Below also see: Bertram William Jewell, 1917
The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 29 Jul 1911 1
QUARTER SESSIONS.
The following is a list of the cases set down for hearing at the Quarter Sessions, commencing on Monday:—
…
Harry Empson, assault;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Daily Telegraph, Fri 18 Aug 1911 2
LAW NOTICES.
———
Friday, August 18.
———
…
SYDNEY QUARTER SESSIONS.
Walter Irvine Wilson, indecent assault; Rupert AL Browne, criminal assault; Harry Empson [33 years, indecent] assault [on Bertram William Jewell, see below]; Henry R Booth, forgery and uttering.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 18 Aug 1911 3
LAW NOTICES.
———◦———
Friday, August 18.
———
…
QUARTER SESSIONS.
Walter Irvine Wilson, assault; Ruper AL Browne, assault; Harry Empson, assault; Henry R Booth, forgery and uttering.
The following appeals from magistrates’ orders and convictions will be heard at No. 2 District Court on the dates mentioned:—
Monday, August 21.—FG Speerin, maintenance; Oscar Anderson, maintenance; James Kelly insulting words.
Thursday, August 24.—Ignatius Roland Wall, assault (two cases); Herbert Ives and others, assault.
Friday, August 25.—Frederick Guy, Infant Protection Act ; Henry McMahon, Infant Protection Act .
Bertram William Jewell, 1917
The Advertiser, Wed 14 Feb 1917 4
LAW COURTS
————
…
Tuesday, February 13.
…
ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT.
In the Port Adelaide Police Court, before Mr JH Sinclair, SM, on Tuesday, Bertram William Jewell, who wore the uniform of a staff sergeant-major, was charged by Sub-Inspector Fraser with having at Port Adelaide on February 12, indecently assaulted a girl, aged 10 years. At the request of the inspector, the case was heard in camera. Sub-Inspector Fraser said a complaint was made to the police by the parents of the little girl on Monday night. A search was made, and from information supplied the defendant was discovered with the little girl in a yard near the new Port Adelaide railway-station. The child made a complaint, in consequence of which the defendant was arrested.
The little girl told the court that Jewell first asked her to purchase some chocolates. She did so. He afterwards took her to a piece of land, where he committed the offence with which he was charged. He threatened to kill her if she called out or did not keep quiet.
Evidence in support of the charge was given by the girl’s sister, who declined to go with the defendant.
Edward John Webster, of Portland place, said he saw the defendant with the little girl. They went on to a vacant allotment. He informed that police, and assisted them in a search. The defendant sprang up and said, “What do you want here?” The remark was addressed to the police. Just afterwards the little girl disclosed her presence, and said the defendant had been hurting her.
Senior-Constable Walsh said he found the defendant and the girl on a vacant allotment on which weeds were growing to from 2 to 3 ft high. The little girl said, “He has been hurting me.” The witness asked the defendant why he had taken the girl there, and the defendant struck at him. The defendant was violently drunk.
The defendant stated on oath that he knew nothing about the girl and alleged that he had been assaulted bty two civilians, who knocked him out, and that when he recovered he was accosted by the policemen. He said he had taken more drink than was good for him. He pleaded not guilty, and was committed for trial. Bail was allowed himself in £50, and two sureties of £50 each, or one of £100.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Daily Herald, Wed 14 Feb 1917 5
SERIOUS CHARGE
———◦———
STAFF-SERGEANT–MAJOR.
————
COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
———
In consequence of a complaint made to the Port Adelaide Police on Monday night, Bertram William Jewell, an instructional staff-sergeant-major, residing at Elizabeth street, Norwood, was arrested on two charges. After having been fined by Mr JH Sinclair, SM, in the Port Adelaide Police Court yesterday morning, he was charged by Sub-Inspector Fraser with having indecently assaulted a ten-year-old girl. He was undefended.
The girl said that she, with her two sisters and another little girl, were in the street at the rear of the Port Picture Pavilion about 8.30 pm on Monday. A soldier approached and asked, “Who will buy lollies for me?” He gave three of the girls 1d each to buy chocolates. When the witness returned to him with the lollies, he took her to an unoccupied house, where he committed the offence complained of. Subsequently the police came on the scene and arrested Jewell.
Defendant (to the girl)—Are you positive I was the man you were with?—Yes.
Evidence was also given by one of the girl’s sisters.
Edward John Webster, a mill employee, residing in Portland, said his attention was attracted by the soldier and the girl about 8.45 pm on Monday. Defendant had hold of the girl’s hand, and took her into a yard where thick weeds were growing. He informed Corporal Walsh and Constable Heenan who asked him whether he had seen the pair. He accompanied the police to the place where he had seen the soldier and the girl and a search was made for them among the weeds. A cane was found and shortly afterwards Jewell sprang on them, exclaiming, “What do you want here?” The girl then came from the weeds and said, “He has been hurting me,” and the same time indicating Jewell.
Defendant—The police said I fought them. Is that true?—You struck the two policemen.
Corporal Walsh said that when asked for what purpose he took the girl among the weeds Jewell replied, “I’ll give you something,” and struck the two police officers. On his way to the police station he asked what he was being arrested for, and was told that the charge against him was indecent assault. Witness cautioned him. Defendant was violently drunk at the time.
Having pleaded not guilty, the defendant made a statement on oath, in which he denied the charge, and alleged that he had been assaulted by a civilian.
Jewell was committed for trial. Bail was allowed on defendant’s own surety of £100 and two others of £50 each, or one of £100.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Kadina and Wallaroo Times, Wed 14 Feb 1917 6
ALLEGED INDECENT
ASSAULT.
————
SOLDIER IN CUSTODY.
————
Adelaide, Tuesday.
Bertram William Jewell, who wore the uniform of a Staff Sargeant-Major, was charged at the Port Adelaide Police Court to-day with having indecently assaulted a girl, aged 10 years.
The defendant said he knew nothing about the girl, and alleged that he had been assaulted by two civilians, who knocked him out. When he recovered he was accosted by a policeman. Jewell admitted that he had taken more drink than was good for him. He was committed for trial.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Port Pirie Recorder and North Western Mail, Wed 14 Feb 1917 7
ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT
————
Adelaide, Tuesday.
Bertram William Jewell, who wore the uniform of a staff sergeant-major, was charged at the Port Adelaide Police Court to-day with having indecently assaulted a girl, aged 10. Accused stated that he knew nothing about the girl, and alleged that he was had been assaulted by two civilians, who knocked him out, and that when he recovered he was accosted by a policeman. He said he had taken more drink than was good for him. He pleaded not guilty, and was committed for trial, bail being fixed at £250.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Register, Wed 14 Feb 1917 8
IN THE COURTS.
———◦———
…
ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT.
At the Port Adelaide Court on Tuesday (before Mr JH Sinclair, SM.) Bertram William Jewell, a man wearing a staff-sergeant-major’s uniform, was charged, on the information of Sub-inspector Fraser, with having, at Port Adelaide, on February 12, indecently assaulted a girl, aged 10 years. At the request of the sub-inspector, the case was heard in camera.
Sub-Inspector Fraser said a complaint was made to the police by the parents of the little girl on Monday night. A search was made, and from the information supplied, the defendant was discovered with the child in an unoccupied yard, near the Port Adelaide Railway Station. The child made a complaint, in consequence of which the defendant was arrested. The little girl told the Court that Jewell first asked her to purchase chocolates, and that she did so. He afterwards took her to an unoccupied piece of land, where he committed the offence with which he was charged. He threatened to kill her if she called out or did not keep quiet.
The Defendant (to the witness)—Are you positive I was with you last night?—Yes.
The witness said she informed a lady that defendant had been hurting her.
Evidence in support of the charge was given by the little girl’s sister, who had declined to go with the defendant.
Edward John Webster, of Portland place, said he was on the railway embankment, near the old Paris Hotel, about 8.45 pm, when he saw the defendant with the little girl. They went on to a vacant allotment. His curiosity was aroused, but he did not wait to see if anything happened. Cpl Walsh accosted him just afterwards, and showed the corporal the spot where he had observed the man and the child. He accompanied the corporal and Constable Heenan to the allotment. They searched among the tall weeds. The defendant sprang up from beside a tin gate and asked—“What do you want here?” The remark was addressed to the police. Just afterwards the little girl disclosed her presence, and said defendant had been hurting her.
The defendant—Are you positive it was me you saw there?—Yes.
Did I do anything to the police?—You struck at them.
S[enior] C[onstable] Walsh said he received a complaint about 9.15 pm on Monday that a child had been taken away by a soldier. He proceeded with Constable Heenan to Portland place, Portland, where they met the witness Webster, with whom they proceeded to the vacant allotment near the old Paris Hotel. Here weeds were growing from two to three feet high. After they had been searching for a few minutes, accused jumped up, mumbled something, and struck at the constable who caught hold of him. The little girl came out of the weeds and said, “He has been hurting me.” Witness asked defendant why he taken the girl there, and defendant struck at him. On the way to the police station defendant asked, “What are you arresting me for?” and witness replied for indecently assaulting the little girl. Defendant was violently drunk.
When asked if he had anything to say defendant replied in the affirmative, and asked to be sworn. He said he knew nothing about the girl, and alleged that he had been assaulted by two civilians who “knocked him out.” When he recovered he was accosted by the policemen. He had taken more drink than was good for him.
He was committed for trial. Bail was allowed in a personal recognisance of £50, and two sureties of £50 each, or one of £100.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Advertiser, Fri 2 Mar 1917 9
GENERAL NEWS.
————
…
——
CRIMINAL SITTINGS.
The next session of the Criminal Court will be opened on Monday, when prisoners in gaol will be arraigned. The calendar is as follows:—
March 6—William Edmond Tucker, sheepstealing
March 7—Robert Watt, false pretences; Bertram William Jewell, indecent assault; William Larking, indecent assault.
March 8—Bernhard Arnold Grosser, bestiality; Hugo Renno Hermann, housebreaking; Arnold John Collins, secreting postal articles.
March 13—Francis John Sheridan, murder.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Daily Herald, Wed 14 Mar 1917 10
ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT.
———◦———
The charge of having indecently assaulted a little girl of 10 years and two months, at Port Adelaide on February 12, was made against a man of 27 years named Bertram William Jewell, late of Norwood, a soldier, in the criminal Court, be Mr Justice Gordon and a jury yesterday afternoon. The accused pleaded not guilty. Mr HA Shierlaw (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the prosecution and Mr R Badger defended the accused. The girl said she was playing with several other children in a street near Rennell’s Picture Palace when the accused came up and sent her and another little girl to buy some chocolates. Afterwards he took her away with him. She tried to run away twice, but he said he would kill her if she called out or tried to run away. He took her to a vacant place where a lot of weeds were growing, and there she alleged that he committed the offence with which he was charged. Evidence was also given by the girl’s sister, Dr Covernton, the girl’s mother, and John Cook, and the court adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning. His Honor Mr Justice Gordon was on the bench.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Daily Herald, Thu 15 Mar 1917 11
SERIOUS CHARGES
———◦———
CONVICTION AGAINST NEWELL.
————
…
Two cases of indecent assault were before juries in the Criminal Court yesterday. One was continued from the previous day. It was the case in which Bertram William Jewell (27), soldier, of Norwood, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having indecently assaulted a girl aged 10 years and two months, at Port Adelaide, on February 12.
Mr R Badger represented accused. The prosecution was conducted by Mr HA Shierlaw. Mr Justice Gordon was on the bench.
Evidence was given by EJ Webster, Constable Walsh, MR Newman, and the accused.
After a short retirement the jury returned to court with a verdict of guilty.
Sentence was deferred until Friday.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Daily Herald, Wed 21 Mar 1917 12
MAXIMUM SENTENCE
———◦———
GLARING INCONSISTENCIES.
————
JEWELL CASE AND COMMENTS
THEREON.
————
The Maximum penalty was yesterday imposed upon Bertram William Jewell, an instructional staff sergeant-major, by Mr Justice Gordon in the Criminal Court. The prisoner was last week found guilty on a charge of having at Port Adelaide indecently assaulted a little girl 10 years of age. His Honor took the opportunity of remarking upon what one may call one of the asinine qualities of the law.
Prior to passing sentence Mr R Badger, who defended the prisoner, made an appeal for leniency. He stated that, although the accused had been convicted he had not the slightest recollection of having committed the offence.
His Honor—That is absurd. How do you know that?
Mr Badger—He has told me so.
Mr Badger said the commission of the offence was the result of excessive drinking.
His Honor—That is no excuse. What is it, Mr Badger,, you want to ask?
Mr Badger—I apply to your Honor to extend your mercy and clemency, and to give the accused the benefit of the Offenders’ Probation Act.
His Honor—It would be nothing short of a public scandal to do that to a man found guilty on the clearest evidence of an offence of this kind.
His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said that he had been found guilty of a cruel and indecent assault upon a little girl under the age of 12 years. No doubt, as counsel had said, accused at the time was under the influence of drink. But he was not too drunk to ingratiate himself with the little girl and her playmates by distributing money among them. He was not too drunk to take the child by the hand and lead her through devious ways at Port Adelaide; he was not too drunk, after the girl had got away from him, to follow and capture her; he was not too drunk to select an overgrowth of reeds in a paddock and take her there; and he was not too drunk to commit the offence which had destroyed her virginity and would leave her with a lifelong horror. The maximum penalty was two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. Ever since he had been a judge he had held that too heavy sentences were a mistake, but he could not refrain from remarking upon the glaring inconsistency of the term of imprisonment provided for an offence of the kind before the court, compared with the maximum penalty of a life sentence which could be imposed upon a person for forging a cheque even of the value of a shilling. He would welcome the rearrangement, if the Legislature thought proper, of that and other inconsistencies. He had carefully considered the whole of the facts in the present case and he could not reconcile his conscience with giving less than the maximum penalty. Two years’ imprisonment would be imposed.
The prisoner’s wife, a nineteen-year-old girl, who sat through the hearing of the case, was waiting outside the courtroom, and on hearing the sentence she practically collapsed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Register, Wed 21 Mar 1917 13
LAW’S INCONSISTENCIES.
———◦———
A JUDGE’S FRANK OBSERVATIONS.
———◦———
When Bertram William Jewell, a young instructional staff-sergeant-major, stood in the prisoner’s dock at the Criminal Court on Tuesday morning awaiting the sentence of the presiding Judge, Mr Justice Gordon, on a charge (on which he was convicted on Wednesday) of having, at Port Adelaide, indecently assaulted a little girl of 10 years of age, the Judge’s Associate asked him whether he had anything to say why the sentence of the Court should not be passed upon him.
The prisoner quickly turned in the direction of his counsel (Mr R Badger).
Mr Badger began his opening remarks by stating that, although the accused had been convicted, he had not the slightest recollection of having committed the offence.
His Honor—That is absurd. How do you know that?
Mr Badger—He has told me so.
Proceeding, Mr Badger said the commission of the offence was the result of excessive drink.
His Honor—That is no excuse. What is it, Mr Badger, you want to ask?
Mr Badger—I apply to your Honor to extend your mercy and clemency, and to give the accused the benefit of the Offenders’ Probation Act.
His Honor—It would be nothing short of a public scandal to do that to a man found guilty, on the clearest evidence, of an offence of this kind.
Addressing the prisoner, His Honor observed that he had been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, of a cruel and indecent assault upon a little girl under the age of 12 years. No doubt, as counsel had said, accused at the time was under the influence of drink, but he was not too drunk to ingratiate himself with the little girl and her playmates by distributing money among them. He was not too drunk to take the child by the hand and lead her through devious ways at Port Adelaide; he was not too drunk, after the girl had got away from him, to follow and capture her; he was not too drunk to select an overgrowth of reeds in a paddock and take her there; and he was not too drunk to commit the offence which had destroyed her virginity and would leave her with a lifelong horror. In that case the maximum penalty was two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. Ever since he had been a Judge he had held that too heavy sentences were a mistake, but he could not help remarking upon the glaring inconsistency of the term of imprisonment provided for an offence of the kind before the Court, compared with the maximum penalty of a life sentence which could be imposed upon a person for forging a cheque even of the value of a shilling. He would welcome the rearrangement, if the Legislature thought proper, of that and other inconsistencies. He had carefully considered the whole of the facts in the present case, and he could not reconcile his conscience with giving less than the maximum penalty, two years’ imprisonment, which would be imposed.
When acquainted with the verdict the 19-year-old wife of accused, who was waiting outside the western door of the Courtroom, was prostrated by grief.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Port Pirie Recorder and North Western Mail, Wed 21 Mar 1917 14
ASSAULTING A CHILD
———
Adelaide, Tuesday.
Bertram William Jewell, aged 27, instructional staff sergeant-major, who a few days ago was convicted of indecently assaulting a little girl aged 10 years, was sentenced to two years’ hard labor.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Chronicle, Sat 24 Mar 1917 15
LAW COURTS.
————————
…
TWO YEAR’S HARD LABOR.
In the Criminal Court on March 20 before Mr Justice Gordon, Bertram William Jewell (27), instructional staff sergeant-major, who a few days ago was convicted on a charge pf having indecently assaulted a little girl aged 10 years, was brought up for sentence.
Mr R Badger, who defended, stated that, although Jewell had been convicted, he had no recollection of having committed the offence. He asked his Honor to extend to the prisoner the benefits of the Offenders’ Probation Act.
His Honor remarked that it was absurd to say that the man had no recollection of what he had done. It would be nothing short of a public scandal if he were to comply with the request of counsel. The prisoner had been convicted on the clearest evidence. In passing sentence his Honor said the prisoner had been found guilty of a cruel and indecent assault on a little girl. No doubt he had been as his counsel had remarked, under the influence of drink. He was not too drunk, however, to be able to ingratiate himself with the child and her playmates by giving them money. Nor was he too drunk to be able to take her by the hand and lead her by devious ways at Port Adelaide; neither was he too drunk to follow and recapture the girl after she had got away from him, or to select a place where there was an overgrowth of reeds. He was not too drunk to commit the offence which would be a lifelong horror to the girl. The maximum penalty was two years’ with hard labor. He had always been of opinion that too heavy sentences were a mistake, but he could not help remarking on the glaring inconsistency of the term of imprisonment provided for an offence of that kind, compared with the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life for forging and uttering a cheque, even if it were only for one shilling. He would welcome the rearrangement of that and other inconsistencies if the legislature though proper to revise the law. After having carefully considered all the facts in the present case, he could not reconcile his conscience with imposing less than the maximum sentence of two years’ hard labor.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Observer, Sat 24 Mar 1917 16
LAW’S
INCONSISTENCIES.
———◦———
A JUDGE’S FRANK OBSERVATIONS.
————
When Bertram William Jewell, a young instructional staff-sergeant-major, stood in the prisoners’ dock at the Criminal Court on Tuesday morning awaiting the sentence of the presiding Judge, Mr Justice Gordon, on a charge (on which he was convicted on Wednesday) of having, at Port Adelaide, indecently assaulted a little girl of 10 years of age, the Judge’s Associate asked him whether he had anything to say why the sentence of the Court should not be passed upon him.
The prisoner quickly turned in the direction of his counsel (Mr R Badger).
Mr Badger began his opening remarks by stating that, although the accused had been convicted, he had not the slightest recollection of having committed the offence.
His Honor—That is absurd. How do you know that?
Mr Badger—He has told me so.
Proceeding, Mr Badger said the commission of the offence was the result of excessive drinking.
His Honor—That is no excuse. What is it, Mr Badger, you want to ask?
Mr Badger—I apply to your Honor to extend your mercy and clemency, and to give the accused the benefit of the Offenders’ Probation Act.
His Honor—It would be nothing short of a public scandal to do that to a man found guilty, on the clearest evidence, of an offence of this kind.
Addressing the prisoner, His Honor observed that he had been found guilty, on the clearest evidence, of a cruel and indecent assault upon a little girl under the age of 12 years. No doubt, as counsel had said, accused at the time was under the influence of drink, but he was not too drunk to ingratiate himself with the little girl and her playmates by distributing some money among them. He was not too drunk to take the child by the hand and lead her through devious ways at Port Adelaide; he was not too drunk, after the girl had got away from him, to follow and capture her; he was not too drunk to select an overgrowth of reeds in a paddock and take her there; and he was not too drunk to commit the offence which had destroyed her virginity and would leave her with a lifelong horror. In that case the maximum penalty was two years’ imprisonment with hard labor. Ever since he had been a Judge he had held that too heavy sentences were a mistake, but he could not help remarking upon the glaring inconsistency of the term of imprisonment provided for an offence of the kind before the Court, compared with the maximum penalty of a life sentence which could be imposed upon a person for forging a cheque even of the value of a shilling. He would welcome the rearrangement, if the Legislature thought proper, of that and other inconsistencies. He had carefully considered the whole of the facts in the present case, and he could not reconcile his conscience with giving less than the maximum penalty, two years’ imprisonment, which would be imposed.
When acquainted with the verdict the 19-year-old wife of accused, who was waiting outside the western door of the Courtroom, was prostrated by grief.
1 The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 29 Jul 1911, p. 8.
2 The Daily Telegraph, Fri 18 Aug 1911, p. 13. Emphasis added.
3 The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 18 Aug 1911, p. 5. Emphasis added.
4 The Advertiser (Adelaide), Wed 14 Feb 1917, p. 10. Emphasis added.
5 Daily Herald, (Adelaide, SA), Wed 14 Feb 1917, p. 7. Emphasis added.
6 The Kadina and Wallaroo Times, (SA), Wed 14 Feb 1917, p. 2.
7 Port Pirie Recorder and North Western Mail, (SA), Wed 14 Feb 1917, p. 2.
8 The Register (Adelaide, SA), Wed 14 Feb 1917, p. 4. Emphasis added.
9 The Advertiser (Adelaide), Fri 2 Mar 1917, p. 6. Emphasis added.
10 Daily Herald, (Adelaide, SA), Wed 14 Mar 1917, p. 6.
11 Daily Herald, (Adelaide, SA), Thu 15 Mar 1917, p. 3.
12 Daily Herald, (Adelaide, SA), Wed 21 Mar 1917, p. 7. Emphasis added.
13 The Register (Adelaide, SA), Wed 21 Mar 1917, p. 7. Emphasis added.
14 Port Pirie Recorder and North Western Mail, (SA), Wed 21 Mar 1917, p. 3.
15 Chronicle (Adelaide, SA), Sat 24 Mar 1917 p. 17.
16 Observer (Adelaide, SA), Sat 24 Mar 1917, p. 35. Emphasis added.