Below also see: Reginald Charles Albert Ford, 1916

 

Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 1 Jan 1915 ¹

NEWCASTLE POLICE COURT.
———▴—•—▴———
Thursday, December 31.
———
(Before Mr CA Edwards, SM.)

…

AN EXEMPLARY SENTENCE.

    Reginald Charles Albert Ford, 22, fireman, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having wilfully conducted himself in an improper manner in Gregson Park, Hamilton, on the previous day. The defendant denied the offence, but admitted having been in the park, and in the particular place at the time related. The magistrate said he was entirely convinced that the evidence for the prosecution was correct. Sub-inspector Holmes said there had been a series of such offences by some person answering the man’s description. Ford was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Reginald Charles Albert Ford, Gaol photo sheet ² 

---

Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details

No. 1665
Maitland

Date when Portrait was taken: 24th March 1915

Name: Reginald Charles Albert Ford

Native place: NS Wales Year of birth: 3-7-1892 Arrived       Ship: in Colony }   Year: Trade or occupation previous to conviction  } Fireman Religion: C of E Education, degree of: R & W Height: 5' 6½" Weight     On committal: 10st 4lbs in lbs     } On discharge: Colour of hair: Brown Colour of eyes: Brown

Marks or special features: Scar on right eye brow. Scar on upper lip. Scar right middle finger

(No. of previous Portrait ... )  CONVICTIONS
Where and When				Offence.	Sentence
Newcastle PC	31	12	1914	Expose his person	6 months HL

 

---

Reginald Charles Albert Ford, 1916

The Armidale Express and New England General Advertiser, Fri 8 Sep 1916 ³

CHARGES OF ALLEGED INDECENCY.
———
YOUNG MAN BEFORE THE COURT.

    At the Armidale Police Court yesterday Reginald Charles Albert Ford, 24, fireman, on remand, was again charged with wilful indecence in Mann-street on the 18th of August and in Douglas-street on the 31st of the same month.

    Accused pleaded not guilty.

    Mr Mackenzie, who appeared for accused, said he (the latter) had only been able to get bail that morning and had no chance of seeing a solicitor. He therefore sought an adjournment.

    The PM: The police brought the case on as soon as they possibly could, and have got all the witnesses present—a crowd of women and children, and I don’t feel inclined to adjourn it. I think we’d better take their evidence, anyway.

    Mr Mackenzie: Accused can produce witnesses as to where he was on the dates mentioned.

    The PM: He wants to prove an alibi?

    Sen Sergt Hogan objected to any further adjournment. The offence was already several weeks old, and the children’s memory would grow less clear. Owing to the nature of defendant’s employment he only appeared about the streets once or twice a week, and therefore wasn’t well known. The police had been getting complaints from parents every day. The Sergeant said he knew inquiries were made by Mr Mackenzie’s clerk, who was told accused would be brought up this morning.

    Mr Mackenzie: I knew nothing about the case till ten minutes ago.

    The PM decided to go on with the case.

    Constable [Frederick] Eagleton, of Armidale, said that on the 3rd August he, in company with Constable Lambert, went to a residence in Brown-street. Witness asked the accused to accompany them to the police office, which he agreed to do. Accused on request, produced a brown coat, and then went to the office, where he said, “I must have a double here. There must be somebody very much like me in Armidale.” Witness replied, “Do you think so?” Continuing, the constable asked accused to give an account of his movements on Wednesday and Thursday last, and also on the 18th August.

    The statement produced was then taken. Accused said he was a fireman on the railway, and on the 31st August came down on the Brisbane mail and slept till 12.45 pm. About 2.30 he procured a bicycle and went for a ride, along the Hillgrove road, returning about 4 pm. He couldn’t say what he did on the 18th.

    Witness placed the accused in a row with five other young man, and two little girls identified the accused as a man they saw commit a certain offence on the 31st at the corner of Douglas and Man streets. Accused, in reply to the charge, said he wasn’t the man, and knew nothing about it.

    Constable Lambert said that on the 31st he saw accused riding a bicycle in Beardy-street. He turned into Marsh-street. Later witness saw the accused in Brown-street, near the East End Park. Further on, in the same afternoon, a complaint was made to him by two little girls. Accused was wearing the same brown suit he had on in court. Witness corroborated the previous witness’s evidence while conveying him to the police office accused asked, “What’s the trouble? What do you want me for?” The constable replied, “You answer the description of a man who’s been exposing himself to school-children.”

    After considerable examination accused admitted he was riding a bicycle on the 31st and was wearing a brown suit.

    To Mr Mackenzie: He had been accused before, but don’t know his name. Witness got into plain clothes during the afternoon and on the bicycle went out to try and catch the accused. He got on the track of him, but subsequently lost him.

    Mrs Wright, widow, residing in Norman-street, said her house was in sight of the corner of Mann and Douglas streets. Her daughter, Mary Eileen Wright, was aged 14. Between 4 and 5 in the afternoon of Thursday last witness was sitting on her back verandah, and she saw her daughter, with Maisie O’Grady, coming home from school. She saw a gentleman meet them. He was cycling, and had on a reddy-brown suit. He seemed to call the children over, and they then ran away. On arriving home she asked her daughter what happened and she (the latter) replied, “He exposed himself.”

    Mr Mackenzie proceeded submit witness to a searching cross-examination as to whether she didn’t say “He seemed to expose himself.”

    The PM said it was perfectly clear what she said.

    Mr Mackenzie (heatedly): I’m entitled to ask the witness questions, and I’m going to.

    The PM: If you bully the witness I’ll stop you.

    Mr Mackenzie: You can certainly do so, but you won’t have to.

    Witness, continuing, said she suspected something had happened owing to previous complaints.

    Mary Eileen Wright, daughter of the previous witness, attended the Convent School. She described meeting the man at the corner of the street. She was with Maisie O’Grady. He asked her to hold his bicycle, as there was something cracked, and then knelt down on a handkerchief and exposed himself. She and Maisie ran away home.

    To Mr Mackenzie: Maisie ran away first. Her mother had told her not to speak to any men. Accused was the man. He was wearing a reddish-brown suit, and the bike was colored dark blue.

    May Doreen O’Grady, aged 7, gave corroborative evidence. She thought accused was the same man. She saw accused expose himself. He’d done the same thing about a fortnight before to her (witness).

    To Mr Mackenzie: He might have had his clothes disarranged before they came up.

    Doris McKeon, aged 9, said she and a little girl named Maudie Andrews were going home at 4 pm on Thursday last when they met the accused. He said “Wait here and I’ll get you some lollies.” She ran home past the police paddock, and the man rode his bike up to the (bushes ?) on Gaol Hill. She ran away because she was frightened of him.

    To Mr Mackenzie: Accused had a brown coat and trousers on and a grey cap.

    On the court resuming after lunch, accused [Reginald Charles Albert Ford] entered the box. He had been in Armidale since last October. Accused emphatically denied ever seeing or speaking to the girls on the day in question.

    To the Sergt: He would swear that he was not at the Girls’ School at a quarter to two on the Wednesday looking over the fence. He had been convicted before of a similar offence. It was at Newcastle, on the 31st Dcember, 1914. He received six months’ imprisonment.

    To Mr Mackenzie: He had already told the police about it.

    Sen-Sergt Hogan, on oath, said accused was the man he saw looking over the Girls’ School fence. He was leading a bicycle. The Sergt was with Mr Monaghan, the headmaster, at the time. The Sergt instructed Constable lambert to change into plain clothes and watch him. Later in the afternoon the Sergt saw accused cycling down Beardy-street.

    The PM: No rational man can understand how a young man like this could be guilty of this sort of thing. However, the witnesses were unusually intelligent, and I must believe them. With madmen of accused’s type there is usually a degree of cunning, but there seems no doubt about what he did. There are also other charges against him. He has not done it once, but time after time. I’ll have to sentence him to six months imprisonment—the full penalty possible. I don’t know what gaol to send him to—he’s not even fit to send among ordinary prisoners. I’ll send him to Tamworth gaol, and the authorities can do as they like with him.

    The Sergeant said one case was so disgusting that it would be almost cruel to ask the little girl to come forward and give evidence. In the circumstances he would withdraw the other charges.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Armidale Chronicle, Sat 9 Sep 1916 ⁴

OBSCENE EXPOSURE.
———
YOUNG MAN SENT TO GAOL.

    In the Armidale Police Court, on Thursday, before Mr G Atkin, PM.

    Reginald Charles Alfred Ford, aged 24, a fireman, was charged with that he did, on August 18th and 31st, wilfully and obscenely expose himself in Mann and Douglas streets, Armidale.

    A plea of not guilty was entered.

    Mr Mackenzie (Mackenzie and Biddulph) appeared for defendant, and said he had only just been instructed in the case. He asked for an adjournment, in order that witnesses for the defence could be procured.

    Senior-Sergeant Hogan objected, on the ground that the witnesses for the prosecution were present.

    The PM decided to hear the evidence for the prosecution.

    Constable Eagleton said that on the 3rd inst in company with Constable Lambert, he went to the residence of Mr Cragg’s, in Brown-street, when he saw defendant, and asked him to come to the office. Defendant said alright, and admitted that he had a brown coat similar to the trousers he was wearing. Defendant accompanied them to the police office, where accused said, “I must have a double here; there must be somebody very much like me.” Witness asked defendant to give an account of his movements on Wednesday and Thursday last, and also on the 18th of August. Defendant then made the statement (produced). About 3 pm that day witness placed accused with five other young men in the police office, and confronted them with the little girls Maisie O’Grady and Irene Wright, who identified defendant as the man they had seen act indecently on 31st August. Defendant was then charged with the offences as stated. Defendant said he had never been in Mann-street, and did not know where it was situated.

    Constable Lambert said that on the 31st August he saw defendant riding a bicycle in Beardy-street, going in an easterly direction. That was at about ten minutes to four o’clock. Later on saw him in Brown-street, near the East End Park, near Douglas-street. Later on witness received a complaint from two little girls. Defendant was wearing the same clothes as he now wore, with a grey cap. Subsequently, on Sunday, the 3rd inst defendant, in answer to witness said he came down town at 4 pm, and went home about a quarter to five pm. He said he was walking, and wore a new grey suit and a hard felt hat. Later on defendant said, “I believe I was riding a bike on the 31st August, and think I was wearing a reddish brown suit, but am not sure.”

    To Mr Mackenzie: Witness was talking to a car-driver named Bellhouse at the time that defendant passed on the cycle. Witness followed on a bicycle, as defendant was suspected for a fortnight previous to the 31st of August.

    Mary Wright, a widow, residing in Brown-street, said she could see the Douglas and Mann-street corner from the back verandah of her house. On the evening of the 31st August witness was sitting on her back verandah, and from there could see her daughter Mary Eileen Wright coming home from school in company with Maisie O’Grady. Saw them meet a man with a bicycle; the man was dressed in a reddish brown suit, as far as she could see. It seemed as if the man called the children, and afterwards they ran away. When her daughter came home she (the daughter) said that the man had exposed himself. This was in answer to a question by witness to her daughter.

    To Mr Mackenzie: Witness’ place was a little more than a block away from the place where the man met the girls. They all seemed to get to the corner of Douglas and Mann streets at the same time. Witness had heard complaints of a similar kind previous to this date. It was about half-past four o’clock when witness saw the man stop the girls.

    Mary Eileen Wright, a daughter of the previous witness, said she was 14 years of age, and attended the Covent School. On Thursday last (31st August) she left school in company with Maisie O’Grady. When they got to the corner of Douglas and Mann streets they saw a man near the corner in Douglas-street. Defendant in Court that day was the man. The man said to witness “Hold my bicycle , please.” witness did as requested, and the man then took out a handkerchief and knelt on it. He said, “I think something has cracked,” and touched the pedal. Witness looked towards the man and saw the man expose himself. She and Maisie then ran home.

    To Mr Mackenzie: Maisie started to run home as soon as witness took hold of the bicycle. Maisie said she had met the same man before, and that he had exposed himself. The man was wearing a reddish brown suit and a grey cap.

    Mary Doreen O’Grady, a little girl of 7½ years, gave evidence that she lived at Eastwood. She gave evidence corroborative of the previous witness respecting leaving school and meeting a man near Campbell’s corner. She thought the defendant in court was the same man. She had seen the same man about a fortnight previously. Witness ran away because she knew it was the same man who had exposed himself to her on the former occasion.

    Defendant, [Reginald Charles Albert Ford] sworn, said that he had been a resident of Armidale since October last year. He gave an emphatic and categorial [sic] denial to the statements made that he had been in Douglas or Mann streets on the date named, or that he had exposed himself as stated. He admitted that he had been convicted at the Newcastle Police Court in 1914 for indecently exposing himself in a public place, for which he had been sentenced to six months. He denied having been in Mann-street on the afternoon of the 31st, looking over the fence of the Girls’ Department of the Public School.

    In rebuttal, Sen-Sergeant Hogan said that on the afternoon of the 31st August he saw defendant looking over the fence of the Public School ground from the Mann-street side. Witness instructed Constable Lambert to get into plain-clothes and follow defendant and watch him. Defendant had a bicycle with him, and was similarly dressed to what he is now. Later on witness saw defendant riding his bicycle along Beardy-street ging in the direction of the railway station. Had also seen defendant on the afternoon of the 18th August looking over the fence of the Public School. Mr Monaghan, Principal of the Public School, was with witness on the afternoon of the 31st August, when defendant was seen looking over the fence.

    This concluded the evidence.

    The PM said it was hard for a common-sense, rational, intelligent man to understand why such things were done by men. It must be madness in a man. The trouble was to know what to [do] with a man like this—he had evidently done this time and again. He would impose a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, in the Tamworth Gaol. It was hardly fair to send such a man into the company of ordinary criminals, such as thieves, for a man with a filthy mind such as defendant had was much worse.

    Several other cases against defended were withdrawn.

    The Sen-Sergeant said that the police had been watching defendant for some time, following complaints, but did not like the idea of bringing children of tender years into Court to give evidence in such a case, until the offences were continued.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Richmond River Herald and Northern Districts Advertiser, Fri 15 Sep 1916 ⁵

NEWS AND NOTES.
————

…
    At the Armidale Police Court on Wednesday last Reginald Charles Albert Ford (24), fireman, on remand, was again charged with wilful indecency in Mann Street, on the 18th of August, and in Douglas Street on the 31st of the same month. After hearing evidence—principally that given by the school children—the accused was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in Tamworth gaol. At the conclusion of the case Sergt Hogan said one case was so disgusting that it would be almost cruel to ask the little girl to come forward and give evidence. In the circumstances he would withdraw the other charges.