The Australian Star, Wed 29 Mar 1893 ¹

A FLOGGING THREATENED.
———◦———

    William Walsh, a great big hulking fellow, of 26, was before the Water Police bench this morning, charged with the commission of a gross act of indecency.

    Evidence was given that the accused, whilst in the vicinity of St David’s parsonage in Arthur-street, Surry Hills, saw a young lady, before whom he misconducted himself. Later in the day Walsh was arrested by Senior-constable Clarke. The accused, it was further shown, was in the habit of doing this kind of thing, one young lady testifying that she had frequently been insulted by the fellow’s misconduct in the street.

    At the conclusion of the evidence Mr Smithers, DSM, retired from the bench and remained away for some few minutes. On taking his seat again Mr Smithers said, “Yes, this is certainly a case in which a whipping could be ordered. The public must be protected from outrages of this kind, and I think it can only be done through the medium of the lash. The case is a particularly gross one, and I shall remand the accused until to-morrow, in order that I can have another magistrate on the bench.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Australian Star, Thu 30 Mar 1893 ²

THE LASH ORDERED.

The case of William Walsh, who was yesterday charged at the Water Police Court with the commission of a gross act of indecency in Arthur-street, Surry Hills, again came before the bench at that court this morning. It will be remembered that Mr Smithers, DSM, tried the case yesterday, and that after hearing the evidence his Worship remanded the accused until to-day, in order that another magistrate might be consulted as to the form of punishment which should be imposed. This morning the bench consisted of Captain Fisher, SM, and Mr GH Smithers, DSM, and the case was heard de novo. The police had additional evidence to offer in support of the charge, the details of which were rendered indescribably shocking by tho fresh testimony. The case for the prosecution having closed, Captain Fisher, addressing Walsh, said: “Well, what have yon to say in answer to this charge?”

    Walsh: Well, your Worship, I have only been in Sydney since last November; and I’ve always worked hard.

    Captain Fisher: Oh, is that all? Well, you are ordered to be detained at Woolloomooloo lock-up for the space of 96 hours and to be once privately whipped, such whipping to consist of 20 lashes.

    Walsh was a trifle unconcerned at first, but before leaving the dock he muttered something to the effect that this was what a fellow got for doing nothing, and then began to whimper. It is understood that the flogging will be administered on Saturday.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Fri 31 Mar 1893 ³

SUMMARY.
———◦———

…
    William Walsh, charged with indecency in Arthur-street, Surry-hills, was yesterday sentenced to a flogging and 96 hours’ incarceration.
…

SENTENCED TO BE FLOGGED.
————

    The hearing of the charge of indecency preferred against William Walsh, which was reported in yesterday’s issue, was concluded at the Water Police Court yesterday morning, Messrs Fisher, SM, and GH Smithers, DSM, being on the bench. The evidence was heard again, and Walsh was then sentenced to be imprisoned in the cells at the Woolloomooloo lockup for 96 hours, and receive 20 strokes at noon tomorrow, the whipping to be private.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

National Advocate, Sat 1 Apr 1893 ⁴

TOO MILD BY FAR!
————

    At noon to-day a filthy scoundrel, named William Walsh, in Sydney, is to receive 20 lashes for indecent exposure. Why not a hundred?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Mon 3 Apr 1893 ⁵

A FLOGGING DEFERRED.
————
NOTICE OF APPEAL GIVEN.

    The flogging of William Walsh, which was ordered to take place at the Woolloomooloo lock-up at noon on Saturday, was deferred, a few minutes before the hour, on account of a notice of appeal lodged by the prisoner. Walsh was, on Wednesday last, sentenced by Captain Fisher, PM, and Mr GH Smithers, DSM, at the Water Police Court, to 96 hours’ imprisonment and 20 lashes, to be inflicted at noon on Saturday, on a charge of indecency.

    Everything on Saturday was in readiness for the flogging at the Woolloomooloo lockup, [corner Riley and Cathedral Streets, Woolloomooloo] but at about 11.40 am Mr G Wallace, acting for Walsh, served notice of appeal on Mr Smithers at the Water Police Court. A few minutes later a notice withdrawing this notice was served, as the prisoner declared that, rather than go through the suspense of waiting, he would be flogged right away.

    Mr Fraser (Under-Secretary for Justice) was in attendance, and a consideration of the circumstances inclined him to ignore the notice of withdrawal, and defer the carrying out of the sentence. As the notice of withdrawal was not addressed to anybody it might be said to be informal on that ground, but Mr Fraser, who was acting in the absence of the Minister for Justice, was influenced by a decision of the Full Court given last February. The case of Richard Howe Thompson moving that Benjamin Lee, SM be called upon to show cause why a certain decision of his should not be set aside, was before the Court. Thompson gave notice of withdrawal, and stated that he was willing to pay the fine. The Full Court, however, decided not to consider the withdrawal of the notice, and heard the case through. Acting on this authority Mr Fraser received the appeal on Saturday, and Walsh was again committed to Darlinghurst Gaol pending the result of the appeal, which will be heard to-morrow.

    The question has been raised as to whether Walsh, having served the 96 hours’ imprisonment to which he was sentenced, is not now illegally in custody. In the event of the withdrawal of the appeal being invalid, there is, however, no question of this. Under the 144th section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which relates to flogging, the prisoner who appeals is required to remain in gaol until the appeal is decided, or to find sureties in the event of bail being fixed. Bail in Walsh’s case was yesterday fixed at his own recognisance of £300 and two sureties of £150.

————

    The following is the report of the Prince Alfred Hospital for the week ending April 1: — Number of in-patients at last report, 134 males, 60 females, total 194; since admitted, 19 males, 22 females, total 41; discharged, 23 males, 10 females, total 33; died, 3 males, 2 females; total, 5; remaining in hospital on April 2, 127 males, 70 females, total 197. Number of out-patients treated during the week, 313; number of casualty case3 treated but not admitted, 190; total 503.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Mon 3 Apr 1893 ⁶

THE FLOGGING CASE.
————
PUNISHMENT POSTPONED.
————
AN APPEAL LODGED.
————

    On Saturday Woolloomooloo was considerably astir when the hour of noon approached. This was the time at which William Walsh, aged 26, was to receive 20 lashes by the order of the Water Police Court magistrates, for an offence of gross indecency, and men, women, and children to the extent of some hundreds, led by a morbid curiosity, assembled outside the Woolloomooloo lock-up where the punishment was to have been administered. It was understood that the prisoner had caused, through Mr G Wallace, solicitor, a notice of appeal to be lodged against the decision of the magistrates. It was known that this could only be done under the 440th section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and accordingly it was done. The appeal was properly lodged with the magistrates and forwarded to the Justice Department, and almost immediately afterward came a message to the effect that prisoner desired to withdraw the appeal, as he had ascertained that he would have to remain in custody until the appeal was decided, and in preference to this he would rather have the whipping to take place that day.

    Everything was in readiness, the tripod was erected, and the flagellator was present with the cat-o’-nine tails to carry out his instructions. A few press representatives and a couple of officials were the privileged persons to be present, while outside the lock-up could be seen an enormous crowd of people.

    At noon the prisoner was subjected to a medical examination, the outcome of which was a private consultation between the Under-Secretary for Justice, Mr Smithers, DSM, and a couple of others. Shortly afterwards it was intimated to the privileged few that the flogging was not to take place, but the matter would receive attention at the hands of the Minister for Justice on Tuesday next.

    As the accused man, however, was only sentenced to undergo 96 hours’ imprisonment, he would under original circumstances have been released on Tuesday morning at 1 o’clock. This, however, will not be the case,

    The reasons assigned for the postponement of the punishment are given as under. The attention of the Under Secretary for Justice has been called to the formal notice of appeal and the subsequent notice of withdrawal of the appeal. This latter, after consideration, was accepted as informal, and the prisoner was notified of this. Dr Paton, Government medical officer, had a conversation with Walsh, and this, coupled with the informal withdrawal, the Under Secretary thought that it would be improper to allow the flogging to proceed.

    Under the circumstances, nothing will be done until after the holidays, when the matter is to be brought under the notice of the Minister for Justice.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

National Advocate, Mon 3 Apr 1893 ⁷

Will He Escape the Lash After All?
————

    The flogging which was ordered the filthy brute, William Walsh, the other day has been deferred. Shortly before tho hour fixed for the flogging the prisoner’s attorney lodged an appeal, which, however, was afterwards withdrawn by Walsh, who stated that he would sooner stand the flogging than be kept in suspense until the appeal had been heard. The Under-Secretary for Justice, however, in the absence of the Minister, having consulted with the magistrate and medical gentlemen present, advised that the flogging should not be proceeded with until the Minister of Justice had gone into the case. The appeal will be heard at the Quarter Sessions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Wed 5 Apr 1893 ⁸

THE FLOGGING CASE.

    With regard to the case of William Walsh, who was sentenced to be flogged, but wherein, owing to an appeal having been lodged, the flogging did not take place, the Minister for Justice explains that nothing has happened in this matter contrary to the ordinary working of the Department of Justice. The withdrawal of the notice of appeal could not under the circumstances be accepted, and the case will have to be heard at the Quarter Sessions in the ordinary course. In the meantime the man is in gaol, though bail has been allowed. He will be released if the magistrates’ decision is reversed. If, however, the decision is upheld the flogging will take place just as if no appeal had been made. The Minister considers that the action taken by the Under-Secretary is perfectly legal and justifiable under the circumstances, and, indeed, the only course that could be adopted.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Wed 5 Apr 1893 ⁹

THE DEFERRED FLOGGING.
————

    With reference to the case of the man William Walsh, who was sentenced to be flogged for indecency, but owing to an appeal having been lodged, the flagellation, did not take place, the Minister for Justice states that if the magistrates’ decision is reversed the man will be released, but if the decision is upheld the flogging will take place just the same as if no appeal had been made.
…

YESTERDAY’S BREVITIES.
———◦———

…
    Mr Fraser, the Under-Secretary for Justice, has prepared a report for the Minister for Justice with reference to the postponement of the flogging which was to have been administered to William Walsh last Saturday for grossly indecent behavior.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Australian Star, Wed 12 Apr 1893 ¹⁰

THREATENED FLOGGING.
———◦———

    Mr Colls, MLA, has received the following letter from the Minister for Justice bearing on the case of prisoner Walsh:— “Sir — I have the honor, by, direction of the Minister for Justice, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 6, in which you urge that the punishment of flogging may not be inflicted on the prisoner William Walsh, and to inform you that the same will receive due consideration. I am also to add that Walsh is now in Darlinghurst Gaol awaiting the result of an appeal against his conviction, and instructions have been given to have him placed in the observation ward and examined by Drs Manning, Paton and O’Connor.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Australian Star, Thu 13 Apr 1893 ¹¹

THREATENED FLOGGING.
———◦———

    Mr Colls, MLA, has received the following letter from the Minister for Justice bearing on the case of prisoner Walsh:— “Sir — I have the honor, by, direction of the Minister for Justice, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 6, in which you urge that the punishment of flogging may not be inflicted on the prisoner William Walsh, and to inform you that the same will receive due consideration. I am also to add that Walsh is now in Darlinghurst Gaol awaiting the result of an appeal against his conviction, and instructions have been given to have him placed in the observation ward and examined by Drs Manning, Paton and O’Connor.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Australian Star, Thu 20 Apr 1893 ¹²

THE FLOGGING CASE.
———◦———
THE APPEAL.
————

    At the Quarter Sessions this morning the appeal of William Walsh against a conviction for indecency came on before Judge Backhouse.

    The accused, it will be recollected, was charged before the Water Police Bench some few weeks ago with having very grossly misconducted himself before a girl in Arthur-street, Surry Hills. He was convicted and sentenced by Captain Fisher, SM, and Mr GH Smithers, DSM, to be privately whipped at the Woolloomooloo lockup.

    To-day Mr Wallace, who appeared on behalf of Walsh, held that the appeal was improperly before the court, inasmuch as neither the magistrate nor the police had been served with the necessary notices.

    His Honor agreed that the matter was improperly before the court, and that in consequence he had no jurisdiction. The accused was therefore discharged.

    Immediately Walsh got outside the court he was re-arrested by Senior-constable Clarke and charged with a similar offence, alleged to have been committed previous to the one forming the subject of to-day’s appeal.
…

THE FLOGGING CASE.
———◦———

    The man William Walsh, who was released from custody to-day owing to an informality in his appeal against a flogging ordered bv Captain Fisher, SM, was rearrested by Senior-constable Clarke and Constable Hamilton, and brought before the Water Police Court this afternoon on a second charge of wilful and obscene exposure. He was remanded till Wednesday; bail — self in £50 and two in £25.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Thu 20 Apr 1893 ¹³

METROPOLITAN QUARTER
SESSIONS.
————
Wednesday, April 19.
(Before Judge Backhouse and a jury.)

    Mr WL Merewether prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.
…

APPEALS.

    Appeals against magistrates’ decisions will be heard at the Court of Quarter Sessions to-day:—William Walsh, conviction for indecency; Edward Rebello, order for maintenance; John McConaghy, order for maintenance.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Thu 20 Apr 1893 ¹⁴

THAT FLOGGING CASE.
————
WALSH’S APPEAL
————
HELD TO BE IRREGULAR.
————
THE JUDGE’S REMARKS.
————

    The appeal of William Walsh against a conviction of flogging for indecency came up for hearing before his Honor Judge Backhouse at the quarte sessions to-day.

    In this matter, it will be remembered, the flogging was to have taken place on April 1, but notice of appeal having been given, the punishment was indefinitely postponed.

    Mr Merewether, who appeared for the Crown, said the Crown raised no objection to the appeal being heard on a technical ground.

    Mr Wallace, however, said he appeared for the appellant, and wished to point out that the necessary steps not having been taken to perfect the appeal, it could not be heard. His objection was, in fact, that no notice of appeal had been given. No notice had been served on the prosecutor, and before the time at which the flogging was to take place the notice served on the convicting justice was withdrawn, and no further notice had been served. That being so, he submitted that there was no appeal before the court.

    His Honor, in holding that the appeal was regularly before the court, said there could be no question that the Under-Secretary for Justice, in taking the steps he did to stop the flogging, had under all circumstances acted with extreme prudence and in the public interest. He (his Honor) happened to pass in the neighborhood of the watchhouse on the morning that the flogging was to have taken place, and a more demoralising sight could hardly be imagined. There was a crowd of men, women, and even children gathered outside the building waiting to hear the shrieks of the unfortunate man, and it was to the credit of our civilisation that someone interfered to stop the flogging. The public interest in his opinion had been served by what had been done, and it would be far better that any number of people should escape punishment than that our population should be degraded. On the ground, therefore, of public decency alone it was a good thing that such steps had been taken.

    Mr Merewether ventured to express the opinion that the course taken by the Under-Secretary for Justice was the only wise and reasonable one under the circumstances. He intimated that other proceedings would be taken against the prisoner.

    The Court holding that there was no appeal the prisoner was discharged and immediately rearrested.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 20 Apr 1893 ¹⁵

METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
Wednesday.
(Before his Honor Mr District
Court Judge Backhouse and a jury of 12.)

    Mr WL Merewether prosecuted for the Crown.
…

APPEALS.

    The following appeals against magistrates’ decisions will be taken to-day:—William Walsh, conviction for indecency; Edward Rebello, order for maintenance; John McConaghy, order for maintenance.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 21 Apr 1893 ¹⁶

THE CASE OF WILLIAM WALSH.
———◦———

    William Walsh, who appealed at the Quarter Sessions yesterday morning against his conviction by Captain Fisher, SM, on a charge of indecency, upon which he had been sentenced to 96 hours’ imprisonment and a flogging of 20 lashes, was rearrestcd immediately after his release. He had been released on the appeal. In the afternoon he was brought up on a similar charge, and remanded until Wednesday next, on bail of himself in £50, two sureties of £25 each or one surety of £50.
…

IN PARLIAMENT.
———◦———

    The Legislative Council set for an hour and a half last evening.
…
    In the appeal of William Walsh, heard at the Darlinghurst Quarter Sessions yesterday morning, against a sentence of flogging for [indecent] exposure, Mr Wallace appeared for the accused, not in tho appeal, but to point out that the Court had no jurisdiction. Mr Merewether, who appeared for the respondent, said that if Mr Wallace did not consent the appeal could not be heard. Judge Backhouse pointed out that the ground now raised, that the notice was given for the wrong court, had not been raised by anyone on the day when the whipping was to have been inflicted, and that he was inclined to agree with the view taken by the Under-Secretary of the Department of Justice that once a notice of appeal was given there could be no withdrawal in a case of this kind, as, if it were so, the machinery of the Court could be always used to prevent a whipping being inflicted. Further, he (the Judge) had by accident passed the Woolloomooloo lockup on the morning on which the flogging was to have been inflicted, and saw a large crowd of men, women, and children collected outside the walls of the lockup. Under those circumstances he thought it was better for our credit that the flogging should be stopped at all hazards rather than the prurient curiosity of a number of debased persons who had assembled to hear the screams of the man being whipped should be satisfied.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

National Advocate, Sat 22 Apr 1893 ¹⁷

FLASHLIGHTS.
———◦———
(By Focus’em.) [sic]
————

…
    At the Quarter Sessions on Wednesday, William Walsh successfully appealed against a sentence of flogging for indecent exposure.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Australian Star, Wed 26 Apr 1893 ¹⁸

THE FLOGGING CASE.
———◦———
THE SECOND CHARGE AGAINST
WALSH.
————

    Upon taking his seat in the charge division of the Water Police court this morning Mr Addison, SM, announced that he would take the case of William Walsh, charged with indecency, at 12 o’clock today, providing that he could secure the services of another magistrate by that time.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Thu 27 Apr 1893 ¹⁹

THE POLICE COURTS.
————
THE FLOGGING CASE.

    At the Water Police Court yesterday, before Messrs W Johnson and GWF Addison, SMs., William Walsh, the man who was recently convicted on a charge of wilful exposure and sentenced to be flogged, was again charged with a similar offence. On the former occasion Walsh appealed against the conviction, and subsequently withdrew the appeal. The flogging was deferred, and as the higher Court afterwards decided that there was no appeal before them, the sentence of the police court could not be carried out. Walsh was then again arrested and charged with having committed a similar offence in the same street.

    Mr Wallace appeared for the accused yesterday.

    Evidence was given by Harriet Telfer, a domestic servant in the employment of a clergyman residing in Arthur-street, Surry-hills, to the effect that she had seen the accused commit the offence complained of in the information. She specified the time and date, and deposed that the accused was in the habit of committing the offence before young girls.

    When the case for the prosecution was closed Mr Wallace asked for the discharge of the accused on the ground that the evidence given that morning had already been given in support of a charge on which he had been convicted, and that conviction still held good. The law required that a man could not be tried twice for the same offence.

    The witness Harriet Telfer was cross-examined by Mr Wallace, and she said that in her evidence in the previous case she had mentioned the offence she had deposed to that morning.

    The Bench upheld the view taken by Mr Wallace, and discharged the accused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 27 Apr 1893 ²⁰

THE CHARGE AGAINST WILLIAM
WALSH.
———◦———

    William Walsh was charged, on remand, before Messrs GWF Addison, SM, and W Johnson, SM, at the Water Police Court yesterday, with indecency in Arthur-street Surry Hills, on 23rd March. Mr G Wallace appeared to defend the accused. In the previous case against Walsh, the offence foe which he was convicted was committed on 28th March. At the hearing the principal witness then stated that accused had committed the offence on six different occasions. The same witness, at the present hearing, and that the offence with which Walsh was now charged was included in those offences. Mr Wallace therefore submitted that to convict on the present information would be a violation of the principle of law, that no man shall be put in peril twice for the same offence, and in support of his contention cited from Paley on “Summary Convictions,” page 145; “Fisher’s Digest” (Criminal Law), page 2278; “Roscoe’s Digest,” page 199; the cases of Wemyss v. Hopkins, 10 L R, Q B, page 378' Rex v. Sheen, 2 C and P, page 635. He submitted that the evidence tendered in the present case having been given in the former case was quite clear that it had been considered by the convicting justices in the former case, and therefore a conviction in this case would be a conviction on evidence which had been given in a former case in which the conviction still stood against the accused, and had not been set aside by any competent Court. The Court agreed with Mr Wallace’s contention, and dischaged the accused.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Australian Star, Fri 16 Jun 1893 ²¹

THE FLOGGING CASE.
———◦———
THE MAGISTRATE’S
DECISION WRONG.
————

    The case of Hamilton v. Walsh was brought under the notice of Mr Justice Stephen in. Chambers to-day in an application to his Honor in a special case, stated by the magistrates at the police court. Mr Heydon appeared for the Crown, and Mr Wallace for the respondent.

    Mr Wallace submitted that the case could not come before the judge, as it only involved a question of fact and not a question of law. William Walsh was convicted at the Water Police Court on a charge of indecency, and was sentenced to a term of gaol and a flogging, but in consequence of subsequent proceedings the flogging was not carried out. The case went on appeal to a judge at the Quarter Sessions, but his Honor held that there was no appeal before him. A fresh information was then filed against Walsh for a similar offence, and it was subsequently dismissed on a point raised by counsel that this offence was taken into consideration when the accused was sentenced on the first information.

    His Honor Mr Justice Stephen held today that the magistrates were wrong in acquitting the accused on the ground that the second charge was dealt with on the hearing of the first case. The answer he would return to the magistrates was that they were wrong in acquitting the prisoner on this ground.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Sat 17 Jun 1893 ²²

LAW.
———◦———

…

In Chambers.—(Before Mr Justice Stephen.)

Hamilton v. Walsh.

    This was a special case stated from the Water Police Court. It appeared that William Walsh was charged with indecent exposure at Surry-hills. He pleaded not guilty, and also that he had previously been convicted for the same offence. In the first case Walsh had been charged with an offence committed on March 27, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment and a flogging, and the offence with which he was charged in the second instance occurred on a date prior to date of the first—viz, March 23 and it was contended by the accused’s advocate that this offence was covered by punishment awarded for the other one. The magistrates discharged the information, but were asked to state a special case, and that was now before the Court. Mr Heydon appeared in support of the information; Mr G Wallace for the accused.

    His Honor considered that if the acquittal of the accused rested upon the ground that he had been previously convicted, then it was wrong. He would remit the case back to the magistrate with that reply.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Sat 17 Jun 1893 ²³

THE CASE OF WILLIAM WALSH.
————
APPLICATION IN CHAMBERS.
————
THE MAGISTRATES IN ERROR.
————

    The case of Hamilton v. Walsh was mentioned in Chambers Friday before Mr Justice Stephen. This was an application to his Honor in a special case stated by the magistrates in the Water Police Court. Mr Heydon appeared for the Crown and Mr G Wallace for the respondent. Mr Wallace submitted that this case should not come before his Honor as it involved a question of fact and not one of law. William Walsh was convicted on March 27, at the Water Police Court, on a charge of indecent exposure. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and to a flogging, but in consequence of some proceedings the flogging was not carried out. The matter went by way of an appeal to the quarter sessions, and the chairman of the quarter sessions held that there was no appeal before him. The Crown then filed a fresh information against the defendant for a similar offence alleged to have been committed on March 23. In the hearing of the first case there was evidence of several indecent exposures. The defendant’s counsel raised the objection that the second charge had already been dealt with by the court, and they had taken it into consideration in sentencing the accused in the first case. The magistrates discharged the accused on the second charge, on the ground that evidence had been given as to the second offence in the first instance. His Honor considered that the respondent had only been in jeopardy in regard to the offence of March 27. He could only have been convicted of one offence. If the magistrates did not know in respect to what offence they should have found out, and not acquitted the accused simply because evidence had been given with regard to another offence. When the magistrates said they were of opinion that as evidence had been given in the previous case of the second charge, and that that was a complete answer, he said they were wrong. The answer he would return to the magistrates was that they were wrong in acquitting the prisoner on this particular ground. In concluding his Honor said he hoped that magistrates in future would take care and see what the charge they were dealing with was, and let it be seen that it was on a particular day. The whole case had arisen from this.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 17 Jun 1893 ²⁴

LAW REPORT.
———◦———

…

In Chambers.—(Before Mr Justice Stephen.)

Hamilton v. Walsh.

    Mr Heydon, instructed by the Crown Solicitor, appeared in support of an appeal under the Justices Appeal Act. On the 16th May last William Walsh was charged before Messrs Addison and Whittingdale Johnson, stipendiary magistrates, for that, on the 23rd March, 1894, in Arthur-street, Surry Hills. a public street, he did expose his person. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and that he had been previously convicted of the same offence, and that such conviction was a bar to further proceedings. Evidence was then given which amply proved the commission of the alleged offence on the 23rd March. At the conclusion of the case far the Crown the defendant’s attorney put in the depositions taken in a previous case against the defendant heard on the 30th March, 1893, in which he was convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 96 hours and to one whipping of 20 strokes. In the previous case the defendant was charged generally, and on no particular date, with a similar offence to the present, and the depositions contained evidence which showed that defendant had been guilty of similar offences upon the 22nd, 23rd, 27th, and 28th of March, and other dates. In the present case it was contended by the defendant’s attorney that, the evidence in support of the charge having been given in the previous ease, the defendant was being again put in peril in respect of a matter upon which he had already been tried and convicted, and such conviction was still standing against him. He further contended that under s. 9 of the Justices Act, 11 aud 12 Vic., c. 43, the date mentioned in the information on the first charge was not material. The magistrates were of opinion that as a matter of fact the evidence given before them in support of the information had been given in the previous case against the defendant, and had been considered by the then sitting justices when dealing with that case, and they determined that the said matter afforded a complete answer to the information and dismissed the case. The question for the opinion of the Court was whether the said determination was erroneous in point of law. After hearing argument,

    His Honor said that the whole matter was in a considerable muddle and that great difficulty had arisen from the magistrates allowing evidence to be given of separate offences. As far as he could make out, the defence was that the defendant had been previously convicted of the same offence. In that case it surely rested upon the defendant to show what the previous conviction was. But the Justices said that the evidence before them had been given in support of the former case, and this was not a finding that the defendant had been convicted previously of the same offence. He was of opinion that the decision of the magistrates was erroneous, and that the case must be returned to them with that decision.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Wed 9 Aug 1893 ²⁵

CURRENT NEWS.
———◦———

…
    Michael O’Flaherty, [aka William Walsh], a striker, was arrested in the city by warrant yesterday afternoon on a charge of having behaved indecently at Surry Hills, Sydney on the 13th ultimo. He will be brought up at the Police Court this morning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 10 Aug 1893 ²⁶

NEWCASTLE POLICE COURT
———◦———
Wednesday, August 9.
————
(Before Mr Mair, PM.)
————
A SOLITARY.

    John Brown, 36, seaman, for having been drunk on the previous evening in Hunter-street West, was ordered to pay 5s, or suffer 24 hours in the lookup.
Alleged Indecency.

    Michael O’Flaherty, alias William Walsh, aged 26, blacksmith’s striker, was charged with having, at Surry Hills, Sydney, on the 13th July, acted in a most indecent manner.

    Constable Brown gave evidence as to arresting the man, as he answered the description of a William Walsh, required in Sydney for indecency.

    On the application of the police, the accused was remanded to Sydney.
…

CURRENT NEWS.
———◦———

…
    In the Police Court yesterday, Michael O’Flaherty, alias William Walsh, 26, blacksmith’s striker, was remanded to Sydney on a charge of indecency, alleged to have been committed at Surry Hills.

 

---

¹     The Australian Star, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 29 Mar 1893, p. 6.

²     The Australian Star, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 30 Mar 1893, p. 4. Emphasis added.

³     The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney, NSW), Fri 31 Mar 1893, pp. 1, 7.

⁴     National Advocate, (Bathurst, NSW), Sat 1 Apr 1893, p. 2.

⁵     The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney, NSW), Mon 3 Apr 1893, p. 4.

⁶     Evening News, (Syd, NSW), Mon 3 Apr 1893, p. 6.

⁷     National Advocate, (Bathurst, NSW), Mon 3 Apr 1893, p. 2.

⁸     The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 5 Apr 1893, p. 4.

⁹     Evening News, (Syd, NSW), Wed 5 Apr 1893, pp. 3, 6.

¹⁰   The Australian Star, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 12 Apr 1893, p. 6.

¹¹   The Australian Star, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 13 Apr 1893, p. 7.

¹²   The Australian Star, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 20 Apr 1893, pp. 5, 6.

¹³   The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 20 Apr 1893, p. 3. Emphasis added.

¹⁴   Evening News, (Syd, NSW), Thu 20 Apr 1893, p. 4.

¹⁵   The Sydney Morning Herald, (NSW), Thu 20 Apr 1893, p. 3. Emphasis added.

¹⁶   The Sydney Morning Herald, (NSW), Fri 21 Apr 1893, pp. 3, 4, 5.

¹⁷   National Advocate, (Bathurst, NSW), Sat 22 Apr 1893, p. 1.

¹⁸   The Australian Star, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 26 Apr 1893, p. 5.

¹⁹   The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 27 Apr 1893, p. 3. Emphasis added.

²⁰   The Sydney Morning Herald, (NSW), Thu 27 Apr 1893, p. 6.

²¹   The Australian Star, (Sydney, NSW), Fri 16 Jun 1893, p. 6.

²²   The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney, NSW), Sat 17 Jun 1893, p. 10.

²³   Evening News, (Syd, NSW), Sat 17 Jun 1893, p. 6.

²⁴   The Sydney Morning Herald, (NSW), Sat 17 Jun 1893, p. 13. Emphasis added.

²⁵   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, (NSW), Wed 9 Aug 1893, p. 5 . Emphasis added.

²⁶   Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, (NSW), Thu 10 Aug 1893, pp. 3, 4 . Emphasis added.

---