the first draft

The Courtcases of Martha Wiggins

SURETIES OF THE PEACE - Martha Hutchinson prayed that her husband, William Hutchison, might be bound over to keep the peace towards her, he having used threatening language to her on the 11th instant

Mrs Hutchinson stated that she had been living with her husband in High-street. On Saturday last he made use of a foul expression to one of their children, whom he had sent on a message, and wit- ness checked him for it. He became very angry, threw a stone jar at her, and struck her in the mouth with his open hand. He also threatened that he would be hanged for her, and she had not since gone home. She was still in fear of his doing her bodily harm, and made the complaint purely for her own protection

Mrs Ward, a neighbour, who had been called in by the last witness on Saturday afternoon, stated that Hutchinson threw a jar at his wife, and struck her in the mouth The man and his wife had some words about the children. Defendant did not say in witness's presence that he would be hanged for his wife. The parties frequently quarrelled. The man said he went home on Saturday morning and found his wife drinking. No dinner was pre- pared, and they had some words on the subject, when she aggravated him, and he threw the jar into her lap afterwards she further provoked him, when he struck her in the mouth with his open hand. Michael Sinnott was called, but he had seen nothing of the quarrel. He saw the two women, Mrs Hutchinson and Mrs Ward go into a public house just after the quarrel. Matthew Smith, another witness, stated that he saw nothing of the dis- turbance.

The Bench called upon the defendant to enter into his own recognizance of £10 to keep the peace towards his wife for six months.

Before W. Tarleton, Esq., Police Magistrate, and H.Cook, Esq., J.P.

James Wiggins complained that William Hutch- inson assaulted him on the evening of 20th April. Complainant is an old man, of about 60 years; defendant young, about 28, and son-in-law of com- plainant.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Fitzgerald appeared for complainant, and Mr. Moriarty for the defendant.

After a few introductory remarks from Mr. Fitzgerald, James Wiggins was called, and deposed that on the evening of 20th April, about 7 o'clock, he saw defendant near the door of his (witness') public- house. Witness told him he ought to be ashamed of himself for starving his grandchildren and ordered him out of the house, when defendant struck him a blow on the chest saying, " Take that you b— old dog." Defendant then called two dogs which were with him, and told them to seize him. No provocation was given to defendant. He did not go, but Constable Jackson took him in charge for using obscene language. I saw defendant's dogs outside before he struck witness, but did not see the constable before he came to the door. Have had no dispute with defendant since he married my daughter. Never made use of any bad language towards him, and never on any occasion said he cut defendant's head open with a "neddy." Witness struck the defendant when his dogs worried him, only struck to keep the dogs away, and in self-defence. Witness did in Trabuco's shop say in presence of Mrs. Bennett that he had given defendant a hiding, and would lock him up. It was too dark for witness to see whether they were sheep or bulldogs. Heard defendant say to the dogs " Go on and drag the old dog out" Witness did not recollect seeing F. and G. Smith in his house before the assault and did not in their presence utter threats towards defendant.

Constable Jackson deposed that he was on duty on his beat in Collins-street, on 29th April. About 7 pm. he was near Wiggins' Hotel, and heard defendant make use of bad language. Witness took him in charge and locked him up. While crossing the road saw defendant strike - Wiggins, and try to set a dog on him, saying "sieze him." Witness never received a message from Wiggins to be at his house. Wiggins had a good sized stick in his hand, with which he was guarding himself. Defendant was sober, He was fined 10s. 6d. next morning for using obscene language.

Mr.Moriarty asked the Bench whether two cases could be made out of one matter, as defen- dant had previously been fined for an offence — using obscene language. The Bench decided that in this matter it could be done, when Mr. Moriarty pointed out the coincidence of Jackson being on the spot, and said it looked very much like a pre-arranged affair. Mr. Tarleton: It was very fortunate. If the constable had not been there the papers would have cried " Where's the police!" (A laugh.)

Mr. Moriarty then called Mary Ann Bennett, who swore that on the even- ing in question she was in Trabuco's shop. Mr. Wiggins was walking up and down in front of the shop. Heard him say he had given "the crippled dog" a good hiding, and that he would feel the weight of his stick in the morning. Did not say defendant had assaulted him. Defendant is a cripple.

By the Police Magistrate : The expression was "the crippled dog" not "the cripple's dog" Frederick Smith deposed that about four weeks.ago he was In Wiggins' public house with his brother and Hutchinson, when Wiggins pulled out a life preserver and struck on, the counter, saying he would cut Hutchison's skull, open, if ever he came to his house again Witness went into Wiggins' by himself first, -when Wiggins' demenour was very quiet. After he had been there ten minutes his brother and Hutchinson came in, and it was then that Wiggins grew angry and threatened defendant.

This being the case, the Magistrate consulted, and decided that as an assault had undoubtedly been committed, they would fine defendent 20s and cost.

By July of 1872 Martha had gone to Melbourne presumably with the four youngest daughters, and William was in court again to argue against forfeiting his surety (bail) of 10 pounds from the original case bought by Martha the previous year. After some legal argument about whether William could give evidence the newspaper report continues:

William Waterhouse Hutchinson, the defendant, examined by Mr. Moriarty : I am a blacksmith by trade. Some time ago I was married to Miss Wiggins. I afterwards discovered that she had been receiving maintenance at the Post Office for two illegitimate children, which was a source of grievance. I was bound over about nine months ago to keep the peace towards her, on her evidence, but I did not use the language imputed to me. Previously to that she was in the habit of coming home drunk, and I had no meals prepared, and no comfort at all in my home. She was in the habit of visiting improper houses. I discovered a letter from a person in Melbourne to my wife. It dropped from her bosom. I showed it to Mr. Reed, a neighbour. I have lost the letter. It was an in- vitation to her to come over to Melbourne when she was ready, and he would send her passage money. She had since gone over, and was living with the man in Melbourne. On the occasion of the assault she struck at me with a short poker, and, in defending myself, she fell on the floor. I had no evidence to contradict her statement.

Since I was bound over she came home drunk, and I went round to Mr. Dorsett to come and prevent a breach of the peace, and I walked about all night rather than break the peace. I am not in good circumstances, and have already paid £1 3s. to the Sheriff. I have nothing to pay the £10 recognizance. I was fined £2 for the assault.

Mr. Dorsett, Sub-Inspector of the City Police, proved that he had known defendant 14 or 16 years ; he was an industrious peaceable man, and not quarrel- some. Witness proved that his wife received money from the putative father of an illegitimate child, and since defendant discovered it there had been no peace between them. Witness confirmed defend- ant's statement as to his calling him up to prevent a breach of the peace The woman had gone to Melbourne.

John Reed, who resides in the same neighbour- hood as defendant, proved that defendant showed him a letter which had the Melbourne post stamp on it. He confirmed the other evidence as the the habits of the woman and her husband.

Their Worships, after hearing this evidence, determined under the circumstances to remit the amount of the recognizance and discharge the defendant, on paying the Sheriff's fees. Defendant was then discharged.