A DEAL IN TOBACCO.
Interchangeable Keys.
Late on the evening of July 21 a young man named William John Newman went to the tobacconist's shop of John Morgan Pauley at 191 Castle-street, Dunedin, and let himself in by the key with which he opened the front door of his own house. He looked about for money, but could find none. Therefore, he filled a brief bag which he found in the shop with cigarettes and tobacco. He had just finished when a stranger came to the door and asked him if it wasn't about time he was closing up, to which he replied that he was just doing so. Because of the presence of the stranger, Newman was afraid to leave with the bag in his hand, but after going home he returned and picked it up. He then proceeded to a house of a friend of his, a wharf lumper named Gwynne Yates, to whom he gave the bag and its contents as a present. Yates, after selling some of the tobacco, threw the rest into Lake Logan, and then pitched in the bag with a couple of stones in it, the disposal of the property taking place after the arrest of Newman.
When Newman was arrested the police suspected that his first tale of how he disposed of the goods wouldn't hold water, and subsequent investigations brought the tale here given to light, the same being sworn to in signed statements by Newman and Yates.
At the S.M.'s Court on August 5 both men entered pleas of guilty before Magistrate Widdowson, and were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. -NZ Truth, 13/8/1910.
THE COURTS — TO-DAY
CITY POLICE COURT.
(Before J. H. Bartholomew, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness and Procuring Liquor. — John Morgan Pauley was charged with drunkenness, and also with procuring liquor on September 15, during the currency of a prohibition order against him. He pleaded guilty to both charges. — Sub-inspector Phair explained that a prohibition order had been issued against Pauley on his own application on November l of last year. Curiously enough, the order was taken out in the name of his brother. Pauley admitted that he was the man who applied to be prohibited. — Fined 7s for drunkenness, and 20s or seven days on the second charge. -Evening Star, 16/9/1910.
CITY POLICE COURT
Wednesday, September 16. (Before H Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.)
A Case Adjourned. — Margaret Pauley made application for a separation, maintenance, and guardianship order against her husband, John Morgan Pauley. — The husband objected to the order. —Mr Irwin represented the complainant, and said that the parties had been married 17 months and had one child, aged 12 months. The complainant and the defendant had lived more or less unhappily since the marriage. The defendant was a man who should not take drink. When he took drink he lost his control, and said things that he felt sorry and apologised for afterwards. He had also been influenced by his parents, who considered that the marriage should never have taken place. There was continual trouble in the house. He had repeatedly threatened his wife and used some very bad expressions to her. As his business premises abutted the street those expressions were heard by people passing. On Tuesday night of last week the finishing touch to the whole business occurred. He had an altercation with his wife, and used such expressions to her as no woman would like to repeat. When she wanted to cook the tea he refused to allow her to get coal to light the fire. Then he went for his mother. By that time the wife was outside with the child in her arms, and when the mother came along there was trouble. The mother-in-law tried to take the child away from the complainant, but as she could not get it she struck Mrs Pauley and blackened her eye. The police were sent for, and two constables arrived in time to quell the disturbance. The wife had been very delicate since she was a child, and the husband was practically killing her by inches. — Evidence was given by the complainant and several other witnesses. — Mrs Pauley said that she had very happy with her husband, but when he was drunk he ill-used her. His mother always interfered. — Pauley said that he had been good and kind to his wife. When he had been to blame it was through drink. He had since taken out a prohibition order on himself. — Evidence was also given by John Pauley, father of the accused. — His Worship said that there was no doubt from the evidence that the accused had been guilty of cruelty to his wife, and that he had made her life a misery The accused had said that his wife was a good wife and on the other hand the wife had said that he was a good husband except when he was drunk. His Worship was perfectly prepared to give them a chance to make it up and would adjourn the case for a week. -Evening Star, 18/9/1913.
Your editor notes that the arrival of their child, five months after the wedding, indicates that the marriage might not have been entered completely willingly by both parties.
A HEARTLESS HUSBAND
WIFE ATTEMPTS SUICIDE.
MAGISTRATE’S REBUKE.
A pitiful story of marital infelicity in which a delicate woman, more or less subject to seizures, was driven to the desperate expedient of trying to throw herself off one of the boat wharves a week or two ago came before the Police Court to-day, when Margaret Maud Mary Pauley applied for maintenance, separation, and guardianship orders against her husband (John Morgan Pauley), on the ground of persistent cruelty. The complainant, a little woman with a hunted look, said that there were two children — a boy aged three years, and a girl aged one year and nine months. One of the acts of enmity she complained of was that one night when (after having been annoyed by defendant) she got out of bed to take her quilt and try to get some peace on the kitchen sofa, he caught her round the neck, and threw her on the floor. She related what defendant had said when she announced her desperation. He had said: “The water’s not too cold for you yet, missis.”
Court-orderly Sivyer said that on several occasions during the past two years he had occasion to visit defendant's place in Frederick street, on account of complaints about domestic troubles. One Saturday, about two and a-half months ago, he went to the premises. As witness approached the place he saw defendant in his doorway talking nonsense to his wife, who was standing in the street in the pouring rain with the youngest child. The man was under the influence of drink, and all witness’s efforts failed to patch up a peace, so that he had to bring the woman to town and ask the Salvation Army to look after her. She was wet through to the skin when he got her in. It was quite usual for one or another constable to have to go down there — perhaps twice a month. When defendant was drunk he abused his wife and treated her in the way described. When sober he was all right, and there was no doubt he was very fond of his children, and looked after them when sober.
Defendant: That Saturday the wife walked out of the house of her own accord, and I asked her to come back.
Constable Sivyer: That is so. He told her to come inside, but in such a tone of voice as indicated that he intended to knock her about, and I would not allow her to go in. It would not have been safe.
Defendant (a hairdresser) admitted that when drunk his wife said he abused her.
The Magistrate (Mr Bartholomew, S.M.) pointed out that when the police had called upon him to come to Court when his wife had attempted suicide, he had replied that he did not care, the police could do what they liked. “You are one of the most callous and heartless wretches,’’ he went on, “ that has been in this Court. You drove your wife to attempt suicide, and when she was brought before the Court, and you notified, you refused to attend. I will make an order of maintenance, separation, and guardianship of 30s a week. And you will have to pay it.” Defendant: Can I....
The Magistrate: Be silent! Leave the court! -Evening Star, 7/1/1916.
PAULEY'S PATRIOTIC PATTER
The Barber and Kaiser Bill
DIDN'T BLUFF THE BEAK
Lewd Language to His Lady Love
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.) When patriotism becomes the last resource of barbers, it is evident that there must be something saving or paying about it. Anyway, a wee barber, one John Morgan Pauley, tried it on with Magistrate Young last week at the Dunedin S.M.'s Court, but the S.M., wise man that he is, while hating the Kaiser, none the less did not feel inclined to forgive John Morgan on the strength of the assertion that little Johnny had been actually cursing the Kaiser instead of his own dearly beloved "rib" — Mrs. Morgan Pauley.
Morgan was charged with the heinous offence known as obscene language.
"I didn't call my wife names," said John Morgan in answer to the charge, "I plead guilty to
CALLING KAISER BILL NAMES." Constable Hersey said he heard the language coming from accused's house. Later on, he ventured out on the street, and became disorderly. When he saw witness he bolted back into the house.
Sub-Inspector Matheson: M. Pauley says he was using the language to Kaiser Bill? — He was using it to his own wife, and she left him next day.
Pauley: I'll call the wife, and hear what she says. Come here, missus.
The wife, Margaret Pauley came forward, and John Morgan put the query to her:
Mrs. Pauley: You cannot deny it: you used the language to me! (laughter).
Pauley surveyed the S.M., and the court in stupefaction. "You're wrong, missus," he said, "I used it to Kaiser Bill when I was reading the paper. He's a bad man is Kaiser Bill."
Mrs. Pauley: You might as well tell the truth, John Morgan.
But John Morgan averred he was strenuously doing so.
Sub-Inspector: You are not going to tell lies for him, Mrs. Pauley, are you? — Indeed no; I expect to meet a good One up above.
John Morgan: She's got 'em again; no wonder she didn't hear me abusing the Kaiser. I lost my temper at the Kaiser's conduct.
Sub-Inspector: He ill-treats you, Mrs. Pauley, doesn't he?
Mrs. Pauley: When he's drunk he doesn't know what he says, and I had to be taken away from him several times. But when he gets sober he coaxes me back. Even when there's a prohibition order against him, his "cobbers" fetch him drink. Can't I fine them 10s for bringing him drink?
Pauley: You're not on the Bench yet, mum!
Sub-Inspector described Mr. Pauley as a "drunken waster," and the wife as "a simple, meek soul in weak health." On a previous occasion Mr. Bartholomew, S.M., had sentenced him to one month's imprisonment. He understood that the wife's mother would be glad if her daughter could be separated from this man.
Pauley: There's
ALWAYS A CHANCE OF REFORM. Give me a chance. I'll take out a prohibition order.
Mrs. Pauley: I'm willing to go back to him; give him a chance.
His Worship issued a prohibition order against the accused, and on the charge of obscene language convicted him, and ordered him to come up for sentence if called upon at any time within the next 12 months.
And John Morgan and Margaret Pauley left the court, as they oft had done before, arm-in-arm. -NZ Truth, 13/4/1918.
The Courts Today
Maintenance. — John Morgan Pauley (Mr G. Gallaway) resisted the making of an order for the support of his child in the Industrial School. He said that he could keep the child at home with his other two children, but could not afford to pay money for the child's support outside. — Mr Gallaway said the child was removed from the father's home at the time the mother was in a hospital. The father was now earning only £2 10a s week, with his other two children to support, and could not pay more than 2s 6d. — The Rev. F. G. Cumming said that the man, in his present position, could not pay 10s a week. Five shillings was the maximum he could manage. — An order of 5s a week was made, the Magistrate remarking that he was making it light to enable Pauley to carry on, and the order could be reviewed later. -Evening Star, 7/7/1919.
DUNEDIN DOINGS
IMPRESSIONS OF THE WEEK - TOPICS OF CURRENT INTEREST
(From "Truth's" Dunedin Rep.)
"ALL GOOD TEMPLARS."
"Everyone knows John Morgan Pauley. Why, he is famous. You say you do not know him? Nonsense!" Thus spoke Sub-Inspector Mathieson last week, in the course of a case against William Nelson Mackie, Frederick John Pine, and John Morgan Pauley. Pine was charged with assisting Pauley to procure liquor, and Pauley with procuring it, he being prohibited. The case against Mackie was withdrawn, as it was intimated that this person had been accommodated at Rotoroa.
Constable McCrae said he strolled into Pauley's saloon, and there observed two things — the famous Mary Feelay looking at him, and a bottle of beer, half-empty, standing on the middle of the floor, apparently doing nothing. The bottle and the constable surveyed each other for a while, much to Mary's and John Morgan's stupefaction. Then the eyes of the limb of the law wandered under Mr. Pauley's springless sofa, and unearthed two full bottles of beer. Matters developed rapidly until a glass nicely tinted with a beer varnish was fished up from behind the counter. To make matters worse, it was discovered, on closer observation, that John Morgan was actually under the influence.
Pine said Mackie gave him the money to get a couple of bottles of beer for him, and he went and fetched it. He had no intention of getting liquor for Pauley, and Pauley had none.
Pauley said he had given Mackie a shave and a hair-cut; Mackie was under the influence, but he (Pauley) was sober.
Sub-Inspector Mathieson: You are all good templars, Mr. Pauley! How did the bottle manage to plant itself in the middle of the floor? Did it walk there, or was it waiting for a shave? — Mackie must have brought it in.
You didn't go near it — Oh, no. I never touched it. Wouldn't do it for worlds!
You have such a decided objection against it, Mr. Pauley. If that is so, how did the beer scum get on to your glass behind the counter, another magic performance I suppose? — (Irately) Nothing of the kind; it was the remains of hop beer. (Laughter).
What! You ask the court to believe that you, Mr. Pauley, would drink hop beer? — I do.
Well, well! But tell me what was Mary Feelay, another good templar, doing there? — Having a glass of lemonade. (Loud laughter).
So it comes to this: You were sober on the date in question, you drank nothing stronger than hop beer, and Mary Feelay had lemonade. Mr. Pauley, you do not ask us to believe anything of the kind? — I do, certainly.
Sub-Inspector: I couldn't do it if I tried!
The Magistrate could not bring himself to believe anything; of the kind either, and John Morgan Pauley was given a severe caution, and fined 20/-. The same treatment was rubbed into Pine. -NZ Truth, 31/1/1920.
POLICE COURT
FAMILY TROUBLE.
John Morgan Pauley was charged with having created mischief by breaking a window sash, the property of Thomas Pauley.
Mr Hay appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty.
Senior-sergeant Mathieson said that accused believed that the property occupied by his niece should be his. On the day of the offence he was under the influence of liquor, and he called at his niece’s place, but found nobody at home. Later he returned, and broke a window and obtained entrance to the house. He turned on the light, and commenced knocking things about. The niece became frightened, and left the place.
Mr Hay said that he did not think that the niece was afraid of accused. Counsel stated that Pauley had attempted to get some idea of the value of the property left by his mother, who died some time previously. One result of his action was that he had been informed that the estate would be wound up.
The Senior-sergeant said that accused became very violent under the influence of liquor. Accused was fined 20s and costs, and ordered to pay the damage (30s). Default was fixed at four days. -Evening Star, 14/12/1923.
Police Court
HE DIDN’T REMEMBER.
“I don’t know what happened,” said John Morgan Pauley, who pleaded guilty to drunkenness and to using obscene language in Cumberland street.
Pauley, said he had not taken any drink for a long time. He went to the show, met some schoolmates, and did not know what happened afterwards.
For drunkenness Pauley was fined 10s, with the alternative of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, and for using obscene language was fined £2, in default seven days’ imprisonment. -Evening Star, 6/6/1928.
POLICE COURT
TWO MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT.
John Morgan Pauley, for whom Mr C. J. L. White appeared, pleaded guilty to using obscene language in Frederick street within hearing of a public place.
Sergeant Boulton said that at about 7.30 last evening the defendant was using filthy language in a shop abutting on the street, and the police were called in. The use of such language was becoming a common practice with him. He was a hard-working man, but when he came to town after being at Waipori he took to drinking.
Mr White stated that the defendant had had enough domestic troubles to drive an ordinary man insane, and since being out of work he had given way to drink.
“He tells me that the cause of the trouble was that he was defending the police against certain statements that were made by a man who had grievance against them.” added counsel.
“The police might say, ‘Save us from our friends,’” commented His Worship.
Mr White said that it was the receipt of bad news that first of all started the defendant on his drinking bout. He suggested that in view of all the circumstances, the matter could be held over Pauley’s head.
“If this had been the defendant’s first conviction for obscene language, I could have paid more attention to what has been said,” stated the magistrate. “In view of his record, which includes two convictions for a similar offence there is only one course to follow. The defendant will be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.” -Evening Star, 9/10/1930.
GELIGNITE EXPLOSION
ACCIDENT AT MANUHERIKIA
THREE MEN INJURED
While working on the west quarry at the Public Works dam at Manuherikia, near Oturehua, yesterday afternoon, three men, all belonging to Dunedin, were injured by an accidental explosion of gelignite, and all were subsequently admitted to the Maniototo Hospital at Ranfurly. The injured men are: —
Kenneth Cameron, aged forty-five years, of 21 King Edward street, South Dunedin, seriously injured.
John Scoles, aged thirty-four years, of 17 Grosvenor street, Kensington, deep cuts about the head and face.
John Pauley, aged forty-six, of 27 Richardson street, minor injuries.
All three injured men are married. The accident occurred about 1.45 in the afternoon, and it is surmised that on the face of the quarry, where a gang of fourteen men were scattered about, a charge of gelignite had previously been laid, a plug of which had apparently slipped into a crevice in the rock and remained there. When this was touched by Cameron’s pick the explosion occurred, and Cameron received serious injuries to the head, arms, chest, legs, and right eye. Scoles received deep cuts about the head and face, and Pauley suffered minor injuries.
Dr Scrymgeour, of Omakau, was quickly communicated with, and arrived soon afterwards, ordering the despatch of the three men to the hospital at Ranfurly.
Inquiry from the Maniototo Hospital this morning showed that Cameron’s condition was still very serious. Pauley and Scoles were both suffering from shock, but their condition to-day was satisfactory.
It is stated that this is the first accident that has occurred in the quarry at Manuherikia. -Evening Star, 25/8/1933.
John Pauley lived on until the age of 78. His ashes were scattered after cremation.
No comments:
Post a Comment