Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 11 Nov 1904 1
LAMBTON POLICE COURT.
———◦———
Thursday, November 10th.
————
(Before Mr Mears, DSM.)
————
…
COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
Henry Smith, a youth, about 15 years of age, was charged on an information laid by Constable Robertson with committing a serious assault on Percy Harold Whitehead, aged 11 years, at Lambton, on the 23rd September, 1904. Sub-Inspector McVane prosecuted, and Mr TA Braye appeared for the accused.
Constable Robertson, stationed at New Lambton, stated that when he charged the accused at his father’s place he said he never touched the boy Whitehead. Accused afterwards said he pushed the boy for giving him cheek.
To Mr Braye: When the boy’s father complained to witness of his son having been thrashed by the accused on Sunday evening there was no mention made of any other offence having been committed. The assault was only made known to him on Monday. The accused’s mother told him that the Whiteheads had agreed to allow the matter to drop on the payment of £5.
Dr AW Nash said he examined the boy Whitehead on Sunday afternoon at the request of the father. There were several marks on the back of his legs and buttocks, which were swollen and inflamed, but the skin was not broken. A leather strap would cause such injuries.
To Mr Braye: He had also examined the accused, whose actions were childish, and his general appearance and expression suggested that his mental faculties were defective.
To Cub-Inspector McVane: He did not consider the accused insane, and would not state that he was not responsible for his actions without a further examination, but he was certainly somewhat defective in his mind.
Percy Harold Whitehead said his father sent him to Mr Smith’s place at the reservoir on Sunday afternoon, the 23rd of September, to ask if the Minmi pit would work on the following day. When he arrived at the house there was no one at home. He then met a cousin of his, and they sat on the grass about 100 yards from the reservoir. At about half-past four he went again to Smith’s, and was met at the gate by the accused, who telephoned to Minmi and got the reply that there was no work. Witness then left for home, but when near the gate accused called him back, and asked him to see some animals he had in the yard. After they had been talking together a minute or two the accused took hold of him and carried him into the house and flogged him with a strap. He did not count the blows, but he had fourteen marks on his legs. He did not cry out, because accused took hold of his throat every time he tried to. Accused then committed the offence complained of.
After leaving Smith’s house he told Harold Hutton and Mrs Johns that Smith had flogged him, but did not mention anything else.
To Mr Braye: The strap used was a long one used in carrying hampers. He told accused’s mother on Monday night that it was a short black strap that was used, and Mrs Smith said in reply that they had no such strap in the house. They only had long tanned leather parcel straps.
Robert Whitehead stated that when his son returned from Smith’s he was crying. He had twenty bruises on his legs and buttock. The skin was cut in four places. He took the lad to Constable Robertson, and afterwards to Dr Nash. They then went to Smith’s place, and asked the accused why he had thrashed his son. Accused replied that he was sorry he had thrashed the boy, and that he would not do so again.
To Mr Braye: His son was standing beside him when he spoke to the accused, and could hear the answer or admission. If his son had stated differently he was in error. Witness’s statement was absolutely correct. The signature in a letter produced was his. He knew nothing of any demand being made of the sum of £20 to settle the matter. It was Mr Smith, sen, who was supposed to make an offer of some kind. He (witness) never said or suggested to Smith on the Sunday that a payment in money would settle matters.
Herbert Whitehead, Harold Hutton, and Mrs Johns gave evidence for the prosecution. Mrs Johns and Hutton stated that the boy Whitehead showed his legs to them, but did not say anything about any improper act.
Henry Smith, the accused, deposed that on the date mentioned, his father and mother were at Minmi. Witness had been to Wallsend all the afternoon, but returned at about half-past four o’clock in order to measure the water in the tank, which had to be done regularly at five o’clock. While he was at the gate the boy Whitehead, who was then a stranger to him, came up and asked to ascertain if there was any work for Minmi pit on the following day. He unlocked the door, spoke to his brother on the telephone, and returned, and told the lad that the pit would not work on the following day. Whitehead tucked up his trousers and said, “Do you see this? Two low-looking fellows met me at the Lambton bridge, and gave me a thrashing.” Then he said, “This is the third time I have been here to find out about the work, and now there is no work”; also swearing two or three times. Witness pushed him away, and told him to go home. He then took the paper he had in his hand and went to the top of the reservoir to have a read. When interrogated by the police, by his own parents, and the boy’s father, he told them all that he did not beat or act improperly towards the lad.
To the Sub-inspector: The boy never entered the house on the Sunday afternoon. Witness pushed him because he gave him cheek.
Constable Webster, the officer at present in charge of the Lambton station, said when the complaint was made to him he questioned the accused closely, who persisted in his denial, and protestation of innocence. There was nothing said to him about any improper behaviour until the Monday afternoon. The accused was a quiet boy, and of good behaviour.
Mr H Smith, father of the accused, gave evidence for the defence, and said his son had been consistent in his denial that he assaulted the boy Whitehead.
The accused was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions, Newcastle, to be held on the 21st instant. Bail allowed, one surety of £40.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Wed 23 Nov 1904 2
QUARTER SESSIONS COURT.
——–—•———–
The Newcastle Court of Quarter Sessions was continued yesterday before his Honor Judge Fitzhardinge.
——–———–
LAMBTON ASSAULT CASE.
——–
Henry Smith, a youth of about 15 years of age, was presented on a charge of committing a serious assault on Percy Harold Whitehead, a boy, aged 11 years, at Lambton, on 23rd October, 1904. The accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr R Cowan, instructed by Mr TA Braye. The boy Whitehead was sent by by [sic] his father to Mr Smith’s place at the reservoir on the date in question, which was a Sunday afternoon, to inquire if the Minmi pit would be working on the following day. When he arrived at the house there was no one at home. He then met a cousin of his, and they sat on the grass about 100 yards from the reservoir. At about 4.30 he went again to Smith’s, and was met at the gate by the accused, who telephoned, and got a reply that there was no work. When the little boy was near the gate, returning home accused called him back, and asked him to see some animals he had in the yard. After they had been talking together a minute or two the accused took hold of him, carried him into the house, and flogged him with a strap severely, and was alleged to have committed the offence [indecent assault] complained of. Percy Harold Whitehead, examined by the Crown Prosecutor, stated that he did not count the blows, but his father had counted them. He did not cry out, because the accused took hold of his throat.
To Mr Cowan: After leaving Smith’s house he told Harold Hutton and Mrs Johns of the flogging he had received, but did not mention anything else. He told Mrs Smith that it was a short black strap that was used, and Mrs Smith said in reply that they had no such strap in the house. His father took him to Constable Robertson, and later on to Constable Webster, and then to Dr Andrew Nash. It was not until Monday afternoon that he (witness) mentioned the offence. It was not a fact that Smith only gave him a push because he had been cheeky. When he was waken by his father to see Smith, the latter said (in witness’s presence), “I never touched you. You were swearing. I gave you a shove. You were not inside this house at all.” Witness, in reply to Mr W Winn, juryman, said he never said anything about the other particulars to his parents till the next afternoon; he had only told them of the beating. Herbert Whitehead, aged 10 years, Harold Hutton, another boy, and Mrs Johns gave evidence, the two latter stating that Percy Whitehead showed his legs to them, but did not say anything about anything further. Robert Whitehead, a miner, residing at New Lambton, said he sent his son, Percy, away a little after 2 pm and he returned shortly after 5 o’clock crying. The boy made a complaint. He had about twenty bruises on his legs and buttock, and the skin was cut in four places. Witness took the lad to Constable Robertson, and afterwards to Dr A Nash. He and the boy went to Smith’s place, and accused said he was sorry that he had thrashed the boy Percy, and that he would not do it again.
To Mr Cowan: He (witness) had been fined for swearing, for assaulting the police, and for drunkenness. Percy was standing by when the conversation between him and young Smith took place, and could have heard what was said. Smith did not deny thrashing the boy. Mr and Mrs Smith called to see witness at 10 to 12 that Sunday night, and said they would pay all expenses. Witness replied that that was no good for the hammering his boy had received. Mrs Smith and daughter called on the following evening. They were anxious about the affair going to the court, and wanted to settle it. Witness told his wife that he would take £5 to settle the beating. This proposed settlement had nothing to do with the other assault, which was in the hands of the police. It was not true that any demand had been made for £20 after knowledge of the graver offence had been obtained. A letter written by the Smiths, and a reply by Mr Whitehead, were marked for identification. Dr AW Nash deposed to finding on the boy several marks at the back of the legs and buttocks, which were swollen and inflamed, but the skin was not broken.
To Mr Cowan: The strap that caused the injuries would need to be heavier than the hamper straps (produced). Constable Robertson stated that when he charged the accused at his father’s place he said he had never touched the boy Percy Whitehead. This closed the Crown case. The accused, [Henry Smith], on oath, stated that the boy Whitehead, who was then a stranger to him, desired to know if there was any work at the Minmi pit on the following day. He unlocked the door, spoke to his brother at the Minmi reservoir, and informed young Whitehead that there would be no work. The boy told witness that two low-looking fellows had met him at Lambton bridge and given him a thrashing. The boy began swearing, and got cheeky, and witness pushed him away. The boy never entered the house, and he (witness) never hit him with a strap of any kind. Constable Webster deposed that he questioned the accused closely, and he persisted in his denial. Outside the boy was quiet, and always well behaved. Henry Smith, the father of the accused, said he had charge of the Lambton reservoir, but was at Minmi on this date. When he went to Whitehead’s, late that night, Mrs Whitehead said that a black strap had been used. There was not a black strap on his premises. His son had continually denied the charge. Edith Smith, a sister of the accused, said she was at Minmi, and answered the telephone at about 20 minutes to 5. Mrs Smith, the mother, deposed that on the Sunday night the boy Whitehead had said that her son had beaten him with a short black strap. She said there was no such strap in her house, and young Whitehead then said the strap used was a brown one. Percy Harold Whitehead, re-called by Mr W Arnott, a juryman, said he had never seen the hamper straps (produced) before. Mr Cowan addressed the jury at length, and stated that there was no corroborative evidence for the prosecution. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired at 1 o’clock, and at 2.30 returned into court with a verdict of “guilty of common assault.” Mr Cowan applied to have the youth dealt with under section 429 of the Crimes Act, so that the boy might be left in his parents charge for medical treatment. His Honor said he would send the boy to Darlinghurst, where there was a special ward for medical treatment. The prisoner was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, at Darlinghurst Gaol. At the expiration of this period, he should enter into a recognisance of £40, with two sureties of £20 each, to be of good behaviour for a period of three years, in default of the sureties, a further period of three months to be served.
1 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 11 Nov 1904, p. 6. Emphasis added.
2 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Wed 23 Nov 1904, p. 3. Emphasis added.