Brothel Robbery — Ellen Anderson, represented as an immoral character, was brought before the Court on a charge of stealing one ten-pound and four one-pound notes, the property of Michael Connelly. Connelly sworn, deposed: — I am a digger, at present stopping in town. I was in company with prisoner up to one o'clock this morning at a house situate at the back of the Dunedin Hotel in Princes street, and, being the worse of liquor, fell asleep. While I was lying I felt a hand in the right-hand pocket of my trousers, in which was my money. The hand was the prisoner's, I struck it away, telling her at the same time not to make so free with me. Prisoner replied that there was no harm done. I then went to sleep again, and on awakening, about an hour after missed the one ten-pound note, and four one-pound notes from my trousers pocket. Immediately on missing money, I told prisoner to give it up, but she denied all knowledge of it. She then went out, and I subsequently followed her to the store, opposite the Golden Age, where I had seen her on the previous night. I said to her, "Give me up L10, and you can keep the rest, as I don't want to have any Court job." Ultimately she gave me L6, in three sovereigns and three one-pound notes, saying that that was all she had. We then walked down the street together, and I gave her into custody to the first constable I met. Prisoner offered to give me a silver watch and chain in payment of the money taken from me. The prosecutor gave his evidence throughout with great "fogginess." Constable Kelegher deposed to Connelly's having shown him L6, and to the prisoner's having admitted in his presence that she had offered to give prosecutor the watch and chain. He (the constable) then took her to the watch-house where were found on her a purse, containing L1 15s 6d, and a silver watch and chain (produced). Prisoner having been cautioned declined to say anything in defence, and was fully committed for trial. -Otago Witness, 10/9/1864.
Stealing from the Person — William Ford and Ellen Anderson were charged with stealing, on the 10th instant, from the person of William Closs, a miner, a purse containing three L5 notes, two Ll notes, and one sovereign. Mr Ward appeared for the prisoners, and applied for a remand for one day, in order to enable him to get up his defence. The application was granted. -Otago Daily Times, 14/3/1865.
Charge of Stealing from the Person. — William Ford and Ellen Anderson were charged on remand with stealing from the person of William Closs, a miner, one purse containing three L5 notes, two Ll notes, and one sovereign. Mr Ward appeared for the prisoners. The following evidence was taken; —William Closs: I am a miner, at present residing in Dunedin. On the afternoon of Saturday, the 11th inst. I went to the house of the female prisoner in Stafford street. I went into her bed room, where I found her lying on the bed. She asked me to sit down on the bed, which I did. I had in my right-hand trousers Ll8 in a leather bag, consisting of three L5 notes, two L1 notes, and one sovereign. I last saw the money safely in my pocket at eleven o'clock the same day. While I was sitting on the bed I felt a hand in my pocket, and I caught hold of the female prisoner's arm, at the same time accusing her of taking my money. She called out, "Jack, come and take the money." The male prisoner came into the room, and while I was struggling with the female, I saw in her hand a portion of the leather bag. The female said to the male prisoner, "You are too late." I did not see what the female did with it, but I never saw my money again. I left both the prisoners in the room and went for a constable; but when we got back to the home they were away from it. I subsequently gave information to the police. Cross-examined by Mr Ward: On Friday night I was in the prisoner's house for about an hour. I was not quite sober. I did not flourish my bag with gold and notes before the female prisoner. That night I walked the streets all night with my money in my picket. I had breakfast in the Golden Age Hotel on Saturday morning, when I saw that my money was safe. I had two glasses of beer after breakfast, when I walked about the streets with my mates till the afternoon, when I went to the prisoner's house. I was not ten minutes in the house when I missed my money. On Saturday night I went back to the female prisoner's house to try if I could get my money. The female prisoner went out and locked me in her house till eleven o'clock. I stayed there all night sitting on a box, and in the morning I again asked for my money. She refused to give it to me, and I then gave information to the police. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Ward submitted that there was no case against the prisoners, at least against the male prisoner. There was no corroboration of the complainant's statement. The Magistrate thought there was not the slightest use in sending this case to a jury. There appeared to be something wrong. The fact of the complainant remaining in the house all night was suspicious. The prisoners were discharged with a caution. -Otago Daily Times, 15/3/1865.
MURDER OF A GERMAN.
(From the Daily Times, March .11.)
A crime was committed in Dunedin during the night of Wednesday, which there is no reason to suppose can by possibility be shown to rank below that of murder in its most revolting form. A German, who is at present only known as "Charley," was beaten to death with a bludgeon which has the dimensions and solidity of a fence-rail; his skull being apparently fractured in several places, one of his eyes knocked out, his nose almost obliterated, or smashed into one bloody mass with his lips, and other terrible injuries being inflicted. It is hard to be forced so to conclude, but at present no other conclusion seems open than that this man's life was taken simply for the sake of securing whatever money he possessed. There is reason to believe that a couple of pounds was the outside amount of the money he had during Wednesday evening; so that he could not have tempted assault and robbery by "flashing" notes or gold in any low haunt.
The dead man has been a miner, we believe, but within the last few months he has been working as a labourer for Mr. John Allan, of East Taieri. For him also worked another German, Ignatz Krull. The two left their employment on Wednesday, and came to town together, intending to go to the West Coast Diggings, if the news they got here was sufficiently encouraging. Just at present (it may be said) there are a good many German diggers in town, who purpose sailing together for the Brunner, in a schooner now at the jetty. The dead man was known on the farm simply as Charley, and as such we may write of him. He and Krull received their wages before starting — the former's being only for a fortnight's work; and Krull gives reasons why it should be assumed that this was the total of his possessions. The men got to town by seven o'clock on Wednesday evening. The story of their doings is related in the evidence given by Krull at the inquest; but Krull only takes the story up to a time preceding that at which Charley was last seen alive. About half-past ten, probably, Charley left Krull at the house of his brother, a storekeeper, near the Water of Leith, and returned to town in the same cab in which they had driven out on that visit to Krull's brother. Charley left the cab when it stopped at the Queen's Arms Hotel, Princes street, and he entered that house. There both men had called when they first reached town; and Charley, who was excited with drink, was quarrelsome and musical, for he had "rows" with the barman, and with some who were singing upstairs, and he himself trolled a song or two. When he returned to the inn alone, he had evidently had so much drink, that he was refused anything but lemonade. He did not stay long. Afterwards, he was seen going through the passage of the Princess Theatre, from the Sale Yard towards the Vestibule; and, at present, there is no further trace of him while alive. This last sight of him was about half-past eleven or somewhat later.
At a quarter after five o'clock, Constable Lougheed, acting on information received from a working man, went to Alva street, and found poor Charley's corpse, disfigured as we have stated, lying on the clay footpath, with the head in a pool of blood. Alva street may be said to run from the top of Maclaggan street to Stafford street, and it crosses High street at its extreme point; the distance from Princes street being probably over three-quarters of a mile. There are some houses near the junction with High street; but the spot is, after nightfall, about as lonely as any within the actual limits of the city.
Charley's corpse was found by Lougheed, lying on the rough clay footpath of Alva street, not a yard from the junction with High street. There was not on the body a rough dark grey pea-jacket, which Charley wore when last seen alive, and the pocket on the left side of the trousers (the body being on its right side) was turned out. When the clothes were searched, not a coin, nor any article of any kind, was found in them; and Krull can only speak of Charley having had some money and a nearly clean short clay pipe. A few feet down High street, placed against the bank, Lougheed found the weapon of murder — the seeming rail before mentioned. It is from 4ft to 4ft 6in long, of manuka or pine, with the bark still on. At its thicker end it is from 3in to 4in diameter. Here it is split for about 18in, but the split does not appear to have been recently caused. At the other end, there is a small fork, formed by cutting some smaller limbs; and the thing has altogether the look of having been used for some definite purpose, and of being likely to be identified by any one who has owned it or seen it frequently. For a foot or more at its thicker end, the weapon is covered with blood, which extends through the split on one side. Bits of hair adhere to the bark, as do also traces of mashed flesh.
There seems to be no reason to doubt for a moment that with this fearful weapon were struck the blows which killed the unfortunate Charley. The clay-path shows no signs of a struggle having taken place. If the motive of the murderer was robbery only, the repetition of the blows seems unaccountable; for one would think that a single blow must hive rendered the victim insensible. He was struck from the front — probably as he came to the corner of the streets. Near where his head rested, there was a dint in the clay, the appearance of which is consistent with the theory, that there the head was beaten or pressed down, the body being afterwards turned over and left as it was found. But, as we have said, there were no marks indicative of a struggle; and the nature of the soil is such that marks must have been left had there been a struggle.
Those who reside in the neighbourhood, had made it a matter of remark at their breakfast tables, that the dogs had howled strangely and continuously for hours. This was especially so with a fine dog kept by Mr. Ward, which has, however, been trained to keep to the enclosure. Voices were also heard by residents in Mr. Ward's house, as of persons in altercation, but not so violently as to cause particular remark. This was before one o'clock, and no doubt it was about that time that the murder was done. The suggestion which seems almost natural is that Charley, more than warmed with drink, was, on leaving the theatre, spoken to by some wretched woman and induced to accompany her. It is inconceivable that any one should alone ascend the hill so far at night; and the dead man does not seem to have been so stupified by drink as to have gone up the hill by mistake. He no doubt had the intention, when he reached town, of sleeping at the Queen's arms, with which house he was acquainted; at least, there Krull expected to find him. Krull states that he rode from his brother's to the Queen's Arms, getting there after midnight; and that, having asked for Charley, he had supper and went to bed.
There is another singular circumstance which must, for the present, at least, be taken as connected with the murder. At the foot of the last slope in High street there is a piece of level ground, from which William street stretches right and left across High street. At the junction on the left side, as one ascends the hill there were visible yesterday morning several spots of blood, clearly defined and wide apart. Spots of blood were traced thence down the steep fall of William street to the District School; beside which the person — if person it was — whence the blood fell, turned up a slight bank into a paddock, crossed it, came out again at a lower point of High street, and crossed that street. Thence no blood could be seen. It is useless to speculate how these blood spots were caused; and we shall be content, at present, with stating that there was a story that a resident in the neighbourhood found yesterday morning that his dog had been wounded and was still bleeding. Measures have been taken with a view of ascertaining whether the blood is that of a human being or of an animal.
The police were, of course, very actively engaged in inquiries throughout yesterday, but nothing at all definite was ascertained. The Government, during the forenoon, caused placards to be posted, offering a reward of £200 for information leading to the apprehension and conviction of the murderer. We can but hope that, by some means, such information will be speedily given or traced out.
Krull was taken into custody, but he was, after being cautioned, examined at the Inquest; and his story, which is given below, was told with the air of an innocent man. Indeed, we believe that the police do not now regard him with the least suspicion, his arrest having resulted from the ascertained companionship between him and Charley. Later in the day a notorious woman named Ellen Anderson and a man named Ford, who lived with her in Stafford street, were apprehended, they have offered some explanation of the circumstance which led to their arrest, but they still remain in custody.
The body of the deceased was as soon as found conveyed to Blake's Hotel, High street. The deceased was 5ft. 9in. high, and stout-built; he had a pale or sallow complexion, and light hair, and wore a "goatee" beard. Omitting the missing monkeyjacket, his dress consisted of a pepper-and-salt mixture Crimean shirt, moleskin trousers, laced water-tight boots, black billy-cock hat, and a coloured necktie.
THE INQUEST
Was commenced yesterday afternoon, by the coroner, Mr. T. M. Hocken, at Blake's Hotel. The front of the hotel had been surrounded during the day, and the inquest room was crowded. Krull was present in custody. The Commissioner of Police was present throughout the proceeding. Mr. James McGuire was chosen foreman of the jury. The coroner said that the case to be inquired into was one of great suspicion, and would require the closest attention on the part of the jury.
Ignatz Krull, on being cautioned by the Coroner, that anything he said might be used against him, replied "Yes, but I can only say the truth, so far as I know." he then gave the following evidence: — I am a labourer, and last worked at farming, for Joseph Allan, of the East Taieri Plain. I was with him a quarter of a year, from New Year's Day to yesterday at two o'clock. I knew the deceased. He worked for a time at Allan's, but he would go to the West Coast, so he went away. Then he returned, and he had worked there for the last fortnight. I only know his name as "Charley;" but I think the butcher in High street knows it. The deceased told my master he had a wife and three children in Victoria. We left Mr. Allan's at two o'clock yesterday afternoon, meaning to go to the West Coast diggings. We had several drinks on the road, and arrived in town about seven o'clock, having come from Caversham in a cab. We walked as far as Caversham. We went to the Queen's Arms Hotel, where the cab stops, and we had drinks there. The deceased began a row with the barman, and then he went upstairs and had a little quarrel wish the woman who had been singing. I said to him "Come away, and go to my brother." and then, when we had been there an hour and a half, I got him down stairs, and we went to the shooting place at the big hotel at the corner (the Provincial). The deceased was not so right, but not whole drunk. We had some more drink at the shooting place, and I shot twice at the target, but I can't tell whether he shot or not; I did not notice; I have a little too much to drink. We went out, took a cab, and went to the Water of Leith, to my brother. We had some drinks there. My brother is a storekeeper in Great King street, close to the Water of Leith. The deceased went through the shop into the room behind, with my brother, and he stumble and fall — not against anything, but so, along the floor, straight. He got up by himself, but did not say he was hurt. We had some beer. He had been talking about a letter he wanted to get; and he went out and got on a cab. He could walk. He called out several times to me, but I talk to my brother at the time, and go not out to him but once on the cab. He did not say where it was he expected to get the letter. He went back to the town in the same cab as we came out in. I don't know how long we were at my brother's — the cab driver will better know. I don't think the deceased stopped half an hour. I stopped good an hour and a half after he went, and then I went to town in a cab. I was after twelve o'clock — I don't know exactly what time. I had had a good deal to drink — not tipsy. I made no arrangement with the deceased where to meet. I think he will be at the hotel where I was going to sleep, but when I got there, I asked for him but he had not come. It was at the Queen's Arms — I went there direct. It was after twelve o'clock, but the house was open. I asked the master, where was Charley? — the mistress was there, too; he said he did not know. I had something to eat, and went to bed. This morning, it was eleven o'clock that I came out of bed, or past ten. I was ask the barman at once, has he seen Charley, and he say, "No." That is the whole I know of the matter. I don't know what master paid the deceased. He had been only two weeks and two days this time. He left three weeks ago, saying he would go to the West Coast diggings, but he went no further than the Queen's Arms Hotel. Before he left that time, he had been with master five or six weeks; and he returned and worked two weeks and two days. He was gone away one week from the farm. He was paid his wages yesterday, but I don't know how much; I was paid too. I saw with him one note at a public house on the top of Saddle Hill; he changed it there for drinks. He paid for drinks again at the Queen's Arms, but I paid at other times. He had not a watch on him; he might have a pipe. He smoked a short white pipe — a broken clay, all but new. He had a long knife, but that was left in his swag, at the Taieri. We came in to see if there was good news from the West Coast; if not, we could go back to Waipori. The deceased was a German. He never spoke to me about any woman he used to see or meant to go to — nothing but about the letter, that was the last word he spoke to me. He did not wear a ring or carry a walkingstick. He has often spoken to me of a sausage maker, in High street, I believe. I have seen the body of the deceased here. He had on a dark grey monkey jacket when I last saw him on the cab; I did not see it on the body here. It was an old jacket that he bought from Sam Brown, one of the servants on the farm, only on Sunday last. With that exception, I think the body is dressed as was the deceased when last I saw him. I cannot say that the deceased was fond of drink — I did not know him long. I should know the pipe again. He told the master he had come back to the farm, for he had no money; and we know that he borrowed some on the farm, so that yesterday he could not have more than the wages for the fortnight. The inquiry was then adjourned. -Lyttelton Times, 4/4/1865.
THE MURDERED GERMAN.
We (Otago Times) mentioned on Monday that the police were anxious to settle the question whether William Klauss and the murdered German, "Charley," were one, for a man who gave the name oi Klauss had, two or three weeks ago, charged John Ford with robbing him of about £16 in notes, in the shanty of Ellen Anderson; and both Ford and Anderson are in custody on suspicion of being concerned in the murder of Charley. The charge of robbery was not sufficiently sustained; and Ford, being prosecuted under the Vagrancy Ordinance, as having no visible lawful means of support, escaped by proving that within a recent period he had been getting money by the sale of fish. When we made the request that William Klauss, if alive, would communicate with the police, the matter had not been thoroughly traced through the records of that department. It now appears that Klauss complained of the robbery on the 9th ult., and not on the 12th, as before stated; so that Charley's return to the farm of Mr. Allan, on the 11th, and his statement that he had been robbed, are consistent with the theory that he was Klauss. But Klauss also told the detective that he was working at the farm of Mr. Allan, East Taieri, and he left his name as Charles, not William. If further proof were wanted that Klauss and "Charley" were one, it is supplied by the fact that the body of the murdered man has been exhumed; and that it has been identified by persons who spoke to Klauss on the occasion when he attended at the Police Court to prefer his charge against Ford. -Evening Post, 11/4/1856.
THE MURDER OF A GERMAN
At the Resident Magistrate's Court on Tuesday —
Ellen Anderson and William Ford were charged on remand on being concerned in the murder of a German named "Charley," in High street, on the night of the 29th or morning of the 30th ult. Mr Wilson appeared for the prisoners, and Mr Commissioner Branigan conducted the case.
Simon Brown: I am a farm servant, at present living in Dunedin. In company with a detective, on the 3rd instant, I saw the dead body of a person I knew by the name of "Charley," a German. I knew him at Joseph Allan's farm, East Taieri, where he worked with me all through the harvest. While he was there, about five weeks ago, I sold him a coat. It was either black or dark blue when I bought it, but it had become a little rusty and half worn when I sold it to him. It was a monkey jacket, and I would know it again if I saw it. I have seen him use a knife like a table knife, and I would know that again if I saw it. I remember nothing else he had.
Inspector Morton: On the 30th of last month I took detectives Weale and Rowley with me to the house of Ellen Anderson, situated in a right-of-way off Stafford street. I saw both prisoners there. I asked Anderson if any person had been with her the previous night, and she said "No." While I was there, Anderson had occasion to leave the room, and while she was away I received certain information. On her return I said to her, "Why you had a German here last night." She replied, "There was a foreigner here, but he only stopped five minutes." I asked if Ford was present when the German came in, and Anderson said, "Yes, but he walked out into the right-of-way." I said, "Why did he leave," meaning the German, and she replied that he said, "Why, I thought you were a young woman." I asked how the German was dressed, and she replied, "In light clothes." I asked if he was like a miner, a laborer, or what, and she only replied "No, in light clothes." I then asked her if he was the drunken man who was sitting with her in the theatre that night, and who put his arm round her waist. She answered, "No, I left him in the theatre." I further asked her where she first met with the German who had been in her house, and she said, "I picked him up in Stafford street after I left the theatre." The prisoner Ford also stated that the German was dressed in light clothes. I then asked both prisoners to come to the station, which they did. In a further conversation I had with Ford he said the German was dressed like a gentleman in light clothes, just like what I had on myself at the time. Later in the evening I spoke to Anderson on the same subject, when she used the exact same words as Ford had used in describing the German. Anderson said it was about eleven o'clock when she picked up the German in Stafford street. When Ford was arrested he appeared to me to have on the same clothes as he has on now. The trousers are a dark checked tweed pair, much too long for him. When Ford described to me the manner in which the German was dressed. Anderson could not hear what he said.
Detective Farrell: On Saturday, the 8th instant, I searched the house lately occupied by prisoners in Stafford street, and found a dirty pair of moleskin trousers lying among some old rags, and turned inside out, in the middle of the room. There were some spots of blood upon the trousers. (Mr Branigan: Never mind the blood; Dr Hocken will speak as to that.) In the other room I found two pair of light colored boots belonging to Anderson. Acting under instructions I took these articles to Dr Hocken.
Cross-examined by Mr Wilson: They were not concealed in any way.
Joseph Tannett: I am a scene painter at the Princess Theatre. I know the prisoner Ford by sight. I live in Martin's Hotel in Stafford street, and was there on the evening of Wednesday, the 29th ult. On that evening I saw Ford playing cards in the hotel at about six o'clock. I noticed that he had then on a dirty pair of moleskin trousers. I am not aware when the prisoner left the house that evening.
Frederick Martin: I am proprietor of Martin's Hotel in Stafford street. On the evening of Wednesday, the 29th ult, I came home about six o'clock, when I saw the prisoner Ford playing cards. I returned from the dining-room at about twenty minutes past six o'clock, and he was not then in the house. I did not again see the prisoner that evening. I went out and returned at nine o'clock, after which I attended the bar the whole of that evening, and the prisoner Ford was not there after nine o'clock.
Joseph Tannett: I am a scene painter at the Princess Theatre. I know the prisoner Ford by sight. I live in Martin's Hotel in Stafford street, and was there on the evening of Wednesday, the 29th ult. On that evening I saw Ford playing cards in the hotel at about six o'clock. I noticed that he had then on a dirty pair of moleskin trousers. I am not aware when the prisoner left the house that evening.
Frederick Martin: I am proprietor of Martin's Hotel in Stafford street. On the evening of Wednesday, the 29th ult, I came home about six o'clock, when I saw the prisoner Ford playing cards. I returned from the dining-room at about twenty minutes past six o'clock, and he was not then in the house. I did not again see the prisoner that evening. I went out and returned at nine o'clock, after which I attended the bar the whole of that evening, and the prisoner Ford was not there after nine o'clock.
Cross-examined by Mr Wilson: I am sure he did not come into the house that night at a quarter to twelve o'clock for some beer.
Detective Rowley: The prisoner Ford was in my custody on the 30th of last month in the Barrack-yard. He made a voluntary statement to me that he believed the name of the German who was in their house on the previous night was "Charley." He added that he gave him a glass of ale, and that he (the German) then went away.
Cross-examined by Mr Wilson: I am sure he did not say the man's name was German "Jack," but German "Charley." I was examined here before in this case, and I did not then give this piece of evidence, as I did not think of it. I only spoke of it for the first time to my superior officers this morning.
Mr Wilson : A most remarkable piece of forgetfulness!
Mr Commissioner Branigan asked that the prisoners should be further remanded. He had intended to produce the Coroner, Dr Hocken, who would give evidence as to the condition in which the skirt, trousers, and boots found in the prisoners' house were when brought to him, but he had been suddenly away to hold an inquest. He had further evidence, which he did not wish to produce until the last moment.
The Magistrate, to the Prisoners: Have you anything to say against the remand?
The Prisoner Anderson: Yes; they might as well have taken you off the bench for this affair as me.
The Magistrate: I do not lead such an abandoned life as you do, and am not so liable to be suspected.
The Prisoner Ford: Well, I don't see why I should be remanded. I have done nothing.
The Magistrate: Stand back. You are both remanded for further examination until this day week. -Otago Witness, 15/4/1865.
THE MURDER OF "CHARLEY."
Ellen Anderson and William Ford were again charged on remand with being concerned in this offence. Mr. Henry Howorth appeared to prosecute for the Crown, and Mr. Wilson appeared for the defence.
Doctors Hulme and Alexander, and David Hall, the car driver, who took the deceased and his mate to the Water of Leith, and brought the former back to town on the night of the murder, repeated the evidence they had given at the Coroner's Inquest. The following additional evidence was then given:
Margaret Hogan: I am the wife of James Hogan, proprietor of the Queen's Arms Hotel, Princes-street. I remember the 29th ult, and know the cabman Hall, by sight. On that night he drove his car to our door about a quarter past eleven o'clock, as near as I can recollect. The cabman came into the bar in company with an elderly man, a German, whom I had seen before, when he lived two days in our house, from the 9th to the 11th of the same month. Previously, on that evening, about seven o'clock, the same man had been in my house in company with another German, whose name I do not know. I left him in the hotel when I went out for a walk about seven o'clock. When he came in the second time I was alone in the bar. He asked for a drink; but I re used to give him anything but lemonade, as he was under the influence of drink. The cabman had lemonade and raspberry, which the German paid for. He took the money from the right hand trousers pocket. The cabman went away, and the German asked if I could let him have a bed. I said I would if he would be quiet. I thought he had gone to bed, when I saw him go out and turn in the direction of Walker-street. That would be between 11 and half-past 11 o'clock, and was the last I saw of him. He was only in the house at that time about ten minutes.
Sub-Inspector Morton recalled: I recollect having a conversation with Anderson when I arrested her. I omitted to mention on the occasion of my last examination, that, in presence of two detective officers, I asked Anderson if any person slept with her on the previous night, and if so, what his name was. She replied that it was Ford who slept with her.
Detective J. F. Weale, recalled: The trousers the prisoner had on when arrested were much too long for him, and were rolled up at the bottoms. They were not dirty, and did not appear to have been worn on a dirty road.
Richard Melling: I am a butcher, living at present at the East Taieri. I have been living at Souness' Hotel, East Taieri, and was working for Mr. Joseph Allen, farmer, East Taieri, during harvest, in March last. I knew a German named "Charley," and I remember him telling me that his other name was "Klosse." I knew him five years ago on Back Creek, Victoria, and knew that he was a High German. I left him at Back Creek, and did not see him again until I met him at East Taieri. The last time I saw him was on the 29th of March, at ten minutes past one o'clock in the afternoon, in company with Krull, Mr. Allen, and Samuel Brown. He was going to town that day. I remember him going to town on the 8th or 9th of March, and I then saw a purse in his possession. It was a stiff brown leather one. He used to tie it round with sail twine in the way I now show you. I am able to swear positively that this is the purse which was shown me by the deceased Charles Klosse. While at the Taieri he wore a leather belt round his waist. He told me that he was a married man, and had a wife and three children at Castlemaine. He had a peculiar mark on the upper lip, immediately under the nose, a kind of cancer. I remember him telling me that he had a claim at the Waipori, but that he could not work it for want of money, and in consequence of its being too wet.
James Morgan: I am a miner living at the Lammerlaw, in the Waipori District. I have been there since before last Christmas. I had a mate, a German, at Tuapeka, and the Woolshed, but he had nothing to do with the claim at the Waipori. He left the Waipori a week or two after Christmas to go prospecting, and I then lent him some money and gave him some provisions. I never saw him again. We used to call this German "Charley," but his proper name was George Kreutcher. I have seen him with a leather purse like a pocket book, but with no leaves in it, and I think I would know it again. The purse now shown me is exactly similar to the one used by him. I could not swear positively to it. He used to tie it round with a piece of twine. To the best of my belief, the purse now shown me is the one that belonged to my mate. He was a man about 45 years of age, 5 feet 10 or 11 inches in height, and a big framed man. He had a sore under his nose on the upper lip, which would sometimes break out and heal up again. He stooped about the shoulders, had light brown whiskers and beard, and his hair brown intermixed with grey. He used to wear a black billy-cock hat with wide binding, a brown shirt with stripes in it, and white moleskin trousers. He bought the hat, shirt, and trousers at Williams' store on Adam's Flat. His shirt resembled in material and colour the one now shown me, and his hat was exactly like the one produced. He told me he was a married man, and had a wife and three children, two girls and a boy, living at Castlemaine, Victoria.
Detective Weale recalled: I first saw the witness Melling on this day week. He made a communication to me respecting a purse belonging to the deceased, and he gave me a description of it. I then recollected that, on the 30th March, on searching the house of the two prisoners, in a right-of-way off Stafford-street, I had seen a leather bag, or purse, answering to the description given. I requested Melling and one Samuel Brown to accompany me to the prisoners' house. I there found the purse produced, lying in the place where I had seen it on the 30th March. Melling at once identified it, saying, "That is the purse." There was a fourpenny piece in the purse when I found it.
Detective Rowley recalled: On the 19th inst. I found the key produced in the house occupied by the prisoners, lying behind some books. I know the house previously occupied by the prisoners in which the slippers were found. This key opens the door of that house.
Mr. H. Howorth said that this was all the evidence he now proposed to produce; but he asked for a further remand for a week, in order to produce Krull, who was working on Murphy's Flat. He would then to be able to conclude the case for the Crown. The remand was granted for a week, but on the understanding that if the witness can be obtained before that time, the case will be proceeded with. — Otago Times -Evening Post, 2/5/1865.
SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSION.
(Before His Honor, Mr Justice Richmond.) Tuesday, July 13th. The Court sat at ten o'clock.
THE HIGH STREET MURDER. William Ford was again placed in the dock, on a charge of having murdered George Kreuzer, on the 30th March. The following evidence was given: —
Charles Johnston, mounted constable: I know the witness Steadman, and I produce a swag which he gave me, and which I delivered to Detective Weale, at the Police Station, in the same state in which I received it. I afterwards received this knife from Steadman.
Simon Brown: I am a farm servant at Mr Joseph Allen's, East Taieri. I was there at the time German Charley lived there. I sold him a coat. I was with Detective. Weale, at the house of the prisoner, when some clothes belonging to Ellen Anderson were found, and also when a purse was found. Melling, a butcher, was also there, he lifted the purse. I was present when Melling described a purse to Weale, and Melling asked me to go with him. I could not swear to the purse, for I did not take any particular notice of it.
By Mr Wilson: Melling found it under the bed.
James Farrell, detective constable: I was not in Dunedin on the 29th March. I went to Ford's house early in the afternoon, of Saturday, the 8th April. In the outer room, I found this pair of moleskin trousers turned inside out. They were amongst a lot of rags. I observed on them different stains, apparently of blood. There were two in front and two behind. I handed the trousers to Dr Hocken, on the following day; the pieces bearing the stains have now been cut out. In the inner or sleeping room, I found two pairs of women's light-colored cloth boots, one drab, and one slate-color: I produce them. The left foot boot of the drab pair, had what appeared to be blood on the instep. I handed the boots to Dr Hocken; and this hole is the place where the stain was. I am well acquainted with the right-of-way in which the prisoner lived; and I know where he did live, the corner house as you enter the right-of-way. I saw the prisoner and Anderson there on Friday, the 24th March. I went there on the 13th April. Detective Rowley was with me, and also John Mickle, a boot-black. The house was locked, and I lifted Mickle in though a small side window. He broke the lock, and opened the door. On the left-hand side of the front room, in a corner, I found a pair of slippers, which I produce. They were stuck together side by side when I found them, and they remained so when I delivered them to Dr Hocken. I found them quite close to the wall next Stafford street. The wall was of palings; and one of them, just over the slippers, was loose. This paling was level with the street, the floor being below the level. One end of the paling was hanging down, so that there was a hole through which anybody passing could drop a pair of slippers or boots. I observed a quantity of blood on the sole of each slipper, it being thicker in some places than others. I handed the slippers to Dr Hocken on the day after I found them — a Friday. I have been in the corner house when the prisoner and Anderson lived there; and I have seen the prisoner wearing slippers of exactly the same pattern as these. There were bits of straw lying about the floor, and some bits were sticking to the soles of the slippers.
By the Judge: I received the slippers back again from Dr Hocken.
The Judge: If the mud on the slippers has not been disturbed since they were found, it seems almost desirable that it should be removed and looked into a little more.
By the Judge: I think that those white bits on the soles, are pieces of chaff.
Examination continued: The house was in a filthy state, when I found the slippers; and in the house in which the prisoner was apprehended, I found a bed tick filled with chaff and dry seaweed. I was present on the 19th April, when a key was found in the latter house. It was on the chimney-piece under a book. The key locked and unlocked the door of the house at the corner of the right-of-way. The door was forced by Mickle with a spade, and the lock remained. I went to the corner house a few days afterwards, and examined the floor of the room in which I found the slippers. I did not see any trace of blood there. In the inner room, Mrs Hickman, who was with me, blew some dust away from a corner, and pointed out to me three separate stains which appeared to he blood — as if of drops, from the nose. I know the yard attached to the prisoner's house. I was present from ten o'clock on the night of the 8th May, until half-past two on the morning of the 9th, while Greenwood and his men were examining this privy. Richard Melling and Detective Rowley were present. Outside the privy, there was a portion of the ground, 4ft. from the privy, which seemed to have been recently dug up. Filthy water had run over it, and there was a sort of channel to carry the water into a right of way. About 4in. under the soil, the nightmen found a small bag, commonly called a "tucker" bag. It was very filthy at the time. Melling got it between his fingers, and said, "If this bag belongs to Charley, it's got two holes in the top of it." The bag was then tied in a knot. On the following morning, I washed the bag as well as I could, and I found the two holes which I now point out. After the bag was found, the nightmen continued to clear the privy until half past two o'clock. At that time, Melling picked a spoon out of the ladle with which the men were removing the liquid soil. He cleaned the spoon a little, and handed it to me. I produce the spoon.
By Mr Wilson: I first went to the house on the 8th April. I believe the prisoner had been in custody from the 30th March. I swear that there were bits of straw on the part of the floor of the unoccupied house, where the slippers were found. I should think that if the man who committed the murder wore the slippers from the spot to the house where they were found, there would not be much sign of blood on them. I don't think that the clots on the portions that were cat out of the soles would have remained. I don't see anything peculiar in the bag I have produced; it is a common "tucker" bag. I have heard that a woman named Kate Aynsley was in the house in which the prisoner was arrested, after it had been locked up by the police. It's only hearsay. When first I went it was to search for the prisoner's clothing. Perhaps my object was also to make a complete search; it was before that that I heard of Aynsley being there. It was on the 19th April that I found the key, it was under a Bible, on the chimneypiece.
Re-examined: I believe that the corner house has not been occupied from the time the prisoner left it until the present. The fall of the land is from where the bag was found, to the right-of-way.
By Jurors: The hole above where the slippers were found opens on Stafford street, and the floor of the house is about 4ft. below the level of that street. The slippers could not have been placed on the floor by any one putting his hand through the hole; they would have to be dropped. The slippers were sticking together with mud when I found them, and were 4in. from the wall.
William Fisher: I am a settler, and live at the top of High street. Mr McNeil lives between my house and the junction of Alva street and High street. Mr Ward did live at the corner; and there is an entrance from High street, and also from Alva street to Mr. Ward's. Opposite to me, Mr Mudie lives. It is my property on which all those houses stand, and they are nearly all the houses in the locality — except those lower down in Alva street, where Mr Paterson lives. I have not observed in the fences on my property, any wood of the description of that stick. I recollect the morning of the murder; but I was unwell, and I was not out until the body had been removed. I had not heard any noise or disturbance during the night. I have two daughters. There is a footpath from my stable to Alva street, below Mr Ward's gate, and my family frequently go that way. One of my daughters is aged 18 and the other 20. I went to the prisoner's house about half-past twelve on the morning of the murder. I saw Detective Weale find a purse under the bed; he called my attention to it, and to the fact that there was a 4d piece in it. He flung the purse down again.
Thomas Morland Hocken: I am a legally-qualified medical practitioner, and also Coroner. I held an inquest on the body of a man called German Charley, on the 31st March. This stick was produced, and after the inquest, Sergeant Sutton brought it to me. I removed certain fibres from each of the forks at the smaller end; and from the larger end, some human hair, clotted with blood. I examined the fibres under the microscope, and found that they were woollen fibres, dyed white and red. I am accustomed to the use of the microscope. I produce a fibre, which is on a glass slide. I took off five fibres; the one I produce was the most perfect. They were all woollen — three white, and two (one of which is there) dyed red. I afterwards received from Mr Branigan some woollen material (part of a scarf); and from it I took some fibres. I examined them under the microscope, and round them to resemble exactly those I took from the ends of the stick. I quite think that if a man was using that stick, and was wearing such a scarf as this, the forks would be likely to come in contact with the scarf. At the same time, I received from Mr Branigan other portions of woollen and cotton material. I examined them. None of the fibres corresponded with those on the ends of the stick.
By the Judge: There are bright red fibres in the shirt (the deceased's) now shown to me. I have not examined this at all. The fibre on the slide is shaded off from white to red; and I found the same thing in fibres which I took from the scarf. The other four fibres from the stick were unfortunately lost, through a breath of air, but not until I had twice examined them under the microscope.
Examination continued: These slippers were brought to me by Detective Farrell. There are now on them stains which I believe to be of blood. Where portions of the soles are removed, the marks were more defined. I examined the spots under the microscope, and can say the spots were of blood, but not of what kind, except that it is the blood of some mammal — certainly not of any fish or any bird. There are animals, the globules of whose blood is of the same size as that of man; and human blood is indistinguishable from theirs. I received two skirts from Farrell. On the blue one, I found, at the back part, where it opens, marks of blood; on the brown striped one, there was a stain which I thought required examination, but it proved to be from a patch of excrement.
By the Judge: The globules of the blood of sheep are much smaller, and those of bullocks somewhat smaller, than those of human blood. All the blood stains I examined, had globules that appeared of the human size; but I will not swear that they were not from blood of bovine or ovine animals. I could have distinguished, had the marks been recent; but it was not possible in the state in which they were.
Cross-examination continued: I found blood of the same character on the flap and left leg of a pair of moleskin trousers, handed to me by Farrell.
By the Judge: I cut out the pieces where the stains were. I dealt with the patches from each garment separately. I cut them into bits and made two solutions with them, one in glycerine and distilled water, and the other with bichloride of mercury. I allowed each to stand six hours, occasionally using pressure on the patches. The solutions became of a reddish brown color. I then applied heat, which coagulated the solutions, thus showing the presence of albumen, one of the constituents of blood. I added a solution of ammonia, pretty strong, which had no perceptible effect; thus showing that the coloring present was not due to any vegetable coloring matter. I took a small portion of the fluid on a capillary tube, and placed it on the fourth-inch object glass of a high-power microscope. I then discovered the blood globules and some clotted matter. The moleskin trousers, the blue skirt, and the slippers, had marks of blood, as thus proved by the heat test, the ammonia, and the microscope. I used up all the pieces of the garments in these experiments; and I made the two solutions with the patches from each garment. I have no doubt that I discovered blood globules in each separate case.
Re-examined: I have been thoroughly used to the microscope for ten years. I examined a spot on this woman's boot. I found grease globules, but no blood.
By Mr Wilson: The effect of adding solutions to blood, is to cause the globules to contract or swell. I forgot to say that all my experiments were conducted side by side with experiments with a piece of handkerchief dipped in human blood. It gave results exactly like those I have described. I did not use bullock's blood or pig's blood. I discovered the fibres on the forked end of the stick, on the day of the opening of the inquest, which was the day on which the murder was discovered. I have produced the largest of the five fibres.
St. John Branigan, Commissioner of Police: I took the pieces of fabric shown me to Dr. Hocken. I got them from Detective Weale, and each is marked in his hand-writing.
Francis John Weale, recalled: The pieces handed to me are those I cut from clothes worn by the prisoner when he was arrested.
The Judge: The evidence is negative as to all the pieces, except that from the scarf.
Mr H. Howorth: Yes, your Honor.
By Mr Wilson: I did not take the prisoner to the station house, nor did I search him. Rowley went with him, and so did Mr Morton. I did not see the prisoner searched.
Joseph Tannett, scenic artist: I live at Martin's Hotel. I was there on the evening of the 29th March, having gone up to tea, from the theatre, about six o'clock. I saw the prisoner there playing cards, with James Southard. I stood looking on at his game, for ten minutes, with I my hand resting on the prisoner's chair. He wore no coat or waistcoat, but a dark Crimean shirt, a small cap, like a boy's, and dirty moleskin trousers, like those now shown to me. I did not see his feet on this occasion, but I have seen, him wear green slippers with a red flower on them. I noticed that they were rather large for him. The slippers shown to me are like what I have seen him wear; I believe them to be the same. I went to my tea in another room, and I did not see the prisoner again that night. I believe that James Southard is now in Christchurch; he did work at the Theatre. He is not in this Province at present.
Frederick Martin: I keep an hotel in Stafford street. I know the prisoner. He was in my house on the afternoon of the 29th March. I got home at ten minutes to six, and I found him there playing curds. I don't remember seeing the prisoner again that night. I was out between half-past seven and ten; but after that I was in the bar all the evening. Had the prisoner come to the house at a quarter to twelve, I should have supplied him with drink if he called for any. I never saw the prisoner sitting in a room at the hotel before; but he often came in for beer. I have seen him wearing carpet slippers that were too large for him; and I believe that these before me are the same I have seen him wear.
By the Judge: The street has been in such a bad state, that it was rather remarkable to see any one walking about in carpet slippers.
By Mr Wilson: My wife does not attend to the bar when I am at home. From half-past nine or ten, until the house was closed, on the 29th March, I was in the bar or the parlor.
Ann Gadsby: My husband, John Gadsby, is a digger, and we live in Stafford street. I keep a store at the opposite corner of the right-of-way to where the prisoner lived. I remember his leaving that house, and I think it was about three weeks before he was arrested. It was not occupied after he left; I don't know that I saw him go in to the house after he left. I have seen him wearing green colored carpet slippers, much too large for him, and turning up at the toes. I have no doubt that those shown me are the same pair. I don't remember seeing them on his feet after he left the corner house.
By Mr Wilson: I saw him frequently after that, because he used to come into my store, chiefly every day.
Robina White: I am a widow and live in Stafford street. I know where the prisoner and Anderson lived in the right-of-way. They shifted from the corner house on the Saturday before the murder. I remember it, from a circumstance that happened to me, when I was in the house, when they were removing; it was that I went a message to some one who was in the house with them. I washed for Anderson and the prisoner; but I did not get anything from them before their leaving the corner house, until the Tuesday before the murder, when the prisoner gave me a pair of moleskin trousers and a shirt to wash. It was not the pair shown to me, but I did wash such a pair as that for the prisoner, three weeks before the murder. When the prisoner lived in the corner house, I saw him wearing carpet slippers, but I did not see them after he left that house. I saw him, after that, wearing black leather boots, laced up the front.
Catherine Rooney: My husband, Robert Rooney, is a plasterer, and we live in the right-of-way where the prisoner lived, but further back. On the night of the 29th March, we were in the prisoner's house about nine or half-past nine. He was reading a book — not a paper. He had a cap on; but I did not notice his dress otherwise. I have seen him wearing carpet slippers — after he moved from the corner house, I am sure. The slippers he wore were much like these. I remember that one of them was broken out at the toe. The pattern was much of the same kind as on these.
By Mr Wilson: I am sure he wore slippers when he came to my house for a jug of water, after he left the corner house; but I cannot say how long it was before the murder. I have been in the house where the prisoner was arrested, since that time. The landlord, Mr Hooper, was there; and there was a bricklayer mending the fire-place.
By the Judge: It would be three weeks or a month after the arrest. I don't know how the landlord opened the door.
Elizabeth Hickman: My husband, George Hickman, is a slater, and we live in Hope street. I lived in Stafford street until the 8th March. The prisoner was then living in the corner house, next door but one to me. On the day I left, I went to ask the prisoner and Anderson for some things of mine; and a neighbor who was there, tipsy, struck me. Anderson was in the back room in bed; and it was there I was struck. I did not know that I bled there, until I went to the house with Farrell; the marks I found then were just where I stood. The prisoner came to my house the next day, with his slippers on; it was then very fine weather. I remember the prisoner buying these slippers, about a fortnight before he left the corner house. It was on the day when my husband went to Waihola, to slate a chapel; for my husband made game of him, because the slippers were too big, and went slippertyslop on his feet. On the Monday before this murder happened, I bought two dozen fish of the prisoner. He was then wearing this scarf round his waist, and he had on a pair of women's boots, light-colored. He often wore the scarf on his neck. I did not see the prisoner wearing the slippers later than the morning after I removed to Hope street. I remember that the prisoner got from me the key of the house I had left, and which is the one he and Anderson moved to. That was after he came out of the lock-up, for "robbing that man." He came to me in Hope street for the key, when I had been living there nearly a fortnight. He was then wearing a pair of dark-colored trousers. He borrowed a needle and thread from me, and put a patch on the left knee of them; and when I remarked, what an awkward man he was with the needle, be said, "Don't you know I'm left-handed?" He was sewing with his left hand. I never noticed that he chopped wood left-handed. When he came to me for the key, which was after he got out of trouble, I had not seen him since Tuesday the 9th March, when he came to Hope street, the morning after I removed. By Mr Wilson: He must have been residing in the house in which he was apprehended, about nine days before the murder. The robbery he was in trouble for, as I was told, was two or three weeks before the murder. I have not a very friendly feeling to the prisoner. I don't owe him for any fish. I remember that the prisoner helped to pick me up, when, in his house, the drunken neighbor knocked me down. The blow was on the nose. My nose might have bled for five minutes, but I didn't stay a minute in the prisoner's place. The prisoner did not come to my house. I held my apron to my nose as I went away. I was knocked down just inside the door; but when the prisoner helped me up, I went away directly, with my apron to my nose. It is true that the prisoner sewed left-handed in my house, and that he told me he was left-handed. I have spoken to Mrs Smith since she was examined here last evening. I never spoke about the left-handedness before, either in the Magistrate's Court or to the Crown Prosecutor, because I was not asked about it. Fore God and man, it is true that the prisoner sewed with his left hand in my house, no matter who says they never saw him use his left hand. I spoke of the matter before it was suggested at the inquest that the blows on the dead man were struck left-handed.
Richard Melling: I am a butcher, and I was living at the Taieri in March last, working for Mr Joseph Allen. German Charley was there, and so was Krull. I saw Charley first about five years ago, on Back Creek, Victoria; but my mate and I went away shortly after, to the Mountain Creek rush. Charley told me that he was a married man, and had a wife and three children in Victoria. He was a German. I did not see him again, until we met at Mr Allen's, at the end of February or the beginning of March. We spoke of having met before. I last saw him at Allen's on the 29th March, when I went for a silver watch chain I had lent to one of the servants. I know that Charley slept in the barn, and that he had a swag. I saw it when we had occasion to remove some things out of the barn, to make room for grain that was going in. I know that amongst the things he had were two bags and a knife. One of the bags was smaller than the other; and I believe the smaller one had two or three holes about the top. He had been in the habit of carrying the bag slung over his shoulder when travelling. He had a leather belt and a leather purse, and, also, a large table spoon, which was darkcolored, and I believe it was of brass. I saw the spoon when we were removing the articles out of the barn. It was a spoon of the same description, and something similar in color, to the one handed me. I once had Charley's purse in my hand. It was on the 8th or 9th of March, the first time he came to town. He called at the East Taieri Hotel, where I was, and he treated me, taking money from his purse. It was fastened round with a piece of sailthread. It was of thick chamois leather, with one or two pockets inside, and was wider at the top than the bottom. This purse handed to me, is, to the best of my belief, the one Charley used at the East Taieri Hotel, and which I there had in my hand. I opened it; and Charley, at the time, spoke of having notes in it. One day when we were working in the fields, he pulled out his purse during our quarter hour spell, and look some cake tobacco and a knife from it. He asked me what I thought of it, and I said it was not of much account, on which he replied, "Vell, I sall make tat mem self." On the 18th April, I came to town and gave Detective Weale a description of this purse. We went to the prisoner's house, Simon Brown being with us. I entered the house after Mr Weale; and while he was looking amongst some clothes, I looked about for myself and moved the bedstead. In doing so, I saw the purse, and said, "There's the purse." I picked it up and gave it to Weale. He remembered having seen a purse in the house, as soon as I gave a description of Charley's, and because of that, we went to the house. I was present during the examination of the closet in rear of the house in which I found the purse. While Mr. Greenwood was turning over some soil, I saw a bag and picked it up. I said to Detective Farrell, "If so be this bag has holes in it, it will very likely correspond with one German Charley had it's like the one." The bag was knotted up, and it was dark at the time, Farrell took charge of the bag. While the night soil man was most carefully emptying the liquid from the cesspool, I saw in the ladle something like a stick; I made a grab at it, and brought out this spoon. The knife handed to me is the one I saw in Charley's possession. The bags he had were like those shown to me. Charley had a sort of cancer on the corner of his upper lip; he told me he had been living at Waipori before coming to the Taieri.
By Mr Wilson: Charley came to town just after I had his purse in my hand; and I did not see the purse in his possession after be came back from town.
James Morgan, miner, Waipori: I had a mate named German Charley, three years ago, and also in last September. He had a sort of sore on the top lip. He was 5ft 11in high, and pretty broad across the shoulders. I last saw him just after Christmas last; and I lent him some money and brought him provisions, just before that time. I once wrote his name for him, "George Kreuzer." He had a purse the shape of a pocket-book, with two compartments in it I have handled it, and taken out needles, or buttons, or thread. He told me that he made it himself. This is the purse, to the best of my belief. He used generally to fasten it with a bit of string. When I last saw him he wore a black hat with a wide band. The hat Brown me is like it. He bought his hat from Mr Williams's store, Adam's Flat. The shirt shown me is like one he bought at the same time, and he also bought a pair of white moleskin trousers.
Thomas Williams, storekeeper, Adam's Flat, Mount Stewart, near the Woolshed: I know the last witness, and I knew a German named German George. He gave me his name as George Kawzen. That is the way he spelled it to me, when I wanted to write it in the book. I find now, from my books, that on the 5th November, I sold him a strong Crimean shirt exactly the same colour and quality as the one shown me, and a black hat similar to the one before me. On the 7th November, there was a tea meeting, and he was going. He bought of me then, moleskin trousers, a red and white handkerchief, a leather belt, and a woollen scarf. About the same time, my wife made him a flannel singlet, putting on it three bright buttons which she took from a shirt in the store, having none else to put on. The work on the shirt was herring-bone. I have no hesitation whatever in swearing that the shirt produced is the one my wife made for German George. About the same time, I sold him a bright metal spoon, of the size of the one now handed to me.
Charlotte Clark: My husband is William Clark, and we live at Adam's Flat, where Mr Williams comes from. I remember doing washing for German George; he was a big stout man, and stooped. He had a sore on his lip. He used to pay me out of a brown leather purse. I once asked him where he got the woman's "hussif" (housewife) from. At home, you see many "hussifs" like his purse was. Constable Kitchener once produced to me two purses. This is one of them, and it is just like German George's. I have no doubt it is the same, only I don't swear to it. He used to tie it round with a piece of twine.
William Hooper: I am a land agent in Dunedin. I know the premises occupied by Ellen Anderson, off Stafford street. I became possessed of the property on the 28th March, and then I found Anderson in possession. She gave me the name of Mrs Lowe. I am speaking of the house at the corner of Stafford street. On the 28th, I saw Anderson in the house; there was furniture in it. Anderson asked me if I was willing she should remove into an adjoining house at the back. I said, "Yes." On the 29th, I went and found Anderson living in the house next Mrs Smith. Anderson was apprehended before the next week's rent day came round; and from that time until very recently, the house was in the possession of the police — rented by the Commissioner. I do not know any Kate Aynsley. The corner house was vacant for four or five weeks before the 28th.
By Mr Wilson: I know nothing about the prisoner; but I am sure that I saw Anderson at the corner house on the 28th March. That was the first time I had gone to collect rent. I believe there are a good many bad neighbors in that locality.
By a Juror: Anderson never gave up to me the key of the corner house.
Sarah Smith, recalled by the Crown Prosecutor: After Mrs Hickman left the house next mine, nobody occupied it until the prisoner and Anderson came there. I think they had been there three or four days before they were taken into custody. I know a Kate Aynsley, but I don't know where she lives. I heard that Aynsley broke open the corner house, and took a table out of it.
By Mr Wilson: I saw the prisoner a good while before I saw Anderson, who was just coming out of prison when first I saw her at Mrs Rooney's. I won't say that the prisoner and Anderson were not living in the house next me for three or four weeks before they were apprehended - to the best of my opinion, they were only there three or four days.
Detective Rowley recalled, for the defence: I searched the prisoner, when he was arrested. The only money I found on him was one shilling. Morgan, recalled: At the Woolshed, Kreuzer was known as German Charley. He owed a little money, and preferred to go under the name of Charley, instead of George. Williams volunteered the statement that German George owed him L 6 now, and that he had told a police officer that he meant to apprehend the man. It was then that George "slithered" away from the Woolshed.
This was the case for the prosecution; and, as the jury had had no refreshment, the Court was adjourned (at half-past three) until five o'clock, so as to afford time for refreshment, and to give Mr Wilson an opportunity of arranging his speech for the defence.
When the Court resumed, Mr Wilson applied to have some witnesses called whose names were on the back of the indictment, and whose evidence was important for the prisoner. There was especially the witness Ann Sherry. He presumed that the Crown did not want to have the prisoner convicted, whether or not.
The Crown Prosecutor said that the Crown did nothing unfair.
The Judge said that it was not the duty of the Crown to call witnesses whose evidence was considered unimportant. Of course, the Crown would call witnesses who spoke in favor of a prisoner, when their names were on the back of the indictment, and several of the witnesses who had been called did state things which tended in the prisoner's favor. The Crown was not bound to call all those who were examined before the Magistrate.
Mr Wilson: Perhaps not, where the evidence was not relevant. But Ann Sherry's evidence was important.
The Judge: There may be witnesses of infamous character.
The Crown Prosecutor: That is so as to Ann Sherry; and she does not prove anything about the prisoner.
Mr Wilson: But she does prove something in connection with the crime.
The Crown Prosecutor: But it all refers to Anderson.
After some further conversation,
The Crown Prosecutor said he would call a witness, Clark, who had been named, and then leave him to be cross-examined.
Harry Seeley Clark: I am check-taker and bill-poster for the Princess Theatre.
By Mr Wilson: I remember the 29th March. I know Ellen Anderson well. I saw her at the Theatre on that night, with a drunken man, as near as possible about five minutes past seven, and she remained until the third act of "Louis XI," or about 20 minutes past ten. He was a short stout man, an Englishmen. I had a good deal of trouble with him, and so had plenty of opportunity of hearing him speak.
Mr Wilson addressed the jury for the defence. The long chain of evidence which had been so deliberately forged by the Crown, being now finished, it devolved on him to make some comments on it; and after hearing the summing up of the learned Judge, the jury would have to return such a verdict as they considered to be just. The responsibility was an awful one. To the jury, the responsibility was great; to the prisoner at the bar it was most momentous. The jury now, figuratively, held the thread of life in their hands; and by their verdict, they might either send the prisoner to an ignominious death, or they might restore him to society. He conjured the jury to throw aside and to utterly reject everything they might have heard in connection with this case out of doors — everything that they might have read in any of the public prints concerning it, or concerning either the prisoner or Ellen Anderson — and to decide alone on the evidence given within the walls of that Court. There would probably be scarcely a person in Dunedin who had not at some time freely canvassed the merits of this case; but he sincerely hoped that the jury would give credence and attention to the evidence only; and if they did that he had very little fear that they would come to any other than one conclusion. Where such an immense mass of evidence had been produced, like a cobweb round the prisoner — one thing hanging to another, but still pliable, and capable of explanation, which he trusted would be considered perfectly compatible with the prisoner's innocence — there might be suspicious circumstances connected with the cafe. Suspicion did not amount even to presumption, still less to proof of guilt. In estimating the importance of circumstantial evidence, the jury must have all the links perfect, or they must give the prisoner the benefit of any missing link. He (Mr Wilson) would go through the evidence which might be said to bear most strongly against the prisoner. When he had done this, he should ask the jury, "What object, what motive, could the prisoner have in committing this murder?" For object and motive there were, except in the cases of persons of insane mind, inducing to all kinds of crime. The Crown Prosecutor, in stating the case, started with the assumption that there had been a murder. Undoubtedly, a brutal, savage murder had been committed. The man was admitted to be drunk; and if the prisoner wanted to rob the man, what object was there in inflicting the brutal blows that had evidently been struck in this case, when a single blow in Anderson's house — where it was tried to prove the man went — would have enabled the purpose to have been completed? No resistance was offered, said the Crown Prosecutor; then, if the purpose was plunder, what necessity was there for a second blow? What necessity for battering the man's face in, as was done in this instance? If the object was plunder, and the prisoner was the thief, as well as the murderer, where were the fruits of the robbery? What was found on the prisoner? A single shilling! If the murder was done for revenge, was there a word to show that the prisoner owed to the deceased even a slight grudge, much less that he bore malice strong enough to lead to murder? A pair of green carpet slippers had been produced as a part of the case. The Jury were asked to believe that, in his very intoxicated state, the deceased was enviegled by the prisoner; that the prisoner wore those too-large slippers on his way up High street, in its then very bad condition; that in Alva street the prisoner committed the murder and that he then walked back, pulled off his slippers, and dropped them into the empty house in which it was said he had lived with Anderson. Could the jury believe such an hypothesis for a moment? He believed that it was one which no one would be able to arrive at. The Crown Prosecutor spoke of the deceased wearing a monkey-jacket, It was an exceedingly singular fact, that that jacket had not been produced. The evidence as to that jacket was consistent, that it was dark colored; but Mrs Hard, who was the most respectable of all the female witnesses, said most distinctly that the man she caw with Ellen Anderson wore a jacket that was neither very dark nor very light. The alleged statement as to "German Jack" having been at the house of Anderson on the night of the murder, was paraded as important; but then Jacob Zimmer — the man who might be supposed to be intended to answer to that cognomen — was never asked whether he had ever been known by such a name? The finding of the pocket-book in the empty house was one of the chief points for the prosecution. But it was an essential part of the prosecution, that the deceased went to the house in the evening, with Anderson, and that he was drunk. If so, what more easily to be understood than that he lost the book there, or left it accidentally, after paying money to Anderson? He should put this hypothesis to the jury: — A fortnight before the murder, German Charley was in Dunedin, and was robbed. The last time the pocket-book was seen by any of the witnesses, was on the 8th or 9th of March, immediately before became to Dunedin; he was not seen to take money from any purse or pocket-book on the night of the murder. About a fortnight before the murder, Ford was arrested for robbing some man. Was it not possible that during the former visit to Dunedin, the deceased visited Anderson's house, that he was then robbed there, and that the purse or pocket-book remained lying about the house from that time? Or, might not the purse have been accidentally left in the house on that visit? The Crown said that the finding of the purse was a most suspicious circumstance against the prisoner. He (Mr Wilson) thought the contrary. If the deceased was murdered for the sake of plunder, the man who did the murder and robbery; and then carried the evidence of his guilt to his own house, must, have been an arrant fool. If Ford followed, or tracked, or inveigled the deceased to the top of High street for the purpose of plunder, and murdered him as a preliminary, would he have carried back with him to his house the only traces of his guilt? The thing was preposterous. The finding of the purse merely went to prove, to a certain extent, that the deceased was at the house at some time; and to his (Mr Wilson's) mind, the conclusion was that the deceased left the bag behind. The same reasoning would apply to the finding of the calico "tucker" bag. If the bag was taken from the deceased by the prisoner, why did he bury it, when he could have burned it in halt a minute? The finding of the bag only confirmed the suggestion that the deceased had visited Anderson on a previous occasion, and that he left the bag behind him. A dirty bag might well be thrown into the yard, under such circumstances, and get covered with soil; but if the prisoner obtained it as part of the plunder resulting from a murder, why should he carry such a thing from the top of High street to his own house, when he could have got rid of it by tossing it over a fence into a garden or paddock? So as to the old spoon. If it ever belonged to German Charley, he most probably left it behind him for who would steal it? Left behind, what more likely than that it would be tossed into the yard and accidentally get into the privy. But there were thousands of such spoons in Dunedin; and the jury would no doubt conclude, that there were very many closets or privies in which such spoons could at the present moment be found. A good deal had been said about the prisoner's change of clothes — his putting off dirty moleskin trousers and old slippers that were too large for him. As to the slippers, there was not a word of evidence to show that the prisoner wore them on the night of the murder; and as to the trousers, it was not surely astonishing that a man should put off trousers so dirty as those which the prisoner wore were said to have been. The blood found on the prisoner's clothes was sufficiently accounted for by Mrs Hickman's evidence as to her nose bleeding in the corner house. She got a blow which knocked her down, and her nose must have bled profusely. If a large quantity of blood had been found on the upper part of the trousers, where it might have got from such blows as were struck upon the deceased, it would no doubt have been a suspicious circumstance. But four little spots only were found near the bottom of the trousers; and upon those spots, despite the evidence of Mrs Hickman, the jury were asked to convict the prisoner of murder. But the Crown regarded as the most important part of the evidence, the discovery of woollen fibres on the forked end of the stick, which fibres were said to correspond with others taken from a scarf which the prisoner wore. A red fibre and a white one, infinitesimal, almost, as the jury had seen, had been produced; and upon the unsupported scientific evidence of Dr Hocken, the jury were asked to believe that those fibres had come from the prisoner's scarf, and so to establish a link, in the chain of evidence. Such fibre might have got upon the stick from any one of many causes. The stick had evidently been used as a clothes prop, the fibres might have come from the clothes of any woman so using it, or they might have got on from the clothes of any one who handled it after the discovery of the murder. Red and white were very common colors in wool; and, altogether, the jury would most probably consider this part of the evidence valueless. There was needed, if they should not so think, the caution as to the danger always attending the reception of scientific evidence, and which danger, was fully recognised in the English Courts. To render the evidence of value, it should come from a man who had made the microscope his study for years, for the purposes of science, and Dr Hocken had not proved that he was such a man. The evidence of Dr Hulme as to the food found in the stomach of the deceased, and as to the time of digestion for such food, was most strongly in favor of the conclusion that the deceased went somewhere and ate, after the time at which he was said to have left Anderson's house; and if this were so, what more probable than a quarrel, or his meeting with some one who bore him enmity, and thence the murder. The police ought to have examined the clay of the footpath much more minutely than they did. Had they done so, they would probably have found footprints which would have led to the conclusion that the prisoner was not the man who was concerned in the murder. But the police seemed to have determined upon one line of evidence, and to have followed it out so as to lose all other traces, just as they did in the well known case of Job Johnston. As to the slippers, the jury could not hesitate to believe that they were left in the house when the prisoner and Anderson quitted it; for, if they bad been put through the hole in the wall after the murder, they would have had to drop 4ft, and never could have remained stuck together, as they were found. He submitted to the jury that, altogether, the case looked more like a murder for revenge than for plunder. If the prisoner or Anderson wanted to rob the deceased, they could, no doubt, in his drunken state, have done it easily in the house, but that they did not rob him appeared probable, from the fact that no money was found on the prisoner when he was apprehended. Again it must be pressed on the jury that there was not a word to show that the prisoner had any motive, from revenge or jealousy, to murder the deceased; and while the great ingenuity with which the police had got up the case must be admitted, no police ingenuity could be held as sufficient for the conviction of the prisoner. In conclusion, Mr Wilson appealed to the jury to take a merciful view of the case, unless they were thoroughly satisfied that the circumstances were wholly inconsistent with a presumption of the prisoner's innocence.
The Judge summed up. From the great number of witnesses examined, and from the minuteness of many of the circumstances of which they had spoken, it was very difficult compendiously to present a view of the whole evidence; but he should attempt to do so, before reading any portion of the evidence itself. He would assume, for the present, that the jury would be of opinion that what lawyers called the corpus delicti was proved — that it was shown that the man George Kreuzer had been murdered; and that the question for the jury was whether the prisoner was guilty of that murder. The evidence .might be conveniently divided under five heads; — 1. That the prisoner was one of the last persons in the company of the deceased. — 2. The property alleged to have been found, and no doubt found, in and near the house of the prisoner. — 3. The blood-stained garments, and especially the moleskin trousers and the slippers. — 4. The woollen fibres found on the end of the stick, for he took it for granted, that the jury would believe that the stick produced was the instrument with which this foul and barbarous murder was committed. — 5. The mode in which the blows were struck, as to be inferred from the position of the body on the pathway. As to the first head, the foundation was bad in this way — The prisoner lived with Anderson, and he was seen with a man whom it was sought to prove was the deceased, at some time after eleven o'clock on the night of the murder. On this point, there was the evidence of Mrs Gandell, Mrs Hard and Mrs Smith; and there was also the evidence of Mr Morton and police officers, as to the statements of the prisoner and Anderson, respecting a foreigner having been in the house during the night. — [His Honor briefly recapitulated the evidence of the witnesses in each instance, throughout his summing up.] Mr Wilson had commented with some plausibility upon the strangeness of a detective officer like Rowley, not making earlier than he did, his statement as to the prisoner's saying that "German Charley" was the man who was at the house; and the jury must consider, against the fact, the explanation that it was well understood that at the first examination no more evidence was to be given than would justify a remand. Still, it did seem strange to him that so important a statement would have been overlooked. If the jury believed all the witnesses on this point, including Rowley, they must believe that "German Charley" had been to the house with Anderson, at a late hour, and that the prisoner saw him there. As to the second point, Mr Wilson had asked why any one should carry such valueless things as the bag and the spoon from the scene of the murder to the house; and it did seem marvellous that such a thing should have been done. But there were the facts that the deceased had two bags when he left the Taieri; that only one was found in the swag and that the one found in the yard of the house corresponded with the missing one. Why bury the bag, when it could have been so easily burned? had been very properly asked by Mr Wilson. But it fortunately happened that the wretched beings who were prompted to commit murder did seem, providentially, it might be said, often to overlook the most obvious precautions for hiding their crimes. Many a murderer had been so convicted. The examination of the privy and the ground near it was made at night, and it must have been very difficult, at least, for any one to see traces of soil having been disturbed, in such a puddle as that in which these traces were said to have been discovered. He felt some doubt as to the circumstances under which the bag was said to have been discovered — for it was not impossible that the bag might have been a thing which was not improperly thrown aside and trampled under foot. So as to the spoon, Mr Wilson had fairly said that many such spoons might, no doubt, be found in many privies in Dunedin. He considered that the purse had been fully identified by Melling and a Charlotte Clarke, as the property of the deceased. But there was this difficulty — that there was no witness who saw the purse in Charley's possession on the 29th March. It was found in the house of a prostitute who lived with the prisoner, and the jury must consider the suggestions that it was dropped, or stolen, either on this night or on a previous visit of the deceased to that house. The mere possession of the purse would not, alone, be enough for the conviction of the prisoner. Although the purse was, strangely, left uncared for by the police in the house, for some time, he had no doubt that Weale did find it there when the place was first searched on the day after the murder. Mr Fisher positively corroborated Weale on that point. As to the blood on the clothes. In each instance. Dr. Hocken was positive that the blood he found was not that of any fish or bird, but was that of some mammal, and the witness explained why he could not be more positive. The moleskin trousers, on which there were four stains, were not positively identified by anybody as belonging to the prisoner. The man was in the habit of' selling fish, and stains of fish blood might easily get upon his clothes; but Dr. Hocken was positive that these stains were not of fish blood. The slippers were found adhering, through the presence of tenacious clay; Farrell believed that they could not have been dropped into the place; therefore, the prosecution suggested that they were put into the house by the prisoner, who had the key; and Mr Wilson asked the jury to believe that they were left when the prisoner and Anderson quitted the house. There was no proof that Ford wore the slippers on the 29th March, or within a few days of that date; and Farrell had stated his belief that if the slippers had been worn from Alva street to Stafford street after the murder, the blood stains on them would not have remained so clear as they were when the slippers were found — that the blood would have, been effaced by clay or mud. He (the Judge) did not attach any weight to the differences of the witnesses as to when the prisoner and Anderson quitted the corner house, in which the slippers were found. In fact, the key of that house did not appear to have been given up by the prisoner or Anderson, prior to their arrest. The prosecution had put forward, as a suspicious circumstance, the fact that the prisoner wore women's boots when apprehended; but Mrs Hickman saw him wearing such boots on the 9th March, or some time before the murder. Mr Wilson had regretted that the ground in the neighborhood where the body was found was not inspected more closely than it appeared to have been. He joined in that regret. On an occasion of this kind, the inspection of ground should not be left to any subordinate member of the police force, however respectable or intelligent he might be — and no doubt there were many such even in the lower grades of the force. Such an occasion was one for the most anxious scrutiny of the ground in the neighborhood. Footprints were a most important means of identification — and if there had been such a scrutiny in this case as he had indicated, the prisoner might not have been in jeopardy, or there might have been convincing proofs of his guilt. The police said that the ground in the neighborhood of the body was quite hard: the path was left after cutting away clay, and some strata of clay here were very hard indeed. Dr Alexander found the ground soft when he went up during the forenoon; but that might be accounted for by rain or heavy mist, which seemed to have fallen at the time when Weale was going up. Of course, the prosecution suggested that the slippers were put into the house for concealment; but if so, it was very odd that so insufficient a mode was adopted — that they were not cleaned, or that an attempt had not been made to clean them. So far as he had gone in his review of the evidence, he could not say that that evidence would, in itself, justify a conviction. Not that he by any means said the evidence was worthless: for, in conjunction with other evidence, it might come to make a conviction perfectly justifiable and right. Was that other evidence supplied under the fourth head, as to the minute woollen fibres found on the forked end of the stick? On such a point, the evidence of the handling of the stick after it was found was most important: for its forked end might carry away a portion of woollen fibre from the clothes of those who were merely inspecting it, or so small a quantity might be gathered without any one handling the stick at all. Dr Hocken had stated that he compared fibres he took from the stick, with others taken from a scarf which it had been shown the prisoner had worn around his waist. It was an exceedingly probable suggestion, that if a man wielded the stick with both his hands, the forked end would carry off portions of any woollen fabric which he might be wearing as a belt. He (the Judge) did not allow the jury to use the microscope which was placed on the table, nor did he use it himself, because the microscope was a scientific instrument, and he thought that evidence on such a point should be given by persons skilled in its use. Scientific evidence was most valuable when brought to bear upon this class of cases. One of the great advantages of advanced science, was the vastly greater facilities it afforded for detecting guilt in cases of murder: it would be absurd for any man nowadays to decry modern science, seeing that the facts it disclosed were the most important and the best-verified parts of our knowledge. In England, men of world-wide reputation could be, and were, brought into Court in such cases. We might have such men here; at all events, he would never use slighting expressions concerning the talent we might have amongst us. We might, for anything he knew to the contrary, have first-class scientific men here; but it was not in the nature of things that many men should be so well able to establish their reputation as could be done in the mother country, where any such man knew that there was a vast scientific public watching his evidence, and that that public had already given him the stamp of their approval as a man of competent skill and knowledge. He did not for a moment disbelieve Dr Hocken, nor would he ask the jury to do so: but Dr Hocken could not come into Court with an established reputation as a microscopical observer; and, therefore, the jury must use some extra caution in receiving his testimony. He (the Judge) could not say less than that. He said it with no intention of disrespect to Dr Hocken; although if it were necessary to show disrespect to him or to anybody else, he should not scruple to show it in a capital case. He did not doubt Dr Hocken's skill or competency; but Dr Hocken did not come into Court with the stamp of a European scientific reputation. Dr Hocken said that the fibres taken from the end of the stick corresponded with other fibres from the scarf. His (the Judge's) eyes were pretty good, and he could see a general correspondence; and some of the jurors might have better sight than he had. But there might be other fabrics than the scarf which would yield corresponding fibres. Dr Hocken said that there was a precise correspondence. If that was so, and if the jury were satisfied, beyond the power of doubt, that the fibres taken from the stick came from the scarf, then that fact, added to the other evidence, would afford very pregnant evidence of guilt. Were the jury satisfied as to the identification of that small thread on the glass shade? The prisoner's life might, without figure of speech, be said to hang upon that little fibre! As to the nature of the blows struck. It was clear from the evidence, that the unfortunate deceased was struck down by a left-handed blow. There was no evidence proving that the prisoner was a lefthanded man; but the jury would recollect how, casually, Mrs Hickman stated that the prisoner used a needle in a left-handed way. It must be added that many right-handed men could and would strike a left-handed blow with such a weapon, and that there were ambidexterous men. He would not encumber the jury by reading the whole of the evidence; for he thought that doing so would tend to make them lose their grasp of the case as a whole, rather than to enlighten them. His Honor read various portions of the evidence; and added others at the request of the Crown Prosecutor and of Mr Wilson. His Honor also said that he did not see that the case for the Crown was embarrassed by the want of a plausible motive for the murder. It was to be remembered that here, any man in the garb of a miner might be worth robbing; and that there were always men sufficiently wicked to act upon the saying, "Dead men tell no tales." It was remarkable that the police, with all their efforts, had been unable to trace the deceased's monkey jacket; and it was to be remarked that the prisoner, when arrested shortly after the murder, had no money in his possession. There was no point of law upon which a single word need be said; and now, without encumbering the jury by commenting on details which it was peculiarly the duty of the jury to consider, he would leave them to their duty of saying whether, upon the whole evidence, the prisoner was guilty or not guilty of the great crime with which he was charged.
The Jury retired at twenty minutes past eight o'clock, and were absent exactly an hour. They then returned into Court with a verdict of Not Guilty.
The Judge: Prisoner William Ford, you may go.
The Crown Prosecutor: I think he should be detained, your Honor. There is sufficient in the evidence to warrant me in preferring an indictment against him for stealing the property of the deceased. This course has been adopted in an English case.
The Judge: I do not say that you may not have sufficient evidence to establish such a charge, but I cannot detain him now. You may go, William Ford.
Ford left the dock and the Court.
The Crown Prosecutor: Since the jury has acquitted the prisoner Ford, I think the evidence will hardly sustain a case against the prisoner Anderson.
The Judge: The case against her is not stronger than against Ford. The work of murder was evidently the work of a male hand, and the case against Anderson is consequently weaker. I think you will exercise a wise discretion in not preferring any evidence against her.
Ellen Anderson was brought up from Gaol, and, as a matter of form, the jury were sworn, and the indictment against her was read over.
The Crown Prosecutor declined to offer any evidence, and the Jury, under the direction of the Judge, found a verdict of Not Guilty.
The prisoner was discharged.
The Court was adjourned shortly before ten o'clock to Thursday morning, at ten o'clock, when the Civil business will be commenced by His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.
OTAGO
The late Prisoner Ford. — At the conclusion of the business in the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday, William Ford, who was lately tried for the murder of "Charley" in High street, and found not guilty, applied to the Magistrate, to use his endeavours to send him out of the country. He stated that he was starving, that he could obtain no employment; that for the last three nights he had walked the streets, as no person would give him shelter; and that on one occasion, when he got money from a gentleman to pay for a bed, he had applied at a number of public lodging-houses and been refused admittance. The Magistrate said he would do all in his power to get a passage for the applicant to Melbourne, but in the meantime he had not the power to offer him any place as a temporary shelter, except one of the cells at the Police station. This offer was gladly accepted by the applicant. During yesterday afternoon a subscription was started to purchase clothes and food for Ford, and a small sum was raised. In the evening it was reported that the Government had resolved to give Ford a free passage to Melbourne by the first steamer. -Lyttelton Times, 4/7/1865.
So much for the life and career of William Ford. It would seem that, although found "not guilty" by a jury, the verdict of the denizens of "Hell's half acre" was more harsh. What of Ellen Anderson? She appears in the court news nearly ten years later, described as "an elderly woman," charged with drunkenness at Port Chalmers. This would corroborate with "Charley's" reported objection: "Why, I thought you were a young woman."
So much for the life and career of William Ford. It would seem that, although found "not guilty" by a jury, the verdict of the denizens of "Hell's half acre" was more harsh. What of Ellen Anderson? She appears in the court news nearly ten years later, described as "an elderly woman," charged with drunkenness at Port Chalmers. This would corroborate with "Charley's" reported objection: "Why, I thought you were a young woman."
No comments:
Post a Comment