|
|
|
||
| Site contents © Copyright Michael Crouch, 2009. This web site was launched on 7 June 1998 |
|
John Baird Crouch Tasmania In 1912 John Baird Crouch had an accident, his injuries superficial with no long lasting effects. He sued Municipality of Huon for negligently maintaining a culvert claiming 250 pounds damages. A Road Accident Question of Minicipalities Liability a Claim for Damages His Honour Mr. Justice Nicholls, sitting with a jury of five in the Supreme Court yesterday, heard an action in which John Crouch, a labourer of the Huon, sued the Warden and councillors of the Huon municipality for £250 damages, an amount claimed for alleged negligence of the defendant corporation in not keeping a culvert on Baker's Creek main road in proper order and repair, which negligence permitted him sustaining injuries, by being thrown from his falling horse, which put its foot through the culvert. In its defence, the Huon Municipal Council denied liability or negligence. Thee jurymen were C.V. Harcourt, W.A. Sargeant, G. Cramp, O. Neilsen, and T.R. Brownell Mr. H. Crisp appeared for the plaintiif. and Mr. W. M. Hodgman for the defendant council. In his opening address, Mr. Crisp said Crouch, who was a labourer, was suing the Huon municipality for damages sustained through the dangerous condition of an extremely old culvert. The accident had occurred on April 10, but since then it had been filled up. The plaintiff in his evidence, said he was a married man, residing in the Huon district. On the evening of April 10 he was riding along Baker's Creek Road, when the horse suddenly went through the culvert, which was situated near the Baker’s Creek bridge. On the horse falling he struck the back of his head on the road, and lost consciousness. After he came to he, with the Messrs. Jones, examined the culvert, and found a hole in it, where the horse's foot had gone through the decking. He produced a portion of the collapsed decking, which was both worn and decayed. On the next day he was unwell, and could not do his work. On April 22 he saw a doctor, and eventually went into the Hobart Public Hospital, remaining an in-patient for some weeks. In the hospital he was also attended to for a trouble which had no bearing on the accident. Since coming out ot the hospital he had only been able to do a very little light work. Before the accident he had been, in constant work, earning 3 s. 6d. per day. Since April 10 the culvert had been taken up and filled in with stone. His hospital fees amounted to £13, and he had also incurred other expenses tor travelling and medical attention. Cross-examined: Since leaving the hospital he had attended as an out-patient, he was treated at the institution for an injured groin and a ricked back. He was still lame from the effects of the injury to his back. Three days alter the incident he rode to Huonville, and informed the council of the accident. He had not put in five days' work prior to seeing a doctor in Hobart. When he rode over the culvert it had a hollow in it, which he had noticed for about a fortnight. The depression had an area of about 4ft. across. Henry Oates, an orchardist in the Huon, said he had known Crouch for the last 15 years, he having worked for him on different occasions during that time. He had always thought Crouch enjoyed fairly good health. Since the accident he had not noticed any great différence in Crouch's work. To the best of his recollection, the culvert had been in existence for more than 24 years. That period ago he put in an extension to the culvert. He was a road contractor ot some experience. The decking in the culvert was stringy bark. He could not say how long such timber would last underground in the locality where the culvert was built. Cross-examined -To the best of his recollection, he put 6 ft. on to the culvert 24 years ago. At the time he did the work for the Government, but had not done anything to it since. He practically remade the road, and had to do the work to the culvert, which was carried out to the full width of the road. Wm. Jones sen., a resident of Baker's Creek, Huon, said he was passing along the road with his two sons on the evening of April 10, when he saw the plaintiff lying on his back on the side of the road. The culvert nearby had a hole in it. With the assistance of his sons he placed Mr. Crouch on his horse, but he appeared to be in great pain and agony. He did not see him again for a few days, and when he did Crouch appeared "to be pretty bad on it." He had worked with Crouch prior to the accident, who was then a fair worker, but since his work had been greatly affected. He knew the culvert very well, and only three weeks before the accident he had remarked somebody would go through it. Cross examined. Crouch, prior to the accident, limped a little, but his walk was now just the same as before the accident. Crouch had told him "be was cantering along.. and went through.” To His Honour: The culvert was across the road, and he thought the decking lay parallel to the road. To Mr. Hodgeman: He had not told any of the municipal officials about the bad state of the culvert. , To a juryman: The accident happened at about 6 o'clock in the evening. There was sufficient light for anybody to see. Dr. W. E. Crowther, assistant house surgeon the Hobart General Hospital, said Crouch was treated at the hospital. He told him he was suffering from the effects of an accident. . He examined him, and found that his condition was sufficiently serious to detain him for treatment and surveillance. The doctor detailed Crouch's injuries. While in the hospital, Crouch was operated upon for a matter of long standing. He could describe Crouch’s condition as being "not very sound”. Cross-examined: He would not be surprised to hear that a person suffering from the injuries received by Crouch had gone back into the orchard a couple of days after the accident, because it was natural for a man to try and do as much as he could. Re-examined: He did not think the accident had any effect on Crouch's prior complaint. Alexander Wood, a resident of Baker's Creek, said he knew the culvert. About a week before the accident he noticed a hollow in the culvert. This closed the plaintiff’s case. Mr. Hodgmau applied for leave to adjourn his opening remarks till after he had called his first witness, whose time would not permit him remaining about the court longer than necessary. The Judge granted Mr. Hodgman's request. For the defence. Dr. H. L. Cummings practising in the Huon district, said he knew the plaintiff. On September 25 he examined him on behalf of the defendant corporation, and found only minor traces of an injury. Crouch gave him full details of the accident. To His Honor: He could not say what outward signs of injuries, such as bruises etc., Crouch had received, because a period of 24 weeks had passed between the date of the accident and his examination. He found no signs of any permanent injuries about Crouch. In his opinion, he thought Crouch was fit to do any ordinary orchard work. Mr. Hodgeman applied for a non suit on the grounds-(1) That there was no evidence to go to the jury tha the culvert had been repaired interfered with by the council, or that there was any evidence whatever that, if there were such repairs, they had been done negligently or carelessly, and the culvert left in an unusable condition. (2) That there was no evidence of negligence against the defendants of having allowed a nuisance to exist on the roadway. (3) That, it there was evidence against the council, it was of nonfeasance, for which the council was not liable. His Honor : Don't they take over the work of their predecessor? . Mr. Hodgman: Yes. He submitted that the council was not liable, as the work of the municipality had been taken over in a satisfactory condition, and the culvert had since worn out as a natural consequence. The question concerned was a very important one, and affected all the councils of the State, and was being treated practically as a test case. If the Court found the council was liable, then the municipalities would have to approach Parliament for an amelioration of the conditions as they affected them. His Honor: That is hardly a matter to mention to me. 1 am not here to make the law, but to see the laws we have are carried out. Mr. Hodgeman having concluded his argument, and Mr. Crisp having replied, His Honor ruled there was sufficient evidence to permit of the question of negligence going to the jury, but would leave it open for subsequent argument on the legal points raised. Mr. Hodgman stated he wished to raise the further point that there was no evidence of negligence, in as much as the council had not had an opportunity to effecting repairs to the culvert, even if they were necessary. His Honor: We must allow the question of fact, as to whether or not there was negligence, to go to the jury, and you can then argue before me the legal points, and, if necessary, for the benefit of the municipalities who desire to go before Parliament subsequently, secure an opinion on those law points from the Full Court. At the present time we must secure the verdict of the jury on the facts and then argue the law points. 1 am followiiig the usual course in deciding to secure a Verdict on the facts, and then, if necessary, hearing the law points which have been kept alive. Wm. Darcy, road inspector of the Huon municipality, said he had been engaged inspecting the roads since the municipality had been formed. He knew the road where the culvert was, and had frequently inspected it. His instructions were to keep a close watch on all culverts aud bridges. The last time he inspected the culvert, on April 4, it was in good order and condition. He next saw it on the day Mr. Crouch informed him it was broken in. Mr. Crouch called at the Council Chambers, and said he had met with an accident on the previous evening. He had never opened up the particular culvert, but thought there should be about 24 inches of rubble on top of the wood. If there had been a depressión in the culvert it would be plainly visible Cross-examined: The ends of the culvert had silted up, and it was practically a disused culvert. He knew it was a culvert long before the accident. It was no longer used as a culvert to carry water away. He would not look to see if any timberings of the culvert wanted attending to till a depression appeared on the surface. His Honor: Do I understand you wait till a culvert falls in before you attend to the timberings? - When we see a depression we get underneath and inspect the culvert timbering. Mr. Crisp: You always wait for a depression befoie you inspect the timber in the culvert ?-Yes. Daniel E. Ryan, Warden ot the Huon municipality, gave formal evidence of the duties of tlie road inspector. The council had every confidence in Mr. Daley. Albert Lucas, a resident of Baker's Creek for l8 years, said he went over the culvert in question many times every week. He passed over it on the.day of the accident, and so far as be noticed it was in it’s usual good state of repair. Had there been a depression of about four feet across in the wheel rut, he thought he would have noticed it. William Nicholls, a road contractor of the Huon, said he knew the culvert of the accident, which he passed over four days before that occurred. Three days after tho accident he saw Mr. Cronch at the culvert riding on horseback. At the time he was removing the slabs and filling in the culvert. Cross-examined: About two years ago be put a pick into one of the slabs of the culvert to see if it was sound. Ernest Newman (a carter), William George Edward Burr, (a farmer), and Clive Harris (a carter), gave corroborative evidence as to the culvert being in good order about the time of tho accident. Mr. Hodgman put in a letter from the council clerk of Huon, certifying that the culvert had never engaged the attention of the council in any manner, either by proposal or expenditure for maintenance. In his summing up to the jury. His Honor said they must confine themselves solely to the facts, and not concern themselves with the legal argument they had heard; they were for him to decide. In arriving at the facts they would have to consider and answer two questions, which were: - (1) Was the defect in the culvert due to the negligence of the council or its servants? (2) Was the accident due to the negligence of the plaintiff? As regards the question of damages, they would not have to concern themselves with it unless they answered the first question in the affirmative, and the second question in the negative. He warned them against confusing the question of whose fault it was, if any, that caused the defect in the culvert with that of whose fault it was that caused the accident. The jury, after a retirement of an hour and three-quarters, returned into Court and stated they had agreed to answer the first question yes by a majority, but on the second question they could not agree. They desired information on the point, if the plaintiff considered the depression in the culvert dangerous. His Honor: The plaintiff, in his evidence, said he knew of the depression, but considered the culvert sound. The Foreman (Mr. Sargeant) intimated that if the jury was given a little additional time they might arrive at a decision. The jury again retired, and after an absencer of five minutes returned into Court with the answer no. They assessed damages at 10 pounds. In answer to Mr. Hodgman, His Honor said that when counsel moved for judgment on the jury's finding he could argue the points raised by him on the application for a non-suit. Mr. Hodgman said he would move that the plaintiff was not entitled to a verdict on the question of negligence till the law points on the question had been settled. His Honor intimated he would accept the jury's finding, subject to the argument. Costs were allowed to stand over till the argument on the non-suit had been disposed . But on appeal John Crouch lost his case The Mercury 23/11/1912 The Full Court Liabilities of Muincipalities Crouch v. The Huon Council A sitting of the Full Court was held yesterday before Mr. Justice Mcintyre and Mr. Justice Nicholls. The defendants in the case of Crouch v. the Huon Municipality, recently heard in the Supreme Court, when John Crouch obtained a verdict for £10 against the Warden and councillors of the Huon district for injuries sustained through an accident due to an alleged defective culvert, applied for a non-suit on certain legal points. Mr. Harold Crisp (instructed by Messrs. Murdoch, Jones, and Cuthbert) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. M. Hodgman (of Ewing, Hodgman, and Seager) for the defendant municipality. Mr Hodgman reviewed the evidence as to the defective state of the culvert, and referred to the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Crisp: You cannot now discuss the question whether the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Mr. Justice Nicholls : This is not the time to discuss the finding of the jury. Mr. Hodgman submitted they must discuss the facts of the case Mr. Justice Nicholls: You can't hope for a non-suit on the grounds of contributory negligence. Mr. Hodgman: But we could ask for a verdict for the defendants on that ground. The plaintiff in his evidence said the culvert did not seem dangerous to him, so how could the council’s officials notice that it was dangerous ? Witnesses for the plaintiff gave evi- dence that any careful man would have avoided the depression in the culvert. For the defendant, a number of independent witnesses gave evidence that the culvert appeared to be in good order and quite safe. His friend, did not cross-examine a single one of the witnesses, and yet the jury found against their evidence. He contended that the council could not be held liable for letting a culvert get out of repair unless they were aware that it was out of repair, and neglected to put it in order when they had the means and opportunity of doing so. The case fell within the category of non feasance, not of malfeasance There was no stautory obligation laid on the council by law. He quoted section 130 of tho Local Government Act, defining the powers and liabilities of councils in regard to roads. Section 2|31 of the Act provided that no person should be entitled to recover damages for injuries to person or property sustained by reason of the condition of any road which had not been interfered with by the council. Tho definition of road included culverts and bridges. As there was not a scrap of ovidence that the culvert had been interfered with by the council, it was entitled to a verdict. Was the council liable simply because they allowed this culvert to got out of repair? Mr. Crisp: Yes. Mr. Justice Nicholls: He cannot say anything else, can he? There is no evidence that the council altered the culvert so as to make the hole. Mr. Crisp : We say the council's duty was to keep the culvert in repair. Mr. Hodgman quoted the case of the Picton (Nova Scotia) Municipality v'. Geldort, in which the Privy Council held that the council was not liable for nonfeasance in failing to keep the approach to a bridge in order. In the case of the Sydney Municipal Council v. Burke, heard by the Privy Council, it was held that the council was not liable unless there was a statutory obligations to do certain things. Mr. Crisp : Burke's case was quite hopeless, for it was a simple case of not keeping a road in repair. Mr. Justice Nicholls: It was due to a mistaken view of the case of the Borough of Bathurst v. Macpherson, where the borough failed to cover a drain. A public body is not liable for simply failing to keep a road in repair. Mr. Hodgman submitted that under the definition of the Act a culvert was part and parcel of tho road. The council was accused of négligence. Mr. Justice Nicholls : As the case stands now, the council is not accused, but, convicted, of negligence. The jury found that it was negligent, and you cannot upset that yet. Mr. Hodgman quotcd the New South Wales case of Rohan v. the Municipality of St. Peter's, in which it was held that the council was not liable for an accident due to a hole worn by the traffic in the road near a hydrant. There was no distinction between this hole and the hole in the culvert. Somewhat similar was the English case of Lambert v. the Lowestoft Corporation. Mr. Justico Nicholls: Tho question is whether the jury had any legal warrant for saying there was negligence in this case : in other words, whether I ought to have left it to them. Mr. Hodgman quoted a number of other cases in support of his contentions. In the West Australian case of Murphy v. the Murray Roads Board, heard in 1906. the plaintiff claimed damage for injuries sustained owing to tho defective state of a culvert. In that case the local authority had itself constructed the culvert, and negligently failed to keep it in repair, but all four judges held that it was not liable for damages. This was a stronger case against the local authority than the present one. Mr. Crisp said a local body, was not bound to repair a road but if it constructed an artificial structure it was bound to see that it did not become dangerous to the public. It was immaterial whether the culvert was made by the council: at the time when it became a public nuisance it was their property. In the case of White v. the Hindley Local Board it was held that the board was liable for an accident due to the defective state of a sewer grating, though the board had not put in the grating. In the case of Picton v. Geldert the Privy Council held that if a local authority allowed a roadway to subside and give rise to a hole, it was just as much liable as if it had made the hole. A similar principle was laid down in the case of Burke v. the Sydney Municipal Council. As to the West Australian case quoted, Mr. Justice Macmillan had apparently attempted to override the judgment in the case of the Borough of Bathurst v. Macpherson, generally regarded as a leading case. In this case they had the finding of the jury that there was negligence on the part of the Huon Council, and this finding was supported by the evidence. He submitted that the Local Government Act was only I declaratory. He contended that the verdict should stand. Mr. Hodgman having replied, their Honors reserved their decision. The Mercury 7/11/1912 Crouch v. The Huon Municipality . Mr. Justice Nicholls delivered the judgment of the Court in the case of Crouch v. the Warden and councillors of the Huon municipality, in which the plaintiff was awarded £10 damages for injuries sustained owing to his horse putting its foot through a hole in a culvert. The defendants' counsel applied for a non- suit, on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence. He said that upon this point they were of opinion that evidence of the existence for some weeks of a dangerous hole was sufficient to raise the question whether there was reasonable care and diligence on the part of the defendant council. Evidence on this point was called by the plaintiff, and the jury found that the defect in the culvert was due to the negligence of the council or its servants, and that the accident was not due to the negligence of tbe plaintiff. The real question seemed to be whether the council was liable for failing to repair a culvert in circumstances where such failure amounted to want of reasonable care. Section 231 of the Local Government Act expressly exempted a council from liability fer accidents due to mere non-repair of the road itself. Probably this bottled the case, as there was no evidence of the defendants having interfered with the deck of the culvert or the road above it. - But the plaintiff's counsel contended that the culvert ranked as an "artificial work," and that to make such a work on tho highway, and then allow it to fall in, whether in 20 years or 20 seconds after its construction, was to create a nuisance, and to render the creator of it liable. After consideration of various cases, the Court was of opinion that the body charged with the repair of a road was not liable at common law for the mere non-repair of any part of a road. And they were not able to say that a culvert was any less a part of a road than the bed or the metal or the banks, nor could they say that it was any more artificial than such works. They thought, therefore, there was no common law liability, and it appeared to be clear that the Local Government Act created none. Judgment must, therefore, be given for the defendants. The Mercury 7/12/1912 Having lost his court case John Crouch was faced with liability for the Council’s legal costs of 60 pounds, more than a year’s earnings. The costs remained unpaid for nearly five years and again raised by the Council. The Mercury 22/9/1917 Huon Municipal Council, 12 September Another case besides the notable Shield case, which was revived at the meeting, was that in which a man named Crouch, of Ranelagh, brought an action against the council for damages.for injuries sustained, in consequence, of a defective culvert within the municipal jurisdiction. This was about four years ago and the verdict went against Crouch. The costs however, the council had to pay, as the unsuccessful litigant pleaded that he had no assets. Everything being in his wife’s name. The wife has since died and Crouch having become the possessor of her property, the council's solicitors issued process for the amount of costs, namely, 60 pounds. Crouch's solicitors replied pleading poverty, and offered £25 in full settlement. The council declined to accept that amount at the time, bul subsequently the Warden instructed the solicitor to compromise for 50 pounds, Crouch to pay attendant legal expenses. . The Council Clerk (Mr. C V. Davey) now reported that Crouch had interviewed him, and told him that he was making arrangements to satisfy the claim within a few days. The Warden thereupon inquired whether or not the council approved of his action in effecting the compromise. Councillor M J. Funton moved that as Crouch was a poor man, the council accept 40 pounds, with legal expenses, in full settlement. Councillor C. Reeve remarked that there was a danger in being too lenient, and said that he would like' to know Crouch's exact position before voting for the reduction. The Council Clerk explained that he went up with the sheriff's officer when he went to levy, and described the property as being a barren hill, with an acre or so of raspberries, and some apple trees planted wherever he could dodge the stones. He was a widower with two small children dependent upon him, while two adopted sons were away at the war. Moreover he was physically prevented from doing hard work. The case raised was widely discussed by local Councils in Tasmania and was raised at a Municipal Asociation Meeting in Launceston in October 1913. The Association called for legal opinions on the Councils’ liability to users of alleged defective roads. The Mercury 11/8/1916 John Crouch was assaulted at Baker’s Creek in 1913 for a second time by the same assailant. The Mercury 12/10/1918 Huonville Assault at Baker’s Creek At the Huonville Police Court, before Warden D. E. Ryan (in the chair), Councillors W. Page, W. Talbot, and A. Griffiths, J.s.P. James Lovell, a young man, was charged with having assaulted and battered an elderly man named John Crouch. The parties live in the neighbourhood of Baker's Creek, where the assault itself took place. Mr. C. D. Cuthbert, (Messrs. Murdoch, Jones, and Cuthbert) appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. A. J. Frankomb for the defence. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Cuthbert said that Crouch. who for some time had not been in a robust state of health, was on Good Friday morning sent by his master to the defendant’s house on business. Apparently Lovell owed Crouch some grudge, because he came to the door to meet him, and immediately struck him a violent blow in the mouth, cutting his lips both inside and out, and also kicked him. He believed that some years ago defendant was fined for assault and battery on the same complainant, and when Crouch, upon the present occasion, asked Lovell why he treated. him in that way, Lovell replied, "This is for that twenty-eight bob it cost me on the last occasion." Cases of this kind, remarked counsel, were becoming too frequent, and he was going to ask the magistrates, assuming that the evidence bore out what he had stated, to deal severely with the defendant in this case. An example must be made and this young man must be made to realise that people were to be allowed to go about their lawful vocations without being assaulted. Complainant bore out his counsel’s statements in regard to the assault and general circumstances. Cross examined he (Crouch) was not aware, until Mr Frankomb now said so, that he was credited in the district with being a foul mouthed man. Dr. Cummins described complainant’s injuries which, following the blow, cut both his lips, and the kick painfully hurt him. Mr Frankomb for the defence admitted the blow, but urged in justification extreme provocation to defendant occasioned to defendant by certain filthy language complainant used to him when he came up to see him at his house on the date in question. With regard to the kick, that was denied altogether, Crouch’s injury having been caused by his falling off the veranda, after being struck, upon some upright sticks in the garden. Defendant entering the box gave evidence to this effect. Samuel Lovell brother of the defendant who was also called for the defence stated that while inside the house he heard Croueh using bad languago to his brother and then heard a blow struck but did not see what actually occurred neither did he trouble himself to go and find out afterwards. The Chairman said that the bench had taken into consideration the fnct that this was Lovell's second assault upon Crouch and they were going to mark their disapproval of his cowardly conduct in a manner which they hoped would in the future help to deter him and others from any repetition. The old man did not go up to defendant’s houso of his own free will but by his master’s orders, and defendant immediately set upon him injuring his mouth, and whether or not complainants other injury was caused by a direct kick it was occasioned by the defendant either directly or indirectly. Defendant would have to pay a fine of £2 with £3 1s costs (including counsel's fee) in all £5 Is or go to prison for 14 days. Fourteen days was allowed for payment. The Mercury 21/4/1913 Road Needed To the Editor of "The Mercury." Sir,-Allow me to draw attention to the neglect of the Public Works Department to fulfil a promise to provide me with a. proper outlet to my property at Baker’s Creek. Nine years ago I took up the land on which I reside. I have planted several acres of raspberries, laid out an orchard, built a home, and made other improvements; yet I have not got a decent road to get out. In fact, it is unsafe, as, owing to its rough state, my wife and I were recently thrown out of a vehicle.-Yours, etc., J. B. CROUCH. Baker's Creek, April 12. The Mercury 13/4/1920 While John Baird's sons went to war, the families fortunes did not fare so well. Catherine Elizabeth died in 1914 and perhaps it was this that led to the break up of the siblings and the subsequent alienation between the family. After Ruby's marriage she never spoke to the family again although she did make tentative steps towards contact in later life. Archie also seems to have cut off all ties after the war. Three years later another newspaper report sheds some light on John Baird's circumstances following the death of Catherine. References are made to "two adopted sons ... away at the war." John Baird does not sound like a well man and the description of his property makes for a bleak image... Another case besides the notable Shield case, which was revived at the meeting, was that in which a man named Crouch, of Ranelagh, brought an action against the council for damages, for injuries sustained in consequence of a defective culvert within the municipal jurisdiction. This was about four years ago and the verdict went against Crouch. The costs, however, the council had to pay, as the unsuccessful litigant pleaded that he had no assets, everything being in his wife's name. The wife has since died, and Crouch having become the possessor of her property, and offering £25 in full settlement. The council declined to accept that amount at the time, but subsequently the Warden instructed the solicitor to compromise for £50, Crouch to pay attendant legal expenses. The Council Clerk (Mr. C. V. Davey) now reported that Crouch had interviewed him, and told him that he was making arrangements to satisfy the claim within a few days. The Warden thereupon inquired whether or not the council approved of his action in effecting the compromise. Councilor Mr. A. Fulton moved that as Crouch was a poor man, the council accept £40, with legal expenses, in full settlement. Councilor C. Reeve remarked that there was a danger in being too lenient and said that he would like to know Crouch's position before voting for the reduction. The Council Clerk explained that he went up with the sheriff's officer when he went to levy, and described the property as being a barren hill, with an acre or so of raspberries, and sour apple trees planted wherever he could dodge the stones! He was a widower with two small children dependent upon him, while two adopted sons were away at the war. Moreover he was physically prevented from doing hard work. Mercury 22/09/1917 (from minutes Municipal Council Frankling, Huon) . On 11th March, 1918, John Baird married again, this time to a widow of German descent, Louisa Augusta Schmidt. Known as Julia, she had been married previously to Charles Leigh Clare Nicholson. This is confirmed in a letter from her regarding the War Gratuity for Raymond Crouch. Her birth is given as 18th October, 1871 and her parents as Auguste Schmidt and Louise Carlesch. We know that they lived in Bakers Creek, Tasmania and that they had at least two children, Charles and Ronald, but like the children before them, they may have been adopted; no records have come to light thus far. How life was after that is not certain. We know that Ralph Whitticomb and his son died in tragic circumstances in 1935 but beyond that all we have are the funeral notices and obituary for John Baird Crouch. The local funeral notices read as follows:- CROUCH - On June 4, 1951, at Hobart, John Baird, dearly beloved husband of the late Louisa Augustus Crouch, late of Dover, and loving father of Ronald (Dover) and Charles (Mountain River), aged 90 years. CROUCH - Friends are respectuflly invited to attend the funeral of the late Mr John Baird Crouch, late of Dover, which will arrive at St. James Church and cemetery, Ranelagh, Wednesday (tomorrow) at 11 am. The Mercury, 05 July 1951, page 10, column 1 & 2. The obituary is a bit more enlightening and sheds some colour and light on John Baird's years as one of Huonville's early settlers... MAN WHO RODE WITH KELLY BOYS DEAD Mr John Baird Crouch, well-known Dover identity, who as a lad in Victoria rode with the boys who would later become notorious as the Kelly Gang, died in Hobart on Monday at the age of 90. Mr Crouch had been in failing health for some time. Often Mr Crouch helped Ned, Dan and Kate Kelly catch wild horses and cattle and hunt kangaroos. He used to describe the Kellys as "good, kind people who would harm nobdy," and claimed that Kate was the best horsewoman he had ever seen. For many years, Mr Crouch also had a walking-stick gun, which he claimed belonged to the famous bushranger, Martin Cash. It was a perfectly proprtioned knobbed walking stick of metal, capable of rapid conversion into a gun. The two-piece "stick" unscrewed in the centre to reveal flint-loading apparatus. About twelve months ago, Mr Crouch gave the historic weapon to the Hobart Museum. One of the Huon's early settlers, Mr Crouch developed splendid properties at Bakers Creek and Mountain River where he engaged in orcharding and soft fruit growing for many years. In recent years, he lived in retirement at Dover with his wife, who died recently. Mr Crouch is survived by two sons, Messrs Ronald Crouch (Dover) and Charles Crouch (Mountain Creek). The funeral will take place at Ranelagh this morning. The Mercury, 06 June 1951, page 3, column 3. Charles Henry Crouch had married Lily Fyfe on 12th March, 1921 at Mountain River, Tasmania. No more about him is known beyond that and so far no record has been found for Ronald Crouch. The walking stick gun mentioned in the obituary is now held by the Museum of Tasmanian History in Hobart, registration no. S423. It is sometimes referred to as a gun cane due to it’s similarity to a walking cane. It is metal, painted with a wood grain finish and has an ivory or bone knob on the end which unscrews to reveal it’s own ram rod. It has a pop out trigger button and a sight at one end. This particular walking stick gun was purported to have belonged to Martin Cash who was an infamous and notorious bush ranger. He was sent to Port Arthur and escaped and went on a 20 month bush ranging spree with his gang called 'Cash and Co'. He died in 1877, an elderly and free man. In a newspaper article (The Mercury) dated 24th February, 1949 on the donation of the gun to the museum, John Baird Crouch was asked if he had ever known Martin Cash, famous Tasmanian bushranger, who after being pardoned, died at Glenorchy in 1877, he pointed to the corner of the living room and replied, “No, but there is Cash’s walking stick gun over there.” It’s believed that he found it in an old bushranger’s cave, known to locals as Cash’s Cave. |
A photo of John Baird Crouch from |