Australian English Genealogy

Descendants of John Pawley

Notes (Page 3)

45. George Pawley

(Before Mr. Justice Stephen and juries of four.)
ALLEGED LIBEL. Fraser v. Pawley
Mr. Mack and Mr. Cline, instructed by Mr. R. Colonna Close, appeared for the plaintiff, William James Fraser; Mr. Walker and Mr. Boyce, instructed by Mr Charles R. A. smith, for the defendant, George Pawley. The case for the plaintiff was that at the time of the cause of action arising he was a fruiterer at Norton-street, Leichhardt, and defendant, who was a hairdresser in an adjoining building, falsely and maliciously wrote and published of him certain words affecting him in the conduct of the business. The words were contained in a letter addressed to the President of the Board of Health, and were inter alia that plaintiff's premises were in a filthy condition, and that boxes of decaying and stinking vegetables were there; that the place was otherwise dirty; that his (defendant's) children had been affected with typhoid fever, and he wished to prevent a recurrence of sickness. He asked the Board of Health to interfere. Plaintiff set out that in consequence of this letter he was injured in his credit and reputation as a fruiterer, and that many of his customers had ceased to deal with him. Plaintiff claimed £300. Defendant pleaded not guilty.
The jury having deliberated for 40 minutes, it was announced that a majority had come to a decision. The parties agreed to accept the verdict of a majority ant it was then announced that the jury by a majority found for the defendant.

Source: The SMH 30 Nov 1899

48. Harold Frederick Horace Pawley


Sarah Pawley v. Harold Frederick Horace Pawley (with custody of child).   

Source: Evening News (Sydney) 6 Nov 1894   


51. William Henry Pawley

Tram conducter

      Emily Smails



Emily Grimley, formerly Pawley, sued for a divorce from Joseph Grimley, a labourer, on the ground of constructive desertion. The marriage was celebrated in April, 1900, at Stanmore, according to the rites of the Church of the Disciples of Christ. The petitioner, who was represented by Mr. Boyce, said that she and her husband lived together till June 16, 1901. They had a difference over a quilt she had purchased from her sister. He falsely accused her of being drunk. It -was in that condition that he himself was.

He called her offensive names. He was a violent when when drunk, but she could not say what he was like when sober, as she had very little experience of him under those conditions. Once he tried, to throw her on the kitchen stove, in which there was a fire. She, however, succeeded in getting away from him and went into the yard. She left him in consequence of his ill-treatment of her, and subsequently she received a letter from him asking her to meet him. She did not reply to it because she was In the Lewisham Hospital. Later upon his promising to reform she returned to him. Just before she finally left him he told her to go, saying that if she did not he would break her neck. He had frequently kicked her out of bed, and on these occasions she would sleep on the floor without bedclothes. On another occasion he said he would shoot her. Six weeks before she went away she asked him to support her, and he replied that he would do seven years before he gave her a copper. She was a widow when she became his wife, and earned her living as a laundress. A decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute in three months.

Source: Evening News (Sydney) 9 Mar 1905