Thomas Cunningham: Rogue and Vagabond (Part I)

 

  You may remember Thomas Cunningham from my previous blog, ‘The Colourful and Tragic Life of Alice Tree: Part 1 - “Kill the Chinaman!”’. Thomas was then the partner of Adelaide prostitute Alice Tree, and was accused of unlawfully and maliciously wounding Ah Kong, a charge later dismissed. Before that incident, Cunningham had served a two-year sentence in gaol for abduction.

  In 1877, Thomas Cunningham was charged with attempting to abduct 15-year-old Ellen Ween. On 14 October the same year, Cunningham who been lodging with the Ween family at Nailsworth had become acquainted with young Ellen, and fallen in love with her.
Thomas and Elizabeth Ween, Ellen’s parents were mortified that Cunningham, a married man, would dare to try and corrupt their daughter. Cunningham replied to Mrs Ween that if he couldn’t have her daughter one way, he would have her another.

  On 14 October, Ellen asked to go out. She never returned. Mrs Ween saw Cunningham on the 15th and asked him about her daughter. He said he would be leaving and wanted nothing to do with the Ween family any longer.

  Cunningham and Ellen were discovered at Rochester, near Clare, by Police Trooper Atkinson on 8 December. Cunningham gave Atkinson a fake name Thomas Bane, Ellen was gathering wood on a hill, but soon returned to Cunningham’s tent. Atkinson queried them, with Cunningham saying he did not run away with the girl, she came freely with him and paid her own way.
Ellen said to the Trooper that she would go wherever Cunningham went, that he did not take her away, and that she would “never go borne again because she would be sent to the Industrial School.”
Ellen said she was afraid to go home as her father had threatened her and Cunningham with a knife, then threw it at them. She told her mother she was going out with a servant girl and ran away. Her mother found her, however, and told her to return home, where she would “keep her in”. To this Ellen replied that her mother “would not keep her in, or the Governor either,” Ellen’s father came looking for her, so she fled north.

  During the trial, Ellen Ween was questioned by the prosecution about her abduction. She replied she had not been abducted but had asked a carter to tell Thomas Cunningham she wanted to see him. She claimed she that Cunningham declined to go away with her, but when she said she would pay her own way to Burra, he consented. Ellen stated that she knew Cunningham was a married man, but she did not care. Ellen also accused her mother, with impudence, of giving her a black eye.[1]

  Elizabeth Ween was called to the stand. She stated to Cunningham; “Yon left our house because we would keep you no longer. My husband did not run after my daughter with a knife and threaten to stab you.” John Ween added, “I have never beat my daughter in my life. John Ween, “she was taken away without my consent.”
Ween also stated he had never thrown a knife at the girl.

  Mr Smith, who conducted the prosecution for Superintendent Peterswald, produced the register of the birth of the first Ellen Ween, who died on December 9, 1862, six months after the present Ellen Ween was born. Search for the certificate of birth of the surviving Ellen Ween was being made.[2] Detective Doyle discovered Ellen Ween’s birth registry entry proving she was just 15 years old. Cunningham was remanded in custody until his trial in March the following year.
At the Supreme Court, the Judge declared he was glad he had made the decision to take the case into consideration, so as to relieve his own feelings of disgust about the matter. The Judge stated that the evidence showed that Cunningham, a married man, did not have it in his power to undo the damage he had done to the girl. He declared that Cunningham’s conduct in the court was disgusting. Thomas Cunningham was found guilty of abduction and sentenced to two years hard labour in gaol.[3]


Next Week: Thomas Cunningham: Rogue and Vagabond (Part II)


Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2020  

[1] 'TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11.', South Australian Chronicle and Weekly Mail, (15 December 1877), p. 13., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article90944206.
[2] 'POLICE COURTS', Adelaide Observer, (15 December 1877) p. 7. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article159446938
[3] 'LAW COURTS. SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS', The Express and Telegraph, (27 March 1878), p. 2., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article207645154