Frank Bradbury, 1925
Below also see: Bradbury v. “Truth” and “Sportsman” Ltd, 1926,
Frank Bradbury, 1927,
Frank Bradbury, 1927,
Frank Bradbury, 1928 – Buggery
The Age, Mon 22 Jun 1925 1
MATRIMONIAL INDUCEMENTS.
———◦———
“TEA AND TOAST IN BED.”
Considerable amusement was caused in the City Court on Saturday morning during the hearing of a charge of assault brought by Louisa Bradbury, a middle-aged boarding house keeper, of Queen-street, against her husband, Frank Bradbury.
Mrs Bradbury proceeded against her husband a few days previously on a charge of trespass, and it was dismissed on Bradbury undertaken not to go near her again.
Mrs Bradbury, who proved voluble in the witness box, said on Friday her husband had come to her house, broken open the front door and threatened her with an empty beer bottle. She got him out of the house by reminding him what would occur if she took him to court again. In the meantime she had sent for the police. She told him to go away before a constable came, but he struck her, and knocked her into the gutter.
In reply to Mr Sonenberg, witness said her first husband, whom she had divorced, had served four terms of imprisonment for having assaulted her. It was not a habit of hers to give her husbands in charge. Prior to their marriage accused used to mange one of her shops. They were married in January last, and he had turned lazy. He was the worst man in the world, and would not work.
Accused [Frank Bradbury] (bitterly): Didn’t you ask me to marry you and promise me tea and toast in bed? (Laughter.)
Bradbury, on oath, denied having assaulted his wife. He went to her house and took with him a bottle of port wine to make friends with her. They had made up rows as bad as this one a dozen times since January. He had now decided they were better apart, and if she would undertake not to follow him he would go to Sydney that day.
Mr Knight, PM: You are not compelled to leave Melbourne, but you had better keep away from your wife.
Bradbury was fined £1 in default seven days’ imprisonment.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Mon 22 Jun 1925 2
HUSBAND ASSAULTS WIFE.
———◦———
Fine of £1 Imposed.
Charged with having assaulted his wife, Louisa Bradbury, on the previous evening, Frank Bradbury, aged 28 years, appeared at the [Melbourne] City Court on Saturday morning. Bradbury pleaded not guilty.
Louisa Bradbury said:—I am a boarding-house keeper at Queen-street, West Melbourne. About a quarter to past 6 o’clock on Friday night my husband broke into my front room and waved an empty beer bottle at me. He went away and I rang up the police. I was having my tea when my husband came into the kitchen. I ran into the street, and my husband struck me and knocked me into the gutter.
[Frank] Bradbury, on oath, said:—When working at Tinsley’s I occupied a room at my wife’s boarding-house. When my employment ceased I told Mrs Bradbury that I was going to the country. She told me not to go, and I married her later. On Friday I took a bottle of wine to the house in the hope that we might effect a reconciliation. I did not strike her. We have made it up five times since January. (Laughter). She is too old for me.
Mr Knight:—We gave you a chance the other day and you promised not to come here again. You will be fined £1.
With Mr R Knight, PM, on the bench were Messrs T O’Callaghan, R McKay, C Goldspink, and JB Huggan, JP’s.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Age, Sat 12 Dec 1925 3
A SAILOR HUSBAND’S WOEFUL STORY.
———◦———
“TWENTY-FIVE BOB A WEEK” TO
WORK FOR HIS WIFE.
A brawny sailor, Frank Bradbury, living at Burnley, and his stern-looking wife, Louisa Bradbury, matrimonial agent, boarding house keeper and shopkeeper, of Queen-street, Melbourne, related some of their domestic differences to the bench at the City Court yesterday, when Frank Bradbury was charged with having assaulted his wife on 10th December.
Mrs Bradbury said she had put her husband in charge of a shop at Burnley, but on 10th December he robbed the till, assaulted the girl assistant, and threatened to break up the ice cream machine. When she remonstrated with him, he said he would put a bullet right through the centre of her forehead, and twisted her arm and punched her. She was afraid of him, and desired to have him bound over to keep the peace.
Defendant: Did you chase me with a poker on Wednesday night (Laughter.)
Witness: No.
Defendant, who was the personification of worry and spoke in a thick English Midland dialect, said, “My wife keeps a matrimonial agency.”
Mr Knight: I should have thought your experience would keep you away from that sort of thin. (Laughter.)
“Before I was married,” continued defendant, “I was a seaman. Now she pays me twenty-five bob a week to work in her shop at Burnley from 7.30 in the morning to 12 at night, and I’m fed up, She calls me an idle dog from the slums of England and a pommy goat. On Wednesday night she chased me round the kitchen with a poker, though she looks a lamb in the witness box. (Laughter.) I got a packet of State Express cigarettes, and she got wild because I didn’t smoke Capstans. (Laughter.) I told her I’m fed up; I am, and I’m going on the booze.”
Mr Knight: You’ll get into worse trouble if you do. Why not get a ship and go away from her.
Defendant: I like the woman a bit. When she came at me with the poker I only pushed her, and she said, “I’ll speak to Mr Knight, and he’ll fix you.” (Laughter.)
Mr Knight: Discharged.
Mrs Bradbury: O, lor, I’ll be killed before I get home. (Laughter.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Sat 12 Dec 1925 4
ASSAULT CHARGE DISMISSED.
Charged with having unlawfully assaulted his wife on December 10, Frank Bradbury, aged 29 years, seaman, appeared at the [Melbourne] City Court, on Friday. The Bench consisted of Mr R Knight, PM, and Messrs T O’Callaghan, C Goldspink, T Latham, W Curtis, R Lord, and M Fardy, JP’s.
Louisa Bradbury , Queens street, city, said:—On the morning of December 10 my husband struck me and twisted my arm. I had to run out into the street. He has threatened to put a bullet through my head. I am afraid for my life.
[Frank] Bradbury :—My wife has been paying me 25/- a week, and I have to look after a confectionery shop in Burnley. I work until midnight, and on sundays as well. My wife chased me with a poker on this particular morning, and I put out my hand to stop her smashing me up. I did not assault her. I rang her up on the morning of December 10 to say that I was going on the booze.
Mr Knight:—That would not do you any good.
Bradbury:—But I want some fresh air. I want to bury my sorrows.
Mr Knight:—This case must be dismissed.
Mrs Bradbury:—I will be killed before I get home if you let him out.
Mr Knight:—If you are afraid for your life you must swear another information against your husband.
Mrs Bradbury:—Yes, I will now.
Bradbury v. “Truth” and “Sportsman” Ltd, 1926
Townsville Daily Bulletin, Sat 6 Feb 1926 5
TELEGRAMS.
————
…
A WRIT.
————
Melbourne, February 4.
For alleged defamatory statements published in “Truth,” December 19, Louisa Bradbury, married, of Richmond, yesterday, took out a supreme court writ, claiming £1000 damages from “Truth and Sportsman” Limited, Melbourne.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Thu 15 Jul 1926 6
LAW NOTICES.—(This Day.)
…
FIRST CIVIL COURT.—Before Mr Justice McArthur and Juries of Six.—At 10.30 Bennett v. the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramway Board, Bradbury v. “Truth” and “Sportsman” Ltd.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Age, Fri 16 Jul 1926 7
NEWSPAPER SUED.
———◦———
AN ACTION FOR LIBEL.
———
£1000 DAMAGES CLAIMED.
An action for alleged libel against “Truth” and “Sportsman” Ltd was commenced in the First Civil Court yesterday, before Mr Justice McArthur and a jury of six, when Louisa Bradbury, of Burnley-street, Richmond, claimed £1000 damages. The alleged libel was said to be contained in a report of certain police court proceedings and published in defendant’s newspaper “Truth” on 19th December [1925] 8. The matter was published under the caption “A Poker Fiend Who Could Not Hold Her Whist,” and related to a charge of assault brought by plaintiff in the City Court against Frank Bradbury, her husband. Bradbury, according to the published report of the proceedings, is alleged to have stated that Louisa Bradbury had chased him through a shop at Richmond—where he worked—with a poker. In the course of the article the following words appeared:—
The new kind of poker is a terrible thing, a fiend in human shape. … it is played with an implement about 18 inches long; generally used to stir up the fire, and capable of cracking anything from heads and doors to matrimonial bliss.
It was also stated that Bradbury had said from the dock that he was not married to the woman, whereas plaintiff alleged she was married, and that her reputation had suffered in consequence of the publication of the article. Mr E Gorman and Mr Fraser (instructed by Joseph Lynch) appeared for plaintiff; Mr R[obert] G[ordon] Menzies 9 (by Maddock, Jamieson and Lonie) for defendant.
The defence was that the report was a true and accurate record of the police court proceedings; that the words complained of were not capable of the meaning assigned to them, and that any comment made was fair and reasonable.
Mr Gorman said plaintiff was a married woman, and for many years had lived at Burnley. In 1925 she married a second time, and that unfortunate marriage was responsible for the matter complained of. Her husband assisted her in the management of a little business, but developed certain passions for cigarettes and liquor, and when under the influence of the latter became obstreperous, and Mrs Bradbury was compelled to bring him before the police court. On 11th December last she summoned him for assault, and the alleged libel was contained in the report of those police court proceedings. At this stage he (counsel) did not propose to call any evidence beyond handing to the court and to the jury copies of the paper containing the article.
Mr Menzies contended there was no case to answer. Plaintiff had not gone into the witness box. He submitted the inference could not be drawn from the article that plaintiff was an unmarried woman living with a man.
His Honor said he would allow the case to proceed.
Albert George Greenlees, reporter on defendant newspaper, stated the article was a true account of the police court proceedings. He distinctly heard Bradbury say from the witness box at the City Court that he was not married to the woman.
Constable Duffy, of St Kilda, gave similar evidence.
Mr Gorman, for plaintiff, called [George] Thomas Ryan, assistant, clerk of petty sessions at Melbourne; Richard John Fardy, JP, of Toorak-road, South Yarra; Reginald Matthias, reporter on the “Argus,” and Jas Pattison Doak, reporter for “The Age,” who stated they did not hear Bradbury make the statement that he was not married to the woman.
Ryan, in reply to Mr Menzies, said the Bradburys had been before the court on a previous occasion, and had provided “a star turn.”
Mr Menzies, addressing the jury, drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff was a woman who had come to the court complaining that her reputation had been besmirched, yet she had not gone into the witness box to give evidence.
The case had not concluded when the court adjourned till to-day.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Fri 16 Jul 1926 10
NEWSPAPER SUED.
———◦———
CHALLENGED REPORT.
————
£1,000 Damages Claimed.
Before Mr Justice McArthur and a jury of six in the First Civil Court yesterday, Louisa Bradbury, of Burnley street, Richmond, brought an action claiming £1,000 damages for defamation from “Truth” and “Sportsman” Ltd, of Queen street, Melbourne. Mr Gorman and Mr Fraser (instructed by Mr Joseph Lynch, of Richmond) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Menzies (instructed by Messrs Maddock, Jamieson, and Lonie) appeared for the defendant.
It was pleaded by plaintiff that a defamatory statement concerning herself had been printed in “Truth” newspaper on December 20, 1925. A report of legal proceeding in Petty Sessions between her husband and herself was headed “A Poker Fiend Who Could Not Hold Her Whisht.” The report set out that Louisa Bradbury wished to have Frank Bradbury “bound over.” It added:—“Frank, a simple English seaman, was not her husband, and had been employed minding her shop in Burnley.” It was pleaded that this statement was defamatory.
The defence was that the words complained of did not admit of the meaning assigned to them, and that portion of the words complained of consisted of a faithful and accurate report of proceedings in the Court of Petty Sessions at Melbourne on December 11, 1925.
Mr Gorman put in the issue of “Truth,” in which the report appeared. He said that at that stage he would not call further evidence. It might be necessary later to call evidence in rebuttal.
Mr Menzies said that there was no case to go to a jury. There was nothing in the paragraph to suggest that plaintiff was living in improper relations with Frank Bradbury.
Mr Justice McArthur said that he would not stop the case at taht [sic] stage.
Mr Menzies, in opening the defence, said that the burden of the article was that the woman who figured in the proceedings was expert in the use of a poker. If the jury came to the conclusion that the woman was a violent person that would be a reasonable inference to draw from the article; but there was no complaint in regard to that. The thing complained of was a supposed suggestion that the woman was living in immoral relations with Frank Bradbury. A reader would require ingenuity above the ordinary to attach that meaning to it. The defence was that insofar as the article contained any reference to the plaintiff it was a clear and accurate report of certain police court proceedings. Evidence would be called to show that such proceedings had taken place, and that the report was fair.
[Albert] George Greenlees, report for “Truth,” said:—I wrote the report, and it is accurate. [Frank] Bradbury said from the dock, “I am not married to her, and I cannot get a ship to ger away.” I had been in Melbourne one month when I wrote the report, and I know nothing whatever about the Bradburys.
Mr Gorman.—Of course, on a story like this it was not necessary to adhere too closely to the truth.
Witness.—It is always necessary to adhere to the truth in newspaper work.
Constable CA Duffy, of St Kilda, said:—I heard Bradbury on oath say, “I am not married to the woman, but I like her.”
Witnesses for the plaintiff were then examined.
George Thomas Ryan, clerk of courts at Melbourne; Reginald Mathias, reporter for “The Argus,” and James Patterson Doak, reporter for the “Age,” each said that he was present in court, and did not hear Bradbury say that he was not married.
The hearing had not concluded when the Court rose until this morning.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Age, Sat 17 Jul 1926 11
NEWSPAPER SUED.
———◦———
ACTION FOR LIBEL.
————
JURY AWARDS £750 DAMAGES.
Before Mr Justice McArthur and a jury of six in the First Civil Court yesterday, the action was concluded in which Louisa Bradbury, married woman, of Burnley-street, Richmond, claimed £1000 damages for alleged libel from “Truth and Sportsman” Ltd. The alleged libel was said to have been contained in an issue of “Truth” newspaper on 19th December.
The jury found for plaintiff, and assessed damages at £750.
Judgment was entered for plaintiff for £750, with costs.
Mr RG Menzies, for defendant, asked for a stay of proceedings for fourteen days, which was granted.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Sat 17 Jul 1926 12
NEWSPAPER SUED.
———◦———
VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.
————
Damages Assessed at £750.
A jury in the First Civil Court yesterday found a verdict in favour of Louisa Bradbury, of Burnley street, Richmond, who claimed £1,000 damages from “Truth” and “Sportsman” Limited, of Queen street, Melbourne. The damages were claimed for defamation of character which were said to have been contained in an article in “Truth” newspaper of December 20, 1925. The article complained of was headed, “A Poker Fiend Who Cold Not Hold Her Whisht.” Mr Gorman and Mr Fraser (instructed by Mr Joseph Lynch, of Richmond) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Menzies (instructed by Messrs Maddock, Jamieson and Lonie) for the defendant.
Mr Justice McArthur, in charging the jury, said that it must not assume that, because the plaintiff had not gone into the box, she was not of good reputation. It was a reasonable thing for a man of the highest reputation to say, “There is the libel and you have to justify it. I am not going into the box for you to throw mud at me.” If the woman did bear a bad character it was open to the defendant to have called evidence to prove the fact. Mrs Bradbury had, apparently, had quarrels with her husband, but the jury should not assume that it was all her fault. As far as the case was concerned, she was a reputable woman in humble circumstances, and she claimed that she had been defamed by the article which contained the suggestion that she was not married to Bradbury, with whom she was living. If the jury were satisfied that Mrs Bradbury had been defamed, it should determine what damages should be given her. That was a matter for its discretion.
When the jury retired Mr Menzies directed attention to certain aspects of the judge’s summing up, which he considered failed to put the defence in its correct light. The jury was brought into court, and Mr Justice McArthur elaborated certain points in the direction suggested by Mr Menzies. He then asked the jury to retire, if it considered that the points made were likely to affect its finding. After consultation the jury indicated that it did not require further consideration. The foreman said that the jury had found for plaintiff and “had assessed damages at £750, with costs.”
Mr Justice McArthur.—Your verdict, gentlemen, is for £750. The costs I deal with. They will, however, go with the verdict.
Judgment was entered accordingly. On the application of Mr Menzies a stay of 14 days was granted.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The West Australian, Sat 17 Jul 1926 13
DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.
———◦———
DAMAGES AGAINST
NEWSPAPER.
————
Melbourne, July 16.
A jury in the First Civil Court to-day found a verdict in favour of Louisa Bradbury, of Burnley-street, Richmond, who claimed £1,000 damages from the Truth and Sportsman Limited, of Queen-street, Melbourne. The damages were claimed for defamation of character, which were said to have been contained in an article in “Truth” newspaper, of December 20, 1925. The article complained of was headed “A Poker Fiend who Could not Hold Her Whist.” Damages were assessed at £750, with costs.
A stay of 14 days was granted.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Truth, Sun 18 Jul 1926 14
£750 DAMAGES
———◦———
Libel Action Against
“Truth”
————
WOMAN’S SUIT
(From “Truth’s” Melbourne Rep)
ON Friday morning the jury hearing in libel action of Louisa Bradbury v. “Truth” and “Sportsman,” Ltd, returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for £750 damages and costs.
The case arose out of a report of proceedings in the City Court in December 11, 1925, where plaintiff charged her husband with assault.
In reporting the action, “Truth” set up the heading, “A Poker Fiend Who Could Not Hold Her Whist,” and in introducing the story, said that Louisa Bradbury, the plaintiff, and Frank Bradbury, the defendant, were not married.
This was based on a statement sworn by Bradbury, the defendant, so the reporter and a policeman alleged.
This report went on to describe how Mrs Bradbury chased Frank Bradbury with a poker, and how her action for assault was dismissed.
Plaintiff claimed that the article by inference, insinuated that she was not married to Frank Bradbury, but was living in adultery with him, whereas she was married to him.
Mr Gorman said he proposed merely ed [sic] by Mr J Lynch, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr RJ Menzies, instructed by Mr Maddocks Jamieson and Lonie, for the defendant.
Mr Gorman said he proposed merely to put in a copy of “Truth” of December 19, in which the alleged libel appeared, to let defendants justify it, and if necessary to call evidence in rebuttal of statements that might be made.
REPORTER’S EVIDENCE
A George Greenlees, “Truth” reporter, said that the report was true and accurate. Frank Bradbury said on oath, “I am not married to the woman.”
He did not know either party, and was quite unbiassed. The report, where it was comment, was merely a summary of evidence, bearing in mind that fact that Mrs Bradbury’s complaint had been dismissed.
Constable Duffy, who arrested Bradbury at the instigation of plaintiff, bore out the evidence of Greenlees in detail.
He said he heard Bradbury say, “I am not married to the woman.” He had good cause to remember it, as previously he had been called in in their disputes and believed that they were married.
Defendants claimed that the report was true, accurate, and fair where it was comment, privileged and justified by evidence.
Two reporters, Malthias, of the “Argus,” and Drake. Of the “Age,” were called to swear that they could not remember Bradbury saying he was not married to Louisa Bradbury.
They were not positive on the point, but George Ryan, Assistant Clerk of Courts for ten years, said the statement attributed to Bradbury were not made in his hearing.
JUDGE’S MISTAKE
Louisa Bradbury did not go into the box, and Mr Menzies, in addressing the jury, urged that she did not go in to prove that Bradbury had not made the statement complained of, because she was afraid to be cross-examined on her reputation.
In summing up, Mr Justice McArthur took a strong view against the defendant paper, and at the finish defendant’s counsel pointed out, to His Honor that he had put the case for the plaintiff o the jury and not the defence.
He also contended that the jury had been misdirected on several points, and that he had misconstructed one part of the alleged libel as referring to the plaintiff, whereas it referred to the abstract question of cigarettes.
The opposing counsel admitted that, in reference to cigarettes this was so.
His Honor then agreed that he had made a mistake.
The jury, after a few minutes retirement, brought in their verdict. A stay of fourteen days was granted.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Age, Fri 15 Oct 1926 15
DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.
———◦———
An Appeal Dismissed.
Consisting of the Chief Justice (Sir William Irvine), Mr Justice Schutt and Mr Justice Macfarlan, the State Full Court dealt with an appeal by “Truth” and “Sportsman” Ltd, from a finding of a jury and a direction to it by Mr Justice McArthur.
Mrs Louisa Bradbury, a married woman, of Burnley-street, Burnley, brought an action in the Supreme Court against “Truth” and “Sportsman” Ltd claiming £1000 as damages for alleged libel. The libel was said to have been published in “Truth” newspaper on 19th December last, and was contained in the report of a case heard at the City Court, in which plaintiff charged her husband, Frank Bradbury, with assault. It was stated that Bradbury had made a statement which reflected on plaintiff’s character. Defendant denied that the words complained of were libellous, or that they were capable of the meaning assigned to them by plaintiff; the words were a faithful report, and that in so far as they were comment they were fair comment upon a proceeding in court, and that the words in their ordinary meaning were true in substance and in fact. The action was heard before Mr justice McArthur and a jury of twelve. The jury found for plaintiff, and assessed damages at £750. The appeal, by defendant was on the grounds that the finding and verdict were against evidence and the weight of evidence; that the damages were excessive, and misdirection by the trial judge.
The Full Court, in dismissing the appeal with costs, held that the damages were not excessive, and that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury.
Mr Lowe and Mr Fullager (instructed by Messrs Maddock, Jamieson and Lonie) appeared for appellant, and Mr Gorman and Mr Fraser (by Mr J Lynch) for Mrs Bradbury.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Fri 15 Oct 1926 16
CHALLENGED REPORT.
———◦———
DAMAGES AGAINST NEWSPAPER.
————
Appeal to Full Court Fails.
Some weeks ago Mrs Louisa Bradbury, married woman, of Burnley street, Richmond, obtained a verdict for £750 damages against “Truth” and “Sportsman” Ltd, for alleged libel. The libel was embodied in a report of police court proceedings, in which Frank Bradbury, husband of Mrs Bradbury, was prosecuted. It was headed “A Poker Fiend Who Could Not Hold Her Whisht.” The report attributed to Bradbury a statement that he was not married to Mrs Bradbury.
When the case came on for hearing before Mr Justice McArthur, Mr Gorman, for plaintiff, tendered a copy of “Truth,” and submitted no further evidence. Defendant submitted evidence to show that Bradbury had made the statement.
On the verdict being announced Mr Menzies, for defendant, obtained a stay of 14 days. On Wednesday defendant appealed to the Full Court of Victoria consisting of the Chief Justice (Sir William Irvine), Mr Justice Schutt, and Mr Justice Macfarlan. The appeal was on the ground that the finding and/or the verdict were against the evidence and the weight of evidence, that the damages were excessive, that at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, the learned judge, (Mr Justice McArthur) should have directed a verdict for the defendant, that the learned judge failed to direct the jury sufficiently, or at all, upon the issue of fact and the evidence in relation thereto, that the learned judge misdirected the jury regarding the measure of damages or regarding the matters to be taken into consideration by the jury in assessing damages. Numerous other grounds of appeal were given.
Mr Gorman and Mr Fraser appeared for Mrs Bradbury, and Mr Lowe and Mr Fullagar appeared for the defendant appellant.
At the conclusion of argument, the Chief Justice said that the damages were not such as 12 reasonable men might not award. The Court was of opinion that Mr Justice McArthur had not misdirected the jury. The appeal would be dismissed, with costs.
Frank Bradbury, 1927
The Argus, Sat 1 Jan 1927 17
ASSAULT CHARGE DISMISSED.
————
Louisa Rebecca Bradbury, confectioner, of Burnley street, Burnley, charged her husband, Frank Bradbury, in the Richmond Court on Friday with having assaulted her unlawfully.
Mrs [Louisa] Bradbury said:—On December 29 my husband threw a heavy oak chair at me and struck me on the back. He called me a vulgar name and twisted my wrists.
[Frank] Bradbury denied the story, and said that he had been in the Coburg Gaol since the date of the alleged offence.
Mr CJ Rogers, JP.—The Bench considers there is as much truth in the evidence of defendant as there is in the evidence of his wife. The case is dismissed.
With Mr Rogers on the bench were Messrs JT McCall, JR Le Pine, and W Johnson, JP’s.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Wed 9 Feb 1927 18
LODGING-HOUSE KEEPER ASSAULTED.
Frank Bradbury, labourer, was charged at the City Court yesterday with having unlawfully assaulted his wife, Louisa Bradbury, lodging-house keeper, of Queen street, city. Mr AA Kelley, PM, and Messrs T Latham, WH Curtis, C Goldspink, and T O’Callaghan, JP’s, were on the bench.
Bradbury was fined £5 in default imprisonment for one month.
Louisa Bradbury said:—Frank Bradbury is my husband, but we are living apart. He came to my house on February 3 and entered the kitchen. He was drunk and had with him several oranges. He caught me by the throat and almost choked me. I could not call out, but Charles Reeves, a motor-driver, came towards us. Bradbury kicked him downstairs. Reeves went for the police, and I told Bradbury to go, because the police had been sent for. He went away.
Bradbury.—Did you not hit me with the poker before I touched you?
Witness.—No.
Frank Bradbury said:—I am Mrs Bradbury’s second husband. When I entered the house my wife sent me away, because her daughter, with whom I was not friendly, was inside. When I returned later I had had too many drinks, and she said, “I have received a bill for damages on your account. I had previously driven her car, not knowing its gears, into the neighbour’s fence. After speaking of the bill she said that I was drunk, and ordered me to leave the house. She attacked me with a poker. She had no use for me, as she had obtained all my money.
Frank Bradbury, 1927
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 13 Oct 1927 19
NEWCASTLE POLICE COURT.
———◦———
Wednesday, October 12.
————
(Before Mr WI Perry, SM.)
…
UNEMPLOYEDS’ SLEEPING QUARTERS.
James McDonald (36), labourer, Edward Quinn (38), labourer, William Lindsay (34), labourer Edward Daniels (23), labourer, Reuben Anderson (25), labourer, Alec McLean (27), labourer, Tunnis Sconey (35), fireman, and Patrick Nolan (38), labourer, pleaded guilty to having unlawfully trespassed on the Government railways. It was stated that about 3.20 that morning some of the defendants were found sleeping in railway carriages, and others in a shed. The men left the carriages and shed littered with paper and old bags.
The magistrate said that he sympathised with the men, but they must not trespass on the railway. He sentenced them to detention to the rising of the court.
A plea of not guilty was entered by Frank Bradbury, 21, labourer, upon a similar charge. At a later stage he withdrew his plea and was also sentenced to detention until the rising of the court.
Frank Bradbury, 1928
Evening News, Fri 13 Jul 1928 20
ON SERIOUS CHARGE
————
\Newcastle, Friday.
Frank Bradbury, 31, seaman, was committed for trial from the local court to-day on a charge of having attempted a serious offence against a youth.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 13 Jul 1928 21
NEWCASTLE POLICE COURT.
————
Thursday, July 12.
————
(Before Mr WI Perry, SM.)
DRUNKENNESS.
The bond of one first offender, charged with drunkenness, was forfeited.
REMANDED.
Frank Bradbury (31), labourer, was remanded until to-day upon a charge of having committed a serious offence at Newcastle on July 10. Bail was not applied for.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Newcastle Sun, Fri 13 Jul 1928 22
“I’LL CHOKE YOU”
———◦———
ALLEGED ASSAULT
————
MAN FOR TRIAL
————
“Unsolved Murderer”
————
Jul 1931, p. 18. Reproduction: Peter de Waal
“If you cry out, I’ll choke you in a second and throw you under the bed. No one will ever find you. I’ll be one of the unsolved murderers.”
With this threat, according to evidence at Newcastle Police Court to-day, Frank Bradbury, 31, laborer, seized Arthur John Robertson, 20, hotel useful, by the throat and threw him on a bed in a room at the Great Britain Hotel on July 11.
Bradbury appeared before Mr Perry, SM, on a charge of having committed a serious assault against Robertson. He was committed for trial at the Newcastle Quarter Sessions on August 13.
Robertson said that he heard the Market-street door bell of the Great Britain Hotel ring about 7.30 pm. He answered the door. A gentleman was at the door.
The SM: Don’t call him a gentleman—call him a man.
(Syd, NSW), Sun 5 Jul 1931, p. 18.
Reproduction: Peter de Waal
Robertson said that the man, who was Bradbury, said he had a double room booked, for which he paid 12s. He said that he had had a woman with him, but while he went to get some pies she ran away.
Robertson said he took Bradbury to No. 10 room, a single one. Bradbury persisted that he paid 12s for a double room, and he wanted it. Una, the housemaid, told him to put Robertson [sic–Bradbury] in No. 4, which was a double room.
While he was in the room with Bradbury, said Robertson, Bradbury said, “What a cow that woman was for slipping me up.” He then asked Robertson to go for a packet of cigarettes, and to see if there was a woman outside. Robertson went for the cigarettes.
“HE WAS TERRIFIED”
Bradbury was still in No. 4 with only his shirt on, Robertson continued. He stayed talking to Bradbury for a few minutes. Bradbury grabbed him by the throat and threw him on the bed.
“If you cry out I’ll choke you in a second and throw you under the bed. No one will find you. I’ll be one of the unsolved murderers,” said Bradbury, according to Robertson, who said that he was terrified and could not call for help.
(Syd, NSW), Sun 5 Jul 1931, p. 18.
Reproduction: Peter de Waal
Robertson added that Mrs Galperin, wife of the licence of the hotel, came in unexpectedly and switched on the light. When she saw Bradbury and Robertson she said she thought no one was in the room. She went out and switched out the light.
Bradbury, continued Robertson, told him to keep quiet, and let him go after Mrs Galperin had departed.
To Sergeant Ward: I did not complain to Mrs Galperin, as she was a lady. Bradbury was drunk when I let him in the door at 7.30 pm.
To Mr Perry: He first mentioned his lady friend when I took him up to No. 10.
To Bradbury: You did not drag me into the room.
Bradbury: You are 20 year old and I suppose you are Australian-born. Why didn’t you put up a fight?—I couldn’t.
Bradbury: Why didn’t you call out?—You had your hand to my throat.
“WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED”
Why didn’t you complain to the licensee?—I would have done so next morning.
“If you are 20 years old, you must have a spark of intelligence,” said Bradbury. “Why didn’t you sing out when Mrs Galperin came into the room?—She was a lady.
Una Watkins, housemaid of the Great Britain Hotel, said that Bradbury first came to the hotel with a woman between 5.45 pm and 6 pm, and asked for a double room. He was allotted No. 10.
About 6.10 pm, Bradbury, she said, asked her if she had seen the woman who had come with him.
“I told him I had not seen the lady,” said Miss Watkins.
“Don’t call her a lady, call her a woman.” said the SM.
Later, when the witness referred to the defendant as a “gentleman,” the SM gave it up.
Mary Galperin, wife of the licensee of the Great Britain Hotel, said she went to No. 4 room, which was not booked. She opened the door and saw Bradbury and the boy Arthur.
Bradbury: Do you ever get drunk?
Sergeant Ward objected to the question.
In answer to another question, Mrs Galperin said she was perfectly sober when she went to the room.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sun, Fri 13 Jul 1928 23
“IF YOU CRY OUT”
————
ALLEGED THREATS
Newcastle, Friday.
“If you cry out I will choke you in a second and throw you under the bed. No one will ever find you I’ll be one of the unsolved murderers!”
With this threat, according to evidence at the Newcastle Police Court to-day, Frank Bradbury, aged 31, laborer, seized Arthur John Robertson, aged 20, hotel useful, by the throat and threw him under the bed in a room at the Great Britain Hotel on July 7.
Bradbury was committed for trial on a charge of assault.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Sat 14 Jul 1928 24
NEWCASTLE POLICE COURT.
————
Friday, July 13.
————
(Before Mr WI Perry, SM.)
…
COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
Frank Bradbury 31, labourer, on remand, was charged that at Newcastle on July 10 he did commit an abominable offence [buggery with Arthur John Robertson]. Plainclothes Constable Munday said about 9.30am on July 11, accompanied by Sergeant Bell, he saw defendant at the Newcastle Police Station. He told defendant of the nature of a complaint which had been made, and there formally charged him. After further evidence, defendant, who was unrepresented, and said he was innocent of the offence, reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at Newcastle Quarter Sessions on August 13. Bail was allowed, self and a surety of £100, or two sureties of £50 each.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 14 Aug 1928 25
QUARTER SESSIONS
————
Monday, August 13.
——–
(Before His Honor Judge White.)
——–
(Mr TS Crawford, Crown Prosecutor.)
——–
…
ALLEGED ABOMINABLE OFFENCE.
Frank Bradbury, who was unrepresented, pleaded not guilty to having committed an abominable offence at Newcastle on July 10. There was a second count of common assault. Accused exhausted his right of challenge by challenging eight jurors.
After evidence had been given, his Honor had not concluded his summing up when the Court adjourned at 5 o’clock to ten o’clock this morning.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Newcastle Sun, Tue 14 Aug 1928 26
ASSAULTED YOUTH
———◦———
QUARTER SESSIONS CASE
————
HIGHER CHARGE FAILS
————
Allegations that he had been assaulted by a hotel guest, Frank Bradbury (31), laborer, in a bedroom at the Great Britain Hotel on July 10, were made by Arthur John Robertson, aged 20, a hotel useful, at Newcastle Quarter Sessions.
Bradbury was charged before Judge White and a jury with having committed an abominable offence on Robertson, and there was a second charge of common assault.
Addressing the jury, Bradbury said that he would leave the matter in their hands as “men of the world.”
The jury retired at 10.40 am, and when they returned at 11.55 am it was with a verdict of not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second.
Bradbury was remanded for sentence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Wed 15 Aug 1928 27
QUARTER SESSIONS
————
Tuesday, August 14.
——–
(Before Judge White.)
——–
(Mr TS Crawford, Crown Prosecutor.)
——–
GUILTY ON SECOND COUNT.
When the Court resumed yesterday, His Honor concluded his summing up in the matter in which Frank Bradbury had pleaded not guilty to having committed an abominable offence at Newcastle, on July 10. There was a second count of common assault. In addressing the jury, the accused [Frank Bradbury] denied any knowledge of the offence. The jury retired at 10.40 o’clock, and returned at 11.55 o’clock with a verdict of not guilty on the first count, but guilty on the second count. Accused was remanded for sentence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Newcastle Sun, Thu 16 Aug 1928 28
‘DEPORT ME!’
———◦———
PRISONER’S REQUEST
————
GAOL SENTENCE
————
LONG SPEECH FROM DOCK
————
A request to be deported was made by Frank Bradbury to Judge White, after he had been sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
Bradbury was found guilty of having indecently assaulted John Arthur Robertson at the Great Britain Hotel, at Newcastle Quarter Sessions on Tuesday.
Before passing sentence, the judge asked Bradbury if he had anything to say. Bradbury had—a lot!
“In your summing up, Your Honor, you said that I had been in a position of responsibility in Melbourne, and looked after the cash—–” he commenced.
“We will not enter into an argument,” said the judge.
“I won’t keep you more than a couple of minutes,” said Bradbury.
The Judge said that he did not mind being kept waiting.
“Well, it appears to me that this case is one of ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’.” said Bradbury.
Judge White: “What doo you mean by that?”
Bradbury: “Well, why should I be convicted on a second count of which I knew nothing?”
The judge pointed out that he had asked Bradbury if he had anything to say in extenuation of the offence.
“GIVE ME A CHANCE”
“Well, give me a chance, and I’ll hit the track to the back of Bourke, and the city will know me no more,” exclaimed Bradbury.
“I cannot do that,” said the judge.
“Well, Your Honor, if I am to be sentenced, will you make a strong recommendation that I be deported?” asked Bradbury. “If I am a sex fiend, I am not fit to breath the air of this country,” he added.
Judge White replied that he would consider recommending Bradbury to a position on an out-going ship, but not immediately.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sun, Thu 16 Aug 1928 29
Asked to be Deported
Newcastle, Thursday.—When Frank Bradbury was sentenced at the Newcastle Sessions to-day to 12 months; imprisonment for indecent assault on another man, he asked to be deported.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 17 Aug 1928 30
QUARTER SESSIONS
————
Thursday, August 16.
——–
(Before Judge White.)
——–
(Mr TS Crawford, Crown Prosecutor.)
——–
…
SENTENCES.
TWELVE MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT.
Frank Bradbury, who was found guilty on a second count of common assault, came up for sentence. Asked whether he had anything to say, accused [Frank Bradbury] said that at the police court he was only charged with one offence, and during the five weeks he had been in Maitland Gaol he was not made aware that a second count would be preferred against him. His Honor then explained to accused the origin of the second count.
Accused: It seems to me to be a case of heads you win, tails I lose.
His Honor: I do not want to argue with you about that.
Accused: If you give me a chance, your Honor, I will guarantee to leave the district to-day and go to the other side of Bourke. There are no “high lights” there.
His Honor: I am afraid I cannot do that. I will take into consideration that your previous convictions were for minor offences only. You are sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for twelve months.
Accused: Your Honor, could you make a strong recommendation for my deportation. A man found guilty of a sex offence should not remain in this country. There is room for better men.
His Honor: You are a seaman, I understand.
Accused: Yes, your Honor. I have been in employment in Melbourne, and when I left there I went to Bourke, but there was no work there. I tramped to Nambucca Heads, and worked there for three months, engaged in bush cutting. That work petering out, I came to Newcastle, where I am in trouble. It is very hard to be out of work tramping about. People say, “Oh, here comes one of those Pommies.” Indicating the cells underneath the dock, accused said, “There is an English lad down there who is crying his eyes out because he got into trouble through not being able to get work.”
His Honor: It is very unfortunate that you were not able to keep in hard work. If a foreign-going boat can be found for you I will, after a time, recommend that you be placed on board.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Frank Bradbury, Gaol photo sheet 31
![SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5992], Maitland Gaol Photograph description sheets, 1875-1930, No. 2067, p. 34, R5132. Emphasis added.](../../images/trials/1928-Bradbury-5992-gaol-photo-2067.jpg "SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5992], Maitland Gaol Photograph description sheets, 1875-1930, No. 2067, p. 34, R5132. Emphasis added.") |
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
No. 2067
Maitland
Date when Portrait was taken: 21-8-1928
Name: Frank Bradbury
|
Native place: Oldham, England Year of birth: 12-8-1896 Arrived Ship: Themistocles Trade or occupation Religion: Presbyterian Education, degree of: R & W Height: 5' 8¼" Weight On committal: 140 Colour of hair: Fair Colour of eyes: Grey |
Marks or special features: |
|
(No. of previous Portrait ... ) CONVICTIONS |
|||||
| Where and When | Offence. | Sentence | |||
|
Fitzroy PC Melbourne PC ditto ditto Melbourne PC ditto Newcastle PC Newcastle Q.S |
1 26 20 21 8 14 12 14 |
8 2 6 6 2 5 10 8 |
1924 1925 1925 1926 1927 1927 1927 1928 |
Offensive behaviour Wilful damage Assault Damage property Assault Offensive Behaviour Trespass Indecent assault on a male person |
50/- or 14 days H.L. £5 or 21 days H.L. £1 or 7 days H.L. £11.10.0 or 2 months H.L. £5 or 1 month HL £2 or 14 days H.L. Rising of the Court 12 months H.L. |
1 The Age, Mon 22 Jun 1925, p. 14. Emphasis added.
2 The Argus, Mon 22 Jun 1925, p. 9. Emphasis added.
3 The Age, Sat 12 Dec 1925, p. 18. Emphasis added.
4 The Argus, Sat 12 Dec 1925, p. 42. Emphasis added.
5 Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld), Sat 6 Feb 1926, p. 6.
6 The Argus, Thu 15 Jul 1926, p. 10. Emphasis added.
7 The Age, Fri 16 Jul 1926, p. 5.
8 The author requested, during Feb 2011, the State library of Vic to locate a copy of the Truth article referred to. Unfortunately, the library was not able to assist after searching both the 19 and 26 Dec 1925 issues of Truth.
9 Australia’s Prime Minister from 1939-1941 and again from 1949-1966.
10 The Argus, Fri 16 Jul 1926, p. 17. Emphasis added.
11 The Age, Sat 17 Jul 1926, p. 16.
12 The Argus, Sat 17 Jul 1926, p. 29.
13 The West Australian, (Perth, WA), Sat 17 Jul 1926, p. 10.
14 Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 18 Jul 1926, p. 14. Emphasis in original text and added.
15 The Age, Fri 15 Oct 1926, p. 14.
16 The Argus, Fri 15 Oct 1926, p. 16.
17 The Argus, Sat 1 Jan 1927, p. 12. Emphasis added.
18 The Argus, Wed 9 Feb 1927, p. 8. Emphasis added.
19 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Thu 13 Oct 1927, p. 9. Emphasis added.
20 Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Fri 13 Jul 1928, p. 9.
21 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 13 Jul 1928, p. 11.
22 The Newcastle Sun, (NSW), Fri 13 Jul 1928, p. 7. Emphasis in original text and added.
23 The Sun, (Sydney, NSW), Fri 13 Jul 1928, p. 10. Emphasis added.
24 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Sat 14 Jul 1928, p. 12. Emphasis added.
25 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Tue 14 Aug 1928, p. 3.
26 The Newcastle Sun, (NSW), Tue 14 Aug 1928, p. 9.
27 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Wed 15 Aug 1928, p. 2. Emphasis added.
28 The Newcastle Sun, (NSW), Thu 16 Aug 1928, p. 7. Emphasis in original text and added.
29 The Sun, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 16 Aug 1928, p. 9.
30 Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, Fri 17 Aug 1928, p. 5. Emphasis added.
31 SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5992], Maitland Gaol Photograph description sheets, 1875-1930, No. 2067, p. 34, R5132. Emphasis added.