The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 21 July 1905 1
PARRAMATTA DISTRICT.
———◦———
QUARTER SESSIONS.
The court of Quarter Sessions was continued yesterday before Judge Docker.
————
APPEAL CASE.
Harry Figg, late a publican in the Picton district, appealed against a conviction (and sentence of six months’ imprisonment with hard labour) by the Picton Bench for exposure. Mr Walker appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld, his Honor, in answer to Mr Walker, declining to vary the sentence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate, Sat 22 Jul 1905 2
PARRAMATTA QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
Tuesday, July 18.
(Before Judge Docker.)
Mr AF Dawson was Crown Prosecutor; Mr Jas Watt, JP, Deputy Clerk of the Peace; Mr DUBBO Henderson, JP, Deputy Sheriff.
…
PARRAMATTA QUARTER SESSIONS.
———◦———
Wednesday, July 19.
…
APPEALS.
THE EX-PICTON PUBLICAN.
Harry Figg, late a publican in the Picton district, appealed against a conviction (and sentence of six months’ imprisonment with hard labor) by the Picton Bench for indecent exposure.
The evidence of Constable Walsh (late of Parramatta, now of Picton), as given in the Court below, was read over. It was in effect that a little after 3 pm on the day mentioned in the charge he saw the accused commit the offence in front of the hotel he was then keeping.
The witness gave further evidence.
Had been watching the accused for some time. Two girls were in the doorway of Pickard’s shop, where witness was, when he went in there. Did not know where they were at the time of the occurrence. Charged the accused with wilfully and obscenely exposing himself. Had sworn that he saw the defendant beckoning towards a girl. The accused was at the time the licensee of the Commercial Hotel. Had not gone there with his mind full of preconceived ideas, and imagined because a figure was in the doorway, and there were little girls about, that an offence was being committed. In the Court below said that he was looking through the window. When witness came and made the charge, the accused said, “What will they do with my hotel?” That was up near the station. He did not say, “What’s the meaning of this?” Was looking at the accused for a few moments.
To Mr Dawson: The accused was represented by a solicitor at the lower court. Witness was not asked then if accused had said when charged, “What is the meaning of this?”
For the defence, in support of the appeal:—
Figg’s deposition was read. He corrected his statement that he had held licences for 25 years. He had held licenses for 12 years. He had not committed the offence complained of at any time. The day was a very dull, cloudy day. Had stood and made experiments with Mr C Bull and others—witness standing at the doorway of his hotel, or within a foot or so, to enable them to see. Had a family—two girls and a boy. When Walsh came and arrested witness, witness said, “Now, what’s the meaning of all this?” Walsh said, “Oh, you’ll know all about it directly.”
To Mr Dawson: Might have had his clothes slightly disarranged. Had been lying down after his lunch, on the couch. Got up about 3 pm, or a little after 3. Witness was upstairs when Walsh came in. There had never been complaints made about his conduct. Had been in Townsville. There might have been some little trouble there. Did not remember it.
The Crown Prosecutor: Something very similar?
Witness: Oh, no, not in the same way.
The Crown Prosecutor: What was it?
Witness: So far as I know, it was a matter concerning an indecent exposure—not in Townsville.
The Crown Prosecutor: Well, tell us about it.
Witness: It was Charters Towers, or something like that.
The Crown Prosecutor: Where was it?
His Honor: What was the result of it?
Witness: I think I was convicted.
The Crown Prosecutor: What was the conviction, or how long?
Silence.
The Crown Prosecutor: Do you remember where it was?
Witness: I remember—
The Crown Prosecutor: Well, you suffer from constipation of words. (Laughter.)
Witness: Need I answer, Mr Walker?
The Crown Prosecutor: You need not ask Mr Walker; he’s got nothing to do with it.
His Honor: Before or after you were married?
Witness: I think I had been married two or three years.
The witness continued: Had never exposed himself to a certain girl, that he knew of. Remembered a circus being in Picton. There had been several. Went to most of them. Knew several children about, but not by their names. Had never exposed himself to children. Was not in the habit of arranging his clothes before the windows.
The witness: I have seen the Chairman of the Licensing Bench just doing as I did. I thought it a peculiar coincidence.
Mr Dawson: May be that is so. Perhaps he is as bad as you.
Witness (indignantly): Oh no; I’d be sorry to think that. If we could look up to anyone, it is the Chairman of the Bench, or the Judge of the Court. (Sensation.)
The witness continued: Did not remember saying, “If the exposure took place, it was a mere accident.” Did not believe that there was any exposure—that he did anything. The constable was 195 feet away. Did not go near the door at that time. Did not stand at any door. Might have gone to the parlor or dining room. Did not go out of any door. Did not think that he went to the threshold of any door.
His Honor: I’d like to know a little more clearly about that previous affair. Am I to take it that you were convicted some years ago?
Witness: Your Honor, I have to admit that I was. It was on a gold fields, and I was drinking.
His Honor: What was the charge?
The witness: We were all charged with exposing ourselves. We were bathing.
His Honor: What happened to you after you were convicted?
Witness: I think I was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment in gaol.
His Honor: Did you appeal?
Witness: No your Honor; I had no chance of appealing.
His Honor: If you were seen on the day of the present alleged offence, you must have come to the door.
Witness: Perhaps I came to the door.
His Honor: You heard the girl Watson say that she saw you come to that door (pointing to a door).
Witness: It is not correct if she says so. I was not at the bar door at all.
His Honor: Had you been drinking?
Witness: I never drink a great deal. One might have a drink. Was not to say “drinking”—no.
His Honor: You had some liquor?
Witness: I always do. I had some liquor;—not to say “drinking.”
Constable Walsh was re-called by his Honor. He deposed that he first saw Figg bob his head out of the door. Witness was walking along the footpath—was going towards the post office. Stepped into Pickard’s. Went through Pickard’s and watched. Saw Figg stand two feet inside the door and beckon. Then saw the offence committed.
The Crown Prosecutor tendered evidence of similar acts, done on previous occasions.
Mr Walker objected to that evidence.
His Honor: This evidence would only be admissible with a view of showing that the act was done wilfully or intentionally; and that question was not raised by the defence. They contend that the act was not done at all. But both on the evidence of Constable Walsh, and of the accused, there was plain proof that there was no accidental exposure, whatever there was.
At this, the case was adjourned till Thursday, the evidence having been completed.
————
Thursday, July 20.
Mr Walker (for Figg) ably addressed his Honor, commencing by pointing out that the episode at Charters Towers was of a different character to that offence which was now alleged against the accused; and the Crown Prosecutor replied.
His Honor said the appeal was one against a conviction under the Vagrancy Act , for an offence of a serious and abominable nature. The Court had given close attention to the case in view of the serious consequences to the appellant. Of course, it was quite clear that if the conviction were upheld, he could not hold further a publican’s license. On the other hand, if he were guilty, six month’s imprisonment was not an hour too long for him to be shut up, for the manifest effect of such offences was to corrupt the minds of young girls, and the offence, abominable in itself, was the more so in the case of a man with a wife and family. It had been said by the defence that the magistrate should have come to the conclusion that the balance of testimony was in favor of the accused. Mr Walker had able conducted his case, and argued his points; and he was to be complimented on his general handling of this subject. Constable Walsh said he saw acts. Accused said no acts of such a kind took place, and, further, the constable could not have seen these acts. That was that the constable was swearing falsely. The learned advocate only went himself so far as to say the constable was mistaken. That argument had been forcibly pressed, and there was a great deal in what Mr Walker had said. As to the argument that the constable was liable to see things that he expected to see, there was no reason to think that there was anything in the constable’s character to weaken the value of his evidence in regard to its main feature.
The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld. His Honor, in answer to Mr Walker, declined to vary the sentence.
1 The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 21 July 1905, p. 5.
2 The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta), Sat 22 Jul 1905, pp. 8, 11. Emphasis added.