E. I. Cole - The Bohemian Bummer case 1897

Contents

Introduction
Bohemian vs. Budget
Kate Kelly connection?
References

-----------------

1. Introduction

An interesting libel court case took place in Armidale, New South Wales, Australia, during 1897 involving Edward Irham Cole - well known by his stage name the Bohemian Lecturer - against the Armidale Budget newspaper. Cole, for well over a decade, had travelled throughout southeastern Australia with a show comprising a large circus-like tent, acting troupe, steam merry-go-round, lantern slide show and assortment of money-making ventures including public, painless tooth extraction. The episode reveals aspects of life on the road for Cole and his troupe, and how sometimes things did not go smoothly, especially with regard to his role as itinerant dentist and dispenser of medicinal products.

Events surrounding "The Bohemian Bummer" episode of May-June 1897, are outlined below. Unfortunately the offending newspaper items have not survived the years, as the Armidale Budget went out of production shortly after the conclusion of the court case, having been in financial difficulties just prior to it. The episode began with a tour of northeastern New South Wales by the Bohemian Lecturer, as the troupe - then known as the Bohemian Variety Company - headed headed out of Sydney towards Brisbane and Queensland. Participants in the case included the following:

Mr. Browning - Solicitor for Mr. Cole
Judge Coffey - Presiding Judge
Edward Irham Cole - Claimant, operating as the Bohemian Lecturer
C. W. Donnelly - Writer for the Armidale Budget and of the offending items
Thomas W. Gordon - Clerk to Mr. J. A. McDonald
Mr. Kearney - Lawyer for Mr. Regan
Mr. J. A. McDonald - Lawyer for Mr. Cole
George Henry Regan - Defendant and proprietor of the Armidale Budget
Jury - E. E. Poulton, H. W. Willmott, E. P. Furniss, and Robert Munro

Cole and his troupe visited Armidale in February and March of 1897, performing a number of shows. This included presentation of a play concerning the activities of the Kelly Gang. During April some scurrilous material concerning Col was published in a local newspaper. He subsequently brought a case of libel against it in May. Later the following year, the unfortunate death in Forbes of Kate Kelly, young sister to the famous bushranger Ned Kelly, was to mistakenly become connected with a Bohemian Variety Company performance entitled Life and Adventures of the Kelly Gang. By this time the derogatory title of Bohemian Bummer had now stuck to Cole, and the label of medical quack was also bandied about.

------------------

2. Bohemian vs. Budget

An account of the Armidale court case involving E. I. Cole seeking damages from the Armidale Budget newspaper for libel is outlined in the following newspaper extracts and references. The Riverstone section of the Windsor and Richmond Gazette is prominent in sharing the more salacious elements of the story, reflecting a possible personal animosity towards Cole and his activities by the author therein, who was perhaps the editor of the paper. The lively comments begin as far back as 1894.

1894

* 3 November 1894, Windsor and Richmond Gazette.

Riverstone.

Mr Cole, the Bohemian lecturer, has been astonishing the natives during the week. In addition to being able to talk the leg off the proverbial iron-pot, he has been drawing teeth by the dozen. In three days he extracted close upon 100 molars of all shapes and sizes, and if he remained in Riverstone much longer there wouldn't be a tooth left in the heads of the residents. They appear to enjoy the operation rather than otherwise, and think nothing of putting themselves at Hie mercy of this nomadic dentist. Someone interjected the other night whilst the Bohemian dentist was hard at it, that his performance would be recorded in the Gazette. "I don't mind that," he replied; "I've seen a lot of country papers but few so good as the Gazette. The man who runs it must be over seven." And the crowd agreed with him.

--------------------

1895

* 2 November 1895, Windsor and Richmond Gazette.

The Bohemian Lecturer turned up in Windsor on Friday last, and occupied his old position next to Mrs Wells' shop on Friday and Saturday nights. He gave a straightforward denial that he was identical with the man styling himself, Professor Cole, who was defendant in a Police Court down south recently.

---------------------

1897

* 19 February 1897, Glen Innes Examiner and General Advocate.

The Bohemian Lecturer has arrived, and announces his preparedness for drawing teeth wholesale. See advt.

* 22 February 1897, The Bohemian Lecturer advertisement appears in the Armidale Budget. It was submitted by E. I. Cole, who had become acquainted with the paper's proprietor George Henry Regan. A copy of the newspaper from around this time does not survive.

* 13 March 1897, Armidale Budget contains an item on Dr. St. Vincent. Cole makes some comments on the article to Regan, who apparently passes them on to reporter for the paper, C. W. Donnelly.

* 23 March 1897, Armidale Budget contains an item of poetry headed "The Bohemian Curl."

* 27 March 1897, Armidale Budget contains an article by C. W. Donnelly headed "A Bohemian Bummer - A Vulgar Vagrant - A Modern Samson - Where is Delilah?"

* 23 April - Armidale Express and New England Advertiser. Report on the Bohemian Lecturer being presented with compliments and accolades by the people of Armidale.

* 15 May 1897, Windsor and Richmond Gazette.

Riverstone.

Riverstone folk who recollect "The Bohemian Lecturer" will read the following country clipping with interest :-" A migratory gentleman, known by the self-styled title of the 'Bohemian Lecturer,' put up his little show in Armidale a few weeks ago, and, in exchange for 'gilt,' emptied his nostrums down the necks of some of Armidale's beetle-brained invalids, and filled their ears with the average quack's peculiar style of 'langwidge.' When leaving there, 487 witlings gave him an address and said nice things about him. The 'Inverell Times' sat down hard on these 487 'queer' people, and the Armidale 'Budget' lets itself loose in just indignation as follows:- 'The unfortunate thing though, is that the crowd who made the presentation were most terribly in earnest over the thing. That they were not by any means representative of Armidale or its people, but merely a nondescript gathering of irresponsible men and women, who had been talked blind by 'The Bohemian Bummer' matters little, the sad part is that there were twenty people, let alone 487, who were so utterly foolish and devoid of mental ballast as to be led away by his vaporings. However, as Carlyle says, 'mankind are mostly fools,' and Armidale possesses its share of them, and a large share it is too. Uralla did not take any of this flash fakir, but, on the contrary bunted him out of the town, hastening his departure by eggs, etc. In Armidale he fattened, his crowd of bullies being assisted by the police with whom he appeared to be on exceptionally good terms."

* 31 May 1897, R. I. Cole serves a writ on the Armidale Budget for libel, claiming £200 damages.

* 5 June 1897, Windsor and Richmond Gazette.

Riverstone.

The "Bohemian Lecturer," "Professor" Cole, who was "big dog" during his many weeks' stay at Riverstone, is now travelling the north, and has been having a rather bad time of it. At Quirindi he was attacked and hunted out of town by the people, who charged him with all sorts of iniquities. In other towns he met with a like reception, whilst at Armidale the local press went for him so vigorously and savagely that the Professor has since served the Budget with a writ for libel, claiming £200 damages. The case will be heard at Armidale District Court on June 11.

* 11 June 1897, A special jury is convened to hear the Cove v. Budget case. The jury decides in favour of Cole and awards claims of £20 damages plus costs.

* Saturday, 12 June 1897, Singelton Argus. Brief report on the outcome of the court case.

The Bohemian Lecturer

[By Telegraph.]

Armidale, Friday. At the court here to-day, a case was heard in which the Bohemian lecturer claimed damages from the proprietor of the Armidale Budget for libel. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff [Cole] for £20 and costs.

* Saturday, 12 June 1897, Armidale Chronicle. Detailed report of the court case of 11 June 1897.

A Newspaper Case.

E. I. Cole v. G. H. Regan.

Alleged Libel.

At the District Court yesterday, before His Honor Mr. District Court Judge Coffey and a jury of four, E. I. Cole, otherwise known as "The Bohemian Lecturer," sought to recover the sum of £200 from Geo. H. Regan, printer and publisher of the Armidale Budget; for alleged libel, contained in an article printed in the defendant's paper of the 27th March last, headed " The Bohemian Bummer."

Mr. Browning, instructed by Mr. J. A. McDonald, appeared for the complainant [Cole]; and Mr. Kearney for the defendant. The jury was composed of Messrs. E. E. Poulton, H. W. Willmott, E. P. Furniss, and Robt. Munro. The plea entered was 'Not guilty, and fair comment.' Several issues of the Budget news paper were produced by Mr. McDonald, and sworn to as copies of same paper.

Mr. Browning laid the case before the jury, and read a series of articles and extracts from other papers printed in defendant's paper referring to plaintiff.

J. A. McDonald, sworn, said he knew George Henry Regan, the registered proprietor of a newspaper called the Armidale Budget. (Witness produced copies of the paper from Feb. 13 to May 22.) The copies were bought from defendant and paid for. The issue containing the libel is that of the 27th March.

Thomas W. Gordon, clerk to Mr. McDonald, deposed to obtaining a receipt (produced) for copies of the paper from the Budget office.

Edward Irham Cole deposed that he was travelling as an agent for the Bohemian Medical Company, of Newtown, Sydney, advertising the medicines. Am interested in the Company and also represent it in the country. J. L. Workes, a duly qualified pharmaceutical chemist, i.e. the chemist for the Company, and advice is applied for to Dr. Sinclair. Commenced business with the Company four years ago. Previous to that he was lecturing throughout the colony. Was a widower, and had a family of seven little children and an aged mother to support. When he visited Armidale in February last Regan came and asked him for an advertisement for his (Regan's) paper. Witness gave him the advertisement, which appeared in the Budget of the 22nd February, together with a complimentary paragraph under the heading of "Local News." Defendant [Regan] used to spend hours with witness [Cole] in conversation, and they were on friendly terms.

During one of his lectures witness made some comments on an article which appeared in the Budget of 13th March referring to the death of a Dr. St. Vincent. Went to Hillgrove a few days afterwards, and whilst there he received a copy of the Budget containing a paragraph under the heading of "Telephone Tit-Bits," in which reference was made to "The Bohemian Bummer" and "Bohemian Johnny." Considered the remarks alluded to him, and was subjected to much annoyance by a certain section of the public of Hillgrove calling him those names.

Was at Hillgrove when the Budget of March 27th came out. That issue contained an article headed "A Bohemian Bummer - A Vulgar Vagrant - A Modern Samson - Where is Delilah?" A piece of poetry in the issue of March 23, headed "The Bohemian Churl," also referred to witness. When he read the article he was greatly annoyed and decided to leave Hillgrove and come and reopen business in Armidale. About 3000 people were on the ground when he ascended the platform, and he informed them that he came back to vindicate his character, but owing to Mr. Regan being in Tamworth he would not speak that night.

Offered to let the matter drop if defendant would apologise and pay £10 to the Armidale Hospital and a similar amount to the Ladies ' Relief Society. Informed defendant through Mr. McDonald of his terms, and received a letter in reply from Mr. Kearney, refusing the terms and offering to accept service of any process he might think fit to issue. Have since met defendant and had a conversation with him, during which he (Regan) blamed Mr. C. W. Donnelly, who was then connected with the Budget, for the whole matter.

Left Armidale late in April, and previous to his departure he was presented with an address signed by 487 residents of the town. Since leaving Armidale he has visited all the towns down south as far as Muswellbrook, and at nearly every town he felt the effects of the paragraphs that appeared in the paper. It was not true, as reported in the Budget, that his meetings at Quirindi were failures - certainly there were interruptions. Have not sent any money to the firm since leaving Hillgrove.

By Mr. Kearney: Carried on business as an auctioneer for some years in South Australia, and hold a general auctioneer's license at the present time. Received the sympathy of the majority of the Hillgrove people when the article appeared. Saw defendant amongst the crowd the third night after re-opening in Armidale, and asked him to come on the platform and explain what he meant by these scurrilous articles. Knew that some of his (witness's) pamphlets were circulate about town with the words "Bohemian Bummer" printed thereon. Did not authorise the printing of the words on the pamphlets. Was in Armidale for a fortnight after the appearance of the article, and did not do any business. Never used any abusive expressions towards defendant, and did not make a threat to thrash him, as he (witness) considered it impossible because defendant was too big. Never threatened to riddle anybody with bullets. From Armidale he went to Uralla, where he was continually annoyed by remarks made with reference to the article.

His Honor here informed Mr. Kearney that the plaintiff did not complain of any damage for loss of business. The question for the jury to consider was whether defendant's character had been injured.

Mr. Kearney then proceeded to address the jury. He said that unfortunately the defendant's lack of means prevented him from engaging counsel as the plaintiff had done. The questions for the jury to decide were whether there was libel or no libel, and whether the innuendoes were published maliciously. Publishing a libel maliciously meant publishing it without lawful excuse, and the jury could draw their own conclusions as to whether this libel was published without lawful excuse. Did the publisher really believe he had a duty to perform, and did he act under a sense of that duty? It was a difficult matter to define a libel. A learned English Judge laid it down that if a man publishes anything that twelve of his compeers do not think injurious it is no libel. The publication of this article seemed to have rather a beneficial effect - it attracted larger crowds to Mr. Cole's lectures. People are led astray that the Fourth Estate were granted special privileges, but the Press has no more liberty than the rest of the people. The defendant in this case had conducted a paper for some years, and this was the first time he was asked to answer an allegation of libel. If a journalist considers he is justified in exposing any fraud he is doing a public duty. The plaintiff has not suffered to any material degree to his business, and it was for the jury to find, to what extent, the amount of damage would vindicate his character. The article actually boomed his business, insomuch as that he was presented with an address and a silver cap. Confidently speaking, plaintiff had suffered no damage, and the jury should award him the lowest damages - the smallest coin of the realm. It was not at all likely that an editor of a paper would publish such language unless it had been used; not that shrewder men may not see trouble ahead, but a certain latitude must be given to the defendant in using this journalistic language, with all these "flowery adornments." In conclusion, Mr. Kearney asked the jury to weigh the evidence well, and consider whether the article was within the bounds of fair criticism.

Mr. Browning then briefly addressed the jury on behalf of his client. He said the law gave every man a protection over his character in the same way as it did over his person or his property. Therefore his client had a perfect right making a claim for damages for this scurrilous assault upon his character. The plaintiff's character had been assaulted and dragged in the dirt. If, as his learned friend, Mr. Kearney, had said the language of this article is the ordinary language of Australian journalism, then it is an insult to other journalists. The words "Bohemian bummer" and "vulgar vagrant" are certainly hurtful. Plaintiff gave defendant every opportunity to make ample reparation, and he rejected it. The terrible language in the article, especially that which read "got by a Bengal tiger," was most damaging. Certainly his client had suffered damage and annoyance, and it was for the jury to award him a verdict.

His Honor commenced his address to the jury by defining as a libel the publication without justification of that which holds person up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. They had to read the article complained of with ordinary common sense, and apply to it the meaning usually given to the words used, and then any whether that article was calculated to hold the plaintiff up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Newspapers have no greater rights than ordinary individuals to comment on the conduct of other people, although it is usual for juries to give newspapers great latitude. They are of great use in exposing abuses and commenting on matters of common concern and no one in this community desires to curtail the liberty of the Press. But while the papers have full liberty in exposing abuses, they should not be allowed to attack men and indulge in personalities unless it can be proved to be in the interest of the public that they should be criticised. There may be cases where such attacks would be justified.

In the present case, the jury would have to consider whether the article exceeds that fair comment which is allowable. The plaintiff had invited the public to attend an entertainment. He comes before the public, and doing so he must submit to criticism. Now fair criticism or comment amounts to this: You take a man and his acts and you comment on his acts; if you do that bona fide and fairly it is no libel. If you attack a man personally it ceased to be criticism. If a man writes a book you can pull that book to pieces and express your opinion upon it, and that is no libel. But if you take that book and instead of confining your attention to the man's work you attack the man himself you are going beyond the limit of fair criticism.

In the first issue of the paper put in there happens to be an article on the law of libel, and it quotes the opinion of Mr. Windeyer in the case of Christie v. Robertson. Judge Windeyer's words were: "The error which is usually committed by those who bring themselves within the law of libel when commenting on conduct is in thinking that they are commenting when they are in fact misdescribing. Real comment is merely the expression of opinion; misdescription ts a matter of fact. To state accurately what a man has done and then to say that in your opinion each conduct is disgraceful is comment which can do no harm, as every man can judge for himself. Misdescription on the other hand, only leads to one conclusion which is detrimental to the conduct of the person described, and leaves the reader no opportunity of judging for himself."

The defendant had pleaded not guilty which put in issue that the paper was published, that the defendant was the proprietor, that the article was a libel, that it was defamatory, and also that it had over stepped the limits of fair comment. On most of these matters there was no point raised: as to publication and proprietorship evidence had been tendered. The question really was: Is this a libel? Does it bear out the innuendoes complained of? Is it covered by fair comment? If so your verdict still be for plaintiff.

As to damages no proof had been given that plaintiff had suffered any damage in his business, but that was not essential. He did not think any community could go on very long under conditions such as being able to get no redress for libel unless they could prove actual damages - they would soon take the law into their own hands. If it is a libel the jury would give such damages as would fairly compensate him for the damage done, not necessarily excessive damages, but fair and reasonable. It was according as they considered the article. If they thought it went beyond what can be described as fair comment, then they must use their judgement. There were damages asked for on the articles admitted in evidence except one; but they were put in for the purpose of enabling the jury to judge whether they were written in the interest of the public or only to harass the plaintiff in different parts of the country. Every article that is defamatory is held to be written maliciously. But sometimes an article went just over the border line, sometimes it may go to an extreme. It was for the jury to say whether the article was the result of an accident, or a slip, or whether the other articles showed the purpose of the paper with regard to the plaintiff.

His Honor then took the evidence in order as given, interspersing the reading of his notes by applying the principles of fair comment above laid down to the more defamatory passages of the alleged libellous article. He carefully pointed out passages which by themselves, if the context were true (which however was denied) would be fair and legitimate comment, and left it to the jury to say by their verdict what their opinion was of those passages most complained of by the plaintiff, telling them finally that if they found it to be a libel just over the border line the damages should be as small as possible; if on the other hand they found there was not this modifying circumstance the damages awarded should be such as to substantially vindicate the character of the plaintiff.

The jury retired at 4 o'clock and returned in 20 minutes with a verdict for plaintiff with £20 damages. On the application of Mr. Browning His Honor certified for costs, which are to be taxed.

* 19 June 1897, Windsor and Richmond Gazette. Editorial comment.

The Bohemian Lecturer came out on top in his libel action against the "Armidale Budget." That paper roasted him in several articles which it published, and called him all sorts of nasty names - so much so, that "Bohemian Cole," whose skin was always regarded as being pretty thick, could not stand it any longer. He issued a writ, claiming £200 as damages from the proprietor, Mr. G. H. Regan, and he was so far successful in convincing the Court that he had been libelled, that a verdict was returned on Friday last at Armidale. This result will make Bohemian Cole jubilate, and it will doubtless cause much joy in the camp of his followers at Riverstone - for there are many here who swear by him - even though, also, there are a few who swear AT him.

* 19 June 1897, Windsor and Richmond Gazette. Letter to the editor.

A Word for the Bohemian Lecturer. To the Editor. Sir,- Many of your readers will remember the Bohemian Lecturer, and of his many good qualities, and since he has left our district, we are reminded of his misfortunes is his recent travels up the country, where he has been molested publicly, and for what? Well it is to be hoped we shall have an explanation in full when the action brought against the Armidale newspaper, claiming £200 damages, [is revealed]. His misfortunes have been published in the Riverstone column of your Gazette. Surely it is not sarcasm, for the Riverstone people derived great benefit from the Bohemian's lectures. He would speak far two solid hours, giving valuable information, followed up by an entertainment, amusing both to old and young, and then offered his patent medicines at a reasonable figure. He did not have to run away from Riverstone. No, he was respected by all, and was sadly missed when his exit took place. Have those people whose teeth were extracted free of charge, a stone to throw at him? and others who benefitted by his advice? I think not. Mr Cole did more good than the professional Doctor who canvassed the district a few weeks before Mr Cole's appearance. The fact of the matter is that he has made some mistake, and because he has no diploma is suffering in consequence, whereas if it had been otherwise, the results would have been different. Mr Cole spoke truly when he remarked that if a Doctor killed a patient (not wilfully) the law would protect him, but if he (the Lecturer) made the same mistake (not wilfully) the law would hang him. And yet Mr Cole cured people the Doctors pronounced incurable, so which was the cleverer of the two? One patient in the Riverstone district in particular, who was sent home as incurable by three Doctors, from the first advice received from the Bohemian Lecturer has totally recovered. I am sure the Riverstone people are more in sympathy with Mr Cole in his misfortunes than condemning him. I am, &c., A Well-Wisher.

* 31 July 1897, Windsor and Richmond Gazette.

Riverstone.

The "Armidale Budget" has ceased publication, as a result of its inability to meet the verdict and costs in connection with the Bohemian Lecturer's recent libel action. The "Budget's" budget speech disclosed a regular Dibbs deficit, and Professor Cole will find himself in the cold after all.

* 25 November 1897, Sydney Morning Herald. Advertisement:

Wanted. Known that the Bohemian Lecturer is extracting teeth painlessly, 26 Wellington St., Newtown.

------------------

It is likely that this scandal had an ongoing impact upon Cole in denting his reputation. In May 1899 an article was published in the Sydney Truth newspaper which decried "medical quacks and surgical charlatans." The Bohemian Bummer" was listed amongst them. Shortly thereafter Cole dropped the title and left the quackery behind for a career in theatre and film through his Bohemian Dramatic Company. Tooth pulling was also apparently abandoned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kate Kelly

3. A Kate Kelly connection?

In October 1898 Cole's Bohemian Variety Company organised a performance in Forbes, a town in western New South Wales, 600 km south west of Armidale. The event was to coincide with the unfortunate death of Kate (Katherine Ada) Kelly, the sister of the famous bushranger Ned Kelly. Kate was born in Beveridge, Victoria, on 12 July 1863 and most likely died by her own hand in Forbes on 6 October 1898. According to legend, she arrived in Forbes a decade earlier, after spending time in South Australia and New South Wales, escaping her home state of Victoria in order to get away from the trauma of life as a member of the Kelly gang. It is said that after attending a performance of the Bohemian Lecturer and his troupe on the evening of Wednesday, 19 October 1898, she committed suicide in a lake near Forbes. As part of that tale, it is further stated that at that performance by the Bohemian Variety Company of The Origin and Destruction of Australian Bushrangers followed by Life and Adventures of the Kelly Gang, she was apparently exposed as the sister of Ned. Whilst that is an interesting and intriguing story, it is not true.

Kate Kelly - then known locally as Ada Foster or Hennessy - had, in fact, going missing on 5 October, two weeks before the performance, after dropping a note off to a friend to take care of her children. Her body was found in a lagoon on Condobolin Road on 14 October, and her death announced in the Wagga Wagga Advertiser on Thursday, 15 October, the day after the announcement of the upcoming performance in the local Forbes newspaper, The Western Champion. Was her death connected with the upcoming performance? Was it perhaps the final straw in a life of extreme trauma, and a realisation that she could never escape the public shame of an association with the notorious Kelly Gang? Were the performers aware that the Kate Foster whose death announced in the paper was in fact Kate Kelly, sister of Ned? Many of these questions are answered in the 2021 biography of Kate by Rebecca Wilson (Wilson 2021). Details of Kate's death and the activities of the Bohemian Dramatic Company around that time are presented below.

Chronology

A few items relevant to the possible connection between the Bohemian Variety Company performance and the death of Kate Kelly are included below. At the time of her death she was known locally by the name of Ada Foster.

* Wednesday 5 October 1898 - Kate Kelly disappears from family and friends on Wednesday afternoon, and is reported missing on the following evening. Apparently she purchased two bottles of beer, travelled to a secluded lagoon offer Bedjerabong Road, Forbes, and, after finishing the bottles, removed her boots, entered the water and in no time sank to the bottom. He life departed, her misery ended. Over the next few days her bloated body floated to the surface and her back baked in the midday sun.

* Friday, 14 October 1898 - Tommy Sullivan discovers Mrs. Fosters body and informs the police.

* 15 October 1898, Wagga Wagga Advertiser.

Forbes. Friday. Supposed Suicide of a Missing Woman.

Mrs. William Foster, who has been missing from her home since the 6th instant, was found drowned in a lagoon near Forbes. It is believed she committed suicide. She leaves a husband and four children. The youngest child is only a few weeks old.

1898

* Saturday, 15 October 1898, The Daily Telegraph, Sydney.

Forbes, Friday.

The body of Mrs. William Foster, missing for the last nine days, was found about noon today floating in a lagoon near a Chinaman's garden. An inquest will be held tomorrow.

* Friday, 14 October 1898, The Bohemian Lecturer, Western Champion, Parkes. Advertisement for a show to be staged on Wednesday, 19 October.

The Western Champion, Forbes, Friday, 14 October 1898.

1935

* 22 June 1935, Leader, Melbourne.

Pioneers Along the Lachlan

At Forbes an old miner showed the author the grave of Ben Hall in the local cemetery, and thereby destroyed a conviction that a bushranger could not be buried in consecrated ground. This old miner told Mr. Clune a story about the fate of Ned Kelly's sister Kate. After the extinction of the Kelly gang at Glenrowan, Kate left the district and ultimately settled at Forbes, under the name of Ada Ambrose, and there married a man named Foster. In the local cemetery there is a grave with the inscription:— "In loving memory of Kate Foster, nee Kelly, beloved wife of William Foster, died 1898, aged 36." But this inscription does not lend support to the old miner's story. He admits that Kate, while living at Forbes, always denied that her came had been Kelly, and therefore it is unlikely that when she died the fact that her maiden name was Kelly would be inscribed on her grave.

2021

* Candy Baker, The missing sister: Giving life to the story of Ned's sister, Kate, Sydney Morning Herald. Review: Rebecca Wilson, Kate Kelly: The True Story of Ned Kelly’s Little Sister, Allen & Unwin, 2021. Text:

How do you capture someone as elusive as Kate Kelly and bring her to life in a way to allow the reader to more fully understand this complex woman, who died in 1898 at the age of 35, drowned in a lake at Forbes, in western New South Wales? Artist and writer Rebecca Wilson, a descendant of the pioneering couple Pierce and Mary Collits, is better placed than most to unwrap the enigma of Kate, younger sister to Ned, Dan and James. Wilson grew up in Forbes, and it was her relatives who gave Kate, known at the time as Ada Hennessey, her first job as a domestic servant at Cadow Station after she had left Victoria to escape her past. Rebecca Wilson believes the youngest of Ellen Kelly’s children, Alice, was, in fact, Kate’s child, and her father the policeman Constable Alexander Fitzpatrick. Not long after, Kate married William Bricky Foster, a blacksmith and horse-breaker, and her life began to unravel as she coped with the death of three of her six children, a growing dependency on alcohol and an abusive husband. Wilson grew up fascinated by the conflicting stories about Kate – she committed suicide, she was murdered, she was a drunk, she was a caring and generous mother and woman – creating a series of narrative paintings and a graphic book, which have been touring nationally and internationally since 2015. But knowledge is one thing, and the ability to translate that knowledge into writing that fully engages the reader is another. One of the central problems is that if you take Ned out of the story, then you’re left with a much less interesting story, and if you leave Ned in (as Wilson has done), then inevitably he takes centre stage. It’s hard to swap between genres – historical fact, historical fiction and pure fiction make uneasy bedfellows if they are not blended with believable dialogue and characters that allow us into the innermost workings of their minds and hearts, and unfortunately Wilson’s segues between styles are often clunky. She believes that the youngest of Ellen Kelly’s children, Alice, was, in fact, Kate’s child, and her father the policeman Constable Alexander Fitzpatrick. It is true that the unfolding of the Kelly story didn’t really get under way until April 15, 1878, when Fitzpatrick paid the household a visit to arrest Dan Kelly on a charge of stealing horses. Debate continues about what really happened that night, but there’s little doubt that Fitzpatrick made sexual advances towards Kate, who was only 14 at the time. According to Wilson, the story plays out somewhat differently. She believes that Fitzpatrick and Kate had been having an affair, and Kate had already given birth to Alice. And the facts do confirm a drunken reprobate who fathered several children and then walked away from any responsibility towards them. Whatever the reason behind Fitzpatrick’s visit that night, it started a domino-effect of incidents, including the imprisonment of Ellen Kelly for three years, and the increasingly wild and reckless behaviour of the Kelly gang, of which Kate, renowned for her riding and bush knowledge, was often considered a fifth member. What is fascinating is Wilson’s plausible hypothesis that Kate accumulated so much trauma in such a short space of time that no matter how hard she tried to turn her life around, PTSD, anxiety, depression and post-natal depression were the inevitable result for a young woman who had witnessed so much death and destruction, and re-lived it constantly in the theatrical shows in which she took part after Ned’s death. On the morning Kate made her way to the lake she asked her neighbour to look after her new baby. The night before she had gone as Ada Hennessey to “The Bohemian Lecturer’s” travelling entertainment that included an episode called The Life and Adventures of the Kelly Gang during which she was outed as she sat in the audience. Although blame for Kate’s death has been attributed to Foster, her heavy-drinking husband, and a drifter in town at the same time, it seems more likely that life simply became too much (as it would for her daughter Gertrude, who took her own life at the age of 34). There is much to admire in Kate Kelly; new evidence about her, a vast amount of research, family knowledge and folklore all brought to the table, but sadly Kate remains a shadowy figure, never quite brought to life despite Wilson’s valiant attempts to capture her subject.

--------------------

4. References

Organ, Michael, Ned Kelly and the Ogles [blog], 19 May 2024.

Powell, Renee, Is there truth in the tale of Kate Kelly and the Bohemian Lecturer, Forbes Advocate, 9 October 2015.

The Chippaways Chased, Truth, Sydney, 21 May 1899.

Wikipedia, Edward Irham Cole, [webpage], accessed 20 May 2024.

Wilson, Rebecca, Kate Kelly: The Story of Ned Kelly's Little Sister, Allen & Unwin, 2021.

------------------

Last updated: 30 May 2024

Michael Organ, Australia

Search This Blog

nothing2seahere

E. I. Cole - The Bohemian Bummer case 1897

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cullunghutti - sacred mountain

Byamunga's hands / The Devil's Hands - Shoalhaven Aboriginal Rock Art Site

Gibson & Johnson - not the Taits: The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906-10)