Mary Sullivan vs. Madame Valetta
– Psychic Fraud?
In 1889, South Australian fortune teller Louisa Valetta was
charged by police for obtaining half a crown by false pretence. Mrs Sullivan
had visited Valetta, who gave her a cup of tea and a quick chat. Valetta then
shuffled some cards and dealt them. She explained Sullivan's fortune by reading
the cards.
The following day
Sullivan went to the police to have Valetta charged for being a fake psychic.
She did not demand the return of her money. The presumption by the police at
the time was that Sullivan had done so out of spite. Magistrate S. Beddomme
heard the case and fined Valetta for deceptively obtaining money by pretending
to tell Sullivan's fortune.
Valetta appealed the decision, and the
case was heard in front of Justice Boucaut. Her lawyer, W. V. Smith, presented
that she had been convicted as ‘she did unlawfully deceive and impose upon one
Mary Sullivan by pretending to tell her fortune; whereby she obtained the sum
of 2s; 6d.” The grounds of the appeal, that Valetta was not guilty of the
charges, were based on the grounds that there, ‘was no evidence to support the conviction;
that the conviction was bad in law; and that the order was bad in law and ultra
vires’ (beyond the powers). [1]
At the time (1889) legislation in South Australia was based
on English law. One law, Hen. VIII, C.8 stated that it was a felony to practice
conjuration, witchcraft or sorcery to obtain monies, to consume any person in
his body, members, or goods or to provoke any person to unlawful law. According
to the South Australian Register (newspaper) reported at the time that the law
was repealed but reinstated in the 5th year of Queen Elizabeth’s
reign, and again during the reign of King James 1 – the law from this time
stayed for another 140 years.[2]
The law stated it was punishable by
death to,
consult with, entertain, employ, feed or reward any wicked
spirit with the intent to take up any dead person out of the grave for the
purpose of using the body in any witchcraft, sorcery, charm or enchantment,
whereby any person might be killed, wasted, consumed.[3]
Due to people using the law to persecute people they did not
like, it was modified, but still enforced in England, and South Australia in
1889. King George II modified the law, abolishing the prosecutions for
witchcraft on the assumption that such a thing did not exist. The law still
offered protection for people being scammed by those pretending to be
sorcerers, psychics and fortune tellers, with the punishment of death being
downgraded to imprisonment or pillory. (Pillory was a wooden device where the
heads and arms were placed through holes and locked in place. The prisoner was
then exposed to public humiliation – and sometimes rotten fruit may be thrown
at them.
The Police Act, 15, (1869-70) (An Act to consolidate and amend the Law
relating to the Police in South Australia.) states, 'Every person pretending
to tell fortunes, or using any subtle craft, means, or device, by
palmistry or otherwise, to deceive and impose upon Her Majesty's subjects.’[4]
The punishment is,
‘Shall be liable to imprisonment for any
time not exceeding two calendar months with or without hard labour.’[5]
Evidence was provided that there was no evidence that Valetta had been paid for
a fortune telling. There was no imposition to Sullivan proved, Valetta only
mentioned things that were ‘likely to happen,’ and which were in the realms of
possibility. By Sullivan not requesting
her money returned, the charge was quashed as being presented on false pretence
as there was no evidence that the person received money. Magistrate Boucaut
stated, to him, it seemed as if two women had been friends and head been telling
each other’s fortune for some six months or so, daily. That friendship
dissolved, and one sought revenge against another. There was no evidence that
Madame Valetta advertised her services as a psychic, so could not be charged
under the Police Act for deception. The conviction was overturned.[6]
Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2025
[1] 'THE FORTUNE-TELLING CASE.', The Advertiser,
(22 August 1889), p. 5.
[2] 'FORTUNE-TELLING.', South Australian Register,
(22 August 1889), p. 4.
[3] 'FORTUNE-TELLING.', South Australian Register,
(22 August 1889), p. 4.
[4] Police Act (No 15 of 33 Vic, 1869-70), South
Australian Government, (1870), p. 91.
[5] Police Act (No 15 of 33 Vic, 1869-70), South
Australian Government, (1870), p. 91.
[6] 'THE FORTUNE-TELLING CASE.', The Advertiser,
(22 August 1889), p. 5.