In early 1849,
the Moreton Bay Courier reported that
a local woman had told the police that she had been robbed and assaulted by a
German man.
Robbery and Violence
- On Saturday evening last, an elderly woman, named Mary Evans, made an
application to the police authorities under the following circumstances:- It
appeared from her statement that, on that afternoon, a man named Charles
Bittner, a German, and who was formerly in the employment of Mr. Coutts, asked
her if she wished for an engagement as a servant; she replied in the
affirmative; and it was arranged that she should go out with Bittner at once to
the German's village, near Eagle Farm, where he told her she was to live.
The woman
accompanied him for about five miles out of town, when she told him that he
must be going the wrong way. Thereupon he stopped her and demanded her money
and a watch that she had upon her person. She gave him the watch, and £2 in
cash; and he then assaulted he, and committed a capital offence.[1]
 |
| Buildings on the banks of the Brisbane River ca. 1840s State Library of Queensland |
At the time,
the term “capital offence” was used as a euphemism for rape. A warrant was duly
issue for Bittner’s arrest but the police were unable to locate the alleged offender
and the reporter for the Moreton Bay
Courier had little confidence in the constables.
These statements
having been sworn to, a warrant, under the hand of Dr. Ballow, was issued for
the apprehension of Bittner; but at present the constables have not been able
to effect its execution. The officers, however, have traced the offender, as
they believe, for a part of the route taken by him, and it is to be hoped that
he will shortly be taken. It appears that, on the same evening, the vagabond
attempted to commit a similar offence at South Brisbane.
If this fellow is
not in the lockup within a fortnight, the police of the district is not worth
much.[2]
 |
| South Brisbane ca. 1870 State Library of Queensland |
It was later
reported that Bittner had stolen a horse and left town. It would be another month before he would be
heard of again.
ROBBERY AND VIOLENCE
-The man Bittner, named in. our paragraph under the above head last week, is
believed to have robbed Mr. John Orr, of South Brisbane, of a horse, before he
left the town. From the description given of a horse and rider seen on the
road, there is but little doubt of the justice of this suspicion.
Warrants have been
despatched to the various police benches in the supposed line of his route, and
it is much to be hoped that some constable will prove the value of the police
corps, by handing this offender over to justice.[3]
News finally
reached Brisbane that Bittner had managed to make it as far south at the
Clarence River before he was detained.
Police.-The man
"Bittner," against whom warrants are out for highway robbery, horse
stealing, and rape, has been taken on the Clarence River[4],
and forwarded to Sydney, whence he was remanded to the Brisbane Bench. He has
not yet been received into custody here.[5]
 |
| Queen Street, Brisbane, ca. 1859 State Library of Queensland |
Returned to
Brisbane and placed in the police lock-up, the prisoner began to suffer a
series of epileptic fits. Brought before the Bench, Bittner denied the charge
suggesting that Mary Evans was a “woman of bad character”,a euphemism for a
prostitute.
It was during the
delivery of this evidence that the prisoner was seized with the fit. He had
previously stated, in defence, that the prosecutrix is a woman of bad
character, and had consented. He altogether denied the robbery. Upon inquiry at
the Hospital we learn that the epileptic attacks continued to be experienced by
the prisoner yesterday.[6]
The prisoner
was ordered to face trial in Sydney as cases involving capital crimes could not
heard in Brisbane. The report in the Moreton
Bay Courier made particular mention of the complainant’s lack of sobriety
and questionable character which would be an issue in the coming trial.
THE PRISONER BITTNER
- This man was brought up, according to remand, on Saturday last. The prosecutrix
was re-examined more particularly as to the charge of rape, which she most
distinctly swore to. The prisoner was then committed to take his trial, and was
forwarded to Sydney in the Swift. The prosecutrix was seen drunk in the streets
upon several occasions during the progress of the inquiry, and she certainly
did not seem to be sober when she gave her additional evidence on Saturday
last.[7]
 |
| Corner of George and Hunter Streets, Sydney ca. 1849 by Andrew Torning State Library of New South Wales |
The case was
finally heard in the Central Criminal Court in Sydney on June 5, 1849. Little
was heard about the character and background of Bittner other than that he was
a German and had turned up at the German Settlement[8]
in Brisbane looking for work. He must have come from Sydney because there was
no direct immigration from Germany to Moreton Bay until 1955. The Reverend Haussman
gave evidence of the arrival of the mysterious Bittner.
John Godfreyd
Haussman deposed hat he resided at the German settlement, about seven miles
from Moreton Bay; the prisoner came to him in January last, and wanted
employment; he suffered him to remain at his station until he got an engagement;
about a fortnight afterwards, he said he had entered into an agreement with his
former master, but would not go for a fortnight.
On a Wednesday or Thursday
about the middle of February, and before the expiration of the second
fortnight, he went away early in the morning, without saying anything, and
about ten at night of the same day, some constables came in search of him;
witness did not know of prisoner having a wife and family; he had told him that
he had neither.[9]
The defence
relied on questioning the reliability of the complainant, Mary Evans and as was
the practice of the time, raised the issue of her moral reputation.
The prosecutrix was
cross-examined at considerable length by Mr. Holroyd, but she adhered strictly
to her statements as to the circumstances of violence in the prisoner's conduct;
she admitted that she had lived for a short time in a house of ill fame, at
Brisbane, but declared that she had left it the moment she had ascertained its
character; had never, she said, been married, and the wedding ring which she
wore was given to her by a female.[10]
James Meadows,
in whose house Mary Evans was staying in Brisbane, was called to confirm her
evidence, which he did. But under cross-examination he admitted that Evans “had
the character of a prostitute” leaving the question of whether she worked as a
prostitute unanswered.
James Meadows
confirmed the testimony of the prosecutrix as to her hiring with the prisoner,
and the false representation of the latter; witness heard of the circumstances
of prosecutrix's complaint from his wife during the same evening, and saw her next
day at Bruce's; prosecutrix was then much bruised and injured.
On cross-examination
by Mr. HOLROYD, the witness said the prosecutrix had been a teetotaller until
she went to Bruce's; that she there conducted herself respectably in her service;
since the present transaction had seen her twice or thrice in a state of
intoxication; she had the character of a prostitute.[11]
 |
| Central Criminal Court, Sydney 1888 State Library of Victoria |
The defence summed
up the case as expected, highlighting the unreliability of the complainant
evidence and of her questionable character. The jury were quick to deliver
their verdict.
Mr. Holroyd
addressed the Jury for the defence, commenting at considerable length upon the
contradiction in the evidence as given by tho prosecutrix at the Police Office,
and as given here to-day, and upon the extreme improbability of certain
circumstances which she had detailed, as those under which the offence was alleged to have been
committed; from which he was sure they would be convinced in their consciences
that the charge was nothing better than a trumped up affair.
Taking these
circumstances, to which he had drawn their attention, and the character of the
woman into consideration, he was sure the Jury would not place so much
confidence in her statement as to commit the prisoner.
His Honour having
briefly summed up, the Jury retired for about a quarter of an hour, when they
returned with a verdict of not guilty.[12]
His Honour expressed
his acquiescence with the finding of the Jury, but should hold the prisoner to
bail, on his own recognisance, to appear on Saturday next. He should be put on
his trial for the alleged robbery; if acquitted on that charge, public justice
would demand the prosecution of this prosecutrix for wilful and corrupt
perjury.
The verdict
reflects the mores of the times and the way in which the “reputation” of a
woman would overtly dictate the manner in which she was treated by the legal
system.
The judge’s
threat that Mary Evans would face a charge of perjury if Bittner was also
acquitted of the robbery charge, might be the reason that there were no reports
in the press of that trial. Perhaps she decided to drop the charges given her
experience in the rape trial.
