Below also see: Harold Hodson Anderson, 1926
Harold Hodson Anderson, 1933
Evening News, Thu 27 Jun 1889 1
SEQUESTRATION ORDERS ON
PETITION OF DEBTORS.
No. 1371. Harold Hodson Anderson, late of 60, Lower Fort-street, Sydney, now of 171, Elizabeth-street, Sydney. Mr A Morris, official assignee.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 29 Jun 1889 2
Harold Hodson Anderson, No. 60 Lower Fort-street, and No. 171, Elizabeth-street, Sydney. Mr A Morris, official assignee.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Mudgee Guardian and North-Western Representative, Fri 20 Oct 1899 3
MUDGEE & DISTRICT
DR HH ANDERSON.
After leaving Cassilis Dr HH Anderson commenced practice at Pilliga. We now notice that he has gone to Coonabarabran to practice, and that he will also open a chemist’s shop.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Mudgee Guardian and North-Western Representative, Thu 14 May 1908 4
CASSILIS POLICE COURT.
(Before Mr OA Edwards, PM.)
ALLEGED INDECENT EXPOSURE.
Harold Hodson Anderson, dentist, appeared on a summons, charged that he did, on April 24th, in a public place at Cassilis, indecently expose himself to diverse persons.
George William McCurley deposed: Am a senior-constable, stationed at Cassilis; know the defendant; on the 24th April I saw him and two swagmen on the bank of the Munmurra River, near the bridge; there was a funeral on that day; on the 28th April I served defendant with a summons; read it to him, and he replied that he knew nothing about it; I said, “It’s a complaint made by two swagmen against you, and I saw you with them”; defendant replied that it was a paltry affair not worth getting a solicitor about; witness said that he could not give him any advice about that; defendant said the two men were strangers to him, and it was not like as if they had a “derry” on a man; witness laid the information in this case.
Arthur Summons deposed that he was a laborer, residing at Cassilis at present, and knew the defendant by sight; he first saw him on April 24th in the main street, when he (defendant) said to him, “Are you a traveller?” witness said yes, and also that he camped down at the bridge; defendant then went away, and witness returned to the camp; defendant came down about half-an-hour afterwards to where witness and his mate (Andrew Murphy) were having dinner and said “good day” to us, and we said “:good day” to him; he came within a couple of yards of us and stood facing us (evidence hare followed unfit for publication); defendant then went away, and came back about two hours afterwards. (Witness again gave evidence unfit for publication).
Andrew Murphy corroborated the previous witness’s evidence.
Accused was committed to take his trial at Mudgee Quarter Sessions, on June 2nd. Bail was allowed, self in £80 and two sureties on £40 each, which was forthcoming.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Mudgee Guardian and North-Western Representative, Thu 4 Jun 1908 5
MUDGEE QUARTER SESSIONS.
Tuesday, June 2.
(Before his Honor Mr Acting Justice Scholes.)
Mr Dawson, Crown Prosecutor.
As the list of cases at the Quarter Sessions this week was an unusually heavy one for Mudgee, it is not surprising that there was more than the usual attendance of jurymen, witnesses and the “great unwashed.”
ALLEGED INDECENT EXPOSURE.
Harold Hodson Anderson was arraigned om [sic] a charge of indecent exposure, [to Arthur Summons & Andrew Murphy ], at Cassilis on 24th April.
The accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Boyce, instructed by Mr G Davidson.
The following jury was empanelled: Douglas Cox, Chas Casimir, FJ Falvey, WJ Nelthorpe, Wm Tait, Thos Mills, AW Stewart, J Keegan, Jas Marks, H Searle, M Gleeson, Jas Sharpe.
Evidence was then taken.
Arthur Summons, laborer, residing at Mudgee, stated: I was travelling through Cassilis last April in company with Andrew Murphy; I saw the accused in the street about 1.30 pm on the 24th April; he asked me if I were a traveller; I replied, “Yes;” he said, “Where are you camped?” I said, “Down at the bridge;” I then went to have dinner at the camp; Murphy, my mate, and I were having dinner when Anderson came down; he came within two yards of us, facing us; he said “Good day;” (The alleged offence was then described, and the alleged depraved remarks given.) After a while he went away, and returned in a few minutes; he repeated the offence, and made other filthy remarks; a funeral was approaching, and he went away; the constables came down about dusk, and we mentioned the matter to them.
Cross-examined by Mr Boyce: I made a complaint to the black tracker before the police came; saw the black tracker about half an hour after accused went away; in the morning I did not stop Anderson in the street and ask him if there was any work about there; did not hear Murphy ask him if there was any burr cutting going on; in the afternoon I did not ask him for money for tucker.
Andrew Murphy, laborer, stated: I know Summons and was camped with him at Cassilis in April last (witness corroborated the evidence of Summons).
Cross-examined by Mr Boyce, witness said that one of them asked Anderson if there was any burr cutting about there; and that they asked him the way to Coolah; further he admitted making reference to women.
Geo W[illiam] McCurley, Senior-Constable of Police at Cassilis, stated: I saw the accused about four pm on the 24th April; he was standing facing the previous witnesses; the accused was standing there about 10 minutes; from something I heard from the blacktracker I spoke to the accused, and subsequently served a summons on the accused.
Joseph E Dowd, a youth, stated that he knew the accused, and had seen him at his (accused’s) residence about six months ago.
Mr Boyce objected to this evidence, and argued a considerable length in support of his objection.
Mr Dawson replied, but his Honor rejected the evidence, feeling that it would not be fair; had the prisoner been given notice that it was to be brought forward it would be different.
For the defence,
Harold Hodson Anderson, the accused, sworn, stated: I am a dental surgeon, practising midwifery, medicine and surgery at Cassilis; I have been at Cassilis 15 years; am a married man with a family; have never been charged in any way in any court before; on the 24th April I saw Summons in the street about 10 o’clock in the morning; when I met him he said to me, “Is there any burr-cutting going on here;” I said, “I don’t think so now; where are you camped;” he said, “Under the bridge;” afterwards I went to the bridge about 10.45 am; was on the way to the cemetery; I wanted to see the park ranger on some business; am a trustee of the park; the bridge is about a quarter of a mile from town; the day was cold, and I was taking medicine that affected the bladder; I went under the bridge; saw two men camped there; said “good day” to them; I was two or three yards away; when I got there the man Murphy said, “is there any burr cutting going on;” I said, “no, I don’t think so;” I said, “where did you come from;” he asked me the road to Coolah; I was there about a minute or a minute and a half; while the conversation was going on I turned slightly toward them; then I re-arranged my clothing and walked over to them with my hands in my pockets; shortly after the man Murphy made some lewd remarks, to which I replied; I admit making certain reference to jockey boys and women; I then left and went on to the cemetery; I returned about an hour afterwards to lunch; after lunch I met Summons in the main street, and he said “could you give me some money I want to get some tucker;” I said, “the only change I have is 2d and you can have that.”
Under cross-examination, the accused denied that he had been thrown in the river by a swagman; he was not aware that persons were speaking about him for exposing himself; he knew the boy, Dowd, but never made an improper suggestion to him.
To Mr Boyce: I am registered by the dental board of New South Wales and qualified to administer chloroform.
John Walsh, a grazier, of Cassilis, said the accused bore a good character; he had never heard anyone, except young larrikins, say anything derogatory to his character.
The boy, [Joseph E] Dowd, was recalled by Mr Dawson, but Mr Boyce objected to his evidence, and his Honor again upheld the objection.
After addresses by counsel, his Honor summed up and the jury retired at 5.20 pm. They returned to court at 6 o’clock and the foreman, Mr J Keegan, in answer to the usual questions, announced that they had agreed on a verdict of “guilty,” with a strong recommendation to mercy.
Mr Boyce then produced a testimonial of character signed by nearly all the residents of Cassilis—80 or 90 in number. The testimonial stated that the subscribers had known Mr Anderson for from 10 to 15 years, both in his professional capacity and in private life. He was a trustworthy and honorable gentleman in his professional life. Mr Boyce said he had looked up “Russell on Crimes” and he could find no record of a man being convicted of indecent exposure, except before women and children. He contended that the case should have been dealt with at the lower court, and if guilty the accused should be punished with a fine.
His Honor concurred with Mr Boyce and fined the accused £10. The fine was immediately paid.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 8 Jun 1908 6
Dr Anderson, of Cassilis, was found guilty at the Quarter Sessions yesterday of indecent exposure, and was fined £10.
Harold Hodson Anderson, 1926
The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate, Fri 8 Oct 1926 7
CHEMIST IN TROUBLE
SHADOWED BY CONSTABLE
Shadowed by Constable Brown, as he strolled through Parramatta Park, last Sunday afternoon, Harold Hodson Anderson, chemist at Harris Park, was eventually arrested and charged with offensive behaviour.
On that charge, he appeared at the Parramatta Police Court on Wednesday.
Anderson, for whom Mr SP Kemp appeared, pleaded not guilty.
Constable Brown, according to his evidence, saw Anderson just inside the park about 3 pm, and followed him along the bank of the river. Anderson sat down on a seat near two young men, later continuing his walk along the river.
When the constable spoke to the two young men, they told him that Anderson’s talk had disgusted them.
Still followed by the constable, Anderson crossed the river and sat down near three little boys in bating costume.
These little boys told the constable that Anderson had been “speaking rude to them.”
Following Anderson out of the park, and along George-street, into Church-street, Constable Brown saw him sit down beside a boy of fifteen, at the foot of the fence around St John’s Park.
After the boy told him what Anderson had said to him, Constable Brown arrested the chemist, and took him to the police station, having told him what was alleged against him.
“I am doing no harm,” said Anderson, who later told the constable that he was a business man at Harris Park.
The boy in question repeated the things he alleged Anderson had said to him, and told the Magistrate that Anderson’s conduct was “most offensive.” Before sitting down beside him, Anderson had greeted him with a remark about the weather.
The boy stated, also, that Anderson invited him to a certain building.
At the conclusion of the boy’s evidence, Mr Kemp asked the Magistrate whether he thought there was a case to answer.
The Magistrate: I don’t think—I’m sure of it. Anderson offered no evidence.
He was fined £5, with 5/- costs, in default two months. He was also bound over in the sum of £40, with surety, to be of good behaviour for twelve months; in default an additional three months’ hard labor.
Harold Hodson Anderson, 1933
The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate, Mon 31 Jul 1933 8
CHEMIST IN GAOL
FOR MEDICAL OBSERVATION
Charged with an offence involving grossly indecent conduct, Harold Hodson Anderson (70), a chemist, was convicted at the Parramatta Police Court last Friday, and was remanded for a week for medical observation.
Anderson, for whom Mr WS Kay appeared was charged with having committed the offence in a public convenience at Parramatta on July 22.
When the case was called, the police prosecutor (Constable Forde) asked that the defendant be remanded for a week for medical observation.
Mr Kay opposed the application.
Constable Forde: I am making this application in view of a statement that has been made by the defendant. Mr Kay has seen the statement. To my mind, from this statement, the defendant is a person who should be medically examined as to his mentality.
Mr Kay My client is a chemist, and has been carrying on business for years, he instructs me that he is ready to go on with this case this morning.
Constable Forde: We are ready to go on now. It was in the interest of the defendant that I made the application. We can give the evidence, and then, if your Worship thinks it necessary, the defendant can be remanded for medical observation.
Evidence of the offence committed by the defendant was given by Constable Cloke, who arrested him.
At the police station, the constable said, he said to the defendant, “I have received a number of complaints about your conduct.” The defendant said, “Yes; I’ll have to cut it out, or I’ll be getting into trouble. I don’t seem able to control myself.”
Constable Cloke produced a statement signed by the defendant.
The constable stated that the defendant said, when charged, “Can’t you make it indecent conduct? I’ve been in trouble before.”
No evidence for the defence was given.
Constable Forde said that, in June, 1926, the defendant was fined £5 for offensive behaviour, and was bound over to be of good behaviour for twelve months.
The magistrate (Mr Sutherland): It’s just a question whether this man is mentally sound. Otherwise, I would send him straight to gaol.
Anderson was remanded for a week for medical observation.
Mr Kay: This man is a chemist at Harris Park. Would you consider liberating him till to-night, so that he can make some arrangements in regard to his business?
The magistrate: No. The man is either mad, or he’s a sexual lunatic. I take it that the police will use all expedition in having him medically examined.
Mr Kay: Even that will probably entail an absence of two or three days from his business.
The magistrate: I can’t help that. If he were in possession of all his faculties, he would go to gaol for more than a day or two.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate, Mon 7 Aug 1933 9
WILL DISPOSE OF BUSINESS
Having been remanded for a week for medical observation, Harold Hodson Anderson (70), a chemist, appeared at the Parramatta Police Court last Friday. He had been convicted of an offence involving indecent conduct.
The medical report was to the effect that Anderson was normal.
Detective-Sergeant Sartidge said that the defendant was a chemist at Harris Park, and that yong men frequented his shop and worried him. On two occasions he had been robbed, but was afraid to report the matter. He had relatives of good repute, and he had undertaken to dispose of his business.
Mr Kay said that Anderson’s son in law had undertaken to provide a home for him, and that Anderson could dispose of his business without any trouble.
Anderson was sentenced until 10.30 am that day.
1 Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 27 Jun 1889, p. 5.
2 The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 29 Jun 1889, p. 14.
3 The Mudgee Guardian and North-Western Representative, Fri 20 Oct 1899, p. 7.
4 The Mudgee Guardian and North-Western Representative, Thu 14 May 1908, p. 9. Emphasis added.
5 The Mudgee Guardian and North-Western Representative, Thu 4 Jun 1908, pp. 10, 11. Emphasis added.
6 The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 8 Jun 1908, p. 3.
7 The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta), Fri 8 Oct 1926, p. 1. Emphasis added and in original text.
8 The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta), Mon 31 Jul 1933, p. 5. Emphasis added.
9 The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta), Mon 7 Aug 1933, p. 1. Emphasis added.