Information about Trove user: pherous

View user profile in the Trove forum

Tags

Display options

top tags

Recent comments

Display options

Text corrections

Hall o' fame ranking

Rank Corrector Lines corrected
1 JohnWarren 5,783,711
2 noelwoodhouse 3,897,575
3 NeilHamilton 3,428,714
4 DonnaTelfer 3,272,427
5 Rhonda.M 3,095,207
...
606 marie.slsa 76,870
607 brewer 76,727
608 rayhayes 76,382
609 pherous 76,380
610 Jenny.Coates 76,332
611 joannehobbs 76,081

76,380 line(s) corrected.

Corrections by month

October 2019 10,463
September 2019 30,351
August 2019 10,844
May 2019 256
April 2018 122
February 2017 3
April 2016 44
September 2015 115
April 2015 149
March 2015 74
December 2014 374
November 2014 3,019
October 2014 1,219
September 2014 375
May 2014 291
April 2014 2,468
March 2014 1,452
January 2014 347
December 2013 725
November 2013 155
October 2013 79
May 2013 635
April 2013 970
February 2013 1,189
January 2013 543
December 2012 1
October 2012 77
July 2012 17
May 2012 3
April 2012 164
January 2012 260
December 2011 995
November 2011 8,595
May 2011 6

Hall o' fame ranking

Rank Corrector Lines corrected
1 JohnWarren 5,783,509
2 noelwoodhouse 3,897,575
3 NeilHamilton 3,428,585
4 DonnaTelfer 3,272,406
5 Rhonda.M 3,095,194
...
604 marie.slsa 76,870
605 brewer 76,721
606 rayhayes 76,382
607 pherous 76,380
608 Jenny.Coates 76,332
609 joannehobbs 76,081

76,380 line(s) corrected.

Corrections by month

October 2019 10,463
September 2019 30,351
August 2019 10,844
May 2019 256
April 2018 122
February 2017 3
April 2016 44
September 2015 115
April 2015 149
March 2015 74
December 2014 374
November 2014 3,019
October 2014 1,219
September 2014 375
May 2014 291
April 2014 2,468
March 2014 1,452
January 2014 347
December 2013 725
November 2013 155
October 2013 79
May 2013 635
April 2013 970
February 2013 1,189
January 2013 543
December 2012 1
October 2012 77
July 2012 17
May 2012 3
April 2012 164
January 2012 260
December 2011 995
November 2011 8,595
May 2011 6

No text corrections for 'Government Gazettes'


Recent corrections

Article Changed Old lines New lines
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT. SITTINGS IN BANCO, TRINITY TERM. OLD COURT-HOUSE.—WEDNESDAY, JULY 9. (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Willinms, and Mr. Justice Fellows.) O'DONNELL, APPELLANT, GOLDSTEIN, RESPONDENT. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Friday 11 July 1873 [Issue No.8,449] page 7 2019-10-14 16:55 S5I1TII V S J1T1I VVD ARV1ST110NC
Rule îiisifor a new tnal
Mr Ireland Q C Mr nigmbotham and
Di Dobson mov ed the rule absolute Mi
Billing Mi Lawes and Mi De Veidon
show edtause for the respondent Mr Wnxon
In this case the plaintiff Mr Villeneuve
Smith had sued for t divorce from his wife
on the ground of her adultery with the co
lespondent Andrew Armstrong The case
was tned before a jurj who found that the
cbaigcs against the respondent and co
respondent had not been piovcd and that
some counter chai ces against the petition«
xveio proved 'Ino present nile was ob
tamed on the prom 1 that ono of the peti
tioners witt esse Win lohnson had been
tampered with had been made drunk by a
sistei of the corespondents taken away
li oin the court and irevented giving evi
giv en vv ns said to be v ei v mateml
Mi Bil UNG in showing cause said that all
he had to ansvvei was the atteini t to tnmpei
with the witness
Air IRELAND said that he should certainly
reid Johnsons affidavit to show the natuie
of the evidence he was prevented giving
Air Tuslice Bunn -Allthat we have to
deni with now is the attempt to frustrate the
idministiation of justice by tampering with
a witness
Mr lui r \ND maintained that he was en
ti'lcd to go into all Johnson s statements It
would be a denial of justice if ho was pre
vented doing so Why should this case bo
conducted diffeiently to any other case' If
he vv as not allowed to read the affidavits he
should not ii gue ti e case
Mi Justice W iLrivviH -rhen we had bettel
discharge the nile
Mi Inn vhD-1 have moved the. nile ah
solute 11 e Coint can do what it likes
Mi Tustico Lvniiv -Iiocced Mi Lulling
The onlj ] nit of the nile yo i aio called on to
msvvei is the tarni einig with the witness
Mi Bu mc then iroceeded to leid the
affidavits com ected with the case
The tnal began on Thuisdaj 8th May
f he witness lohnson who is a caipentei at
Alexandra aimed in Melbourne on tho
evening of Wednesda) 7th May togiveevi
dence ne had been sent fiom Uex india
I) one of Mr Smith s friends His evidence
had not been briefed to counsel ho vv as not
subpanaed and it wns stated that neithei
the i ctitioner nor his proctor Mr Willan
1 new the natuio of the evidence ho was to
give Mi Smith only saw lum foi a few
minutes on the first da) of the tnal and re
feiied him to Mr A\illan and Mi Willan
had not time then to tako a note of the testi
mon) lie was prepared to give In his
affidavit Tohnson said that he attended at
coulton the 8th and on the morning of the
9th The witness then proceeded - Whilst
waiting to be called I was at about 11
0 clock in the forenoon inv ited by Georgo
Donohue who afteiwards gave evidence foi
the co íes] ondent to have a dnnl at his ex
pense in the Supreme Court notel at tho
coinei bf latiobe and Russell streets m Me?
SMITH V. SMITH AND ARMSTRONG.
Rule nisi a new trial.
Mr. Ireland, Q.C., Mr Higinbotham, and
Dr. Dobson moved the rule absolute. Mr.
Billing, Mr. Lawes and Mr. De Verdon
showed cause for the respondent. Mr. Wrixon
showed cause for the co-respondent.
In this case the plaintiff, Mr Villeneuve
Smith, had sued for a divorce from his wife
on the ground of her adultery with the co-
respondent, Andrew Armstrong. The case
was tried before a jury, who found that the
charges against the respondent and co-
respondent had not been proved, and that
some counter charges against the petitioner
were proved. The present rule was obtained
on the ground that one of the petitioner's
witnesses, Wm. Johnson, had been
tampered with, had been made drunk by a
sister of the co-respondent's, taken away
from the court, and prevented giving evidence.
given was said to be very material.
Mr. BILLING, in showing cause, said that all
he had to answer was the attempt to tamper
with the witness.
Mr. IRELAND said that he should certainly
read Johnson's affidavit to show the nature
of the evidence he was prevented giving.
Mr. Justice BARRY.—All that we have to
deal with now is the attempt to frustrate the
administration of justice by tampering with
a witness.
Mr IRELAND maintained that he was entitled
to go into all Johnson's statements. It
would be a denial of justice if he was prevented
doing so. Why should this case be
conducted differently to any other case? If
he was not allowed to read the affidavits he
should not argue the case.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.—Then we had better
discharge the rule.
Mr. IRELAND.—I have moved the rule absolute.
The Court can do what it likes.
Mr. Justice BARRY.—Proceed, Mr. Billing.
The only part of the rule you are called on to
answer is the tampering with the witness.
Mr. BILLING then proceeded to read the
affidavits connected with the case.
The trial began on Thursday, 8th May.
The witness Johnson, who is a carpenter at
Alexandra, arrived in Melbourne on the
evening of Wednesday, 7th May, to give evidence.
He had been sent from Alexandra
by one of Mr Smith's friends. His evidence
had not been briefed to counsel ; he was not
subpœnaed, and it was stated that neither
the petitioner nor his proctor, Mr Willan,
knew the nature of the evidence he was to
give. Mr. Smith only saw him for a few
minutes on the first day of the trial, and referred
him to Mr. Willan, and Mr. Willan
had not time then to take a note of the testimony
he was prepared to give. In his
affidavit, Johnson said that he attended at
court on the 8th and on the morning of the
9th. The witness then proceeded:—"Whilst
waiting to be called I was, at about 11
o'clock in the forenoon, invited by George
Donohue, who afterwards gave evidence for
the co-respondent, to have a drink at his expense
in the Supreme Court Hotel, at the
corner of latiobe and Russell streets m Me?
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT. SITTINGS IN BANCO.—THINITY TERM. NEW COURT-HOUSE. (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Barry and Mr. Justice Fellows.) DEGRAVES V. M'MULLEN. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Wednesday 25 June 1873 [Issue No.8,435] page 1 2019-10-14 16:36 SMITH V SMITH A\D ARMSTRONG
Mr Ireland Q C mentioned this caso in
which Mr Villeneuve Smith prayed for a
dry orce fiom Ins wife lhere was a trial of
certain issues before a jury hut tho peti
bench
SMITH V SMITH AND ARMSTRONG.
Mr Ireland Q.C. mentioned this case in
which Mr. Villeneuve Smith prayed for a
divorce from his wife. There was a trial of
certain issues before a jury, but the petitioner
wished for a new trial.
over till Mr. Justice Williams was on the
bench.
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1873. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Thursday 15 May 1873 [Issue No.8,400] page 4 2019-10-14 16:31 fcarrister-at-law, petitioned for a divorce
from his wife, to whom ho has been
respondent being Mr. Andrew Arm-
instituted but for an assault com-
upon that of Mrs. Smith byherhus
hfvjrJL, Thereupon, according to the
pe$Äoner's counsel, he resolved upon
countor-charge3 of adultery preferred by
and cross-examine, as a'matter of course
the professional gentlemen engaged suc-
render the whole as interesting read-
s>eoms to be a man after Feydeau's own
.any trace of manliness, or even common
'humanity, in his conduct towards some
-declared he committed adultery. The
i before whom the charges were investi-
-issues submitted to the jury they
.respondent committed adultery on the
'three occasions alleged by the peti-
.latter had committed a similar offence, with
-sundry other females unenumerated, and
whether he was guilty of cruelty to re-
iBudi as to exonerate Mrs. Smith, to the
Tu his attempt to defame her, he
learned judge said, " fabricated an im
" putation of adultery against his wife,"
that Mr. Smith instituted these pro-
Court he ia pronounced to be an adul-
terer and a cruel husband. For the un-
instead-of his own self-respect, .and of
the íespect which may have been pre-
people. _
barrister-at-law, petitioned for a divorce
from his wife, to whom he has been
upon that of Mrs. Smith by her husband.
Thereupon, according to the
petitioner's counsel, he resolved upon
counter-charges of adultery preferred by
and cross-examine, as a matter of course
seems to be a man after Feydeau's own
any trace of manliness, or even common
humanity, in his conduct towards some
declared he committed adultery. The
issues submitted to the jury they
respondent committed adultery on the
latter had committed a similar offence, with
sundry other females unenumerated, and
such as to exonerate Mrs. Smith, to the
In his attempt to defame her, he
" of adultery against his wife,"
Court he is pronounced to be an adulterer
instead—of his own self-respect, and of
the respect which may have been previously
people.
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1873. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Thursday 15 May 1873 [Issue No.8,400] page 4 2019-10-14 16:26 The debate on tile Address in answer
light skirmishing yireparatory to the
interferes witli the progress of public
when Mr. Fhancis sat down, but it
we suppose a dozen other equally retir-
their eloquent souls are athirst. ' The
had to sustain last night were in con-
service, tlie alleged failure of the
the talents and measures of its prede-
can be found so 'fond' of reiterating
another treaty with New South AVales,
and the former gentlemiiu contended
that things aro not so ripe for settlement
now as they were when he quitted office
Accoiding to his making out, the terms
woro so entirely and manifestly generous
and equitable that tho Sydney Premier's
refusal to accept thom was ths signal
the iron was hot with the fire of his pre-
decessor's genius, in order to havo con-
cluded ft satisfactory arrangement. The.
idea is eminently poetical, and alto-
gether worthy of it» distinguished origi-
nator, butwe fearwill scarcelybear exami-
that there has never been auy real anxiety
Border duties question. Mr. Parkes
things is popular in Sydney, whose mer-
members interfere .with their gainai
far as Victorian interests are concerned
than that at present under consideration
impose a duty on stock should our Par-
during the currency of the treaty. Thi.
worth an extra payment, because it wa.
his assertion, all the unpleasantne-iv
London. Hud Mr. Childers been re
tainedinhis position and had Mr. Cashel
Hoey not fallen a victim to tho
bj' pointing out that the agency
M'Cullocii during the time the postal
the English. Government, than whom no
succeeded in parading the wrongs of -
the mail line, and drew a touching pic-
ture of the coming isolation-which would
assuredly be the reward of her wrong-
doings. Thrown on our own resource.,
outside world. The country, he de-
clared, would never .sanction the expen-
diture necessaiy to run a mail line ou
Imperial Government, of its own freo \
connexion with a postal service, stipu-
from nil trouble, and that the details of
after having honourably porformed our
South Wales, or anxious to please hi.
our relations with the home authoritie-i
course, coerce the Earl of Kimberley;,
Mr. Francis, however, pointed out, wo
should receive over ¿40,000 postage,
that the Messageries Maritimes contem-
plate running their steamerb to these
Wc have no wish to quarrel with the
the dilatoriness displayed in adminis-
tering the Education Act, but wo think
Francis, that, looking at the multi-
the chango of system, the wonder is
short a period of time. The lion, mem-
success. Seeing that discount was un
precedentedly low at the commence-
deposits, and that with a similar allow-
ance of interest the savings in .the Post
.he thought he was justified in demand-
as the 4 per cent. Victorian stock. Ho
has received ¿£1S5,000 from the public,
cabh lying in the bank idle -y but the
" why did you call for money ü yon
" had no use for it ?" The bon. gentle-
man, however, will no doubt explain,
seme future time.
The Supreme. Court, in its Divorce
light of day. Mr. Viu.f.ne.uye Smith»
The debate on the Address in answer
light skirmishing preparatory to the
interferes with the progress of public
when Mr. Francis sat down, but it
their eloquent souls are athirst. The
service, the alleged failure of the
can be found so fond of reiterating
another treaty with New South Wales,
and the former gentleman contended
that things are not so ripe for settlement
now as they were when he quitted office.
According to his making out, the terms
were so entirely and manifestly generous
and equitable that the Sydney Premier's
refusal to accept them was ths signal
genius, in order to have concluded
a satisfactory arrangement. The
worthy of its distinguished originator,
but we fear will scarcely bear examination.
that there has never been any real anxiety
Border duties question. Mr. Parkes,
members interfere with their game?
far as Victorian interests are concerned,
than that at present under consideration,
during the currency of the treaty. This
worth an extra payment, because it was
his assertion, all the unpleasantness
London. Had Mr. Childers been retained
in his position and had Mr. Cashel
Hoey not fallen a victim to the
by pointing out that the agency
McCulloch during the time the postal
the English Government, than whom no
succeeded in parading the wrongs of
of the coming isolation which would
Thrown on our own resources,
necessary to run a mail line on
Imperial Government, of its own free
from all trouble, and that the details of
after having honourably performed our
South Wales, or anxious to please his
our relations with the home authorities
course, coerce the Earl of Kimberley,
Mr. Francis, however, pointed out, we
should receive over £40,000 postage,
running their steamers to these
We have no wish to quarrel with the
the Education Act, but we think
the change of system, the wonder is
short a period of time. The hon. member
of interest the savings in the Post-
as the 4 per cent. Victorian stock. He
has received ¿185,000 from the public,
cash lying in the bank idle ; but the
" why did you call for money if you
" had no use for it ?" The hon. gentleman,
however, will no doubt explain
some future time.
The Supreme Court, in its Divorce
light of day. Mr. Villeneuve Smith,
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT. Old Court-House—Saturday, MAY 10. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES JURISDICTION. (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Fellows.) SMITH V. SMITH AND ARMSTRONG. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Monday 12 May 1873 [Issue No.8,397] page 6 2019-10-14 16:06 Re-examined.-It was at Benalla that I told
Sir Fiancis Smith that petitioner had re-,
tenus. I am also on intimate terms with my
diovc Mrs. Akehurst to Kilmore. Mr. Smith
.was in town when Mrs. Akehurst carno. I
the sticet hy our house when lie mentioned
To Mr. Justice Williams,-I did not hear
Bhut the window again because he had hold
nenry Toomath, Church of England clergy-
Mas formerly at Alexandra. Knew Arm-
strong and Mrs. Smith. Knew Mrs. Thorn's
visits theio onceamonth. It is about 10 miles
from Alexandra. On 22nd May, 1871,1 met the
that night. Mrs. Thorn's son and his family,
?Mr. Armstrong, and another person were
theic. We stopped there that night. Left
tlie station next day, about 2 o'clock. We had
?was asked to stay, and she said she would bo
«lost willing to stop but she thought Mr.
plinth might ho home. She asked me when
-1 was going, and I said I had some people to
|ce, and would start about 1 o'clock. Mis.
*>nntli and Armstrong came with me on
npiBcbaek. When we got within half a mile
«f the township Armstrong left, to look after
tate. Willie Smith came out as wo got to tho
gntc. Ho said, " Mamma, why did you not
come «fiooner ? I expected you here at 1
oclock. There have been people here, but
cînX . ° lnau0 a muU of *'. x nnv0 taken
¿100 since you left, and I expect there will be
a telegiam to the governoi, and ho may
como home to-night." This was between 4
Cioss-examined by Mr. Ireland.-Arm
Wron- -¡vas present at the breakfast. I fix
tu' ..- 'l by my diary, and by the exposure
ïak- ß' Place before the Queen's Birthday. I
'Hive read the son's statement, and it is one
w the most extraoidinary things he could
nave foigotten me seeing him. I can't
understand it. I am positive he is wrong."
i think the day of the week was Tuesday,
wit it muy have been Wednesday. I con-
tlierefoie I am quite sure of the date. Arm-
strong made a declaration of .his innocence"
to mc. I told bim it could not be accepted.
He said he waa suffering from heart diseasef
elbar himself and others. I told him it
would be of no weight as evidence, as it wpa
not on oath. '
Mr. Lawes.-I have known Mrs. Smith six
Broadfoid. I was living afterwards at Kil-
three days with us at Kilmore. > She came
to Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I havo been three
Mr. Ireland.-I don't like to object to
this, but it is not evidence. ,
Mr. Lawes.-Do you object or not.
Mr. Ireland.-Well, as you won't take a
Examination continued.-The last occa-
May, and stayed a week. Theie was a ba-
of glass leading on to tho verandah from
two or three times. He came overy night to
through tho room last time. She spoke to
some years before he mpr with an accident
Cross-examined hy Mr. Ireland.-When ho
Mr. Smith had a disagreement with Mr,
Armstrong. I returned homo about the 16th
I don't remember that I took fare woll of him.
I think I have seen him theie when Mr.
Mr. Ireland.-He is not a weak-minded
Mrs. Akehurst. -Ho is not a strong-minded
man. Ile never came to the window after 8
o'clock. Ile would have done so if he wanted
At this stage the further'hearing of the
Re-examined.—It was at Benalla that I told
Sir Francis Smith that petitioner had reformed,
terms. I am also on intimate terms with my
drove Mrs. Akehurst to Kilmore. Mr. Smith
was in town when Mrs. Akehurst came. I
the street by our house when he mentioned
To Mr. Justice Williams,—I did not hear
shut the window again because he had hold
Henry Toomath, Church of England clergyman
Was formerly at Alexandra. Knew Armstrong
and Mrs. Smith. Knew Mrs. Thom's
visits there once a month. It is about 10 miles
from Alexandra. On 22nd May, 1871, I met the
that night. Mrs. Thom's son and his family,
Mr. Armstrong, and another person were
there. We stopped there that night. Left
the station next day, about 2 o'clock. We had
was asked to stay, and she said she would be
most willing to stop but she thought Mr.
Smith might be home. She asked me when
I was going, and I said I had some people to
see, and would start about 1 o'clock. Mrs.
Smith and Armstrong came with me on
horseback. When we got within half a mile
of the township Armstrong left, to look after
gate. Willie Smith came out as we got to the
gate. He said, " Mamma, why did you not
come sooner ? I expected you here at 1
o'clock. There have been people here, but
they have made a mull of it. I have taken
£100 since you left, and I expect there will be
a telegram to the governor, and he may
come home to-night." This was between 4
Cross-examined by Mr. Ireland.—Armstrong
was present at the breakfast. I fix
th??? by my diary, and by the exposure
taking place before the Queen's Birthday. I
have read the son's statement, and it is one
of the most extraordinary things he could
have forgotten me seeing him. I can't
I think the day of the week was Tuesday,
but it may have been Wednesday. I consulted
therefore I am quite sure of the date. Armstrong
made a declaration of his innocence
to me. I told him it could not be accepted.
He said he was suffering from heart disease,
clear himself and others. I told him it
would be of no weight as evidence, as it was
not on oath.
Mr. Lawes.—I have known Mrs. Smith six
Broadford. I was living afterwards at Kilmore.
three days with us at Kilmore. She came
to Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I have been three
Mr. Ireland.—I don't like to object to
this, but it is not evidence.
Mr. Lawes.—Do you object or not.
Mr. Ireland.—Well, as you won't take a
Examination continued.—The last occasion
May, and stayed a week. There was a bazaar
of glass leading on to the verandah from
two or three times. He came every night to
through the room last time. She spoke to
some years before he met with an accident
Cross-examined by Mr. Ireland.—When he
Mr. Smith had a disagreement with Mr.
Armstrong. I returned home about the 16th
I don't remember that I took farewell of him.
I think I have seen him there when Mr.
Mr. Ireland.—He is not a weak-minded
Mrs. Akehurst. —He is not a strong-minded
man. He never came to the window after 8
o'clock. He would have done so if he wanted
At this stage the further hearing of the
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT. Old Court-House—Saturday, MAY 10. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES JURISDICTION. (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Fellows.) SMITH V. SMITH AND ARMSTRONG. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Monday 12 May 1873 [Issue No.8,397] page 6 2019-10-14 15:55 «opened ?-I don't know. I turned round to
rmore than you.' What did he dash out for?
I suppose he saw him. . . ., . '
Perhaps-he supposed he-was inside instead
of out?-No. ___,
Was the blind on J-Yes.
He could not see through the blind ?-No.
How did he see Armstrong through it ?-I
don't know. I let go the windqw, and the
-window went out.
Where did Armstrong go?-I don t know.
" police" immediately after he ran away ?
What did you do?-I dressed myself.,
Did you go out ?-I went out to the garden.
Did you call your son ?-No ; I did notknow
Had you-a suspicion-that Mr. Smith and
Armstrong were assaulting one another ?-I
rushed out of the window, and that imme-
diately after-there-were cries of murder, you
rdid not take the trouble to inquire what was
' - the matter ?-I was too much afraid to go.
Standing at the window ?-I did not know
.what was the matter. I thought it very
likely that ho was shouting at Armstrong,
husband ?-Nothing.
You did not call up your son notwithstand-
ing the cries of murder ?-No.
Why?-I did not do it.
Ia it not odd you did not ?-I knew Mr.
But he was always in a passion?-Yes.
nothing, although there were cries of murder '!
-1 did not believe there was any chance of
should run away ?-Yes, very extraordinary.
Yet you took it very easy ?-No.
What did you do?-Nothing; I could not
Did you awake the boy Small?-Yes.
ovei?-No: he was so frightened that I told
Did you not know Mr. Smith and Arm-
stiong were engaged fighting outside ?-No,
never woke your son?-I was too much
Ko.
Wheie did you go when you dressed?
Did you go in the direction where your hus-
band was calling ?-No. If he had not made
that night?-No.
hat?-No.
-About a minute. It was all done in an
husband darted out ?-I don't know.
Did you see Mr. Smith that night again ?
Did he say anything about Armstrong?
Your son says he was looking for yon, and
could not find you ?-I saw him looking for
Why did you not show youl self ?-I don't
Weie you hiding?-No. I did notknow
lie was looking for me.
Why did you not go into the house ?-I was
too flightened, and I did not know whether
heard my son calling me. '
box ?-Yes.
Why ?-Because I wanted to pack up my
Did you tell your husband of that ?-No.
to ?-I lent it to him a few days after Mrs.
Were you told why you were to go?-No,
Did you not ask-you, an innocent
woman ?-I did not know, except it was on
Did you ask a single question about it?
you ?-Because I knew if I did he would be
turned out?-I knew it was no use.
Why did you not try?-Because I was
wrong?-No.
When did you next see him?-On the
Tnsmania,
Did you ask him for what ?-No.
Why?-Because I knew it was no use
Bpeaking to him. I was afraid.
But you weie not afraid to say " No."
Can't you explain ?-I did not do it.
You weie quite satisfied with your husband
telling you to pack up your clothes?-I was
Btoiywas a fabrication?-I said it was true
Mr. Aimstrong had been at the window, but
shakedown that night ?-No.
Your counsel asked your son that ques-
tion. Did you tell him to do so?-No. I
have a shakedown. Mis. Akehurst sent me
Thcie is only one more question. Did you,
after tho caution you received from your
Bitting on a log with him, making presents to
him, and never mentioning it to your hus-
band?-I did not think it wrong, or I would
opened ?—I don't know. I turned round to
more than you. What did he dash out for?—
I suppose he saw him.
Perhaps he supposed he was inside instead
of out?—No.
Was the blind on ?—Yes.
He could not see through the blind ?—No.
How did he see Armstrong through it ?—I
don't know. I let go the window, and the
window went out.
Where did Armstrong go?—I don't know.
" police" immediately after he ran away ?—
Yes.
What did you do?—I dressed myself.
Did you go out ?—I went out to the garden.
Did you call your son ?—No ; I did not know
Had you a suspicion that Mr. Smith and
Armstrong were assaulting one another ?—I
after there were cries of murder, you
did not take the trouble to inquire what was
the matter ?—I was too much afraid to go.
standing at the window ?—I did not know
what was the matter. I thought it very
likely that he was shouting at Armstrong,
husband ?—Nothing.
the cries of murder ?—No.
Why?—I did not do it.
Is it not odd you did not ?—I knew Mr.
But he was always in a passion?—Yes.
nothing, although there were cries of murder ?
—I did not believe there was any chance of
should run away ?—Yes, very extraordinary.
Yet you took it very easy ?—No.
What did you do?—Nothing; I could not
Did you awake the boy Small?—Yes.
over?—No: he was so frightened that I told
Did you not know Mr. Smith and Armstrong
were engaged fighting outside ?—No,
never woke your son?—I was too much
No.
Where did you go when you dressed?
was calling ?—No. If he had not made
that night?—No.
hat?—No.
—About a minute. It was all done in an
husband darted out ?—I don't know.
Did you see Mr. Smith that night again ?—
Did he say anything about Armstrong?—
Your son says he was looking for you, and
could not find you ?—I saw him looking for
Why did you not show youl self ?—I don't
Were you hiding?—No. I did not know
he was looking for me.
Why did you not go into the house ?—I was
too frightened, and I did not know whether
heard my son calling me.
box ?—Yes.
Why ?—Because I wanted to pack up my
Did you tell your husband of that ?—No.
to ?—I lent it to him a few days after Mrs.
Were you told why you were to go?—No.
Did you not ask—you, an innocent
woman ?—I did not know, except it was on
Did you ask a single question about it?—
you ?—Because I knew if I did he would be
turned out?—I knew it was no use.
Why did you not try?—Because I was
wrong?—No.
When did you next see him?—On the
Tasmania.
Did you ask him for what ?—No.
Why?—Because I knew it was no use
speaking to him. I was afraid.
But you were not afraid to say " No."
Can't you explain ?—I did not do it.
You were quite satisfied with your husband
telling you to pack up your clothes?—I was
story was a fabrication?—I said it was true
Mr. Armstrong had been at the window, but
shakedown that night ?—No.
Did you tell him to do so?—No. I
have a shakedown. Mrs. Akehurst sent me
There is only one more question. Did you,
after the caution you received from your
sitting on a log with him, making presents to
him, and never mentioning it to your husband ?
—I did not think it wrong, or I would
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT. Old Court-House—Saturday, MAY 10. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES JURISDICTION. (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Fellows.) SMITH V. SMITH AND ARMSTRONG. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Monday 12 May 1873 [Issue No.8,397] page 6 2019-10-14 15:44 ho brought me from Melbourne. ' '*
Don't you remember his arriving whem
you were in bed?-Yes, but ho had left Kil
more and gone away on business, and camn
back again. r t. ""*
By whom waa Armstrong introduced to Mr
Smith ?-I don't remember. "'
Did not Mr. Smith tell you on the vcran.'
dab that ho did not like the man, that her
was vulgar and over familiar 1-No, he never
it was the evening I have mentioned, at tea
except when Mr, Smith brought him twice '
-I don't think bo. . "
He called and visited you when Mr. Smith,
was out ?-Yes.
How often ?-I can't say.
After the tea-party ?-Yes, very often, with,
these visits ?-No.
desire you to have any familiarity with him .
wero in the habit of meeting him, and you
never mentioned it to your husband?-No I
But this particular person ?-I offered to
You weio told to drop his acquaintance
never told him ?-I did not mention about
was, that I had promised Mra. Akehurst to
You concealed his visits?-No, I did not.
You did not mention them ?-No, I never
Were you cautioned as to others ?-ne was
Did you allow people ho was angry with
to como to the house and not tell him ?
Was that your habit 1-Yes.
brought to dinner?-Yes.
call ?-Not unless he was with them.
the house ?-Yes.
tell your husband ?-I did not tell him. My
To everybody ?-To me.
On account of other people ?-Yes.
Mr. Emerson ?-They were his friends.
he was violent, not his ?-Yes.
-He did not ask me.
But he did not know of it ?-Everybody
thing to systematically suppress his pre-
sence ? If you do, say so.-Under the cir-
Notwithstanding your knowledge of hia
Mabel Johnston, you continued to live withi
a man who' was of so violent a temper that
you did not speak to him On any subject?-I
house. He abused everybody that carne to
You did not caie to let him know about
Armstrong?-I did not care whether he knew
Mis. Akehuist asked you to do what you
could for her brother, and to do> that you
concealed his presence ?-No ; not at'all.
Did you ever ride with Mr. Smith for ex-
ercise ?~Sometimes j very seldom.
him ?-Yes ; I think so. I don't remember.
tea-party ?-Six years.
Mr. Smith carno in t-Yes ; he went shortly
How long was he there ?-Ho had only been
there time enough to take his tea ; about 10'
How soon after Mr. Smith came did Arm
stiong leave?-A few minutes.
Abruptly rather ?-No. He remained a few
loom.
Mr. Smith was not awaie from you that he
ever came again ?-No.
him since ?-Neaily every day, but not in the
How often in the house ?-I don't know.
Did you ever go with him on horseback ?
No. I have met him on horseback. Ile has
i idden a few yards to open a gate, but we
You know where the log that has been de-
scribed is-the one you went to with tlio
children? How far is itfiomyour house-a
mile ?-No, not half a mile.
It is in the scrub, is it not ?-No, it is near
Ai m strong wnlked out with you ?-Yes.
Do you know where Jones lives ?-I don't
know hia house ; I know about where ho
How long were you out ?-About half an
Accompanied by Armstrong ?-No ; I went
out with the childi en, and Mr, Aimstrong
Who were the children 7-One belonged to
You sat on the log with Armstrong?-I
How long weie you theie ?-About 10»
Were you both looking for- the tomahawk
at the same time ?-I don't think bo.
-Yes.
Were the children out of your sight?-I am.
Was Mr. Smith at home ?-I think so, but
Did you mention to him having met with»
Armstrong ?-No.
You admit having been on the log, and,
stooping down and getting up again ?-Yes.
Do you remember the second log ?-No.
saja occurred there did not occur?-Yes, I
I will come now to the 23rd May. Would'
it be Mr. Smith's course to return on'thafc
day, before the courts were finished?-Yes;
occasions?-No.
Was your son at dinner on that day ? Yea ;
Didn't he dine at Whitelaw's ?-No ; I am
He Bays the last time he saw you on that
day waa at lunch ?-That is untrue. I had
lunch at Mrs. Thorn's.
Was your son ever cresent when the peti-
tioner showed you violence ?-No ; he was
Some of the servants were present. Norah*
his cruelty to you?-Yes; I complained to>
him several times at Benalla, and in Tas-
did you tell him that you wero happier then
than ever, and that he had reformed ?-No ; I
What sort of a house is tho one at Alex-
andra ?-Weatherboaid.
How long wero you in bed when you heard
the noise on tho night of 23rd May?-I
can't'tcll.
When Armstrong carno to see Mrs. Ake-
hurst when sho was at your placo was Mr.
Smith at home?-I don't know, I am Bine.
' What time'was it he culled for her?-In
the evening, about 0 o'clock.
Did he ever come at 11, o'clock ?-I don b
23rd May?-At Kilmore.
his sister who was at Kilmore ?-She wa3
You opened tlie window when you heard
the knock ?-I did. ,
Could you not havo heard without doing
that ?-I could not hear fiom the noise of the
How long wcio you talking beforo Mr.
Smith came ?-About two or threo minutes.
Had Aimstrong his clothes on?-I did nod
see him. . ,
Were you apprehensive he would force Ina
woy into the loom?-No.
Did you hear Mr. Smith turn the handleof
the door twice ?-No ; I only heard him
in ?-I do.
Wero you not standing m the loom in your
nightdress ?-Yes, I know that.
Had Axmstiong gone before the door
he brought me from Melbourne.
Don't you remember his arriving when
you were in bed?—Yes, but he had left Kilmore
and gone away on business, and came
back again.
By whom was Armstrong introduced to Mr.
Smith ?—I don't remember.
Did not Mr. Smith tell you on the verandah
that he did not like the man, that he
was vulgar and over familiar ?—No, he never
it was the evening I have mentioned, at tea-
except when Mr. Smith brought him twice ?
—I don't think so.
He called and visited you when Mr. Smith
was out ?—Yes.
How often ?—I can't say.
After the tea-party ?—Yes, very often, with
these visits ?—No.
desire you to have any familiarity with him ;
were in the habit of meeting him, and you
never mentioned it to your husband?—No, I
But this particular person ?—I offered to
You were told to drop his acquaintance,
never told him ?—I did not mention about
was, that I had promised Mrs. Akehurst to
You concealed his visits?—No, I did not.
You did not mention them ?—No, I never
Were you cautioned as to others ?—He was
Did you allow people he was angry with
to come to the house and not tell him ?—
Was that your habit ?—Yes.
brought to dinner?—Yes.
call ?—Not unless he was with them.
the house ?—Yes.
tell your husband ?—I did not tell him. My
To everybody ?—To me.
On account of other people ?—Yes.
Mr. Emerson ?—They were his friends.
he was violent, not his ?—Yes.
—He did not ask me.
But he did not know of it ?—Everybody
thing to systematically suppress his presence?
If you do, say so.—Under the circumstances,
Notwithstanding your knowledge of his
Mabel Johnston, you continued to live with
a man who was of so violent a temper that
you did not speak to him on any subject?—I
house. He abused everybody that came to
You did not care to let him know about
Armstrong?—I did not care whether he knew
Mrs. Akehuist asked you to do what you
could for her brother, and to do that you
concealed his presence ?—No ; not at all.
Did you ever ride with Mr. Smith for exercise?—
Sometimes ; very seldom.
him ?—Yes ; I think so. I don't remember.
tea-party ?—Six years.
Mr. Smith came in ?—Yes ; he went shortly
How long was he there ?—He had only been
there time enough to take his tea ; about 10
How soon after Mr. Smith came did Armstrong
leave?—A few minutes.
Abruptly rather ?—No. He remained a few
room.
Mr. Smith was not aware from you that he
ever came again ?—No.
him since ?—Nearly every day, but not in the
How often in the house ?—I don't know.
Did you ever go with him on horseback ?—
No. I have met him on horseback. He has
ridden a few yards to open a gate, but we
is—the one you went to with the
children? How far is it from your house—a
mile ?—No, not half a mile.
It is in the scrub, is it not ?—No, it is near
Armstrong walked out with you ?—Yes.
Do you know where Jones lives ?—I don't
know his house ; I know about where he
How long were you out ?—About half an
Accompanied by Armstrong ?—No ; I went
out with the children, and Mr. Armstrong
Who were the children ?—One belonged to
You sat on the log with Armstrong?—I
How long were you there ?—About 10
Were you both looking for the tomahawk
at the same time ?—I don't think so.
—Yes.
Were the children out of your sight?—I am
Was Mr. Smith at home ?—I think so, but
Did you mention to him having met with
Armstrong ?—No.
You admit having been on the log, and
stooping down and getting up again ?—Yes.
Do you remember the second log ?—No.
says occurred there did not occur?—Yes, I
I will come now to the 23rd May. Would
it be Mr. Smith's course to return on that
day, before the courts were finished?—Yes;
occasions?—No.
Was your son at dinner on that day ? Yes ;
Didn't he dine at Whitelaw's ?—No ; I am
He says the last time he saw you on that
day was at lunch ?—That is untrue. I had
lunch at Mrs. Thom's.
Was your son ever present when the petitioner
showed you violence ?—No ; he was
Some of the servants were present. Norah
his cruelty to you?—Yes; I complained to
did you tell him that you were happier then
than ever, and that he had reformed ?—No ; I
What sort of a house is the one at Alexandra ?—
Weatherboard.
How long were you in bed when you heard
the noise on the night of 23rd May?—I
can't tell.
When Armstrong came to see Mrs. Akehurst
when she was at your place was Mr.
Smith at home?—I don't know, I am sure.
What time was it he called for her?—In
the evening, about 6 o'clock.
Did he ever come at 11 o'clock ?—I don't
23rd May?—At Kilmore.
his sister who was at Kilmore ?—She was
You opened the window when you heard
the knock ?—I did.
Could you not have heard without doing
that ?—I could not hear from the noise of the
How long were you talking before Mr.
Smith came ?—About two or three minutes.
Had Aimstrong his clothes on?—I did not
see him.
Were you apprehensive he would force his
way into the room?—No.
Did you hear Mr. Smith turn the handle of
the door twice ?—No ; I only heard him
in ?—I do.
Were you not standing in the room in your
nightdress ?—Yes, I know that.
Had Armstrong gone before the door
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT. Old Court-House—Saturday, MAY 10. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES JURISDICTION. (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Fellows.) SMITH V. SMITH AND ARMSTRONG. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Monday 12 May 1873 [Issue No.8,397] page 6 2019-10-14 15:19 Akehurst'e, at Kilmore.
Did not Mr. Smith meet you there.'-Noi
Akehurst's, at Kilmore.
Did not Mr. Smith meet you there?—No,
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT. Old Court-House—Saturday, MAY 10. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES JURISDICTION. (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Fellows.) SMITH V. SMITH AND ARMSTRONG. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Monday 12 May 1873 [Issue No.8,397] page 6 2019-10-14 15:12 had transpued of which he had never heard
Mr. Ireland did not think that the busi-
?with his learned friends, there might be no
cross-examination atall.
Mr. Justice Barry.-The examination of
Mr. Billing objected. The witnesses to bo
examined might depend on the cross-examina-
tion of the íespondent.
should adjourn foran hour, and it adjourned
Mr. Ireland cioss-examined the witness.
1859, and you spoke of a Miss Williams caus
ing you some anxiety ?-Yes.
niece of tho pctitionei's?-No ; that is a
Williams to your husband, and you ro
Ir. Smith walking with her ?-Yes.
for lcceiving letteis of that description ?-I
asked him if there was anything wiong, and
be moro sorry than angry. It was after that
he walked with her and offered to intioduce
me to her. '
yourself ?-No.
< You found another lottor from Mrs. Rol-
I was in London. I knew of her in Tas-
mania. He told me it was tho same Mis.
-Collings. '
Do you remember tho contents of the an-
onymous letter you wrote ?-No.
The substance of it ?-It was abusing hiâ
Ile hocame rather exasperated over it?-He
did. ,
invited her thero?-I believe it was Mr.
This ball was after he told you of the im-
propriety between them ?-It was.
Knowing that he and she had been carry,
ing on in that way, did you leave tho loom ?
became acquainted with Aimstiong-when
was that?- When I was going to Alexandra
first, in 1808. Mr. Smith had bl ought me
had transpired of which he had never heard
with his learned friends, there might be no
cross-examination at all.
Mr. Justice Barry.—The examination of
Mr. Billing objected. The witnesses to be
of the respondent.
should adjourn for an hour, and it adjourned
Mr. Ireland cross-examined the witness.
you some anxiety ?—Yes.
niece of tho petitioner's?—No ; that is a
Williams to your husband, and you reproached
Mr. Smith walking with her ?—Yes.
for receiving letters of that description ?—I
asked him if there was anything wrong, and
be more sorry than angry. It was after that
he walked with her and offered to introduce
me to her.
yourself ?—No.
You found another letter from Mrs. Hollings,
He told me it was the same Mrs.
Hollings.
Do you remember the contents of the anonymous
letter you wrote ?—No.
The substance of it ?—It was abusing his
He became rather exasperated over it?—He
did.
invited her there?—I believe it was Mr.
between them ?—It was.
on in that way, did you leave the room ?—
became acquainted with Armstrong—when
was that?—When I was going to Alexandra
first, in 1868. Mr. Smith had brought me
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT. Old Court-House—Saturday, MAY 10. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES JURISDICTION. (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Fellows.) SMITH V. SMITH AND ARMSTRONG. (Article), The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Monday 12 May 1873 [Issue No.8,397] page 6 2019-10-14 15:06 Old Court-House-Saturday, Mat 10.
divobce and matrimonial causes jurisdic-
TION.
. Mr. JuBtice Williams, and , Mr. Justice
Fellows.) .
the jury stated that the jury wished to havo
misconduct of the respondent and co-respon-
presence of the children on one of these occa-
Mr. Justice Barry said that it was im-
(fe bene esse previously, and had said nothing
Mr. Billing- would object to his being re-
attorney, knew of the presence of the chil-
dren tul Healey mentioned it.
Mr. Billing.-Is Jones to be re-called ?
Mr. Justice Barry.-No.
Tho examination of Mrs. Smith, the re-
spondent, was then resumed.-Some time
namely, tho beginning of 1867,1 had a con-
enclosed in this envelope :
" Dear Mr. Smith,-I am going over to Tas-
see my little darling. I will nave her like-
taken caro off by my dear mother up to this
. I would come over. You know I have not
I have been saving my money to take tlie
Will you send mo down a few pounds to
Onely look to her, poor little dear, and bring'
brought up. I do hope you mil look into '
you mean to do. You little know how un
I offered to take the child, and have- it
He said ho would write a letter to Mabel
it:
" O'Brien's-bridgo, Sept. 4,1867.
"Dear Sir,-As I have been Informed by
my daughter Mabie that you wish your child
poor child support, I wiBh to know the ob-
child, and I could not pait with it while I
with the dear little crater as long as tlie
Lord ib plea.cd to spear me in this wourld o£
troubles. I can say no more.-I remain,
he received from Mabel. He told me ho had
met her in town, and tried to settle the busi-
ness of the child with her in Mr. WiDan's
office. He mode me take a copy of a letter
ho sent her. We were at Wood's Point at
this time. That is the copy :
dated Melboumo, October 23, and I answer
a view to extort money, I will band them
care and education, but only on the condi-
tions that it is entrusted entiiely to those
" pirect your letters, if you should have
entrusting your child to my agents in Tas-
yourletteis, having shown her the whole of
I found tho envelope produced in the house
velope wero dated Melbourne, July 9,1867 ;
To be called for. J
Examination continued.-The handwriting
to my houso by illness for two or threo
at Wood's Point : it was during tho time I
informed ho was seen coming out of the
landlady's bedroom. He said ho only went
for papers. I said I heard sho was in bed at
the time. I said it was a great flhame that
names in that way, and that I would leavo
Wood's Point. He then took mo to my
about a month. During this timo lio was
backwards and forwards between' Wood's
Point and Alexandra. I afterwaids went to
Tasmania, ne brought mo to Melbourne,
and put moon board the Tasmanian steamer.
I remained two or three months in 'Tas-
mania, mid after I returned I got this letter.
It is Mr, Smith's writing :
"My Dearest Flora,-I got yours of 14th
hero from Melbourne, and am glad to hear
you are better. I carno up to see the com-
attempts at " jumping" or moro law) to the
havo amalgamated on very favourable terms.
bo called ' Tho Al Extended,' I am to have
903, that is moio than one-fourth of tho
whole concern. My dividend of tho last
crushing of tho Al (which is to bo included
in the amalgamation) will bo £160, and that
was only a fortnight's crushing from tho one
"Heave for Jamieson to-day on my way
to Alexandra, where there are a great num-
ber of cobos awaiting mo for next Monday,
you. Mrs. Emerson has left here for Mel-
te Alexandra, I
" I saw C. and Mrs. C. in Melbourne.' Mrs.
C. said she supposed we had cut her. /I only
spoke a few words to her, as it was in Col-
lins-street. , ,,..'.' -i
me in the street. I told herí would not
Willan. I saw her there next morning. I li
" With love to Georgy and the famdy,
after my return from Tasmania. ,1 went to
Kilmoie with Mr. Smith. We were
stayed at Mr. Akehurst-. Mr. Smith stayed
one day, and went up the country, and re-
turned. Mrs. Akehurst's brother, Mr. Arm-
strong, was at tlie house. I had no conver-
He never spoke to mo about him, and ex-
Armstrong. That was tlie first time I had
1868 to May,«1871, I lived at Alexandra, with
M'Culloch, at Williamstown. This visit was
M'Culloch, Mr. Smith, and myself had
ought to write to them direct. Ile was very
angry, and said ho would not allow me. I
M'Culloch that he had lived much more
mode no observation, but Mrs. M'Culloch
expostulated with Mr. Smith. I can't re-
about Miss Cohen, a barmaid at the Monte-
zuma. I told him I heard a great many re-
angiy with me. I said perhaps I had better
Ile asked me if I meant it, and I said I did.
He then said he would take me down to Mel
up my things and went to another room
him. He then went, to Melbourne alono,
Mrs. M'Culloch, that he had requested
my sister requested me. We had a discus-
sion about the advice my sistor gave me, and
go so often to the Montezuma. He still, how-
I remonstrated with him about it. Hismanner
on these occasions was,very violent. Ho
".wretch," "an Irish wretch." He has on
shake his fist in my.face. He has thrown
tumblers and plates' and things of that
fly into íitB of rage. Sir Francis Smith
evening with his brother. I may have some-
Wm. Fenton M'Culloch waa stopping there.
He stayed a month with us. When wo wero
at Wood's Point he stayed 12 monthB with
us. AVhilehewas with us at Wood's Point Mr.
me-a tumbler and a plate. The boy was 10
?o fishing : ho was then 20 years old. When
Sir. Smith came home he was very angry ;
on, taking him out of the oflice. We were at
He carno back about 9 o'clock next day. I
precision when he came back. Mr. Arm-
strong carno to tea at our place only once,
tea with my nephew, Henry M'CulToch, who
carno to the door with a parcel from Mrs.
Mackenzie-a bottle of milk. Henry M'Cul-
milk was for him. I asked Mr. Arin
he then went away. After he loft Mr. Smith
I had asked him in. He told mo he would
sorry, but I did not like to be rude to any-
body, and if ho wished it I would cut Mr.
Armstrong. Ho said no, he did not wish meto
do that, but I need not bo familiar with him'.
knowing Mr. Armstrong ; he never said any-
half to three miles norn Alexandra. I used
I alwayB had a child -with me when I was
walking-Henry M'Culloch. I have often
met bim by appointment, always by accident.
The child was always with me on those occa-
an hour, sometimes hvo minutes. He would
bring parcels from Mrs. Mackenzie. Arm-
strong was Btopping at Mackenzie's at this
time. This was while the boy Henry M'Cul-
bring mo letters from his sister. There is a
something to do with the common. I re-,
member ono evening wallang out with tho '
childi en, and Mr. Armstrong following us.
The children wero Henry M'Culloch and some
the log with Mr. Armstrong, iddn'tromember
When _ was walking with the children on
that occasion, I did not notice anybody foi
lowing iib or watching us. The children re-
turned with me ; they ran beforo me. They
tomahawk one o£ the children had lost ; I
from the road. I might while stooping dis-
appear from sight, as the trees wero large.
Both Mr. Armstrong and I were looking For
the tomahawk. Tho children were playing in
thebush about the length of tho roomfrom me.
They told me before they ran away that thoy
liad lost it. There is a track from Alexandra
never met and went alonç that track and
wentoff it into the bush. Itisfalse that I com-
i rack. I never was there. It is not tiuc
hat I saw a man on that occasion, and on
whon Mr. Smith was at home as well as
went with the childi en and Armstrong was
about twilight, after dinner and beforo tea,
I don't lenicmber having seen Jones. I
know him by name, but not by sight. I havo
often heaul Armstrong bid people good
Mr. Justice Williams.-Did you ever go
Mis. Smith.-No. . ,
Mr. Lawes.-Your object was to take tho
Mrs, Smith.-Yes. When I was riding I
sometimes went by myself ; sometimes with i
mc on horseback, has ridden a little bit of
II was alone. The common was the shortest
(road to Mrs. Mackenzie's. Mr. Armstrong
.common. On these occasions,"when I met
the nightthere. The Rev. Mr. Toomath was
there. Mr. Armstrong carno there while I
don't remember thein. I returned home
next day. I was accompanied by Mr. Too-
left us to co to the common. Mr. Toomath
accompanied me to the gate. My son carno
out of the office to meet me. He said he ex-
his father, that his father had been tele-
the horse by my son, He told me that he
was late. My son, Edgar Whitelaw, and ray
thought, to the Btable. I then went to my
went to bed. Itwas about 11, I should think,
was awoke hy a knocking at the window. I
asked who was there. I could not under-
little. Tlie noise of the quartz-crushing
words. I knew by the way he spoke that ho
was drunk. While I was holding the win-
woodwork-about five inches. When Mr.
I was standing behind the curtain ; the cur-
To Mr. Justice Williams.-The other win-
Mr. Justice Fellows.-Do you leave a lamp
Mrs. Smith.-I always left a lamp burning
, To Mr. Lawes.-My object in keeping the
lamp lit when he was away was in case ho
Mr. Lawes.-Is it a fact that you were
opart, and that Armstrong was on the oppo-
Mrs. Smith.-It is not true.
Mr. Laweb.-Is it a fact that on that night,
or at any other time, theie was any irapro
priety between you and Armstrong, oi that
Mrs. Smith.-Never.
Mr. Lawes.-Did Mrs. Akehurst stay at
your house at Alexandia ?
Mis. Smith.-Yes. ner name is Charlotte.
foitnight. She occupied a small room-the
room that afterwards waa my son's. The
tlnee weeks befoie the 23rd May. She then
slept in my room with me-tho loom with
Alexandia then. I know that Armstiong
used to como and speak to his Bister at
that "window. It was in the evening
when he carne to take his sister to
the bazaar. On the morning of the 21th
into the buggy. He asked rae if I would go
not resided there since. I went to my sistei,
Mrs. M'Culloch, and stayed with her
came over hero when I was served with
went back, and íemained there since. As to
the bottle ho thiew at me, it was a brandy
Old Court-House—Saturday, May 10.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES JURISDICTION.
Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice
Fellows.)
the jury stated that the jury wished to have
de bene esse previously, and had said nothing
till Healey mentioned it.
Mr. Billing.—Is Jones to be re-called ?
Mr. Justice Barry.—No.
The examination of Mrs. Smith, the respondent,
was then resumed.—Some time
namely, the beginning of 1867,1 had a conversation
enclosed in this envelope :—
" Dear Mr. Smith,—I am going over to Tasmania
see my little darling. I will have her likeness
taken care off by my dear mother up to this
I would come over. You know I have not
I have been saving my money to take the
Will you send me down a few pounds to
Onely look to her, poor little dear, and bring
brought up. I do hope you will look into
I offered to take the child, and have it
He said he would write a letter to Mabel
it:—
" O'Brien's-bridge, Sept. 4,1867.
"Dear Sir,—As I have been Informed by
my daughter Mable that you wish your child
poor child support, I wish to know the objection.
child, and I could not part with it while I
with the dear little crater as long as the
Lord is pleased to spear me in this wourld of
troubles. I can say no more.—I remain,
he received from Mabel. He told me he had
of the child with her in Mr. Willan's
office. He made me take a copy of a letter
he sent her. We were at Wood's Point at
this time. That is the copy :—
dated Melbourne, October 23, and I answer
a view to extort money, I will hand them
that it is entrusted entirely to those
" Direct your letters, if you should have
your letters, having shown her the whole of
I found the envelope produced in the house
velope were dated Melbourne, July 9,1867 ;
To be called for.]
Examination continued.—The handwriting
to my house by illness for two or three
at Wood's Point : it was during the time I
informed he was seen coming out of the
landlady's bedroom. He said he only went
for papers. I said I heard she was in bed at
the time. I said it was a great shame that
names in that way, and that I would leave
Wood's Point. He then took me to my
about a month. During this time he was
backwards and forwards between Wood's
Point and Alexandra. I afterwards went to
Tasmania. He brought me to Melbourne,
and put me on board the Tasmanian steamer.
andd after I returned I got this letter.
It is Mr. Smith's writing :
"My Dearest Flora—I got yours of 14th
here from Melbourne, and am glad to hear
you are better. I came up to see the commencement
attempts at "jumping" or more law) to the
have amalgamated on very favourable terms.
be called 'The Al1 Extended,' I am to have
9035, that is more than one-fourth of thoe
whole concern. My dividend of the last
crushing of the A1 (which is to be included
in the amalgamation) will be £160, and that
was only a fortnight's crushing from the one
"I leave for Jamieson to-day on my way
of cases awaiting me for next Monday,
to Alexandra.
C. said she supposed we had cut her. I only
street.
me in the street. I told her I would not
Willan. I saw her there next morning. I'll
" With love to Georgy and the family,
after my return from Tasmania. I went to
Kilmore with Mr. Smith. We were
stayed at Mr. Akehurst's. Mr. Smith stayed
was at the house. I had no conversation
He never spoke to me about him, and expressed
Armstrong. That was the first time I had
1868 to May, 1871, I lived at Alexandra, with
McCulloch, at Williamstown. This visit was
McCulloch, Mr. Smith, and myself had
ought to write to them direct. He was very
angry, and said he would not allow me. I
McCulloch that he had lived much more
made no observation, but Mrs. McCulloch
angry with me. I said perhaps I had better
He asked me if I meant it, and I said I did.
up my things and went to another room—
him. He then went to Melbourne alone,
Mrs. McCulloch, that he had requested
about the advice my sister gave me, and
I remonstrated with him about it. His manner
on these occasions was very violent. He
"wretch," "an Irish wretch." He has on
shake his fist in my face. He has thrown
tumblers and plates and things of that
fly into fits of rage. Sir Francis Smith
Wm. Fenton McCulloch waa stopping there.
He stayed a month with us. When we were
at Wood's Point he stayed 12 months with
us. While he was with us at Wood's Point Mr.
me—a tumbler and a plate. The boy was 10
go fishing : he was then 20 years old. When
Mr. Smith came home he was very angry ;
on, taking him out of the office. We were at
He came back about 9 o'clock next day. I
came to tea at our place only once.
tea with my nephew, Henry McCulloch, who
came to the door with a parcel from Mrs.
Mackenzie—a bottle of milk. Henry McCulloch
milk was for him. I asked Mr. Armstrong
he then went away. After he left Mr. Smith
I had asked him in. He told me he would
and if he wished it I would cut Mr.
Armstrong. He said no, he did not wish me to
do that, but I need not be familiar with him.
half to three miles from Alexandra. I used
I always had a child with me when I was
walking—Henry McCulloch. I have often
met him by appointment, always by accident.
an hour, sometimes five minutes. He would
was stopping at Mackenzie's at this
time. This was while the boy Henry McCulloch
bring me letters from his sister. There is a
one evening walking out with the
children, and Mr. Armstrong following us.
The children were Henry McCulloch and some
the log with Mr. Armstrong, I don't remember
When I was walking with the children on
that occasion, I did not notice anybody following
us or watching us. The children returned
with me ; they ran before me. They
tomahawk one of the children had lost ; I
from sight, as the trees were large.
Both Mr. Armstrong and I were looking for
the tomahawk. The children were playing in
the bush about the length of the room from me.
They told me before they ran away that they
had lost it. There is a track from Alexandra
never met and went along that track and
went off it into the bush. It is false that I committed
track. I never was there. It is not true
that I saw a man on that occasion, and on
when Mr. Smith was at home as well as
went with the children and Armstrong was
about twilight, after dinner and before tea,
I don't remember having seen Jones. I
know him by name, but not by sight. I have
often heard Armstrong bid people good
Mr. Justice Williams.—Did you ever go
Mis. Smith.—No.
Mr. Lawes.—Your object was to take the
Mrs, Smith.—Yes. When I was riding I
sometimes went by myself ; sometimes with
me on horseback, has ridden a little bit of
I was alone. The common was the shortest
road to Mrs. Mackenzie's. Mr. Armstrong
common. On these occasions, when I met
the night there. The Rev. Mr. Toomath was
there. Mr. Armstrong came there while I
don't remember them. I returned home
left us to go to the common. Mr. Toomath
accompanied me to the gate. My son came
the horse by my son. He told me that he
was late. My son, Edgar Whitelaw, and myself
thought, to the stable. I then went to my
went to bed. It was about 11, I should think,
was awoke by a knocking at the window. I
little. The noise of the quartz-crushing
words. I knew by the way he spoke that he
woodwork—about five inches. When Mr.
To Mr. Justice Williams.—The other window
Mr. Justice Fellows.—Do you leave a lamp
Mrs. Smith.—I always left a lamp burning
To Mr. Lawes.—My object in keeping the
lamp lit when he was away was in case he
Mr. Lawes.—Is it a fact that you were
apart, and that Armstrong was on the opposite
Mrs. Smith.—It is not true.
Mr. Lawes.—Is it a fact that on that night,
or at any other time, there was any impropriety
between you and Armstrong, or that
Mrs. Smith.—Never.
Mr. Lawes.—Did Mrs. Akehurst stay at
your house at Alexandra ?
Mrs. Smith.—Yes. Her name is Charlotte.
foitnight. She occupied a small room—the
room that afterwards was my son's. The
three weeks before the 23rd May. She then
slept in my room with me—the room with
Alexandra then. I know that Armstrong
used to come and speak to his sister at
that window. It was in the evening
when he came to take his sister to
the bazaar. On the morning of the 24th
into the buggy. He asked me if I would go
not resided there since. I went to my sister,
Mrs. McCulloch, and stayed with her
came over here when I was served with
went back, and remained there since. As to
the bottle he threw at me, it was a brandy

Recent merge/splits

WhenSummaryCommentDetails

Read the merging and splitting guidelines.

Your lists

No lists created yet

Information on Trove's new list feature can be found here.