Stone throwing at Adamstown.
An extraordinary case.
Alderman Jennings and family, of Gosford-road, Adamstown, have been greatly annoyed, and the safety of their persons endangered during the past three weeks, by the conduct of some evilly-disposed persons who continually throw stones at their house. The stone-throwing became so bad that Mr Jennings placed the matter in the hands of the local police. Constables Anderson and Mullane and a large number of residents watched each night in the locality of the disturbance in the hope of catching the guilty parties in the act. The throwing continued while the police were watching.
Whenever a light appeared in the back rooms a stone was certain to strike the building or crash in through the window. On one occasion a stone was thrown through the window, which struck Miss Jennings. Another member of the family was struck down by a stone while entering the back door. The throwing is continued both day and night. Eleven panes of glass are broken out of twelve in the back bedroom windows, while six panes are broken in the dining-room window. The windows in an outside kitchen have also suffered. A piece of paper was tied around one stone that was thrown on which was written, “You can go to h—, and do your best.” Other messages have been delivered in a similar manner.
Yesterday morning at daybreak the police an dMr Jennings were on the look out. They watched under cover till 8 a.m., when the police went to breakfast. Mr Jennings remained on the look out, and observed something which caused him to send for the police. Acting on information received from Mr Jennings, Constables Anderson and Mullane proceeded to the residence of William Wooton, a neighbour of Mr Jennings, and arrested a young man named Henry Wooton, alias Token Harry, on a charge of throwing stones. Wooton and his father had previously been served with a summons to appear at the Newcastle Police Court on Tuesday on a similar charge. The arrest caused a deal of excitment, and while a couple of hundred people were discussing the situation near Mr Jenning’s residence, stones were again thrown on the house. Mrs Jennings and the children are almost frightened to go out of doors.
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, 9th April 1894.
The Cock Lane Ghost at Adamstown.
Lovers of reading will remember that in a place named Cock Lane, near Islington, England, the neighbourhood used to be continually alarmed some hundred years ago by noises produced by stone throwing on the roofs of houses. At that time the domiciles were few and far between. The red waistcoated guardians of the peace, in that day had some difficulty in tracing the authors of the discord. At last the noise seemed to concentrate itself into one house. It was then that the great leviathan of literature at that period, Dr Samuel Johnson, resolved to investigate the ccase. He did so, or thought he did. His enquiries (or those of subtler intelligence who followed after) resulted in the discovery that the noises inside the house were produced by a maiden lady operating upon her stays which had been hollow-lined for some mysterious purpose, and which has never yet been explained.
A few weeks ago some stone-throwing developments of a perplexing character occurred in the Western district, and we have again been troubled with the same idiosyncracy lately at Adamstown. It would seem that history repeats itself occasionally, even in th emost absurd characteristics. One Alderman Jennings, of Adamstown, the roof of whose domicile is encased with corrugated iron, has become the victim of a persistent stone-throwing, and the suburban guardians of the peace have been put upon the scent. All that they could report was that the throwing continued while the police were watching. This was the same in Dr Johnson’s time, the only difference being that the watchers were Bow-street runners then and members of the constabulary force now. In either case the result was the same, no delinquent was arrested.
Becoming weary of professional enquiry, Alderman Jennings kept watch himself. After having received several aerial missives of an insulting character attached to a piece of blue metal, something under the size of a flat iron, he was successful in obtaining sufficient information to cause the arrest of a party “not by the name of Johnson” but by that of Wooton. This alleged disturber of the peace will have to present an apology to the Police Court at Newcastle some time to-day, or submit to the usual consequences.
The Maitland Daily Mercury, 9th April 1894.
Stone throwing at Adamstown.
The bombarding of Alderman Jennings’ dwelling with stones was continued yesterday. Several stones struck the roof of th ehouse, ans some found their way into the building through the broken windows. One stone struck Miss K Jennings on the forehead, just above the left eye. If the throwing is not stopped extreme steps are threatened.
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, 10th April 1894.
Newcastle Police Court. Tuesday, April 10. (Before Mr Mair, P.M., and Mr Christie, J.P.).
The Adamstown stone throwing case.
Henry Wooton, age 24, a dealer, was charged on remand from the previous day with having on the 8th instant, at Adamstown, maliciously damaged a pane of glass valued at 1s, the property of Jeremiah Jennigns. Mr W.H. Baker appeared for the prosecution, and Mr J.A. Gorrick for the defence.
Jeremiah Jennings, an alderman for the Municipality of Adamstown, stated that on the morning of Sunday last at about half-past 8 o’clock, he heard while having breakfast, two stones crash through one of the back windows of the house. After hearing the crash witness ran out and concealed himself outside. While there he saw the accused’s father watching some neighbours, who were also keeping a look-out. When the neighbours went away the accused’s father spoke something to the accused, which witness could not hear. Witness then saw the accused step from behind a closet and deliberately throw a stone through one of his windows. It shattered a pane of glass, and witness found the stone in his children’s bedroom. That was the only stone he actually saw thrown by the accused. His children were not in the room when the stone went through the window, as they were having breakfast.
By Mr Gorrick: When the accused threw a stone witness shouted out to him, “I’ll make you pay for this.” The accused then walked off. The young man was not digging. Witness was concealed in one of his own outbuildings, and he had been watching for the culprit for three weeks. Since the accused was arrested stones had been thrown on witness’ house, and only that morning another window had been smashed by a shanghai stone. Last week he did receive a lawyer’s letter from Mr Gorrick, threatening him with legal proceedings for slander, and also for assault. The information against the accused was laid before witness received the letter. He denied that he had ever assaulted one of the members of the accused’s family.
Henry Wooton, the accused, stated that he was a dealer, and resided near the prosecutor at Adamstown. He had heard the prosecutor’s evidence, and there was not an atom of truth in it. Accused swore that he never threw a stone at the house, and did not hear the prosecutor speak to him. Accused only had one arm, his right one having been amputated.
By Mr Baker: On Sunday morning between 8 and 9 o’clock he was in his pigeon house, and he saw the prosecutor in his yard. The latter did not say anything to him. Accused swore that he never in his life threw a stone at the prosecutor’s house.
Richard Scott, a miner residing at Adamstown, gave evidence for the defence, and said that he knew the accused. On Sunday morning he was at Wooton’s house, and he saw the accused in his pigeon-house feeding the birds. Witness then saw him go inside. The prosecutor was in his own yard, and witness saw him go into one of the outhouses. If the accused had thrown a stone witness must have seen him do so.
By Mr Baker; Witness was married to a sister of the accused. He was also at the place when the prosecutor brought a policeman, and the accused was arrested.
Constable Anderson, who was called at the suggestion of the Bench, deposed that he was stationed at Adamstown, and knew the parties. On Sunday morning the prosecutor made a complaint to him, and witness went to the accused’s house. Witness asked the man if he had been throwing any stones, and he said, “No; I can prove that.” Witness asked him how he accounte dfor the windows in the prosecutor’s house beingn broken, and he said he did not know. Witness had several times been to the prosecutor’s house because of stone throwing. The accused was arrested at 10 minutes past 9 o’clock on Sunday morning. Scott was not present when witness arrested the accused.
The prosecutor (re-called) swore that he did not see Scott at all that morning. The accused and his father were present, and the former in his evidence never said that Scott was there.
By Mr Gorrick: He could not swear that Scott was not in th eyard, as he might have been secreted.
William Wooton, the father of the accused, stated that he was a miner. The witness swore that the son-in-law, Scott, was at his place between 8 and 9 o’clock on Sunday morning. Witness corroborated the evidence for the defence, and swore that his son did not throw a stone.
Under cross-examination the witness first stated that he had not seen the prosecutor that morning, but he afterwards amended the statement, and said that the prosecutor was in his own yard, and witness heard him say to somebody, “I saw you.” The witness was very deaf, and contradicted himself several times. He swore that Jennings accused him of throwing the stone first.
After being addressed by the solicitors in the case, The Bench found the accused guilty, and ordered him to pay a fine of £3, with 1s for the damage done, and £1 1s professional costs, or in default two months’ imprisonment.
The accused stated that he would go to gaol.
Two summons cases for maliciously damaging property brought against the accused and his father by Jennings, were adjourned until Thursday.
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, 11th april 1894.
The Adamstown stone-throwing case.
Henry Wootton, aged 24, a dealer, was brought up on remand charged with having on the 8th inst. at Adamstown, maliciously damaged the property of Jeremiah Jennings, an alderman of that municipality. From the evidence of the prosecutor, stones had been thrown at the windows of his house repeatedly lately, and a watch had been kept. The parties were related by marriage, and some family feud had arisen, resulting in the alleged stone-throwing. There was a great deal of hard swearing on each side, but the Bench decided to believe the prosecutor, who distinctly swore to seeing the offence committed by the accused on the date named. The accused was accordingly convicted, and was fined £3, and £1 1s professional costs, or two months’ imprisonment. He at once refused to pay the fine, and elected to go to gaol.
The Maitland Daily Mercury, 11th April 1894.
The Adamstown Stone-throwing Case.
William Wooton, a miner, was charged by summons by Jeremiah Jennings, of Adamstown, with having on April 4th maliciously damaged a galvanised iron roof to the extent of £2. Mr Baker appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Gorrick for the defence.
The complainant deposed that he was an alderman of Adamstown, and he laid information against the accused from something which he had heard. The roof of his house was of galvanised iron, and the damage done amounted to £2. The iron was dented and broken in places, and some of the nails were sprung. The damage was caused by stones, and he produced several which he found on the roof and in the yard. For some four weeks stones had been thrown on the house.
Mary Ann Hopper, a married woman, residing at Adamstown, deposed that on Wednesday, April 4th, she saw the accused throw a stone on the complainant’s house. The throwing occurred at about half past 1 o’clock, and after throwing it the accused walked inside his own house. Mrs Wright, a daughter of the complainant, also witnessed the scene, and she said to the accused, “We have caught you at last.” The defendant said, “So you have,” and he repeated it several times. The stone passed over witness’s allotment, and struck the complainant’s roof.
By Mr Gorrick: Stone throwing had been going on for a month, and sometimes the house was struck when the defendant was absent. She had seen several stones come from his yard. Witness’ house at first was also stoned.
Mary Wright, a married woman living at Adamstown, also swore that she saw the defendant pick up a stone and hurl it at the complainant’s house. She corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, and said that some weeks she was accused of throwing stones.
Margaret Jennings, the daughter of the complainant, who was with the other two witnesses at half-past 1 o’clock on the day in question, gave similar evidence, and swore that the defendant’s wife was also in the yard.
The complainant (re-called) said that the holes in the galvanised iron were in the kitchen roof. The house was his property.
Sarah Wooton, wife of the defendant, stated that on the 4th of April she went with her husband to Newcastle at half-past 9 o’clock in the morning. They did not return to their home until 3 o’clock, and she remembered the time as she heard the clock strike.
By Mr Baker: Witness was not in court when evidence for the prosecution was heard.
Hannah Scott, a married woman stated that she was the daughter of the defendant, and resided in Victoria Street, Adamstown. Her parents left Adamstown for the city at half-past 9 o’clock on Wednesday, the 4th inst., and they did not return to Adamstown until half-past 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Witness remembered it well, and she did all the washing that day for her mother.
By Mr Baker: Witness was in court when Mrs Hopper was giving evidence, but she did not hear any of her evidence. She remembered what occurred on the 4th instant, and looked at the clock when her parents went away and also when they returned. She would not tell a lie for anyone, and would swear that no one could have seen her father in his yard at half-past 1 o’clock that day. A person in the complainant’s yard could not be seen from her father’s back door.
Harriet Cooper, a married woman, living on the Hamilton Commonage, deposed that she was a daughter of the defendant. At 10 o’clock that morning she saw her parents pass her door, and she asked them where they were going. They said they were off to Newcastle. In the afternoon they returned and stayed at witness’ house for some time. She gave them a cup of tea, and they left for their own house a little before 3 o’clock. As it was washing day witness remembered it well.
By Mr Baker: She was told by her father that it was the fourth of the month. He told her when she visited him on the night of the day on which the summons was served. The witness could not recollect when the summons was served on her father, and at last said that it was before last Sunday when her brother was arrested for throwing stones. Witness was in court when Mrs Hopper gave evidence and heard it, but she did not know that all witnesses had been ordered out of court.
The defendant on oath also swore that on the day in question he was away from home with his wife. He had refused to give any money to settle the case, as he had never thrown a stone on the complainant’s house. He had seen stones strike complainant’s house, and had drawn Jennings’ attention to them in the daylight.
The defendant was cross-examined at length. He swore that the distance from the complainant’s kitchen from his back door was fully 80 yards, and he could not throw that distance.
Mary Jane Hughes, a married woman, was called by the prosecution in reply. She lived on the opposite side of the road to the parties in the case. On Wednesday, the 4th inst. she was outside her house watching for her husband. He returned at half-past 2 o’clock, and before that hour she saw the defendant in his own garden. She was certain of the hour and also the day.
By Mrs Gorrick: She had been accused of throwing the stones. If 500 people swore that she never saw Wooton in his garden that afternoon, she would still say she was right.
The complainant, recalled, said that the distance from his kitchen to the back door of the defendant’s house was not more than 45 yds, as there was only one allotment between.
Constable Mullane stated that the distance from the complainant’s kitchen to the defendant’s backyard was between 40 and 50 yards, the allotment between being 66ft wide.
The Bench found the defendant guilty, and ordered him to pay a fine of £3, with 1s for the damage done, £1 1s professional costs, 10s for witnesses’ expenses, and 6s 6d costs of Court, or, in default, two months’ imprisonment. The defendant was given until Monday to pay the money.
A similar case against the son, who was sentenced on Monday to two months’ hard labour for stone-throwing, was withdrawn.
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, 13th April 1894.