James Lawler 1806 –c1880

James was married in November 1832 to Rose Bardon in Clonmellon. Rose was born in Old Castle some distance away and it may have been that the two met at Killua castle where they both probably worked. Rose was 28 and had cradle snatched the 26 year old James which seems more likely than the alternative theory that he may have been as young as twelve! What was unique however was that at the bottom of the marriage certificate was the appendage:

“Father Handly baptised the child”

It is likely that this child was a daughter; however no records exist as to her name but it was noted in her sister Mary’s eventual funeral notice that there were two daughters to James and Rose. It wasn’t until February 1841 that their next recorded child was born in Clonmellon and dutifully named after James' probable mother Mary. She was baptised in the Clonmellon Catholic Church. Rose must have been a fairly strict custodian of the marriage bed because it was not until February 1844 that their first son James was born at an estate known as Lakefield near Clonmellon. The final Irish addition to the family was my great grandfather Daniel who was born at Galboystown just outside of Clonmellon in March of 1846.

In 1847 James and his family took advantage of Sir Montague Chapman’s “generosity” and looked forward to a new life in South Australia. Their ship was the Trafalgar which was a tiny 717 tons. They departed on the 18th March 1847 with 94 Males, 97 females, 35 male children, 50 female children, 2 male infants (one being young Daniel), 2 female infants. 36.5% of them were Chapman emigrants. On the voyage two females died and one male was born. James is recorded as landing with three children. We have definite proof that two of them were Mary and my Great grandfather Daniel. The identity of the third child is a mystery. Theoretically the family should have numbered two girls and two boys. Who was the missing child? Was it a Lawler girl that had died on the voyage? Even more interesting is the fact that Daniel’s youngest brother Robert has no record of birth and a confusion of ages in subsequent marriage and funeral notices. These records seem confused about him being born either in 1848 or 1850. Indeed his marriage record has him as the second son and yet we know he was the third. Could he have been the male child born on the voyage making him the third Lawler child to land in South Australia? This must remain a mystery as there can be found no records of James Junior or his eldest sister whose name we do not know. Perhaps too they died in the famine before departure as many did.

Passengers were berthed according to their natural connections. Each mess contained between 6 and 10 people. At the earliest opportunity constables, cooks assistants and a head man were appointed to each mess. Qualified emigrants such as teachers or doctors were assigned tasks appropriate to their skills. Teachers and matrons were paid five pound, constables two pounds and cooks assistants 3 pounds each. It is not thought that James and Rose laid claim to any of these financial perks. Surgeon Superintendent Arthur C Kemball got 10 shillings for every emigrant who arrived alive and as a result arrangements for the comfort of passengers appear to have been excellent. The Trafalgar arrived at Port Adelaide in the middle of winter on July 2nd 1847 after a voyage of 106 days. They were met by Lt Governor Robe or one of his staff and the Governor was able to report to Earl Grey back in England on July 8th that:

“The emigrants landed fairly healthy. People themselves spoke favourably of their treatment and accommodation especially those on the Trafalgar although the weather had been very bad since their arrival they were quickly engaged by employers”

Although the Clonmellon immigrants were not so highly considered:

“Weather was very rainy and Chapman’s emigrants did not find employment so readily as other emigrants on other ships had. These migrants had not been chosen with the needs of the colony in mind and a number applied to the Local Government and temporary employment was given on public works at a rate of wages reduced from 3 and 6 pence to 2 and 3 pence per diem. This may have not been necessary had the immigrants shown greater activity. The Emigrants chosen by Chapman were of an inferior description wanting in size and strength and In future if they do not show enough effort to find their own employment then the government should not step in except for mere rations of food and clothing”

On arrival if they had behaved well on the voyage they were provided with new mattresses, bolsters blankets and counterpanes and with canvas bags to contain one month’s linen. They also received a knife, fork, two spoons, a metal plate and drinking mug. Normally on arrival emigrants could stay on board for 5 days but it was recommended to the male passengers of the Trafalgar that they leave their families on board while they travelled to Adelaide to register for employment. If they found employment then their employer conveyed them and their luggage to their new home. They were advised not to stay in Adelaide due to sickness and overcrowding.

James and Rose found their new world strikingly different to their old one although the chill of an Adelaide winter would not have been too much of an issue after what they were used to back home.

James would have learnt that as a miner he may be able to earn 30 shillings per week or as a labourer if he fed himself he could earn between 21 and 30 shillings a week. He may too have considered being a household servant or a shepherd for 25 to 30 pound per year. Governor Grey’s “mere rations” included:  10 pound fresh meat, 10 pounds of flour, 3 pounds of sugar, a quarter pound of tea, salt, fuel and lodging. Rose when she went to the store would have had to be very careful how she balanced her meagre housekeeping money as tea was 1 and 6 pence to 2 and 6 pence per pound, sugar was 3 pence to 4 pence per pound, bread was 1 and a half pence per loaf and oatmeal 6 pence per pound. While keeping her family clothed would also have been quite a challenge with boots 15 shillings, a shawl cost 10 shillings and bonnets were a frivolous luxury at 4 shillings and six pence.

Around about this time the story of James Lawler becomes somewhat unclear as it seems they had scant respect for the legal requirements of registering births and deaths. Son Robert was supposed to have been born between 1848 and 1850 but there is no official record and Catholic Church records are notorious for being in a lost state. Perhaps he was born on the Trafalgar in 1847? There is some chance that James went to work on one of Sir Montague’s properties although the James Lawler who appears in print in two newspaper reports of the time was a land holder, a status I would have thought was somewhat beyond James at the time. In 1854 this James is in court over a dispute to a damaged well on the boundary of his property and a Mr Garrioan. The poor judge could not quite fathom the complicated matters of boundary and property and set it down for further arbitration. Whether or not the twelve pound in question damages was paid or not is not clear. In 1855 probably the same James Lawler but not necessarily my great great grandfather added his name to a petition encouraging one Charles Simeone Hare to become a councillor for the Yatala District. In the same year a James Lawler purchased 10 acres of land in Para Plains in the Hundred of Yatala near Montague’s properties for Thirty Pounds. The following year he sold it again but this time with a handsome profit of seventy pounds above what he paid for it; A very astute business man.

In 1859 a letter was read from to the Adelaide Council from a James Lawler and others, requesting an increased rate of pay for trenching the Park Lands. The rate they received was 5 shillings per rod.

 On the motion of Councillor Cox, one shilling and six pence per yard extra was allowed for raising and stacking the stone, as it was stone which the Council required.

In 1861 a James Lawler figures in the South Australian on Tuesday March 5th and it makes for an interesting read:

Felonious Assault: - Richard Gason, Richard Shaw and James Lawler were charged on the information of Adam Mahomet with feloniously assaulting him in Currie St. on the second instant. Mr Stow appeared on behalf of the prisoners who pleaded not guilty. The evidence of the informant who was a Madrasee and unable to speak English, was interpreted by Police constable Johnson formerly inspector of Police in Bengal. He stated that about 11 O’ clock on Saturday night last he went up Currie Street and when opposite the York Peninsula Inn kept by Mrs Gason he was accosted by the prisoner Lawler who asked him to shout. He said he had no money at which he (prisoner) caught hold of him by the neck and after a short scuffle, threw him down on the ground. He (witness) got up and said he would give him in charge for what he had done. The prisoner then called out to the other two prisoners to come to assist him to get away as he (witness) endeavoured to hold him until a policeman could come and take him into custody.  When they came up prisoner Shaw got hold of him (witness) by the throat and pushed him backward. Gason then came up and seeing a knife in his (witnesses’) bosom drew it out and stabbed him with it in the face. The point of the blade struck him in the nose, and caused a great quantity of blood to spurt out for a length of time. They then ran off and a policeman coming up shortly after he related the circumstance to him and told him to take them into custody. He went to the Doctor to have his wound dressed next morning and it has been very painful ever since it was inflicted. Mr Stow cross examined the witness at considerable length during which many and important discrepancies were brought to light. George Tallis assistant surgeon at the Adelaide Hospital stated that early on Sunday morning last the prosecutor came to him. He had a severe cut on his nose. It was about quarter of an inch deep in and half an inch long and appeared to have bled very much. By the Court the wound seemed to have been inflicted with a sharp instrument. It might have been cut with the ring produced. There is nothing dangerous about thee would so that I do not anticipate any serious consequence from it. The bench was then addressed by Mr. Stow, after which His Worship discharged the prisoners Shaw and Lawler as there was no proof of a felonious assault by them. His decision respecting Gason he reserved till after hearing the evidence adduced during the cross-information, which was then proceeded with.-In this case, Adam Mahomet was charged, on the information of James Lawler, with assaulting him on the night of the 2nd instant. The complainant stated that he first saw the defendant near the York’s Peninsula Inn on Saturday night, about 12 o'clock. He was praying to the moon and stars in a most vociferous tone, sufficiently loud to awaken the most sound sleeper. While he was looking at him a minute or two, Gason came out of the inn and called out for Adam to get to bed, and not be making that row and waking up the neighbours. Gason was standing at the door when he said this, and he (witness) went up to him and gave him his pipe, and desired him to light it, which he did. Soon after this, when he (witness) was walking home, and the defendant had concluded his prayers, he came up to him (witness), and, without the slightest provocation, began abusing him and calling him names, and cursing at a furious  rate. He then pulled a knife out of his bosom, and he (witness) fearing he was going to do some mischief, got it from him. They then had a scuffle together, after which he told him he would give him in charge for assaulting him, and they both walked about 200 yards' down the street, the defendant saying he could give him in charge and he would go with him to meet a policeman; but when he got about 200 yards from the house he said he would not go any further for anybody. They then had another scuffle, and witness fearing I that he would be over powered, called for assistance, at which Richard Gason and Richard Shaw came. When the defendant saw Gason he said something to the effect that he must not interfere, and then rushed at him and gave him a kick, and was about to give him another when he (Gason) drew his fist and struck him a blow on the nose, from which the blood flowed profusely. The greater part of this evidence was corroborated by 'Jason and Shaw, both stating their intention in going to the defendant was for the purpose of trying to get him to go to bed, as he lived at Mrs. Gason's, and Shaw| thought that he was drunk when he was making such a noise, and expected the first policeman that came along to take him into custody. They both swore most positively that the blow was struck with the fist, and not with the knife, as that had been dropped on the ground, during the scuffle near the house, and the blow was struck 200 yards from it. Police-constable Plunkett stated that he found the knife within four or five yards of the house next morning. This was the whole of the evidence, and at its conclusion' His Worship, without hesitation, discharged Gason from the last case, and fined the defendant 40 shillings and costs, and ordered him to find one surety for 10 shillings to ensure his good behaviour for the next three months. This he could not do, and was consequently sent to gaol.

In 1862 a James Lawler bought land in Pooraka. In 1866 Mary our Jame’s daughter was married in Adelaide to Charles Jones a Sanderston grocer so James may well have still been near the city at that time;  although Mary had been a witness in a wedding in Keynton as early as November 1857. Perhaps she had been away working in the district? By 1868 at the time of his son Robert’s marriage however he was living in Keyneton or as it was then known before World War 1 anti-German hysteria as North Rhine.

In 1871 James (certainly my great great grandfather this time) purchased some land in the area (part section 343 of the Hundred of North Rhine). Sometime later he transferred it to son Daniel but by 1873 in the same year as his marriage Daniel had transferred it back to James. One wonders whether Daniel lent his father some money and required the land as collateral. Not long after he got the land back it was sold, this time to someone outside the family.

James was still living in Keynton and was working as a casual gardener in the district in 1878 when his whole world fell apart. The South Australian Advertiser on July 18th in 1878 reported:

“An old man named James Lawler, who is 72 years of age, and grandfather of several children, was committed for trial at Angaston on Friday, July 12, for attempting to ravish a little girl Elizabeth Thring who is under 10 years of age.”

I have been able to uncover the only written record of this trial in the form of the Judge’s (Justice Way) own notes of the evidence given to the court. It is encased in very poor handwriting and was quite difficult to decipher.

James was employed by an Angaston identity Francis William Thring to prune his almond trees on the property at Hutton Vale. Mr Thring was away on business at the time. It was lunch time and James was having his lunch in the shed on the property. The shed also housed the family’s pet Guinea Pigs. Elizabeth and her sister Helen, with 12 year old Willy their brother, say they went into the shed together to feed the Guinea Pigs. There seems to have been a bit of by play concerning James’s jumper which perhaps they had taken from him as a tease and Willy also indicated that he thought James should not be paid for some reason. The written notes make for difficult reading at times not only due to the poor handwriting but also as to the context and order of all the events of the day. Elizabeth claimed that James exposed himself and performed an indecent act, grabbed her and tried to lift up her dress. She kicked him in the leg and the children ran away with James in chase begging that they should not tell. They ran inside and told their maid Isabella Nelson and then their mother. James in the meantime went home. James made no statement when he was arrested but eventually denied everything. He was committed in the Angaston Court to stand trial later that year in the Supreme Court of SA. By the time it reached court sister Helen was also claiming she had been grabbed and her dress lifted. This charge was later dropped however. During the trial the court room was cleared of women and children during Elizabeth’s testimony. At one point James let fly with an obscene comment which provoked laughter in the court. His Honour said:

“It is shameful that the slightest laughter should be excited by such a painful scene and if there is any repetition I will clear the court”

James offered a written statement which stated that:

“He was an illiterate man and had employed a complete person to write out this paper with a view of presenting the true facts of the case in the proper form”

A denial of the alleged indecent assault was made and a “circumstantial” defence was set up. James was also able to present a number of certificates of good character. There was no mention of James having legal representation and I guess the days of court assigned defence lawyers was yet to come.

Whether or not James was guilty is known only to him and the children. The amused courtroom audience as well as the character references may suggest that there was some doubt. One also is left to wonder whether or not he would have acted in that way with so many witnesses present. Over a century later it is not hard to feel that James was in a position of weakness in the trial however as it was the children’s word against his and they were after all from the upper classes and he was only an illiterate Irish man. The judge could have given him eight years of hard labour and indeed for a similar case on the same day the convicted man received hard labour and 25 lashes, probably due to the pressure of the press of the day as there seems to have been a spate of crimes like this and the South Australian Advertiser of September 5th 1878 editorialised:

“James Lawler was let off with two years' incarceration for having assaulted a little girl, and strange to say the Crown would not proceed against him on a second charge of having done the same thing to her sister, No flogging here was thought of. Henry Hunter received only six months' imprisonment for a similar offence, although the lash might have impressed upon him forbearance in his lusts if it did not plant morals in his mind. Henry Brown, a man of 40, escaped with only two years' imprisonment for an assault on a child between four and five years of age, and the full powers of the Court were held in abeyance. A schoolmaster named Boys received sentences amounting to nine years in all (reducible to six) for indecently assaulting and carnally knowing a number of children, his pupils. This was one of the worst cases brought before the Court, and if any one of the filthy scoundrels whose brutalism formed the subject of enquiry deserved flogging he did, yet it was not awarded. The ages of the children, the position he held towards them, and the other circumstances which aggravated the case beyond all others, were left out of sight, and he may rejoice in a sentence which falls far below that which justice without being vindictive ought to have exacted.”

On the recommendation of the jury to take into account James’ previous good character and one would think his age James was sentenced to two years with hard labour in Yatala prison not far from where he may first have settled in 1847. Thankfully Elizabeth Thring appears to have gone on and lived a fairly normal life and was married twice, the second time as a widow at the age of 39 to 45 year old Herbert Rose of Prospect.

The only positive out of all of this was that for the first time we are able to see accurate and full details of James and this included his photograph, complete with the traditional prison arrows on his shirt. His occupation was stated as a labourer. He was 5 feet 2 inches tall and weighed a little over 9 stone He was of stout complexion with a fresh, face, long hair grey, a middling forehead, light blue eyes, a small nose and a large mouth with several teeth missing. He also had small chin grey whiskers and a bad expression. There were vaccine marks on his right arm. The record stated that he had arrived in the colony in 1847 on the Trafalgar and that he had come from County Meath. He was last resident with his wife in North Rhine (Keynton).

This was devastating one would think to the old man but one must also think of his family. Back in tiny Keynton Rose was left with the stigma that small towns seem so good at paying out. The fact that they were Irish and Catholic further fuelled the stereotypical racism of the time. Indeed James’s daughter in Law Eliza my great grandmother often passed onto my mother her low opinion of the Irish and not to mention Catholics. It is quite surprising that my mother who was brought up by her grandmother was actually allowed to pursue the Catholic religion.

Life in the prison would have been tough for any man as hard labour meant cracking large boulders small enough to use on the new roads of the colony with picks and sledge hammers. James however was not only slight but he was also 72 years old. If he was guilty he surely learnt his lesson. If he wasn’t what a travesty of Justice it may have been.

It would have been quite difficult for anyone to make the long trip from the Barossa to visit him and indeed maybe his family were happy to forget him there as a total embarrassment to them.

James was discharged from Yatala on the 12th of February 1880. By now he was a widower as Rose had passed away at the age of 75 just six months earlier. She had lived to a good age for the time but one can only guess what part the strain of James incarceration had to play in her demise.

With nothing left at Keynton to go back to it seems James may have decided to begin a new life if indeed such was possible at the age of 80 by taking up residence in Kensington. Once again James becomes immersed in the mysteries of vague public records. We hear no more of him until his death notice appears in the local press informing us that he died at Bridge Street, Kensington, on April 25, 1892. The age stated was 70 years and we need to return to the mystery of his birth in Ireland again as we all believe he was actually 86 when he died. Indeed the Yatala Prison records have his date of birth as 1806. So it seems the mystery continues. The press notice also indicates that he was a gardener but even more mystifying it had been submitted by

 “His loving wife Mary Lawlor”

No record exists of this marriage; perhaps he had lied about his age to woo a new wife? Or perhaps this was not our James. Indeed in “Keynton 1839-1980” by GB Saegenschnitter it mentions the grave of one James Lawler marked by a wooden monument that has now decayed to nothingness in the old Catholic Cemetery outside the town. Did old James go back home to Keynton or was this the grave of his un- findable son James junior? For the time being at least this and the identity of Mary will remain a mystery, but it is nice to think that perhaps he did not live out the remainder of his life a lonely old man.