Search This Blog

Friday 16 November 2018

The Bulletin libel case

This is a second extract from e-book, Not Your Usual Australian Villains, a study of Australian post-invasion scallywaggery, with a few slightly more evil characters thrown in. It follows on from my previous entry Shooting the Duke of Edinburgh, because both feature a beach about 3 km from my home, and both feature an apparently somewhat bent judge, Sir William Manning.

***

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.
[2] Sydney Morning Herald, 10 May 1881, 3, http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/13487365
[4] Evening News (Sydney), 9 May 1881, 3, http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/107217211
[5] Evening News (Sydney), 10 May 1881, 3, http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/107215761

No comments:

Post a Comment