By Irma Walter, 2021.
The following newspaper article published in 1855 in England gives a good overview of George Woodcock’s early life before he was sent as a convict to Western Australia in 1858–
The police of the metropolis have received information of the escape of George Woodcock, alias Massey, alias Matthew Williamson, alias George Johnson, alias Alexander Sigismund, a convict lately moved from the House of Correction at Preston to Dartmoor Prison. He is a native of Tickhill, Yorkshire, a shoemaker by trade, goes by the name of ‘Yorkshire George’, and styles himself the polished ‘Yorkshire Cracksman’. He was tried for stealing boots and working tools at the Derbyshire Sessions, on the 3rd January 1854, and sentenced to one calendar month’s imprisonment and ten years’ penal servitude. He has been convicted at London, Durham, Aylesbury, Leicester, Northampton and Bedford, and imprisoned five times in the Wakefield and once in the Southwell House of Correction; and according to his own confession he has been imprisoned in Scotland and several times in France. He admits that he has committed 16 or 18 distinct felonies, and has been guilty of everything short of murder. His language is frequently so base, so disgusting, and so blasphemous as seldom falls from the lips of man. During nine months’ imprisonment at Northampton his conduct was extremely violent, so much so that the officers were obliged to use the utmost vigilance lest he should inflict upon them some bodily injury, and it was absolutely necessary to keep him under almost constant restraint. At Bedford he demolished everything in his cell and armed himself with the fragments, with which he assailed the officers in charge, and at length his conduct became so exceedingly ungovernable that they were obliged to resort to very severe means for the safety of the officers. He then feigned insanity, with the view, no doubt, of effecting his removal to a lunatic asylum, from which he knew it would be so much easier to make his escape. His plan succeeded, and he was removed in the month of August, 1853, to the Salisbury Lunatic Asylum, from which he made his escape in the October following, and was committed about five or six weeks afterwards to the Derby County Gaol, under the circumstances already stated. While confined at Derby his conduct was very violent and stubborn, and it became necessary, before he had been there many days, to put him under restraint and punishment, and having been placed in the dark cell for insolence and insubordination, he wrenched the seat-board off the iron bed-stead and broke it into pieces, with which he made the attack upon the officers, one of whom he struck in the forehead and knocked him down. After this his handcuffs were put on him, five pairs of which he broke in succession. It is stated by those who have been for thirty years in daily intercourse with criminal prisoners, that they never met with so dreadful a character as the self-styled polished ‘Yorkshire Cracksman’.[1]
George Woodcock was one of the most troublesome convicts ever sent to Western Australia, frequently taking up Court time over petty crimes such as drunkenness, using obscene language, etc., and more serious offences such as assaults, beating his wife and causing public brawls, enticing others into fighting police, etc. Sometimes his crimes were of a more devious nature. [See examples in Appendices.]
It seems that George was born in 1827 at Tickhill in Yorkshire, the son of Thomas Woodcock and his second wife Ann Eaton. He spent time in a workhouse with his two brothers, following the death of his father c1835[2] –
1841 Census, Doncaster Union Workhouse –
George Woodcock, 14, born in Yorkshire County.
William Woodcock, 13, ditto.
Matthew Woodcock, 8, ditto.
George was out living on the streets from an early age, surviving by his wits. He was considered an incorrigible thief from an early age. Regular stints in prison allowed him to mix with hardened criminals, coming out with more new skills learnt for evading the law.
At the age of 12, he was convicted of larceny at the Birmingham Boro’ Sessions and was sentenced to one month in gaol and a whipping.[3] Again in 1843 he was back on the streets stealing a handkerchief and due to his previous conviction was sentenced to 12 months and twice whipping.[4] The first and last months of his sentence were to be spent in Separate Confinement.[5] The following year George Woodcock, aged 13, recorded as able to read and write imperfectly, was back at the County Assizes at Warwick, convicted of larceny from the person. The Banbury Guardian reported that he had stolen a door-key and four penny pieces, giving the name of ‘George Lockwood’ when arrested, and due to his previous convictions, was sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour in a House of Correction.[6]
In the Spring of 1853 he committed a burglary at Bedford for which he received an 18 months sentence. While in prison he acted with great violence, making several attacks against the Governor, Mr Roberts. He was threatened with corporal punishment but this had no effect on his conduct. He smashed the furniture in his cell and threatened the life of anyone who approached him. He kicked the Governor and at one stage he slammed the door of his cell as the Governor entered his cell, with the intention of stabbing him and ‘washing his hands in his blood’, and then destroying himself. On being released from restraints he attempted to strangle himself, before endeavoring to dash his brains out by knocking his head against the floor. For six weeks he had to be restrained on his bed, bound hand and foot. In August he was transferred to a lunatic asylum, where he assumed a quiet and pious demeanor, and on 6 October he affected his escape.[7]
Many articles were written in British newspapers about Woodcock’s criminal exploits, some of which may have been somewhat exaggerated, such as the story that he had travelled all over the Continent, and was fluent in three or four languages.[8] Newspaper readers enjoyed stories about the exploits of prisoners, such as Jack Sheppard, renowned in the 18th century as ‘The Man Who Could Break Out of Any Prison’.[9] George Woodcock seemed to enjoy his own notoriety, gaining a reputation as a drunkard, a rogue and a vagabond, prone to violent behaviour. He bragged that he had been taught thieving by the officers of justice.[10]
One story goes that he attempted an escape from Preston Prison by ascending a chimney, and only came down when smoked out by a fire lit below him.[11] In 1854 he was sentenced to ten years and one calendar month for larceny and previous convictions.[12] While in Derby prison he struck a fellow prisoner and attempted the life of an officer with a piece of wood broken off his bed. He was put in a dark cell at Northampton for 12 days for misconduct, was once flogged, and several times put in irons. He boasted to the Chaplain there that he had committed every crime short of murder.
The Governor of Derby Prison enquired into Woodcock’s background. He had been five times in Wakefield Prison for various offences –
In 1847, stealing shoes at Aylesbury – one month.
In 1848, same offence in the name of Massey at Durham.
In 1849, stealing boots in the name of Johnson, at the Leicester Assizes.
In 1850, twelve months at Bedford for housebreaking.
In 1851, nine months at Northampton for stealing boots at Daventry.[13]
In 1855, while serving a 10-year term at Dartmoor Prison for larceny, he escaped when doing outdoor work.[14] The following notice was issued –
‘Escape of a Notorious Convict – George Woodcock (alias Massey, Matthew Williamson, George Johnston, Alexander Sisismund), was tried for stealing boots and working tools, and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and ten years’ penal servitude. He has been convicted at Durham, Aylesbury, Leicester, Northampton, Redford and Bedford. Missing from Dartmoor Prison.’[15]
At first it was rumoured that he had used a rope to scale the wall of the prison. It was later reported that he had escaped on 25 August 1855 by means of crawling through a drain almost a mile long, no mean feat. Once out, he soon stole some clothes to replace his prison uniform.
Prison authorities lost track of him. Then in 1856 he was again arrested, this time giving the name of ‘Omar Shamgar’, but recognised as George Woodcock. [He later gave one of his sons, born in Western Australia in 1868, the name of Omar. George claimed to have a great knowledge of the Scriptures and of three or four different languages.[16] Perhaps he had studied Bible tracts while in prison.] He faced trial at the Devonshire Assizes, charged with being at large at York, after being sentenced to ten years at Derby on 3 June 1854 and taken to Dartmoor Prison on 25 September that year. Back in prison, he boasted to the Governor that if he had not been taken into custody he had already arranged with some others to commit a robbery the following night somewhere on the banks of the Ouse near York, which would have brought in at least £2000.[17]
Transported to Western Australia
By June 1857 George Woodcock was in Portland Prison awaiting transportation to Western Australia. He was in good health, but his conduct was deemed ‘Very Bad’. He was taken onboard the convict ship Nile on 10 September 1857.[18] The ship left on 23 September, arriving at Fremantle on 1 January 1858.
He was received at the Fremantle Prison the following day, described as George Woodcock (alias Massey, Williamson, George Johnson, Alex. Sigismund), aged 28, a bootmaker by trade, single, unable to read and write (?), and a Protestant. Other particulars were that he was convicted of felony and previous convictions on 3 January 1854 at Derby and was sentenced to penal servitude of 10 years plus one calendar month. He had spent two months and four weeks at Derby Prison, and then a further eight months and 17 days at Preston, in Separate Confinement. He had ten previous convictions of larceny and his character and conduct were both ‘Very Bad’. In Separate Confinement he was ‘Bad’, and at Public Works ‘Very Bad’,
George’s conduct on the voyage was described as ‘Incorrigible’, being put on Bread & Water for three days, receiving 12 lashes on one occasion and 36 lashes on another. It was noted that further particulars of this man were recorded in another section of this book. His detailed description on arrival indicates that the Warders of Fremantle Prison were put on alert regarding this prisoner.
As expected, his record in Fremantle Prison reveals a litany of resistance to discipline, interspersed with terms in gaol for occasional crimes. A bootmaker by trade, George was self-employed in Perth for a number of years, employing two other ticket-of-leave men as workers in 1867 and 1877.
The following are some of the prison records for George Woodcock between 1858 and 1890–
11/5/58 – Removed from S. Shop.
30/6/58 – Bread & Water three days. No dinner.
7/12/58 – Bread & Water one day.
5/1/59 – Admonished.
6/1/59 – Bread & Water three days.
28/6/59 – Ditto, four days.
22/7/59 – Ditto, two days.
29/7/59 – Forfeit dinner.
24/8/59 – No tobacco, one month.
4/9/59 – Forfeit dinner.
11/9/59 – Ditto.
19/9/59 – Bread & Water, one day.
27/9/59 – No dinner.
15/12/59 – Discharged to Ticket of Leave.
26/1/63 – Shoemaker, aged 35 – Treated as a casual patient at Fremantle Prison – Lumbago.[19]
27/10 63 – Discharged to York for one month.[20]
21/10/63 – Again discharged to Ticket of Leave.
3/10/64 – Received his Conditional Pardon and Certificate of Freedom.[21]
15/2/70 – Charged at Albany with stealing the goods and chattels of T. Farr (or Fox?), valued
£5. Sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, commuted to seven years on 16/8/71, with the possibility of it being further reduced to five years with good behaviour.[22]
[Note: See Appendix 1 for further details of this affair.]
16/2/70 – (As Colonial Convict No. 9974, formerly Reg. No. 4729) George Woodcock was convicted of larceny and sentenced to ten years. [See above.] By this time he was described as aged 44, height 5’6½”, with light brown hair, dark brown eyes, a square face, a fair complexion, rather sickly, with the joint of the first finger of his right hand broken and his nose inclined to the right. A bootmaker, married with four children.
16/6/70 – Not allowed outside the walls of Fremantle Prison without authority.
6/1/71 – Fighting – two days’ Bread & Water.
23/5/71 – Bread & Water.
25/5/71 – B & W for three days.
6/11/71 – Fighting – three days B & W.
26/12/71 – Attempting to remove a file from Smith’s Shop – three days’ B & W.
3/5/73 – Allowed outside the walls with authority.
25/8/73 – Threatening to strike another prisoner with a … pot. Cautioned.
15/9/73 – Disobedience and insolence – two days’ B & W.
18/9/73 – Gross insolence to an Officer – three days’ B & W.
21/1/74 – To Point Resolution.[23]
31/7/74 – To P. Prison for discharge on T/L on 1/8/74.[24]
18/1/76 – To Fremantle Prison – two months.[25]
17/3/76 – Discharged to Ticket of Leave.[26]
25/1/78 – Age 55 – Insulting words to J. Sullivan – 40/- or two months – fine paid.
18/2/78 – (New No. 1601, previously 4729) – Drunk etc., prohibited. Loitering around Public Houses – Seven days – discharged 4/3/78.[27]
30/3/78 – To Point Resolution.[28]
22/8/80 – Drunk & disorderly, resisting police – Fine 20/- or 14 days – Fine paid. Released 2/9/80.[29]
3/11/83 – To Fremantle Prison from Canning. Dismissed the same day.[30]
26/3/84 – (As Colonial Prisoner No. 9973) – From Perth to Fremantle Prison.[31]
17/4/85 – From Perth to Fremantle Prison.[32]
Dec.’89 – George Woodcock, an elderly man – One month’s imprisonment for using obscene language.[33]
26/2/90 – Bad Language – 20/- fine, or one month with hard labour.[34]
………………………………………………………………………..
Family Life in WA
George Woodcock and his wife Esther (née Shortell or Shortill), daughter of Patrick, were married in 1865. They had eight children, as follows –
Omar, b.1866 at Albany.
Clarence Patrick, b.1867 at Albany.
Mary, b.1868 at Albany.
Nicholas, b.1870 at Albany.
Raymond Joseph, b.1875 at Perth.
Minnie, b.1878 at Perth.[35]
Esther (‘Ethel’), b.1880 at Perth.
Charlotte Eaton, b. 1883 at Perth.
The gap between the birth of the children born in Albany and the later ones born in Perth was due to their father being in Fremantle Prison, convicted in 1870 of stealing £35 (or £5?) from the person of Thos. Fox in the street in Albany.[36] His sentence was for ten years, but the term was reduced and he was released in 1874 –
1870 – ALBANY. One of the first cases that came on for trial after the opening of the new Court House was that of Woodcock, the circumstances of which I before briefly related. He received the very righteous sentence of ten years’ penal servitude, when he immediately rounded on his companions, and the consequence is that two of them are committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, and a dangerous gang of thieves and house-breakers are knocked in the head.[37]
Back in Perth, George’s bad behaviour soon had him back in the Court –
1875 – Geo. Woodcock, a shoemaker, was charged with violently assaulting Mr G. Budd, the landlord of the No Place Inn, last evening. Mr. Budd, who appeared, stated the circumstances of the assault, which if persisted in, would have secured for the prisoner a three months retreat, but in consideration of his wife and family did not wish to press the charge, and suggested to His Worship that a caution might have the effect of preventing a recurrence of the like again. His Worship severely commented upon the conduct of the prisoner, cautioned him not to appear again under a like charge and dismissed the charge.[38]
George’s bad behaviour, mostly the result of his alcoholism, continued throughout his life. His name frequently came up in the Perth Courts and he was a regular inmate at Perth and Fremantle Prisons. Over the years, life must have been very difficult for Mrs Esther Woodcock, with eight children to feed and a husband in and out of gaol. Just when the family moved from Albany to Perth is not known. She applied for poor relief in 1880 because her husband was in gaol, and again in 1884, ‘because her worthless husband had gone to look for work’.[39]
George’s long-suffering wife Esther passed away on 5 March 1907, at the age of 76. She was buried at the Karrakatta Cemetery –
MRS. ESTHER WOODCOCK.
The death of an old colonist in the person of the late Mrs. Esther Woodcock, wife of Mr. George Woodcock, is to be recorded. The deceased arrived in the State 46 years ago, and has been a resident ever since. She leaves a grown-up family of three daughters and five sons to mourn their loss. The funeral took place on Wednesday afternoon, and was largely attended. The cortege moved from her late residence, Schafer street, Leederville, and proceeded to the Roman Catholic Cemetery, Karrakatta. The Rev. Father T. Masterson officiated at the graveside. The pall-bearers were Messrs. D. Hardy, J. Jones, M. McArdle, and D. Rice. The chief mourners were Mr. George Woodcock (husband), Messrs. Omer, Nicholas, Raymond, and George Woodcock (sons), Mrs. R. S. Sampson and Miss Lottie Woodcock (daughters). Misses Florrie and Rita Woodcock (grand-daughters), Mr. R. S. Sampson (son-in-law), Mrs. O. Woodcock and Mrs. G. Woodcock (daughters-in-law).[40]
Her husband George’s unhappy ending came two years later –
1909 – ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.
WOODCOCK’S CONDITION.
George Woodcock, who made an attempt to commit suicide yesterday, and who was taken to the Perth Public Hospital, is progressing favorably, the injuries which he inflicted on his throat by means of an old table-knife not being regarded as serious.[41]
Perhaps complications set in from his self-inflicted wound. George Woodcock died soon afterwards on 18 May 1909, a sad ending to his troubled life. His obituary tells us that his funeral was well-attended, although the details given about his early years in Australia may be in doubt. The official record of his death gives his age as 86. He was buried in the Roman Catholic section at Karrakatta Cemetery.
MR. G. WOODCOCK, SEN.
The funeral of another very old colonist, in the person of the late Mr. George Woodcock, sen., took place on Wednesday last, and was well attended. The deceased, who was born at Doncaster, England, had spent 61 years in the Australian States, 50 years of which were lived in Western Australia. The cortege moved from the residence of his son, Mr. Raymond Woodcock, 28 Troode street, West Perth, and proceeded per road to the Roman Catholic Cemetery, Karrakatta, where the remains were interred, the Rev. Father O’Neill officiating at the grave-side. The pall-bearers were Cr. W. Simpson, Messrs. J. Jones, M. McArdle, and J. J. Bennett. The chief mourners were Messrs. Omer, Raymond, and George Woodcock, sons; Mrs. B. L. Sampson, daughter; Misses Florrie and Rita Woodcock, grand-daughters; and Mr. R. L. Sampson, son-in-law. A large number of wreaths and letters of sympathy were received. The funeral arrangements were carried out by Messrs. Bowra and O’Dea.[42]
……………………………………………………………………….
The following articles give further details of the troubles caused by George Woodcock for the WA Police Force, the Courts, and his long-suffering wife over the years –
Appendix 1.
1873 – FREMANTLE POLICE COURT. MONDAY 1st. SEPTEMBER 1873. (Before J. G. Slade Esq., R.M.) Captain Finnerty, and H. C. Barnett Esq., J.P.’s)
Woodcock’s little game. This little game, the final act of which was played out in the police court this day, is almost worth dramatising. It develops the most consummate villany, and so might be used to “point a moral, or adorn a tale.” The chief actor in it is a prisoner named Woodcock, an individual who some years ago was well known in this town. Arriving here a prisoner in the Nile, he obtained in due course his liberty; and after residing for some time in Fremantle, during a portion of which period he was a tenant of Mr. Herbert Dixon’s, he left this colony and has voyaged in the other colonies. Returning to Western Australia, he located himself at Albany, where, after a short residence, having digged a pit for others he fell into it himself. He discovered an arranged affair, a man, who had some pounds in money, in the same room with his wife, who began to scream of course. Mr. Woodcock, virtuous and honorable husband, expressed intense rage, asked the man how he dared to take liberties with his wife, and in a frenzy of righteous wrath fell upon the offender, and aided by some associates robbed him of all he had. The man, naturally feeling that Mr. Woodcock was not the most injured party in this transaction, appealed to the law, and Woodcock and his associates were tried for the robbery.
Here was another opportunity, and one not to be lost, for the display of Mr. Woodcock’s talents. He was sentenced to ten years penal servitude; but in consequence of his giving evidence against his tools and accomplices this sentence was mitigated to one of seven years, with a promise that it should be further reduced to five years, if this estimable man conducted himself well. We shall see that he has done his best to merit further favors. This day a charge preferred by him against a Pensioner named Upton was heard in the above court, and in the course of an investigation which lasted from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. the foregoing and following confessions, by no means unwillingly made, were obtained from Woodcock himself by Mr. S. Burt the counsel for the defendant. We will state that Mr. Upton is a most respectable man, a soldier who has served his country with credit, a pensioner who, during the ten years he has served on the Enrolled Force in this Colony, has never had a report for any offence made against him. Altogether his character is a bright contract to that of the scamp who brings a charge against him. If even the charge be true, which in our opinion there is not sufficient evidence to prove, the fact of Woodcock, of all persons in the world, bringing it shows his villany to be double dyed.
It is contrary to the regulations of the convict prison, for any prisoner to traffic or to have money in his possession. Mr. Woodcock, according to his own account, violated both regulations, and this is his story, for the truth of which we should be very sorry to vouch. In fact there is more reason to believe that it is a cunningly devised fable than anything else. Woodcock was a wood-cutter in the prison. He says that he had arranged with the contractor who supplies the wood consumed to “see him righted,” by some complicated arrangement whereby he (the prisoner) would transfer wood from one stack to another, from a stack, for instance, which had been already measured and allowed for, to one which had not yet been passed by the proper authorities. For this service of seeing the contractors “righted,” or seeing the Government robbed, synonymous terms in this case, the amiable Woodcock was to receive five shillings per week, which pay he received until the total of his earnings amounted to fifty shillings. We are the rather inclined to believe that the whole story of this Woodcock, whose name is a misnomer – it should have been Vulture – is a fabrication, because we hope for the credit of the townspeople that there is no contractor who would be party in so infamous a job.
But to continue the scoundrel’s own tale varnished or unvarnished. Among the pensioners who are told off to guard the prison was Mr. Upton above mentioned. The prisoner had confidence in him and from time to time in various manners handed him his earnings to keep for him. Woodcock, in answer to the defendant’s counsel, gave a detailed account of the manner in which the money passed. Sometimes he would wrap the money in sheet-lead and throw it, as he passed on some pretext or other, up to the gallery on the prison wall whereon Upton would be marching up and down. Sometimes he would, when Upton was on guard, conceal the money in some spot where unobserved he could pick it up as he descended. Sometimes if Woodcock happened to accompany the Pensioner guard round the inner wall of the prison, he would have an opportunity of putting the money into Upton’s hand. All this was related with a minute circumstantiality, which says much for the prisoner’s talent, and quite as much for the blackness of his heart. In fact the whole tale is too circumstantial; and as Mr. Burt remarked, it is highly improbable that, where a continual surveillance is maintained both over pensioners and prisoners, such a system of communication could long continue undetected, and this system need never have been detected, but for Woodcock himself.
Here comes the cream of the story, “When rogues fall out honest men get their due.” In this case it is the only honest man in the tripart drama that suffers. The contractor professes to discover that his colleague is playing him force, and apostrophises him as a scoundrel with some adjectives. Here was an insult that the high spirit and virtuous mind of a Woodcock could not brook. That comprehensive man determines to be revenged on the contractor, and to obtain revenge he must sacrifice his friend the Pensioner. What matter? He has “no compunctious visitings of conscience.” His is a nature alike incapable of gratitude or remorse. He prefers a charge against the contractor of conspiring to rob the Government and of trafficking with him, the prisoner. He says:- “I know this charge requires proof, and I will prove it. As 1 have received the money from the contractor I have given it to Upton to mind for me. I will demand the whole sum amounting to 50s. from Upton, make an appointment with him to receive it. You have me watched, depute someone to see the money pass between us, and take it from me?”
This scheme was put into execution. At a given time Woodcock was carefully searched nothing was found upon his person; he was allowed to pass out of the prison, followed at a short distance by Blackburne, warder. He met Upton, who was seen by the warder to put his hand in his waistcoat, and pass something to the prisoner, whom the warder immediately arrested, and searched, finding upon him the sum of fifty shillings. This day Mr. Upton was charged with the offence of communicating with a prisoner, found guilty, and fined £5. We are heartily sorry for the Pensioner, who, if he erred at all, erred on the side of good nature and humanity. Even Woodcock does not accuse him of making the slightest profit out of the transaction. The money he received he faithfully minded, and honestly returned, when asked to relinquish his trust. He is only blameworthy in his dealings with the prisoner, inasmuch as he might have known, had he considered the subject, that the latter could hardly have come by his money honestly. But the only direct evidence against him was the prisoner’s unsupported word.
The warder who saw him put his hand in his waistcoat pocket and appear to pass something to the prisoner, declined to swear that the money passed. It is quite possible that a person of Mr. Woodcock’s abilities might have had the fifty shillings concealed about him and still undiscovered, even after the most careful search. In fact that person told Mr. Burt in cross-examination that he could pass an article to a person unobserved by anyone who might be standing next to him. Considering the characters of the two men, and the diversity of their reputations we have no hesitation in saying that a jury would have brought in a verdict of “not proven;” and we think that the case would have been amply met, as far as Pensioner Upton is concerned, with a rebuke from the Bench. As for Mr. Woodcock he is striving hard to regain his liberty. When he does so the community at large will be a gainer by his accession to its strength. We sincerely trust that the case will be brought fully under the notice of His Excellency with a view to the remission of the fine imposed upon Upton.[43]
Appendix 2
1873 – COMMUNICATING WITH PRISONER.—A Pensioner named Upton, a most respectable man, and one much esteemed both in the Enrolled Force, and in private life, was fined £5 on Monday in the Fremantle Police Court, for holding communication with a prisoner named Woodcock, on whose statement Mr. Upton was convicted. Woodcock had, as he said, from time to time given Mr. Upton money to mind for him. The other day he appointed to receive back from the pensioner £2. 10s., and arranged that a Warder should be present to witness the transaction. The pensioner was to blame for violating established and needful regulations; but he probably erred through compassion and good nature. He has paid dear for his misconduct, and for obliging a scoundrel, who must have become possessed of the money in a nefarious way, and who might only have been expected to turn and injure his benefactor.[44]
Appendix 3
1875 – Geo. Woodcock, a shoemaker, was charged with violently assaulting Mr G. Budd, the landlord of the No Place Inn, last evening. Mr. Budd, who appeared, stated the circumstances of the assault, which if persisted in, would have secured for the prisoner a three months retreat, but in consideration of his wife and family did not wish to press the charge, and suggested to His Worship that a caution might have the effect of preventing a recurrence of the like again. His Worship severely commented upon the conduct of the prisoner, cautioned him not to appear again under a like charge and dismissed the charge.[45]
Appendix 4
1876 – Caution to Brutal Husbands. — At the Perth Police Court, on Monday last, George Woodcock, a boot-maker, was charged before E. W. Landor, Esq., P.M., with brutally assaulting his wife, and was sentenced to three months’ hard labor, and to receive two dozen lashes with the cat-‘o-nine tails.[46]
Appendix 5
1879 – A most exciting scene occurred in the City on Tuesday, Between 10 and 11 in the morning of that day a shoe-maker named Woodcock, not altogether unknown at Fremantle and not of high repute in Perth, was drinking at the City Hotel, and becoming quarrelsome was ordered out of the house by the landlord, Mr. Elsegood. Woodcock it appears was obstinate and the ostler at the hotel was called upon to eject him. Thereupon Woodcock shewed fight and he and the ostler who had got then outside were sparring in the street outside the hotel, when p.c. Mansfield came by and ordered the combatants to desist. Woodcock refused to comply, and thereupon Mansfield proceeded to arrest him. Woodcock resisted and called to his aid several roughs, one of whom named Hanham rushed violently between Mansfield and Woodcock and separated them, knocking Mansfield down.
Woodcock embracing the opportunity went to his own house in King Street which is opposite the hotel, p.c. Mansfield springing to his feet blew his whistle, and followed Woodcock to the forecourt gate. Here Woodcock and Mansfield stood; one in the street, the other within the gate, until p.c. Crowe came up, Woodcock meanwhile threatening Mansfield with violence if a re-arrest was attempted, and raising a crowd by the disturbance he was creating. On p.c. Crowe’s arrival Woodcock went inside the cottage, and was followed by the constables who brought him out. Then occurred a scene that beggars description. Woodcock not only shewed fight and became violently resistive, but was aided in his resistance by a mob of roughs who attacked the police, and those who were called to their assistance, until a positive riot ensued, and Woodcock being violently dragged from custody, and the police being on all sides assaulted, the latter in positive self-defence drew their staves; this was not however done until some members of the force were all but disabled, and young Mr. Cole, who had been called in the Queen’s name to their aid, had been most shamefully and savagely assaulted. For some minutes the police kept hold of Woodcock, notwithstanding they were assailed by a shower of bricks and stones, and that p.c. Mansfield was being beaten about the head and shoulders by Mrs. Woodcock with a broomstick. At this inopportune moment Woodcock, being all but re-rescued, commenced kicking the police in the most savage manner, and received from p.c. Mansfield a blow from the staff, which broke his right leg and thus disabled him.
The evidence of Mr. John Smith of London House, J.C.H. James, Esq., Commissioner of Titles, and other gentlemen who witnessed the affray, was conclusive on the point that the police received and patiently endured great provocation, and that the blow which fractured Woodcock‘s leg was not given by way of assault, but in warding off his savage kicks, any one of which might have disabled the policeman for life. The case has received careful and patient investigation from the City Bench. Several arrests of those who attempted Woodcock’s rescue and resisted the police, have been made and resulted in convictions. Woodcock is in the hospital, and is reported to be progressing favorably.[47]
Appendix 6
1884 – At the conclusion of the City Police Court proceedings this morning the man Woodcock, who has become somewhat notorious as a Police Court ‘celebrity,’ after receiving a sentence of three months’ hard labor, was removed to the river-side lock-up previous to his removal to the prison. He had scarcely passed five minutes in the building, when, taking advantage of his being left without a guard for a moment, he scaled the wall and made off. ‘Woodcock’s little game,’ however, was perceived by constable Connor, who gave the delinquent chase, and with much difficulty succeeded in re-capturing him. The ‘leg-bail’ was of very short duration, and when re-arrested Woodcock resisted violently, and was with great difficulty again placed in the lock-up.[48]
Appendix 7
1884 – FRIDAY, April 25.
(Before Mr. James Cowan. J.P.)
George Woodcock was charges with having behaved in a disorderly manner in Murray-street on Wednesday last. The defendant denied the truth of the charge.
William Love deposed: On last Wednesday the defendant called at my hotel, and requested me to supply him with a glass of beer. I refused to do so, and told him that I did not want to have anything to do with him. I then ordered him out of the bar, when he began to abuse me in the most disgraceful manner. He called me “a—informer”, and also “a — policeman.” He repeated this language again in the street after he had left my premises. He has abused me before.
Mr. Cowan: It is very evident, Woodcock, that you are a very badly behaved man. You are continually being brought up here for misconduct. It is a great pity that you will not keep away from drink and try to support your family. You are a good for nothing. You were charged here last January with a similar offence, when you received three months’ imprisonment. This time I shall send you in again for another three months, with hard labour.
The Defendant: Goodness gracious! Why, you have not let me even ask the witness a single question.
Mr. Cowan: Oh, you have nothing to ask him.
The Defendant: Yes I have, Sir.
Mr. Cowan: Oh, no! you have not.
The Defendant: But you have not given me a chance to say a word in my defence!
Mr. Cowan: You have no defence to make.
The Defendant: Yes, but I have.
Mr. Cowan: No you have not. Let that man be removed.
The Defendant (holding fast to the front of the dock): Do you call this justice?
Mr. Cowan: Take him away.
The defendant was then removed, when he exclaimed, “Good bye! and this is justice, I suppose!”
A few minutes afterwards the prisoner’s wife entered the Court, and, addressing the Magistrate, said, “And what am I to do with my eight children now that you have sent their father to gaol?”
Mr. Cowan: You are far better off without him, I think.
Mrs. Woodcock: I may as well go and throw them into the jetty, I suppose.
Mr. Cowan: Take that woman out.
The woman then left the Court and this concluded the morning’s business.[49]
Appendix 8
1887 – A VIOLENT DRUNKARD.
GEORGE WOODCOCK was charged with having been drunk in Wellington street the previous day. When taken to the cells, he was very violent in his behaviour, and threatened to take the lives of the constables. Mr. James sentenced him to seven days’ imprisonment.[50]
Appendix 9
1890 – PERTH POLICE COURT.
AT the Perth Police Court, on Monday morning, before Mr. J. Cowan, acting P.M., George Woodcock, an elderly man, was charged with using obscene language. The accused admitted the offence, and was fined 20s., or one month’s imprisonment.[51]
……………………………………………………………………….
[1] Derby Mercury, 5 September 1855.
[2] Public member trees, ancestry.com.au/familytree
[3] UK National Archives, Criminal Records, Series HO27, Piece No. 71.
[4] UK National Archives, Criminal Records, Warwick Court, Series HO27, Piece No. 74.
[5] Leamington Spa Courier, 12 August 1843.
[6] Banbury Guardian, 15 August 1844.
[7] Glasgow Herald, 31 December 1856.
[8] Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 13 November 1856.
[9] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sheppard
[10] Derbyshire Courier, 7 January 1854.
[11] Glasgow Herald, 31 December 1856.
[12] UK National Archives, Criminal Records, Series HO27, Piece No. 107.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Glasgow Herald, 31 December 1856.
[15] Coventry Standard, 31 August 1855.
[16] Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 13 November 1856.
[17] Ibid.
[18] UK National Archives, Criminal Records, Series HO8, Piece Nos. 132 & 133.
[19] Convict Establishment, Casual Sick Registers (Cs8 – Cs10)
[20] Convict Establishment, Receipts & Discharges, (Rd3 – Rd4)
[21] Fremantle Prison Convict Index.
[22] Convict Establishment, Miscellaneous, Superintendent’s Register of Prisoners (V10)
[23] Convict Establishment, Receipts & Discharges, (Rd5 – Rd7)
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Fremantle Prison Correspondence, Register of Local Prisoners (F3-F4)
[30] Establishment, Receipts & Discharges, (Rd9b – Rd10)
[31] Convict Establishment, Receipts & Discharges, Nominal Returns (Rd19)
[32] Convict Establishment, Receipts & Discharges, (Rd9b – Rd10)
[33] West Australian, 31 December 1889.
[34] Inquirer, 26 February 1890.
[35] WA Department of Justice, https://www.wa.gov.au/service/justice/civil-law/searching-family-history
[36] Inquirer, 12 January 1870.
[37] Inquirer and Commercial News, 23 March 1870.
[38] WA Times, 19 March 1875.
[39] Rica Erickson, Bicentennial Dictionary of Western Australians, p.3380.
[40] Western Mail, 9 March 1907.
[41] Daily News, 3 May 1909.
[42] Western Mail, 22 May 1909.
[43] Herald (Fremantle), 6 September 1873.
[44] Perth Gazette, 5 September 1873.
[45] WA Times, 19 March 1875.
[46] Inquirer, 19 January 1876.
[47] Herald, 26 July 1879.
[48] Daily News, 25 April 1884.
[49] Inquirer and Commercial News, 30 April 1884.
[50] West Australian, 8 November 1887.
[51] Western Mail, 4 January 1890.