Ashers Lane was one of many rights-of-way in the city of Dunedin. They had privacy. Many had squalor. And "disorder." Ashers Lane had all three.
It was on the corner of Moray Place and Filleul street. It is now a car park.
Breach of the Peace.
Lizzie Barry, Mary Jane Barry, and Annie Barry were charged with committing a breach of the peace in Asher's lane on the 30th November. Mr A. R. Barclay defended. — Sergeant O’Neill stated that the three defendants (the mother and two daughters) went to a right-of-way off Filleul street on the date named and there assaulted and abused a woman named Bethune. The scene was so bad that the police had to be telephoned for. — Evidence was given by Kate Bethune, Georgina Disarthe, and Constables Hill and McGlone. — Mr Barclay stated that Mrs Barry was hammering one of her daughters with a strap for going to Mrs Bethune’s house, when the latter interfered, and Mrs Barry struck her on the face with the strap. — Evidence was given for the defence, after which the Bench dismissed the case. -Evening Star, 8/12/1897.
POLICE COMMISSION.
(By Telegraph — Press Association.)
DUNEDIN, Tuesday
Giving evidence before the Police Commission, Bishop Neville said he had no idea that property on which he had advanced money was known as Asher's lane. J. I. Woodhouse, solicitor, who acted for Asher, deposed that the Bishop had nothing to do with the tenants. William Asher asserted that the tenants of Asher's Lane were all honest and industrious. His trouble was small tenants and drunkenness. -Auckland Star, 6/4/1898.
THE POLICE COMMISSION.
Exculpation of Bishop Nevill
Press Association — By Electric Telegraph
Dunedin, April 5.
Before the Police Commission to-day, Mr J. F. Woodhouse, solicitor, gave evidence respecting statements made concerning Asher's right-of-way. W. Asher held a lease of the property for sixty years, and was bound to put up £500 worth of buildings m the first year. In 1888 Bishop Nevill was asked by his then financial agent to lend £1000 on lease. He did so for five years. He asked that the money be paid up, but this was not done. The rate of interest was reduced to five per cent. The security was not considered good, and an offer was made to take £600 in discharge of the mortgage. That offer was still open. The Bishop had nothing to do with the tenants. He did not say to McGill that he was afraid if he took prompt action he would lose money. What he did say was that he was the only mortgagee, and the matter was m the hands of Asher, but he would speak to Asher. The Bishop did speak to Asher, and told his agent to speak also. The Bishop could not do more. Mr William Asher corroborated the statement of Mr Woodhouse. He alleged that the police were unduly vigilant and had annoyed the tenants by their enquiries. The tenants of his houses were all honest and industrious. His trouble with small tenants was drunkenness. The police had never cleared the houses. The trouble was with boarders the tenants took in.
The police put in a list of persons charged from Asher's right-of-way. Asher said that with the exception of one person charged with drunkenness, none of the persons mentioned in the return had been tenants of his houses.
Bishop Nevill gave evidence to the same effect as Mr Woodhouse. When Mr McGill spoke to him, he said he was very sorry, and if what he had said was true he would consult his business man and also speak to Mr Asher on the subject.
By Mr Woodhouse: He was quite sure he said nothing to Mr McGill about being afraid of losing money if he took any action in regard to Asher's property. Until the Commission commenced their sittings m Dunedin he had no idea that the property on which he had advanced money was known as "Asher's lane." -Ashburton Guardian, 6/4/1898.
THE POLICE COMMISSION
PECULIAR TACTICS OF MINISTERS.
THE MATTER SHELVED
(From Our Own Correspondent.)
WELLINGTON, September 15.
The amendment moved by Mr Kelly gave Mr Taylor the chance of getting in another speech on the Police Commission report. Mr Millar, he said, had charged him with getting information from a gutter rat. (Mr Millar: "A prohibition sewer rat.") Mr Taylor: "Well, a sewer rat; that's a little lower down." —(Laughter.) Mr Millar, he continued, had given him the name of this man, and he might say that he had never before in his life heard his name. He had never spoken to the man. Then, he had been accused of dragging Bishop Nevill's name before the commission, and stating that he had made a profit of 10 per cent. interest from property almost continuously occupied by brothels. He did not give that evidence. It was given at Napier and Dunedin. What he (Mr Taylor) did was simply to try and find out whether the police were doing their duty in removing children from these brothels. At Napier it was shown that six children of from six to 13 years of age lived in a house used for immoral purposes, and were allowed to remain there by the police. They found also that Bishop Nevill had made more than the purchase money of his property in Asher's Lane, and that children had been committed from houses there to the Caversham Industrial School because they were surrounded by prostitutes. He was not bringing charges against Bishop Nevill. He only wished to show that the police did not do their duty. He had more regard for Bishop Nevill than the gentleman who represented his constituency. The commission itself did nothing to get at 'the facts.' They simply asked a few questions which were more in the direction of burking evidence than otherwise. He (Mr Taylor) got no assistance whatever, but had simply to drag information out of the witnesses. -Otago Daily Times, 6/9/1898.
Obscene Language. — In the remanded case against Edward Lane and Eleanor Lane of using obscene language in Asher's lane, off Filleul street, His Worship fined each accused 40s and costs, in default one month's imprisonment, and issued a prohibition order against both of them. -Evening Star, 14/4/1910.
The Opium Habit. — Samuel Northey was charged with having opium in his possession in a form suitable for smoking. Mr Hanlon appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty. — Chief-detective Herbert said that on the morning of the 20th inst. Detectives Mitchell and Thompson visited a house occupied by accused in Asher’s lane (off Filleul street). They informed him that they had information that he was producing tincture of opium and disposing of it to the Chinese. He replied: "I boiled some down a while back, but have not done so lately.” Then in his presence they searched the premises, and found in some old clothes upstairs a slush lamp and an opium tray showing traces of opium. In an old hat they found two pipe heads and in a sack they came across the pipe stem. In the kitchen they found a tin containing a quantity of opium ash and two bottles containing a small quantity of tincture. Accused himself handed them two horns and a jar containing about half an ounce of opium. He said that he bought a bottle of tincture on the Thursday night and boiled it down. It appeared that there was no restriction on druggists selling tincture of opium. Previously to going to Asher's lane accused had been living with a Chinaman in Walker street who was a well-known opium smoker. The detectives also found an old pair of scales similar to those used in weighing out opium. Accused suffered from the opium habit to some extent himself. — Mr Hanlon said that accused had acquired the opium habit for some sixteen years past, and if he got opium he smoked it. It was absurd to suggest that he manufactured opium. — His Worship inflicted a fine of £25 and costs. -Evening Star, 27/4/1910.
THE LOVING LANGLEYS.
DOMESTIC DIFFERENCES AT DUNEDIN.
A Wife-beater and Drunkard. A Smiling Black and Blue Visage — Was All Right When Sober — Langley Throws Doubt on His Missus — "You're Not Going to Get Out of it this Time, My Boy!" — Langley Says it's a Trumped Up Charge — Magistrate Orders Imprisonment.
The matrimonial troubles of George John Langley and his loving wife May, together with all the family skeletons, were brought out for the edification of Mr Widdowson, S.M., at the Dunedin S.M's. Court on Thursday of last week.
Defendant was to have appeared on Wednesday to answer a charge of assaulting his wife, but did not appear, and it was explained that he could not appear as he was drunk in bed at home. The S.M. then issued a warrant for
THE SQUIFFY WIFE ASSAULTER, and as he was found to be in a state of swank when he was arrested he was charged with fracture of his prohibition order.
Defendant was duly brought along on Thursday morning, and looked decidedly shaky. He is an elderly thick-set individual with a beery face, and his port deadlight has gone to glory in some forgotten unpleasantness.
The charge of fracture of his order was dealt with first, and it was explained that defendant had three convictions for swankey, and that his order had been twice grievously bent.
The S.M. fixed a steady eye on Langley, who was hanging on to the dock rail with one hand, and fingering the Testament with the other, and said: "What does he do?"
The question was too big for Sub-Inspector Cruickshank, so he passed it on to Constable Edwards, who is acting Court orderly (for) what time Hughie Butler is viewing the cathedral city of Christchurch.
Constable Edwards: He is a wharf laborer, but he does not work constantly. He is married and is always more or less under the influence of drink.
The S.M. (horrified): How does his wife get on?
Constable Edwards: She goes out washing.
The S.M. (to defendant): What have you to say?
Defendant: I just met a few friends, and it was holiday time, and I overstepped the mark.
The S.M. : But you're
ALWAYS OVERSTEPPING THE MARK.
Defendant: I had a brother down from Duntroon and we was together.
Clerk of Court Ward intimated that there was another charge.
The S.M.: Well, I'll defer sentence on this charge until I hear the other.
Langley was then charged with having assaulted his wife, May Langley.
The lady, who was closely veiled, climbed into the box and, lifting her veil, disclosed
A SMILING BLACK AND BLUE VISAGE to the S.M. Her left eye was beautifully blackened, and her right cheek looked as if it had been severely smitten with a cricket bat.
Mrs Langley said that defendant was her husband, and stayed in Asher's Lane. On the previous Thursday she was at a friend of hers, Mrs Thomson's house in the same aristocratic lane, when Langley called for her. He was suffering from beer and vertigo, and she declined to accompany him, as when he was suffering from that complaint he generally knocked her about. When she refused to go with him she ran out at the back door on to Moray Place to see the police, but he followed her and knocked her down and hit her in the mouth and took away her handbag. Then he left for home, and she followed to get her purse, as he would spend the money on beer. On her arrival home she found that he had broken the bag and had collared the cash and fled, so she went for the police, but Constable Cox told her she would find her husband in bed snoring the snores of the alcoholic. She returned home once more and found Langley on the sofa, and after a few words he got up and hit her on the face and body, and threw her against the copper, saying, "I've killed one woman, and I'll do for you, you ....."
Mrs Langley exhibited her draught pattern visage to the S.M.
The S.M.: You have no children have you? — No.
What is his general character to you? — He's
ALL RIGHT WHEN HE'S SOBER, but when he's drunk, he's terrible.
Does he strike you ? — Yes, he's hit me in bed when I was asleep, and he's pulled me out of bed by the hair.
The S.M. asked Langley if he would like to ask May any questions.
Defendant: Yes! Didn't I give you an order to draw my money?
Complainant (contemptuously): Yes, and what was it?
Defendant: Didn't I want a shilling? — Yes.
And in the first place your name is not May Langley. — Yes it is.
Defendant: No it isn't, it's May Johnston, your Worship, she is not married to me.
Complainant: It was May Johnston, but it is not now; I'm sorry I ever met you.
Have you got your marriage lines? — I haven't got them with me.
Defendant: You haven't got any. — Yes I have.
The S.M.: Are you married to him? Witness: Yes, Sir.
Defendant: She is not, Sir! (To complainant): Didn't you fall over a chair in the house when you was going out?
Complainant: No! You're not going to get out of it this time, my boy!
The S.M.: That'll do.
Complainant's friend, one Margaret Thomas, a tall party with a heated visage and a yellow dress, said that Mrs Langley was at her family residence in Asher's Lane on the awful day. Langley blew down to the door and wanted complainant to go home, but the lady refused. She then cleared out at the back door, and he went after her. Witness didn't see the festivities in Moray Place. About fifteen minutes after she heard screams of murder from the Langley mansion, so she went along and told defendant the police were coming and that he should leave May alone. Langley knocked off to see if the police were coming, and when he found it was a false alarm, he continued belting her. She had seen him strike his wife in bed before.
Defendant: Will you say you saw me hammering her; Mrs Langley, as she calls herself, said she was hit in\m Moray Place?
Witness: I seen you standing over her.
The S.M.: Did he knock her down?
Witness: I see him standing over her and striking her.
Defendant: You and me hasn't been on good terms.
Witness: Not since you got shot in
FOR PLAYING OUT MY HUSBAND!
Defendant: No, because she's always drinking in your house and I won't let her. You never saw me strike her in Moray Place.
The S.M.: You're on the wrong track, she never said she saw you strike your wife in Moray Place. She says she saw you assault your wife in the house. Do you want to give evidence?
Defendant: It's only a trumped up charge against me to get me in gaol. She never liked me.
Defendant was then sworn, and said that when he chased his wife out on to Moray Place he didn't hit her, but only took the bag off her. He told her she wasn't going to spend his money. When she got the bag back in the house she fell over a chair, and that was how she got her beautiful marks. He had never punched his wife.
In reply to the S.M., Langley also said he was 58 years of age.
The S.M.: I have no doubt in my mind that you assaulted this female; you say she is not your wife, and I see that you have been continually before the court since 1906. Your trouble seems to be drink.
Defendant : I'm about 39 years in the colony, and
I DON'T THINK MY RECORD IS BAD.
The S.M.: Where were you before 1906?
Defendant: I came from the Old Country to Dunedin.
The S.M.: Where was he before 1906? Is there no previous list?
The Sub: No, Sir, this seems to be the only one.
The S.M. then told Langley that he would have a chance to pull himself together, and awarded him a month's imprisonment for fracture of his order, and two months' imprisonment for assault, sentences to be cumulative.
Langley then walked over to his wife, who was sitting at the back of the Court, but was stopped by genial Sergeant Matthews, and called back by the S.M., who said: "Langley, I want to tell you that if you persist in your drinking habits after this you will probably be sent to Pakatoa for two years.
Defendant: Can I say a few words to the missus?
The S.M.: No, I don't think so. The S.M. then left the bench, and a few minutes after Langley explained to the Sub-Inspector that he wanted to give directions to the missus about his things. He was then permitted to say a few words across the railing, but the loving couple were parted in wrath. -NZ Truth, 6/5/1911.
CITY POLICE COURT.
(Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.)
Obscene Language. — Peter Burns was charged with drunkenness and with using obscene language in Asher's lane. — The Sub-inspector said that accused yesterday called at the house of a man named Rollison, pulled him out of his house, and knocked him about. A woman companion of accused then got a poker and set to work on Rollison, who, as a result of the injuries he received, was unable to appear and give evidence on the obscene language. He would have to ask for a remand on that charge. — Accused was fined 5s or 24 hours on the charge of drunkenness, and remanded to Friday on the other charge. -Evening Star, 24/10/1911.
AN UNSAVORY INTERLUDE.
BRAWL IN ASHER'S LANE.
The details of a brawl in Asher's lane on the evening of Labor Day were exposed in the Police Court this morning, when a remittance man named Peter Burns, who appears to have been in the horrors of drink on that evening, pleaded not guilty to having used obscene language. The principal witness for the prosecution was Samuel Rollinson, who, as Sub-inspector Cruickshank related, was so knocked about in a scuffle with accused, and by blows with an iron bar inflicted by a woman, that he was not able to appear until to-day.
Rollinson, a laborer, stated that he did not know Burns, who lived with a woman in Asher's lane. On the evening of the 23rd Burns came to his house, opened the door, pulled him out on to the road, knocked him down, and used obscene expressions to him. (Witness "reeled off" a few samples.)
Sub-inspector: Was anyone there with him?
Witness: Yes, his wife was there — the woman — with an iron bar.
What part did the iron bar play? — She hit me in the side with it. . . . I have been in bed since.
Did you try to defend yourself? — Yes, I got up and went inside.
Mr Irwin: Whom did you live with?
Witness: By myself until Monday, when my brother came.
Will you swear that there was not a woman living there? — Not living there; a woman came to wash.
Mr Irwin: And carry beer, eh!
In answer to further questions, witness denied that he was drunk on Monday, or that the woman was there.
The washer lady had left, then?
Witness, further cross-examined, said that a woman had been there on occasions to see his brother. Accused was drunk when the assault occurred. Witness had not given provocation by insulting him as he passed the door. It was not true that he had accused down, and the woman was trying to pull him off.
Mr Irwin: Were you working at all last week? — Witness said that he was working for a certain contractor.
Mr Irwin: I am told that you were on a drinking bout all the week, and the bottle was passing to and fro. Be careful: were you working?
Witness: I'm a bit muddled.
Mr Irwin: You were last week.
Sub-inspector: He is known to the police as a decent, hard-working man.
Mr Irwin: He must be, to have this sort of women about the place.
Sub-inspector: Any amount of men in a higher position than he have women of this class about.
Mr Bartholomew. S.M.: It has nothing to do with this. I think we'll try and stick to the case.
Richard Cochrane, another resident of Asher's lane, stated that accused and the woman came out of their house, the woman carrying an iron bar. He went to several places, and finally to Rollinson's. When the latter came to the door, he sort of fell out into the street (He had a drink in, too). In the struggle when they were lying side by side the woman got to work with the iron bar. Accused, who was mad drunk, was using obscene language in a loud voice. Witness sent for the police.
Constable Findlay said that, being apprised of the occurrence, he went to the lane, and found Burns's house locked up. He saw Burns and the woman sitting in the house, and asked them if they would let him in. They said "No." Witness got a person to go to the back door and rattle the handle, and then witness got Burns when he came out. He was in the horrors of drink, and said: ''Don't charge me with obscene language: I have just done a stretch of six months, and don't want another three." Rollinson was sober, but muddled, as he had been in court.
Mr Irwin said that if Rollinson's evidence was correct, the words were used in a tone of voice only loud enough for him to hear, and there was no evidence that it occurred in a public place and within hearing of passers-by. Apparently, also, from the evidence accused was not in a condition to appreciate his actions, and counsel submitted that there could be no conviction.
The Magistrate announced that there was a case to answer, and Mr Irwin then said that he could not carry the defence further. In mitigation of penalty he urged that accused was a watchmaker by trade, and also a remittance man, which was his misfortune. It was only when drinking that he consorted with this woman, who had got him into trouble before.
Mr Bartholomew: He had better have an opportunity of reflection and of breaking away from his old associations. Three months, with hard labor. -Evening Star, 27/10/1911.
CITY POLICE COURT.
Friday, October 27. (Before Mr J. R.), Bartholomew, S.M.)
Drunkenness. — A first offender, who did not appear, was fined L10, the amount of his bail; in default, 48 hours' imprisonment.
Prohibition Order. — A prohibition order was granted against a man on the application of his wife.
Obscene Language. — The charge against Peter Burns, remanded from Tuesday, of using obscene language in Asher's lone, was proceeded with, Mr Irwin appearing for the accused. — Sub-inspector Cruickshank restated the circumstances, and called the witness Rollinson, who was unable to appear on Tuesday on account of certain injuries he had received. The witness stated that he knew nothing about the accused, but had spoken in passing both to him and the woman he was living with. The accused went to his house on Monday night and witness answered the door, only to be pulled out on the street and knocked down. The woman was also present, and struck witness several times with an iron bar, severely injuring him. Accused was then using filthy expressions. Eventually witness got clear and retired into his house. — Richard Cochrane, a resident in Asher's lane, said that on the day in question he was sitting on his door-step. About 5 o'clock he saw the accused and the woman come out of their house, the woman carrying an iron bar. Burns knocked at No. 3, and was answered by Mrs McCauley. He used some filthy expressions to her, and after the two women had had a bit of a wrangle, Mrs McCauley went in and shut the door. Then Burns tried another of the houses, but got no response. On going to Rollinson's the accused took his coat off prior to knocking. Witness could not say whether the accused or Rollinson opened the door. Rollinson was a little the worse for drink, and was easily pulled outside. The two men were lying on their sides, and the woman struck Rollinson with the bar. Witness sent for the police. Burns was using the language in a loud tone, and there was a crowd of some 30 or 40 men, women, and children at the foot of the alley. The disturbance lasted altogether for about 20 minutes, and the two culprits retired to their own house when they knew the police were coming, and locked themselves in. The accused was drunk. So far as witness know, neither Burns nor the woman ever did any work. They had been resident there for about two months. — Mr Irwin: He says he took your demijohn to get it. filled with beer. — Witness denied the allegation, and said he would not have the man about his premises. — Evidence was also given by Constable Findlay, who stated that when he went to the house it was locked and barred, he looked in at the window, and saw the accused and the woman, but they refused to open the door, later on he went to the back door, but saw that Burns was trying to get out at the front, so he got a man to rattle the handle at the back door and waited. The accused came out in the horrors of drink, and witness arrested him and took him to the lookup. He begged witness not to charge him with obscene language, as he had just done a term of six months a short time ago. — Mr Irwin said that it was apparent from the evidence that the accused was not in a position to appreciate his actions, and submitted that if Rollinson's evidence was taken as correct there could be no conviction.— The Magistrate held that there was a case to answer and Mr Irwin then said that the accused could carry his defence no further, as he did not remember anything that had taken place, and could make no statement, he would urge in mitigation that accused was a watchmaker by trade and a good workman. He was also a remittance man, and got in tow with the woman in question some time ago. It was only when there was drink about that he remained with her. He submitted that it was a case in which a monetary penalty would be sufficient. — Sub-inspector Cruickshank: The man's record does not say so. He is known to the police, and is living on prostitution. — Mr Irwin: he is living on beer. — Sub-inspector Cruickshank: Well, the prostitution buys the beer. Mr Bartholomew said that the accused had better have an opportunity for reflection and breaking away from old associations. He sentenced him to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. -Otago Daily Times, 28/10/1911.
GLADYS CRANLEY'S CURIOUS CONDUCT.
Roberts the Roue.
Another lady given to liquor, lax living and libertine ways is Miss Rosa Gladys Cranley, late of Asher's Lane and elsewhere. Rose is a small, highlystrung person, and may be, after the Assisian comment; more sinned against than sinning. To utilise an old expression, crudely, exact, one would have to rake help to get a cobber equal to tony, tout Roberts, the waiter, who, according to Cop. Bandy's terrible evidence, lives on poor Rose's deplorable weaknesses.
Cop. Bandy, of the big "feet," arrested Rose Gladys as a vag (vagrant) and a drunk, she being at the time in the company of three men in khaki, in Rattray street. Poor Rose, who had seen better days and clearer ways, stood shyly in the dock the picture of shame and ill-treated, man mauled womanhood. Dainty and spare, her voice was in keeping with her figure. She managed to pipe forth something which nobody heard.
Cop. Bandy said: "I have known the accused for three years. She is of the unfortunate class, lives with a wellknown waiter named Roberts, in Asher's Lane. She has also lived with three other women like herself. Roberts lives on the proceeds of this woman's prostitution. I have seen men of all repute in her house, and money handed out for prostitution. She haunts the streets at all hours of the day and night in company with David Livingstone, thief; Martin Carroll, thief; Maxwell, reputed thief; Wilson, alias Walker, known as "fan-light Jimmie;" Maud Kerr and Christina Barlowe. On different occasions I visited the house in Asher's Lane and always found it full of undesirables and half drunks. On August 20 she co-habited with a man unknown, waster Roberts sitting at the fire looking on. On August 27, under similar condition she was associated with a territorial, Roberts, as usual, at the bed side.
The S.M.: That's quite enough, constable. Accused is sentenced to 12 months' detention in the Salvarmy Home, Caversham.
Rose Gladys Cranley wept. -NZ Truth, 17/10/1914.
CITY POLICE COURT.
Friday, October 29. Before Mr J. H. Bartholomew, S.M.)
Escaping From a Home. — Annie Anderson pleaded guilty to escaping from the Salvation Army Home at Caversham on October 26. — Senior Sergeant Dart stated that the defendant left the home with two young women, and was found in Asher's Lane. Her conduct had been good in the home. — The magistrate decided to give the defendant a chance, and ordered her to come np for sentence when called upon, and also ordered her to return to the home. -Otago Daily Times, 31/10/1914.
ROUND-UP IN ASHER'S LANE.
RENDEZVOUS OF ILL-FAME.
A "BAG" OF FIVE.
Detective-sergeant Kemp and Detective Hammerly descended last evening upon a house in Asher's lane occupied by a woman named Cissy Chatterley, and their "bag" of five appeared in the Police Court this morning. Chatterley herself was charged with being an idle and disorderly person, being the occupier of a house frequented by reputed thieves and persons without any apparent means of support. She pleaded guilty. Chief-detective Bishop said that this woman lived in Asher's lane, and her house was frequented by women of illfame and thieves, the majority of that class making a rendezvous of the place. Detectives Kemp and Hammerly found in the place on this occasion four others, who would be charged. The woman had been convicted before, and was a nuisance to the City.
Mr Bartholomew, S.M., said that apparently she had never as yet got as far as gaol, and on that account he would make the sentence lighter than otherwise he would have done. She would be sentenced to one month's imprisonment in Addington Gaol.
The persons found on the premises — Lottie Gullen (a woman with one leg), Harry Francis Bartley, John James Roberts, and James Bircham Lillett — were charged with being idle and disorderly persons found in a house frequented by reputed thieves and persons without means of support.
They all pleaded not guilty.
Detective Hammerly said that at 5.30 p.m. yesterday he went to the house and found the four accused there. For the past 2 1/2 years he had known the house and Mr and Mrs Chatterley. During the whole of that time the house had been a rendezvous for the criminal and immoral elements of the town. Chatterley had received six months' imprisonment, and after his arrest the house was better conducted, but for some three months the old state of things had prevailed. On the 5th of the month he saw the woman Gullen there, reputedly a woman of ill-fame. She was in drunken condition. There was also a thief in the house, and women there halfnaked. The house was orderly yesterday, and they were all sober.
Lillett: Did you over see me there before?
Detective Hammerly: No, but I understand you are a convicted thief.
Detective-sergeant Kemp corroborated the evidence.
Plain-clothes Constable Kelly said that almost every time one went into the place women of ill-fame were there in drunken condition.
Lillett said he went to the house to give Mrs Chatterley a Sydney paper, and went out to get her milk, he had been in the Benevolent Home with a paralytic stroke, and came out on Wednesday, having some money coming to him.
Gullen said she was a neighbor of Mrs Chatterley, and went in occasionally to give a hand to the latter. She received £3 12s in all every week from a young man at the front and from her father.
Chief-detective Bishop said this was a fact. The woman was an immoral woman but not a bad one, and she had never been before the Court before. Perhaps a chance might be given her. The young trooper, on being called on, said it was the first time he had been in the house. He had been with Roberts, and the woman called them in to tea. He was a returned soldier from the Dardanelles.
To the chief detective: The woman Gullen was wearing his Anzac medal in the house.
Chief-detective Bishop: And when the police arrived you were making yourself very comfortable with a dish of rabbits?
Defendant: I was.
Mr Bartholomew, S.M.: Is it reliable what he says about his soldiering?
Chief Detective: He was at the front.
Accused: I was sent back with enteric.
The Magistrate said he would assume it defendant's favor that his statement was correct, and that he had only known the parties two days. The case against hint would be dismissed. Mr Bartholomew added a word of reproof to the young man for allowing his medal to be dragged through the mire in such a place.
Gullen was given a chance, being convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon at any time within the next 12 months. Lillett and Roberts were sentenced to one month's imprisonment. -Evening Star, 14/4/1916.
RAIDING A RUM-ROOST
Lovely Asher's Lane Again
Lottie Gollan's Laxity
Men and Women Bagged.
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.)
One of the worst haunts in Dunedin is Ashers Lane — a little locality adjacent to the Church of Christ in Filleul st. and securely packed away in the shades of the City Hall. This little lane is the rendezvous for loafers, thieves, bad women, bold girls, etc. It has been raided on numerous occasions and various collections have been made, but one bad class seems to find it easy to succeed another, and maintain the old customers all the time. The landlords of Asher's-lane indeed are not doing too badly
OUT OF THE NOTORIOUS LOCALITY. On Saturday night last Sergeant Matheson and Constables Beere, Fairbanks, Fallow, and Peters entered the lane and slyly pushing open Lottie Gollan's creaky door, they all walked in and had a look round. As a result of what they saw, little Lottie and her formidable wooden pin, John James Roberts, an old man, Rose Gladys Cranley, and William Neil, alias Thompson, were bundled out into the street and escorted to the police station.
Last Monday, before Mr. J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., Lottie was charged with keeping or residing in a house of ill-fame; Rose Gladys Cranley with being a rogue and vagabond; John James Roberts similarly sharged, and William Neil, alias Thompson, with being an idle and disorderly person.
Sergeant Mathieson said he went at 9.30 p.m. to Lottie's little place with the constabulary named, she was seated on the old bed, and beside her sat Neil alias Thompson in a muddled state of drink. Cranley was sitting on a chair, and said she had just come from Christchurch and had called upon old man Roberts for her clothes. Roberts then "bobbed" in through the door bearing liquor for the party. He was just in time to make up the quartette. Last month witness visited this house and had found Neil alias Thompson on the premises. He also found other folk lying on a sofa in another room. Lottie was a well-known prostitute, and so also was the woman Cranley. The men had a criminal record.
Constable Brown said he knew Gollan and Roberts well. Both were associates, and Roberts, also associated with other women; he was the associate of thieves and prostitutes.
Lawyer Irwin said that Neil worked, but had gone to Lottie's den for immoral purposes. Last year he had come out of gaol after a long term of imprisonment and he found that outside he could only associate with the old "friends" he had known within. "That is one of the good results of long sentences!" said lawyer.
Rose Cranley said she had only been five minutes in Lottie's house (after an absence of two years), when the police hopped in and "pinched" her. Old man Roberts swore that she was
A VERY INDUSTRIOUS CHARACTER, and the police evidence supported his statement. But he had a long and bad list, and worse still for him, had been "pinched" from Lottie's little den over a year ago.
Lottie and old man Roberts got six months' hard each. Cranley was discharged and was ordered to come up for sentence if called upon at any time within twelve months.
• • •
A second raid that resulted in the arrest of Charles Price, Elizabeth Jane Rackley, and Angus Pringle proved abortive, as the evidence went to show that Price and Rackley had been living together for many years, and the house did not entertain any visitors excepting Pringle, "who ran the cutter," though the host and hostess were prohibited persons. His Worship accordingly discharged all three accused. -NZ Truth, 10/3/1917.
No comments:
Post a Comment