Elizabeth Powell is one of those figures who appear in the historic record and then disappear. There were more effective ways in those days to do so than now - leave the country, change your town, change your name. One thing which I have discovered was very easy to do back then was to change town and name and start anew - and be treated by the Court as a first-time offender unless one was recognised by an officer of the law.
Elizabeth Powell may have changed her ways after her serious brushes with the law in Dunedin. She may have changed her name and location. My guess would be the latter.
Elizabeth first appears in the Dunedin court news on fairly common charges. But, a few years later, things become serious.
In the Mayor's Court yesterday, Peter Logan, for drunkenness, was fined 10s, or in default of payment to be imprisoned 24 hours. Elizabeth Powell was charged with using obscene language, and was fined 20s; in default of payment to be imprisoned 14 days. -Otago Daily Times, 27/9/1866.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
This day. (Before A. Chetham-Strode, Esq., R.M.)
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Elizabeth Powell, for this offence, was fined 20s, or, in default, forty-eight hours’ imprisonment; James Letty 40s, or one week; and James Lane the same amount. -Evening Star, 14/7/1869.
NOTICE.
MARIA WILLIAMS Left her Home on the 3rd of January. Any person giving information to her recovery will be rewarded. Any person harbouring her will be prosecuted. H. WILLIAMS, Hillside. -Otago Daily Times, 2/1/1874.
INVEIGLING A LITTLE GIRL FROM HER PARENTS.
Elizabeth Powell, alias Patterson, was charged with having, on the 4th January, 1874, allured a certain young girl named Maria Williams, aged 12 years, from the home of her parents against her will, being an indictable offence. Sub-Inspector Mallard prosecuted, and accused was undefended. John Williams, clock dealer, living at the corner of Manor Place and Melville street, had a little daughter whom he put out to service in the family of a Mr Nuttall. From something which came to his knowledge on the 5th ult. he was induced to go to the house of accused and enquire for his child. Prisoner denied having seen her, and when he subsequently called she put her head out of the window, and said she was surprised at his coming when she had a chap in the house. He informed the police, and after enquiries, traced his daughter to Port Chalmers, where she was found, and brought home. Accused lived in a house near him, was an abandoned woman, lived on prostitution, and decoyed drunken men to go with her. — R. W. Nuttall employed a daughter of complainant's as a domestic servant; and about 9 o'clock on the evening of Sunday, the 4th ult., she told him that a woman in Walker street had offered her more money, and she was going to leave. He was somewhat surprised and annoyed at this, and refused to permit her to leave; but not wishing to cause trouble, he did not restrain her. — Maria Williams, a delicate young girl, said that whilst at Mr Nuttall's Lizzie Powell offered her money to live with her. Sub-Inspector Mallard: Why did you go there? The child burst into tears, and answered because Lizzie Powell asked her to leave her father and mother. She did not tell her for what purpose, but got her to go with her on Sunday night, and remain until the Tuesday following. Whilst there, several men, some of them drunk, called at the house, and one of them abused her in the back yard, and wanted her to go with him, but she refused to leave Powell. On the Tuesday prisoner took her to the Railway Station through the back streets, and told her to go to Mrs Lloyd's at Port Chalmers, giving her 2s with which to pay her fare. On reaching Port she was told that Lloyd was in gaol, and after calling at the houses of Mrs Jenkins, Mrs Campbell, and Mrs Stackey, she was met by her father and taken home. Powell tried to elicit from cross-questioning that the 2s was given by a man named Patterson, and that she had never told her to leave her father and mother, but the child firmly adhered to what she had sworn.— Agnes McDonald resided near the house of accused, and frequently saw her taking men in. — Constable Beasley, Sergeant O'Neil, and Constable Rooney all spoke to the character of accused. In 1866, she was a prostitute living in a brothel in Walker street; she afterwards lived behind the Bristol House in Cumberland street, and in 1869 she was convicted at Oamaru for larceny. She was continually prowling about the streets of Dunedin during the night with disreputable characters, and was regarded as one of the boldest prostitutes in the place. Sergeant Neil, stationed at Port Chalmers, said that Marian Lloyd was at present undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, and had been convicted on several occasions.
For the defence, accused called George Patterson, a stoker, who cohabited with her, and Henry Willis. They swore that the child had been sent away, and that prisoner did not give the 2s, but Patterson, who admitted that it was to pay her fare to Port Chalmers.
The Sub-Inspector said that was all the evidence, which, he considered, was sufficient to show the guilty mind of accused.
The Bench were aware that a number of characters like the prisoner were in the habit of enticing young girls to their destruction. The case not being one which they could deal with summarily, they could not inflict the sentence which they considered proper. After cautioning accused, they discharged her. -Otago Daily Times, 4/2/1874.
The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1874
We do not remember a more disgraceful case than that of the abduction of the girl Maria Williams, brought before the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday. There was not a redeeming feature in it. In fact, every action of the accused aggravated the offence with which she stood charged. A girl, only thirteen years old, servant in a respectable family, was decoyed from her situation by a woman of disreputable character, and induced to become an inmate of her house. One would have imagined that having experienced the evils inseparable from her own degraded condition, the latter would at least have had so much of our common humanity left as to shrink from involving an innocent child in like infamy. But no such kindly feeling had place in her mind. The evidence shows that not only did she induce the girl to become an inmate of her house, but exposed her to the brutality of a man who sought to consummate her ruin for his own gratification. But even then the climax was not reached. Becoming aware that steps were being taken to reclaim her victim, and that the police were on her track, she took means to secrete the girl, if possible, and to prevent her return to her father. Who the people are to whom she was transferred we know not. Some of them, we may fairly infer, through their intimate acquaintanceship with Lizzie Powell, are of like vocation with herself and it is not too much to conclude that all were led to the course they took by a desire to shield her from the legal consequences of her conduct. At length the girl was sent home, and very properly the woman Powell was called upon to answer for the crime of which she had been guilty. On careful examination of the evidence, we think it was sufficiently proved. At any rate there was a prima facie case against the woman. The 24 and 25 Vict. enact that “Whoever shall unlawfully take, or cause to be taken, any unmarried girl, being under the age of sixteen years, out of the possession, and against the will of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful charge of her shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.” Commenting on this offence, Wharton tells us that, “In order to constitute this offence, it is not necessary that any corrupt motive should be the inducement to commit the offence, and the consent of the child herself would be no excuse.” We are, therefore, at a loss to understand on what grounds the Bench dismissed the case. In fact, their decision seems to us one of the most extraordinary that has ever been recorded. As reported in the 'Guardian,’ their Worships said:— The Bench had no doubt that many women of the character of the accused inveigled young girls to their haunts for the purpose of their destruction. It was fortunate for the accused the Bench had not the power of dealing with the case summarily, or they would inflict a punishment commensurate with their opinion of it. As they thought, however, that it would not be sustained if the accused were sent to trial, they would discharge her, but cautioned her as to her conduct for the future.
What does that expression of opinion amount to? Either the Bench must have been convinced that the woman was guilty, or they had no right to animadvert so severely on her conduct. If they thought she was guilty, their duty was to have committed her for trial. All they had to consider was whether or not there was a prima facie case against her. They tell us that had they had the power they would have sentenced her to severe punishment. They did not say they thought the charge was preferred under a wrong statute, or that the evidence was insufficient. They virtually admitted the woman’s guilt, and stated the conclusion they would have arrived at had they been on a jury empanelled to try her. But apparently their idea was that nobody else but themselves would have coincided with them. This, however, was not the point they had to consider. All that was required of them was to inquire whether the facts justified the prosecution, and if they did, their duty was not to think “that the charge could not be sustained if sent to trial,” but to leave it to the Crown Prosecutor, the Supreme Court, and a jury. Throughout the Colony there is increasing necessity for strong measures for the protection of young children. The increasing frequency of attempts at their violation is forcing upon society the necessity for deterrent measures; but cowardly as are the brutal attacks upon them of which we so frequently hear, the dastardly advantage afforded through abduction by abandoned women is equally reprehensible, because more subtle, and because the men escape all possibility of prosecution; and such decisions as that of yesterday, through affording probability of escape of a procuress, act as a premium on their repetition. The only possible solution of the process by which the Bench arrived at their decision is that they did not know what is included in the word “abduction.” For their information we may observe that it does not mean merely forcibly carrying away women or children, which is “kidnapping,” but “fraudulently” taking them away; and we think there was quite sufficient to show that the girl was enticed away with fraudulent intention. Dunedin has for some time past been the theatre on which the great “unpaid” have played a conspicuous part. We do not know that they have figured worse than the average of men appointed more because their pockets are full than their brains clear. But quite sufficient has been shown to prove that the administration of law is not safe, excepting in skilled hands. Here, as well as elsewhere, honorary justice is capricious and expensive. -Evening Star, 4/2/1874.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
Friday, 13th February. (Before A. C Strode, Esq., R.M.)
EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT OF A CHILD. Margaret Ann Lawson, alias Dawson, a pretty little half-caste, was placed in the dock, on a charge of stealing a lady's shawl valued at 10s. In reply to the charge, she whispered that she had taken the cape for a loan. Two days ago she was taken into custody with some other children, for committing a series of thefts, and was proved to be the instigator of them. Jane Wilson said she lived at the Waverley Boarding House, where accused was employed as servant until the evening of the 4th. ult, when she suddenly left, and on the following day witness missed the cape produced. Detective Shury had received information of the theft, and subsequently saw accused about ten o'clock at night wearing it in town, with a crowd of boys following her. She stated that she resided in Canongate, but had been stopping with Mrs Powell, a woman living in Manor Place, and that she, Lizzie Powell, and a man who co-habited with her, slept in one bed. In answer to Mr Strode, it was elicited that Lizzie Powell was the vicious character who had been charged at the Court a short time previous with abduction. A further charge was then preferred against Lawson of stealing a muff valued at 10s. Elizabeth Keenan employed accused, at Waverley Boarding House last month, and she suddenly disappeared; and Detective Shury afterwards brought a muff belonging to witness, which he had found upon her. Witness had heard she was leading a very bad life. Mr. Strode: What is the history of this child? Sub-Inspector Mallard was sorry to say that her history was a bad one. Her father resided in Dunedin, but she stays away from home against his will, and is quite uncontrollable. Her conversation when in police custody was something horrible, and it was a most lamentable thing to hear her. He considered her too far gone for redemption. The child displayed the greatest indifference throughout, and answered the questions readily, but in a half audible tone of voice. She was fourteen years of age. Mr. Strode said she appeared a fit subject for the Reformatory Industrial School, as the Gaol would make her worse than she was. The fact of her admission into the house of 'the notorious woman Powell was something shocking, but it would not do to let her associate with hardened criminals in the Gaol. Some robberies committed in North Dunedin twelve months ago, which were never made public in Court, had since been traced to her. He would remand her for a short time until some information concerning her, religion, &c, could be procured, when she would be committed to the Industrial School. The prisoner was sentenced to three years' detention in the Reformatory Schoo1 at Caversham, after his Worship had given her a severe lecture on her past conduct. -Otago Daily Times, 14/2/1874.
A NOTORIOUS CHARACTER.
Elizabeth Powell, the woman who recently enticed a young girl to leave her situation and go and live with her, for no other object than that of prostituting her, and who was brought up before two of the Great Unpaid, on a charge of abduction, and, to the horror of every right-thinking individual, discharged, was, again brought up at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Dunedin, but this time before Mr. Strode. She was charged, under the Vagrant Act, with having no lawful means of support. She appeared in Court attired in brand new clothes, and pleaded, in a pompous manner, "Not Guilty." John Williams lived within a few yards of her house, and frequently saw her taking in drunken men, whom she had dogged. Her conduct was of the worst description, and she was constantly in company with drunken women, who went to her house. Sergeant O'Neil had known her since 1865, when she lived in a Walker-street brothel, and subsequently in a low neighborhood at the rear of Bristol House, Cumberland-street. In 1869, he escorted her to gaol from Oamaru, where she had been convicted for larceny. She had been living the life of a prostitute for a considerable time past. Constable Rooney know her to be one of the most dangerous of her class. Prowling the streets at midnight she solicited prostitution, and pounced upon drunken men. Detective Shury had had occasion to watch her house lately through the brawls which occurred there nightly, and knew her to be a most offensive woman. Mrs. McDonald had witnessed disgraceful proceedings at accused's house, and said it caused much annoyance to respectable people. Prisoner tried to entice nearly every young girl that went past her door for evil purposes. Mr. Strode: Well, now, Elizabeth Powell, you are with no lawful means of support, and I have to call upon you in terms of the Act to give me an account of your means of support to my satisfaction. Prisoner: A man named Paterson, employed on the Golden Age, keeps me, and pays my rent. Mrs. Mason can prove it. Mr. Strode (evidently amazed): What! is Mrs. Mason with you — the notorious Mrs. Mason? Prisoner: Not that Mrs. Mason. (To a constable: Show the Magistrate my receipts.) A large-sized purse was handed to His Worship, who opened it and pulled out a number of papers tightly folded together. Separating one, a certificate of birth; another, a pawn ticket; a third, a receipt for one week's rent paid by Paterson. His Worship: These prove nothing. Well, Elizabeth Powell, from the evidence before me, I have no doubt — and I do not think any one who has heard the evidence can have any possible doubt — that you are one of the worst and most dangerous of vagrants, who, until you reform, should not be at large. You were charged, a short time since, you may remember, with abduction — with inducing a little girl to enter your house for immoral purposes. You don't seem to be contented with little girls, but you ask women who are passing to come into tea, make them drunk, and we all know what occurs. — (Accused began to feign penitence, and sobbed.) His Worship: Yes, you ask them in to tea, and after making them drunk, men come in and prostitute them; that is what you do to your friends. You are a horrid, abominable character — for one so young, a dreadful character. Four years ago, apparently, you were convicted of larceny; what do you think your end will be? Such a woman as you should be locked up until you reform, to keep you from committing further mischief. I shall mark my sense of your conduct by sending you to the common gaol for three months, with hard labor. -Tuapeka Times, 18/2/1874.
CITY POLICE COURT
Degraded Women. — Agnes Antoe, Elizabeth Powell, and Margaret Bradshaw were charged conjointly with having no lawful means of support. — Sergeant Hanlon stated that Antoe was a prostitute, and the occupier of a brothel in St. Andrew street, and kept the other two defendants. She did no work, and drunken brawls frequently took place in the house. About a fortnight previously a man got into the house and died there, and the circumstances being reported to witness, he made enquiries, and found that a doctor had seen the man just before dying, and thus prevented an inquest being held. It appeared the man had money, and died whilst suffering from excessive drinking. Another witness described defendants as a continual nuisance to the neighbourhood. Ann Reid was called by the woman Powell to give evidence. Each of the defendants were sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. -Otago Daily Times, 10/4/1875.
CITY POLICE COURT.
Monday, August 28. (Before E. ff. Ward, Esq., and J. Black, Esq., J.Ps.)
Drunkenness.—Thos. Hill, James Savage; and Charles Buer were all fined 10s, in default twenty-four hours 1 imprisonment. John Adams, against whom there were two charges, prisoner having again got intoxicated after being liberated on bail, 20s, or forty-eight hours on each. Elizabeth Charlotte Frederick was fined 40s, or forty-eight hours.
A Lively Quintet: Elizabeth Charlotte Frederick (who persistently pleaded that she made use of no languages whatsoever), Flora Carter, Anne Vaughan, Elizabeth Powell, and Edward Williams were all charged with using obscene language in a brothel in Machins right-of-way at 12.30 this morning. —Mr Ward: I was in hopes these characters had been cleared out of that locality. — Inspector Mallard: I am afraid the locality is too chronic to get rid of them altogether. They go away sometimes, but come back again. — Mr Ward: I should have thought that the landlords would have taken some steps to get rid of them. — Inspector Mallard: They are too good tenants. It is no use mincing matters; that is the extent of it. — Mr Ward: I fear such is the case. — In fining each of the prisoners 40s, or, in default, three days' imprisonment, Mr Ward expressed the hope that the landlords of these houses would take into consideration the great trouble the public were put to by reason of their letting their houses to such infamous people, and especially to the detriment of those living in the neighborhood. When a sailor went to the houses, as in this case; there was a scene, and consequently considerable annoyance; therefore it was to be hoped that the landlords would let their houses to a different class of people. Prisoners were the worst type of their class, and all had been more or less in gaol for various offences. — Inspector Mallard ventured the opinion that the landlords were the root of the evil, if they could only get at the landlords instead of the occupiers they might be able to clear such characters. -Evening Star, 28/10/1876.
CITY POLICE COURT
Theft. —Lizzie Powell was charged, on remand, with stealing, on the 26th ult., a shawl valued at 20s, the property of Mary Fairbairn. — Prisoner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. -Evening Star, 17/12/1877.
THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.
CITY POLICE COURT.
(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)
Drunkenness.—Thomas Mellor and Mary Foots, charged with this offence, were dismissed with a caution.
Raid on Bird’s Right-of-way.—Christina Wilson, Mary Ann Ford, Kate McDonald, Elizabeth Charlotte Frederics, Elizabeth Powell, and Elizabeth Boloney were charged with having no lawful visible means of support, and all pleaded guilty save Frederics, who stated that she went out washing.— Samuel Bird volunteered to give evidence on her behalf, and stated that she was a tenant of his and went out to work. In cross-examination by Inspector Mallard Bird said Frederics lived by herself. He never heard any noise in her house. He had five or six houses let to these women. There were two wretched hovels let for 20s per week, but the tenants did not always pay up. There was only one room in Powell’s house and one in Boloney’s. Witness kept a store adjoining, but did not supply the women with ale and spirits; but he did give them dinner occasionally, charging 1s each for it. — Inspector Mallard said his Worship might think it somewhat unusual and rather harsh for the police to bring up all these women; but the fact was the conduct of the women in this right-of-way was so bad that he would like to get Bird induced to pull down these hovels. — Sergeant Anderson deposed that Frederics occupied one of Bird’s houses, and it was frequented by persons having no lawful visible means of support, including the women Wilson, Frederics, Powell, and several other prostitutes. The house was kept in a very noisy and disreputable way. — Samuel Bird said he could not tell who frequented Jane Henderson’s house. As a rule it was very quietly kept, but there was a noise there on Saturday night. She paid 10s a week rent, and the house contained two rooms. — Evidence was then given by Constable Conn as to the goings-on at Bird’s right-of-way on Sunday morning last as people were coming from church. Several of the women now in Court were out in the street and right-of-way in a half-naked state, some were shrieking “murder” at the top of their voices, and Frederics and McDonald were fighting. — Sergeant Anderson disposed that Boloney’s house was frequented by young lads and Chinamen. — Sergeant-Major Bevan gave corroborative evidence. — His Worship said the police were fully justified in taking steps to abate this nuisance; but if Bird thought proper to use his property in the manner shown the only thing that could be done would be to continually bring these women up, and thus render the houses of no value to him. — Inspector Mallard said it was not the women he wished to have punished so much as Bird - the fact was that independent of paying him high rents they were capital customers of his. As Bird was in the Court perhaps he would come forward and state what he would do with the hovels. — Bird did not respond to the information, and his Worship sentenced the seven women to a month’s imprisonment each, with hard labor. -Evening Star, 14/8/1878.
The ordinary business at the Police Court yesterday was light. His Worship the Mayor and Mr Reeves, J.P., sat upon the Bench. Elizabeth Powell, who was one of the six residents of Bird's right-of-way in Walker street recently sentenced to one month's imprisonment each, and who upon this occasion was arrested, in a state approaching nudity, in the same evil haunt, pleaded guilty to the charge of drunkenness, and was fined 20s, or 48 hours' imprisonment. John Hunter, for drunkenness, assaulting, and tearing the uniform of the arresting constable, was sentenced to pay a total sum of 35s, or suffer four days' imprisonment in default. A few bye-law cases completed the business. -Otago Daily Times, 26/9/1878.
CITY POLICE COURT.
(Before J. Logan, Esq., J.P., and A. Mercer, Esq., J.P.) Vagrancy.— Elizabeth Powell, an old offender, was charged with having no lawful means of support. — Sergeant Gearin said that he arrested prisoner in Jetty street last night. She was following gentlemen about the streets, and was in a state of nudity. — The Bench sent her back to her old quarters for three months. -Evening Star, 16/5/1879.
And there, it seems, is the end of Lizzie Powell's appearances in the courts of Dunedin. "Papers Past" records a woman of her name as being assaulted in Christchurch in 1886 while "slightly under the influence of liquor." But, apart from that possibility, she fades from history.
