Dubbo Dispatch and Wellington Independent, Fri 5 Oct 1923 1
Tuesday, October 2, 1923.
(Before His Honor Judge Armstrong).
Albert Pritchard was charged with having committed an indecent assault on Annie Burland, a girl under 10 years of age, at Trangie during May. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr WP Kelly, of Wellington.
The Crown Prosecutor stated that on a Sunday in May a little girl and some other girls went down to accused’s place, where the alleged offence took place.
Sergeant [Hugo John Charles] Ferris, of Trangie, deposed that he spoke to accused about the alleged offence, who denied it. He asked accused if he put a pair of old trousers over the child, which he also denied. Witness went to accused’s place and found an old pair of dungarees in a corner. Accused said it was a case of blackmail, as the people wanted to return to the Old Country.
To Mr Kelly: The alleged offence was reported to him about a month after its occurrence.
Charles Burland, father of the child, said she was 11 years old that day. He reported the occurrence to the sergeant on the 17th June, the day after he had heard about it. On the 19th May the children were absent from the house from about 10 o’clock to 4 in the afternoon.
To Mr Kelly: He had been in Trangie 14 months, and in the State two years last March.
Annie Burland said she was at accused’s place in May, and Eric Burland and Sydney Hazel were with her. They stayed from 1 o’clock until 4 o’clock. Accused came out of his bedroom and sat on a chair. He called her over and the offence took place.
Mr Kelly handed to his Honor and the jury a written statement made by witnesses at Trangie. She told Sydney Hazel after they left the house what accused had done to her. She did not tell her mother. She had been at accused’s place on two Sundays previously, and had something to eat.
Eric Burland, aged 9 years, said that on the Saturday preceding the day of the trouble he met accused, who asked him to tell Annie Burland to go to his place the next day. Annie, Sydney Hazel and witness went over. During the afternoon accused sent him to buy fruit and lollies. Accused was sitting on a chair.
To Mr Kelly: When they arrived at accused’s place he was sitting in the room reading a book. He was still sitting there when he (witness) went away to get biscuits. When he returned accused and the other children were sitting at the table having something to eat.
Sydney Hazel, aged 11 years, who lived with his aunt, Mrs Burland, at Trangie, also gave evidence.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr Kelly called Albert Pritchard (accused), who stated he was a mail contractor, 59 years of age, and he had resided in Trangie for 14 years continuously. He had been in the district on and off for 25 years. On the Sunday that the children came to his place he was standing in the kitchen. They said they were hungry, and he gave the boy 1/- to get some biscuits. He did not interfere with the girl in any way.
To the Crown Prosecutor: The girl was not on his knee. He was moving in and out of the house. He did not invite the children to his house. The children had been at his place four or five times. He was a single man, but did not allow children to stay at his place for a number of hours without adults being present. He was quite friendly with the children. He fancied someone had told the children to put up the story. He might have said to the sergeant that it was Burland who was trying to blackmail him for the purpose of getting money to return to England.
Mr WP Kelly addressed the jury on behalf of the accused, and the Crown Prosecutor replied. After his Honor had summed up, the jury retired to consider the case.
The jury, after having been locked up all night, returned to court at 9.15 am on Thursday morning, and announced that it could not agree upon a verdict. The jury was discharged, and the case was set down for re-hearing at the next Court of Quarter Sessions.
Thursday, October 4, 1923.
ALLEGED UNNATURAL OFFENCE.
Albert Pritchard was charged with attempting an abominable and unnatural offence on Eric Burland, and committing an indecent offence on the same boy at Trangie at some time in May.
Accused pleaded not guilty.
Mr WP Kelly appeared for the defence of the accused.
The Crown Prosecutor said that Eric Burland, a boy aged 9 years, was in the habit of visiting the accused’s place in company with other children, and the accused always treated the children well in order to win their good will to commit such offences.
Sergeant Ferris, of Trangie, gave evidence as to the arrest of Pritchard, who said, “Good God, there is no truth in it; I never interfered with the boy.” Accused stated he gave the boy sixpence, and was in the habit of giving children money. On the way to the lock-up accused said the accusation would ruin him in the district, and he would have to go somewhere else to earn a livelihood. He was being blackmailed. Accused acknowledged that no one had mentioned the case to him. It was also reported to him that accused attempted to commit an offence on Sydney Hazel.
Eric Burland, schoolboy, at Trangie, said he had been at the house of accused five or six times. Sydney Hazel and Annie Burland went with him. He described what happened on an occasion. Accused then told him to go out and have something to eat, and not to tell anyone about it.
Evidence was also given by Sydney Hazel and Annie Burland.
Charles Burland, father of Eric and Annie Burland, and uncle of Sydney Hazel, said he had heard a certain thing from his sister-in-law, and he saw the police about the matter. Accused had asked him if he had any objection to the boys going out on the mail cart with him, and he replied that he had not. Accused also asked that the boys should be allowed to go to the house, as he liked to hear the children speaking. His wife was working as cook at the Royal Hotel, Trangie, and Mrs Hazel was looking after the children.
Clara Burland, mother of Eric Burland, stated that Pritchard had asked to let the children go driving with him and to go to his home, and she agreed to them doing so. She first heard of a certain thing when the boys were quarrelling.
This closed the case for the Crown.
The accused was then put in the witness box. He stated the boys had gone out on the mail cart with him, and they were at his place on the 20th May, the day of the alleged offence. He denied that he had interfered with the boys in any way. He did not invite the children into his house. The children first asked him to take them out on the mail cart during the school holidays, and he got the consent of the parents to take them out.
To the Crown Prosecutor: There was a woman living with him for some time.
Following addresses to the jury by Mr Kelly and the Crown Prosecutor, his Honor summed up, and the jury retired to consider their verdict.
LITTLE BROTHER’S ECZEMA.
HUSBAND’S POISONED HANDS AND ULCERATED ANKLE ALL SPEEDILY CURED BY
Another excellent illustration of the wonderful power of Zam-Buk in removing the most obstinate and deep seated skin troubles is to hand from Camperdown, Sydney. Mrs C Rudgely, writing from Larkin Street, vows that never again would she be without Zam-Buk.
“Both William and Ronald had thick, crusted, mattery sores on their heads and faces,” she says. “The irritation was awful, and I had a terrible job to deal with the outbreak, until I was persuaded to begin the Zam-Buk treatment.
“My method was to first lather freely with Zam-Buk Medicinal Soap, thus cleansing the places thoroughly; after this I applied the Zam-Buk healing balm liberally. The result was that all bad matter was quickly removed from the sores, leaving underneath a new skin of a beautifully clear and healthy quality.
“When my husband’s hands were poisoned and sore, and the inflammation was spreading to the arms, I applied Zam-Buk. It soon checked all trouble and healed perfectly. My brother also used Zam-Buk for an ulcerated ankle, and it worked an equally wonderful cure. Our experience with Zam-Buk extends over nine years, and we would never dream of being without it.”
Zam-Buk, known the world over for its wonderful healing reliability in all cuts, wounds, sores, and skin troubles, is obtainable at 1/6 and 3/6 per box of [sic] all chemists and stores. Zam-Buk Medicinal Soap is the new and invaluable aid to the treatment. Single cakes or boxes of three.
Great souls like eagles seek the sun,
Where none but eagles fly,
While timid hearts such glory shun,
Too meek their wings to try.
Poor, Peevish pilgrims of the night
Their coughs and colds endure,
When all they need to make them right,
Is Woods’ Great Peppermint Cure.
The result of the recent Brisbane to Sydney motor reliability test is as follows:—EW Greenham, 9hp F.I.A.T., driven by owner, 1st; AG Bernard, 9hp F.I.A.T., driven by owner, second; HM Hart, 18hp Essex, third.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Dubbo Liberal and Macquarie Advocate, Fri 5 Oct 1923 2
The Quarter Sessions Court opened on Tuesday morning last. His Honor Judge Armstrong presided. Mr TS Crawford acted as Crown Prosecutor, and Mr GWH Davies, as Deputy Clerk of the Peace. At 10 punctually the Sheriff’s Officer, Mr JT Steel, called Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!
Mr ER Hawke, JP, sat with his Honor as Deputy Sheriff.
The Court continued its sittings at 9 am on Wednesday.
ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT.
Albert Pritchard was charged with indecently assaulting Nancy Burland, a girl under 16 years of age, at Trangie during the month of May last.
Mr WP Kelly (Wellington), appeared for the accused.
The Crown Prosecutor said that the girl in question, with other children, went to accused’s place on a Sunday in May, when it would be proved that the assault took place. The little girl in question was aged 10.
Sergeant Hugo John Charles Ferris said he had seen accused at his place in June, and asked him re Nancy Burland. He told accused that Nancy Burland had said she had been assaulted. She had said she had been taken on accused’s knee and assaulted. In the kitchen there was a pair of blue dungaree trousers. Accused said he did not know they were there. He had given Eric Burland a shilling on the day in question (May 20th) to buy lollies. The girl had said that the trousers had been put over her, and she had been interfered with. Accused said it was a case of blackmail. They (the Burlands), wanted to get back to the Old Country.
To Mr Kelly: The alleged assault took place on the 20th May, and was reported on 17th June. The house next to accused’s was occupied by a man named Wolfe. Accused had lived in Trangie for four years.
Charles Burland, a laborer, of Trangie, the father of Annie, also known as Nancy, said that Nancy was 11 years old to-day—meaning October 3rd. He had heard something on 16th or 17th June. The next day he saw the Sergeant. The child was born in England. Eric Burland was his son. He did not know that they had been to Pritchard’s. He knew that Eric had been sent a message on the Saturday night, leaving at half-past 6. He had brought a bottle of vinegar and 6d. Eric, Sydney Hazel and Nancy were out from 12.30 to 1.30 on the Sunday. He had never asked accused for any money. He was on friendly terms with accused.
To Mr Kelly: On 11th June he was driven out by accused 10 miles to work. He had asked accused to bring him some vegetables. The children lived with his wife and Mr Hazel at Winstead House. He had been in Trangie 14 months. He had been in NSW two years last March.
Annie Burland, 10 years old, said she was in fifth class. She was sworn. She said it was five minutes’ walk to Pritchard’s. She was at Pritchard’s the Sunday after Eric got the vinegar. Eric and Sidney Hazel had been with her. Pritchard was lying on the bed. She had been there three Sundays before. On the day in question they had some bread and meat. He had come out of the bed to a chair. She was on the other side of the room. He told her to come to him, and she had sat on his knee. He got up and went into the bedroom, and took Eric with him. She had a pair of trousers over her knees. They were like the trousers produced in court.
At this stage the little girl would not say what then happened. She wrote down on paper that her knickers had been pulled down, and she had been interfered with. Eric had gone down with a shilling to get some fruit. Eric came back with apples and biscuits, and they had gone on to the football match.
To Mr Kelly: Eric was away about a quarter of an hour. Sidney was there; he is a bigger boy. She had gone with Eric, Sidney, and a baby. They had knocked at the door of the accused’s place. Pritchard was sitting on a chair near the door. She sat on a chair with the baby. Sidney sat on a stool near the fire. Later she was sitting on accused’s knee when Eric went for the fruit, and when he came back she was on the stool, which was two feet away from accused. Sidney asked Eric to get the fruits and biscuits, which they had to eat. When they had first gone to accused’s he had come from the bedroom. Accused was fully dressed. She said that she had been interfered with. What Pritchard had done to her was written down as in the Police Court deposition, and she said that Sidney Hazel had told her the word mentioned. When she was on accused’s knee Sidney was about 3 feet away. She knew it was wrong what was being done to her. She had spoken to Sidney about it. When she got home Mrs Hazel was there and Uncle Bob, Mr Butter. She had said nothing then about Pritchard. Accused had pushed her backwards, and her feet were on the floor. After getting off his knee she had something to eat, and was there about a quarter of an hour longer. After she got off accused’s knee he read a book. They had been to Pritchard’s two Sundays before. They had had something to eat each time. Pritchard told her mother that she had been there.
Eric Burland, 9 years old, said Pritchard had told him to tell Nancy to come down on the Sunday in question. Pritchard had sent him to get apples and lollies. Nancy was in the house. Pritchard was on a chair in the corner, and Nancy was on another chair in the same room. Pritchard shred the apples, etc, with them.
To Mr Kelly: The door of the kitchen was open when they got there. Pritchard was sitting on a chair reading, and was doing so when he went for the fruit. When he came back he was giving the children cabbage and meat. He had had some. Pritchard had sent him for biscuits because there was not enough bread. When he went Nancy was on a chair near the door. Sidney was close to Nancy.
Sidney Hazel, 11 years old, said he lived with his aunt, Mrs Burland, at Trangie. He gave corroborative evidence of the visit to Pritchard’s and staying there. He had seen Nancy on accused’s knee. And accused got some trousers and put them on her knees. He had seen Pritchard’s hand moving. He was eating while Nancy was on accused’s knee for 10 or 15 minutes.
To Mr Kelly: Nancy was sitting on Pritchard’s knee when Eric went for the biscuits. Pritchard took her on his knees. She was still on his knees when Eric came back. Eric was away about half an hour.
Witness then wrote down what he thought Pritchard had done to Nancy. He had first heard the word he wrote at Trangie from boys.
Accused then gave evidence from the witness box. To Mr Kelly he said he was a mail contractor, residing 25 years in Trangie altogether, and continuously for 14 years. He would be 60 next march [sic]. He knew the children, who had been four or five times to his place. They had been there on the 27th May. When they came he was standing in the kitchen. They came in and brought the baby in afterwards. They said they were hungry. He said there was only meat, so he sent Eric for the biscuits. He had not interfered with the little girl in any way.
To the Crown Prosecutor: He did not have the girl on his kneel he had only sat on a chair while they were feeding. He had not invited them to come. He had not seen Eric the day before. He had not told Eric to tell Nancy to come to his place to-morrow. He lived by himself. He knew the boys well. He had lived for seven or eight years in the house he was in. Children often came to his place, not staying more than half an hour. On this occasion they were an hour and a half. Nancy had been there tree times. He had not bought lollies for other children. He often gave children money. The last time they had come to his place he had a row with them. He thought that the children had been put up to tell this story of him. Mr Burland had never asked him for money. Somebody had suggested that the children had been put up to this story to blackmail him.
Mr Kelly addressed the jury for the defence, saying it was a difficult case for a jury, being hard to prove or disprove.
The Crown Prosecutor put the case for the Crown, and the Judge having summed up the jury then retired to consider their verdict.
The jury, on their return, asked to be informed as to when the little girl had first complained.
The Judge said the information would not be evidence given in that way. But Mrs Burland could be called, and this was done. Mrs Burland said that two of the children were quarrelling, and that was how she had got to know.
The jury again retired.
At 9.30 pm the jury, having arrived at no decision, were locked up for the night. At 9 am yesterday morning there was still no agreement, and the foreman informed his Honor that none was likely. The jury was therefore dismissed, together with all those who had been summoned for the Quarter Sessions, with the exception of those called for that morning.
The Court resumed again on Thursday morning, when the following case was taken:—
Albert Pritchard was arraigned upon two charges of having at Trangie committed abominable offences upon two lads.
Accused challenged four jurors.
The Crown Prosecutor opened the case, and outlined the evidence. There were two charges—one of an attempted abominable offence and the other of an indecent assault upon the lads. Mr Crawford explained the law in regard to charges of this nature. The charges were of having attempted to commit the grosser offence, and of having indecently assaulted the boy. The offences were alleged to have taken place in May last. Learned counsel spoke of the great social evil such crimes were to the community, and emphasised the fact that the innocence and morality of the children should be preserved.
Sergeant Ferris, of Trangie, gave evidence of the arrest of Pritchard. When charged Pritchard said, “Good God, Sergeant, I never did such a thing. What will they say next?” The Sergeant recounted conversations with Pritchard. On the road to the lock-up he said, “This will ruin me, Sergeant; I will have to leave the district. I do not know why they have put this upon me.”
By Mr Kelly: As far as he could find out the lads had only been at accused’s place on a couple of occasions [sic].
Eric Burland, 9 years of age, a school boy at Trangie, gave evidence describing the offence, the particulars of which are unfit for publication.
Mr Kelly subjected this witness to a severe cross-examination.
Sydney Hazel, 11 years of age, also gave evidence of the commital [sic] of the offence upon him by Pritchard.
Nancy [or Annie] Burland, 10 years of age, gave evidence. She said she was with the two lads at Pritchard’s when the alleged offences were committed. She saw Eric and Sydney go into Pritchard’s bedroom. She did not see the offences committed.
Charles Burland, father of Eric and Nancy Burland, and uncle of Sydney Hazel, gave evidence that he heard something on 15th June. He saw the police and gave information. Pritchard had asked him several times to allow the children to go to his house, and go out on the mail with him. Witness said he had no objection. He could not say if the boys ever went out with him. His wife was cooking at an hotel in Trangie, and their aunt, Mrs Hazel, looked after the children.
Clara Burland, mother of Eric and Nancy Burland, said she was engaged at an hotel, and her sister looked after the children. She corroborated the evidence of her husband in regard to Pritchard’s request for the children to go to his place.
This was the Crown case.
For the defence, Pritchard gave a distinct contradiction of the charges preferred against him. The boys, Eric and Sydney, had gone out with him 12 miles and back with the consent of Mr Burland. The children were at his place on the date of the alleged offences. He absolutely denied interfering with the boys in any way or at any time. He did not give Eric Burland any money.
The Crown Prosecutor cross-examined accused at some length. He never asked Mr Burland to allow the children to come to his place. They had come to his place with the full knowledge and consent of the parents.
Mr WP Kelly made an earnest and eloquent appeal for his client.
The Crown Prosecutor replied, the Judge summed up, and the jury retired at 12.10pm to consider their verdict.
(The finding of the jury in this case will be found in another column).
(Continued from Page 2).
THE TRANGIE CASE.
The jury returned into court after a retirement of five hours with a verdict of guilty of an indecent assault, with an attempt to commit the graver offence.
His Honor sentenced Pritchard to hard labour in Goulburn Gaol for four years.
TOTAL AND PARTIAL FAILURES.
At Narromine and Trangie, according to all reports, the wheat crop may be looked upon as a total failure. Stock have already been turned into the wheat in many places, and over a large area all green appearance of wheat is already gone.
We hear also of Mogriguy that in some instances sheep are being turned in on the crops.
At Rawsonville the wheat is extremely patchy, and where crops are standing up they are very thin, with short spindles and small heads, except in isolated cases.
From odd crops in different parts of the district, which are two to three feet high, a fair cut of hay will be taken. Should no rain fall within the next week numbers of farmers will be cutting for hay.
Stock are in good condition, and there is sufficient good feed for a time, but the water problem will be very acute, unless heavy rains fall shortly to fill the tanks and dams before the hot weather comes.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 8 Oct 1923 3
DUBBO QUARTER SESSIONS.
The Quarter Sessions were presided over by Judge Armstrong.
Albert Pritchard was charged with indecently assaulting a girl under the age of 16 years, at Trangie, during last May. Mr WP Kelly, of Wellington, appeared for the accused. The jury retired at 3 o’clock on Wednesday, but reached no agreement, and was locked up for the night. As it could not agree, accused was discharged. Pritchard was also arraigned on two charges of having committed an abominable offence. Mr WP Kelly, of Wellington, appeared for the accused, who was found guilty of indecent assault, with an attempt to commit a grosser offence. He was sentenced to four years’ hard labour in Goulburn Gaol.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Gilgandra Weekly, Thu 11 Oct 1923 4
At the Dubbo Quarter Sessions last week, before Judge Armstrong the following cases were dealt with:—
Albert Pritchard was charged with indecently assaulting Nancy Burland, a girl under 16 years of age, at Trangie during the month of May last. The jury did not agree, and a fresh trial is to take place. Albert Pritchard was arraigned upon two charges of having at Trangie committed abominable offences upon two lads. Found guilty and sentenced to 4 years hard labour in Goulburn gaol.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Albert Pritchard, Gaol photo sheet 5
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
Date when Portrait was taken: 17-10-1923
Name: Albert Pritchard
Native place: Young NSW
Year of birth: 10-3-1863
Trade or occupation
Religion: C of E
Education, degree of: R & W
Height: 5' 8⅞"
Weight On committal: 138
Colour of hair: Brown to Grey
Colour of eyes: Brown
Marks or special features: Scar of left side of body.
(No. of previous Portrait ... )
|Where and When||Offence.||Sentence|
4 years H.L.
1 Dubbo Dispatch and Wellington Independent, Fri 5 Oct 1923, p. 8. Emphasis added.
2 The Dubbo Liberal and Macquarie Advocate, Fri 5 Oct 1923, pp. 2, 4, 6.
3 The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 8 Oct 1923, p. 10.
4 Gilgandra Weekly, (NSW), Thu 11 Oct 1923, p. 2.
5 SRNSW: NRS2467, [3/6110], State Penitentiary photographic description book, 11 Aug 1923-12 Jan 1924, No. 19705, p. –.