1891, William Henry Taylor

Below also see: William Henry Taylor, 1898,
William Henry Taylor, 1913

The Glen Innes Examiner, Tue 15 Sep 1891 ¹

GLEN INNES SESSIONS.
————
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11.
(Before His Honor Judge Fitzhardinge.)

…
The Court was then adjourned till 9 o’clock [Saturday] the following morning.
…

INDECENT ASSAULT.

The case against Taylor, of Bear Hill, for indecent assault, was adjourned till the next Court, in consequence of the absence of a material witness.

JURORS FINED.

The following jurors were fined £2 each for non-attendance:—W Kennedy, Ben Lomond; B Devlin, Glenmore; C Bloxsome, Ranger’s Valley; W Greave, Mount Mitchell.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 22 Sep 1891 ²

NEW ENGLAND.

…

(Glen Innes Guardian, Sept 18.)

The Glen Innes Court of Quarter Sessions opened on Friday before his Honor District Court Judge Fitzhardinge.
…
In the case Regina v. Taylor, the accused was charged with alleged indecent assault, Mr Garland, who appeared for the defence, applied for a remand until next Court. The counsel represented that a material witness was absent. The remand was granted, and the accused allowed bail, himself £300 and two sureties in £150 each.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 13 Jan 1892 ³

GLEN INNES QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
(By Telegraph.)
(From Our Correspondent.)
———

Glen Innes, Tuesday.

His Honor, Judge Fitzhardinge, presided at the Quarter Sessions to-day. William Henry Taylor, who was remanded from the last Court, was found guilty of attempting to carnally known Jane Thomson, a girl under 14 years of age, and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment in Armidale Gaol.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Glen Innes Examiner, Tue 19 Jan 1892 ⁴

GLEN INNES SESSIONS.
————
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12.
(Before His Honor Judge Fitzhardinge.)

CARNALLY KNOWING.

William Henry Taylor, on bail, stood charged (1) with carnally knowing Jane Elizabeth Thompson at Bear Hill on 23rd May, 1891, (2) with attempting to do so, (3) with indecent assault on her, she being at the time over the age of 10 years and under 14.
Mr Garland, instructed by Mr Boyd, appeared for the defence, and Mr Browning prosecuted for the Crown.
Accused challenged six jurymen.
The Crown Prosecutor having opened the case called.

Constable Kelly, stationed at Kookarabooka, [sic–current spelling– Kookabookra, which is near Bear Hill] who deposed that he first received information of the offence in question on 21st June; on the 22nd he went to Bear Hill and questioned the girl in the presence of her father; she made a certain statement and showed him some clothing stained now produced; he then proceeded to interview Taylor; the latter acknowledged he knew the constable’s mission, but said “What is the charge?”; witness then arrested him on a charge of rape on Jane Thompson; Taylor said, “All right, they’ll have to prove it”; witness walked with the prisoner to Kookarabooka, a distance of five miles, and accused said nothing regarding the charge on the way.

Jane Thomson [sic] deposed that she lived with her brother at Bear Hill and looked after the smaller children; Taylor used to work on the mines and also taught dancing, sometimes at his own place and sometimes at the hall; she stayed at the hall skating till 11 o’clock on the night of the 23rd May; she left the hall with Amelia Dawson and her little sister, and walked with them as far as Dawson’s, and then went homewards by the track she usually went; she saw Pierce on the way; she could also see Taylor behind her after she left Dawson’s; he called out to Pierce, “Is Jack Thompson at home, I want to get a bridle from him”; Pierce said he did not know; Taylor then called out to her but she made no answer and kept on her way towards home; Taylor again called out “Is that you, Jane”; he started to run after her and overtook her between Lyons and Pierce’s; he caught her by the arm and made an improper proposal, and she replied, “I want to go home to baby”; he then took her by the cow-yard and committed a certain offence on her; she said nothing, nor did she call out; just as she and Taylor were leaving Pierce sang out, “Good shot, Billy Taylor, and a married man too”; Pierce was behind a heap of bushes; witness then started home and Pierce made an improper request; she replied, “Not to-night,” and went home to bed; she said nothing about the matter till her aunt, Mrs Pierce, spoke to her about it, and then her aunt, Mrs Giles, was called over and she told her.

By Mr Garland: She used to look after her brothers and sisters when she did not go [to] the skating rink; she remembered Taylor’s marriage and remembered learning dancing from him before and after; Taylor only came to the hall shortly before the witness started home on the night of the offence; witness denied telling Mrs Dawson she told the constable anything about Taylor and another girl; she had been asked to say nothing about her evidence, and let Taylor down light; Pierce had never carried on in an improper way with her; Hyde was present in the hall.

By Mr Browning: Accused had not spoken to her since the charge.

M[at] R Pierce, a miner at Bear Hill, deposed he lived with his parents; on the way from the skating rink on 23rd May at about midnight he saw Jane Thompson on her road home; Taylor came up behind and asked him something about her brother; Taylor then called out to the girl, and went off over the hill with her towards the cow-yard; he went after them and witnessed the offence; he said “Good shot, Taylor—and a married man too”, it was a bright moonlight night and he was about 20 yards away; Taylor then came up to him and said “For God’s sake, Mat, don’t say anything of this”; witness said he would not, and Taylor shook hands; Taylor told the girl to go home, and she asked witness not to tell her brother, and seemed frightened and was sobbing; she then went home.

By Mr Garland: He used to skate and was in the hall on the night in question; had known Jane Thompson about two years, and believed she used to skate pretty often; never was intimate with the girl.

Charles Thompson stated that he was a dairy-man at Bear Hill; his wife was dead and he had five children; they were looked after by his sister Jane, who was 14 years old last August; he first heard of the present trouble on 19th June from Mrs Giles.

By Mr Garland: Did not see the prisoner after he was admitted to bail; accused came to witness on 19th June and advised him to have his sister examined by Dr Clayworth and he went to the doctor next day.

Dr [Charles Creasey] Clayworth’s depositions of the examination of the child on the occasion was here tendered by the Crown Prosecutor and was to the effect that although he found no actual indications of the assault having been committed the doctor certified that it may have been done nevertheless.

Mary Jane Giles, aunt to the prosecutrix, first heard of this charge on the 19th June from one of the girls, and in consequence saw Jane Thompson and asked her some questions; she made no complaint, but made a certain statement; did not see the drawers till afterwards; was present when Dr Clayworth examined the girl; the niece showed her some drawers which she thought were the same as those handed to the police; they were stained in the same manner.

Jane Thompson, re-called, said she had not yet arrived at puberty.

Constable Kelly, re-called, tendered a plan showing the distance between the places mentioned; he had a conversation with Mrs Dawson and advised her to have her daughter medically examined; did not remember having spoken to her more than twice on the matter; did not recollect having told her she had better be careful where she landed herself.

For the defence,

William Taylor, the accused, made a statement to the effect that he remembered the 23rd May; he was playing in a cricket match, and in the evening skating took place in the hall instead of dancing as had been intended; he had been asked to play for the dance; W Archibald and others came to his house and they had a jollification; he then went to the hall with Archibald; Hyde was also there; he remained until it was closed, and waited for his wife, who came out with Hyde; Archibald wished them good-night; Hyde remained at witness’ house till 1 am; he emphatically denied the charge laid against him and had no idea why it was brought; people had tried to rake up other charges against him at Bear Hill but had failed to sustain them.

Joseph Archibald, miner, Bear Hill, deposed he had known the prisoner for two years, and he always bore the best of characters; he remembered the cricket match on 23rd May; he did not play himself, but was about the town in the evening; went over to Taylor’s to get him to play for a dance, and they went to the hall together at 8 o’clock; also went home with him but did not go inside, but witness’ brother did; Taylor’s wife is a young woman and they have one child; it was his custom to practise music at Taylor’s.

By Mr Browning: He saw Mrs Taylor getting ready to go to the dance; he did not know whether there was a light in the house when they returned; Mrs Taylor accompanied them back; he then went home and did not see them again; did not see Hyde that evening.

WC Archibald, miner, Bear Hill, said he had known Taylor 12 months, and worked in the same mine as him, and he always bore a good character; on the night of 23rd May saw him at the hall at 8 o’clock, and did not see him leave; witness went down the street, and about 9 o’clock saw Taylor back at his own place again and also his wife, witness’ brother and others; they reheared [sic] music until 10 or 11 o’clock; about 11 Taylor and witness went to the hall; Taylor went in but witness did not; saw him again at 12 as the hall was closing up; witness, Taylor and his wife, and Hyde walked home together; stayed there about quarter of an hour and then went home between 11 and 12; did not see the accused skating in the hall.

By Mr Browning: His house was about 100 yards from Taylor’s; Mrs Taylor was coming from her own place when they met her; when witness came to the hall the people seemed to be all going home; did not see Jane Thompson, Cissy Dawson, or Mat Pierce inside or out of the hall; first heard of the charge about two months after; was away in Uralla for a week in June, and had heard of no charge before going away.

Amelia Dawson, aged 12½ years, residing at Bear Hill, deposed she knew Jane Thompson and Taylor; she was at the music hall skating on the night before Queen’s Birthday; she left the hall with Janey and her little brother; Janey went home with them, and witness did not see her afterwards. (His Honor here disallowed a question as to whether Taylor ever took liberties with witness.) It was a fact that she had been examined by a doctor; she saw Taylor skating and was one of his pupils; when she and Janey came out of the hall they did not stay on the verandah; witness had her little sister with her; it was nearly 12 o’clock; saw Taylor talking to Jack Hyde; saw Janey go homewards by the track she could go two or three ways home.

John Hyde failed to appear on being called, and Mr Boyd’s clerk swore to the subpœna being served.

Mr Garland, in addressing the jury, which he did at considerable length, animadverted on the terrible laxity of morals that seemed to prevail at Bear Hill, and the girl Thompson he characterised as prurient-minded.

The Crown Prosecutor, in reply, drew attention to the way accused acted when charged; he expected it, and said no word for a long time during a walk with the arresting constable. The girl Thompson he acknowledged was evidently not a virtuous maiden. The contention of his learned friend as to the prisoner being of such delicate fibre as not to bring his wife into Court as witness to his innocence he characterised as sophistry. He then referred to the fact that the prisoner never had been placed on oath to speak to his own character, and he was safe from cross questioning in the prisoner’s dock. As to Hyde, had he given false evidence he knew that he was liable to 14 years’, and consequently he stayed away. He argued that the evidence of the witnesses for the defence actually strengthened the case for the Crown. The girl’s character was certainly the reverse of pure, but he held this was a crime it behoved civilised folk to stamp out, and on the evidence he well knew the jury must bring in a verdict of guilty.

His Honor summed up strongly in disfavor of prisoner.
The jury having found the prisoner guilty on the second count—that of attempt—he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment in Armidale gaol.

William Henry Taylor, 1898

The Hillgrove Guardian and New England Mining Gazette, Sat 8 Oct 1898 ⁵

SMALL DEBTS COURT.
———◦———

Thursday.—Before Messrs EK Brown and HT Ibberson-Tubbs, J’sP.

WH Taylor v. T Godwin, claim 25s, balance of account. No appearance defendant; verdict for amount and costs, 5s.
CD Murgatroyd v Jas Baker, claim £1 9s 10d less 20s paid; no appearance defendant; verdict for amount claimed and costs, 5s.
Same v. Ed Bindley, claim £1 8s 10d, balance of account; no appearance defendant, verdict for amount claimed and costs, 5s.
The Magill v Jas Walsh, amount of promisory note, £9 15s 3d, dishonoured; no appearance of defendant; verdict for amount claimed and costs, 5s.
John Herbert v John Taylor, claim £2 6s 3d for goods supplied and work done; defendant admitted the debt except £1, which he said he had paid without getting a receipt; verdict for amount claimed and costs, 5s; ordered to pay 20s to-day, 20s on October 22, and balance a fortnight after that.

WH Taylor v James Seymour, balance due on purchase of house, £9. Mr S Kear appeared for defendant, who pleaded “not indebted”. Plaintiff produced receipt for £8 15s, money lent by him to TW Jones, also a receipt for £12 from Mrs Jones, he received £1 back from Mrs Jones, he received £1 back from Mrs Jones, he also took a receipt for £20 from Mrs Jones. Defendant on oath stated that some time ago he told plaintiff that he was looking for a house, the latter said that he had the very thing to suit for £20. He offered £15, plaintiff went away to see Mrs Jones, and coming back again, said, “it’s all right, Jem, you can have the place for £20, £10 down and £10 in 12 months.” He paid the £10 and Mr Jones afterwards told him that Taylor only paid £11 for the house. Defendant then gave plaintiff £1, and positively refused to give him any more as he considered that he had been swindled. Mrs Jones gave evidence to the effect that when plaintiff brought her the £12 she gave him £1 for his trouble. Mr Kearney addressed the bench, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Armidale Chronicle, Wed 26 Oct 1898 ⁶

INNOCENT AT LAST.
————
Convicted for a Horrible
Assault.
———
Another Victim of a Child’s
Evidence.
———
After Eight Years’ Silence
Conscience Asserts Itself
and the Girl Declares the
Man Innocent.
———

A little over eight years ago, a man named Wm Henry Taylor was charged before Judge Fitzhardinge at Glen Innes with rape on a girl about 13 years of age. The jury, after hearing the evidence, brought in a verdict of guilty on the minor court [sic] of “an attempt to carnally know a girl under the age of 14 years.” The Judge, in whose mind some doubt must have arisen, passed the remarkably light sentence of 18 months’ hard labour in Armidale Gaol. Despite the verdict, Taylor’s wife, to whom he had been married only four months, and his friends believed thoroughly in his innocence, which he at all times also protested. However, there was no help for him and to gaol he went. The rest of the story we will relate in his own words. “When I went to gaol, it was terrible knowing I was an innocent man; a lot of my fellow prisoners tried to cheer me up, but it was of no avail. My wife, who had stuck to me all through, used to visit me once a month, and I had to speak to her through a grating as if I was a wild beast. Every time I saw her was like a stab in the heart. At last my time was finished and I was discharged. I tried, as I thought successfully, to live down the terrible stain on my character, but a few weeks ago in a civil action [see Hillgrove small debt court report above] it was dragged into light again. Hearing the girl was in Armidale I succeeded in seeing here [sic], and when she saw me she turned pale, and asked me to forgive her the wrong she did me. I said I had forgiven her; all I wanted her to do was to set me right in the eyes of the world. She said her conscience had been tormenting her ever since, and her only thought was, how she would repair the terrible injury she had done me. I consulted my solicitor, who advised me to obtain a declaration from her declaring my innocence, which declaration she at once made, and is now in my possession, and I give you a copy for publication.”

The following is the declaration:
I, —— , of Armidale, in the colony of New South Wales, spinster, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm as follows:—
1. That William Henry Taylor, of Hillgrove, in the said colony, miner, but formerly of Glen Innes, was, at the Quarter Sessions holden at Glen Innes, before Judge Fitzhardinge some eight years ago, convicted of an attempt to carnally know a girl under the age of 14 years, and sentenced to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment.
2. I am the person that the offence was alleged to have been committed upon, being then the age of 13 years, I am now of the age of 21 years.
3. At the trial I gave evidence against the said William Henry Taylor to the effect that he attempted to commit the said offence upon me, which evidence was incorrect.
4. The said William Henry Taylor was entirely innocent of the said offence, and I am making this declaration in order to clear him of the stain cast upon him by the said conviction.

And I make this solemn declaration as to the matters aforesaid according to the law in this behalf made and subject to the punishment by law provided in case of any wilfully false statement contained in such declaration.

Signed before DP Claverie, Commissioner for Affidavits.

How many more men are there in New South Wales who are suffering incarceration on these terrible charges, many being simply the outcome of a distorted mind and an excited imagination others the victims of perjured women who seek notoriety. Let us hope Suffield will have such a complete vindication as Mr WH Taylor.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Barrier Miner, Wed 26 Oct 1898 ⁷

A WRONG RIGHTED.
———◦———
An Innocent Man Imprisoned.
————
(By Telegraph.)

Sydney, Wednesday.

Eight years ago William Henry Taylor, charged at the Glen Innes Quarter Sessions before Judge Fitzhardinge and was found guilty of attempting improper intimacy with a girl under the age of 14 years. He was sentenced to 18 months’ gaol. Taylor all along protested his innocence, and his wife, whom he had married only four months before the charge was laid, also strongly believed in the innocence of her husband. Taylor, since his release, had been residing at Hillgrove. A few weeks ago Taylor had to appear in a civil case. Hearing that the girl whom he was accused of wronging was in Armidale, he visited her. Taylor states that on seeing him the girl turned pale and asked him to forgive her for the wrong she had done. He replied that he had forgiven her, but wanted her now to speak out and set him right in the eyes of the world. The girl replied that her conscience had troubled her since the trial, and she had often wondered how she could repair the terrible injury she had done. Taylor then consulted a solicitor—Mr Claverie, of Armidale—and the latter, in the presence of the girl, drew up a statutory declaration setting forth that the evidence given in the Glen Innes court against Taylor was incorrect, and that Taylor was innocent of the charge then laid against him.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Daily Telegraph, Wed 26 Oct 1898 ⁸

AFTER MANY YEARS.
———◦———
INNOCENCE VINDICATED.
————
A NEW ENGLAND CASE.

ARMIDALE, Tuesday.—A little over eight years ago, Wm Henry Taylor was charged, at Glen Innes, before Judge Fitzhardinge, and found guilty of attempting improper intimacy with a girl under 14, and was sentenced to 18 months’ hard labor in Armidale Gaol. Taylor all along protested his innocence. His wife, to whom he was married four months before the charge, also believed in the innocence of her husband. Taylor has been residing at Hillgrove some years. A few weeks ago, in a civil case before the police court, Hillgrove, he was reminded that he had served a sentence. Hearing that the girl whom he was accused of wrongdoing was in Armidale, he visited here. Taylor states that, on seeing him, the girl turned pale, and asked him to forgive her the wrong she had done to him. He said that he had forgiven her, and wanted her to speak out, and set him right in the eyes of the world. The girl replied that her conscience had troubled her ever since the trial, and she often wondered how she could repair the terrible injury she had done. Taylor consulted a solicitor, Mr DP Claverie, of Armidale, and in the latter’s presence the girl signed a statutory declaration, setting forth that the evidence given at the Glen Innes Court by herself against Taylor was incorrect, and that Taylor was innocent of the charge she made. The declaration clears Taylor of a terrible stain on his character caused by the conviction.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Singleton Argus, Thu 27 Oct 1898 ⁹

AFTER MANY YEARS.
———◦———
A Man’s Innocence Vindicated.
————
A New England Case.
————

A little over eight years ago, Wm Henry Taylor was charged, at Glen Innes, before Judge Fitzhardinge, and found guilty of attempting improper intimacy with a girl under 14, and was sentenced to 18 months’ hard labor in Armidale gaol. Taylor all along protested his innocence. His wife, to whom he was married four months before the charge, also believed in the innocence of her husband. Taylor has been residing at Hillgrove some years. A few weeks ago, in a civil case before the police court, Hillgrove, he was reminded that he had served a sentence. Hearing that the girl whom he was accused of wronging was in Armidale, he visited her. Taylor states that, on seeing him, the girl tuned pale, and asked him to forgive her the wrong she had done to him. He said that he had forgiven her, and wanted her to speak out, and set him right in the eyes of the world. The girl replied that her conscience had troubled her ever since the trial, and she often wondered how she could repair the terrible injury she had done. Taylor consulted a solicitor, Mr DP Claverie, of Armidale, and in the latter’s presence the girl signed a statutory declaration, setting forth that the evidence given at the Glen Innes Court by herself against Taylor was incorrect, and that Taylor was innocent of the charge she made. The declaration cleared Taylor of a terrible stain on his character caused by the conviction.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Armidale Chronicle, Sat 29 Oct 1898 ¹⁰

INNOCENT AT LAST.
————

In our last issue we gave some startling particulars of Mr WH Taylor’s case, under the above heading. In its Wednesday’s issue the Daily Telegraph has a paragraph on the same subject headed “After Many years.” We are now enabled to give a brief history of the case from the pen of a Bear Hill man, who was living there at the time of the alleged offence, which runs as follows:—Mr WH Taylor’s (or “Billy” Taylor, as he was familiarly known) case is fresh in the minds of a number of persons in this district, as well as in the memory of the present writer. Previous to the arrest of Taylor, it was commonly reported that a crime, of the nature of the one with which he was charged, had been committed upon the girl in question, and loud rumour declared that another girl, of even more tender years, had been similarly maltreated. Be this as it may, only one case was dealt with, and not then until about a month after the commission of the alleged offence. Excitement ran high in the then busy little mining township when the news of Taylor’s arrest was voiced abroad, for, although the inhabitants had for some time been on the qui vive for an arrest, it came as a shock to many when it became known that Taylor, whose character had previously been without blemish, had been charged. Constable Kelly effected the arrest, and conveyed the accused to the Kookabookara [sic] lockup, where he was kept in durance vile for some weeks awaiting a hearing. During these weeks, when opportunity offered, Taylor was visited by a number of the leading residents of Bear Hill, and was the recipient of small presents from kindly-disposed persons, who thus thought to lighten the burden of an enforced retirement upon a man they regarded as innocent of the terrible crime with which he was charged. Foremost among Taylor’s visitors was his four-months wife—a youthful and prepossessing girl—whose faith in her husband did not falter then, nor through the many other hardships that he had the misfortune to pass; she traversed the distance between Bear Hill and Kookabookara—about five miles—generally on foot, two or three times a week, with a view to cheering the man she had taken for better or worse, this and her subsequent attachment to her husband during times of bitter trial was most praiseworthy, and it is a pity that there are no more woman [sic] of her stamp in this vale of tears. The Police Court hearing was before Mr G Martin, PM, who committed Taylor for trial, bail being fixed at the formidable sum of £600, and as he was immediately removed to Glen Innes, where he was unknown, bail was not forthcoming; after three months incarceration he was at last brought before a Judge, where, owing to the absence of a youthful witness (they were nearly all children), he was remanded for another three months. Upon Taylor’s application the amount of bail was reduced to £300, and a few days after, having secured the bail, he was liberated, Messrs D McIntyre and T Jones (both of Glen Innes) being the sureties. Mrs Taylor was present at that, as well as the final trial, and upon her return to Bear Hill rented their house and sold their effects, and had just finished fixing up her husband’s prospecting tent—wherein she meant to dwell to save expense—when to her surprise he turned up late in the afternoon on the Glen Innes coach. Next morning Taylor resumed his labours in the same mine and under the same management as before, and continued in that employ until the time of his trial came on. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and Judge Fitzhardinge, in whose mind a strong doubt of guilt was evidently paramount, said that the sentence would be the lightest permitted by law, namely, 18 months in Armidale gaol. When asked about Taylor’s previous character, the arresting constable stated that Taylor was an example to the other men on the field. It was always regarded as an unfortunate circumstance for Taylor that Dr Clayworth’s untimely death ¹¹ (he was killed by a fall from his horse) occurred before the trial. Mrs Taylor then removed to Armidale to be near her husband, (whom she was allowed to see—behind the bars—once a month), and her struggle for existence was an arduous and trying one, as their limited finances had become exhausted, owing to the numerous disbursements consequent upon the trial; she was forced to seek employment, with her tiny baby in her arms, and the unvarying question with which she was met by her presumably sympathetic sex was, “Where’s your husband?” However, she struggled on until his release; when (Taylor has since told the writer) they had to face the world anew with 16s between them, and the stain of a crime which has only now, after 8 or 9 years, been washed away by the voluntary declaration of the girl to the effect that the evidence she gave against him was incorrect. This action on the girl’s part is laudable in the extreme, and yet it is a pity she had not seen her way to take it years ago; but when her tender age (she is now only 21) is taken into consideration it will be admitted that her womanhood has triumphed over the sin of infancy; and people—not too prone to censure—will readily forgive the fault of her childhood in view of the noble action of her budding womanhood. At the time of Taylor’s release Bear Hill was a “deserted village” otherwise it was his intention to return thither, where he had worked as a miner and taught a music and dancing class. However, as Hillgrove was in full blast he obtained work and has since continued to live a respectable life working at mining in the day and teaching the violin at night. Recently, however, in a civil case, an attorney questioned him regarding his old time sentence, upon which he is said to have sought out the girl (whom he had out [sic] seen since the trial) with the happy result of which the public have already been apprised through your columns.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Clarence and Richmond Examiner, Sat 29 Oct 1898 ¹²

FACTS AND RUMOURS.
———◦———

…
A HARD CASE.—An instance in which conscience asserted itself, after an interval of eight years, has at last come to light. Eight years ago a man named Wm Henry Taylor was charged before Judge Fitzhardinge, at Glen Innes, with rape on a girl about 13 years of age. The jury, after hearing the evidence, brought in a verdict of guilty on the minor count of “an attempt to carnally know a girl under the age of 14 years.” the judge, in whose mind some doubt must have arisen, passed the remarkably light sentence of 18 months. Despite the verdict, Taylor’s wife, to whom he had been married only four months, and his friends believed thoroughly in his innocence, which he at all times also protested. When discharged, I tried to live down the terrible on my character; but a few weeks ago, in a civil action, it was dragged into light again. Hearing the girl was in Armidale I succeeded in seeing her, and when she saw me she turned pale, and asked me to forgive her the wrong she did me. I said I had forgiven her; all I wanted her to do was to set me right in the eyes of the world. She said her conscience had been tormenting her ver since, and her only thought was, how she would repair the terrible injury she had done me. The girl then, at Taylor’s request, made an affidavit declaring him entirely innocent of the offence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Hillgrove Guardian and New England Mining Gazette, Sat 5 Nov 1898 ¹³

PROCLAMATION OF THE INNOCENCE
OF A MAN AND THE PERJURY
OF A WOMAN PROCLAIMED.
———◦———

A little over eight years ago, a man named Wm Henry Taylor was charged before Judge Fitzhardinge at Glen Innes with rape on a girl about 13 years of age. The jury, after hearing the evidence, brought in a verdict of guilty on the minor charge of “an attempt to carnally know a girl under the age of 14 years.” The Judge, in whose mind some doubt must have arisen, passed the remarkably light sentence of 18 months’ hard labour in Armidale Gaol. Despite the verdict, Taylor’s wife, to whom he had been married only four months, and his friends believed thoroughly in his innocence, which he at all times also protested. However, there was no help for him, and to gaol he went. The rest of the story we (Armidale Chronicle) will relate in his own words:—“When I went to gaol, it was terrible knowing I was an innocent man; a lot of my fellow prisoners tried to cheer me up, but it was of no avail. My wife, who had stuck to me all through, used to visit me once a month, and I had to speak to her through a grating as if I was a wild beast. Every time I saw her was like a stab in the heart. At last my time was finished and I was discharged. I tried, as I thought successfully, to live down the terrible stain on my character, but a few weeks ago in a civil action it was dragged into light again. Hearing the girl was in Armidale I succeeded in seeing her, and when she saw me she turned pale, and asked me to forgive her the wrong she did me, I said I had forgiven her; all I wanted her to do was to set me right in the eyes of the world. She said her conscience had been tormenting her ever since, and her only thought was, how she would repair the terrible injury she had done me. I consulted my solicitor, who advised me to obtain a declaration from her declaring my innocence, which declaration she at once made, and it is now in my possession. It is as follows:—

“I, —— , of Armidale, in the colony of New South Wales, spinster, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm as follow: 1. That William Henry Taylor, of Hillgrove, in the said colony, miner, but formerly of Glen Innes was at the Quarter Sessions holden in Glen Innes, before Judge Fitzhardinge some eight years ago convicted of an attempt to carnally know a girl under the age of 14 years, and sentenced to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment. 2. I am the person that the offence was alleged to have been committed upon, being then of the age of 13 years, I am now of the age of 21 years. 3. At the trial I gave evidence against the said William Henry Taylor to the effect that he attempted to commit the said offence upon me, which evidence was incorrect. 4. The said William Henry Taylor was entirely innocent of the said offence, and I am making this declaration in order to clear him of the stain case upon him be the said conviction.

William Henry Taylor, 1913

The Richmond River Express and Casino Kyogle Advertiser, Fri 21 Mar 1913 ¹⁴

INTERESTING ITEMS.
————

…
William H Taylor, music teacher, of Urunga, Bellinger Heads, known as Professor Taylor, has been committed for trial at the Grafton Sessions on April 1st for an alleged serious offence. Bail in £200 was not forthcoming. This makes the fifth similar case for the Grafton Sessions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Grafton Argus, Wed 2 Apr 1913 ¹⁵

GRAFTON QUARTER SESSIONS.
———★———
TUESDAY, 1st APRIL, 1913.
———

The Grafton Quarter Sessions were opened at the Court House yesterday morning. His Honor Judge Edmunds presiding. The members of the Bar present were Messrs RJ Browning (Crown Prosecutor) and JC Gannon, KC. Solicitors in attendance were Messrs F McGuren, AJ Pollack, DJ Lobban, RC Law, RD Bawden, and T McL Lobban (Maclean).
A number of absentees, who had been summoned as jurors, were, for various reasons, excused by His Honor for non-attendance.
…

ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT.
———

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Clarence and Richmond Examiner, Thu 3 Apr 1913 ¹⁶

QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———

THIS Court was opened at Grafton on Tuesday before his Honor Judge Edmunds. Mr RJ Browning attended as Crown Prosecutor.
Several jurors were excused on the ground of illness or other reasons, as testified to by evidence, or explained by affidavit.
…

INDECENT ASSAULT.

William Henry Taylor was charged with unlawfully assaulting Joseph McNally at Bellingen on 8th March. Accused pleaded not guilty and was defended by Messrs McGuren and Pollack.
Jury: FH Tuckey, Jas Lee, Adolphus Smith, William H Barnier, JG Phillips, Wm Durrington, Robt Irving, FT Doberer, Jas Bannon, Wm Yardy, M Larney, AH Spring.
The details of this case are unfit for publication, and by desire of the judge, the casual listeners at the court filed out.
The lad alleged to have been assaulted, 11 years of age, gave evidence of the assault committed on him by Professor Taylor (accused), who was connected with a circus.
The jury, after a retirement of twenty minutes, returned a verdict of acquittal.
The court adjourned at 9.50 pm to 10 am on Wednesday.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Brisbane Courier, Fri 4 Apr 1913 ¹⁷

GRAFTON QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———

Grafton, April 3.

The Quarter Sessions concluded yesterday. James Dix, for forging and uttering, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. William Henry Taylor, charged with having committed an indecent assault at Bellingen, was acquitted. Clarence B Knight, charged with having committed an indecent assault at Lawrence, was acquitted. Joseph Penn, charged with having committed an indecent assault at Grafton, was acquitted. Two cases were postponed to the next court.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Grafton Argus, Fri 4 Apr 1913 ¹⁸

GRAFTON QUARTER SESSIONS.
———★———
TUESDAY, APRIL 1.
———

Before His Honor, Judge Edmunds.

ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT.
———

William Henry Taylor, known as Professor Taylor, described as a music teacher, pleaded not guilty to committing an indecent assault upon a male person, aged eleven years and ten months, at Bellingen, on March 8 last.
Mr F McGuren (with him Mr AJ Pollack) for accused.
The following jury were empannelled:—Alfred Henry Spring, James Bannon, Frank Harmiston Tuckey, James Lee, Adolphus Smith, William H Barnier, John G Phillips, William Durrington, Robert Irving, Frederick T Doberer, William Yardy, Matthew Larney.
Accused did not challenge any of the jurors. The remainder of the jurors were allowed off till ten am next morning.
His Honor made the same request “to all decent people,” as in the former case, and the full Court emptied completely of the general public.
The Crown Prosecutor stated that the offence had occurred after a circus performance in Bellingen. He would call evidence that a man saw the accused and the lad at the side of the tent.

The lad [Joseph Francis McNally, aka McAnally] gave evidence, and the Crown Prosecutor tendered a shilling with a hole in it as part of his case.

Mr McGuren’s cross-examination was designed to prove that the lad was a consenting party, and that he was somewhat unruly. The lad was not shaken into admitting several of the essential points which Mr McGuren pressed.

A cousin of the lad gave evidence of seeing the two together at the performance. He was not cross-examined.

The mother of the lad deposed to his return home late, sobbing. He told her something.

Recalled, witness said that there was so suggestion on her part of any conspiracy; there was no animus, before, against the Taylor family.

Senior Constable Stein also gave evidence.

The accused [William Henry Taylor] entered the box on his own behalf and deposed that he was a married man, living for ten years in the Bellingen district. He denied seeing the boy after the circus performance at all; he was with a Mr Walker.

By the Crown Prosecutor: I say there is a conspiracy by the boy, the mother and the constable. When I sold-off my house, in December, my wife went to Sydney. I was fined twenty shillings for riotous behaviour in Bellingen, and twenty shillings for obscene language in Urunga two days before the circus. I gravely say there is a conspiracy. Yes, I was sentenced to eighteen months for attempted carnally knowing a girl under fourteen years in Glen Innes on twelfth January, 1892; that also was a conspiracy.

To Mr McGuren: That was twenty one years ago; the girl, when she reached twenty-one years, made a statutory declaration, that he (witness) was innocent, and the Armidale “Express” and the “Daily Telegraph” commented on the fact. He went back to; practically, the same district to resume his work.

Evidences of character were put in.

The Crown Prosecutor, in re-examination, elicited that, when the police came to him and asked him to re-open the case in which he was afterwards cleared he declined, as the former case ruined him; he would take no action for perjury, but if the police liked to do so he would give them every assistance.

Edward Walker, a selector, deposed to meeting accused within two minutes after the circus was over and was in an hotel with him till closing time. The boy had once taken witness’ horse away for a ride, and then told witness that the owner of the horse had lent it; witness then told him the horse was his property (witness’).

By Mr Browning: Knew no reason why there would be any conspiracy.

A witness named Reynolds deposed to being given a message for the police by the mother late on the night of the alleged incident.

The Court adjourned at 6.20, and resumed at 8.5 pm. The Court was now nearly full, the evidence being over.

The jury (Mr JG Phillips, foreman) returned to hear the addresses. First, Mr Phillips said the jury would like to ask the mother how much money the boy had that night and of what denomination it was (before the circus performance). The mother replied that the lad had no money so far as she knew; she had refused to give him money to go to the circus.

Other questions to the witness Reynolds elicited the reply that the two persons he saw outside the tent late that night were males. Mr McGuren jumped up at this and said the witness’ memory was just brightening up; he hadn’t said that much before. Reynolds then answered “they were of medium height.”

To the Crown Prosecutor: Had no “down” upon the accused, nor did he known anything about a conspiracy.

Other answers were that the circus was well-lighted and the performance was over between 10.30 and 10.45 pm.

Mr McGuren commenced his address by commenting upon the improbabilities of the boy’s description of the movements of accused and himself before and after the alleged offence. Then, again, did the boy (who left home without any money but returned with 1s 6d, after paying to get into the circus) do anything wrong that night, get money somewhere, and return home with a trumped-up tale on Taylor?

The Crown Prosecutor replied that if the evidence of children was not to be believed, then opportunities arose for blackguards. These offences were not committed when people were about, though. What motive could the boy or anyone else have to conspire against accused, or to trump-up such a story. Walker’s”alibi” could be discounted, because accused said nothing of being with Walker when Senior-constable Stein arrested him. There was a circus on the following Saturday night; Walker may have made a mistake about the night; he only was sure it was “a” Saturday night.

His Honor summed up. The strength of the Crown case was that it was inconceivable that a bush boy of twelve could invent this story. There was no proof of animus. But the only certain corroboration of the boy’s story was the incident which occurred in the circus, where there wasn’t anything criminal shown. Unless they disbelieved Walker’s evidence they must find in favour of accused. When arrested, accused probably thought of the “conspiracy” of twenty-one years ago, and that incident may have preyed on his mind to the exclusion of the “alibi.” Which, though, was the more likely to be depraved, the boy or the man?

The summing-up occupied thirty-five minutes.
The jury retired at 9.35 pm and returned at 9.50 with a verdict of “not guilty.”
Taylor was discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Clarence and Richmond Examiner, Sat 5 Apr 1913 ¹⁹

THE COURTS.

THE time allotted for the Quarter Sessions and District Court at Grafton this week has proved insufficient, and with this experience, it is expedient that in future a longer period be allowed the judge to deal with the business. Scarcely three days were given on this occasion for the Sessions and civil court., and had there not been a postponement of three cases on the calendar the District Court would probably not have been entered upon. His Honor sat till 11 pm on Wednesday in order, if possible, to get through the business in sufficient time to leave Grafton for Casino by afternoon train on Thursday, but found that he was unable to do so, and one of the cases had to be postponed. This causes vexatious disappointment and expense to suitors, while it is hardly fair in theses eight-hour times to expect judges, members of the legal profession and court officials, to work to nearly midnight in order to clear the lists in the unnecessarily restricted time allowed. The proper administration of justice demands that the business should not be rushed through, and in fixing the dates of the courts it would be advisable to allow ample time to adjudicate, and dispense altogether with night sittings.

¹ The Glen Innes Examiner, Tue 15 Sep 1891, p. 2.

² The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 22 Sep 1891, p. 6.

³ The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 13 Jan 1892, p. 6.

⁴ The Glen Innes Examiner, Tue 19 Jan 1892, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁵ The Hillgrove Guardian and New England Mining Gazette, Sat 8 Oct 1898, p. 3. Emphasis added.

⁶ The Armidale Chronicle, Wed 26 Oct 1898, p. 5.

⁷ Barrier Miner, Wed 26 Oct 1898, p. 2.

⁸ The Daily Telegraph, Wed 26 Oct 1898, p. 5.

⁹ Singleton Argus, Thu 27 Oct 1898, p. 3.

¹⁰ The Armidale Chronicle, Sat 29 Oct 1898, p. 5.

¹¹ The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, Tue 28 Jul 1891 p. 3. Emphasis added.

“NEW ENGLAND
(Glen Innes Guardian, July 24.)

Two fatal and distressing accidents occurred in the district last week. In the one case Dr Clayworth, an old and respected resident lost his life, and in the other a man named Chisholm,, a resident of the district for nearly a lifetime, met his death. The accident of Dr Clayworth happened in this way: The doctor was in the act of mounting his horse when his foot became entangled in the saddle. The awkward position of the rider frightened the horse, and the animal jumped about in a violent manner. The doctor was thrown, and he fell with such force to break his back. The misfortune happened at Kookabookra, and assistance was immediately forthcoming. Medical assistance was secured, but all to no purpose, as, after lingering for a few days, the poor gentleman died. The late r Clayworth was well-known and highly respected, and the sincerest regret is felt for Mrs Clayworth in her sad and distressing bereavement.”

¹² Clarence and Richmond Examiner, Sat 29 Oct 1898, p. 5.

¹³ The Hillgrove Guardian and New England Mining Gazette, Sat 5 Nov 1898, p. 2.

¹⁴ The Richmond River Express and Casino Kyogle Advertiser, (NSW), Fri 21 Mar 1913, p. 7.

¹⁵ The Grafton Argus, Wed 2 Apr 1913, pp. 2, 3.

¹⁶ Clarence and Richmond Examiner, Thu 3 Apr 1913, p. 2.

¹⁷ The Brisbane Courier, Fri 4 Apr 1913, p. 6. Emphasis added.

¹⁸ The Grafton Argus, Fri 4 Apr 1913, p. 6. Emphasis added.

¹⁹ Clarence and Richmond Examiner, Sat 5 Apr 1913, p. 5.

Indecent Assault