Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

4 corrections, most recently by Bjenks - Show corrections

THE WATERLOO OUTRAGE.      

TRIAL OF THE PRISONERS.

At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Windeyer, William Hill, George Duffy, William Newman, Michael Donnellan, Thomas Oscroft,     Joseph Martin, William Boyce, Hugh Miller, Robert   George Read, George Keegan, and Michael Mangan, were charged for that they did, on the 9th of September, at Waterloo, ravish and carnally know Mary Jane Hicks against her consent.

Mr. Teece, with him Mr. Pring, instructed by Mr. Wil-   liams, Crown Solicitor, appeared for the prosecution.

Messrs. Ellis and Scholes, instructed by Mr. Gannon, ap- peared for Oscroft, Martin, Miller, Keegan, and Newman;   Mr. Gibson, instructed by Mr. Gannon, appeared for Hill and Mangan; Mr. O'Mara, instructed by Mr. H. Levien, for Read; Mr. Moriarty, instructed by Mr. M. William- son (Williamson and Williamson), for Boyce; Mr. Cana- way for Duffy, and Mr. Edmunds for Donnellan, both instructed by Mr. Williamson.

It had been anticipated that the accommodation of the dock would not be large enough to seat all the prisoners, and a second bench had therefore been added above the

trapdoor, through which prisoners usually enter from the  

cells below. The prisoners were brought in through  

the court shortly before 10 o'clock without any demonstration on the part of the throng of spectators. Mangan, who was on bail, came in alone and took his place in the dock with the other prisoners.

No less than 312 jurymen were called, and from these a separate panel of 72 was selected. Keegan was the only prisoner who excrcised the right to challenge, and he con- fined himself to a single objection.

Mr. Moriarty raised the point that, under the 337th sec- tion of the Criminal Laws Act Amendment Act, a seperate panel could not consist of more than 60 jurors.

His Honor said that the extra jurors were only sum- moned in case they might be required. In reality the panel consisted of 48 jurors. If, however, any objection were taken, he would allow the prisoners to challenge all the other jurymen summoned.

Mr. Moriarty did not urge his objection, but his Honor, to prevent any question being raised hereafter as to the validity of the trial, asked each prisoner if he concurred in the trial taking place before the jurymen who had been

selected. To this each prisoner replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Canaway said he understood that a view of the locality would be asked for, and it was arranged that the necessary application should be made after the opening

speech by the Crown Prosecutor.

Of the jurymen summoned no less than 41 were absent, and on each of them a fine of 40s. was inflicted.

Mr. Teece, in opening the case, said that if they believed the evidence which would be forthcoming, the case was one such as had never before occupied the attention of a court of justice. They would come to the conclusion that on the 9th of September, in the very light of day, in one of our public parks, within almost a stonethrow of civilisation, an outrage from which our civilisation shrank was being committed on a defenceless woman, whose weakness should have been her defence. He did not, in his opening, wish to say any- thing which would prejudice the case against the prisoners. Perhaps it would be more his duty, from the very gross- ness of its character, from the cruelty of it, from the fact of its nature and character almost defying the blackest record of criminal history, from the cowardly manner in which it had been perpetrated, to warn the jury not to allow themselves to be carried away entirely. It was quite possible that they had heard or read something of     the terrible revelations which had been made in this case

before they came into the jury-box. If so, they should pay no attention to them, but simply listen to the witnesses, and if they thought that the evidence brought home the charge of guilt to these men they should not allow any considera- tion to interfere with their solemn duty. The facts of this vile case, or as much as he thought it necessary to explain to them, were these. It appeared that on the 9th of September, somewhere about midday, the prosecu- trix in this case, Mary Jane Hicks, a domestic servant, started out from her place of lodging for the purpose of going to a registry office to get a situation. As she was proceeding along Sussex-street she was met by a cabman; and, as a matter of fact, she did get into the cab.  

After some time she found herself out at the end of

Bourke-street, at the other side of Mr. Forsyth's ropeworks, where, within a few hundred yards of a house, with people moving about, this man attempted to ravish her. Some young man took her out of the cab, and told her she would be disgraced if she remained in the cab. He accordingly took her back along Bourke-street, went around the corner of Forsyth's ropeworks, and took her into the scrub, where he sat her down and gave her some flowers. He tried to commit an offence, and two or three more of the prisoners came up. At that moment Stanley, one of the witnesses, appeared on the scene. He need not detail the girl's story beyond saying that all the prisoners except three violated   her in a most brutal manner, some even when she was in a semi-unconscious state. She was yet suffering from the cruel, vile treatment she received. One of the prisoners

took her from Stanley, who was attacked by seven or eight of the prisoners, and compelled to decamp, after which he went for the police. In conclusion, counsel referred to the statements made by the prisoners when arrested, to prove their criminality by their own admissions.

The following evidence was taken for the prosecution:   William Sydney Nott, licensed surveyor, produced a     plan of the locality, showing the different points associated with the outrage.

The Court then adjourned for luncheon and the jury subsequently left to view the locality, returning into court at 20 minutes past 4 o'clock.

Constable Myers deposed to the arrest of Miller, New- man, Mangan, Donnellan, and Martin.

Sergeant Bradwell deposed to the arrest of Hill, Duffy, and Oscroft; he also received into custody Read and Boyce, who had been arrested on the Queensland border.

Senior-constable Bell deposed to the arrest of Boyce and   Read in the Barringun distict; they then gave the names   of Warner and Ericson, but afterwards gave their true

names.

Senior-constable Vane deposed to the arrest of Keegan

in Redfern.

The Court then at 9 p.m. adjourned until 9 a.m. on the following day. The jury were retained in custody for the night by the sheriff's officers.

Digitisation generously supported by
Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation
Digitisation generously supported by

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down