Hyman Isaacs was born in Dunedin and opened his wholesale agency in Moray Place early in the 1900s. He also taught dancing and organised dances in Dunedin. It was important to learn how to dance back then. For young men, it was one of the few ways to get close to young women.
WANTED Known —
Basket Social, Friday, 25th, Albany street Hall; double, 2s 6d; ladies invited. Dance as usual Wednesday evening. Learners’ Classes, Drill Hill, Gardens. Tuesdays.
H. Isaacs, secretary -Evening Star, 19/8/1905.
W A N T E D
(For Country), ENERGETIC BOOT TRAVELLER,
Knowledge of Boots not altogether necessary.
Apply (by letter, with copies of references, and state salary required)
H. ISAACS, Moray place. -Otago Daily Times, 5/3/1910.
Hyman Isaacs opened a hall in George street where dances were advertised - and roller skating on Mondays and Thursdays.
When Renshaw Goes to the Races
And the Missus Goes Hopping at Hyman Isaacs
Labor Day was responsible for various kinds of accidents, judged by the papers, and also by the marital amenities "boxed" at the Dunedin Magistrate's Court. Two families — now smashed up — and probably more, will have good reason to remember Labor Day. Mrs. Susan Renshaw, who said she had been "the mother of sixteen," claimed guardianship, maintenance and separation orders from her worse half, Bob Renshaw, on the grounds of cruelty. An amusing feature
OF THIS MARITAL MIX-UP was the admission by the seasoned "mother of sixteen," that she took to dancing at the end of her days, and used to go hopping at Hyman Isaacs's "jiggery," and occasionally in that more fashionable and better ventilated quarter known as the "Art Gallery." The admission, blandly confessed, regaled the court considerably.
Magistrate Young occupied the bench.
Lawyer Irwin represented the husband and Lawyer Scurr the wife.
Mrs. Renshaw said that she had been thrashed on several occasions by her husband, and her boy had been present several times. She was the mother of sixteen — they had all lived.
Mr. Scurr: They did not all come to fruition? — That is so.
Continuing, she said that on Labor Day she went with her children to poetic Portobello. When she returned her husband had not the fire lit. She finished the day's fun at the vaudeville, and got tackled in the back yard when she went home. He smacked her and knocked her down, and tried later on to strike her before a Mrs. Wilson, but she went away. He drank heavily and was a terrible gambler. "He gambles even at night in a house in Maclaggan-street, and, on one occasion, he paid a man to take his job while he went to the races." He was never off the racecourse. She found a revolver and a lot of ammunition under her mattress.
To Mr. Irwin: His friends and employers drink a lot. His mates all drink. She went to Hyman Isaacs's dances, and still attended the weekly dance at the Art Gallery.
How did this revolver come into the possession of your husband? — Broached cargo in the first instance. Didn't he tell you he bought it? — Yes. Did he ever attempt to use it? — Yes, by pointing it at me. Did you go down the bay with a man named Evans? — No. Was Evans on the same boat on that occasion? — Yes. Evans takes you to afternoon teas? — He does not; he takes my sister and I am with her. He is a military guard on Quarantine Island. You got your photograph taken with Evans? — Yes. And you met him at dances? — Yes. Where have you been living since you left home? — With a lady.
The S.M.: What became of your first husband? —
I DIVORCED HIM. He has been killed with the Australian forces.
And you were living with defendant before you divorced your husband? — Yes. You did not set that forth in the petition? — No.
William Watt, step-son of defendant, and complainant's son, said that as long as he remembered, his mother's life with defendant was one of misery. Witness often stepped in between Renshaw and his mother, and received the punches delivered by his stepfather.
To Mr. Irwin: Whenever he went to the races and lost, he usually returned with a face as long as a fiddle. He threatened to fetch up the artillery and blow 'em up.
He threatened to use the revolver? — Yes.
Mr. Irwin said that the whole thing that riled Renshaw on Labor Day was that Mrs. Renshaw went down the bay with the man Evans. Renshaw suspected the man.
Mr. Scurr: He's a soldier of the King. He's a reject and does guard on Quarantine Island. Mrs. Renshaw got a month in a home for going off the straight line, and, on coming out, Renshaw was good enough to marry her. He realises his responsibilities, but wished to see the children. The Magistrate granted complainant guardianship and maintenance orders, but refused to grant a separation order. Maintenance was fixed at 30s a week. -NZ Truth, 10/11/1917.
WORKERS, WAKE UP, SAVE MONEY!
Sandals from 4/6. Child’s Boots 7/6, Boys’ and Girls' Chrome School Boots (plated) 7 to 9 13/6, 10 to 13 14/6, 1 to 3 16/11, 4 to 5 17/6; Men’s 21/; Ladies’ 17/11; Men’s Working Bluchers 12/6; Men’s Split Kip, Plated, Nailed, from 18/6; Ladies’ 15/11; Derby Sewn Shoes 16/11.
Send 2d stamp for price list. Orders ever £3 mailed free. Our Boots Cheapest. Quality Best. A Trial Solicited.
H. ISAACS,
City Boot Factory, 165 Hanover St., DUNEDIN -Grey River Argus, 21/10/1922.
A trial which was definitely unsolicited by Hyman Isaacs took place in early 1923.
ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACT
ISAACS BEFORE THE COURT.
COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
In the Police Court yesterday, before Mr E. W. Bundle, S.M., Hyman Isaacs was charged on remand that on February 13, at Dunedin, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a certain girl he did unlawfully use an instrument. He was also charged that on the same day he conspired with certain persons to commit the crime of procuring abortion.
The accused was represented by Mr A. C. Hanlon.
On the application of Sub-inspector Eccles the court was cleared and an order suppressing the name of the principal witness was made.
The girl involved, aged close on 18 years, and single, gave evidence that she was at present pregnant. She had been in that state for about two months when she was examined by Dr Evans. She knew a certain young man, and she knew the accused. While working at a boot factory in Stafford street she had a communication by telephone with the accused. This was before she was examined. She had made an appointment with Isaacs at his shop that evening. On going to the shop she found Isaacs there alone. She sat down in the office and talked about skates and dances. Then she told him of her state and asked Isaacs what to do. The advice was to take Beecham’s pills. He did not tell her anything else. While they were sitting in the office there was a knock at the door. She thought it was the police, and told Isaacs not to open it. She went into the shop and the accused went with her, she supposed. While in the office she could have been seen by anyone looking through the window and anything else on the couch on which she was sitting could also have been seen. That was the first time she had visited the office, and the first time she had been alone with Isaacs. She did not know why she had made an appointment with him; she supposed it was to ask him what she would do. Apart from her coat none of her clothes had been disarranged.
Mr Hanlon said he had no questions to ask.
Herbert Victor Dale, described as a machinist in business in the Arcade, said that he had known something about the condition of the previous witness. He had wanted her to go to a doctor to find out, but she would not go. Previous to being interviewed by the police witness had met Isaacs in the Arcade. Witness asked him if he knew anything about the treatment of women, and Isaacs answered in the affirmative. Witness had said that he knew a girl who was perhaps that way, and that if she was he would give something to see her out of trouble. About February 12 he saw the accused at his shop and mentioned the girl's name. He told accused where she worked. Accused said he knew the girl, and that he would have a yarn with her.
Mr Hanlon: When did you first tell anybody about your interview with Isaacs? — On the 13th I told Detective Lean, who came to me. — Did he tell you that it was a bad thing for you, and that you were liable to be charged? — No. He said that if I gave information it would be all right. — Did he tell you that they wanted to get Isaacs? — Yes. — If you didn’t make a statement, what was going to happen? — I would be worse off. — But if you did make a statement giving Isaacs away, what was going to happen? — I was going to be all right. — What was going to happen to the girl? — She was going to be all right, too. — Where did this take place? — At the detectives’ office. — Mr Hanlon: They took you there, did they, and let you go again?
To the Sub-inspector; Detective Lean did not mention, when he interviewed witness, anything about what charge would be brought against Isaacs.
Detective Beer stated that in the company of two others he had gone in consequence of information, to the accused’s boot shop in Hanover street about 7.45 on February 13. No lights were to be seen. He and Detective Lean went round to the back door and found it locked. There was no response to a knock. He then heard a slight muffled noise inside, and called to Isaacs to open the door. There was no response. He then tried all the other doors and windows, but all were locked, with the exception of the office window, which was closed but not secured. He pushed it up but iron bars prevented access. He pulled aside the curtain and saw a white towel spread out on the couch. Witness then went to a back window, through which he could see right through the shop. He watched there for some time and on three occasions the accused came from the back of the shop into the office. On the third occasion he went into the scullery and poured something down the sink. There was a sound as of a basin falling, and witness called, ‘‘Open the door; you've made enough noise.” Accused called out. "What for? There’s nothing doing there.” He opened the door and witness walked in. Accused had his coat off and his sleeves rolled up. The door between the shop and the office was partly open, and the accused called from the office. “It's all right ..... dearie, there’s nothing to be frightened of.” A few minutes later the girl entered. Asked to explain her presence, accused denied that she was there to be aborted. He said that he was fixing her up with a pair of skates to take back to Bluff. Asked what had become of the towel that was on the couch, accused said that there had not been any towel there. At the accused's invitation they searched the place and himself; there were no instruments on him. In the scullery witness found the dregs of Jeyes's fluid in the sink, also a basin and three wires. A syringe and a cloth were also found. When the accused saw the articles he said he did not know they were there; they must have been there a long time. Witness rang for the police matron, and he and the matron took the girl to the police station. The accused was taken to the station later and charged with attempting to abort the girl. Accused had nothing to say to the charge.
Detective Lean found two catheters, and they were shown to accused, who remarked that his boy had told him about them. Detective Lean, who had accompanied Detective Beer on the visit to the shop, gave corroborative evidence covering the events up to the departure of Detective Beer to the station. While witness was picking up some envelopes, accused remarked, "You won't find any correspondence there; I am not such a fool as to keep a diary like Cooper, of Wellington.” Pursuing the search, witness found two towels. Accused admitted that he had been hiding in the shop. Next morning he made another search and found the instruments produced.
Matron McSweeney stated that the girl's under-garments were found to be wet when she was taken to the police station.
After some argument the evidence of Detective Palmer was taken, the question of admissibility being reserved.
Mr Hanlon submitted that it was unfair to publish evidence of doubtful admissibility, as it might, if not admitted, tend to prejudice the case of the accused when he went to trial.
Mr Bundle agreed with this view, and ordered that the evidence be not published. This closed the case for the prosecution, and the accused was committed for trial, bail was renewed in the previous amounts. -Otago Daily Times, 6/3/1923.
CHARGES OF MALPRACTICE
THE HYMAN ISAACS CASES.
ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES.
Hearing of the charges against Hyman Isaacs — one of using an instrument to procure a miscarriage, another of attempting to use the instrument, and a third of conspiring to commit a crime — was concluded yesterday afternoon.
Dr Evans, whose evidence was taken after the luncheon adjournment, described the condition of the girl Dixon, and gave expert evidence regarding catheters. He added that both Chief-detective Bishop and Detective Palmer were too ill to appear in court, to give evidence.
Detective Beer, continuing his evidence, said that Isaacs came to the door with his coat off. He asked for a match to light the gas with. Witness lit the gas in the office, and told him he had received information that he was about to abort the girl. He denied this, adding that be was merely fixing her up with a pair of skates for her to take back to the Bluff. Witness described the appearance of the room and certain articles found therein. He laid a charge against accused at the detective office. A few days after his release on bail accused called to see witness, who showed him some catheters which had been found on the premises. Accused said he had heard they had been found, but knew nothing about them. Detective Lean gave corroborative evidence.
Catherine McSweeney (Police Matron) also gave evidence, and the evidence of Detective Palmer given in the lower court was read. This referred to the finding of another woman in a hut with Isaacs on an occasion prior to the occasion forming the present change.
This closed the case for the Crown, and Mr Hanlon intimated that he would not call any witnesses for the defence.
The Crown Prosecutor, in addressing the jury, submitted that the evidence which had been put forward would leave the jury with no hesitation in acting. The girl had said that she went to Isaacs merely to obtain advice, and that he told her to take pills. He asked them whether, considering the whole of the evidence, they could give credence to that. An important element in determining that question was the evidence of Detective Palmer (read by the registrar) about a previous similar occurrence. The defence would probably be, suggested learned counsel, that the girl went to Isaacs’s place, for an innocent purpose. That being so, the Crown put the evidence before the court of a case in which a married woman had been found in the place under similar circumstances.
Mr Hanlon, in his address to the jury, said his learned friend must have been sorely pressed for something to say in support of his case when his address to the jury lasted but a minute and a-half. His friend had probably recognised that there was a shaky case against accused. The Crown had set out to prove three things — that accused used an instrument unlawfully to procure a miscarriage; that he attempted to use it; and that there was a conspiracy between the girl, a man, and him to perform an illegal operation. It had been said that the defence would be that the girl went to Isaacs’s place for an innocent purpose. He would remind the jury that it was the duty of the Crown to prove the purpose for which the girl went there, and, if accused were to be convicted, to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that she was there for a guilty purpose. He submitted that the Crown had not done so. Nor had witnesses been brought forward to swear that any conspiracy was entered into. If the Crown wished for a conviction, it must show some legal evidence, upon which the jury could act. In regard to the charge of using an instrument, learned counsel asked: Where was the evidence which went to show an operation was performed? The person best expected to give evidence on that point was the girl herself. In all these cases the girl concerned was brought forward to give evidence against the man, to show that he was the man who had performed the illegal operation. The girl, however, who was a witness for the Crown, said that no operation had taken place. Even if the man were a professional abortionist, it had to be proved in the present case that he performed an operation. The police said that Isaacs could be heard walking backwards and forwards, and that there had been a noise of something being poured down the sink. When they entered they found a solution of Jeyes’ fluid in the sink. If the fluid had been used on the girl, surely there would have been mention by the doctor or the police matron of its pungent odor about clothes. There was also no evidence to show that any slops had been taken to carry out an operation, and counsel continued to ridicule the production of certain instruments by the Crown, stating that they had brought along every instrument — from the wires used for cleaning the sink to anaemia nozzles —and every rag they could find about the place. That did not prove one thing. He supposed that similar instruments were to be found in many houses. In conclusion, Mr Hanlon said that the Crown had not produced any evidence that would in the slightest degree justify a conviction.
His Honor, in summing up, said it was clear the girl was pregnant at the time of the alleged offence. It was also clear from the evidence of Detective Beer that a good deal more must have been going on than the girl admitted, but that did not justify the jury in coming to the conclusion that there had been an offence. The girl was called as a Crown witness, and if she was not telling the truth the Crown’s case must suffer. Unless the Crown could make out a case proving that the girl was not telling the truth, the jury, despite the strong suspicion that they might have, should not allow their imaginations to decide on what had actually taken place. The conditions were certainly very suspicious; but, even if preparations were being made to operate, it was hardly likely that the operation would be gone on with while the police were at the door knocking for admission. The girl said that nothing was done, and that, when she told Isaacs she was pregnant, he had only advised her to take Beecham's pills. And, apart from suspicion, there was nothing in Detective Beer’s evidence to show otherwise. There was no evidence of Dr Evans and the police matron, but it, apart from adding to the suspicions, did not carry the case for the Crown much further. If a man had the intention to commit a crime, and if he did an act with that intent, he might be convicted under the Act, but the evidence of the intention charge did not seem to be any better than that of the actual commission. The evidence of Detective Poor did not make it any stronger than in the other charge. There was no evidence to justify a conviction. The judge briefly reviewed the evidence on the charge of conspiracy, which, he said, depended on the witness Dale, remarking that it was for the jury to decide.
The jury retired till 3.55 p.m. and returned after half an hour's absence.
A verdict of “not guilty" was returned on all counts. -Evening Star, 12/5/1923.
TRADES HALL DANCE
The Trades Hall was again well filled last Friday evening at a dance held under the auspices of the National Unemployed Workers' Movement. Mr Hyman Isaacs, as judge of the Destiny competition, selected the following couples to compete in the final: — Miss Gilchrist and Mr Legg, Mr and Mrs. Andrews, Miss Dore and Mr McIndoe, and Miss Wilson and Mr Geddes. The Monte Carlo was won by Miss Thomson and Mr Phillips. The lucky spot by Miss Frew and Mr Bain, and the lucky number was held by Mr McTaggart. -Otago Daily Times, 27/6/1935.
In 1944 Hyman's City Boot Factory moved from Hanover to st Andrew st and at about that time Hyman retired. At least, from the boot trade.
SERIOUS CHARGE
ATTEMPTED ABORTION ALLEGED
DUNEDIN PROSECUTION
Eleven witnesses were called by the Crown in the Supreme Court yesterday, when Hyman Julius Isaacs, aged 69, a retired bootmaker, pleaded not guilty to a charge that on June 18 he attempted unlawfully to use an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. No evidence was called for the defence, and the case will be concluded this morning, when Mr Justice Kennedy sums up and the jury retires. Mr J. B. Deaker appeared for the Crown, and the accused was represented by Mr F. W. Guest, who had with him Mr C. H. Stevens. The public gallery was filled in the afternoon.
“In this case, the Crown says that the accused was apprehended almost in the act,” Mr Deaker declared. “The charge is not one of using an instrument, but attempting to use one. The Crown submits that the accused had gone far beyond the act of preparation when the police entered the room.”
The prosecutor said that the woman concerned, after finding she was pregnant, interviewed the accused on June 17 and asked him to help her. The sum of £l5 was mentioned. The following night she called for the accused in a car driven by another man, and they went to her flat in Russell street. They went into the bedroom, where the accused produced various articles.
Police Enter House “About 8.15 the same night four detectives took up their positions in Russell street, and about 10 minutes to 9 a man and a woman left the house,” Mr Deaker continued. “Some time after 9 o’clock the car returned, and the woman and the accused entered the house. Two of the detectives entered the front door and heard voices and the tinkle of instruments in a dish.
“The police waited no longer, and shouldered the door open. In the bedroom they found the accused and the woman, who was on the bed. The accused said: ‘I am just testing for a pregnancy.’ Instruments and other articles were collected by the police, and the woman and the accused were taken to the Police Station, where she was examined by Dr Harty, the police doctor. When the accused was charged, he refused to make a statement."
Dr E. F. D'Ath, professor of pathology at Otago University, identified several exhibits produced as instruments, and articles which were given to him by Detective Sergeant Brown. Witness said that no instrument was used for testing for pregnancy, but one of the instruments produced had been known to be used for criminal abortions.
Evidence was given by Dr J. R. H. Fulton and Dr A. S. Moody about the pregnancy of the woman involved in the case. Shown one of the exhibits, Dr Moody said that under no circumstances would he use such an instrument in determining a pregnancy. Dr E. R. Harty said that when he examined the woman in the Police Station on June 18, she was pregnant.
Giving evidence, the woman concerned in the case, said she was divorced two years and a-half ago and had a child aged 17.
Photographs taken at the woman's home on June 19 were produced by Constable G. P. Dwan.
Evidence was given by the man responsible for the woman’s condition and by a woman who lived in the same house in Russell street.
Detective Sergeant Macdonald Brown said that before the police burst into the bedroom they had not recognised the two people who entered the house. The woman was on the bed and the accused had his sleeves rolled up. He had an instrument in his hand. “For a moment or two he was speechless,” the detective said.
Corroborative evidence was given by Detective Sergeant R. J. A. Berry and Acting Detective K. G. Jeffries.
“Society has always regarded such cases as serious, not only as a source of danger to life of the woman concerned, but for other obvious reasons." Mr Deaker said in his closing address to the jury. “I submit that your duty is crystal clear.”
Case for Defence The Crown had to prove that it had precisely sheeted the charge home, said Mr Guest, for the defence. Acts which raised suspicions were not necessarily attempts, and the jury had to be sure that attempts were accompanied in the mind of the accused by the intention to commit an offence. Counsel said that evidence of an accomplice had to be considered carefully, and if the accused was guilty, then the woman in the case- was equally guilty.
A point emphasised by Mr Guest was that no evidence had been adduced to show that an instrument was used on the woman. There was also no proof that a payment of £l5 had been made. The time that elapsed between the arrival of the accused and the woman at the flat, and the entry of the detectives into the bedroom was very brief, and counsel submitted that it was just long enough for the accused to commence an examination.
“There is no evidence that he formed in his mind the intent to commit an abortion on that woman,” Mr Guest concluded, “and if there was no intent there is nothing to justify the charge.” -Otago Daily Times, 12/7/1948.
VERDICT OF GUILTY
ATTEMPTED ABORTION
REMANDED FOR SENTENCE
Hyman Julius Isaacs, a retired bootmaker, aged 69, was found guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday of attempting unlawfully to use an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. Isaacs was remanded to appear for sentence at 10 o’clock this morning.
The jury retired at 10.45 a.m. and gave its verdict at 2.15 p.m. At 12.45 p.m., after an absence of two hours, the jury returned to the courtroom to ask the judge for further definition of the. term “attempt” in relation to “preparation.” At 1 p.m. the jury adjourned for lunch, and gave its verdict when the court resumed at 2.15 p.m.
Mr Justice Kennedy presided. Mr J. B. Deaker appeared for the Crown, and the prisoner was represented by Mr F. W. Guest, who had with him Mr C. H. Stevens. -Otago Daily Times, 22/7/1948.
SENT TO PRISON
EIGHTEEN MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR
ATTEMPTED ABORTION CHARGE
In the Supreme Court yesterday, Hyman Julius Isaacs, aged 69, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The previous day, Isaacs had been found guilty of attempting unlawfully to use an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage.
“Nothing can be said in mitigation of this class of offence,” said Mr F. W. Guest, appearing for the prisoner. “I can only draw your Honor’s attention to the age of the prisoner. He is now in his 70th year. His wife is alive and he has a grown-up family.
“This offence is a serious one and, according to the evidence, I cannot disregard the fact that for this crime you were available on application." Mr Justice Kennedy said in passing sentence. “Criminal acts such as you have committed may gravely affect physical health and may certainly impair moral health.” -Otago Daily Times, 23/7/1948.
No comments:
Post a Comment