***
This is not so much the story of a riot, as a story about a story about riotous behaviour. Clontarf became well-known after the attempt to kill the Duke of Edinburgh there in 1868, but a dozen years on, it was a place of depravity and debauchery — or so gossips said.
When the newspapers said just that, the Moore brothers, who ran a
hotel at Clontarf, sued The Bulletin
for £1000 and the case was tried before Sir William Manning, who had been there
in 1868, when the Duke was shot.
Perhaps we should look first at what was said in a piece
called The Larrikin Residuum, which
was written by William Henry Traill, an editor and journalist with the Bulletin. He was an experienced
journalist and began this way:
The scene presented by the motley crowd at Clontarf on Boxing
Day is one never to be forgotten by an eye witness. Englishmen have been
accused of taking their pleasures sadly. The larrikin takes his or her pleasure
madly. At Clontarf it was not an excursion – it was an orgy. Large ocean
steamers discharged cargo after cargo of young Australians. Young men, young
women, lads, girls, and still more sad, children thronged the ground, crowded
the dancing pavilion (save the mark!) and jostled at the drinking bars. [1]
Curiously, the Moores’ solicitor was the judge’s son-in-law
while their barrister was named Manning (and was almost certainly the judge’s
nephew). This was a set of relationships which might have been enough to make
the judge step aside, but he did not. It certainly renders some of the judge’s
rulings suspect, as he blocked certain lines of evidence brought forward by the
defence, while allowing curious material from the plaintiff’s side. Here is how
several papers described the case, though the italics are mine:
Mr Salomons, Q C applied to his Honor for leave to prove that the scenes described were of general occurrence at Clontarf, and had been witnessed there for years. His Honor refused to admit the evidence. [2]
Here is sample of evidence that was allowed: it, surely, was bad enough.
Captain Francis, master of Commodore in December last: On
Boxing Day she made two trips; I have known the plaintiffs for 20 years; on
that morning Mr. William Moore was at the wharf to take care that no improper
characters came on board the Commodore, I was on the ground on that day, I know
the article in the Bulletin; that description is not true, I saw nothing of
that kind while I was on the ground, the class of people who go to Clontarf is
respectable.
Cross-examined: I did not see what was going on in the
pavilion, I saw no one drinking, I heard no bad language; there was no
fighting. [3]
*
Thomas Bray, examined by Mr Pilcher: I was at Clontarf on
Boxing Day; I saw a great number of rowdies there; there was a great deal of
fighting and drinking going on during the day; I saw girls fighting and heard
them swearing; I saw three fights between men while I was there; from what I
saw, I did not think it a respectable place to go to. [4]
*
John Charles Gleadow, a clerk, deposed that he was camping in
the neighbourhood of Clontarf on Boxing Day with some friends. Was at Clontarf
from 11 o’clock in the morning until between 3 and 5 o’clock in the afternoon.
Had read the Bulletin article some time ago, and thought it fairly described
what witness saw on that day. About 11 o’clock he law a fight between two or
three men respecting a girl who had been dancing with one of them. One of the
men was cut and bleeding about the face, and the girl took off her drawers and
wiped his face with them, and afterwards threw the blood-stained drawers
amongst the larrikins, who raised a yell of applause. [5]
There was a great deal more evidence. On one side, there
were the proprietors and those dependent upon them saying “I didn’t see any of
that”, while on the other side, there were large numbers of independent members
of the public detailing cases of girls bathing naked, watched by boys, and boys
bathing naked watched by girls, drunken under-age girls fighting and more. The
writers of the accounts may have been biased, but there was just too much
evidence branding Clontarf as a den of iniquity.
In the end, a jury of four (“a publican, an ex-publican, a
grocer, and a nightman”, said the Bulletin
later) awarded the Moores a farthing damages. This is almost the ultimate
insult to a plaintiff, but it meant the defendants had to pay the plaintiffs’
costs. These amounted to £1500, and as they could not pay, two men, Haynes and
Archibald were gaoled for 12 months. In fact, they were released after six
weeks, when public donations covered the costs bill. [6]
I will be breakfasting at Clontarf tomorrow. I plan to raise a glass of tap water to Salomons, Haynes and Archibald.
[1] Bulletin, 8 January 1881.
[3] Sydney Morning Herald, 7 May 1881, 7, http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/13483078/1424394
[6] The best
overall account of the case will be found here: http://www.manly.nsw.gov.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Clontarf%20Libel%20Case%281%29.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment