Walter Butler (c.1807-1870)- the life of a 'currency' lad born in the colony of NSW: Walter Butler- Ch. 21: Hobart- Years 1863 to 1868

The year 1863 began with a visit to Melbourne, no doubt a business trip. This was six months after he lost his main source of rental income in the major fire in Williamstown.

The Mercury Thurs 8 January 1863 p2

Cleared Out- January 7

Tasmania, steamer, 285 tons, K. Cllock for Melbourne.

Passengers, Mr W. Butler,etc. in the cabin.

The Mercury Sat 4 July 1863 p1

₤1 REWARD- Stolen, from the verandah of the Ship Inn, by a woman, on Thursday night last, a new coir DOOR-MAT, very thick 32x22in. The above will be paid upon conviction.

Walter Butler

Wanted a respectable youth to wait at table.

The Dr. Doughty v. Butler case:

Early 1864, Walter was once more embroiled in a court case, having slandered and threatened the family doctor with violence, to which the doctor took exception:

The Mercury Friday 26 February 1864 p2

LAW

Police Court

Thursday 25^th February 1864

Before A. B. Jones Esq., Stipendiary Magistrate, and H. B. Tookie, Esq., J.P.

DOUGHTY v BUTLER

An information by John Doughty against Walter Butler, for having on the 17^th February instant, and towards the complainant, the words, “You robbed my family. I will kick you out of the place. You are a ___ vagabond.” The information proceeded to state that the complainant was visitng the defendant’s house professionally at the time of the words being used, and that complainant was afraid that defendant would repeat the conduct complained of and thereby incite defendant to a breach of the peace, and prayed that defendant be ordered to find sureties to be of good behaviour.

Mr Fletcher appeared for the complainant, and Mr Graves for the defence.

Mr Fletcher, in opening the case, said that it was painful to Dr. Doughty to bring such a case before the Court at all, but as he (Mr Fletcher) was instructed, the conduct of Mr Butler had become of late so outrageously violent that it was absolutely necessary for the complainant to vindicate his professional character. The conduct of defendant was in fact that of a lunatic, and as strangers were not aware of Mr Butler’s habits, it was incumbent on Dr. Doughty to protect himself. The defendant could not be allowed by circulating rumors, and otherwise, to blast his (complainant’s) reputation. The complainant had been for some years the medical advisor of Mr Butler’s family, but lately in consequence of the violent conduct of the defendant, the complainant had requested that he (Mr Butler) should employ another professional man. The case was not a trumpery one. It had been before the Court previously, but for some unforeseen reason, was on that occasion dismissed. He (Mr Fletcher) understood from gentlemen who were accustomed to practice in the Court that cases of the kind did not come on until after 11 o;clock, but through some unaccountable accident-

Mr Jones said he must interrupt the learned gentleman as he was using language which was unwarrantable. The cases coming before the Court were called on in regular order. If there happened to be no watchhouse cases, the case would be taken immediately on the sitting of the Court, and all persons having business before the Court, knew that they must be in attendance by 10 o’clock. On the occasion referred to there were three watchhouse cases, and the present case came on in its regular order. When the case was called on it wanted 20 minutes to 11 o’clock, for he (Mr Jones) had looked at the clock at the time and if the parties were not in attendance, it was their own fault. The case was called three times outside the Court in the usual manner.

Mr Fletcher said he was not imputing blame to any person.

Mr Jones: It wanted but 10 minutes to 11 when you came into the Court Mr Fletcher.

Mr Fletcher: I only made the statement to show that it is not a trumpery case your worship.

Mr Jones: The statements you have made have nothing to do with its not being a trumpery case.

Mr Fletcher: I only say it is hard that my client should have to pay for a second information.

John Doherty deposed: I am a surgeon and apothecary in this town. I know Mr Walter Butler. He is the person of whom I complain. I remember the 17^th day of February. I saw defendant that day on a passage of his own licensed house. He came up in a very violent manner and told me to go out of the house. He said that I was a robber, and that if I did not go out he would kick me out. I don’t recollect that he said anything else. He used the words read form the Information just now. I made no reply to him. I am sure that all the words cited in the information were used by the defendant on the occasion. He appeared excited, and it appeared to me that the words were used in a threatening manner. I gave no provocation whatever to the defendant for using this threatening language. I have no ill will or malice towards the defendant. I fear that the defendant will repeat the abuse, and cause me to commit a breach of the peace, and that causes me to apply for sureties.

Cross-examined by Mr Graves: defendant said, “if you don’t go out I will kick you.” There is no mistake about that. I also swear that the words used by Mr Butler were the words used in the information. He said “you are not to go up stairs; you’ve robbed my family, and if you don’t go out, I’ll kick you out.” I did go up stairs after that. Mr Butler did not carry out his threat and lick me out. I have not met Mr Butler in the street since the 17^th February. I don’t think I have seen in his verandah since that day. I have passed his house since that time. I have not been at all molested by Mr Butler since the 17^th February. When Butler said I was a robber, there was nothing said about an action that is pending between us.

By Mr Fletcher: I did not say at the time mentioned that I would not visit defendant’s house again that day.

Mr Fletcher here handed the information to the complainant, and was proceeding to examine him further when,

Mr Graves took the information out of defendant’s hand, and giving it to the Clerk of the Bench (Mr Reynolds) said that he objected to the witness being allowed to refer to the document. If he (complainant) wished to make one statement in his information, and another in his evidence, the information was not to be handed him to enable him to patch up his case. Mr Fletcher was only entitled to put questions which arose out of his (Mr Grave’s) cross-examination, and if the case had broken down-

Mr Jones thought it was too soon to say that the case had broken down.

Mr Graves wished to ask whether the question put by Mr Fletcher arose out of the cross-examination.

Mr Jones thought it did not.

Mr Fletcher (to witness): Did you go to visit any of the defendant’s family?

Witness: No

Mr Fletcher: Did you go to defendant’s house professionally?

Mr Grave’s objected to the question. It had been put in the examination in chief. He had merely asked the witness in cross-examination whether he had gone up-stairs, notwithstanding the defendant’s threat.

Mr Jones thought that that question opened up the matter enquired into by Mr Fletcher.

Mr Graves: Very well sir.

Witness to Mr Fletcher: I went up stairs notwithstanding the defendant’s threat. I went to visit some strangers who were staying in the house.

Mr Graves addressed the Court for the defence. The Bench was aware that if a man threatened to do bodily injury to another, or to fire the house of another, the Bench had power to bind the person complained of in sureties to keep the peace, and in that case the law prohibited, so careful was it of property and of person, prohibited the person complained of from denying the body of the information. But in praying for sureties of good behaviour the party must show that the person complained of had been guilty of sufficient misbehaviour, less than a threat to do grievous bodily injury or to burn the complainant’s house, as would justify sureties of good behaviour being required. At the outset, he (Mr Graves) had taken objection to the information, on the ground that there was not sufficient set forth in it to authorise the Bench to make the order required. In point of fact the information was of a bastard description. If the words in it were true, and that was denied by Dr Doughty, they were sufficient to ground an application for sureties of the peace upon, but not for sureties of good behaviour. These words were “You robbed my family. I will kick you out of the place. You are not to come here.”. I will kick you out of the place was a threat, but it applied to the present and not to the future, but Dr Doughty told the Bench that the words used were of a different description. It was usual and necessary that an information should be supported out of the mouth of the witnesses. Now was that the case in the present instance? It was no such thing. If the information claimed sureties of the peace, which it did not, it was not sufficiently proved by Dr Doughty to authorise the interference of the Bench. It was laid down in the authorities that the threat complained of most not be a conditional or contingent threat. Dr Doughty said that the words were “You are a robber, and if you don’t go out, I will kick you out.” Mr Fletcher seeing the danger, and that his case was not made out, endeavoured to take the information out of the hands of the Court, where it ought to remain, in order to enable the Magistrates to follow the very words of the complaint, and to place it in the hands of the witness, for no other reason than to allow Dr Doughty to perjure himself. That was the only way in which Dr Doughty could have acted, if he had followed the course offered by his (Mr Grave’s) learned friend. Taking the evidence of the witness then, what v=became of the information? Or suppose that all the words in the evidence were in the information, and that the information claimed sureties of the peace, then there was only the conditional threat “If you don’t do out, I’ll kick you.” But notwithstanding this threat, Dr Doughty could not have been fearful. That gentleman cried out “For Heaven’s sale protect me. I am afraid to look at the corner of the Ship Inn for fear that monster Butler will fire my house, or as they did in former days draw his sword and kill me on the spot.” Now was it true that Dr Doughty feared Mr Butler? Not he. At the very time of the threat and in the heat of Butler’s passion, Dr Doughty thought nothing of it, for although his (Mr Grave’s) client in the heat of the moment as he admitted threatened to kick Dr Doughty out, Dr Doughty went upstairs, and wonderful to say, he never was kicked at all, although by his going up stairs, the defendant was taunted to kick him. He (Mr Graves) was surprised that it was not stated in the information that Dr Doughty was one of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, as that would have made the matter more serious and ore easily proved than the case of an ordinary individual.

Mr Jones: You forget Mr Graves that that applies only to a magistrate in the execution of his duty.

Mr Graves: Well, it might be so, and he would not dwell upon the point, but would merely direct the attention of the Bench to some authorities bearing on the point. (Passages then cited form Oake’s Magisterial Synopsis…) As it was desirable to cite the latest decisions he (Mr Graves) would also quote one of the Stipendiary Magistrate’s for Hobart Town, a gentleman of acknowledged experience, delivered on the 22^nd February 1864.

Mr Jones: 1864?

Mr Graves replied in the affirmative. The case was one of Evans v Wood, in which one Graves appeared for the complainant and Sheehy for the defendant. (The learned gentlemen here read from Wednesday’s Mercury the evidence of the complainant in Evans v. Wood, tried on the previous day.)

Mr Fletcher remarked that the learned gentleman was only citing a newspaper report.

Mr Graves proceeded to say that in that case the decision of the Bench was that the complaint should be dismissed, and on an application form him (Mr Graves), Mr Jones refused to assign his reason for that decision.

Mr Jones: And will always do so Mr Graves.

Mr Graves apprehended that in that instance the Bench had been guided by Lord Campbell’s dictum that “mere insulting language” thorough contra bonas mores was not an offence, in respect of which justices were authorised in taking sureties of good behaviour. In the case of Evans v. Wood, there were tow witnesses in support of the complaint, and there was no contradiction of their evidence, and he (Mr Graves) presumed that following the same rule as in that case, the Bench would dismiss the present information. He would also call the attention of the Bench to the fact that the evidence did not disclose that any offence had been committed within its jurisdiction. There was nothing to show that Mr Butler’s house was not in Williamstown in Victoria, where, by the way, Mr Butler had had a house formerly. On this point he would direct the attention of the Bench to the case of Thomas Hamilton v. Robert Worley where a similar objection was allowed. Mr Jones was of opinion that the locality of the offence was sufficiently disclosed.

Mr Graves asked the Bench to reserve its decision.

Mr Jones accordingly reserved his decision to Wednesday next at 2 pm.

The Court then rose.

The Mercury Thurs 3 March 1864 p2

Police Court

DOUGHTY v BUTLER

In this case, the evidence in which had been heard on a previous day, the Bench ordered the defendant to be bound over to be of good behaviour towards the complainant and all others of Her Majesty’s subjects for a period of 6 months in one recognisance (defendant’s own) of ₤20.

Mr Graves asked Mr Jones to state a case, with a view of obtaining a decision as to what amount of misconduct justified a person being deprived of his liberty, as the defendant would have been, had he been unable to give the required surety. Mr Jones assented. The Court then rose.

The following month Walter apologized to Dr Doughty- had Dr Doughty threatened to seek compensation for libel?

The Mercury Tues 19 April 1864 p1

APOLOGY- I withdraw my expressions which may have been used by me to Dr Doughty of an injurious character, as I had no grounds or cause to make any statement to his prejudice as a medical man, or as regards his charges for medical attendance on my family, and I regret having said or done anything to cause Dr Doughty annoyance and apologise to him for having done so.

(Signed) Walter Butler

Witness- J. Gray

General Interest, and Community Involvement:

Despite no longer being involved in the decision making process in the City Council, Walter remained involved in furthering the community interests:

The Mercury Fri 9 September 1864

Public Meeting

Main Line of Railway

To the Right Worshipful the Mayor of Hobart Town

Sir- We the undersigned, respectfully request you will be pleased to call a Public Meeting of the Inhabitants of Hobart Town and others interested to consider and determine upon the best mode of collecting the ₤2000 which the people of this Colony must subscribe to ensure the carrying out of a proper and efficient Engineering Parliamentary Survey of the proposed Main Line of railway, to connect Hobart Town and Launceston.

We have the Honor to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servants,

(Listed)- 14 Members of Parliament

Followed by 36 citizens, including Walter Butler

(The Mayor subsequently called a Public Meeting of the Inhabitants)

Walter was called up for jury duty:

The Mercury Fri 4 November 1864 p2

The Late Fire on the Old Wharf: Inquest

Jury consisted of Messrs David McCrae (foreman), Walter Butler, etc.

In 1865, Walter advertised for staff for his hotel:

The Mercury Fri 14 July 1865 p1

WANTED a Steady, Active Woman as CHAMBERMAID; must have good references as to character and ability.

Apply to Walter Butler, Ship Hotel.

The Mercury Sat 14 January 1865 p1

WANTED- a respectable female as HOUSEMAID at the Ship Hotel; references required.

Also, an active, steady MAN of good character, as BOOTS and UNDER WAITER.

Apply to Walter Butler, Ship Hotel

The Mercury Fri 21 July 1865 p2

POLICE COURT

Before A.B. Jones, Esq., S.M. and Dr Turnley J.P.

LARCENY

Richard Sales was charged by Detective McGuire with stealing a box and six dozen bottles of sauces, value ₤5, the property of Walter Butler of the Ship Inn.

He pleaded guilty.

Mr McGuire said the sauces were stolen on the 15^th and found in the house where prisoner lived, on the 16^th.

Detective Vickers, in reply to the Bench, said prisoner was known to the police as a reputed thief.

Sentenced to 18 months hard labor.

The same man was then charged with stealing one iron sieve vale 7s.6d, property of W. Rout, and pleaded guilty. Also charged with absconding. There were other things found, but owners could not be procured for them.

The Bench sentenced him an additional sentence of 18 months hard labor, and recommended his removal to Tasman’s Peninsula.

Newbury House for Let:

Walter’s house Newbury House was advertised to let late 1865:

The Mercury Sat 11 November 1865, p1

TO LET

Those commodious premises known as “Newbury House” pleasantly situated at the one-mile stone on the New Town.

The house contains 8 rooms, comprising drawing-room, dining-room, parlors and bedrooms, besides servant’s apartments, kitchen &c. There is a two stall stable and coach-house &c. &c., the whole forming a most desirable family residence; gas and water laid on. Possession on the 1^st December; terms moderate. Apply to W. Robb

104 Collins-street.

The Mercury Fri 28 December 1866 p2
Charge of Assault- Williams v. Brown- A Chinaman named James Williams complained of Joseph Brown, mail guard, for assaulting him on the 20th inst. Plea Not Guilty.
Complainant deposed that he was in the service of Mr Walter Butler, Ship Hotel; on the 20th inst. as the coach was at the Post Office corner, he put his foot on the step of Page's coach and asked two gentlemen who were on the coach if they were going to the Ship Hotel, and they asked if he was going to the coach office and the witness said yes. As the coach was going, defendant asked him who he was, and he said he belonged to the Ship Hotel, on which defendant struck him a blow on the upper lip and punched him off the step. Defendant said complainant had no business on the step of the coach and he knocked him off. Fined £1 and costs.

Witness to a court case:

Walter and his son Frederick were to appear as witnesses in a felony case viz a rape case of a 16 year old girl. Before the case was heard, a friend of the accused tried to intimidate Walter not to give evidence. It was then played out in Court.

The Mercury Wed 26 February 1868

POLICE COURT

Before the Stipendiary Magistrate

INTIMIDATING A WITNESS

Charles Dillon was charged on the information of the Superintendant of Police with having, on the 14^th inst. attempted to intimidate Walter Butler from giving evidence in a case of felony then on trial before the Supreme Court.

The prosecution was conducted by the Superintendant of Police in person, and Mr Graves, with Mr Dobson, appeared for the defence.

The defendant, who was on bail, surrendered, and the following evidence was taken:

Walter Butler, licensed victualler, deposed:

I reside in the Ship Inn, Collins-street. I know the defendant. I remember the 14^th of this month. I was subpoenaed on that day in a case of felony then pending. I saw the defendant on that day about 6 o’clock in the evening in the York Hotel, Brisbane-street. He came into the room where I was sitting with another person. He asked what I was going to say in the case which was going on. He referred to the rape case against Rex, Aherne and Hibberd. I told him I have very little to say, and that it was not of much consequence. He said he had a daguerreotype of the place, and that he could prove that where I was I could neither see nor hear anything, and to be careful what I said.

I cautioned him not to render himself liable for interfering with a witness. He took up a tumbler and striking it on the table called out to me to be a man and to say nothing. I left the room and he followed me to the front door, and putting his hands on my shoulder repeated the words again, to be a man and say nothing. That was all that occurred, I reported to District Constable Maguire how I have been insulted by the man, and next morning I reported the matter to His Honor the Judge when I was giving evidence. The conduct of the defendant intimidated me as he appeared to be under the influence of liquor at the time. Mr Stanley, the pianoforte maker, was present at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr Graves- I did not notice the defendant when I sent into the hotel. I don’t think he was sober. He seemed very much excited. He used no more violence than putting his hand on me. I did not take his doing so as a threat. I was in no way alarmed at the act. The idea of any personal danger to myself would be ridiculous. The man had evidently been drinking. I was alarmed in the room when defendant struck the tumbler on the table. There was no one in the room but Stanley when he did that. I gave my evidence the following morning. This interference of Dillon lasted between 5 and 10 minutes. That evening he came two or three times to the Supreme Court door, and I told him I would give him in charge if he spoke to me. His conduct on those occasions was anything but that of a sober man. He was under the influence of drink. I don’t think he would have interfered with me at all, but that he was under the influence of drink. I cannot say that his conduct was nothing more than that of a noisy drunken person. He called upon me, it might be two or three days after this occurrence. He said he was very sorry when he heard he had insulted me; that he knew nothing about it, and that he hoped I would forgive him. I have no interest in this prosecution, and merely give evidence because I have been subpoenaed in the usual way.

By the Superintendant of Police: I was not alarmed for my personal safety outside the public-house. I was alarmed in the room when the defendant struck the table.

By the Bench: Defendant was not so much in liquor that he did not know what he was about. I do not know of my own knowledge that he was connected with any of the accused parties. I had not seen him in their company ot that of their friends.

By the Superintendant of Police; I do not know the friends of the accused person.

John W Stanley deposed: I am a pianoforte tuner, residing in Antill-street, Hobart Town. I was at Collins, York Hotel, on the 14^th instant, I think it was about half-past 3 o’clock. I went in with Mr Walter Butler. There were a few words between Mr Butler and the defendant. The defendant came in, and seemed to be very much excited. He went to Mr Butler, and asked if he was a witness in the case. Mr Butler asked in what case. Defendant said, to the best of my recollection, in the case then going on, the rape case. Defendant was very excited. He said he had a daguerreotype of the place, and that it was impossible for Mr Butler to see of hear what was taking place. Mr Butler was rather annoyed at the remarks, and told defendant he had no right to interfere with him. Defendant took the glass up, knocked it violently down on the table, and said that Mr Butler ought ot he careful what he said. I left the room then, and Mr Butler followed me. I did not look at the clock when we left. I think we were in Collins’ about 20 minutes. I was not at Collins’ with Butler and Dillon more than once that day.

Cross-examined by Mr Graves: I don’t think Dillon knew what he was doing, he was so drunk. He seemed to me a few minutes afterwards to have forgotten all that occurred. I was annoyed at his conduct. I was not alarmed. I am not likely to be alarmed. Dillon was half-and half drunk. He came up to Mr Butler outside the Court and wanted to shake hands with him. Butler did not shake hands, but said, “I have had quite enough of you”. Dillon said “Why I have not seen you before.” He appeared to me to have drink in him and to be exceedingly spiteful, and ready to go into anybody or anything, if it was a brick wall.

This closed the case for the Crown.

The Stipendiary Magistrate said he thought it necessary to sent the papers on, but he would accept the same bail as before.

The necessary bonds were accordingly entered into, and the defendant was discharged.

A second charge against the same defendant for attempting to bribe a witness in the same charge of felony was withdrawn.

The Court then rose.

The rape court case was then reported in the newspaper. In part it said:

The Mercury Thurs 9 July 1868 p3

LAW INTELLIGENCE

Supreme Court- Criminal Sittings

Capital Charge

Henry Richard Rex and John Hibberd… the former charged with having at Hobart Town on the 17^th January last committed a capital assault upon one Ann Richards (16 years), and the latter with aiding and abetting.

(NB. in a previously held court case, the jury could not come to a decision.)

Witness: Frederick Charles Butler, Ship Inn, gave evidence that Rex and Hibberd were at that hotel on night of 17^th January. Hibberd left before Rex; the latter was not in liquor. Rex left about one, and witness went to bed about 1 o’clock. Was disturbed soon after by a woman’s screams and got up and listened. They came from towards the back of the Ship.

Cross-examined- the sounds might have come from Elizabeth-street for all I know. The sounds seemed to come more from Elizabeth-street than anywhere else, but they came from the back. There were three distinct screams.

Witness: Walter Butler, proprietor of the Ship Hotel, Collins-street, examined, stated that on the night of the 17^th January, he retired to bed a little after one. Was aroused by the screams of a female, which appeared to come from Bateman’s Yard. (Witness here handed in a plan of the bedrooms of the hotel.) There were some 6 or 7 screams, with cries sounding like cries of murder. Cross-examined- My son’s bedroom is nearer to Bateman’s Yard than mine.

The Mercury Fri 10 July 1868

The Court continued the felony case, with many witnesses called to give evidence.

After deliberating for 20 minutes, the jury returned finding the accused not guilty, and they were discharged. The verdict was probably due to the very unreliable evidence given by the girl. She changed her story multiple times, and, despite her young age, would appear to have acted inappropriately with men previously to this case.

Contact email:butler1802 @hotmail.com (no spaces)

Link back to Introduction chapter:
http://butlerfamilyhistoryaus.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/walter-butler-introduction.html

Friday 24 August 2012

Walter Butler- Ch. 21: Hobart- Years 1863 to 1868

The Dr. Doughty v. Butler case:

General Interest, and Community Involvement:

Newbury House for Let: