The South Australian Chronicle
Saturday 21 November 1885
“DISGRACEFUL IMMORALITY AT GLANVILLE.” South Australian Weekly Chronicle (Adelaide, SA : 1881 – 1889) 21 November 1885: 23. <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article94330157>.
Disgraceful Immorality at Glanville
Young Girls in a Brothel
At the Port Adelaide Police Court on Monday, before Messrs. R J Turner, SM, W E Mattinson, MP, T J King and H W Thompson, Louisa Clarke Wells, widow, was charged on the information of Sub-Inspector Doyle with being the proprietress of a house of ill-fame at Glanville on October 22. Mary Hines, a girl, aged 15 years, residing in Alberton, stated that she knew the defendant, and that she was in her house on the date mentioned. She was accompanied by another girl named Alice Lynch. They asked Mrs Wells to allow them to go into the back yard, and they were permitted to do so. The defendant subsequently asked them into the house, and questioned them as to whether they would like to stop with her. A girl named Margaret said; “Don’t ask such questions.” Witness told defendant that she was in a position at Largs Bay, and Lynch said she was staying at home. Defendant then asked them if they had ever been with men before, and they replied “Yes”. Defendant again asked them whether they would like to remain with her. They went away, but returned again at half-past 10 o’clock, and were shown into the dining-room. Alice Lynch said, “We have only got 3s 5d,” and the defendant replied, “Very well, you can stop for that,” and took the money. Lynch was sent for a pint of beer, and witness had some of it and a price of bread and butter. The girl Margaret previously mentioned then came into the room, and upon being asked by the defendant to have a drink of beer she replied that she would prefer taking some spirits, and the defendant replied, “We have sold out.” Whilst they were talking a knock came at the front door, and Margaret Lynch answered it. A gentleman was admitted, and came into the room where they were. When he had taken a seat he took the defendant on to his knee and behaved indecently with her. Mrs Wells subsequently went out of the room leaving witnesses with her companion Alice alone with the “gentleman.” The latter took Alice on his knee and acted improperly with her, but she managed to get away from him, and he then caught hold of witness and behaved in a similar way. The defendant and the gentleman went out of the room, and turned the key on them, but returned about a quarter of an hour afterwards. Some conversation ensued, and the defendant left them with the gentleman. The witness then related what took place, and proceeded:- Rose the following morning at about 6 o’clock. They threw their hats out of the window and went downstairs. When they were going out of the door the defendant said, “Where are you going?” and they replied, “Into the yard.” The defendant demanded half the money they had received. There was a captain and another young lady in the house at the time. On being asked as to whether she had any questions to ask, the defendant said the girl’s evidence was a fabrication of lies. Witness, in reply to questions, said – You never told us that we were wicked bad children, and that you would tell out mothers about us. Alice Lynch, aged 15 years, residing at Queenstown, gave corroborative evidence, adding that her sister was engaged by Mrs Wells at 7s per week. Susan Lynch, aged 17 years, stated that she had been in the defendant’s house twice. Defendant once told her that if she went to town with her she would be able to make about ?6 a week, and that she (witness) would have to give her half. She also said that she could make ?20 a week by riding out on horseback and gathering men in, and she told her that if she liked to go with her she would dress her like a fairy. By defendant – You once told me to be always good and truthful. William Hodgers, a retired butcher, residing at Glanville, stated that the defendant lived next door to him. Had been frequently annoyed by men knocking on his door and enquiring for Mrs Wells. In consequence of the way in which Mrs Wells conducted the house he offered to purchase the premises from their owner. The place was frequented by numbers of men and young girls, and he considered it was a common brothel. Emily Hodgers, wife of the last witness, corroborated, adding that one night she heard two frightful shrieks come from and apparently very young female in the defendant’s house. She had seen the defendant in the street dressed in a very loud and immodest robe. Thomas King, labourer, residing near the defendant, and PC McKinnon also gave evidence, and this called the case for the prosecution. For the defence, Margaret Lynch, single woman, was called, and stated that she was a domestic servant in the defendant’s employ. On October 22, when the girls Mary Hines and Alice Lynch were in the defendant’s house there were no men in the place. Mrs Wells had frequently told her to be a good girl and keep away from the larrikans. Cross-examined – Mrs Wells was kept by a Mr Arnold. Had never taken any young girls into the house, and had not seen any improper proceedings there. The defendant elected to be summarily dealt with, and was sent to goal for six months with hard labor, the SM remarking that although there may have been a few discrepancies in the evidence of the girls, Mary Hines and Alice Lynch, the offence had been substantially proved.
The South Australian Register
Tuesday 17 November 1885
“PORT ADELAIDE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16.” South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA : 1839 – 1900) 17 November 1885: <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article44540462>.
Keeping a Disorderly House
Louisa Clarke Wells, widow, was charged by Sub-Inspector Doyle with keeping a disorderly house at Semaphore on October 22. Mary Hines, aged 15 next month, daughter of John Hines, labourer, residing at Alberton, gave evidence in support of the charge, and said that she and another girl named Alice Lynch had on her inducement occupied a room in Mrs Well’s house for an improper purpose. On October 22 they called at the house, requesting permission to go in the yard, and after being allowed to do so were asked by Mrs Wells if they would like to stay with her. A girl named Margaret Lynch, who was staying there said, “Don’t ask such questions.” Told defendant she was in a situation at Largs By and that Alice was staying at home. In answer to Mrs Wells they said they were not innocent. They then left, but at 10.30 pm returned. Mrs Wells had told them that she charged 10s per night for two persons, and 5s for one. They told her they only had 3s 5d to which defendant replied, “You can stop for that.” The money was tendered, and a pint of beer was sent for, of which the girls drank. The witnesses then gave evidence of visits of men to the house. On being asked to cross-examine the witness defendant grew very excited, and occasionally hid her face in a scarlet handkerchief, and between the intervals of apparent sobbing expressed herself as utterly taken by surprise at the girls’ wickedness and untruthfulness. In answer to questions witness said that she had never been instructed by the defendant to be good and not tell lies, as there was a God who watched them. Alice Lynch, aged 15, daughter of John Lynch, stevedore, of Queenstown, corroborated. Had never slept in another house with Mary Hines. Susan Lynch, aged 17, sister of the last witness, deposed to have been twice at the house. Cross-examined – Heard no bad language in the house. Had not been intimate with men, and had no such intention. William Hodges, retired butcher, living next door to defendant, deposed to his annoyance through his door being knocked at late at night by “young gentlemen” enquiring for Mrs Wells. Found his own property depreciating in value on account of the disorderly state of defendant’s house, and offered to purchase it to remove her. Considered the place a brothel. Emily Hodges, wife of the last witness, corroborated, and stated that she had frequently seen defendant attired very immodestly. Recognised the two girls Hines and Lynch as having been in the house. Cross-examined – Had never heard her at her door pleading to be left alone by callers. One night heard frightful shrieking from a young female in the house. Thomas King, labourer, living in the same street, corroborated. Hannah Hodgson, widow, of Montpelier street, Glanville, said she was the owner of the house in which Mrs Wells lived. First let it to a man who paid the rent, but subsequently defendant paid it. Had not seen improper conduct there. By defendant – Thought you capable than better conduct than I hear of. Thought your children well behaved. PC McKinnon deposed to a knowledge of the defendant for two years. Had occasion to watch her house in Rundle-street, Adelaide about eight months ago, and saw her behave improperly. Cross-examined – Knew defendant to be a prostitute by her conduct in the street. Had received no letter from Mr Linklater, defendant’s solicitor,on a charge of perjury. This was the case for the prosecution. In defence, Margaret Lynch, single woman, deposed that she was a servant in the house. There was no one but the girls in the house on the night alluded to. Defendant had never talked improperly to her, and the children were exceptionally well behaved. The money tendered by Hines was 3s for the hire of the room and the rest for beer. Always slept in the kitchen. By Inspector Doyle – Have been in the house six or seven weeks. Have been before the court before. Was paid 7s regularly. Mr Arnold supports defendant. He has been there lately. Have seen no young girls there from Adelaide. Have seen ladies and gentlemen there at times, bu they usually left about 9 o’clock. Defendant has let rooms occasionally at 3s per night. John Lynch, stevedore of Port Adelaide, said he had only seen defendant the previous day. His wife went to defendant’s house and said she thought her lady-like, and their girl went to a situation there. He was away from home a deal and could not look after his children. He took his wife’s word. Had he known what he heard in evidence now he would have killed defendant. (Witness here completely broke down, sobbing bitterly, and pointing to one of his girls, said she had broken his heart.) Margaret Lynch, recalled, said Mrs Hines called at the house late one night with PC Gellento and said if her daughter Mary was not released she would get her on a warrant. Police-constable Young gave evidence as to defendant’s generally bad reputation. Defendant said she had no more witnesses, but could procure them. His Worship asked her if she would like an adjournment, and she replied that she would like to be dealt with at once. The Bench then retired, and in a quarter of an hour returned. The SM said they had given the case a patient and careful consideration. Although there were some discrepancies as to statements of the girls, yet in the main the evidence proved the case. Defendant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.
enneiviv59448040.wordpress.com 