A 'skeleton in the closet' - Emerton Vs. Hannell

Recently, a reader of this blog, Kerrie, whose husband is a great grandson of the complainant, Charlotte EMERTON, surprised me with an email about the details of an 'Affiliation' case, reported in the Maitland Mercury Newspaper, on the 12th August 1865. The case was heard at the Maitland Police Court. I was, previously, unaware of this 'skeleton in the Hannell closet', so to speak.

As you will read below, John HANNELL was accused of the paternity of a child, whose name happened to be Jane, born to Charlotte EMERTON, around the 27th April, 1865 - see: NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages, Reg'n. # 12217/1865.

According to Kerrie, the unfortunate baby died, aged 8 months - see: BDM Reg'n. # 4826/1866.

The following transcript is, as emailed to me, by Kerrie ...

MAITLAND MERCURY - 12 August, 1865

"At the West Maitland Police Court, on Thursday, John Hannell appeared before the bench to answer the complaint of Charlotte Emerton, that he is the father of an illegitimate female child which she was delivered of on the 27th of April last, and that he refused to contribute to the support and maintenance of the same.

Mr Thompson appeared for the complainant, and Mr Briggs for the defendant. The complainant’s case was that defendant had had improper intercourse with her in October, 1863, at her brother’s house, and afterwards at her mother’s house at Hexham; she had occasion to go to East Maitland, and told defendant (as he had asked her to tell him when she was going) the day she would be going up; he then made an appointment to meet her at East Maitland station on the 25th of July; she met him as agreed and he took a ticket for her to Morpeth, and they went there together; at the Morpeth station he told her to follow him, and she did so; they passed by the Morpeth church on to the back or bush road leading to East Maitland; they walked together as far as the East Maitland racecourse, and twice during this walk improper intercourse took place. Soon after this she felt unwell, and was convinced that she was with child.

In the following October he again had intercourse with her at his own house, where she was working, in his wife’s absence in Sydney; she swore positively that no other person than defendant ever had improper intimacy with her, and that he (Hannell) was the father of the child.

Complainant is a single girl, apparently 17 or 18 years of age, and lived with her mother and brothers on a farm, leased from defendant at Hexham.

For the defence it was sought to be shown that a young man, named Henry Haydon, described as a step-brother of the complainant’s was the father of the child. Haydon was the son, by a first wife, of the man the complainant’s mother married. Haydon came down the country at the end of September, and remained until the 6th or 8th of October, and the girl said to an old woman named Catherine Salisbury that she would do something which would make her mother let her marry Haydon. The girl denied having ever said this.

Defendant denied having ever gone to Morpeth with the complainant, and walked back with her through the bush. He swore that the only time he ever had improper intercourse with her was in October last, when, hearing she was a bad character, he offered her half-a-sovereign, which she accepted without hesitation, and the improper intercourse then took place. A boy, named Ackhurst, an apprentice at Mr Creer’s, whose age appeared to be about sixteen years, but who said it was eighteen, and would not swear that he was born in 1849, deposed that he had improper intercourse with the girl three or four years ago, when he lived at Hexham. None of the witnesses proved that the girl bore a bad character; those who deposed to character gave one quite the reverse. It was not known to any other than herself that she was enceinte until just before the birth of the child. She did not accuse Mr Hannell of being the father until after the child was born.

He denied the paternity.

The bench, after patiently hearing the evidence and Mr Briggs for the defence, without calling on the complainant’s solicitor to reply, adjudged the defendant to be the father of the child, and ordered him to pay 12s 6d weekly for twelve months for its support, and £2 2s professional costs, and 9s costs of court."

Interesting.

TOP