John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: Part 4: Flown the Coop.

 

John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: 

Part 4: Flown the Coop.

 

   Friday 2nd November 1894, and 15-year-old John Henry Martin has flown the coop again. This time Martin escaped from Mr Burton’s truant school at Glanville. He had been locked in a room and escaped. His escape had only been discovered when someone had sought him to do some work, finding the locked room he was supposed to be in, empty.^[1]

 The Port Adelaide police were notified of Martin’s disappearance, with word put out on the street that they were searching for him. At about 10:30pm that night, a message was sent to the police station stating that Martin was seen laying on tracks at the Port Adelaide railway yards.
 Constable Schell went to investigate and found then arrested Martin. Martin was no longer dressed in his reformatory uniform, instead, wearing clothes he had borrowed from another boy. He was wearing blue serge trousers and a tweed vest, missing his hat, work coat and one boot. When asked by police why he changed clothing, he stated, “I’m not going to let anyone see me with a uniform coat on." (referring to the reformatory uniform).
 Martin was taken to the Port Adelaide police station and put in the cells, all the while protesting vigorously that he had done nothing wrong and did not deserve to be locked up.
 Mr Burton, who had taken charge of the boy, decided that he, and his reformatory, would no longer accept the boy and that he should be placed back into State care. ^[2]

 

 

Next Week: John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: Part 5: Cardigan Castle

 

Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2020

---

[1] 'A NOTORIOUS JUVENILE.', South Australian Chronicle, (10 November 1894), p. 7., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article93853575.

[2] 'A NOTORIOUS JUVENILE.', The Advertiser, (3 November 1894), p. 6. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article25740901.

John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: Part 3: Glanville to Manoora.

 

John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: 

Part 3: Glanville to Manoora.

    Saturday 16 September 1894, John Martin escaped yet again from Mr Burton's Glanville Reformatory, this time with two other lads, Patrick Quigley, and Patrick MacCabe. The boys had made it on foot from Glanville to Manoora. They had been spotted near Saddleworth. The Kapunda Mounted Police were notified and set off after them, arresting the boys on Monday afternoon.
 The three lads were sent by train back to Port Adelaide. Mr F. R. Burton, warden of the Glanville Reformatory offered his opinion that Martin’s escape had been influenced by others. He expressed his opinion in The Observer newspaper.

"He ran away three or four days after I got him last April," Mr. Burton said, "and when he was brought back he was kept under strict surveillance for a time, but for the last three months be has had full liberty, and if he had had an idea of going, he could have disappeared at any time.
  I offered to get him a situation, but he preferred to stay with me. About a week or so before he disappeared be expressed a wish to go to sea, and when I told him that I would get a ship for him to go to England and got the Judge's approval of my action he was quite pleased. No doubt the boy has been enticed away.
  It is rather annoying after struggling with him for months and seeing the end in view for someone to step in and spoil the work. A sea life is the only life for him. He is too impulsive and is too easily led away. There is not much gratitude in boys nowadays—there are very few cases of it. I do not look for it. I was surprised the way the boy has behaved, and I am sure he deserves credit for it. I'll give you an instance where he could have got away if he had wanted to do so. On the last public holiday, September 3, I took my boys down the river, and allowed each, in turn, to have a paddle in the canoe that I have there. If he had wanted to get away, he could easily have landed on the other side of the river and got a good two-hours' start of any search party.

 I don't know yet what the police will do. I would take him back. I have never given a boy up yet, and if he comes back to me, I shall carry out my intention of sending him to sea, as the Judge approved of my idea."[1]

   The boys when captured at Manoora had in their possession two greyhounds that belonged to W.J. Oliver of Norwood. Mr Oliver declined to press charges against the boys, perhaps out of fear of retaliation. Martin was returned to the care of Mr Burton at the Glanville Reformatory.[2]
   Originally Martin had been sentenced to State Children’s Department on Flinder’s Street then sent to the Industrial School, then Mr Burton’s Glanville Reformatory. All up, he had escaped 16 times, earning him the reputation of, “a cunning, daring and skilful escape artist’.

 A journalist for the Express and Telegraph went as far as writing; 

“Some of his escapes from the Reformatory were accomplished in such a daring and skilful way that many people would have preferred to see the youth pardoned and assisted into some honest situation as the regard for his extraordinary pluck than hunted by the officials and returned to the State home which he so greatly abhors.”[3]

 

 

Next Week: John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: Part 4: Flown the Coop.

 

Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2020

---

[1] 'A DARING YOUTH.', The Express and Telegraph, (10 September 1894), p. 4. (SECOND EDITION), http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article20903880.

[2] 'THE CASE OF JOHN MARTIN, THE RUNAWAY.', Adelaide Observer, (22 September 1894), p. 31. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article161809938.

[3] 'A DARING YOUTH.', The Express and Telegraph.

John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: Part 2: Escape Artist

 

John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: 

Part 2: Escape Artist

 

 John Martin became well known in Adelaide for his constant escapes from the Industrial School and Glanville Reformatory. His escapades became legendary and earned him celebrity status in Adelaide.
 When writing of his escapes, the 15-year-old (14 at the start of his crime spree) was often described with words exemplifying his actions, rather than vilifying him, as would have been done if he was an adult. ‘Pluck and determination’ were often used to describe him, and, ‘courageous, fearless, and brave’.

The Express and Telegraph newspaper published one of his escapes. In the middle of the night, Martin awoke in his third-floor dormitory. While everyone else was asleep, he quietly drifted through the room, opened a window, and stepped out onto an 8-inch (20cm) ledge protruding from the wall. He was 40 feet (12 meters) above the ground. Martin, quietly, without fear, moved along the ledge until he reached a water pipe, which he slid down to reach the ground.

 

Artist impression on John Martin 1896.

He was captured after three days. On his return to the reformatory, he was shackled with ‘school-irons’, a leather and iron shackle designed to hobble the wearer. The irons were chained to the bed, and a warder was assigned to stay in the room the entire night.
 On one occasion, Martin waited for the warder to fall asleep. He found a way to quieten his shackles, and snuck over the warder, removing the keys from his pocket, and unlocked himself. Again, he snuck out the window onto the ledge and used the waterpipe to escape to the ground.

 On another occasion, Martin was segregated into an isolation chamber that the superintendent thought inescapable. The only things in the room with Martin were his blanket and bed. Martin was put in the chamber, and the warders left to their rooms. The following morning, Martin was nowhere to be seen,
 As soon as the warders had left him, Martin bit the metal buttons off his trousers. He used the buttons as screwdrivers and removed the lock from the door, from the inside! He escaped into a courtyard, where he escaped over the wall.
 Unfortunately for Martin, his notoriety meant he was easily recognised and was arrested soon after his escape. [1]

 

Next Week: John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: Part 3: Glanville to Manoora.

 

Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2020

---

[1] 'THE LAD JOHN MARTIN.', The Express and Telegraph, (11 September 1894), p. 2. (SECOND EDITION), http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article209038878.

John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: Part 1: Bold Bad Boy

 

John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: 

Part 1: Bold Bad Boy

 In March 1894, John Martin was charged with breaking and entering and theft. He had escaped from F. Burton’s Glanville Reformatory and made his way to Magill. There, he had broken into Mr Moseley’s house and stolen a gold watch and chain, a gold ring, a gold locket, and other valuables.

 Martin was presented to the Supreme Court, presided over by Judge Bundey. In that period, boys were judged and sentenced as men. If convicted, the boys were sent to a prison hulk at Largs Bay, or if their crime was deemed too offensive, sent to Adelaide Gaol.

 Much was made in the newspapers of Martins general appearance in court. He was described as a ‘short thick-set sunburnt little fellow’ by one journalist. Martin was wearing at his hearing, a man’s coat and transfers, which were much too big for him, requiring him to hold them up with one hand.

Harry Nelson, the warder at the reformatory, stated in court that he had checked on Martin in the evening. Martin was on the third story and shackled by the ankle to his bed. At the 2am check, Nelson found Martin had escaped.
 Martin was arrested at Charles Street, Norwood by constable Garland. Moseley’s valuables found in his possession. Martin, when asked if he had anything to say, said, "I can't stop at that school". [1]

 While standing before Judge Bundey, Martin began to sob, stating he had stolen the goods from Moseley with the idea of being sent to gaol. In his young mind, he believed he would be treated better in the Adelaide Gaol than he was in the reformatory.
 Bundey took pity upon the boy, stating “Martin, yours is a peculiar case, now if I send you to a good kind gentleman, who will treat you well, look after and train your better, will you behave yourself, and remain with him?”

Martin, holding back tears stated, “yes, sir”.

Bundey: “I have never seen anything like your case here. You are under fifteen years of age and have shown extraordinary boldness and energy. You have escaped from the Reformatory fourteen times. Now what I should like to do would be to treat you not as a bold bad boy, but as a bold good boy. a bold boy with elements of good in him. You are approaching the years of manhood, and if rightly directed may make an extremely useful man. If I were the commander of a man-of-war, I would like to take you on board my ship and put you under strict discipline, which would bring out your best qualities, and tone down your evil tendencies.”[2]

 In 1894, John Martin would become somewhat of a celebrity escape artist in Adelaide. His escapades, crimes, and court appearances would be published in almost all South Australian newspapers. Such was this 15-year-olds notoriety, his exploits made national news.

 

Next Week: John Martin the Celebrity Delinquent: Part 2: Escape Artist

 

Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2020

---

[1] 'A Daring Youngster.', Evening Journal, (30 March 1894), p. 2. (SECOND EDITION), http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article200770875.

[2] 'Law and Criminal Courts', Evening Journal, (3 April 1894), p. 2. (SECOND EDITION), http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article200771138.

 It's Only a Bastard.

In 1878, Mary Scudmore was charged with unlawfully beating Charles Grills, a nine-month-old child.
Scudmore appeared at the Police-court before Judges Beddome, Wilshire and Reed. The prosecutor read the charge that Scudmore was accused of cruel conduct towards the child.

It was claimed that on several occasions she had thrust the child’s head into dirty water to get it to stop crying, almost drowning the boy. It was stated that if anyone confronted her about her cruel behaviour she would state; “It’s only a bastard. There’s no such luck as killing it. The child has got as many lives as a cat!”.[1]

Scudmore’s neighbour reported her to the police. The child had been in Scudmore’s custody for an unknown amount of time. The Judges deliberated among themselves and came back with the verdict ‘case dismissed’ on the grounds that the evidence fell short of what required to prove the charge.[2]


[1] 'MONDAY, OCTOBER 14.', South Australian Chronicle and Weekly Mail, (19 October 1878), p. 13., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article92265724
[2] 'Law and Criminal Courts.', Evening Journal, 914 October 1878), p. 2., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article197717855

 

Thomas Cunningham: Rogue and Vagabond (Part II)

  After serving two years in gaol for the abduction of 15-year-old girl Ellen Ween, Cunningham found himself living on Currie Street at Boddington Row in the company of a prostitute, Alice Tree. The pair were accused of unlawfully and maliciously wounding Ah Kong, a charge later dismissed. 

  Thomas Cunningham found himself in further trouble in 1882 when he faced court on the charge of being a ‘Rogue and Vagabond’. The charges were brought forth by Detective Dunlevi, who stated for the prior twelve months, Cunningham was unemployed and had been associating with thieves and prostitutes. He had served two years for abduction and had prior to that been charged and convicted for larceny, felonious assault, and assaulting police.

  Cunningham told the court he would find work on Wednesday. Sitting Judges, Beddome and Lucy allowed him to be released to do so.[1] Cunningham did not look for work, instead, he went about his usual business, drinking and gambling at the Shamrock Hotel, the Ship Inn, The Provincial Hotel, and the Galatea Hotel. Detective Hampton arrested Cunningham and again charged him as a Rogue and Vagabond.

  On 22 May 1882, Cunningham was brought before Judge Beddome. This time the Judge was not so lenient, sentencing Cunningham with two months imprisonment and two sureties to keep the peace at 50 pounds each.

  Cunningham was the charged with assaulting Police Officer Copeland. Officer Copeland stated that while trying to arrest Cunningham for the charge he sat previously, Cunningham turned and struck him in the eye. Judge Beddome sentenced Cunningham to a further six months in prison and hard labour.
Another man Edward Bates was charged alongside Cunningham, for inciting Cunningham to resist arrest. He was fined 1 pound and two 50-pound sureties to keep the peace for a year.
Yet another man, William Jury, was sentenced for assaulting police. Jury had seen the Constable arresting Cunningham and starting remonstrating with him to release Cunningham, in doing so, he kicked the officer several times. Jury was sentenced to six months in prison.[2]



Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2020


[1] 'Adelaide: Monday. May 1.', Adelaide Observer, (6 May 1882), p. 12., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article160157123. 
[2] 'MONDAY, MAY 22.', South Australian Weekly Chronicle, (27 May 1882), p. 13. , http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article91467672

 

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