute. The claimant says George is his son, but George denies this and says that his name is Seymour, and that he is no relation to the “old man,” as he styles the claimant. George, though positive that he is not a son of Rand, has only a hazy idea of his own birth and parentage. He recollects that when he was young he was brought from England to a station in Australia, and that after living there for some years he returned to England with his brothers and sisters, and was placed at school. The manager of one of the stations at which he had spent his early years brought him back to Australia, and five years and a half ago he fell in with Rand on the river. He had remained with him since, and had had no more communication with any of his family. Who his parents were he did not know, but his sister had at one time received a letter telling her, so he says, that their mother’s name was Lady Seymour Tichborne. The next adoption was two or three years later when Rand got the boy Emil Claude Willimoff from the Rev Mr Hooper, at Walker’s Flat, South Australia. Willimoff, who was then seven years of age, was the son of a musician in Sydney. With the two adopted boys and his own children Rand continued his life along the river, and in the neighbourhood of Walker’s Flat he made the acquaintance of a farmer named Reidell and a storekeeper named Braddock. Reidell gave him assistance when he badly needed it, and recently, when he returned to Adelaide after taking the first measures towards claiming the Rand estate, he approached Reidell, and made what appeared to be a splendid offer. He told Reidell of the fortune awaiting him, and said, “As you have been good to me, sell up your farm and house and come along with me. I will give you the management of a station, and the profits of £70,000 as a reward for your kindnesses.” He produced an agreement drawn up in legal form, and signed or purporting to be signed with the names of “W.” Budd, solicitor, and “W”, Purves, barrister, in which it was set forth that those gentlemen were to receive 20 per cent of the estate in return for their efforts towards establishing Rands’s claim. Reidell was satisfied. He sold his furniture for £60 to the first one who made him an offer, and put his other property in the market. The cash he realised the claimant borrowed, and then an agreement was drawn up, in which all Reidell’s property was made over to Rand for the consideration of future prospects. The claimant could not write, but he dictated the agreement to Braddock, whom he had taken into his service as private secretary. From Walker’s Flat Rand and family, accompanied by Reidell and family and Braddock, went on to Adelaide. There they put up at the Seven Stars Hotel in Angas-street, owned by Mr Graham. Rand’s story was told to Mr and Mrs Graham, and any doubts they had of the genuineness of it were set at rest by the production of the legal-looking document with the name of the solicitor and the eminent barrister attached. The hotel was in the market for sale, but when Rand offered the two positions on “his Mahonga Station”—Mrs Graham as housekeeper, and Mr Graham in a general capacity—they hurried up the sale, and accepted £100 less than they had intended to take for the property. While staying at Graham’s hotel Rand again decided to adopt a child, and in answer to an advertisement inserted in the papers by him the Hardt children were offered, with the result told in The Argus of Saturday. Rand stated that the children were the children of his sister, and at the end of a short interview had them calling him “Uncle” quite cordially, and as if they had been used to it all their lives. The police stepped in at this point, however, and the adoption was prevented, because it was well known the children were not relatives of the man as was stated. From Graham’s hotel the party removed to the Semaphore. There the bills were paid by Mr Graham, and Mr Graham again paid when the passages to Victoria were being booked. On arrival at Melbourne half the party put up at Rigby’s Council Club Hotel, and the other half at the West Melbourne Coffee Palace. Then at the end of several days Millicent-house, Millicent-avenue, Toorak was hired, furnished, at £6 per week and the cost of an inventory and the first week’s rent were paid in advance to the agent in Collins-street. A large stock of groceries, £15 worth, was laid in from a neighbouring grocer on the guarantee of the agent for the house, a professional cook was engaged, servants were advertised for, and prices were asked from coachbuilders for a carriage which would do credit to the establishment. The house party numbered about seventeen, and the first meal was a merry one. It consisted principally of poultry selected from the stock in the poultry-yard of the house. The beautiful garden furnished plenty of flowers, and for the first day the whole of the claimant’s following were light-hearted and happy. Then the claimant fell ill. A doctor was called in, and he visited the house twice daily for several days. He received no fee, but he pulled the patient through, though at the time the case seemed so hopeless that a clergyman was sent for to minister to the man. The billiard room furnished consolations to the men, and nursing monopolised the time of the women while the claimant was sick. Then Mrs Graham made inquiries from Mrs Rigby, of the Council Club Hotel, and subsequently from Mr Budd, solicitor which led to her and her husband and children withdrawing from the house. Next came the arrest of the claimant on the charge of fraud, and, finally, on Saturday afternoon the remainder fo the party, having no money amongst themselves to continue the victualling of Millicent-house, were forced to withdraw. They left Toorak, and sought in Carlton a set of lodgings less magnificent and less costly.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Argus, Thu 4 Apr 1895 2

A CLAIMANT’S ADVENTURES.
———◦———

    Charles Mitchell Lassem, one of the party who recently occupied Millicent-house, Toorak, with William Robert Rand, alias Newton, Seymour, &c, the claimant to the Rand Estate, writes to correct a statement made in The Argus on Tuesday. It was said that he had met the claimant more than six months ago, and had then discovered, as he said, that he was a long lost son of Robert Rand. Lassem writes:—

“It is not six months ago, but only two months and a half ago since I met him. It was the 12th January, 1895, when I first met the claimant, and as to my recognising Rand, I think anyone that has seen Mr Rand, deceased, and he who claims to be the son would have no trouble in forming the same opinion.”

    The statement that Lassem had met the claimant more than six months ago was based on the evidence of a document which passed Reidel’s property to the claimant, and bears the signature, as witnesses, of Braddock and Lassem. That document was stamped and sealed, and dated July, 1894.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Argus, Fri 5 Apr 1895 3

THE RAND ROMANCE.
———◦———
THE CLAIMANT CONVICTED.

    The man William Robert Rand, who claimed to be a son of the recently deceased wealthy squatter of that name, and whose proceedings in connection therewith have received considerable publicity, was brought up at the City Court yesterday, before Mr Panton, PM, on a charge of obtaining 10s by false pretences from Mrs Alison Rigby on the 23rd ult.

    Mr C Scheele appeared for the prosecution, and the accused was undefended.

    Mr Scheele asked the Bench to allow the charge to be altered to one of imposing by means of false verbal misrepresentation, and obtain 10s from Mrs Rigby. This was agreed to. The defence was that Mrs Rigby had lend him money on several occasions, and he had always returned it, and that no misrepresentation had been made.

    Mr Panton, PM (addressing accused).—I think the charge has been clearly proved against you, and it is fortunate that you have been stopped in your career. For the offence you are sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

    A charge of a much graver nature was then preferred against accused, but on the application of Detective McManamny the hearing of it was postponed until Monday next. The boy Emil C Willimoff, who is concerned in this charge, was remanded as a neglected child until the same day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Horsham Times, Tue 9 Apr 1895 4

The Horsham Times.
————
Published Every Tuesday and Friday.
22nd Year.
————


    The claimant to the Rand estates, now undergoing a sentence of three month’s imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretences, will have to answer a serious and revolting charge of immorality.

LATEST TELEGRAMS.
———◦———
(From Our Correspondents.)
————

Melbourne, Monday night.

    Rand, the claimant too the estate at Albury, was to-day committed for trial on a charge of committing an abominable offence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Launceston Examiner, Tue 9 Apr 1895 5

INTERCOLONIAL.
———◦———
Tasmanian Press Association—
Copyright.
————————
VICTORIA.
———◦———

Melbourne, Monday.

    William Robert Rand, claimant of the immense station and property of deceased Robert Rand, and recently sentenced to three month’s imprisonment for fraud, was to-day committed for trial by the City Court bench on a horrible charge. The principal witness was a lad named Emil Claude Willimoff, whose evidence against Rand was borne out by medical testimony.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Argus, Fri 26 Apr 1895 6

CRIMINAL COURT.
———◦———

    The Supreme Court criminal sittings for this month were continued yesterday before Mr Justice Williams, Mr Gurner prosecuting for the Crown.

    William Robert Rand, a middle-aged man, well known as a claimant to the Rand estates in New South Wales, was convicted on the charge of committing an offence on a boy 10 years of age. He adopted the boy in South Australia two years ago and came with him to this colony in March last. Shortly afterwards he was arrested on another charge by Detective McManamny, and it was then ascertained that he had committed an offence on the boy in this colony. He was remanded for sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Argus, Wed 1 May 1895 7

INDECENT ASSAULT.
———◦———
EIGHT YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT.

    William Robert Rand, who was convicted on Thursday, [25 Apr 1895], last before Mr Justice Williams on the charge of committing an indecent assault on a boy about 11 years of age, was sentenced in the Criminal Court yesterday morning by Mr Justice Williams.

    In reply to a question, Rand said he was 70 years old, and in very infirm health.

    Mr Justice WILLIAMS, in passing sentence, said the prisoner had committed the office on a boy whom he had taken into his charge in South Australia ostensibly to protect him. The boy’s mother was dead, and his father could not be found, and but for the fact of the Crown being unable, through those reasons, to prove that the boy was under 14 years of age, the prisoner would have been tried on a capital charge, and, if found guilty, would have been sentenced to death. Had the prisoner been a younger man, and not been physically infirm, as evidently was the case, he would have ordered three floggings to be administered to him; and as things were, he would pass a very long term of imprisonment on him. The sentence of the Court was eight years’ imprisonment with hard labour.

 


 

 

William Hamilton Newton, 1903


Evening News, Fri 27 Feb 1903
8

SUPPOSED IMPOSTER.
———◦———
MILLIONAIRE AND
BARONET.
————
CHARGED WITH FALSE
PRETENCES.
————
“MY LONG LOST COUSIN.”
————

    A case which disclosed some remarkable features commenced at the Central [Police] Court yesterday, before Mr Donaldson, SM, when and old man, old somewhat shabby appearance, described as William Hamilton Newton, alias William R Rand, 65, was charged with obtaining from John Garibaldi Newton the sum of £14, by means of a false pretence, on the 10th and 17th instant.

    Plain-clothes Senior-constable Hawe deposed that on the 23rd instant the accused was given into his custody at Wagga, and on the following day, at Sydney, he charged him. In reply, he said, “I got the money, but not by fraud.”

    John Garibaldi Newton stated that he was a plumber, and lived at Brisbane. He saw a notice in the Brisbane “Observer,” and in consequence wrote a letter to “Mr Wm Newton,” care of Forbes ‘Times.’ ” He got the reply produced. He wrote another letter, and got another reply (produced). In the last letter there was a request for money, and in consequence witness came to Sydney and met the accused at a house. He (accused) said he was the man that wrote the replies referred to. That was on February 9. Accused asked witness a few questions to prove that he was a relative of his, and witness answered them, and accused said he was satisfied that he was a relative, and said he would not take money from anyone but a relative, and that witness was the only relative that he had in Australia. He also said that there was a million of money coming to him, and the £100,000 was coming to him in a draft from Home in a few weeks. He also told witness that he was temporarily hard up, and asked him to give him what he could spare. Witness saw him again next day, and gave him £4. On the Thursday accused gave him the paper produced to put in the “Herald,” and on the 12th he gave him the “Baronet” letter, and he asked witness to give him as much money as would take him to Forbes. When witness got back to Brisbane he wired accused £10. He produced a post office receipt for the money, and an acknowledgement by the accused. Witness had since made inquiries, and found the accused was no relative of his whatever. He gave him the money because he believed, from what he saw, that he was a relative. Witness was told twenty years ago that he had a cousin (Wm Henry Newton). His godfather’s name was Wm Henry Newton, who was also his first cousin. Accused said he was that person. Witness had never seen his cousin. Accused said he had come from Manchester. Witness had brothers and sisters there.

    Roland George McManus, assistant postmaster at the Haymarket, said that on the 17th instant the accused called at the post office, and received the sum of £10, sent from Brisbane by one Newton by telegraph money order.

    George Smith, of Gippsland, Victoria, a boy, said he knew accused. The exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 (replies, etc, previously referred to) were in his handwriting. The accused told him to write them. He met him in Melbourne. Witness wrote No. 1 in Forbes, No. 2 in Bathurst, No. 3 in Sydney, and No. 4 in Sydney, all at accused’s request and dictation. He went with him to the Haymarket one day, and saw him get £10. Witness travelled with accused from Melbourne, through Forbes, to Sydney. Accused paid his expenses from Forbes to Sydney.

    Louis Fox, residing at Watson’s Bay, said he had seen the accused at Watson’s Bay, and saw him with the family of the late Captain Cork, and heard him called “uncle” by the Misses Cork, and saw letters written by him signed Robert Cork. This was about a week ago. Witness was a tutor, and was living at Cork’s. accused was there about a month.

    This concluded the case for the prosecution.

    The accused [William Hamilton Newton] gave evidence in reply, and said his name was William Henry Hamilton Newton, and that he was a labourer, and lived at Forbes. He received the money referred to, but never asked for it. Prosecutor gave it to him of his own free will. Witness did not tell he was his godfather. The letters were written by the boy at witness’ dictation. Newton asked him if he remembered standing as godfather for one of the Newtons in England, and he (witness) said, “Yes.” the photograph shown him, registered Victoria photo book 16, No. 27,018, was a photo, of him.

    The accused was committed for trial at the quarter sessions.

    It was stated that a number of serious charges were pending against the prisoner, who has recently served a long sentence for an offence.

    The following are

COPIES OF THE LETTERS

referred to:—

    “1903, January 24, Forbes. My Own Dear Relative,—Your letter came upon me like a thunderbolt. It is like as if you was someone who had risen from the dead. I have never heard anything about you for all those years. I have been in Brisbane for many years, and never knew that you was there. Now, you must answer this letter at once, as I am about leaving Forbes. Tell me all about yourself, and don’t keep anything back from me, but tell me all, as I have nothing to tell you in the way of news. I must draw this to a close. I want to see your own dear self. Direct your letter for me to William Hamilton Newton, KSB, Forbes £ Office, Lachlan River, NS Wales. I am your godfather, and a very close relation as well, so may God bless you.—Believe me to remain, yours always. Good-night.”

    “Feb 4th. My Dear Cousin,—Your welcome letter duly to hand, and believe me I was so much overjoyed to hear from you after all those years, and it is my earnest prayer that this letter will find you and your dear wife and family as well as this leaves me at present. I cannot explain [in] words how I long to see you all. I would come straight away, but I have not the money to pay my way there. My money will not be out from England till about the last Monday in March or the first Monday in April. Take notice, dear cousin, that after the money comes from England you won’t have to depend on gaspipes. Now, if you want to see me at Brisbane, you know what to do. Send me over what money you can spare; please wire it for me, Haymarket Post Office, George-street, Sydney, and believe me to be yours and yours only, William Henry Newton.”

    “February 10. 1903.—To the Editor of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald.’ Sir,—You would oblige me very much by inserting those few words in your most valuable paper. I wish to let the public know that my sister has arrived at Adelaide by the Ormuz. Her name is Lady Newton. Also another relative, also John Garibaldi Newton, after twenty years’ searching. He is a master plumber in Brisbane, Queensland, and has five boys and one girl in the family. Sir, I have the honour of being your always William Hamilton Newton. Other papers please copy.”

    “February 12, 1903. Know ye all men that John Garibaldi Newton is my own first cousin. I knew him the moment I saw him. I knew he was a Newton independent of this, that he has given me such undenyable [sic] proof by telling me of all members of the Newton family, which no other man could do. I am thoroughly satisfied that he is my first cousin, and more, that he shall share the great fortune that is mine with me. I am his own loving cousin. William Henry Hamilton Newton, 10 Baronet of the Arundel of Warder.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 27 Feb 1903 9

AN ALLEGED FORTUNE.
———◦———
THE FORBES CLAIMANT.
———
COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

    William Hamilton Newton, alias William R Rand, 65, a labourer, was charged before Mr Donaldson, SM, at the Central Police Court yesterday that he did on February 10 and 17, 1903, obtain from John Garibaldi Newton the sum of £14 by means of false pretences with intent to defraud. Senior-Constable Hawe stated that on the 23rd instant the accused was given into his custody at Wagga, and the following day witness charged him at the Central Police Station, when the accused said that he received the money, but not by fraud.

    John Garibaldi Newton, a plumber, residing at Brisbane, Queensland, deposed that he saw a notice in the Brisbane newspaper, in consequence of which he wrote to William Newton, c.o. The Forbes Times newspaper, and got in reply the letter produced. He replied to that letter, and got another in reply to his communication, containing a request for money. Witness then came to Sydney and met the accused, who said he wrote the letters produced. He informed the witness that his name was William Hamilton Newton, and that he was to receive a million of money. Accused intimated that witness was his sole relative in Australia—his cousin—and that accused would receive shortly a draft for £100,000, which was on its way out from home. Accused said he would only borrow from a relative, and asked witness to lend him what money he could spare. Witness saw the accused the following day, and gave him £4 on the strength of what accused had told him. When witness returned to Brisbane he wired accused on the 17th instant £10, and got a receipt for it. From inquiries witness made subsequently he ascertained that accused was no relative of his. The money was given to the accused because at the time he said he was related, and because witness had been told by his father 20 years ago that he had a cousin names William Henry Newton in Australia, and accused stated that he was that person.

    Roland George McManus, assistant postmaster at the Haymarket, identified the accused as the person who received £10 at the Haymarket office under the name of William Hamilton Newton, which was wired from Brisbane.

    George Smith, residing at Gippsland, Victoria, deposed that the letters mention were written at the dictation of the accused. He went with the accused to the Haymarket Post-office, and saw him received £10.

    Louis Fox, a tutor, living at Watson’s Bay, said that he had seen the accused at Watson’s Bay with the family of the late Captain Cork. Witness heard him addressed as uncle by the daughters of the late Captain Cork. He had also seen letters written by the accused signed “Robert Cork.” Accused was at Watson’s Bay for about a month.

    William Hamilton Newton, the accused, deposed that he was a labourer, residing at Forbes. He acknowledged receiving the money, but had not asked for it, but it was given to him freely by the prosecutor. He did not tell prosecutor he was his godfather. The photograph shown to him (registered in Victoria Photo, Book 16, No 27,018) was a photograph of himself.

    Accused was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, to be held at Darlinghurst on March 26 next.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 4 Mar 1903 10

THE FORBES CLAIMANT.
———◦———
SOME FURTHER CHARGES.
———
ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

    William Hamilton Newton, alias WR Rand, 65, labourer, was charged on remand at the Water Police Court yesterday before Mr FS Isaacs, SM, with stealing a gold watch, valued at £30, the property of Henrietta Eliza Cork, at Sydney, on or about February 14.

    Mr JS Cargill appeared to prosecute.

    Henrietta Eliza Cork, residing at Watson’s Bay, stated that accused called at her house on February 4. He said he was Sir William Newton, and that he was her uncle. Witness had no uncles living. The relation accused represented himself to be died at the Isle of Wight 17 years ago. On February 9 accused took the watch produced, which was her property, and said he would leave it at the watchmaker’s to have it repaired. He also took her sister’s watch, and brought it back a few days later. When witness asked accused for hers he said it was not finished. He left the house, and a few days later she went to Saunders the jewellers, where accused said he had left the watch. She did not get the watch.

    A lad said he was living with accused during the month of February. Witness, accused, and another man took the watch produced to Saunders the jeweller’s. Accused got the watch from Saunders about four days before he went to Bathurst.

    Accused was committed for trial at next sittings of the Quarter Sessions.

    Newton was further charged with obtaining from Charles Edward Foulkes goods to the value of £1 9s by means of a false pretence with intent to defraud between February 10 and 16.

    Charles Edward Foulkes, licensee of the Pier Hotel, Watson’s Bay, said he had supplied accused with various bottles of wind and whisky on the representation that he was related to Miss Cork.

    Accused was committed for trial.

    Two separate charges against Newton of [indecently] assaulting two lads, ages 12 and 14 respectively, were then heard. The evidence in both cases was very similar. The two lads, who presented a very respectable appearance, met accused in answer to advertisement. Accused represented himself to be Sir William Newton, and said he wished to adopt a boy and make him his son and heir. With the consent of their parents the lads accompanied accused and another boy, whom accused called Talbot Newton, to Bathurst. While they were staying at an hotel in that town the alleged offences took place.

    Accused was committed for trial on each charge.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Thu 5 Mar 1903 11

“SIR WILLIAM NEWTON.”
————
FURTHER CHARGES.
————

    The old man William Hamilton Newton, alias William R Rand, was at the Water Police Court charged with a shocking offence. The court was cleared. It alleged that the accused advertised in the Sydney morning papers to the effect that he wanted to adopt a boy. Over fifty persons replied to the advertisement, and the parents and friends were told by the accused that he had a great deal of money, and as his own son was illegitimate he desired to bring up a boy to whom he might leave it. He also intimated that he was a baronet—Sir Wm Newton. He selected three boys from among the applicants, and with the consent of their parents he took them to Bathurst, Blayney, Forbes, Cootamundra, and Wagga, and committed offences. Accused was committed for trial on both charges, and on another similar one was remanded.

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Mon 20 Apr 1903 12

LAW NOTICES.
———

METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
CASES FOR TO-DAY.

    Lily Randall and Norman McLeod, larceny; William Henry H Newton, [sic] criminal assault; Meyer Allen, detaining a female under 21.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 21 Apr 1903 13

QUARTER SESSIONS.
(Before Judge Docker and juries.)

    Mr JHP Murray, Crown Prosecutor.

ASSAULT.

    William Hamilton Newton, an elderly man, pleaded not guilty to having on February 21 last, at Wagga Wagga, committed a serious assault [George Smith, 16]. Accused was undefended. The accused stuttered badly. During the progress of the case it transpired that accused had attained some notoriety travelling about the country under the name of Sir William Newton, representing himself as a millionare. [sic] He had taken three boys about the country during his peregrinations, and it was during this time that the alleged assault occurred. Accused said that he was aged nearly 83, and had heard that he was entitled to a fortune. He admitted that he was sentenced to eight year’s’ imprisonment in Melbourne for a serious assault. The jury found the accused guilty. On another charge of a similar character, to which accused also pleaded that he was not guilty, a jury after a brief retirement convicted Newton. The Crown prosecutor announced that there were other charged [William Postley Little Tatham , 12 and William Henry Develand, 14] against the prisoner. Newton was remanded for sentence and further trial if the Crown decided to go on with the other charges.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 25 Apr 1903 14

METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
(Before Judge Docker and juries of 12.)

    Mr H Harris prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

SENTENCES.


    William Hamilton Newton, found guilty on two charges of indecent assault, was sentenced to five years’ penal servitude, and after serving three years, then to serve another sentence of five years’ penal servitude.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Wagga Wagga Advertiser, Sat 25 Apr 1903 15

NEW SOUTH WALES.
————
(By Telegraph.)
————

Sydney, Friday.

A HARDENED CRIMINAL.

    William Hamilton Newton, who said he was 80 years of age, was placed in the dock at the [quarter] sessions this morning to receive sentence, he having been found guilty of criminally assaulting two boys at Wagga, on the 21st of last month [sic]. Judge Docker, in passing sentence, said the prisoner had served long terms for a similar offence in Victoria. He read reports from the police in Victoria as to his history and career in the State. Having referred at some length to the nature and heniousness [sc] of the crimes, His Honor sentenced the prisoner to five years penal servitude on each charge, the second five years to commence when three of the first five years had been served. This would make eight years in all.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


William Hamilton Newton, Gaol photo sheet 16

SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6068], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1902-19038, No. 8971, p. 201, R5110.


Gaol Photo Sheet - 
Transcribed Details

No. 8971

Date when Portrait was taken: 13-3-1903

Name: William Hamilton Newton
(aka Robert Rand)

Native place: England

Year of birth: 1833

Arrived       Ship: St Vincent
in Colony }   Year: —

Trade or occupation
previous to conviction  } Laborer

Religion: C of E

Education, degree of: Nil

Height: 5' 5⅝"

Weight     On committal: 132
in lbs     } On discharge:

Colour of hair: Brown

Colour of eyes: Grey

Marks or special features: Long scar near left wrist; Right hand been injured by gunshot, vaccine mark right upper arm; scar left nostril; neck deeply lined; Flesh mole near left nipple; Flesh mole point right shoulder blade; Scar right big toe, nearly all teeth out.

(No. of previous Portrait ... ) 

CONVICTIONS

Where and When Offence. Sentence

Sth Melbourne PC

Melbourne SC

Sydney Q.S

  4

17

20

4

4

4

1895

1895

1903

Imposition

Buggery.

Indecent assault on a male person
(2 charges)

3 months H.L.

8 years H.L.

 

5 years P.S. & 5 years P.S.
To commence expiration of
3 years with 8 years in all

 


1     The Argus, Mon 1 Apr 1895, p. 5. Emphasis added.

2     The Argus, Thu 4 Apr 1895, p. 7. Emphasis added.

3     The Argus, Fri 5 Apr 1895, p. 6. Emphasis added

4     The Horsham Times, Tue 9 Apr 1895, pp. 2, 3.

5     Launceston Examiner, Tue 9 Apr 1895, p. 5.

6     The Argus, Fri 26 Apr 1895, p. 3.

7     The Argus, Wed 1 May 1895, p. 3.

8     Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Fri 27 Feb 1903, p. 3. Emphasis added.

9     The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 27 Feb 1903, p. 7. Emphasis added.

10   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 4 Mar 1903, p. 4. Emphasis added.

11   Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 5 Mar 1903, p. 8.

12   The Daily Telegraph, Mon 20 Apr 1903, p. 8. Emphasis added.

13   The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 21 Apr 1903, p. 7.

14   The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 25 Apr 1903, p. 12.

15   The Wagga Wagga Advertiser, Sat 25 Apr 1903, p. 2.

16   SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6068], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1902-19038, No. 8971, p. 201, R5110.