The Daily Observer, Fri 27 Jul 1917 1
TAMWORTH QUARTER SESSIONS.
———
The Tamworth Quarter Sessions commenced yesterday, before Acting Judge White. Mr RJ Browning was Crown Prosecutor.
BOOKMAKER CHARGED.
JURY ACQUITS WITHOUT LEAVING
BOX.
Thomas Patrick Reidy, bookmaker, [44], pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with having committed an abominable offence at Tamworth on July 20, 1916.
Mr ER Abigail appeared for the defence.
The case for the Crown having been opened by Mr Browning, Edward Bernard King, now of Manilla, but who at the time of the alleged offence was licensee of the Federal Hotel Tamworth, at which the offence was alleged to have been committed, stated that the accused, whom he had known fairly well, had always conducted himself as a gentleman so far as he knew.
Setella Perrett, housemaid, at the Federal Hotel, gave similar evidence.
Sergeant D Sinclair said he first saw the accused in connection with the charge on May 4, 1917, in Brisbane-street. When accosted about the matter accused replied: “I have heard about it, sergeant. It is an attempt at blackmail. If I had given the man £20 there would have been nothing more about it. I see now where I made a mistake. I should have paid him the money and had one of you present.” Accused also told witness that on the night of the second day of the Tamworth show a boy asked him for a drink of water when outside Janson’s Railway Hotel, and he (accused) gave him a drink in his room.
In reply to Mr Abigail witness said: “I have known the accused for over two years. I always looked upon him as a man of good repute.”
Witness also said he knew who the man was referred to by the accused. That man was slightly addicted to drink and was of unstable character.
Harold Alexander Wallace, 12 years of age, gave evidence of certain events alleged to have happened.
Cross-examined by Mr Abigail witness was not able to align certain statements made by him in evidence with others made by him in writing to Sergeant Sinclair.
Horace Beaver, 11 years of age, after giving evidence was cross-examined by Mr Abigail. Witness’ evidence did not in cetrain [sic] details corroborate that given at the lower court.
At the conclusion of the Crown case Mr Abigail submitted that his Honor would not let the case go to the jury.
His Honor replied that that was not a matter for him.
Foreman of the Jury: We don’t wish to hear anything further.
The jury having returned a verdict of not guilty, without leaving the box, his Honor remarked that it was almost impossible to expect a jury to have acted other than it had.
Reidy was discharged.
There was a second charge of a similar nature against Reidy, but it was not proceeded with. The Crown Prosecutor said that an indictment would not be filed against the accused, and Reidy was therefore discharged.
1 The Daily Observer, Fri 27 Jul 1917, p. 1. Emphasis added.