Re: Frank Scott and elln/jane glennie
-
In reply to:
Re: Frank Scott and elln/jane glennie
Roxane Scott 1/31/11
Hi Roxane below are two article re CARDOZA Francis or Frank.
If you go to http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/homehttp://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/home
and search for CARDOZA, CADOZA, etc you may find a few other mentions also use Francis or Frank.
Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878-1954) (about) < Tuesday 10 December 1895
POLICE COURT.
Monday, 9th December.
Before the Acting Police Magistrate
ASSAULT.
Francis Cardoza, a native of Cochin, charged Charles Price, a native of Cashmere, with having unlawfully assaulted him on the 1st of December.
Mr. Pattison appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.
Francis Cardoza, cook, said that on Sunday night, the 1st instant, between seven and eight o'clock he met defendant in William street near Mr. Ingham's shop, and defendant said, "You are the man I want to see;" witness said it was Sunday, and told defendant to eco him some other day ; defendant used bad language, and hit witness six blows on the face, and then witness pushed him away ; be picked up his hat and ran away ; witness never called defendant names or gave him any cause for the assault.
By Mr. Pattison : Witness had left Sydney in May ; he was in the lock-up in Sydney, but the fine was paid next day -, he was never charged with assault in Sydney ; he did hit a Chinaman in Rockhampton because he insulted witness ; he never assaulted two Cingalese here ; witness went to defendant's place on Monday night, the 2nd instant, to ask defendant why he hit witness; witness never said, " Come out here, you -- Mohammedan and I will soon shoot you ;" witness never tore defendant's coat on Sunday night ; witness did not remember if he hit defendant ; he did not know if defen-dant suffered from rheumatism in the right arm ; witness went to defendant's house three nights by himself, he returned twice by himself.
Ernest Gilmour Hartley said he did not know if he had ever seen defendant, before ; on the night of the 1st instant he heard some bad language in William-street, and saw plaintiff and another coloured man fighting; there were three blows struck ; defendant struck one blow and plaintiff two blows, and one man was knocked down.
By Mr. Pattison: Plaintiff walked after defendant ; plaintiff said " I want to talk to you," and defendant said " I would sooner fight you."
By the Acting Police Magistrate : Witness could not say which was the aggressor.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Pattison asked for the discharge of the defendant on Mr. Hartley's evidence, but the Acting Police Magistrate said he would hear the defence.
Charles Price, cook at the Belle Vue Hotel, said when he was walking home along William street on Sunday night, the 1st instant, he heard plaintiff cry out, " I want to speak to you ;" they had a dispute previously, and witness said he did not want to have any- thing to do with plaintiff ; plaintiff followed witness and caught him by the coat and pulled it ; plaintiff struck witness on the face ; witness hit plaintiff with his left hand and plaintiff hit him twice again ; witness never said he wanted to see plaintiff, and plaintiff said nothing about it being Sunday ; on the following night plaintiff was outside witness's house with two men ; plaintiff said, " Here, I want to speak to you, and witness replied " Look here, I do not want to speak to you gaol birds. I am not as bad as you, and I do not want to have anything to do with you ;" plaintiff told witness to come outside, and used filthy language.
By the plaintiff: Witness never said to plaintiff on the Sunday night, " You are the man I want to see."
This concluded the case.
The case was dismissed, with £2 2s, professional costs and 5s. witness's expenses, to be paid forthwith, or in default one month in Rockhampton gaol.
Morning Bulletin (Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878-1954) (about) < Thursday 14 May 1896
ROCKHAMPTON POLICE COURT.
Wednesday, 13th of May
Before Messie. W. McIlwraith (Chairman) and P. Lawford, JJ.P
ASSAULT AND ROBBERY
Charlie Price, a Cingalese, was charged with assaulting and robbing Francis Cardoza of a Waltham watch and a chain, valued at60s. Sub-inspector Dillion appeared to prose cute and Mr. J. Pattison (Messrs. Pattison and Tyler) to defend.
John Hally, constable. Rockhampton, said ho was on duty last, night in William-street, and saw Cardoza about eight o'clock ; Cardoza ran towards witness nnd made a complaint,and witness went with him down East-street to near the Market Hotel ; witness saw accused and a man named Smiles Ishmail;Cardoza pointed to accused and said, "Thatman assaulted me and pulled my watch and chain out and ran away ;" witnesss asked which way accused ran, and Cardoza said accused run towards the river; accused said, "Me not take his watch and chain. You let me tell you. I live below the Rising Sun Hotel. I come along East-street and heard a row. Me saw two white men fighting with Cardoza and take his watch and chain and ran away ;" witness said to accused, " You have not got your watch and chain," and he said " No ;" witness asked them to go with him to the place where the fight was, and he did so ; they went to the corner of East and Stanley streets; while passing Stanley-street accused put his hand into his right-hand trousers pocket, and Cardona said, "You watch him;" witness asked accused what he was doing ; accused then put out his hand, und said, "Here is acheque for some money ;'' witness asked accused if he had anything else in his pocket, and he replied, "No;" witness felt the out- side of accused's trousers pockets, and a watch and chain fell out of the right leg of his trousers ; witness took possession of the watch and chain, and said to accused, " You told me you had not his watch and chain," and accused replied, "I tookit, as he took my hat from me;"witness then took accused to the lock-up;
Cardoza identified the watch and chain in accused's presence; witness thencharged accused with assaulting and robbing Frank Cardoza : accused made noreply ; witness produced the watch and chain ; the bar from the centre of the chain was missing; witness returned to the corner of East and Stanley streets with Cardoza and made a search for the bar, but could not find it ; a man named Ishmail who was there picked up u sixpenny piece (produced) ; witness examined Cardoza ill the lo ck-up and saw a swelling on his left temple ; accused was present at the time : Cardoza (pointing to accused) said : "That is the man who hit me on the face;" witness examined accused but did not see any bruises ; accused made no complaint of having been assaulted; therewere blood stains on accused's trousers, and in reply to witness accused said he had been catching fish ; accused was dressed in black that night.
Mr. Pattison declined to cross-examine at this stage.
By Mr. McIlwraith: The sixpence hadbeen in witness's keeping all the time.
Sub-inspector Dillon applied for a remand for eight days.
Mr. Pattison objected to a remand of such a length. Cardoza was the man who hadbeen imprisoned by accused for assault and there was bad blood between them. It was too long to keep a man waiting. He had a billet at the Belle Vue Hotel, and he was punished by the police by these constant remands. In the southern colonies such a thing would not be allowed. The police down there never get more than one or tworemands. Here they get remand after remand. There was nothing to show thatCardoza could not attend at Court. There was no doctor's certificate. The witnesses ought to have been here and the ease could have been settled in a couple of hours. Mr. McIlwraith ( to sub-inspector Dillon): Are there any special reasons for the remand for eight days.-Sub inspector Dillon said there were, but he would reduce the time till Monday. He could not get the case together till Monday, and had no desire to have more remands than were necessary. The reason he asked for the remand was to get the case up.
The remand was granted.
Cheers
Tania
More Replies:
-
Re: Frank Scott and elln/jane glennie
Roxane Scott 2/01/11