The Armidale Express and New England General Advertiser, Tue 2 Mar 1915 1
ARMIDALE POLICE COURT.
———✦———
MONDAY, 1st March — (Before Mr EM Cohen, JP.)
…
Charles Long, alias Lawlor [aka Lawler], 35 labourer, was charged with wilful obscene behaviour in Dangar-street on the previous afternoon.
Accused pleaded not guilty.
Sen Sergt Hogan said that between 4 and a quarter past the previous afternoon a complaint was made to the police, in consequence of which he went to the corner of Dangar and Rusden streets. About 20 yds from the corner the Sergeant saw a man’s hat over the paling fence. Accused was inside the fence. When the Sergeant got to the corner he saw a paling had been removed, and through the opening he could see accused in a state of indecency. Two young girls were approaching at the time, and accused was watching them. The Sergeant having described certain filthy actions by accused, said he asked him what he meant by behaving in such a fashion. Accused explained he was there for a certain purpose. Accused gave the name of Charles Long, and said he lived six miles out on the Herbert Park road. He said he’d had no drink that day. It was a woman who complained to the police about his conduct.
Accused [Denis Charles Lawler], in reply to the Bench, said he was prepared to admit the Sergeant’s evidence was correct.
Making a statement from the dock, accused said he came into town just after dinner, and when passing Burgess’ yard he experienced severe internal pain, and went into the yard in consequence. It was not wilful in any way.
The Sergeant said that at half past 10 and 11 in the morning a man, probably the accused. Was seen behaving in the same manner there. Whenever any men appeared he disappeared, and when women and children were about he committed the offences.
The Magistrate said he didn’t believe the story of accused. He was guilty of a very disgusting thing, especially on a Sunday, and with women and children passing. The charge would be found proved. He would be convicted under the Vagrant Act , and would be sentenced to 6 weeks in Armidale Gaol, with hard labour.
Accused: Can’t I get a fine?
The Bench: There’s no fine attached to this offence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Armidale Chronicle, Wed 3 Mar 1915 2
ARMIDALE POLICE COURT.
———
Monday, March 1.
(Before Mr EM Cohen, JP.)
A defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness on 27th February, and in consideration of the fact that he had been locked up since Saturday, was fined 2/6, in default imprisonment till the rising of the Court.
Charles Long, alias Lawlor, was charged with obscenity.
He pleaded not guilty.
Sen-Sergeant Hogan deposed that between 4 o’clock and 4.15 pm on Sunday afternoon, a complaint was made to him in consequence of which he went to the corner of Dangar and Rusden streets. When about three yards from the corner, he saw a man’s hat over the paling of the fence. The man was inside the fence, standing in the corner. When witness got to the corner, he saw that a paling had been partially loosed from the fence. Through the opening he saw the accused. His person was exposed. Two young girls were approaching to near where the accused stood. Accused was watching them. Witness said, “What do you mean by this sort of conduct?” The accused said that he went in there for a necessary purpose. He had been there about a quarter of an hour. In answer to a question the accused stated that he had not had any drink during the day. Witness said that he had had a complaint about accused’s conduct, and he wanted him to come to the police office. Accused asked who complained, and witness said that it was a woman. Accused was subsequently charged.
In answer to the Bench, accused admitted that the Sergeant’s evidence was correct.
Accused that he came into town about 1.30 or 2 o’clock. He had taken pills on the Saturday night, and was suffering from internal pains. He went to the place in question for a necessary purpose when the Sergeant came along.
Mr Cohen: I don’t believe your story. It’s a beastly, disgusting thing.
The Bench said that the accused, under the Vagrant Act , was convicted of being a rogue and a vagabond, and sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment in Armidale Gaol.
Accused: Could you make it a fine?
Mr Cohen: There is no fine attached.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Armidale Chronicle, Wed 2 Jun 1915 3
ARMIDALE QUARTER SESSIONS.
———
A sitting of the Court of Quarter Sessions was held at Armidale yesterday, before his Honor Judge Hamilton.
There was only one case for the consideration of the Court—a re-hearing of the case in which Charles Long otherwise known as Denis Lawler, had been convicted, before Mr EM Cohen, JP, on a charge of indecency.
Mr J Browning was Crown Prosecutor, and appeared in support of the conviction and Mr Chubb (instructed by Messrs McKenzie and Biddulph) appeared for Lawler.
Mr G Atkin, PM, occupied a seat on the Bench as Deputy Sheriff.
Other members of the legal profession were: Messrs McKenzie, Biddulph, McDonald, AW Simpson, E Simpson, H Weaver, and W Murray.
Senr Sergt Hogan was sworn, and the depositions he had signed in the lower Court were read over by the Judge.
To Mr Browning: The paling in the fence was not quite removed it was hanging by a nail from the top rail, and was held aside by a little stone.
To Mr Chubb: The paling was on the fence, but swung open at the bottom. It was not altogether removed. He said it was removed when he gave evidence before. He did not infer that the paling was removed. He did say something about the stone in his previous evidence. It was a high paling fence, except where the paling was open. Twenty yards away, coming up Danger-street, witness could see accused’s hat. Other than that, he could not see anything from Dangar-street in the ordinary way unless he looked through the cracks between the palings. He thought he could see a person there. He had to raise himself on his toes at the Rusden-street corner to see over the fence. He first saw the exposure from the footpath in Dangar-street. He was looking through the fence, and was immediately opposite the appellant, who drew back when he saw witness. The young women witness spoke to were crossing Rusden-street. When they came down, appellant had not adjusted his dress. He did not do that until witness spoke of it. The girls were crossing the street so that they would be facing where appellant was standing. Witness knew that appellant was a native of Armidale and so far as witness knew, had a very good character. His neighbours spoke highly of him. When witness laid the charge, he was not after somebody else. A complaint was made to him, and he went to the place in question. There was not anybody else he was after who had been making a nuisance of himself.
To Mr Browning: He went straight up when the complaint was made. He did not know at the time that there had been a complaint from Uralla.
Lilian Cook deposed that she lived in Dangar-street, on the right-hand side. Opposite her place was a tin smith’s shop and other shops. She knew a paling fence at the corner. On the day in question witness’s little girl complained of seeing something. Witness looked and saw a man there. It was about 11 am. In the afternoon she saw him again about 3 o’clock. There were a number of children about. They used to stop and look, and some of them ran away.
To Mr Chubb: You could not see anything unless you put your eye close to the fence. There was a paling out on the other side, which could be seen through.
The appellant, Denis Charles Lawlor, deposed that he was a farmer, and worked with his father some miles out of Armidale. He had been in the district all his life, and had never had any trouble regarding courts. On the day in question he came into town and went to Church at 10 o’clock. He was there about an hour, and then went straight home. He walked back, and got home about 12 o’clock. He was not near the yard which figured in the case. After dinner he went to look at some sheep. He came into town and went round by the Church of England and down by the School of Arts. He had internal pains, and went to this enclosure spoken of. He went to the part where the palings were thickest. He saw an old man come out of an out-office. The out-office was in a bad condition and smelt badly. The paddock was a place where they kept horses, and was surrounded by a very high fence. Witness went to relieve himself, and at a certain time Senr Sergt Hogan came along. Witness stood up. Nobody coming along Rusden-street could see him. He did not commit any act of indecency. There were no children about. The reason he gave the wrong name was that he would have to appear in Court, and he did not want name in the papers. He thought he would be fined, and he would pay the fine and there would be no more about it.
To Mr Browning: The sheep he went to look at were about a mile walk from his home. Nobody was with him. After that he came into town to see if Mr Nott’s team was in from the Dorrigo. He walked into town, about 2½ miles. He chose the particular corner of the paddock to do what he did was because it was the most secluded. He saw the Sergeant about four or five yards from him in Dangar-street. He did not put a stone in the palings to keep them apart. He knew nothing about the stone produced. Witness was 48 years of age. He lived with his father. Was not married, and had never been married.
John Lawlor, father of the appellant in the case, deposed that on the Sunday (February 28th), the day in question, his son walked into Church and came back about a quarter to 12. After dinner he said that he would go up to the witness’s other place and bring the sheep down. Witness did not see him again that day. Appellant in the case had been a good son — none better lived. Without him he could not live. Witness was in his 78th year. Witness saw the police and told them that his son did not come back that night. The whole neighbourhood was looking for him.
William Cyril Higinbotham, a resident of Armidale for 20 years, knew the appellant in the case. He had known him about eight years. If a vote was taken, he would be voted as the most moral living man in his locality. Personally, he spoke of him most excellently. When they heard he was lost, no less than fifteen people were out looking for him. Appellant had never been associated with any lewdness or misbehaviour.
To Mr Browning: Had never looked upon appellant as not being right in the head.
Herbert William Lane, Mayor of Armidale, deposed that he had known appellant for over 20 years and had seen him frequently. He knew nothing against his character, and regarded him as being of the highest character. He had seen no inclination to lewdness of mis behaviour.
Mr Chubb put in a letter from Dr O’Connor, Roman Catholic Bishop of Armidale, as to appellant’s character.
Senr Sergt Hogan, called in reply, said that when he first saw Lawlor his trousers were not quite down. They were open in the front. He had been standing [on] the corner for some time. He saw tracks that indicated this.
Edward M Cohen, who was the magistrate who first heard the case, said that he read the deposition over to the Sergeant. He asked the accused of [sic] he had any questions to ask. The accused said, “No, what the Sergeant said is quite true.”
This concluded the evidence, and the Court adjourned at 2.15 pm.
On resuming, Mr Chubb submitted that there were circumstances in the case which would enable his Honor to say that the offence was not wilful. Even should His Honor come to an adverse conclusion, would not His Honor see fit to extend the benefit of the First Offenders’ provisions. One the grounds of appeal was that the sentence was excessive.
Mr Browning said that in the interest of public morality, he felt that if the magistrate who heard the case erred at all, he erred on the side leniency.
His Honor said that he must uphold the conviction and dismiss the appeal. Everything that the Sergeant said was physically possible. His Honor then went on to review the evidence, and said that he was forced to disbelieve the appellant with regard to matters where there was a conflict of evidence. It was an extraordinary thing for a man of good character to commit such a disgusting offence. He was opinion that the act was done wilfully. He regretted that he was forced to this conclusion in the case of a man of such an excellent character. With regard to the penalty for this disgraceful conduct, it was fair to say that the publicity which the case had been given, and the knowledge of the disgrace, must be a severe punishment to the appellant. His only hesitation in dealing with the sentence was lest it should be thought he had any doubt about the seriousness of the offence. He thought, taking into consideration the excellent character of the appellant, and clearly understanding that he had no doubt as to the correctness of the magistrate’s sentence, he might deal with appellant as a first offender. He, therefore, confirmed the conviction and applied the clemency of the First Offenders’ provisions, appellant to enter into a recognisance of £40, with one surety in £40, or two in £20.
On the application of the Crown Prosecutor, £5 5s. Costs was allowed against the appellant.
This concluded the business of the Quarter Sessions, and District Court business was then proceeded with.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Armidale Express and New England General Advertiser, Fri 4 Jun 1915 4
ARMIDALE QUARTER SESSIONS.
———
The local Quarter Sessions were held on Tuesday last before his Honor Judge Hamilton. Mr G Atkin, PM, also occupied a seat on the bench as representative of the Sheriff. Mr RJ Browning was present as Crown Prosecutor.
Mr MC Chubb was the only other member of the Bar in attendance, while Messrs Biddulph and Mackenzie represented the solicitors.
——
APPEAL CASE.
The only case for the Court was one in which Chas Long, otherwise known as Chas Lawlor, appealed against his conviction at the Armidale Police Court some few months back, where at he was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment on a charge of indecent behaviour.
Mr Chubb, instructed by Messrs Mackenzie and Biddulph, appeared for the appellant.
Mr Chubb said he had fresh evidence to offer.
Sen-Sergt Hogan’s evidence in the lower Court was read. The Sergt, on information received, visited the corner of Dangar and Rusden streets, where behind the fence he could see a man’s hat. On further investigation he saw a man standing just inside a state of indecency. One of the palings had been swung aside with a stone inserted to keep it ajar. Two young girls were approaching at the time down the street, and accused was watching them. On interrogating accused, the latter said he entered the yard to seek an outhouse, and was not intentionally exposing himself.
To Mr Chubb: He (witness) did not intend to convey the impression in his former evidence that the paling had been removed. He explained the use of the stone at the lower Court. The fence surrounding the yard was a high paling fence. He saw the man’s hat 20 yards away. He could at that time see nothing else, unless he had looked through a crevice in the fence. When the man saw him he (accused) drew back. The yard was quite private except for the cracks in the fence.
His Honor said that the enclosure could be absolutely private, and yet the indecency could be seen if a paling was swung open.
Mr Chubb said the exposure had to be wilful, which he contended could hardly be the case in a private enclosure. Further, he would contend no one, except the Sergeant, witnessed the alleged offence.
Continuing, the Sergeant said the two girls were passing down Rusden-street. The loose paling was the second from the corner in Dangar-street. He had not known the accused before the alleged offence, and from what he could understand he was a native of Armidale, and was much respected by his neighbours. He did not go to the corner expecting to find another party altogether. He didn’t know who would be there. The complaint was lodged by a man at the request of a woman, who saw the accused offending.
To Mr Browning: He went straight on receiving the complaint. He not know at the time that there had been a complaint from Uralla.
Lilian Cook, married woman, lived in Rusden-street, near the Rusden-street corner. On the Sunday in question her little girl came and complained to her about seeing something. She (witness) investigated, and saw a man standing inside the yard. This was in the morning about 11. In the afternoon, about 3, she again saw him there. A number of children came up. Some stood and laughed, while others ran away.
To Mr Chubb: She personally saw nothing. She could nothing in Danger-street.
This closed the Crown case.
In defence, accused who gave the name of Denis Chas Lawlor, said he was a farmer, and worked with his father a few miles from town. He had never been before the Court before or been in any trouble. On that morning he went to church (St Mary’s Roman Catholic Cathedral) at 10 o’clock. After church he went straight home, arriving back about 12 o’clock. He was not near the yard in question during the morning. After dinner he came into town, and after walking about for a time visited the yard for a natural purpose. There was no public convenience in Armidale. The yard had a very high fence around it, and was quite private. It was about 4 o’clock. Soon after he saw Sergt Hogan appear on the scene. He noticed no opening in the fence where he might be seen. He did not intentionally behave in any indecent way at all. Why he gave a wrong name was that he thought he might have to appear before the Court and didn’t want his name in the papers. He expected to receive a fine. He saw no one but the Sergt while in the yard.
To Mr Browning: There was an outhouse in the yard; it was too insanitary to use. The corner he chose was the most secluded. He did not put the stone in between the palings. He was 48 years of age, and was unmarried,
John Lawlor, father of accused, said he had been a resident of the district for over 50 years. His son returned home a little before 12. In the afternoon accused told him he would bring some sheep down, and witness did not see him again that evening. There was no better son alive, and he was his (witness’) main support.
To Mr Browning: He was in his 78th year. His son was 47. He (witness) had other sons, but they were married. When he inquired from the police on the Monday if they’d seen his son, the Sergt did not at first say he had his son in custody. Witness did not know where his son was, and the whole neighbourhood was looking for him.
WC Higinbotham, a neighbor [sic] of Mr Lawlor’s. Was an ex-Mayor of Armidale. He had known accused about eight years. If a vote were taken he’d probably be voted about the most moral man in the locality. He (accused) bore an excellent reputation generally. There was never any suggestion of lewdness about his behaviour.
To Mr Browning: He had never associated with women. Accused was quite right in his head.
HW Lane, auctioneer and Mayor of Armidale—
Mr Chubb: And a probable member of Parliament?
Mr Lane: I won’t say that. (Laughter.)
Mr Lane said he had known accused for some 20 years, and knew nothing in the world against his character. He was a hard-working, industrious man, and he (Ald Lane) had never seen him in loose women’s company.
Mr Chubb tendered a letter from the Bishop, Dr O’Connor, who stated he had known Denis Lawlor for the past 39 years, and could only speak in the highest terms of him.
Giving evidence in reply, Sen Sergt Hogan said he thoroughly examined the corner, and there was nothing to substantiate accused’s assertion. Evidently accused had been standing there for a considerable time.
EM Cohen, JP, CPS, deposed to reading the depositions over to accused, and the accused saying, “What the Sergt says is correct.” Accused might have added, “As far as it goes.”
After the luncheon adjournment, during which his Honor visited the scene of the alleged offence, Mr Chubb submitted that the offence was not wilful, insomuch as the place in question was not a likely place for the wilful commission of such an offence. Further, it was practically impossible to see what a man was doing inside.
His Honor: Everything the Sergt says is quite feasible.
Mr Chubb: But your Honor has to be quite certain the accused was wilful in his action.
His Honor: I know that.
Mr Chubb further urged that if his Honor could not uphold the appeal, that one of the grounds of appeal—to wit, the sentence was excessive—carried very considerable merit.
Mr Browning held the offence was deliberate, and if the magistrate erred in his sentence at all it was on the side of leniency.
His Honor dismissed the appeal. It seemed extraordinary that a man of such excellent character should so behave, but he (his Honor) couldn’t conceive a man going to such a place at such a time for any other purpose. There were plenty of other places more suitable for a natural purpose. However, the publicity which the case had attained should be a severe punishment in itself, and he (the Judge) could not see why if a man who robs or forges should secure the leniency of the First Offenders’ Act , such an offender as the present accused shouldn’t be entitled to it likewise. It must not be thought he had any doubt about the correctness of the charge, but viewing all the circumstances, he thought it only right to confirm the conviction, but apply the provisions of the First Offenders’ Act .
Mr Browning asked for costs. His Honor directed the payment of £5 5s, the usual cost of appeal.
The Court then adjourned.
1 The Armidale Express and New England General Advertiser, Tue 2 Mar 1915, p. 4. Emphasis added.
2 The Armidale Chronicle, Wed 3 Mar 1915, p. 3. Emphasis added.
3 The Armidale Chronicle, Wed 2 Jun 1915, p. 4. Emphasis added.
4 The Armidale Express and New England General Advertiser, Fri 4 Jun 1915, p. 6. Emphasis added.