Sunday, June 26, 2011

The Odd Fellows' Hall photograph 1871

Odd Fellows Hall now lawyers offices 2011

Formerly Delsarte’s building and the IOOF Lodge Photo © KLW NFC 2011 ARR

Professional photographer Thomas J. Nevin became a member of the LOYAL UNITED BROTHERS LODGE, A. & I.O.O.F. (Australian and International Order of Odd Fellows) in 1869 and fulfilled several roles within the Society, including official photographer, committee member for the Anniversary Ball held at the Bird and Hand Hotel, and agent for the Secretary. During September 1875, he placed an advertisement in The Mercury soliciting members of the medical profession to render services to Lodge members and their families.

The Lodge members met regularly at the new Odd Fellows' Hall on the corner of Davey and Harrington, Hobart. Thomas J. Nevin took an official photograph of the new Odd Fellows' Hall in July 1871 for the AIOOF. The newspaper reports lauded his photograph as "creditable to the artist" (Mercury 25 July 1871) and"from its excellence, is likely to command a large sale" (Mercury 10 August 1871).

The Launceston Examiner reported that the new Odd Fellows' Hall was inaugurated at a dinner on Thursday 6 July 1871. The need for a photograph to issue to members, families and prospective members would commemorate the event.

New Odd Fellows hall Hobart July 1871

The Launceston Examiner, Saturday 8 July 1871.

TRANSCRIPT
NEW ODD FELLOWS' HALL, HOBART TOWN. -
The new Odd Fellows' Hall (formerly Del Sarte's) was inaugurated on Thursday evening by a grand soiree, the proceedings at which occupy several columns of the local paper. Amongst those present at the soiree were the Hon. J. M. Wilson, Esq., M.L.C., Vice-patrons of the Order, the Hon. Mr. Kennerly, M.L.C., Mayor of Hobart Town &c., &c.

Thomas Nevin attended the grand soiree on 6 July 1871 with his fiancee Elizabeth Rachel Day. They married exactly six days later, on 12 July 1871, at the Wesleyan Chapel Kangaroo Valley (Hobart). With sponsorship from the top echelons of government through commission from the Grand Lodge membership, Nevin's financial security and standing within the professional community was nurtured and assured.

The following marriage notice appeared in The Mercury of July 14th, 1871.
NEVIN-DAY - On Wednesday, 12th July, at the Wesleyan Chapel, Kangaroo Valley, by the Rev. J. Hutchison [sic], Thomas, eldest son of Mr. J. Nevin, of Kangaroo Valley, to Elizabeth Rachael [sic], eldest daughter of Captain Day, of Hobart Town.
Their wedding photograph has survived in family collections:



Wedding portrait of Thomas J. Nevin and Elizabeth Rachel Day, July 12th 1871.
Watermarked © The Nevin Family Collections 2003-2011. ARR.

The photograph of the Odd Fellows' Hall taken by Thomas J. Nevin, however, is yet to surface from public collections, despite the likelihood that Nevin reproduced it in quantity in anticipation of large sales. The photograph below of the Odd Fellows' Hall is accredited to Nevin's lifelong close friend and colleague Henry Hall Baily (whose studio in Elizabeth St faced Nevin's in the 1860s), and it is dated some five years later, ca. 1876. It is clearly not a later reproduction of Nevin's original photograph, as the description in The Mercury (25 July 1871) mentioned two people captured in the camera's range.

Odd Fellows Hall Hobart Tasmania 1870s

Courtesy University of Tasmania Library Special and Rare Materials Collection. "Photograph of Davey Street, Hobart, looking east, in about 1876. The photograph is taken from the intersection with Harrington Street and Oddfellows Hall is in the foreground. The photographer was Henry Hall Baily who had studios in Elizabeth and Liverpool Streets, Hobart from 1865 until 1918."

However, the University of Tasmania holds two photographs taken from the same vantage point, but taken at different times. The one above shows untrimmed bushes in front of the house in Davey St, but the one below shows the same bushes neatly trimmed. This one is dated 1880, and unattributed.

Odd Fellows Hall Hobart Tasmania 1870s


Thomas Nevin photographer of Odd Fellows Hall 1871

The Mercury 25 July 1871

TRANSCRIPT
THE ODD FELLOWS' HALL - A very fine photograph of the Odd Fellows' Hall (corner of Davey and Harrington-streets) has been taken for the Society by Mr. Nevin, of Elizabeth-street. The view is taken from Davey-street, opposite the corner of the Freemasons' Hotel, and thus shows the entrance to the rooms, with the whole front and side of the buildings. A well-known member of the institution, and a less known youth, have come within the range of the camera, and their presence greatly assists in conveying an idea of the dimensions of the hall. The picture is undoubtedly creditable to the artist.

Thomas Nevin photographer of Odd Fellows Hall 1871

The Mercury 10 August 1871

"... Mr. Nevin, of Elizabeth-street, has taken a photograph of the Odd Fellows' Hall, which from its excellence, is likely to command a large sale."

CAMILLE DEL SARTE: ORIGINS of the BUILDING


The building was founded by Monsieur Camille Del Sarte as a concert and music hall, designed by Mr. F. Thomas, and opened officially in May 1860. 

Del Sarte music hall opening 1860 Del Sarte music hall opening 1860

Del Sarte music hall opening 1860 Del Sarte music hall opening 1860

Del Sarte's Music Hall and Concert Rooms, opened officially and noted in The Mercury, 21 May 1860, with a lengthy description of architectural features, interior decor and future plans for performances.

Obituary for Camille Del Sarte 1877 My Tears for Thee Camille Del Sarte
Obituary for M. Camille Del Sarte,
The Mercury 7 July 1877.

ICONOGRAPHY

Odd Fellows certificate 1860

Courtesy of the National Gallery of Australia
James FERGUSSON printer (lithographic)
Certificate for the Tasmanian Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Independent Order of Odd Fellows 24 February 1860
planographic lithograph, printed in colour, from multiple stones; hand-coloured; gilded
Impression: undesignated impression
Edition: edition unknown
printed image 60.6 h x 38.8 w cm
Gift of John McPhee, 2009
Accession No: NGA 2009.1066

RELATED ARTICLES main weblog

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Chiniquy rioters injuring the Town Hall 1879

AFTER the CHINIQUY RIOTS ....


Hobart Town Hall interior 1879.
Artist unknown. Private Collection,
Copyrighted Antique Print Room

THE HOBART TOWN HALL RIOTERS
The Hobart newspaper The Mercury of June 26, 1879 was a special edition in many ways for photographer and Town Hall keeper Thomas Nevin. It contained a dramatic account of the riot at the Town Hall the previous evening, details of which may well have been supplied to the reporter by Nevin himself who was not mentioned as the Town Hall keeper probably because he was in the ante-room of the Town Hall keeping the source of the trouble, the Canadian renegade Catholic Pastor Chiniquy, hidden from view of riot leader O'Shea in the "Irish Corner" of the Hall. Chiniquy did not deliver his scheduled lecture that evening, nor the next.


The Mercury, 26 June 1879

Thomas J. Nevin would have taken a very keen interest indeed in the proceedings at the City Police Court on July 10th, 1879 when criminal charges were dropped against eight men alleged to have rioted at the Hobart Town Hall while the Canadian renegade Catholic priest Pastor Chiniquy attempted to give a lecture.

As the Keeper of the Hobart Town Hall appointed in December 1875, Thomas J. Nevin was responsible, among other duties, for the protection of the building itself. And for the duration of Chiniquy's visit to Hobart, Nevin was also appointed a Special Constable, one of several assaulted during the riots. So his involvement with these proceedings against the rioters was not only in the interest of damages to the Town Hall buildings, it was damages to his own person and the threat to the safety of his family who were residents that he was keen to see vindicated.


Interior of Hobart Town Hall ca. 1880
Unattributed, Archives Office of Tasmania

The eight rioters "were charged with riotously injuring a building", "riotously injuring the Town Hall" and specifically - "the breaking open of the ante-room of the Town Hall" . The charges would have incurred a severe penal code punishment of seven years' imprisonment and a trial at the Supreme Court. However, Attorney-General Giblin sought to substitute the charge with the lesser one of disturbing the peace, and at this sitting, reported in The Mercury on 11th July 1879, the charges were withdrawn entirely because of Giblin's concern with excessive costs involved in such a trial.



etc etc

TRANSCRIPT (see end of this post for the full report)

CITY POLICE COURT,
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1879.

THE TOWN HALL RIOTERS.-James Macdonald, George Cleary, John Scanlon, George Flynn, Brian Molloy, John Gleeson, sen., John Gleeson, jun., and Michael Gleeson, were charged with riotously injuring a building. Mr. W. R. Giblin prosecuted on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, by whom the information was laid ; and Mr. C. H. Bromby and Mr. A. I. Clark appeared on behalf of six of the defendants. Michael Gleeson and Cleary did not appear. The summoning officer said the former information had been issued in mistake. It should have been James Gleeson,

Mr. Giblin said he was instructed to appear on behalf of the Superintendent of Police for the Hobart Town Corporation. The information appeared to have been laid under a highly penal clause, vis., the 12th section of the 27th Victoria, No. 7, in which it was provided-" If any persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together to the disturbance of the public peace shall unlawfully and with force injure or damage" any building etc,, "every such offender shall he guilty of a misdemeanour and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for seven years." The information having been submitted to him by the solicitor of the corporation, he had advised that this proceeding should not be gone on with ; and he had therefore to apply for permission to withdraw tho charge against the defendants, with a view to substituting a charge of disturbing the peace and assaulting constables in the execution of their duty, a charge which could of course be summarily dealt with by the bench. The present charge, if proved to the satisfaction of the magistrates, would necessarily entail the committal of the defendants for trial at the Supreme Court ; but it was not desired to take that form of proceeding, hence he wished to withdraw the information. The information was not drawn under legal advice, but in a very natural ignorance of the difficulties which would surround a prosecution of that nature.

Mr. Bromby said he appeared with his learned friend (Mr. Clark) to answer a charge of riot brought against their clients - an offence they had never committed, and they were naturally anxious to be vindicated from having committed it all . But as the learned counsel for the prosecution asked leave to withdraw the charge, he could say no more.

Mr. Tarleton: No charge being pressed, no defence can be heard. It is not for the Bench to put any obstacle in the way of the course that is proposed by the counsel for the municipality. I presume he has looked into the case in all its bearings and advised the course most expedient for the interests of justice, peace, and order, Therefore I shall not attempt to urge upon him to proceed with the case, but shall allow the information to be withdrawn, as he has desired.

Mr. Bromby suggested that the defendants were entitled to costs. They were most respectable citizens, and they had been taken away from their occupations only to find when they got there that the prosecutor was obliged to withdraw from the charge.

Mr. Tarleton: The bench has no power to order any costs. Let the defendants be discharged.



Hobart Town Hall with figure at front, possibly the keeper Thomas Nevin
No date, possibly 1876-80, unattributed, half of stereo?
Archives Office of Tasmania
Ref: PH612 high resolution image

Adjunct  to Office and Hall Keeper, Nevin's other duties as Special Constable and police photographer at the Municipal Police Office, which was housed within the City Corporation's Town Hall buildings, were overseen by Superintendent Richard Propsting. It may have been Thomas Nevin who brought the charges in the first instance without seeking the City Corporation's legal counsel, as Attorney-General Giblin stated in proceedings that " the information was not drawn under legal advice" . Nevin would have reported the damage caused by the rioters, including their names to Supt. Propsting, who proceeded with the charges. Propsting's lack of control of the riots and mismanagement of police resources spurred endless criticism in the press, alleging incompetence and sympathy with those who howled down Chiniquy during the lecture. This one in the same issue of The Mercury, 11th July 1979 had reached Adelaide:



Outside opinion of the Police
The Mercury, 11th July 1979


THE AFTERMATH


Nevin's MPO supervisor,
Superintendent Richard Propsting
Unattributed, MPO 1879
AOT Ref: 30-282c


The riots culminated in three key events: the withdrawal of charges against the rioters in July 1879 and Propsting's somewhat sudden resignation from the police force a few months later. Nevin's dismissal from the position of Keeper of the Town Hall followed soon after in late 1880 on a trumped-up charge of drunkenness while on duty surrounding "The Ghost" incident. Other criticisms were levelled at Nevin, including one sneering article in The Mercury, 19th September 1879, which accused him of finding "too infra-dig" the job of watering the trees in front of Hobart Town Hall.

TESTING THE BY-LAW at the ALL NATIONS HOTEL



Click on images for large view




All Nations Hotel
Unattributed photographs 1870s,1880 and 1905
Source: State Library of Tasmania

Although retained as police photographer by the City Corporation on compassionate consideration for his family after his dismissal from the position of Town Hall keeper, Nevin's residual resentment at the law's laxity in pursuing the Chiniquy rioters led him to test the legislation pertaining to the rights of assembly, congregation and disturbing the peace on 28th February 1881 when he and two other men stood on the footpath outside the All Nations Hotel at the corner of Elizabeth and Collins Streets, Hobart. Although reported by the police and requested to make a court appearance, the charges again were dropped at the Bench.



TRANSCRIPT

OBSTRUCTING THE THOROUGHFARE - Thomas Nevin, Thomas Paul and Thomas Hodgson were charged with having on the 28th of last month stood on one of the footways of a public street within the city, so as to prevent the free passage of others, and refused to pass on when ordered to do so by a constable.

Plea: not guilty. Mr. SARGENT for the defence.
Constable Beard deposed to the three defendants having ... standing at the corner of Elizabeth and Collins Streets and causing other passers-by to go into the gutter. He asked the defendants to move on one side, when they said they were going away in a minute. When he returned in five minutes' time, Paul said, "Look out, here comes Beard again". Hodgson replied, "It don't matter; we're talking on business." He again asked them to move on, but they declined to do so, and ten minutes afterwards, when he again returned, he found them in the same place. Paul then wanted to know why he was disturbing them so much and could not go and look after other people; and Hodgson asked if he wanted to put them out in the road. Nevin said, "We'll not move till we're forced", and took a piece of chalk out of his waistcoat pocket, and marked with it on the footpath. He then stood on the mark and said he would continue to do so until he was taken into custody. Nevin then waved his hand to witness and told him to "move on".

TO Mr. SARGENT: The defendants were standing outside the All Nations Hotel. When he spoke to them the third time they moved about a foot from the kerbing. Could not say the width of the footpath. He ordered them all to move on. There was a good deal of traffic on this evening. Nevin was setting the police at defiance by his action. To the Bench: Mr. Hodgson is a contractor on the wharf, and the other two are in his employment. He did not listen to their conversation, or know what it was about.

Mr. TARLETON said that the Bench did not think it necessary to ask for any defence, as the by-law under which the charge was enacted, as its preamble explained, for the preventing of the congregation of idle and disorderly persons in the streets and public places, and was certainly never meant to prevent two or three respectable citizens talking over social matters or business affairs, as in this case. It would be a monstrous strain of the by-law to consider this a breach of it, and the information was therefore dismissed.



Thomas J. Nevin: Obstructing the Thoroughfare
The Mercury 8th March 1881

These and other by-laws were to become the testing ground as the Labor and Union Movement gathered strength through the 1890s Depression. "We, the Working Men of the City of Hobart Town" were how the supporters of Propsting identified themselves in The Mercury on 8th July 1879.

ADDENDA
The Mercury July 1879
Reports of the Chiniquy Riots

Click on images for readable view





RELATED POSTS main weblog

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Prisoner John SULLIVAN, cook and thief 1875

ANOTHER MUGSHOT by T. J. NEVIN taken in 1875



John Sullivan, per Rodney 2, taken at Port Arthur, 1874
Identifier: http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-142921310

The carte-de-visite mugshot (above) of prisoner John Sullivan, transported to Van Diemen's Land prior to 1853 (when transportation ceased to Tasmania) on board the Rodney 2, was recently added to the collection of Tasmanian prisoner photographs displayed online at the National Library of Australia with the incorrect (and impossible) attribution to the non-photographer A.H. Boyd. The NLA's reproduction was made through plastic, as this color-adjusted version (below) reveals:



Although catalogued as a "portrait" of a "Port Arthur convict", it is simply a mugshot - one of thousands taken for the Municipal Police Office at the Hobart Gaol, the Supreme Court and MPO by professional photographer Thomas J. Nevin between 1872 and 1886. He took this photograph at the Hobart Gaol when John Sullivan was tried in the Supreme Court Hobart on 18th August 1875 on a charge of larceny and sentenced to incarceration at the Hobart Gaol for a period of twelve (12) months, per this notice in the police gazette:



John Sullivan convicted 21 August 1875
Tasmania Reports of Crime

Sullivan's trade was listed as "cook", his place of residence was Hobart, and his prior conviction on 29 May 1862 was duly noted. Sullivan was not convicted of any further felonies between 1862 and 1875, otherwise, they would have been recorded in this police gazette notice. When convicted in 1875, Sullivan was carrying a "F.S"certificate - Free in Servitude. He was, therefore, employed and not a prisoner at Port Arthur in 1874, despite the transcription on the verso of this cdv (according to the NLA, that is), which states -

"Part of collection: Convict portraits, PortArthur, 1874.; Gunson Collection file 203/7/54.; Title from inscription on verso.; Inscription: "302 John Sullivan, per Rodney 2. Taken at Port Arthur 1874"--In ink on verso.;"

The same transcription appears the verso of hundreds of these mugshots, and is undoubtedly the work of an archivist between 1915 and 1934.

When John Sullivan was discharged 12 months later from the Hobart Gaol on 30th August 1876, the police gazette recorded that he was a native of London, aged 58 yrs , 5ft 3inches tall, with brown hair and a large scar on on his left cheek, per this notice:



John Sullivan discharged 30 August 1876
Source: Tasmania Reports of Crime 1875-1876
Gov't Printer James Barnard.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Edwin Barnard at the NLA with Nevin's convict photographs



Thomas J. Nevin's mugshot of prisoner Denis Dogherty, 1870s,
Surname is spelled Dougherty by Edwin Barnard in Exiled: The Port Arthur Convict Photographs NLA (2010). Photos copyright © KLW NFC 2011 ARR. Watermarked.


Video excerpt from:



ABC TV (Aust) news report by Siobhan Heanue, 2 April 2011.
NB: this report contains unfactual and erroneous statements by both the journalist and interviewee.

For authentic and accurate research, see this article which reviews the National Library of Australia's book published with author accreditation to Edwin Barnard, titled  Exiled: The Port Arthur Convict Photographs (2010), noting specific examples of Barnard's suppositions, prevarications, errors and omissions.

Thomas FRANCIS was photographed by T. J. Nevin on 6th February 1874

See also:
And search convicts' names with T. J. Nevin's photographs at these weblogs:
See also this critique of the book  by Tim Causer,  Bentham Project, University College London.

The interviewee Edwin Barnard in this ABC news report poses here as an expert on the Tasmanian convicts photographs taken and produced by commercial and police photographer Thomas J. NEVIN in the 1870s. Original duplicates of these same mugshots held at the NLA which were made by Thomas Nevin and his brother Constable John Nevin for the police are held in other public institutions (TMAG, QVMAG, AOT, SLNSW, PCHS) and private collections.

George Langley and Denis Dogherty are two prisoners mentioned in this excerpt from an ABC TV (Aust) news report delivered by Siobhan Heanue, 2 April 2011. Langley's and Dogherty's photos are just two of thousands of prisoner mugshots taken by the Nevin brothers, professional photographer Thomas Nevin (1842-1923) and his brother Constable John Nevin (1852-1891) at the Hobart Gaol between 1872 and 1886. About 300 of their Tasmanian prisoner photographs survive in public collections. Barnard's various unsubstantiated assertions - eg. that Denis Dogherty never saw his own mugshot - underscore the shallow modus operandi which characterises his self-presentation as an expert. Edwin Barnard simply repeats the simplistic nuances of a faded postmodern discourse on power marshalled in the 1990s by photohistorians such as Helen Ennis and Isobel Crombie.

HIDDEN in FULL VIEW
Barnard claims to be the "author" of the recent publication featuring Nevin's prisoner mugshots titled Exiled: The Port Arthur Convict Photographs (2010) sponsored by the National Library of Australia, but the facts remain and are widely known that Barnard liberally appropriated materials three years ago from our weblogs and albums documenting Thomas J. Nevin's commercial and police work. The weblogs have presented accurate research about Nevin's commission with the Hobart Gaol and Municipal Police Office online since 2005, yet Barnard used the research without due contact or courtesy in any form. Earlier in the interview Barnard claims he "discovered" and "unearthed" these mugshots despite and in the face of their public visibility since 1977 when they were exhibited at the QVMAG, researched and curated by experts, and despite the constant online visibility at the Archives Office Tasmania and the National Library of Australia since the early 1990s with full and unequivocal attribution to T.J. Nevin.

On April 8th, 2011, Edwin Barnard made an appearance at the National Library of Australia during a weekend conference called True Stories: Writing History. In his talk, Barnard conceded that the so-called "Port Arthur convict photographs" which feature in the NLA publication Exiled: The Port Arthur Convict Photographs (2010) were taken at the Hobart Gaol and not at Port Arthur, though he did not explicitly name Thomas Nevin as the photographer, despite the facts available, which would have redeemed him to some extent. But then, when requested by an audience member to recite what he had written about the convict Denis Dogherty, he quoted verbatim the material we published on these weblogs way back in 2006 and duly basked in the audience's warm response. It's a sad comment, but there are self-promoting hacks such as Barnard (and others like Julia Clark) who crave love and validation through coveting the legacy of others.

Video: the full interview from Siobhan Heanue



ABC TV (Aust) news report by Siobhan Heanue, 2 April 2011
NB: this report contains unfactual and erroneous statements by both the journalist and interviewee.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Nevin setting the police at defiance 1881

TESTING THE BY-LAW at the ALL NATIONS HOTEL

Thomas J. Nevin was retained as police photographer and assistant bailiff by the City Corporation on compassionate consideration for his family after his dismissal in December 1880 from the full-time civil service position of Town Hall keeper, ostensibly on the grounds of inebriation while on duty. However, the City Corporation had stopped payments to civil servants in the aftermath of the public outcry at police mismanagement of the Chiniquy riots in 1879, and a failing economy underscored by corruption within government ranks and over-expenditure on railways led to default of the Supply Bill. With payments stopped to the Civil Service, Nevin's position at the Town Hall had become untenable, both in terms of his family's upkeep, and maintenance of the Town Hall building.

In addition to complaints, there was residual resentment by Nevin and others at the law's laxity in pursuing the Chiniquy rioters when charges were dropped against the ringleaders in July 1879 by Magistrate Tarleton at the Bench.



Magistrate W. Tarleton
Cartoon by Thomas Midwood
Courtesy State Library of Tasmania

By early 1881, just weeks after his dismissal from the Town Hall keeper position (and obligatory relocation of his family), Nevin found himself in a situation to test the legislation pertaining to the rights of assembly, congregation and disturbing the peace. On 28th February 1881, Nevin and two other men were standing on the footpath outside the All Nations Hotel at the corner of Elizabeth and Collins Streets, Hobart, when they were reported by the police for obstructing the thoroughfare and requested to make a court appearance.The charges again were dropped by Magistrate Tarleton at the Bench.



Click on images for large view





All Nations Hotel
Unattributed photographs 1870s,1880 and 1905
Courtesy State Library of Tasmania



APPEARANCE IN COURT AS "RESPECTABLE CITIZENS"

Thomas Nevin had extensive experience working with police by 1881, both as the designated photographer of prisoners for the Municipal Police Office and Prisons Dept,and as a Special Constable. He no doubt assumed he had some authority and rank over constables on the beat. When approached by Constable Beard, he not only challenged the constable, he told Beard to "move on."

TRANSCRIPT

OBSTRUCTING THE THOROUGHFARE - Thomas Nevin, Thomas Paul and Thomas Hodgson were charged with having on the 28th of last month stood on one of the footways of a public street within the city, so as to prevent the free passage of others, and refused to pass on when ordered to do so by a constable.

Plea: not guilty. Mr. SARGENT for the defence.

Constable Beard deposed to the three defendants having ... standing at the corner of Elizabeth and Collins Streets and causing other passers-by to go into the gutter. He asked the defendants to move on one side, when they said they were going away in a minute. When he returned in five minutes' time, Paul said, "Look out, here comes Beard again". Hodgson replied, "It don't matter; we're talking on business." He again asked them to move on, but they declined to do so, and ten minutes afterwards, when he again returned, he found them in the same place. Paul then wanted to know why he was disturbing them so much and could not go and look after other people; and Hodgson asked if he wanted to put them out in the road. Nevin said, "We'll not move till we're forced", and took a piece of chalk out of his waistcoat pocket, and marked with it on the footpath. He then stood on the mark and said he would continue to do so until he was taken into custody. Nevin then waved his hand to witness and told him to "move on" .

TO Mr. SARGENT: The defendants were standing outside the All Nations Hotel. When he spoke to them the third time they moved about a foot from the kerbing. Could not say the width of the footpath. He ordered them all to move on. There was a good deal of traffic on this evening. Nevin was setting the police at defiance by his action. To the Bench: Mr. Hodgson is a contractor on the wharf, and the other two are in his employment. He did not listen to their conversation, or know what it was about.

Mr. TARLETON said that the Bench did not think it necessary to ask for any defence, as the by-law under which the charge was enacted, as its preamble explained, for the preventing of the congregation of idle and disorderly persons in the streets and public places, and was certainly never meant to prevent two or three respectable citizens talking over social matters or business affairs, as in this case. It would be a monstrous strain of the by-law to consider this a breach of it, and the information was therefore dismissed.



Thomas J. Nevin: Obstructing the Thoroughfare
The Mercury 8th March 1881

These and other by-laws were to become the testing ground as the Labor and Union Movement gathered strength through the 1890s Depression. "We, the Working Men of the City of Hobart Town" were how the supporters of Superintendent Propsting - the man held chiefly responsible for police mismanagement of the Chiniquy riots - identified themselves in The Mercury on 8th July 1879:



The Mercury July 1879
Click on images for readable view

RELATED POSTS main weblog

How do you like me now?