Ron Paul: No Weapons for Saudi Arabia!

11/01/2010 Ron Paul: No Weapons for Saudi Arabia!

Obama dogs Ohio

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have...a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers."
-- John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/John.Adams.Quote.9C15

Obama dogs America.



The President usurper, the fraud and foreigner, the bastard from Africa, the con man from Kenya, reveals his shady character by refusing to be transparent with many important documents from his educational records to long form birth certificate. Emperor Obama must go!

Ron Paul at Texas Southern University : Lets Bring About REAL Change!

Ron Paul addressed the Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law Government Law Society on returning to the Constitution, restraining government at home and abroad, and the need to embrace liberty to create a free society and bring about real change.

--

Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, a return to sound monetary policies, and a sensible foreign policy that puts America first.

Rand Paul Surges Ahead Of Conway Despite Stomp Smear

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 29, 2010

Despite the Conway campaign shamelessly exploiting the notorious stomp on MoveOn activist Lauren Valle for political grist, while failing to mention that Valle herself attempted to assault Rand Paul before the fracas, Paul has surged ahead of his opponent in the latest poll, which shows the Kentucky candidate leading the race by nine points.

The poll, conducted by Survey USA for the Courier-Journal and WHAS-TV, took place between Sunday and Wednesday, so it would account for the reaction to Monday night’s events, which were ludicrously overblown by people like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as some kind of harbinger that Tea Partiers were the new brownshirts. Of course, Matthews, Olbermann, and the rest of the establishment talking heads were considerably less outraged when a MoveOn activist bit off the finger of a Tea Partier during an Obamacare protest last year.
read full article>>>

Me in My World 'photovoice' exhibition off to a great start

Mission Australia recently announced the launch of a dynamic photographic exhibition showcasing the artistic talents of young people who have accessed Mission Australia community services in south-west WA.

The Me and My World exhibition was opened by WA State Director Ross Kyrwood at the Bunbury Regional Art Gallery, and attended by local MP Nola Marino, Mission Australia staff, the young participants in the project, and other agencies and members of the community.

This is the third year the photographic project has been run with the young clients from Bunbury, who are not only developing their talents but also giving back to the community by donating the proceeds of their photographic sales to Mission Australia's south-west WA community services.

The exhibition will run until the 7th November - for location details visit www.brag.org.au/page.php?id=104. 
 
Scroll down for previews of some of the works:

The view from Cliff Street

This postcard of South Steyne is at first glance like a hundred others. The view looking towards the south end of the ocean beach has always been a popular one. What is of interest to us is the large area of cleared ground at the top of the cliff, since it helps us date the photo fairly neatly. On the site stood Bowercliff, the mansion built for successful boot manufacturer John P Wright. Following the deaths of Mr and Mrs Wright, the building became a popular guest-house. In late 1927 it was demolished, and the site lay vacant throughout 1928. In 1929, construction began on the Borambil building, which was completed in 1930, one of the few large building jobs to take place in Manly in the Depression years. So for a few months in 1928, the residents of a handful of houses in Cliff Street had one of the best views in Australia. Borambil still stands guard over the southern end of the beach.

Thanks to John Morcombe for the loan of the postcard.

Toby Hall launches Mission Australia’s 2020 strategy

Mission Australia has proven itself to be a highly successful community services organisation with a nationwide service presence. We have a passionate workforce all of whom are committed to doing the very best for our clients.

Our innovative and best-practice programs deliver good outcomes for clients and their communities and we are well poised to become Australia’s leading community services provider to reach out further, raise our own bar and assist more and more Australians to transform their lives.

We have high aspirations for what Mission Australia can be and how we will serve Australians in need into the future

Both Mission Australia’s Board and Leadership are focussed on building our capability as an organisation – investing in our people, systems and processes so that we are in the best possible shape to deliver our long term vision and strategy.

The MA 2020 Strategy has been developed in consultation with people from across the organisation and is designed to provide direction and identify priorities across our five Pathways: Strong Families and Healthy, Happy Children; Successful Youth; Away from Homelessness; Life and Work-Ready Skills and Sustainable Employment.

Our MA 2020 Strategy is now available for you to download or peruse online from the hyperlinks below. I invite you to take time to read the document and see what we are planning to do for our clients, our communities and for our organisation and employees

Cheers and God bless,
Toby Hall
CEO of Mission Australia

---

Mission Australia’s 2020 Strategy booklet has been designed to provide a strategic context for the development of our annual business plans. The 2020 Strategy booklet can also be used as a supplement for tenders and other external opportunities.

• Overview
  This booklet articulates our vision for Mission Australia in 2020, our goals, strategies and how we, together as an organisation, build our capability to create a strong and sustainable future.
• MA core expertise and lifecycle
  What we do and where we work.
• Our future - a glimpse to 2020
  By 2020 Mission Australia will assist half-a-million Australians each year to transform their lives, read on for a glimpse of our future.
• Pathways
  Our 2020 strategies for our pathways:  Pathways away from homelessness, Pathways to strong families and healthy children, Pathways through a successful youth, Pathways for life and work-ready skills, and Pathways to sustainable employment.
• Organisation 2020 - building capability
  Lead Experts in our Fields, Service Excellence, Sustainable Growth and Working Smarter.

To order copies please email MAInternalCommunications@missionaustralia.com.au

---

Rand Paul Reacts to Fiery Debate

Kentucky GOP Senate candidate talks about issues driving heated race

Sneak thieves

This postcard of Manly's Ocean Beach, taken from the vicinity of the present-day Borambil building, is of particular interest for the view over the men's dressing sheds. The dressing sheds ran for 200 yards along the southern end of the beach, and, as can be seen, were initially open to the sky. The sheds were divided into areas with lattice partitions, and pegs were provided for hanging up clothing. There were also troughs provided for washing feet after a bathe. Male sun-bathers were encouraged to sunbake inside the sheds, but this was often ignored.

Not surprisingly, the design of the dressing sheds gave ample encouragement to sneak thieves. in 1912, one of the attendants estimated that on average, one suit a day would be stolen. One thief, apprehended in the act, was told by the magistrate that his actions were contemptible, and he was given six months' imprisonment, but the thefts continued unabated. One technique favoured by the thieves was to roll up someone else's belongings in a towel, and if caught, to try to brazen it out.

It is rather surprising that the dressing sheds were quite so visible, given the prudery of the times. This photo dates from circa 1910, and by 1912, the sheds were covered over, which also kept the belongings dry in the event of a sudden shower.

The dressing sheds were not well located, and a storm over 14/15 May 1913 damaged them so comprehensively that they were demolished, and new, purpose-built accommodation was erected, opened in December of that year.

Mission Australia expands Macarthur service for children with disabilities

Opening of renovated Macarthur Early Childhood Intervention Service

Mission Australia officially open the renovated Macarthur Early Childhood Intervention Service (MECIS) today, improving the facilities for families that currently use the service and providing room to expand the number of places available for children with disabilities in the future.

The opening, which also coincided with the 21st birthday celebration of the service, was undertaken by The Hon Graham West, MP, Member for Campbelltown at the 5 Kingsclare Street, Leumeah address at 2pm.

Toby Hall, Mission Australia CEO, said that early intervention programs for children with disabilities are essential to helping them live a full and active life and MECIS has been a beacon for this kind of work for decades.

“Services like MECIS are really important to Mission Australia as we believe that all Australian children no matter what their circumstances should experience a safe, healthy and happy childhood,” said Mr Hall.

“All the latest research says that if we provide support to children with disabilities and delays as early in life as possible, they achieve much better long term outcomes.

“MECIS is a great example of that approach.

“Children can receive holistic support to meet their needs including early education, speech therapy, physiotherapy, and behaviour management and there are also group parenting programs while the children are taking part in group activities.

“Hundreds of children and their families have been touched by the service over more than two decades and we certainly hope thousands will benefit in the future.”

MECIS caters for children from birth to school age with disabilities and delays, and their families. It was originally established in 1979 as an outreach program of Macquarie University to address a lack of early intervention services in South West Sydney.

Today, the service encompasses early special education, therapy, standardised assessments, parent education and support. Programs are tailored to the individual needs of the child and family, and can include individual and / or group therapy intervention. Group programs offered include: early learning, preschool skills, school transition, and autism specific.

Renovations to the building in Kingsclare Street have included adding a second storey with office and meeting room space. The renovated service now includes significantly increased play and teaching areas for the children, a private meeting area for parents and new bathroom and toilet facilities specifically designed to meet the needs of the children.

The renovations were made possible by a $200,000 donation from Macquarie Group Foundation, and Mission Australia’s successful application to the NSW State Government’s Community Building Partnerships Program – which provided another $50,000.

More information about MECIS:

• Facilitated group parenting programs are on offer for parents and carers while their children attend groups.
• Individual therapy may be for a single discipline, or a combination of occupational therapy, speech therapy and physiotherapy.
• Behaviour management and early special education programs are also provided at MECIS.

Additional programs provided at MECIS include:  

Special Needs Family Support Service - ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) Intensive family support program for families of children up to 12 years, who have a diagnosis, or display characteristics of ADHD and live in the Campbelltown Local Government Area.  

South West Early Childhood Support (SWECS) An outreach and consultancy program for staff in early childhood settings across Campbelltown, Camden and Wollondilly Local Government Areas to support the inclusion of children with additional needs.

Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk 10/25/10

Ron Paul : Currency Wars: A Race to the Bottom of the Inflationary Barrel

Ron Paul
October 20, 2010

Inflation fears are heating up this week as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a speech in Boston on Friday, causing further frantic flight into gold by those fearful of the coming “quantitative easing” the Fed is set to deliver in November. Others who view gold as a short term investment engaged in immediate profit-taking after Bernanke’s speech.



Gold is more correctly viewed as insurance against bad monetary policy decisions that erode the value of savings. Those bad decisions keep coming at an ever faster clip these days and we hear more and more talk of currency wars especially between the dollar, the Chinese yuan, the Japanese yen, the Australian dollar, and the Euro. As the economies of the world continue to stagnate or contract, monetary policy decisions become more relevant to people who once thought this topic arcane. We have several examples this week of major fumbles on the part of the US Central Bank: read more>>>

Ron Paul on tax policy and the economy - Fox Business October 20 2010

Congressman Paul discusses tax policy and the economy with David Asman

Things looking up for Urban Descent

Today is the big day for the brave souls who are taking part in the Urban Descent fundraiser for the Sir David Martin Foundation.

If you find yourself at Sydney’s Circular Quay today you may glimpse Mission Australia’s CEO, Toby Hall, descending from the top of the AMP Building as part of the challenge.

Toby will be joined by Sir David Martin Foundation General Manager, Jannine Jackson, and Missionbeat Manager Daniel Petsalis. For Daniel, the 87-metre abseil will be his first fundaiser involving heights.

Urban Descent begins at 8am, with the last brave abseiler landing on terra firma at 4.30pm. If you’re in Sydney, get along and show your support!

The Sir David Martin Foundation provides funding for a number of Mission Australia’s youth services. All monies raised will assist the Sir David Martin Foundation fund their youth in crisis projects. One of the Sir David Martin Foundation’s key programs is the Triple Care Farm, which provides an environment of peace and healing for emotionally hurt and troubled young people aged 16 to 24.

Media Release: One-in-ten Queenslanders who rely on welfare agencies miss out on one square meal a day

Anti-Poverty Week – 17-23 October

Around one-in-ten people in Queensland who turn to welfare agencies for help lack a substantial meal at least once a day according to community service organisation Mission Australia.

As well as the most basic need for food, 43 per cent of welfare clients in Queensland can’t afford necessary dental treatment, 34 per cent can’t afford to pay their utility bills, 26 per cent have had to pawn or sell something to obtain money and 13 per cent have no access to a bulk-billing doctor. Thirty-three per cent of Queensland clients are unable to afford medicines prescribed by a doctor.

The state-based results are from a 2008 national research project led by Professor Peter Saunders from the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in partnership with Mission Australia and a range of community service organisations.

The research pays particular attention to households with children requiring welfare agency support, revealing 27 per cent are unable to provide hobby or leisure activities for their kids, 22 per cent are unable to afford school activities and 14 per cent are unable to provide separate beds for each child.

Mission Australia’s Queensland State Director, Tony Stevenson, said the results revealed the often desperate levels of poverty, deprivation and exclusion facing the individuals and families who rely on community service agencies for support.

“These aren’t encouraging figures. They show just how far we have to go as a society to truly arrive at a ‘fair Australia’,” said Mr Stevenson.

Mr Stevenson said he hoped the figures would re-energise the Federal Government’s social inclusion agenda which is aimed at achieving better outcomes for disadvantaged people.

“Now that we’re through the global financial crisis – and with a capable new Minister for Social Inclusion in Tanya Plibersek – the Federal Government has the opportunity to get on the front foot and pursue an agenda that makes real differences in the lives of people who are currently excluded from the essentials of life.

“The Gillard Government must apply itself to the issues which currently weigh so heavily on disadvantaged Australians – reducing homelessness, providing substantially more support to people with mental health issues, tackling rising youth unemployment, and providing ‘place-based’ support to people in the country’s most disadvantaged postcodes.

“Particularly at a time when Australia is patting itself on the back for avoiding the worst of the financial crisis and a possible return to the boom years, these figures are a wake-up call that poverty is still very real in this country.

“It will take targeted and deliberate action to change that. We hope that the political realities of a hung Parliament won’t get in the way – the people we help can’t afford for to wait for another three years,” said Mr Stevenson.

Media Release: One-in-seven in NSW who rely on welfare agencies miss out on one square meal a day

Anti-Poverty Week – 17-23 October

Around one in seven people in NSW who turn to welfare agencies for help lack a substantial meal at least once a day according to community service organisation Mission Australia.

As well as the most basic need for food, 49 per cent of welfare clients in NSW can’t afford necessary dental treatment, 44 per cent can’t afford to pay their utility bills, 29 per cent have had to pawn or sell something to obtain money and 20 per cent have no access to a bulk-billing doctor.

Thirty-five per cent of NSW clients are unable to afford medicines prescribed by a doctor.
The state-based results are from a 2008 national research project led by Professor Peter Saunders from the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in partnership with Mission Australia and a range of community service organisations.

The research pays particular attention to households with children requiring welfare agency support, revealing 26 per cent are unable to provide hobby or leisure activities for their kids, 20 per cent are unable to afford school activities and 14 per cent are unable to provide separate beds for each child.

Mission Australia’s NSW/ACT State Director, Leonie Green, said the results revealed the often desperate levels of poverty, deprivation and exclusion facing the individuals and families who rely on community service agencies for support.

“These aren’t encouraging figures. They show just how far we have to go as a society to truly arrive at a ‘fair Australia’,” said Ms Green.

Ms Green said she hoped the figures would re-energise the Federal Government’s social inclusion agenda which is aimed at achieving better outcomes for disadvantaged people.

“Now that we’re through the global financial crisis – and with a capable new Minister for Social Inclusion in Tanya Plibersek – the Federal Government has the opportunity to get on the front foot and pursue an agenda that makes real differences in the lives of people who are currently excluded from the essentials of life.

“The Gillard Government must apply itself to the issues which currently weigh so heavily on disadvantaged Australians – reducing homelessness, providing substantially more support to people with mental health issues, tackling rising youth unemployment, and providing ‘place-based’ support to people in the country’s most disadvantaged postcodes.

“Particularly at a time when Australia is patting itself on the back for avoiding the worst of the financial crisis and a possible return to the boom years, these figures are a wake-up call that poverty is still very real in this country.

“It will take targeted and deliberate action to change that. We hope that the political realities of a hung Parliament won’t get in the way – the people we help can’t afford for to wait for another three years,” said Ms Green.

Currency Wars: A Race to the Bottom of the Inflationary Barrel

Currency Wars: A Race to the Bottom of the Inflationary Barrel



10/18/2010 - http://www.RonPaul.com

Inflation fears are heating up this week as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a speech in Boston on Friday, causing further frantic flight into gold by those fearful of the coming "quantitative easing" the Fed is set to deliver in November. Others who view gold as a short term investment engaged in immediate profit-taking after Bernanke's speech.

Gold is more correctly viewed as insurance against bad monetary policy decisions that erode the value of savings. Those bad decisions keep coming at an ever faster clip these days and we hear more and more talk of currency wars especially between the dollar, the Chinese yuan, the Japanese yen, the Australian dollar, and the Euro. As the economies of the world continue to stagnate or contract, monetary policy decisions become more relevant to people who once thought this topic arcane. We have several examples this week of major fumbles on the part of the US Central Bank:

· The Federal Reserve continues to insist that inflation is too low, even while the monetary base remains at record levels, and food and gas prices continue to climb.

· As the Fed continues to drive down the value of the dollar, the government accuses China of deliberately devaluing its currency, and the House has passed legislation aimed at punishing China for this alleged devaluation.

· Low returns on US bonds are driving investors into higher-performing foreign bonds. Some of these countries are responding by reinstituting capital controls to guard against hot money and the carry trade.

· The spat with China and reemergence of capital controls have led some to fear that we are in the first stages of an all-out currency war.

· The instability in the international monetary system, the decreasing value of the dollar, and the large amounts of new US debt could lead the IMF and countries such as China, Japan, Russia, India, and Brazil to abandon the dollar and adopt a new multinational currency.

While the big players in these currency games sort everything out, the people hurt the most are the savers, the workers, and those on fixed incomes as their money buys less and less. Make no mistake -- the Fed and the Treasury Department are playing games with our money, especially in how they report statistics like unemployment and inflation. These games erode our standard of living and hide just how much damage their inflationary policies are doing.

Official core inflation for the US is only 1.14%, but that excludes such crucial day-to-day goods such as food and energy. Real inflation certainly is higher, maybe much higher. John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics calculates true inflation at a whopping 8.48%! But manipulated inflation statistics give the government cover when they again deny seniors a cost of living increase in their social security checks. They also serve to convince the public that further expansion of the money supply will boost the economy without causing any real pain, which has essentially been the core argument of Greenspan-Bernanke fed policy for the last 20 years.

Of course, the United States is not alone in its disastrous monetary policy decisions. These pressures are inherent in any fiat monetary system where money is created at will, for the benefit of the special interests. As all these currencies race to the bottom of the inflationary barrel, the only security to be had will be in honest money like gold as the system falls apart. My hope is that we can return to the wisdom of the Constitution and get back to sound, commodity-backed money before our dollar suffers a wholesale collapse.

The trials of Mrs Sergeant

Mrs Charlotte Sergeant, daughter of the well-known Sydney identity John Cadman, was embroiled in more than one sensational court case in her life-time. In 1862 her husband, Henry Sergeant, a master mariner, sued ferry owner Spencer Hart Wilson, for alienating his wife's affections, and claimed damages of a thousand pounds. The court case, in which Mrs Sergeant was not called to give evidence, was very fully reported in the columns of the Sydney Morning Herald. An account is given below.

Serjeant versus Wilson

A scandalous court case, of great interest to Manly residents, filled the columns of the Sydney Morning Herald in 1862. It involved master mariner Henry Sergeant and his wife Charlotte, who was the daughter of John Cadman, and ferry owner Spencer Hart Wilson. The Sydney Morning Herald of Thursday 29 May 1862, p5, reported on the first day of the case of Serjeant v Wilson, held at the Banco Court before Mr Justice Wise and a jury of four:
“The trial of this case, which commenced on Tuesday, was resumed, and the evidence on both sides closed, although the addresses of counsel and the summing up of his Honor are still to come.
It was an action by Henry Case Sergeant against Spencer Hart Wilson, for criminal conversation by defendant with plaintiff’s wife, by reason of which criminal intercourse plaintiff lost the society and assistance of his said wife, as well as the advantage of certain separate property which she had become possessed of. Damages were laid at £1000. To this declaration the defendant had pleaded not guilty.
The trial of this case has excited a great deal of interest, and the Court has been crowded to excess from first to last.
Mr Isaacs and Mr Milford appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir William Manning QC, and Mr Holroyd for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case [Sergeant] was a master mariner, engaged in the whaling trade; the defendant [Wilson] was formerly the master, and now the proprietor of the steamer Phantom, running from Sydney to Manly Beach. The lady in question was, before marriage, Miss Charlotte Phoebe Mortimer.[1] The case opened by counsel was substantially this: that soon after his marriage with Miss Mortimer the plaintiff was obliged, in the ordinary course of his profession, to go to sea, leaving his wife behind him. On his return, he was not able for some time to find her whereabouts. Ultimately, however, he did so. After that, suspecting that there had been adulterous intercourse between her and the defendant, he made enquiries to satisfy himself of this fact and to collect evidence for the purpose of obtaining redress in a court of justice. Latterly, Mrs Serjeant had been living openly, it was asserted, as the defendant’s mistress; she had of late, under the will of her mother, had certain property settled upon defendant in trust for her separate use. This, it was submitted, was an aggravation of plaintiff’s injury, as the proceeds of such property would, as it came in the shape of cash into the wife’s hands, become the property of the husband, and would be applicable to the purposes of his household. At a later stage of the trial this branch of the argument in support of plaintiff’s claim was so far withdrawn as to amount to an admission that it ought not to form a subject of additional damages. It was suggested that defendant might rely upon some early misconduct of defendant to his wife as an extenuation of her conduct, and of his (defendant’s) own; but it was contended that this would only make the matter worse, inasmuch as, but for the interposition of the defendant, these misunderstandings might have been healed. The case, it was contended, was one in which exemplary damages ought to be awarded.
Mr Henry Kerrison James produced a registry of marriages at St Philip’s church in the year 1845, from which it appeared that the plaintiff was married to Miss Mortimer on the 25th of January in that year.[2]
John Bramwell, Custom-house agent, one of the witnesses of the marriage, stated he was acquainted with Charlotte Phoebe Mortimer, the daughter of Mrs Cadman; saw her married to Captain Serjeant; met her a few days since on the Circular Quay; had heard she lived at Manly Beach; saw her there when on duty last Queen’s birthday.
Cross-examined: Miss Mortimer was the daughter of Mrs Cadman, the wife of Mr Cadman, formerly superintendent of Government boats; Mrs Cadman kept the Steam Packet Inn, Parramatta;[3] her daughter, Mrs Serjeant, lived with her there; Captain Serjeant was at that time away whaling; believed Mrs Serjeant lived with her mother until the latter died, less than a year ago;[4] could not speak personally as to Captain Serjeant having lived with his wife. It was very soon after the marriage that Mrs Serjeant went to live with her mother; the Steam Packet Hotel was very well known and easily found, and Mrs Cadman was well known; Captain Serjeant spoke to witness about a fortnight ago about this action; he came to witness’s room at the Police Office, and asked if he (witness), knew where his (plaintiff’s) wife was living. Witness replied, “Yes, at Manly Beach.” Serjeant then inquired, if witness knew anything against his wife; witness replied, that he did not; plaintiff spoke of a case which had occurred between his wife and Mrs Isaacs at the Police Court, in which the decision was against Mrs Isaacs; he asked witness about his wife bringing Mrs Isaacs to the court; he said, that he was going to bring an action against Wilson; plaintiff said he was stopping with Mrs Isaacs.[5]
Eliza Young knew a Mrs Sergeant, living at Manly Beach, was in her service about twelve months ago. She then lived at the [Ladies’] baths; lived a servant there four and a half months; knew the defendant, Captain Wilson; had seen him at the baths; had seen him in bed with Mrs Serjeant; saw this twice, on two consecutive nights; the first occasion was about seven weeks after she went there; this was between ten and eleven pm; could not be mistaken as to the identity of either, having seen them both distinctly; this was not in the room ordinarily occupied by Mrs Serjeant, but in that known as Captain Wilson’s room; Mrs Serjeant ordinarily occupied her mother’s room; there was a light burning on the drawers in the room; Captain Wilson was almost always there; Wilson and Mrs Serjeant had their meals together, and lived all the same as man and wife; saw them in bed both nights; had heard a rumour about Mrs Serjeant, and looked in order to satisfy herself.
Cross-examined: was peeping through a window; there were no window shutters; her fellow-servant, who remained but a fortnight, was peeping with her; that servant’s name was Mary; a shawl was pinned up at the window, but no curtains; had often seen Wilson in his night-dress through the door of his room, which faced that of Mrs Cadman; witness had been known by her present name for the last seven years; her maiden name was Kilpatrick (or Kirkpatrick); told her mistress this when asked, but never passed by that name; stood upon a chair to peep through the window; left the place because Mrs Serjeant was always quarreling with her; there was nothing said about witness going out at night; had been charged with stealing; did not steal, nor confess her guilt, and ask forgiveness; declared at the time that the charge was false, which it was; the charge was made by Mrs Serjeant because witness would not go to court for her; she said she would put witness in prison if she did not bring back a written character, which she (Mrs Serjeant) had previously given her; did not confess her guilt of stealing in the presence of Captain Hutton and others; had seen some respectable persons stopping at the Manly Beach Baths; witness spoke of what she had seen, and hence the charge of stealing; witness had seen an advertisement in the papers about herself, but had not attended to it, because she would not give back the written character; did not ask Mrs Serjeant to put her (witness’s) maiden name in her character. Had never, since being charged with theft by Mr[s] Serjeant, declared that she would have revenge; did not reside at Manly Beach after leaving Mrs Serjeant’s service; it was when witness went for her box at Woolloomooloo (to which place they had removed) that the charge of theft was made against witness; Mrs Serjeant had opened her box and had taken away the mourning which she had given witness at Mrs Cadman’s death; saw Mrs Scott lately; did not tell her about the 4th of May that “she had told Mrs Serjeant on leaving she would be revenged upon her, and now the day was come.” Did not say that she was going to swear against Mrs Serjeant in the case of her husband against Captain Wilson; had been living lately at Mr Gerard Phillips’ in service; had been found out by a fellow-servant, Kate Kean, who took her to Captain Serjeant; it was quite close to Mrs Isaacs’ place that she saw him, but did not see Captain Serjeant come from thence; her fellow-servant had introduced Mrs Isaacs to her; was with Mrs Isaacs on Easter Monday, and stayed some time; Kate Kean had been fellow-servant with witness at Mrs Cadman’s, but had left before the time that witness peeped in at the window.
Re-examined: It was before Mrs Cadman died that they went to live at Woolloomooloo; Captain Wilson went to live there also, and his name was on the door on a brass plate; Mrs Serjeant told witness that Mrs Scott, who was the wife of a fireman on board the Phantom, was a bad character, and that witness was not to go near her; knew Hannah Pond, she lived with Mrs Serjeant as a servant; only told Mrs Scott that if she, witness, went into Court she would speak the truth; Mrs Serjeant never summoned witness to the Police Office for stealing; the charge was a false one; only saw Mrs Serjeant and Captain Wilson in bed together on these two occasions.
Kate Kean knew Mrs Serjeant and Captain Wilson; lived with Mrs Serjeant for about three months and a half, at the end of 1860; they were then living at the Manly Beach baths; Captain Wilson lived there; he and Mrs Serjeant behaved towards each other as man and wife; witness had slept in the room adjoining Wilson’s, and during the night had heard Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant speaking together; could not be at all mistaken as to their voices; when living with Mrs Serjeant this last time (she had lived there twice) Mrs Serjeant asked witness to make a mustard poultice for her, as she had a sore throat; next day found part of the mustard in Captain Wilson’s bed, and saw other proofs of two persons having slept there; had seen Mrs Serjeant open Captain Wilson’s letters; also had seen Mrs Serjeant get a bandbox from Madame Ponder addressed to her as Mrs Wilson; had seen her enter Wilson’s room in her night dress as Wilson was bathing, and he had been in the room while she was bathing; had seen her repeatedly enter or leave Wilson’s room in the mornings in her night dress; Mrs Serjeant’s bed often appeared as if it had not been slept in; witness had a face-ache on the night she heard the voices, and could not sleep; she told Mrs Serjeant this (that she had been awake all night) and Mrs Serjeant removed her to another room, assigning as a reason for this removal that Captain Wilson objected to eat in a room where any person slept; heard Mrs Serjeant call Wilson ‘dear’ but once; they were in the habit of walking about and going to church together.
Cross-examined: was there three months and a fortnight on the first occasion, and three months the second; it was on the first occasion, towards the latter end of 1860, that witness then heard the talking; heard this but once; there was only a lath and plaster partition between the room where witness slept and that of Captain Wilson; they were talking in an ordinary tone of voice, not particularly loud; suspected it was all wrong with Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant when she heard the voices; went back to Mrs Serjeant’s service after having been away ten months; this was in 1861; Mrs Serjeant wrote to witness and witness went back, being in bad health, and thinking it would do her good to go there; Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant appeared to be living together as man and wife when witness first resided there, yet she went back; did not go back, however, for the sake of Mrs Serjeant; the letter produced was in her handwriting; remained about two and a half months with Mrs Serjeant after the time of hearing the voices; could not distinguish any of the words uttered; mentioned her suspicions to a Miss Newton, who was staying at the house, and Miss Newton said she was well aware of it; Mrs Serjeant took the mustard poultice from witness’ hand in her (Mrs Serjeant’s) own bedroom; she appeared to be in pain, but not suffering very severely; no fault had been found with witness about stopping out at night, or drinking; was charged with stealing by Captain Mullen, of the Pier Hotel[6], but the charge was false; left the hotel in consequence and of her own accord; this was before witness went to live with Mrs Serjeant; left Mrs Serjeant’s because the latter had falsely accused her to a third person of being out at night; charged Mrs Serjeant with this, when the latter denied it; had never said she would be revenged upon Mrs Serjeant; was in the employment of Mr and Mrs Isaacs, and had been so for three months; did not tell Captain Hutton that she wished to be revenged on Mrs Serjeant; Captain Serjeant was not living at Mr Isaacs’.
Re-examined: Did not know whether Mr Isaacs was Captain Serjeant’s agent; Captain Serjeant lived at lodgings in Sydney; Isaacs had formerly resided at Manly Beach, next door but one to Mrs Serjeant; could not say whether Serjeant had met his wife there walking with Wilson; Mrs Serjeant and Wilson still resided in the same house together.
Mary Ann Mileswater:[7] Knew Mrs Sergeant; had been in her service for two months, about fifteen months ago; Mrs Serjeant’s mother was alive at that time, and they were living at the Baths house, Manly Beach; Captain Wilson also resided there; Captain Wilson slept in a room adjoining Mrs Serjeant’s; witness made both beds; Mrs Serjeant’s bed used to appear as if it had been slept in; it always appeared so; never saw anything peculiar between Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant; witness was now living with Mrs Sawkins at Manly Beach;[8] had never seen Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant go out together; saw Mrs Serjeant last Friday, but had not conversation with her; witness had now told everything she knew or had seen about Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant.
Cross-examined: Eliza Kilpatrick (who had already been examined) was hiring servant at Mrs Serjeant’s when witness was there; was not present when Kilpatrick was charged with stealing.
The will of Mrs Cadman was produced, as also an affidavit by defender as executor, for the purpose of showing that under this will Captain Wilson was made trustee for Mrs Serjeant. At the same time, all allusion to the probable fact of this property passing through the hands of defendant and being of some advantage to him was withdrawn, so far as such allusion might be treated as a reason for enhancing damages.
The goods of deceased were sworn to be under the value of £150, and the affidavit contained the usual undertaking to account, &c.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
A paper was read bearing the mark of the witness Young or Kilpatrick, in which the letter named was used. In this she acknowledged that she therewith returned a black dress and bonnet, and promised to return a character which she had “surreptitiously obtained” from Mrs Serjeant; there was also a letter produced from the witness Kean stating her desire to go back and live with Mrs Serjeant; this was in answer to one which Mrs Serjeant had written.
Margaret O’Reilly lived with Mrs Cadman at the Steam Packet Inn, Parramatta, in 1847;[9] Mrs Serjeant was living there; had known Serjeant to live there for short periods when he came back from sea; he last lived there about twelve years ago, and since then he and Mrs Serjeant had never, witness believed, lived together. (A question as to whether plaintiff had said anything to witness about the causes of his separation was objected to, and after argument was allowed as going to the question of damages.) Captain Serjeant told witness he was not in a fit state to live with his wife; they had quarreled very much. (Evidence was gone into to show that Serjeant was afflicted with a certain loathsome disease, and raising the inference that he had imparted it to his wife.) Mrs Serjeant slept with her mother in the same room with witness, and Sergeant in another room; he used to call Mrs Serjeant bad names, and say that he would kill her if she did not live with him; she refused; she was compelled to have him up at Court; Serjeant went away, and after about three weeks’ absence came back, saying that he was quite well; Mrs Serjeant still refused to live with him, owing to something which had happened between him and her mother; heard the old lady scream once; Mrs Serjeant said she would never live with him again; heard Serjeant say he “would strip her (his wife) and take her into the street with a fig leaf before her”; also “that he had done no more than other men had done, and that she, who was no better than other women, must put up with it.” (The witness detailed a great deal of vile abuse which, as she swore, she had heard Serjeant use in reference to his wife.) Mrs Serjeant told Serjeant she would never live with him again on account of his having forgotten himself towards her mother; he only laughed; he told witness that he was a sailor, and must have a wife in every port; Mrs Cadman accused him of having attempted improper freedom with her, and said that he was a villain, and she wished her daughter had never seen him; was at the Police Office when a charge was preferred against Captain Serjeant, who was bound to the peace. (It was ruled that this could only be legally proved by the production of the proceedings.) Plaintiff was at Parramatta after that; Mrs Serjeant had him at the Police Court as well as her mother; Mrs Serjeant had to be locked up out of his reach when he came there; Mrs Cadman, after leaving the hotel at Parramatta, went to live at Balmain, where she had lodgers, respectable gentlemen; Captain Wilson boarded there; knew Mrs Cadman about a year before she died; was but once at the Manly Beach baths; Mrs Cadman took in lodgers there also; before this she was living at Waverley.
Cross-examined: Left Mrs Cadman three years before her death; only knew that Mrs Serjeant lived with her mother because Mrs Serjeant wrote to her from thence; Mrs Serjeant had lived at Manly Beach since her mother’s death, and still took in lodgers; saw several parties there, including Captain Wilson; witness was there ten days; would swear there were more than four; it was a weatherboard cottage, one of three on what was called the Corso, near the Steyne Hotel; the nearest to the hotel; Captain Wilson slept there; witness and her step-father were staying there at the same time; both slept there; there was a family there from Town’s Wharf; there were there sitting rooms in the house; Mrs Serjeant slept in the same room with witness; saw Mrs Serjeant today in town; witness lived in Singleton; arrived by the steamer on Sunday; saw Mrs Serjeant yesterday, but did not go to Manly Beach with her; they were at a house in George-street, and had tea together; witness slept there, and bid Mrs Serjeant good night about nine o’clock; saw Captain Wilson this morning about half-past eight, but did not know whether he slept there; saw Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant there; witness saw Mrs Serjeant at Mr Dawson’s (plaintiff’s attorney’s) office when going there to look for Captain Wilson, and see what she was wanted for; she had been subpoenaed; Mrs Serjeant questioned her as to her recollection; made no notes of what took place from twelve to fifteen years ago; was now nearly thirty; Mrs Cadman had a good temper; there was one gentleman who remained lodging there for about three years; with this exception the parties living there mostly came for short periods for change of air; Captain Serjeant’s mother was also living there, but only stopped, as witness believed, for a few months; she was not exactly a lodger, as she paid nothing, yet was not living there as one of the family; she (Serjeant’s mother) was away from Mrs Cadman’s when Serjeant came back; she was not turned out of Cadman’s; heard Serjeant say that she ought not to have been brought there as she could not agree with himself, and would not, therefore, agree with his wife; had not been told that Captain Serjeant could not give evidence; Serjeant often shouted out, in the presence of witness and others, as to his being ill of a certain complaint. (Witness named several such parties, but could not say whether any of them was at present to be found – among others, she named Mr Joseph Neatby, a brother of Captain Neatby of the Duncan Dunbar.) Mrs Serjeant had not told witness anything about any letters from Serjeant, or any other letters having anything to do with this case; she had merely told witness that there was some letter Mr Plunkett had which she wished she had, but did not say what the contents of this letter were; had heard many people speak well of Serjeant; had nothing herself to say against him; had never heard him complain to Mrs Cadman and Mrs Serjeant about the treatment his mother had received from them.
Re-examined: Mrs Serjeant told witness that the letter alluded to was written by her husband, and was addressed to “Mrs Cadman’s, w[hore]houses, Parramatta.”
[It was at this stage of the case that the Court adjourned until Wednesday.]
Mary Ann Bayley swore that she remembered the time when Mrs Serjeant was ill with a sore throat; witness on that occasion having been sent for; she had applied the mustard poultice, and had slept with Mrs Serjeant that night in Captain Wilson’s room, which, being a large one, he had given up to them; had known the parties many years, and had never seen anything wrong between Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant.
Cross-examined: Would never swear positively she had seen no impropriety between Captain Wilson and Mrs Wilson, either at the baths or anywhere else; was staying at Mr Cook’s, in George-street, Sydney; could not say whether Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant were there the night before last; saw him there yesterday but not before seeing him in King-street; did not see him there before ten o’clock yesterday; was not aware that Mrs Serjeant and Wilson were in the habit of residing at Mr Cook’s occasionally; had resided with Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant in the same house at Manly Beach for more than two months; there were eight or nine rooms in this house; witness could positively say that Mrs Serjeant slept with her (witness) every night, and all night long, for that period; was still, when at home, residing with Mrs Serjeant; they all came up together; Mrs Serjeant and witness went to the house of Mr Cook together; Captain Wilson did not go with them; was at tea with Mrs Serjeant at Cook’s the evening before last; Wilson was not there to tea; did not remember seeing him; this was the truth, no matter what other people might have sworn; had known Mrs Cadman since 1839, and visited her as a friend up to the time of her death. (Witness named several parties who had lodged with Mrs Serjeant at Manly Beach.) Mrs Serjeant and witness occupied a back bedroom, and Captain Wilson a front room; could most positively swear that she had never seen any impropriety of conduct between Captain Wison and Mrs Serjeant up to the present hour.
Re-examined: if there had been any such impropriety witness must have observed.
By the Judge: Could not remember who was present at tea at Mr Cook’s, the night before last; slept with Mrs Cook; saw Mrs Serjeant in the street with her servant, but did not remember seeing her before this, in the morning, at Cook’s; did not see her there; did not think Mrs Serjeant was at tea, only remembered seeing two gentlemen; breakfasted this morning with Mr and Mrs Cook and a gentleman; did not remember that there was anybody else there; did not mean to say that she could not remember what had passed an hour or two ago; Mrs Serjeant was there; did not know the name of the gentleman whom she saw there; Captain Wilson breakfasted there this morning; witness did not remember that he took tea with her last night. (This witness gave her evidence in a peculiar manner, pausing at some of the questions, answering others much too quick, and evidently trying to evade giving any answer at all to others. His Honor told her that her conduct as a witness had been disgraceful, and that he had been seriously considering whether it was not his duty to commit her.)
Hannah Pond: Had been in the service of Mrs Serjeant; entered her service about five years since; was there first two years; after an absence of two months went back again; after nine months left, and again after a short absence went there again, and had remained there for the last five years, all but a few months; knew Kilpatrick, went to take her place and was there when she left; she was accused of stealing a petticoat, which witness saw taken off her; witness also found a purse in the fire, and Kilpatrick acknowledged having stolen £2 and burnt the purse; Kilpatrick fell on her knees before Mrs Serjeant, and begged “for God’s sake” that she might not be given in charge to the police, as she had paid her passage to Melbourne; and would lose it if taken into custody; Mr[s] Serjeant yielded to these entreaties, and did not give her in charge; Kilpatrick always spoke highly of Mrs Serjeant; said that she could live with Mrs Serjeant for ever for nothing, but that she knew the Captain (Wilson) “did not like her on account of her nose”; Captain Wilson came to lodge there about five weeks after witness; they always occupied separate bedrooms, and witness had free access to Mrs Serjeant’s room; had never any reason to believe that they lived together as man and wife; knew Kate Kean; she was lately living at Mrs Isaac’s place; plaintiff was living there also.
Cross-examined: Did not know where Mrs Isaacs was living now, as she moved from Manly Beach last week; when there they lived next door but one to Mrs Serjeant; witness left Mrs Serjeant for the first time because her mother was ill, not because she was ill herself, or in a condition to render working inconvenient to her[10]; there was no peculiar reason for her leaving again at the end of nine months; Ms Serjeant and witness were present when the petticoat was taken off Kilpatrick (witness related in detail how this occurred); Kilpatrick did not go down on her knees of this occasion, but when Mrs Serjeant was about to give her in charge; believed there were two policemen present, one an inspector; it occurred early in June last at Woolloomooloo, in Dowling-street; did not know whether Mrs Cadman’s name or that of Captain Wilson was on the door; often went out on messages, but generally by the back door, sometimes by the front door; must have seen the brass plate on these occasions; used to clean it occasionally, yet could not say whether the name of Captain Wilson or that of Mrs Cadman was on the door; the investigation about the stealing took place in the evening, about seen or eight o’clock; Wilson was there on this occasion; witness did not mention that fact before, because she had not been allowed time to do so. Captain Hutton, of the Phantom was present, also Scott, her engineer, and Begar, the pumpman; likewise Rose O’Reilly, a visitor (sister to the witness O’Reilly examined yesterday); the house at Manly Beach contained six rooms, besides a pantry, a bath-room, kitchen, witness’s room, and a scullery; knew Margaret O’Reilly; she had been up as a visitor many times; when last there she slept with Mrs Serjeant; Wilson was there then; believed there were no families stopping there at that time; could not say precisely when this was; it was not possible that there could have been two families there at that time without witness remembering it; knew Margaret O’Reilly’s father; he had been stopping at the house three months ago; only remembered Margaret O’Reilly being at Manly Beach once.
Re-examined: Did not leave Mrs Serjeant’s because she was ill, nor was she ill while she was away; has never been in the family way.
Re-cross-examined: The house in Dowling-street contained five rooms and a kitchen.
By the Judge: Was at Manly Beach last night – not at Mr Cook’s.
James Hutton, master of the steamer Phantom: Had been master for eighteen months, and mate of her for a similar period before this; knew Captain Wilson and Mrs Sergeant well; saw them often, having a good deal of business to transact with both parties; never saw the slightest impropriety between them; had seen Eliza Kilpatrick; she never said anything to witness about Mrs Serjeant; Kate Kean told witness, “she would have her revenge on Mrs Serjeant”; was present on one occasion when Mrs Serjeant accused Kilpatrick of theft; two pounds had been stolen. (The further pursuit of this line of examination was objected to and ruled by the Judge to be inadmissible, as affecting only a collateral issue, the guilt or innocence of Kilpatrick.) Believed the witness Pond was present on that occasion, but was not sure of it, as there were several persons present; remembered Kean being a servant at the Baths; knew where Captain Wilson slept there; had often been in his bedroom when he was in his bed, and even asleep; their business relations rendered this necessary. (Witness pointed out on a plan of the Baths the two rooms which Wilson had occupied.) Had occasion to enter Wilson’s bedroom at all hours, late at night and early in the morning; never found any one there with him; used to enter the building by the hall, knock at Wilson’s bedroom door, and at once enter; believed the wall dividing Wilson’s bedroom from the next to be of stone; it was a stone building, and witness believed all the dividing walls to be stone, but was not a mason, and could not be sure.
By the Judge: In the winter, after Kean had left, saw Wilson in another room, but could not quite remember which.
Cross-examined: Had known Captain Wilson three years; first knew him at Waverley; Mrs Cadman and her daughter were living there also; the same at the Baths and in Forbes-street; in these places Mrs Cadman’s name was on the door; they next lived in the same house in Dowling-street, and Wilson’s name was on the door; he next lived on the Corso, Manly Beach; Mrs Serjeant lived there also; knew the house on the Corso; it contained four bedrooms and two sitting-rooms, with kitchen and out-offices, &c; some lady visitors stopped there; never knew the witness Kilpatrick by any other name; this was the one she went by; Mrs Serjeant had never asked witness to take any article of dress from Kilpatrick.
Re-examined: Did not know of lodgers at Waverley; at the Baths and in the house on the Corso there were lodgers; the house in Forbes-street was not exactly a lodging-house, although friends might have stopped there; Mrs Cadman died there.
By the Court: Witness used to act as providore for the establishment at the Manly Beach baths, and was paid by Mrs Serjeant.
By Mr Holroyd: Had seen Captain Wilson draw a cheque and give it to Mrs Serjeant.
By Mr Isaacs: Brought these things for the Baths in the Phantom; charged no freight; would charge freight to any one else; the Phantom belonged to Captain Wilson.
Charles Cook: Was shipping reporter to the Sydney Morning Herald, and had been so for many years; had been a frequent visitor at the house of Mrs Cadman, and, since her death, at that of Mrs Serjeant; had observed noting in the intercourse between Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant but ordinary friendliness – such as he might see between friends and visitors at his own house – the ordinary courtesies of social intercourse; was a married man, but had no family; believed there were other lodgers in the house with Captain Wilson, but could not swear it.
Cross-examined: Mrs Cook was residing with witness, at 9, Lower George-street.
By the Judge: Captain Wilson was at witness’s house, and slept there the night before last; not having been at home last night, could not say whether Wilson slept there then or not; Mrs Sergeant was stopping there also.
John Scott, fireman of the Phantom steamer: Knew Eliza Kilpatrick, and had had conversations with her on two or three occasions (a question as to something which Kilpatrick had said to this witness was objected to and overruled, no ground having been laid for it in Kilpatrick’s cross-examination.)
Cross-examined: Remembered last year an alteration in the stopping place for the Phantom for the night; at the end of the summer she was kept for the night at Woolloomooloo; she had previously been kept all night at Manly; it was then that Captain Wilson came to reside in Sydney; she had since been kept at Manly, and Captain Wilson resided there, but had been away for a time at Waverley; knew Mrs Serjeant; she had no office in connection with the Phantom, as stewardess or otherwise.
Emma Scott, wife of the last witness: Knew Captain Wilson and Captain Sergeant; had a conversation with Captain Serjeant on the 28th March; saw him at Mrs Isaacs; he told witness that he did not intend to live with his wife any more, and that he had sent a letter to her twelve years ago, addressed “to Mrs Phoebe Serjeant, care of Mrs Cadman, w[hore]shop, Parramatta”; could not swear that he said any more on that day; he said on this or some other occasion that he should never have troubled his wife any more but that Mrs Isaacs wrote to him at Twofold Bay, to tell him that his wife had a case against her, and asking him to come up and stop it; he said that he wanted to get a divorce, and that he would sue Captain Wilson, in order to get one; he wanted to make Wilson pay the expenses, he said, as they would be very great; he told witness that when he came home thirteen years ago, Mrs Serjeant came to him and asked him to go to bed with her; he replied, no; that “Anderson had given her enough without him”, and that “he had been told by a person whom he believed, that he had seen Mrs Serjeant and Anderson together on a sofa”; also that Mrs Serjeant “had sued him and that she had robbed him of every penny he was possessed of, and had him bound to the peace”; knew Eliza Kilpatrick; saw her last Sunday three weeks in Woolloomooloo-street; she said, speaking of Mrs Serjeant, that “she would have revenge on the wretch for the way she had served her”; that “she would swear that she had seen her and Wilson in bed together”; that she “did not care what she swore, as she had been told that the names of the witnesses would not appear in the papers”; had been twice to Mrs Isaacs’ house at Manly, where Captain Serjeant was; both he and Mrs Isaacs asked her to be a witness; she refused, saying she did not wish to appear in the cause. Mrs Isaacs said she did not care, as they had enough of witnesses; before this they had asked her to stop in the house, saying she should be at no expense; Kate Kean was present when Captain Serjeant told witness about the letter; he said he had got Kean as a witness, and Kean said she was going as one; had had several conversations with Serjeant; he told witness he had never kept a woman, but had been with women; went to Mrs Isaacs on 20th March because Kate Kean came for her.
Cross-examined: The conversation about keeping women arose from Kate Kean saying it had been said he had kept a woman and had children by her; Captain Serjeant was a perfect stranger to witness till she saw him at Isaacs’ house; witness had no reason to suppose that Serjeant knew anything about her; upon this slight acquaintance it was that Serjeant was thus communicative; was certain that Kate Kean was present part of the time; Kate Kean was only a servant, and had to go in and out; listened to what the man said, but said little – just yes or no, as the case required; did not join in the conversation; was the wife of the last witness, John Scott; was at present living at Woolloomooloo; Scott was living in the same house; went back three weeks ago; had before that been walking with a man; he did not name the man or accuse her of anything else; her husband struck a man, but this man had not been walking with her; came up from Manly Beach on Easter Monday night; did not sleep at Mrs Isaacs’ that night, or go there at a late hour; had been married four years to Scott; her maiden name was Emma Evans; had never been known by any other name; would swear it; did not know Mr Cook, who was examined last; Kean was present at two conversations with Captain Serjeant; she was present when Serjeant spoke about the letter, as also when he said he was going to enter an action against Wilson, and make him pay the expenses; Mrs Isaacs was also present; this was about the 6th of April.
Sir William Manning tendered the evidence of John Scott to discredit the testimony of Kate Kean, by showing that she had spoken of an intention to have revenge on Mrs Serjeant. His Honor rejected this evidence after argument, because no ground had been laid by questioning Kean as to time, place and circumstances.
Charles St Julian stated that he had known Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant both before and since Mrs Cadman’s death; during Mrs Cadman’s lifetime they lived in the next house to witness at Waverley for more than a year; they had lodgers there; this was somewhere about two years ago; was not sure as to dates; had visited their house. (A question as to whether this witness had observed any impropriety in the conduct towards each other of Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant was objected to and over-ruled, upon the grounds of any evidence of this class being too general and remote to have a material bearing on the issue. It was quite consistent, it was held, with these parties being criminal in the manner spoken of by plaintiff’s witnesses that they might have been so careful in their ordinary demeanour towards each other as to create no suspicion of impropriety upon visitors or neighbours.)
William Teale, solicitor: Had resided in March last at Mrs Serjeant’s house at Manly Beach, with his wife, family and servant; the house contained five or six rooms on a ground floor with out-offices at the back. (Witness described the internal arrangements of the house. A question as to witness’s observation of Mrs Serjeant and Captain Wilson’s conduct was objected to on the ground of its being of the same general character as that already rejected, and because this witness being a lodger the parties – keeping a lodging house – would naturally be cautious before himself and family, even if guilty. His Honor having consulted with the Chief Justice rejected this evidence for the reasons already stated, and of its being quite consistent with the truth of the plaintiff’s case. His Honor stated that the Chief Justice was of a different opinion, but decided on his own opinion wholly, holding that the parties were entitled to his decision at nisi prius according to that opinion.)
Mary Wheeland:[11] Was at Mrs Cadman’s house for a month, last year, as servant to a lodger; the witness Eliza Young, or Kilpatrick – witness did not know her surname – was there at that time; witness’ name was Mary; never peeped through a window with Eliza, nor was ever told anything by Eliza about Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant; had heard Eliza say how kind Mrs Serjeant had been to her; Captain Wilson was there at the time; he and Mrs Serjeant had separate rooms; Mrs Serjeant’s was the same room as Mrs Cadman’s (witness described the situation of the two rooms); was there as nurse to Mrs Fitzgerald; had very little conversation with Eliza; only occasionally, in the yard; Kate Kean was not there at the same time as witness; there was no other servant there but Eliza all the while witness was there; at the window in Captain Wilson’s bedroom, there were curtains of white calico, thick muslin and green chintz; the windows of this room were not near the ground; the bed was in a corner of the room over one of the baths, and near the window; the head of the bed was close under the window; the bed was about three feet wide; did not remember anything about a chest of drawers being there.
Cross-examined: Went to Mrs Cadman’s on the 1st of May; witness had no doubt about the date, or about the time; was sure of this; was frequently in Captain Wilsons’ bedroom; went there to seep it up; the children were about the house; there was no other nurse; there were seven of these children, three small, aged about five, seven, and ten; the next in age was sixteen; had swept out Captain Wilson’s room at the request of Mrs Serjeant; could not say how often; had never measured the bed or laid down upon it; would swear Kate Kean was not there at this time; had seen Kate at Manly Beach; when there went to different places; had been to Mrs Serjeant’s; not recently; Mrs Serjeant brought witness the subpoena at home – her mother’s house at North Harbour; witness left Mrs Fitzgerald about August and had never since left her mother’s house; Mrs Serjeant knew where witness was, because her mother used to take vegetables, &c, to Manly; witness did not know Mrs Serjeant before going to live at the baths; Mrs Serjeant did not speak to witness about this case until the week before last; she said nothing to witness when she came with the subpoena; had told no one what evidence she could give; had seen plaintiff’s attorney outside the court today; had never been to his office; was positive she had never told any one what evidence she could give; saw Kate Kean about three months ago; she was stopping with Mrs Isaacs; dusted the blinds of Captain Wilson’s room; had been a housemaid; dusted the curtains every morning; when witness was doing this, at Mrs Serjeant’s request, Eliza was cooking; Mrs Fitzgerald knew that witness did these things; was sure there was no other servant there; did these services when she had time, and not at any particular hours; witness had one child, now a month old; was not a married woman; was never in Mrs Serjeant’s employment.
Re-examined: Was a native of Sydney, and had been about North Harbour a long time; swept out other rooms besides Captain Wilson’s; Mrs Serjeant had but one servant, who was chiefly engaged in cooking, and witness helped about the house, with Mrs Fitzgerald’s consent; had known Mary Anne Mileswater from a child; knew she was living once with Mrs Serjeant, before witness went there.
John Scott was again called to speak as to the witness Young, or Kilpatrick, having begged pardon for stealing, &c. The evidence, however, was again rejected.
The case for the defence was then closed, and evidence was gone into in reply.
Mr Dawson, defendant’s attorney: Did not know when Mrs Cadman died; believed it was about twelve months ago.
Kate Kean recalled: Knew Mrs Emma Scott; had never been present at any conversation at Mr Isaacs’ between her and Captain Serjeant when Mrs Isaacs was also present; only remembered one occasion when Mrs Scott came and proferred herself as a witness for Captain Serjeant; did not hear Captain Serjeant say to Mrs Scott “That he would never live with his wife, &c”. (This witness specifically denied having been present when any of the language said by Mrs Scott to have been used, in witness’ presence, by Serjeant, had been, in fact so used.) Witness never said to Serjeant, in Mrs Scott’s presence, that she had heard of his keeping a woman, and having children by her; no such conversation ever passed; witness never went to ask Mrs Scott to become a witness for Captain Serjeant.
On reference to defendant’s affidavit it was found that Mrs Cadman’s death was stated by him to have taken place on the 22nd May.[12] This was relied upon as contradicting the evidence of the witness Wheeling [sic, Wheeland].
Eliza Young was recalled, and contradicted the account given by Hannah Pond, of the taking from her (witness) of a stolen petticoat. She also denied having ever been accused by Mrs Serjeant, in the presence of two constables, of stealing. She further denied having vowed revenge against Mrs Serjeant.
Cross-examined: The chest of drawers in Captain Wilson’s room was by the side of the bed, and the ladder near the window over a bath; the bed and the bath under it were next a doorway which was closed; could not say whether it was a fixed or a movable bath; did not know how the baths were placed; witness was seldom in the house; they would not allow her there; witness was cook; there was another servant there as housemaid; did not know anything as to how the baths were supplied with water; could not give the surname of her fellow servant Mary, whom she had before named; she remained but a few days; there were so many servants there while witness was in the house. Mrs Serjeant used to quarrel with her servants, and used to refuse to allow them to go to Sydney in the Phantom.
Re-examined: Knew Mary Wheeling, who was there with Mrs Fitzgerald; remembered Mrs Cadman’s death; it was probably about a month after Mrs Fitzgerald was at Manly Beach and Mary Wheeling with her; Mrs Cadman was buried on the Queen’s Birthday.
Further cross-examined: Mr Fitzgerald was there just before Mrs Cadman’s death; Mary Wheeling was there at the same time when Mr[s] Cadman was there; Mrs Cadman and Mrs Serjeant came to Sydney in about a fortnight, and left Mrs Fitzgerald behind.
Part of a written character, given by Mrs Serjeant to this witness, after her mother’s death, and dated “June” was placed in evidence.
Joseph Neatby, brother of Captain Neatby, of the Duncan Dunbar: Was acquainted with Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant; was on friendly terms with them; knew Captain and Mrs Serjeant at Parramatta; Captain Serjeant never, as witness believed, said in the presence of witness that he was diseased and unfit to cohabit with his wife, or anything else of this kind; never heard him say that he had sent a letter to his wife addressed in the manner mentioned by the witness O’Reilly; knew Margaret O’Reilly; when witness was there, and heard them having any words, he always went away.
Cross-examined: Was present one occasion at a quarrel; it was on a Sunday morning, at breakfast, Serjeant and Mrs Serjeant quarreled; he threw a piece of meat at her, and witness seeing this went away; had heard some slight quarrels besides this, but no other serious one; had lost sight of Serjeant since he went to sea about twelve years; witness had also been absent about eight years.
Re-examined: Neither Mr nor Mrs Serjeant were of a peculiarly amiable temper; there was “just a pair of them”, in witness’s opinion.
This closed the case in reply. All that remains to be done is for counsel to address the jury, and for his Honor to sum up. The trial will be resumed at ten o’clock this (Thursday) morning.

SMH 30 May 1862 reported on the second day’s (Thursday’s) proceedings.
“The trial of this case (the details of which were reported in yesterday’s Herald) having been resumed,
Sir William Manning, QC stated that it would be very conducive to the ends of justice if the jury, or some of them, were to go to Manly Beach and view the baths, so as to see the position of the bedroom spoke of by the witness Young, and to judge whether it was possible that she could have looked through the window, and seen the bed, &c, as she had sworn.
His Honor enquired whether any formal application for such a view was to be made.
Sir William Manning then made such an application, and intimated in reply to a question from His Honor, that the defendant would bear any expense which might be occasioned by this view.
Mr Isaacs offered no application on the part of the plaintiff, but suggested as amicus curiae that there was no precedent for such an application being made and complied with, after the evidence on both sides had been closed.
His Honor was of opinion that this application ought to have been made on the first day of the trial, as it was on that day that the evidence as to looking into the window had been given, and defendant must have known how far, if at all, this could be rebutted by an actual view of the premises.
Sir William Manning stated that such a view had only been rendered necessary by the evidence of Young [Kilpatrick] on the previous evening as to the position of the bed, and the uncertainty of her testimony as to whether or not the bath over which it stood was a fixture.
After some further discussion:
His Honor left the matter wholly to the jury. Under ordinary circumstances, he said he should not have allowed a view at this stage of a case, but in this kind of action there was one circumstance which ought, perhaps, to weigh strongly with a jury, and to induce them to use every effort in order to arrive at the truth. It was this. They were in this, as in all actions of like nature, trying a question which vitally affected the character of a woman who could not be examined as a witness, and who had no opportunity whatever of defending herself. In England, the action for criminal conversation had been abolished, and in the proceedings which had been substituted both the accused woman and the man with whom she was charged with having committed adultery could be examined.
The jury, after further consultation, intimated their opinion that it would be better for them to see the premises.
A view was therefore ordered, and the case was further adjourned until ten o’clock on Friday morning.
The third and final day of the case (Friday) was reported in SMH 31 May 1862, p5-6:
The trial of this case was resumed and concluded. It was an action for criminal conversation, commenced on Tuesday. The evidence was closed on Wednesday, and was reported in Thursday’s Herald. On Thursday, the Judge, jury and counsel went to view the premises at Manly Beach, as to which a good deal of evidence had been given. Sir Wiliam Manning now addressed the jury for the defence, Mr Isaacs replied, and His Honor summed up. The addresses of both counsel were very able and eloquent. That of Sir William Manning occupied about three hours, and that of Mr Isaacs about four, while the summing up of the Judge took up about forty minutes. The following is an outline of these addresses:-
Sir W Manning QC said that, although twenty-five years in the profession, he had never before been concerned in or present at a trial of this nature, and it was fortunate for the community that they were thus uncommon. He contended that the whole course of the plaintiff’s conduct went to confirm the story told by the witnesses O’Reilly and Scott. According to his own showing he had never been near his wife – who was easily found – nor had he sought in any way to assert his right as a husband for over eleven years. For nearly ten years of this time, as was clearly proved on the one side and not denied on the other, she had been decently living with her mother. Had he any of the affection of a husband, he would during this period have offered her the protection which as a wife she had a right to expect and to claim from him. It was clear, therefore, that there must have been some irreparable breach occasioned by the husband’s own misconduct as was proved by the evidence of these two witnesses. To a man who had been guilty of conduct so gross, and who had been brutal enough to attempt an act of indecency with her own mother, it was impossible that even a wife could again extend the right hand of friendship. He had obviously felt this from the first, and had abandoned all thought of her until by the death of her mother she had come into the possession of some property. All he sought, therefore, was, not to secure her companionship, but to blast her character, in order that he might put money into his own pocket. The fact of a husband being able to bring an action by placing a money-value upon the loss of his wife’s honour had been felt in England to be so monstrous that this species of action had been wholly abolished. A husband who believed that his wife had committed adultery must there sue for a divorce, when both the woman and the man with whom she was charged with having had criminal intercourse could be examined. Here neither of them could be heard. It might doubtless be that the admission of this evidence would lead to perjury, still a jury could judge of this by the demeanour of the witnesses, and it was most fair and honest that the truth should be thoroughly sifted by every possible means. A man against whom such a charge as this was brought would suffer, perhaps, but little in the estimation of the world at large. Offences of this kind on the part of men were but too lightly thought of. But it was the reverse with the woman. Her character was blasted for ever; and yet a woman so situated was unable to take any step or to say one word in her own defence. She could not retain counsel. She could not speak to one of her own sex as to the evidence about to be given, or even serve a subpoena without being charged with taking the part of a paramour against her husband. It was a circumstance peculiarly suspicious that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to obtain compensation for his injured honour until after Mrs Cadman’s death. It was probably not until then that – perhaps excited by Mrs Isaacs – he had apparently thought of bringing any action at all. Not only had the wife then acquired some property which he hoped to reach, but the wife’s mother, whose evidence must have driven him from the Court in the deepest disgrace, ws gone to her eternal home. The conduct of the witness Young – as she now called herself, or Kilpatrick as she called herself when in Mrs Serjeant’s service – was, at the best, grossly indelicate. Even admitting her story to be true, it was plain that she had peeped through the window in the hope of seeing something no female of the slightest delicacy would seek to behold. She was sure, at all events, that a man – Captain Wilson – was in the room, and might be in the act of undressing. Had she simply desired from any love of virtue or justice to ascertain whether Mrs Serjeant entered Captain Wilson’s bedroom, she might have done this be watching within the house. She made no complaint of what she had seen, nor did she leave the house until long afterwards. Again, there was no such shrinking from her position as a witness in such a case, which would be certain to be shown by any decent female. She was a filthy girl, even according to her own account, and cared nothing for the notoriety which the giving of such evidence must earn for her. Again, it was in accordance with what they all knew of human nature that any servant, knowing such things of her mistress, would seek to turn that knowledge to her own advantage. Yet, there had been no attempt of this kind. A mistress, too, who knew herself to be thus guilty, would be disposed by every possible means to conciliate her servant, and to prevent exposure. Yet they found that Mrs Serjeant had not hesitated to charge this woman with theft and to threaten prosecution. They found, too, that this discarded servant, when she so earnestly prayed for pardon, made no attempt whatever to retaliate, and to secure her own immunity by hinting at what she could say about her mistress. She would certainly have done this in such a strait if that mistress had been in her power. The inspection of the room, and particularly of the position of the fixed bath over which Captain Wilson’s bed was placed, must have convinced the jury that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to see and recognize people lying in that bed, even if the window was without a blind. But this was a lodging house, and the windows of this particular room faced the beach. The character of such a house would suffer if any of the windows were left so exposed that any one looking in from that side could see a man undressing. Still more improbable would this be if people were in the habit of carrying on criminal intercourse in that room. They must have felt that any discovery of this kind would totally destroy the character of the house. They would certainly, therefore, not neglect so simple and necessary a precaution as to place blinds at the windows. For the same reason, in a house where the means of observation were so ample, it would be in the highest degree improbable that a light would be kept burning while illicit intercourse was being carried on. The witness Kate Kean might be actuated by motives of which there was no evidence; but, even assuming that she had heard voices in the manner she described, it was in the highest degree probable that she might be mistaken as to where the voices came from. Or it might be that there had been some inquiry through the door about keys or something else. As to the traces of the mustard poultice, it was sufficiently explained by the evidence of Mrs Bayley, who had slept with Mrs Serjeant for that night in Captain Wilson’s room – given up for the occasion on account of its superior convenience. The traces of two persons having slept in the bed was accounted for in the same way. Had two persons had criminal intercourse in that bed, they would – as they easily could – remove the impression left by two bodies. It was most grossly improbable that two persons who had continued opportunities for criminal intercourse would indulge in such intercourse at the time when the woman was suffering under extreme illness. The whole of the specific evidence against the defendant lay in the evidence of these two girls. That of Young, the jury must feel to be such as not to warrant a verdict pregnant with such fearful consequences to Mrs Serjeant. That of Kean was capable of being, as already shown, explained away; even assuming that it was wholly true. And if there had been any truth in this charge of continued illicit intercourse, some lodger or neighbour or the servant would have been found who had seen some impropriety. Not only, however, was there no such evidence, but evidence of a directly contrary character had been excluded on technical objections by the plaintiff’s counsel. Mr Neatby’s evidence did not really conflict with that of Margaret O’Reilly. She was speaking of things which had occurred years ago, and only meant to speak of Neatby as one who, being a friend of the family, and constantly present, must, in all probability, have heard some of the indecent language which plaintiff was in the habit of using; and Neatby had, in fact, been present at violent quarrels. A man who had conducted himself as this plaintiff had (it was contended) lost all marital rights, and among them that of bringing this action; but assuming the law to be the other way, evidence of such character was clearly admissible in reduction of damages. If, therefore, the jury should unfortunately come to a conclusion that the adultery had been proved, this was clearly no case in which the husband should be allowed to make money in the shape of heavy damages. The learned gentleman concluded by an earnest appeal to the jury to bear in mind that the issue was one which, if decided in favour of the plaintiff, would blast the character of Mrs Serjeant for ever. That the parties most concerned had not been, and could not be heard in their own defence, and that it was most dangerous to place such reliance upon the evidence of discarded servants, as to involve such awful consequences as would follow a verdict for the plaintiff in such a case as this.
His Honor stated (as to the question of law) that he should have no hesitation in ruling that in this case the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict if the jury thought that adultery had been proved.
Mr Isaacs, in replying for the plaintiff, remarked that a great mistake had been made on the other side in setting up a twofold answer to the action – an attempt to show that no adultery had been committed, coupled with an attempt to show that even if there had been adultery the plaintiff had by his own conduct become disentitled to material damages. The fact of adultery having been committed had been proved beyond the slightest doubt. There, perhaps never was a case – and in the nature of things there could scarcely ever be a case in which direct and positive evidence of actual adultery could be adduced. The jury were generally compelled to draw a conclusion of guilt or innocence from circumstantial details. The inference of guilt was clearly deducible in this case from the evidence which the jury had before them. The abuse of the present state of the law on the other side was founded upon a state of facts which did not exist. It was true that this particular form of action had been abolished in England, but by the very Act which did this a petitioning husband could ask for damages from an adulterer, and the enquiry was conducted in precisely the same manner as an action for criminal conversation. The only difference was, that the damages were differently appropriated – going among the children. A husband might be the most abandoned man in the world, and yet feel most keenly the seduction and prostitution of his wife; and it was to compensate for wounded feelings that juries were called upon to award damages. The jury had had a view of the premises, and must thereby have seen that there was every probability of the girl Young’s story being a true one. They must have seen that it was quite easy for her, standing upon a chair outside, to see into the room – if a light was burning, and if there was a chink to peep through – and that, place the bed how you might, any person peeping in at the window could see the persons lying in it. The girl had told them frankly why she did this. She had heard rumours about Mrs Serjeant, and she went to the window to satisfy herself. If she saw but the feet of two persons, one being a female, there could be very little doubt, looking at all the other circumstances deposed to, that Mrs Serjeant was one of these two persons. The character of the witness Young had been attacked by Sir William Manning in language much stronger than he ordinarily used – an attack which there was nothing in the evidence to sustain. There had been a charge of robbery against her, but she denied it. And circumstanced as the girl was when she was thus accused, surrounded by the retainers of Mrs Serjeant and the defendant, it would be no wonder if she should tremble and fear if charged with theft, whether than charge was true or false. Thus circumstanced too, it would be most unlikely that she should provoke further hostility by retorting with a charge of criminality against her mistress. The girl had sworn too, that the charge of theft was the consequence of her having previously spoken of what she had seen. The paper relied upon as proof that Young had gone by the names of Kilpatrick bore her mark only. She was unable to write and could not fully know its contents. It had, too, been extorted from her – and needlessly, unless it was intended to be used against the girl in the event of her giving evidence of Mrs Serjeant’s criminality. If Mrs Serjeant’s case was true, that this girl was a thief, the fact was that, knowing this, she had sent her forth with a good character. A lie written upon paper, on which there was a broad black border of mourning for her mother. It was only when it was found that the girl had not gone to Melbourne, where she would be out of the way, that she was constrained into signing a paper wherein the character was alluded to as one “surreptitiously obtained”. The demeanour of this girl in the witness box was wholly free from any pertness of manner, or any shrinking, although the nature of the cross-examination to which she had been subjected was such as naturally to cause the strongest irritation. Mrs Serjeant’s entry into Wilson’s bedroom could not have been watched within the house, because this could not be done without risk of the watchers being detected. And besides, there could be no idea of the time at which she would pass in. Detection by looking in at the window would be the plan naturally resorted to. It had been admitted by Sir William Manning that Kate Kean’s evidence was to be believed. It was only contended that her evidence was to be explained away by that of Mrs Bayley, and by the possibility of her having been mistaken as to the voices. But Kate Kean, who was thus admitted to be a truthful witness, had sworn to other things. She had sworn that the whole manner and course of living of defendant and Mrs Serjeant was that of a man and wife. From this alone it would be no violent presumption to assume that matters had gone farther in private. The truthfulness of the evidence of Mrs Bayley might even be admitted, without impeaching that of Kate Kean as they might be speaking of different nights. Mrs Serjeant might have sent for Mrs Bayley when she became worse. Kate Kean had also mentioned many other things which were not contradicted – the fact of frequently seeing Mrs Serjeant enter and leave Wilson’s bedroom in her night-dress, and of their bathing in the same water. Also the receipt by Mrs Serjeant of a band-box from Madame Ponder addressed to her as Mrs Wilson. The article it contained must have been ordered by Mrs Serjeant or Captain Wilson in that way, or having been ordered without any direction, the position of Mrs Serjeant must have been so notorious as to cause that address to be used. It was a remarkable fact that all the witnesses relied upon for the defence, with the exceptions of Mr St Julien and Mr Teale, were friends or retainers of Captain Wilson or of Mrs Serjeant. Yet, according even to this evidence they always lived together in the same house – at Balmain, at Waverley, at the baths, in Forbes-street, in Dowling-street, and on the Corso. It was for the jury to say whether they could believe that this intercourse had, from first to last, been purely platonic. The defendant’s case was that Wilson was a lodger. But this was inconsistent with the fact of Wilson’s name being put on the door on a brass plate in the house he and Mrs Serjeant occupied after Mrs Cadman’s death. Equally so was the fact of Mrs Serjeant’s moving from Manly Beach to Sydney, or vice versa, when the halting place of the Phantom for the night was changed; and a change of residence became necessary to Captain Wilson. Setting wholly aside, therefore, the evidence of the two girls, it would be impossible for any jury, as men of common sense, to avoid coming to the conclusion that there had been an adulterous intercourse between these two people. Apart, then, from the direct evidence of those two witnesses, a stronger case to raise an inference of adultery had never been made out. Coming next to the other branch of the defence – the accusation of misconduct against the plaintiff. The claim for money compensation for actual loss of the wife’s society and aid was but the shadow in this species of action. It was for the shock to the husband’s feelings by the wife’s infidelity that the jury in such cases had really to award damages. Thus in a case where a woman had but confessed adultery on her death-bed, and the act had entailed upon the husband no loss of his wife’s society, it had been held that the husband, who sued the adulterer after her death, was entitled to damages for the shock which her adultery must have occasioned him. Could the plaintiff have been put into the box it might perhaps have been shewn that overtures for reconciliation had been made, or that he had been ready and willing to make such overtures. It was only through the entire seduction of the wife’s affections by the defendant hat reconciliation became impossible. Even if the husband were as bad as they had represented him his sincere repentance might have procured his wife’s forgiveness, and they might still have lived happily together had not her criminal intercourse with this defendant created a gulf between them which no intercession of friends could bridge over. It was necessary then, by the award of heavy damages, to shew to others who might be disposed to act as the defendant had done, that they could not be guilty of this grossly criminal and immoral conduct without being punished in their pockets. He called upon the jury, as they valued the sanctity of their wives and the purity of their daughters and sisters to visit the immorality of this defendant with the imposition of exemplary damages. There was evidence tha the defendant was a man of good circumstances – and circumstances were an ingredient in assessing damages in cases of this nature. Were it not so, a rich man might become a privileged public tormentor. There was one case reported in the books, where the husband had actually left his bed for the adulterer to go into, where the jury awarded £5000 damages, and a majority of the judges refused to disturb the verdict. But it was utterly impossible to suppose that Captain Serjeant could have been guilty of the conduct imputed to him. The absurdity of his talking in the way he was said to have done, &c, about his condition, was self-evident, even if it had not been contradicted. But there was direct contradiction by the only procurable witness of all the persons named by Margaret O’Reilly. It was clear from the evidence of this witness (Mr Neatby) that there had been quarrels, and that Captain Serjeant had been guilty of the unmanly act of raising his hand against a woman. For this there was no excuse. But the violent temper of Mrs Serjeant might have afforded some palliation. As to the allegation of twelve years’ neglect, they had it in evidence that plaintiff was the master of a whaling vessel – an occupation which would take him away for several years at a time. It was for the jury to say whether they did not believe, looking at the nature of the evidence adduced for the defence, that there had been a foul conspiracy to swear Captain Wilson clear of this action, and, perhaps, by the same process to clear the character of the lady. As to his having interposed to prevent evidence being given by casual observers of no improprieties having taken place in their presence, he had done this to save time, and because no such evidence could be really relevant. It was quite consistent with the guilt of these parties that they might so have conducted themselves as to excite no suspicion in the minds of such casual observers, and a great space of time might have been taken up by the examination of a body of witnesses, whose evidence ought not to affect the verdict in any way. The learned gentlemen concluded by a further analysis of the evidence, and a comparison of the probable truthfulness of the different witnesses.
His Honor, in summing up, told the jury that this kind of case was, happily for the community and for public morals, rare. Those who had heard the evidence in this case must have heard enough to convince them of this. There was much in the evidence adduced which was unutterably disgusting. If this evidence was true, it was unutterably disgusting that such a state of things should have existed. If false, it was equally disgusting that any person could be found capable of inventing such details. The present state of the law had been a good deal discussed. They had nothing to do with this, however, but simply to administer the law as it existed. Many moralists had argued that under no circumstances should a husband be permitted to bring an action of this nature; others maintained that adultery ought to be dealt with criminally. In some countries, this was the case. In England, during the time of the Commonwealth, this crime had been punishable by death, but that law was shortly removed from the Statute Book, and there was no record of its ever having been carried out. As the law now stood a husband whose wife had been debauched could bring an action of this nature for damages, and if the adultery was made out it was for the jury to award such damages as they might think him entitled to. In dealing with this, as with other cases of like nature, the jury must look at the case as a whole. It was not because they might come to a conclusion that witnesses on one side or on the other had been perjured that they must necessarily find a verdict against that side. It might be that they might think there had been perjury on both sides, and yet by a consideration of the whole facts and circumstances of the case they could readily come to a correct conclusion. The evidence which the jury had before them placed the case in a twofold position. There were two witnesses, whose evidence, if believed, must lead to conviction that adultery had been committed. There was other evidence as to the mode in which these parties had lived from which the jury were asked to draw an inference that there had been adulterous intercourse. In determining the question as to whether or not there had been adultery it was not necessary that there should be actual proof of any adulterous act. It would suffice if there was evidence of such a set of circumstances as would lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to a conclusion that there had been criminal intercourse between these parties. The jury might, therefore, come to this conclusion even if they wholly disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses Young and Kean. There was no evidence of defendants having lived in the same houses with each other for a longer period than three years back, and during a considerable portion of this time the mother was alive. If any criminal intercourse took place during the mother’s life time, it must either have been with her cognizance or have been carried on with great secrecy. There was no evidence of where Captain Serjeant had been for the last seven years or more, or of his having made any advances towards reconciliation. The evidence as to what he had said and done at Parramatta disclosed, if true, a state of things which might have rendered reconciliation impossible. But it was strange that any man should use such language as was imputed to Captain Serjeant, in the presence not only of his wife, and of another young female, but of several men. The natural conclusion would have been that they would at once have kicked him out, and ducked him in the nearest horse-pond. If adultery had been committed, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to some damages, and the consideration of his conduct was a most important ingredient in the settlement of their amount. In this class of cases evidence was usually given of the terms on which a husband and wife had lived before the adultery of the latter, as the feelings of the man who lived happily with his wife must sustain greater injury than those of the man who did not live with his wife at all, or who lived a cat and dog life with her from morning until night. In considering the question of damages – if they came to that question – the jury must look at all the circumstances of the case and award, not vindictive damages, but such fair compensation for the wound to the plaintiff’s feelings as the features of this particular case would warrant.
The jury retired at twenty minutes past six. At seven they returned to Court, with a question as to whether it would be competent to them to award exemplary damages.
His Honor told them that they were not permitted to award damages by way of deterring others from criminality, but must measure their amount by the peculiar circumstances of this case, and a careful consideration of the conduct and circumstances of the parties.
Five minutes afterwards the jury enquired what amount of damages would carry costs.
His Honor stated that he was unable at once to answer this question, as the amount which would carry costs was different in different cases. In some cases £5 would do it; in others 40s. The law here differed from that in England, and he had no occasion to consider the question.
It was finally agreed that the jury, who had again retired, should be asked whether or not they intended to give costs, that, in the event of this question being answered in the negative, a verdict should be entered for a farthing, and if in the affirmative for the lowest amount that would carry costs.
On the jury being question, they stated that it was their intention to give a verdict for the plaintiff with such an amount as would carry costs, but that they were not quite agreed as to whether they would not award more than the bare amount necessary for this purpose.
After a few minutes’ further consideration they found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £10.[13]
It was half-past seven when the case closed, and the Court was crowded to excess from first to last.”

Sensationally, the Herald reported on further developments on 10 December 1862:
“Serjeant v Wilson. Sir William Manning, QC for the defendant, moved for a rule nisi for new trial of the above case. The action was one for criminal conversation, tried in May last, and terminating in a verdict for plaintiff, with £10 damages. The case has been so far finally closed, as that damages and costs had been paid without any actual issue of execution; but it had been since ascertained, as was now averred, that the principal evidence attaining this verdict had been perjured. The present application was, therefore, made, as was stated, for the purpose of clearing up the character of the parties concerned. One of the witnesses for the plaintiff was a female named Kate Kean[e], who had sworn at the trial to certain facts tending to sustain the suspicion of criminal intercourse between Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant. She had since made a confession, when, apparently, on the point of death from disease of the lungs. From this confession it appeared that the whole of this evidence, so far as it tended to create presumptions of improper intercourse between these parties, was false. The Herald’s report of the evidence of this witness had been read to her at the time of making this confession. She stated that she had been induced to give this false evidence by a promise that she should be remunerated, and (being then in weak health) should be well taken care of. Another witness Eliza Young swore positively to having, in company with a fellow servant, called Mary, peeped through a window and seen Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant in bed together. The servant called Mary had since been discovered and denied the truth of this. But on account of the state of Kate Keane’s health it had been found impossible to wait for the affidavit of “Mary”. From the affidavits of Dr McFarlane, of Mr Dawson, and of Mr Richard Johnson, attorneys (the latter of whom had, as a Commissioner of the Court, received Kate Keane’s declaration), it appeared that Kate Kean had made this statement with a full knowledge of what she was about, and of the peril to which she exposed herself. She acted, she said, under the advice of her father confessor in order that before her death, which she believed to be near at hand, she might do justice to those where she had injured. The inducements and promises which prevailed upon her to commit this perjury came, she said, from Mrs Isaacs acting, or assuming to act as a friend and agent of [Captain] Serjeant. Kate Keane, who was still alive, although apparently quite beyond recovery, was resident near Moruya. She had recently supplemented her declaration by a formal affidavit. Bridget Conte, the girl who had been called “Mary” had made only a declaration, and as she lived beyond Twofold Bay an affidavit could not be got in time for this application. Her declaration, however, went directly to contradict the evidence of the witness Young. There were also affidavits from Captain Wilson and Mrs Serjeant, directly and emphatically denying that there had been the slightest impropriety between them. Captain Wilson swore that there had been a distant relationship between himself and Mrs Serjeant through some intermarriage between a member of his family and that of her mother, Mrs Cadman, and he had lived as lodger, first with Mrs Cadman, and afterwards with Mrs Serjeant.
The decision of the Court was reserved. It was, however remarked by the Chief Justice that he saw great danger and difficulty in upsetting a judgment after a lapse of time, because some of the evidence in support of it might have been perjured. Such a course would of itself hold out a great inducement to perjury. But now that the parties concerned had had an opportunity not only of stating facts from which the perjury of one witness was almost certain, but of giving their own statements on oath, many would, no doubt, look upon the case with a very different aspect.






[1] Her mother, Elizabeth Mortimer, married John Cadman in 1830. John Cadman died in 1848.
[2] See NSW BDM V184554 30B/1845, Henry Sarjeant [sic] m Charlotte P Mortimer. SMH 27 January 1845 carried a marriage notice, Henry Sargeant and Charlotte Phoebe Cadman, youngest daughter of John Cadman.
[3] John Cadman converted a rundown building at Parramatta into the Steam Packet Inn, and was the licensee there until his death in 1848, when his widow took over the license.
[4] NSW BDM V18619494 122B/1861, death certificate of Elizabeth Cadman.
[5] Several Isaacs are listed in Sands’ Directory for 1861, including a John Isaacs on the Corso, Manly, who may be the person indicated here.
[6] Captain Mullen does not appear to have been a licensee of the Pier Hotel. He may have been a guest there.
[7] Or Mildwater.
[8] Sands Directory 1863 has T G Sawkins, Corso, Manly.
[9] Margaret O’Reilly was a witness at another court case in 1850, when one of Mrs Cadman’s servants was tried for assaulting Mrs Sargeant at Parramatta. See SMH 7 January 1850. General servant Henry Brown was accused of attempting to throttle Mrs Sargeant; “the witness [Mrs Sargeant], who was evidently a weak and delicate person, was quite overcome with the ruffianly conduct of the fellow.” Brown was found guilty.
[10] That is, pregnant?
[11] Whelan or Whalen.
[12] This is confirmed by the death notice in SMH 23 May 1861 which states that she died “on the 22nd instant”.
[13] Although the verdict was in favour of Captain Serjeant, the amount of damages awarded was minimal, far less than the amount he had sought, reflecting the jury’s opinion of his conduct.