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 that 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 before 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 to two months' imprisonment and two sureties to keep the peace at 50 pounds each.

  Cunningham was charged with assaulting Police Officer Copeland. Officer Copeland stated that while trying to arrest Cunningham for the charge he had been previously charged with, 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 started 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 had 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 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, “You 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 beaten my daughter in my life. 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. A search for the birth certificate 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

 

The Colourful and Tragic Life of Alice Tree: Part 2 - “Riotous Behaviour and Death.”

Alice Tree was certainly no angel; her long list of crimes, mainly theft and prostitution, made her an easy target for police patrolling the notoriously seedy area around the Shamrock Hotel in north-west Adelaide. Light Square, Currie Street, Rosina Street and Elizabeth Street were all known hotspots for opium dens, prostitution, and other serious crimes.

In 1875, Alice Tree was fined 20 shillings for loitering with her friend Matilda Lattin.[1]
 November 1878, 21-year-old Alice Tree and 23-year-old Francis Major were found guilty of stealing 19 pounds from Robert McKinnon at the home of W.R. Evans.[2]

January 1879, Alice Tree, Annie Kelly, and Mary Ann Young were charged with behaving in a riotous manner in Light Square but were acquitted.[3]
October 1879, Alice Tree, Georgina Aslee, and Mary Minchin were charged with riotous behaviour while in a cab. Fined 10s each.[4]
November 1879, and Miss Tree and her cohorts find themselves in trouble with the law once again. This time Alice Tree, Elizabeth Hillman and Elizabeth Alderson were charged with ‘riotous conduct in a public conveyance in Rundle Street’; the ladies were fined 10s each. Another young lady, in the company of the three women, Mary Ann Gearing, was fined 10s for indecent behaviour at the same hearing.[5]

In January 1880, Alice Tree was charged with stealing the pocket watch of Francis Major. At court, Major stated he got out of gaol on December 27th, 1879 and met Tree at the Phoenix Hotel. Tree stole his watch, but he later went home with the prostitute. The court dismissed the case.[6]

On 9 November 1882, Constables Lucas and Donahue were walking the beat in Adelaide. The police officers were walking down Currie Street when they stopped at the house of known prostitute Alive Tree. Through Tree’s window at Boddington’s Cottages, they could see a man holding Tree with one hand, while his other hand was raised in a fist about to strike her. The man said to Tree. “Stop it now, or I’ll do for you yet!”[7]
Donahue called out to the man to stop what he was doing. The argument stopped for a few minutes but commenced again. Again, Donahue called out to the man to stop. The man replied, “It’s all right, Bobby,” and the fighting stopped. The constables waited ten more minutes, and as the fighting had stopped, continued walking their beat.

On 10 November 1882, Constable Holmes was on duty at the Light Square police station when he was called to attend an address on Currie Street. When he arrived, he found Constable Pascoe in attendance at the home. Pascoe and Holmes then inspected the body of the naked Alice Tree, who was lying on her bed, dead, but still warm.
They inspected her body under candlelight and discovered bruising on her face and other areas of her body. A woman from across the street spoke to the police and told them she had seen a man strike the woman with a glass and a bottle.
When Constable Pascoe arrived, Henry Page, who lived with Tree, had run off to find a doctor. He did not return. Constable Holmes went in search of Page and found him in Morphett Street. Page told him he had gone in search of a doctor, tried three, but none would come back to Currie Street with him. Holmes took Page into custody and marched him to the Light Square police station, where he made a report; he then returned to the Currie Street address with Detective Burchell.

  The detective found broken chairs in Tree’s room. There was dried blood on the wall near where Tree and Page had been arguing the night before. Several towels and handkerchiefs were found soaked with blood. Other blood-stained items were found throughout the house, as well as broken bottles and glass covered with blood.

Dr Melville R.H. Jay was called upon to conduct a post-mortem examination on the body of Alice Tree at the Destitute Asylum. Jay discovered bruising on the face, left breast, shoulder, arm and forearm. He could find no external signs of injury on her head but found a large blood clot covering the left side of her brain.[8]

During an inquest into the death, witnesses were called. Thomas O’Neil had been drinking at the house on the Friday in question with Henry Page and another woman. Page told him that he and Tree had been fighting the night before. O’Neil had seen Tree lying in her room, and figured she was asleep. He had tried to wake her, but she did not move, so he told Page to go get help.
The next witness was Tree’s friend Petrea Larsen. Larsen had seen Tree after she had been beaten by Page and tried to reduce the swelling on her eye. Larsen declared that she had previously heard Page say to Tree that he would kill her before her ex-partner, Cunningham, got out of gaol.

Emily Harris, who also shared the house with Tree and Page, deposed that she had seen Page throw Tree against a hard, wooden box on the floor. She also stated that Tree had told her, that Page had previously beaten Tree down, then jumped on her as she lay on the floor.

A neighbour, Maude Wenden, gave evidence that she had seen Page strike Tree on the nose, but it had not knocked her down. She put forward that Tree aggravated Page, implying she deserved the treatment. Wenden had heard a woman’s scream on Friday morning at about 11:30 am. She checked on Tree, but saw her lying on her bed asleep, so let her be.

The jury delivered the verdict: That the deceased, Alice Tree, came to her death through injuries received from the ill-treatment of Henry Page, and they found Henry Page guilty of manslaughter.[9]


On 15 December 1882, Henry Page was brought before the South Australian Supreme Court charged with manslaughter. Page, who had no lawyer, pleaded not guilty to the charges. Evidence was presented by the police prosecutor, including a statement by O’Neil, who failed to attend the hearing. Evidence from Ah Kong was submitted that he had heard O’Neil at the previous inquest state to Page that he need not fear the hearing, as he would not speak of what he had seen.
The Judge asked Page if he would like to give evidence, but told him if he was sworn in, he would be cross-examined. Page opted to offer a statement instead; denying he had ever struck Tree with any weapon and protesting that he did not inflict the wounds that killed the 25-year-old woman.

The Jury, on the advice of the Judge that the evidence was insufficient that Page had caused the death of Alice Tree, delivered a verdict of Not Guilty. Page was discharged and allowed to go free.[10]

Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2020.

[1] 'THIS DAY.', The Express and Telegraph, (19 November 1875), p. 2., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article208179784.

[2] 'LAW COURTS.', The Express and Telegraph, (13 November 1878), p. 2. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article207583525.

[3] 'POLICE COURTS.', South Australian Register, (30 January 1879), p. 1., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article42979251.

[4] 'LAW COURTS. POLICE COURT—ADELAIDE.', The Express and Telegraph, (4 October 1879), p. 2., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article207656009.

[5] 'POLICE COURTS.', South Australian Register, (1 November 1879), p. 1., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article43099341.

[6] 'TUESDAY, JANUARY 6.', South Australian Chronicle and Weekly Mail, (10 January 1880), p. 22., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article95041481.

[7] 'CORONER’S INQUEST.', Evening Journal, (13 November 1882), p. 2., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article197777811.

[8] ‘LATE TELEGRAMS.', Kapunda Herald, (14 November 1882), p. 3., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article106570341.

[9] 'DEATH UNDER SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.', South Australian Weekly Chronicle, (18 November 1882), p. 7., http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article93130681.

[10] 'SUPREME COURT - CRIMINAL SITTINGS.', South Australian Register (16 December 1882), p. 2.http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article43340939

 

The Colourful and Tragic Life of Alice Tree: Part 1 

 

Alice Tree was a prostitute working from Boddington Row in Adelaide’s West End. Boddington Row was a small group of cottages alongside the Shamrock Hotel (Colonel Light Hotel) that Thomas Boddington, owner of the Shamrock Hotel, leased at inflated prices to prostitutes who frequented his hotel.

July 1881, Alice Tree and her partner, Thomas Cunningham, a labourer, were arrested by police on the evidence of Ah Kong that Cunningham had maliciously wounded him.

 Ah Kong had sold a jacket to Alice Tree; he went to her house on Currie Street to collect his payment. Cunningham opened the door to Kong, but would not let him inside, saying to Kong, “I will come out and kill you.”
 Cunningham then rushed at Kong and punched him in the face. Tree then rushed outside and struck Kong over the head with a pot stick, knocking him unconscious to the ground.
 A passing police constable noticed Kong on the ground a little while later and sent him to the hospital, where he was treated. Once he gained consciousness, Kong told police what had happened.
 Detective Webster arrested Cunningham and Tree on Clarendon Street. Cunningham said to Tree, “I suppose we shall be committed for this, Alice”. The two prisoners made no further statements and were bailed at court, on the surety of 50 pounds each, and two others in 85 pounds each.[1]

 

Cunningham and Tree appeared in court in August charged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding Ah Kong on 9 July 1881. Ah Kong, on the witness stand, gave an entirely different account of what happened on the day.
 Kong stated that Alice Tree owed him money for drapery, so he went to her house to ask for the goods back. Cunningham was there and told Tree to stay inside. He claimed Cunningham used threats and bad language, then Tree hit him with a stick, shouting “Kill the Chinaman!”
 Kong claimed he fell to the ground and Cunningham seized him by the throat and asked Tree for a knife, with the intentioned to slit his throat; that was when Tree struck Kong over the head.
 He claimed another man came to his rescue, and as he (Kong) escaped, he fell to the ground unconscious, only to wake up in the hospital.
 At this point, Kong was stopped and examined. It was revealed that Kong had arrived at Tree’s house brandishing a tomahawk and threatened to use it if Tree did not pay him.[2]
 

 The Police Court decided that as Kong's evidence could not be relied upon, the case should be dismissed. The Judge agreed and acquitted them both.[3]

 

Next week:

The Colourful and Tragic Life of Alice Tree: “Riotous Behaviour and Death.”

Researched and written by Allen Tiller © 2020

[1] 'WEDNESDAY, JULY 13.', South Australian Weekly Chronicle (16 July 1881), p. 13.
[2] 'Law and Criminal Courts.', Evening Journal, (13 July 1881), p. 2.
[3] 'LAW COURTS. SUPREME COURT—CRIMINAL SITTINGS', The Express and Telegraph, (4 August 1881), p. 2.