William Williams and the Missing Christmas Day Goose!

  In 1845 William Williams a 37-year-old brickies labourer was charged with theft for stealing a goose, the property of hairdresser, Alfred Cooper. Williams saw the goose being cooked at Birrell’s bakery on Rundle Street.  He decided he would like to eat it and stole it.

  He then took it to the house of Henry Brooks, a bricklayer. The men and some friends dined on the goose. Cooper, missing his prized goose, suspected that Williams may have stolen it. He arrived at Brooks's house and caught the men eating it, then went to find a police officer.  Williams knew he was in trouble, and asked Brooks for a loan of 5s 6d. – enough to pay for the goose.

  The South Australian newspaper reported that Cooper “came in and saw his goose in the hands of the Philistines. He then got a policeman, who took Williams into custody”.[1] Williams offered the money he had borrowed from Brooks for a goose, but Cooper declined, and Williams was arrested and taken to the police station where he was committed for trial.

  At court the following day Birrell was asked to give testimony. He stated that on Christmas Day Williams came into his shop and asked for a light for his pipe. He went through the shop into the kitchen to get a light. On his way there, he passed through a small room where he saw Birrell’s wife stuffing a goose. Williams stated he would like to dine on the goose, as he was, ‘out for a spree’. The goose was taken into the kitchen to be baked. Williams left Birrell’s and went to the adjoining house, owned by Brooks.
 Mrs Cooper came to the shop to get her cooked Christmas goose but returned home without it. So, Mr Cooper and his wife went to Birrell’s to find their goose. They then stopped at Brooks's house and witnessed Williams and other men eating a goose.
 The men dining denied stealing the goose, but after Cooper called the police, Brooks and his wife admitted that Williams had brought the goose to their house. Williams had then offered Cooper double the value of the goose so he would not press charges against him.

 

James Birrell, the baker, stated to the court that Cooper came to his house seeking a Christmas goose but got none. He told Cooper there were more geese than one -"two gooses" - and that Williams had taken one away on a plate; leaving the tin in which it was brought behind. There was nothing else missing but the goose.
Williams and Brooks came in together whilst he was drawing the baking, and saying the goose was what he wanted, it was handed up to him.

Henry Brooks stated to the court that he went to Birrell's for his dinner and was followed by Williams. He assisted Mr Birrell in taking out the dinners, and when he left with his dinner Williams had left the shop. Afterwards, Williams came to his house with a goose on a plate and stated he had bought it overnight for six shillings. They ate the goose together. When Cooper came with the police, Williams called him into the next room, told him he had got into trouble about goose stealing, and borrowed some money from him to try to arrange payment for the goose and avoid gaol. Instead, he was then taken to the station-house.

Ellen Birrell, wife of Mr Birrell, deposed that Williams asked for one of the two geese, and took one away. A girl came and fetched the other goose. When the police arrived, she recalled Williams saying to Cooper, “I will pay you any amount you like rather than go the office.”

  The Defence argues that there had been no proof that the prisoner had taken, nor stolen the goose. Identification of the thief was insufficient.  The defence continues, ‘Mr Birrell had stated there were ‘two gooses’ at most it was only a "spree" and having seen Mrs Cooper stuffing a goose, he perhaps thought he might as well stuff it too, only in a different manner; he was sorry Mr Cooper should have been prevented dining off the goose, and also that he should have been such a goose us to lose it: it was at most only a case for the Resident Magistrate.
  Mr Cooper then argued that if Mr Fisher, the defence lawyer had lost his Christmas dinner, just as it was cooked, and he was ready to eat it, he would not have made so light of it.
  Mr Fisher then replied, “By no means! he was sorry for both him and Mrs Cooper; and would further say that if she could dress geese as well as he could hairs, they must be a very clever couple.
  The Magistrate said, he feared it would prove a serious "spree" for Williams, as he should commit him to take his trial, though he would admit him to bail.[2]

 On Monday, March 9, 1846, Mr Williams faced trial for ‘Stealing a ready cooked goose, value 5s., the property of Alfred Cooper, on 25th December 1845, at Adelaide.” A handwritten note on the side of the record indicates that Williams was found Not Guilty.[3]

 

© 2024 Allen Tiller

---

[1] 'DEC. 26.', South Australian, (30 December 1845), p. 3.

[2] 'Law And Police Courts. Police Commissioner's Court.', Adelaide Observer, (27 December 1845), p. 6.

[3] GRS 12820 Criminal record books, Supreme Court of South Australia

 

Cold Case Files: Patricia ‘Susi’ Schmidt

 

At 2 a.m. on Saturday, December 18, 1971, Patricia ‘Susi’ Schmidt finished a double shift at the Darlington Burger King on the corner of South Road and Marion Road.[1] Susi went outside to wait for her dad to pick her up. According to the Canberra Times newspaper of 1971, Susi was a 16-year-old girl who had taken a job at Burger King to save money so she could buy Christmas presents.[2] Driving from their Seacliff home, Mr Schmidt ran 10 minutes late and never saw his daughter alive again.[3]

4 days before her murder, Susi had worked the night shift at Burger King. She told her girlfriend that after she finished her shift, she had started walking home when an older man, probably in his 30s, with a flash car, pulled over and asked if she needed a lift. Susi had accepted the lift and made it home safely to Seacliff. [4]

Susi’s body was found dumped near Adams Street, at Hallet Cove, she had been raped and strangled.[5] Traces of weathered pink and white paint were found on her body. There were also traces of nickel and nickel-silver on her body, which led police to believe at the time, she may have been in an engraver or key cutter workshop. Susi’s kangaroo skin purse was never found.

Darlington Burger King  Adrienne Peele photo

In December 2021, marking 50 years since Susi’s murder, South Australian Police released a news article via ABC News that 8 listed key points about the case:

• Gold, brass, nickel, and other metal filings from key cutting.
• Microscopic particles from a shoe repair business. 
• Welding slag (by-product left from the welding process).
• Particles of electrical waste from Phillips Industries (at Henley Beach at the time).
• Iridescent blue paint from a 1971 blue Holden Monaro. 
• Small paint flakes — pink on one side and white on the other. 
• Missing necklet with "Susi" engraved on the back. 
• DNA from unknown men.

 

Police believe there may have been more than one person involved in Susi’s abduction, rape, and murder. The culprits, they believe, would be in their 60s today, if still alive. There is a reward of up to $1 million for anyone who provides information that leads to the apprehension and conviction of the person or people responsible for Susi's death.[6]

Anyone with information about her murder is asked to call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or report online at https://crimestopperssa.com.au/ . You can report anonymously.

 

Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2024.

---

[1] ‘Remembering Burger King in Adelaide,’ The Advertiser, (2023),  (Remembering Burger King in Adelaide | The Advertiser (adelaidenow.com.au).

[2] 'Murdered', The Canberra Times, (20 December 1971), p. 3.

[3] Rebecca Opie, ‘DNA breakthrough and eight clues could solve 1971 murder of Seacliff teen Susi Schmidt,’ ABC News, DNA breakthrough and eight clues could solve 1971 murder of Seacliff teen Susi Schmidt - ABC News

[4] Meagan Dillion, ‘The 45-year-old murder of Patricia Schmidt will head across the Tasman Sea as SA Police remain determined to solve the mystery,’ The Advertiser, (2016).

[5] 'Murdered', The Canberra Times, (20 December 1971), p. 3.; Nigel Hunt, ‘The cold case files – unsolved SA murders reopened,’ Sunday Mail, (2025), The cold case files — unsolved SA murders reopened | The Advertiser (adelaidenow.com.au).

[6] Hunt, ‘The cold case files,’ Sunday Mail, (2025).; Opie, ‘DNA breakthrough,’ ABC News.

REMAINS OF A DIPROTODON FOUND.

 In 1924, The Mail (newspaper) reported that Professor Walter Howchin unearthed the bones of a Diprotodon at Gawler. It also reported that other bones had been found in the bed of the River Torrens, and at Lake Callabonna in the States far north.[1]

 In 1936, describing Gawler’s river system, the Bunyip newspaper referred to a Kaurna people allegory of the Moole Yerke Perre, a large ‘weird antediluvian monster (that) was responsible for the permanent marks made by its nose and shins,’ in the riverbeds and banks. The Bunyip reporter then links this creature to the 1891 discovery of Diprotodon fossils in Gawler.[2]

The Bunyip reported on the original 1891 find of bones,

Scientific Discovery at Gawler South.

REMAINS OF A DIPROTODON FOUND.

A discovery of more than ordinary interest was made at Gawler South a few days ago by some workmen who were excavating a tank on the property of Mr. Thomas Molan.  When they had sunk about 8 ft. they came upon a deposit of bones. At first, they took very little notice, and as they were very crumbly shovelled them out with the clay.
 After a time the size of some of the bones attracted their curiosity, and one of the members of the Gawler Geological Class having been communicated with it was thought to be the remains of the extinct Australian marsupial, the diprotodon.
  Mr. W. Howchin, F.G.S., the lecturer of the Gawler Geological and Mineralogical Class was informed, and came up on Wednesday afternoon. He at once confirmed the opinion. Bones continued to show themselves right across the tank and to a depth of 11 ft. At the latter depth a portion of the head was unearthed, and as it was desired to get it out as perfectly as possible it was decided to obtain the services of Mr. A. Zielz, of the Adelaide Museum.
  That gentleman came up yesterday morning, and completed the exhumation, although he had to be content to get the head out in pieces. The diprotodon is said to have lived in the post-Pliocene age — before the age of man and was about the size of an elephant. Its head was about 3 ft. in length. Very few remains of the species have been discovered, and the best skeleton is said to be in possession of the Adelaide Museum it having been obtained from the Burra district recently. No complete skeleton, however, has yet been found. It is impossible to tell yet how complete the present skeleton is as the bones are so broken, but Mr. Zietz does not think it will be as perfect as that obtained from the Burra.
   All the bones were carefully packed in cases with sawdust preparatory to being sent to the Adelaide Museum for reconstruction. Just as they were about to be taken away the owner of the property appeared on the scene and declined to allow them to go to Adelaide unless he was paid £10. As Mr. Zietz could not promise that amount without consulting his Committee, the cases were placed in the hands of Mr. E. Potter, the Chairman of the Gawler Geological Class, until a decision is arrived at.
 A large number of persons visited the scene of the discovery yesterday. Mr. W. H. Percy, who was working on the property, rendered valuable assistance in getting the remains out, and the contractor, Mr. James Peek offered every facility.[3]

Perhaps, when recollecting in a 1952 issue of The Advertiser Ernest L.B. Potter of Croydon, he remembered wrongly that his uncle Edward Potter had discovered the Diprotodon, instead of Professor Howchin. In an Out Among the People column, it was reported,

ERNEST L. B. Potter (West Croydon) tells me that as a boy of 10, about 1890, he remembers a diprotodon skull being found in an excavation for an underground tank at Gawler South, near Dead Man's Pass on the South Para and the road to One Tree Hill. His uncle, Edward Potter, a geologist, pronounced it to be a diprotodon.[4]

 

The skull and bones found in Gawler were identified as those of a Diprotodon from the Pleistocene Epoch of Australia.  Diprotodon Optatum became extinct about 25, 000 years ago and was known to exist while indigenous populations were in the area. These animals grew up to 3.8 meters long from head to tail and stood about 1.7 meters tall at the shoulder.  Its closest relations today are the wombat and the koala.

For more information on the Diprotodon, please visit here: Diprotodon: Not a wombat

Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2024.

---

[1] 'Prehistoric Times In South Australia', The Mail, (1 March 1924), p. 1.

[2] 'Early Gawler And District Nomenclature.', Bunyip, (11 December 1936), p. 8. 

[3] 'Scientific Discovery at Gawler South.', Bunyip, (24 July 1891), p. 2.

[4] 'Out Among The People', The Advertiser, (2 September 1952), p. 4.