The Russell Street Babies

I don’t know why, but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the women I wrote about in my thesis (THREE YEARS AGO!) and I’ve decided to write about four of them here. The information in this post is available online, from Trove, Genealogy SA, and an essay by Patricia Sumerling that was published by the Professional Historians Association (South Australia). I also used Margaret Barbalet’s “The Adelaide Children’s Hospital” for background. I haven’t referenced every individual article, but I have noted when I used Sumerling’s essay or the Genealogy SA database. A list of references is at the end.

Alice Ann Lemm lived in Russell Street, Adelaide near Tidmarsh’s Soap Factory. Russell Street still exists and runs between Wright Street and Gilbert Street. The soap factory was on Sturt Street, with frontages on Norman and Russell Streets, so I can only guess Alice’s house was near the corner. She probably lived in a small terraced single-storey house, similar to the ones in this photo of Sturt Street from 1877.

The fact that ‘near Tidmarsh’s soap factory’ was mentioned in the newspaper articles about Alice Lemm is very interesting. In 1878, it was referred to as ‘J. Tidmarsh & Co.’s stink factory’. In 1883, a person identifying him-or-herself as ‘Citizen’ wrote a letter to the “The South Australian Advertiser” stating:

“I beg to state that while I was residing in King William-street south (from 1875 to 1882) I and my family have continually been annoyed and sickened by the horrible stinks arising from that soap factory whenever the wind blew from that direction. Generally when after a spell of hot weather a cool change set in we were obliged to keep all our doors and windows shut on account of the smell, and could not get our rooms cooled like other people who lived farther away…My idea is that it emanates from every part of the factory, and not only from the fluid running into the sewer. My chief reason for leaving my residence in King William-street was the obnoxious smell from that soap factory, and I think it would be a blessing for the whole of South Adelaide if the factory could be stopped and re-established a long way out of town.”

A house so noticeably close to the factory would have been cheap to rent, and I can’t imagine the living conditions would have been too pleasant. Alice shared the house with four babies, one of whom was her own and the other three were the children of women Alice had met in the Lying-in ward of the Destitute Asylum whilst confined with her own baby.

Her three charges were named Edward James Satchell, William Frederick Garten Thomas and Annie Harris. She had also cared for the child of a woman called Hannah Saunders, but Hannah took her baby away after only two weeks. Edward and William both died in November 1879 – Edward was sixteen weeks and William was seven months.

When Edward died, a death certificate was given and his body was buried without an examination. According to the Genealogy SA database, an Edward Satchell died in 1879 and his relative was given as his father, James Wallace Tormey. Following Edward’s death, the City Coroner (Mr. Ward) made further enquiries and he and Detective Hammill found Alice living with the three other children, all of whom were extremely emaciated. Two were “lying on a deal box in an empty room with nothing but rags to lay on and cover them, and their lower extremities were very cold”. The Local Board of Health was notified to the situation, and the Coroner believed that two of the remaining three children were not likely to live. These two children were probably Alice’s child and Annie Harris, as witnesses at the inquest into William’s death said he was the strongest-looking of the three. Alice was also reported to the police by neighbours, who reported hearing the babies ‘roaring’ and that they were dirty and thin.

Grace Thomas, William’s mother, planned to take William to the Destitute Asylum for medical treatment but he died the day before. Dr. John Scott Wilson, junior house surgeon at the Adelaide Hospital, saw William before he died and gave a death certificate when asked for one, giving the cause of death as marasmus (a severe protein deficiency). William’s relative was listed as his mother, Grace Thomas. However, William could not be buried until the coroner had been consulted because another child in Alice’s care had also recently died.

The coronial inquest, held at the Old Queen’s Arms Hotel, found that William had been with Alice for two months and she was engaged as a ‘dry nurse’. He was fed bread, Neave’s food (a formula for babies and invalids) and a mixture of milk, water and sugar. After Edward’s death, Alice had asked William’s mother, Grace Thomas, to care for William herself but Grace pleaded with Alice to keep him for another week. Grace took charge of William a week before he died and had made arrangements to go to the Destitute Asylum with him.

Patricia Sumerling’s essay, “The West End of Adelaide”, mentions that three children died within a space of ten weeks. The Genealogy SA databases show an Annie Harris, daughter of John Bowden, and an Edith Alice Lemm, daughter of Alice Lemm, both dying in 1880.  

In January 1880, Susan Harris was charged in the Adelaide Police Court with “abandoning her infant, whereby its health was permanently injured”. Following the inquest into William’s death, Susan gave Annie to a Mrs. Ashton and promised to pay her 10s a week. Susan then went to Lacepede Bay and did not pay Mrs. Ashton anything, so Annie was ‘sentenced’ to the Industrial School for three months, while charges were laid against Susan. Annie was “in a very emaciated condition, and it is doubtful whether [she] will live.” On Wednesday, 25 February 1880, a certificate stating that the Attorney-General was of the opinion that there was no case against Susan Harris was filed in the Supreme Court. 

Alice Lemm, Grace Thomas, Theresa Satchell and Susan Harris were all ‘confined’ in the Lying-in ward of the Destitute Asylum and were typical of its younger inhabitants. Alice, Susan and Grace were all recent migrants (Theresa might have been too, but it wasn’t mentioned in the reports). Alice was a domestic servant in Adelaide before she fell pregnant. Susan Harris also lived with her, but it appears that she must have worked and Alice cared for the babies. Grace worked as a general servant at the Buck’s Head Hotel in North Terrace. Theresa was also a domestic servant and was unable to find work with her son, which is why she gave him to Alice.  84% (449 out of 533) of unmarried mothers of children born in the Destitute Asylum between 1873 and 1883 were domestic servants.

An article that appeared in the Chronicle on 7 July 1883 pointed out that domestic servants rarely had any other home in the colony besides the one in which they worked. If they ‘offend[ed] against morals’, their options were extremely limited. With no job and no ‘parental roof’, the Destitute Asylum was the only place for them. This appears to have been the case with Alice, Grace, Theresa and Susan.

The ‘Alice Lemm case’ was spoken about in Parliament and it, along with other ‘baby farming’ cases (although Alice Lemm was not, strictly, a ‘baby farmer’) that occurred around the same time, led to the establishment of the State Children’s Department and the changes to the Destitute Persons’ Act that made unmarried mothers remain at the Destitute Asylum until their babies were six months old.

References:

‘An Alleged Nuisance’, Advertiser, 25 January 1883, p. 5

Barbalet, Margaret. The Adelaide Children’s Hospital 1876-1976. Adelaide: The Adelaide Children’s Hospital, 1975.

‘Coroner’s Inquests: A Case of Baby Farming’, Advertiser, 26 November 1879, p. 6

‘Death of an Infant’, Register, 7 November 1879, p. 4

Genealogy SA database

‘Maternity of Children: Destitute Asylum’, Chronicle, 7 July 1883, p. 5

'Nolle Prosequi', Chronicle and Weekly Mail, 28 February 1880, p. 11

[No title], Register, 13 January 1880, p. 1

Sumerling, Patricia, “Adelaide’s West-End”. In William Shakespeare’s Adelaide 1860-1930, ed. Brian Dickey, 27-41. Adelaide: Association of Professional Historians Inc., 1992. [Available online: http://www.sahistorians.org.au/175/documents/patricia-sumerling-the-west-end-of-adelaide.shtml]

‘Suspicious Death of an Infant’, Register, 26 November 1879, p. 6

Fenn Place {Part 2}

It’s time for another instalment of the history of Fenn Place, this one focusing on opium.

As early as 1841, just five years after South Australia was settled, South Australian newspapers warned readers about the effects of opium (“at the opium shops in Constantinople”): “A stupor, which lasts about eight hours…is attended by a gnawing of the stomach, but none of that nausea consequent upon the use of vinous or alcoholic drinks. The intoxication of this drug produces an utter listlessness and dislike to everything around the individual who cannot be happy or easy until he returns to the poison again. At length the appetite for food is destroyed, the mind becomes incapable of pursuing any study, the nervous system is quite unhinged, there is a sort of delirium tremens, the muscles become indolent and flaccid, and almost incapable of obeying volition. The body becomes deformed, the chest grows out, the ribs are crooked, one shoulder get higher than the other, the vertebrae are displaced and sunken, the head falls on one side, and all kinds of horrible contortions and distortions take place, until death puts an end to the miserable existence of the opium-eater...The Chinese opium-smoker, on whose countenance the love of opium is written, becomes decrepit in early life, his skin appears like parchment, and if but 25 years old, looks full twice that age, and all the results of opium-eating becomes his lot.” (Southern Australian, 24 August 1841, p. 4)

By the 1870s, opium eating was ‘added to the vices which already hold sway over so many thousands of our fellow-colonists in Australia’. Opium was sent from Hong Kong to Sydney ‘for consumption by the lowest class of European females in that colony’ and ‘it has been rumoured that in Melbourne the fallen women who have sunk to the lowest depths of infamy by illicit intercourse with the Chinese have for some time been in the habit of taking this deadly drug.’ (South Australian Chroncile and Weekly Mail, 14 August 1875, p. 5).

In 1879, Alfred Hughes, a forty-six-year-old storekeeper from Sturt Street, died from opium poisoning – he probably took laudanum before he died. In fact, most cases from Adelaide involving opium poisoning were from people taking laudanum. Opium dens were not very common in Adelaide, although they did exist.

Fenn Place was connected with opium in the early 1890s and in 1912 – a Japanese man residing in Fenn Place died from opium poisoning in October 1892 and a Chinese man was arrested for receiving a parcel of Chinese potatoes concealing two tins of opium from 3 Fenn Place. (South Australian Register, 26 October 1892, p. 6; The Register, 22 August 1912, p. 5).

In the early 1900s, there were an estimated 50 opium dens in Adelaide, mostly in the side streets and alleys of Hindley Street, but it soon fell out of favour. This might be due to the huge cost – the customs officials cracked down on the illegal importation of opium, which made it increasingly difficult to import and, therefore, very expensive in Adelaide – about £5 an ounce by 1928.

In 1928, it had been fifteen years since an opium den had been raided by the police in Adelaide, but a photograph depicting a ‘typical scene’ in a Chinese opium den was published in The Register. It, and the accompanying article, can be viewed HERE. In the accompanying article, the journalist wrote that “within half a mile of the very heart of Adelaide there exists a Chinese opium den, probably the only survivor of many similar “joints” which jostled each other in the west-end about 25 years ago”. The den was known only to Chinamen, according to this article, and it was an unassuming building somewhere in the west end. ‘With rough concrete walls and floor, and plain wooden benches, the scene of the night’s entertainment is distinctly squalid and the atmosphere “could be cut with a knife.”’ In the early 1900s, non-Chinese men were using opium dens, which was considered ‘the worst evil’ by society at the time, but it was intimated that the opium dens of the late 1920s were used exclusively by Chinese people.

There were two raids on opium dens in Adelaide’s west end – Hindley Street and Fenn Place – in 1928 and 1929. In both cases, the men arrested for being in possession of opium were Chinese and cabinet makers. The Hindley Street opium den was in the Hooker’s Building on the southern side of Hindley Street and west of Morphett Street. If my sense of direction is correct, Hooker’s Building is still standing. This could be the opium den featured in the Register a few months earlier.

At 1pm on 1 December 1929, five detectives raided a two-storey house in Fenn Place. They seized a large quantity of opium, two opium pipes, and several lamps and trays. They also arrested a 46-year-old cabinet maker, Ah Fin, with having been in possession of opium. ‘The atmosphere in the house was said to be pungent with opium smoke’. The house, a two-storey structure, was very dark inside and the police used torches and matches to search. They also seized four bottles of Chinese liquor. Being in possession of opium was illegal because it was a prohibited import, but it was not an offence to be in possession of opium if it was not imported. The case against Ah Fin was dismissed at the Adelaide Police Court because it could not be proved that the opium had been imported. The deputy Government Analyst, Mr. W. T. Rowe, told the Court that he once made opium from poppies growing in his garden at Woodville, therefore proving that it was possible to make opium in South Australia (The Register/News Pictorial, 2 December 1929, p. 25; The Register/News Pictorial, 4 December 1892, p. 2; Chronicle, 5 December 1892, p. 3).

Intersection of Hindley Street and Morphett Street, facing north. Photograph taken in October 2012 from outside the 1928 opium den.

I have two more articles on Fenn Place planned, and hope to have them up later in the week.

Meet Sophia...

Sophia Thomas is probably the most notorious and fascinating person I’ve learned about so far. Throughout her colourful life, she was known as a ‘neglected child’, a ‘little girl’, an ‘old offender’ and an ‘immoral character’. She was the child of an abusive alcoholic, a teenage prostitute and a product of the government’s reformatory system. She was constantly before the courts in Adelaide and the Port for prostitution, drunkenness and generally bad behaviour when she was years younger than I am now. I’ve wanted to write her story for so long, but couldn’t figure out exactly how to do it. Finally, I’ve decided to let the facts speak for themselves and do a timeline. It covers a little over 10 years of her life, and all the information comes from newspaper articles about court hearings. But first, some information that will probably be useful:

Boddington’s Row was a row of houses near Light Square, between Hindley Street and Hawden Street. They were ‘filthy hovels’ and were rented cheaply by prostitutes from Thomas Boddington, who ran a notorious hotel in Light Square (which is now the Colonel Light Hotel). In 1879, the women of Boddington’s Row were cast out and they set up camp by the River Torrens, in an area nicknamed ‘The Willows’. The ‘Willow class’ became a euphemism for prostitutes who frequently walked the streets and were often drunk.

November 1874: 12-year-old Sophia Thomas was sentenced to the Industrial School for being a ‘neglected child’. Her mother, Frances Thomas, was charged with ‘allowing her child to become chargeable to the public’ (i.e. not providing a safe home). The Police Court heard that Frances was ‘of very drunken habits’. Sophia often slept in outhouses, water closets and ‘such places’ because she was too afraid to go home. Frances was sentenced to prison and her three-year-old daughter was allowed to go with her.

The Advertiser, 12 November 1874, p. 3

July 1877: Sophia Thomas, Ann Conroy and Eliza Smith, little girls, absconded from the Reformatory School by unscrewing the screws on their bedroom door and climbing over a seven foot high fence. They had been sent there for robbery, loitering, and for being a neglected child (although it is not clear which girl committed which crime). It was intimated that Conroy was the ringleader and she threatened to “run away again or break her neck in the attempt” if she were returned to the School. They each received a punishment of bread and water at the School, but Sophia and Eliza Smith were sentenced to two months’ imprisonment (I can only guess at the Reformatory School and not the gaol) for destroying blankets. Sophia also received an extra two months’ with hard labour for stealing a wincey dress valued at 7s, property of the Government. In the newspaper article about the girls’ court appearance, the last sentence reads: “The girls…very much liked the excitement of appearing before the Magistrates”.

The Register, 3 July 1877, p. 3

December 1877: Sophia Thomas, with Margaret Case and Elizabeth Alderson, was charged with ‘loitering &c’ at the Port Adelaide Police Court. She was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment.

The Advertiser, 14 December 1877, p. 7

March 1878: The same three above women, and Kate Brown, were fined 10s and 5s costs at the Port Adelaide Police Court for loitering in St. Vincent Street. On 28 March, Sophia was arrested yet again for loitering. As she was a repeat offender, she was sentenced to gaol for a month.

The Advertiser, 11 March 1878, p. 3; The Advertiser, 1 April 1878, p. 3

May 1878: On 3 May, probably the day after she was released from gaol, Sophia was arrested for loitering in Port Adelaide with Mary Arthur. Sophia was fined 20s and Mary Arthur, 10s. On 30 May, Sophia, Elizabeth Sebelan and Elizabeth Lowther were charged with ‘indecent and riotous behaviour on Maclaren Wharf [sic].’ These three girls were frequent offenders, incorrigible and had been sentenced to gaol for similar offences so, therefore, were sentenced to Gaol for one month with hard labour. “Defendants on receiving sentence rushed out of the Court to the cells shouting and yelling like maniacs, and kept up a hideous uproar for a considerable time.”

The Register, 4 May 1878, p. 3; The Register, 31 May 1878, p. 3

July 1878: Sophia Thomas and Elizabeth Lowther were charged with loitering &c in St. Vincent Street. They both plead not guilty and promised to return to ‘the homes of their friends’. However, they were both arrested again on 27 July for loitering &c at Maclaren (now McLaren) Wharf. They were sentenced to gaol with hard labour for one month.

The Register, 16 July 1878, p. 3; The Register, 29 July 1878, p. 3

September 1878: Sophia and Georgina Aslee were arrested for using indecent language. Fined 10s at the Adelaide Police Court.

The Register, 23 September 1878, p. 9

October 1878: Sophia and Elizabeth Lowther were arrested for behaving in a riotous manner and fined 10s at the Adelaide Police Court.

The Register, 19 October 1878, p. 3

November 1878: Sophia, along with many others, was charged with aiding and abetting James and Annie Kelly, who were occupiers of a house in Boddington’s Row ‘frequented by prostitutes and persons having no means of support’. Sophia (and the others) was sent to gaol for 10 days with hard labour. Two of the other women were Georgina Ashleigh (a.k.a. Aslee) and Mary Arthur, who had been arrested with Sophia in the past.

The Advertiser, 2 December 1878, p. 6

December 1878: Sophia was fined 10s for drunkenness and was remanded until Christmas Eve for trying to commit suicide by strangling herself. On Christmas Eve, she was cautioned for her behaviour but was discharged.

The Register, 23 December 1878, p. 9; The Advertiser, 25 December 1878, p. 7

January 1879: Sophia was fined 20s at the Adelaide Police Court for loitering.

The Register, 28 January 1879, p. 9

May 1879: Sophia was fined 10s at the Adelaide Police Court for indecent language. She, Mary Ann Young and Elizabeth Alderson (who had been arrested with her earlier) were fined 10s each for riotous behaviour in Morphett Street.

The Register, 8 May 1879, p. 9; The Register, 12 May 1879, p. 9

June 1879: Sophia was fined 10s for drunkenness.

The Register, 9 June 1879, p. 6

August 1879: Sophia was fined 10s for drunkenness and, later, sent to gaol for two weeks for loitering. This is the first time she is explicitly called a prostitute.

The Register, 9 August 1879, p. 7; The Register, 26 August 1879, p. 6

September 1879: Sophia was fined 10s for loitering &c at Port Adelaide. On this occasion, hers was the only case heard at the Port Adelaide Police Court on that day. She was later fined 10s at the Adelaide Police Court for using indecent language. On 22 September, she and Mary Ann Minchin, Annie Teakin and Catherine Coleman were fined 10s each for loitering in Adelaide. Three days later, Sophia was fined yet again for loitering (£1).

The Register, 12 September 1879, p. 6; The Register, 18 September 1879, p. 10; The Register, 23 September 1879, p. 10; The Register, 26 September 1879, p. 6

November 1879: Sophia was fined 10s for being drunk and using indecent and disgusting language in Currie Street. On 25 November, Sophia, Catherine Brown and Bridget Leake were fined 10s each for using indecent language.

The Advertiser, 7 November 1879, p. 6; The Register, 7 November 1879, p. 6; The Advertiser, 26 November 1879, p. 6

February 1880: Sophia Thomas was named in an inquest into the death of Thomas ‘Scottie’ Quinn. He died from injuries following a fight with James Viant, whose brother Violet Rawlinson (I wrote about her in the past post) stabbed with a pen knife. A witness, George Ashley, said he saw Sophia and another prostitute, Emma Willis, watching the fight: There were two girls close at hand, who were watching the fight. The names of the girls were Emma Willis and Sophia Thomas. I think, but I do not know, that these girls are prostitutes. When the police arrived, George Ashley left the scene because he didn’t want to be associated with the two girls. John Murphy, who resided at the same boarding house as Thomas Quinn and George Ashley, said that he, the deceased and three girls had been standing on the Morphett Street Bridge, chatting, when James Viant approached them: We had been there two or three minutes when the prisoner Viant come up from the other side of the bridge, and he commenced to abuse a girl called Sophia Thomas. I thought that he was angry with the girl on account of a jealous feeling excited by seeing the deceased sitting on the fence close to the girl. Thomas Quinn hit James Viant, who returned with a blow and they then fought for a couple of minutes before Viant threw Quinn to the ground. Quinn landed on the crown of his head.

Emma Willis appeared to be intoxicated when she was called as a witness. I was with the deceased on North-terrace, near the Black Swan Hotel. A girl named Sophia Thomas and the man John Murphy were with us. We walked towards the Morphett-street Bridge…The prisoner was leaning up against the bridge when the deceased came up and struck him on the mouth…The other girl was sitting between Murphy and the deceased. When the Coroner said he would not admit any more evidence from Willis until she was sober, the police detective said she was a long-time drunkard and he had never known her to be sober before.

Charles Johnson, “a coloured man”, was another witness to the fight and one who knew James Viant from childhood. He did not know Sophia Thomas by name, but knew Emma Willis and another prostitute he called ‘Carrotty Nell’. To my mind the prisoner and deceased both wanted to walk with the same girl – not Emma Willis, but another girl.

Surprisingly, Sophia Thomas herself was not called as a witness. The Coroner addressed the jury, saying the above witnesses were the only witnesses that could provide evidence for them. The inquest was adjourned until another witness, a sailor called McDonald, could be called and “it was also possible that the other girls who saw the row might bring forward fresh facts.”

The Register, 4 February 1880, p. 9

When the inquest began again, James McDonald was found and gave his evidence. Another witness, Frederick Acourt, saw Thomas Quinn talking to Sophia Thomas: Scottie was talking to one of the girls, Sophia Thomas, who saw Black [Charles] Johnson coming along the footpath and said, “Hullo, here comes Johnson, Jimmy aren’t far away.” Prisoner then appeared, and came across the road. He said, “Come here, my girls.” Thomas said, “We’re not doing any harm.”

James Viant was committed to trial for manslaughter.

The Advertiser, 6 February 1880, p. 6

May 1880: Sophia, Bridget Leake and Harriet Sune (I think!!!) were fined £1 each for being drunk and using indecent language.

The Register, 5 May 1880, p. 10

August 1880: Sophia, Eliza Jane Wooden, Timothy Ryan and Margaret Skerving were fined 10s each for drunkenness.

The Register, 23 August 1880, p. 10

October 1880: Sophia and Johanna Brockman were fined 10s each for drunkenness and using indecent language. [You can read more about Johanna Brockman at http://wags.org.au/o/wags-tales/characters/adelaide-ladies-on-the-town.html].

The Register, 18 October 1880, p. 9

January 1881: Sophia, Georgina Aslee and Alice Tree were charged by Thomas Poole, hotel proprietor, for ‘behaving in a riotous manner’ at the Provincial Hotel. They were fined 10s each, and Sophia and Georgina were charged with breaking a bottle of schnapps and three glasses (with a combined total of 4s) and were fined an extra 3s each.

February 1881: Sophia was fined 10s for drunkenness.

The Register, 15 February 1881, p. 9

March 1881: Sophia, Emily Clark and Maud Blanche Gould were charged with drunkenness. Sophia and Emily Clark were fined 15s and Maud Gould was fined £1.

The Register, 30 March 1881, p. 10

July 1881: Sophia and Ann Tonkin (‘old offenders’) were fined 10s for being drunk and using indecent language. A few days later, Sophia, Mary Jane Cuffe (who I wrote about in my thesis – her son died at the hands of a baby farmer and led to reforms in legislation surrounding ‘neglected children’ in 1881), Walter Longbottom, Emily Clark and Bernard McKee were fined 10s each for being drunk and using indecent language.

Later in the month, Sophia was named in another Coroner’s inquest – this one was into the death of Catherine Pearce, who was found drowned in the Torrens Lake on 18 July. Christina Williams, who had known Catherine Pearce for many years, said that she saw Sophia give Catherin a black eye a fortnight earlier. [I] last saw [Catherine Pearce] a fortnight ago at the City Hotel, when a woman named Sophia Thomas struck her in the eye and blackened it, at the same time remarking, “You gave one man eight years, but mark my words, you will never go against another man.” A man named Viant [yep, those Viants again] was present, but he did not interfere. “You,” continued Thomas, “will be found in the river one of these days, and then you will not ‘cadge’ for the detectives.” She had that morning met several men in the Stag Inn, and one of them, named McCue, said, “We have put one cad in the water.” Witness asked, “Are you speaking of a woman?” and the man replied, “Yes, and if we get you we will put you there too; and we will have Teddy Leake’s eight years out of you yet.” Mr. Badman, the landlord of the hotel, told her to take no notice of the remarks. The doctor who performed the post-mortem deposed that the deceased had a swollen eye and that she must have been struck very violently ‘because of the appearance of the inside of the scalp’. Again at this inquest, Sophia Thomas was not called as a witness, despite being a fairly important player in the events leading to Catherine Pearce’s death. The Coroner deemed Pearce’s cause of death as simply ‘found drowned’.

The Register, 11 July 1881, p. 9; The Register, 12 July 1881, p. 9; The Advertiser, 20 July 1881, p. 12; The Register, 23 July 1881, p. 9

November 1881: Sophia was fined £1 for drunkenness and indecent language.

The Register, 14 November 1881, p. 6

January 1882: Another inquest for Sophia, but this one was much closer to her.

The City Coroner, Mr. Ward, held an inquest at the Destitute Asylum on 12 January 1882 into the death of an unnamed female infant. The infant was the ‘illegitimate female child of an immoral character called Sophia Thomas’.

Here are the details of the case, all directly quoted from newspaper articles (because I really didn’t think paraphrasing would be worth it.)

The city coroner received a report on Wednesday morning, January 11, that a single woman named Sophia Thomas had been confined of a female child that morning in a shed at the rear of Mrs. Gearing’s premises in Currie-street. The child died shortly after birth, and the body was removed to the city morgue, the mother being taken to the lying-in hospital. An inquest will be held on the child at the Destitute Asylum today. (The Advertiser, 12 January 1882, pp. 4-5)

The City Coroner (Mr. T. Ward, J.P.) held an inquest at the Destitute Asylum on Thursday morning into the circumstances attending the death of the illegitimate female child of an immoral character named Sophia Thomas. The only evidence taken was that of Police-constable Osborne, who deposed that his attention was called to a woman who was lying in a fowl house at the rear of Mrs. Gearing's, next the Ship Inn, in Currie street, on Wednesday morning, about 6.30 o'clock. He found it was Thomas, who had been confined of a child, which had been removed to the house by Mrs. Gearing, and was lying on a sofa in a blanket, alive. He felt its heart beat and heard it cry. He had the mother removed to the Destitute Asylum. He had known her for the last eighteen months as living an immoral life. She was greatly addicted to drink. He saw her at the Provincial Hotel on Tuesday evening last. She informed him she bad been taken to the Hospital by a policeman, as she was suffering from pains in her stomach, but they would not admit her also that she had been walking about all night prior to her confinement At this stage the enquiry was adjourned until Friday, January 20. (The Register, 13 January 1882, p. 6)

           

The city coroner (Mr. T. Ward, J.P.) commenced an inquest at the Destitute Asylum on Thursday morning, January 12, on the body of the female child of a single woman named Sophia Thomas, who was confined in a shed belonging to a Mrs. Garing in Currie-street on the previous morning. Constable Osborne deposed to finding Sophia Thomas in a fowl house at the rear of Mrs. Garing's house, adjoining the Ship Inn, in Currie-street, at 6.30 on Wednesday morning. His attention was called to Thomas by Mrs. Gearing’s daughter, and he found she had been confined, and the child was in Mrs. Garing's house lying on a sofa- wrapped up in a blanket. The child was alive, as witness saw it move and heard it cry. Went for the police trap, and removed Thomas to the Destitute Asylum. Had known Thomas, who was a young girl, for the past eighteen months. She was a prostitute, and greatly addicted to drinking. At this stage the inquest was adjourned till Friday, January 20, in order to allow of Sophia Thomas being present. (The Advertiser, 13 January 1882, pp. 4-5)

The inquest on the infant child of Sophia Thomas, which died on January 11, shortly after birth, was continued by the city coroner (Mr. T. Ward, J.P.), at the Destitute Asylum, on Friday, January 20. From the evidence previously taken it appeared that Thomas, who was a single woman, was confined of a female child in an outhouse at the rear of Mrs. Gearing's premises in Currie-street. Mrs. Gearing deposed to hearing someone crying out for assistance, early on the morning of January 11, and finding Thomas in due course of her confinement in her fowl house. The child was born alive, but died very soon after birth. The landlord of the Ship Inn stated that he saw Thomas in his bar shortly after 6 o'clock, when she had a nobbler of brandy. Heard about three-quarters of an hour afterwards that she had been confined. The girl Thomas said she was a single woman, and had no particular place of abode, although she sometimes slept at the house of Mrs. Arnold in Hindley-street. She had been walking about during the two or three nights previous to her confinement. A man named William Tyson, who was now in gaol, was the father of the child. She did not know when she was to be confined, and did not think she was going to be confined until she called for assistance. She was taken to the Destitute Asylum about a week before, but left at the suggestion of the matron. Did not return to the Destitute Asylum because she thought she would not be taken in. Dr. Clindening stated that he found Thomas lying on a lot of dirty straw. Found the baby lying on the sofa in Mrs. Gearing's house, dead. The child was prematurely born, being about a seven or eight month's child, and was not well nourished. There were no marks of violence. The cause of death was debility after birth. Arthur Lindsay, superintendent of the Destitute Asylum, said when Thomas was brought to the Asylum on January 6 she was intoxicated, and in the matron's opinion was not likely to be confined for two months, so she was allowed to go. If Thomas had desired to remain she might have done so. Some further evidence had been called in explanation of the action of the Destitute Asylum authorities. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that the cause of the child's death was debility. They considered that no blame was to be attached to the Destitute authorities, and that Dr. Clindening was deserving of praise for the attention he showed to Thomas. (The Advertiser, 21 January 1882, pp. 4-5)

Death of an Infant — The City Coroner (Mr. Thomas Ward, J.P.) resumed the inquest on the body of the illegitimate female child of Sophia Thomas, a woman of immoral character, at the Destitute Asylum on Friday morning. The young woman, who was twenty years of age, was confined of the child in a fowl house at the rear of Mrs. Garing's house, in Currie-street, but it only lived for about twenty minutes after birth. In her evidence she stated she had been living with a Mrs. Arnold in Hindley Street, but for three or four nights before her confinement she had been in the habit of walking about all night. A policeman took her to the Destitute Asylum one night about a week before, and she stayed there then; but the next morning the matron told her to get up and go into the office, as she did not seem to be in the family way. Her name and address were taken, and she went away. She said, in reply to the Foreman and Jurors, that she did not return to the Asylum because she thought she would not be taken in. She would have remained if she had not been told to go to the office. When she left she had a piece of tin given to her to pass to the man at the gate as she went out. She did not remember that Sergeant Teate told her on the night before her confinement to go to the Asylum. Dr. Clindening, who was called to attend the mother, said the child had been prematurely born, and was ill nourished, but there were no marks of violence. The cause of death was debility after birth. In reference to the girl's statements as to leaving the Asylum a week before her confinement, Mr. Lindsay, Superintendent of the institution, said she was admitted on the night of the 4th, supposed to be in labour but it was subsequently found that she was m a state of intoxication. It had been intimated to him that she would not be confined for two months, and therefore on the following morning did not press her to remain, but if she had asked to be allowed to do so he would have given his permission. The Jury returned a verdict in accordance with the doctor's testimony. They considered that no blame was attached to the authorities, and that praise was due to Dr. Clindening for the attention he had paid to the woman. (The Register, 21 January 1882, p. 5)

March 1882: On 14 March, Sophia was fined 15s for drunkenness at the Adelaide Police Court. Later in the month, she was named in a robbery case involving William Tyson, the alleged father of her daughter. William Tyson, Thomas Williams, James O’Connor, Bernard McCue and Michael Kelly were charged with stealing a bank cheque, cash, a purse, a pair of spectacles, and a handkerchief from John Sweetland. Sophia Thomas witnessed all the prisoners but William Tyson stealing from him while he was sleeping at the Provincial Hotel, Hindley Street. The next day, Tyson tried to cash the cheque at a bank but the teller was suspicious of his character and, after questioning Tyson, called the police. The men were committed to trial.

The Register, 15 March 1882, p. 10; The Advertiser, 28 March 1882, p. 7

April 1882: William Tyson et.al.’s case was heard at the Supreme Court on 5 April. Sophia Thomas said she witnessed Thomas Williams reach into John Sweetland’s pockets and that McCue was watching him. William Tyson threw Sweetland’s handkerchief in her face. When Tyson was arrested with the cheque, he called out the others as he was being taken to the cells at the police station: “Sophy Thomas has cracked. I will turn dog on her to-morrow.” All the men were found guilty, despite a witness claiming that Michael Kelly was in Woodville at the time. Kelly was sentenced to two years’ hard labour but the other men were sentenced to four years’ hard labour, as they had prior convictions.

The Register, 6 April 1882, p. 9

May 1882: Sophia and many others (including Georgina Aslee – or Ashley, as she was known here, and Elizabeth Alderson), “an unsavory-looking lot” were charged with ‘being occupiers of a house in Clarendon-street frequented by thieves and prostitutes. The house only had one bed, one sofa and one mattress. The police detective said that when male prisoners were released from gaol, they went to the house “where the women attended them” but would go to the Park Lands with the women if they “wanted for anything”. Thomas and the others, apart from Charles Harris, were sentenced to three months’ gaol with hard labour.

The Register, 10 May 1882, p. 7

October 1882: Sophia was fined 10s for riotous behaviour at the Provincial Hotel (and was charged by the landlord, Thomas Poole) and a further £1 for assaulting Edward Johnson.

The Advertiser, 1 November 1882, p. 12

January 1883: Sophia, Kate O’Connell and Mary Louisa Serbalan were fined 10s for riotous behavior at the Provincial Hotel. Thomas Poole said they were using ‘the most filthy language’ when he ordered them to leave. Later in the month, she was charged 20s for being drunk and using indecent language.

The Register, 12 January 1883, p. 7; The Register, 26 January 1883, p. 7

March 1883: Sophia was fined 20s for drunkenness and indecent language.

The Advertiser, 9 March 1883, p. 7

May 1883: Sophia was fined 15s for being drunk.

The Advertiser, 12 May 1883, p. 9

June 1883: Sophia was fined 10s for drunkenness.

The Register, 6 June 1883, p. 3

July 1883: Sophia was fined 20s ‘for being drunk and behaving in an insulting manner  in the vicinity of the Salvation Army’. The Register said: “Miss Thomas was alleged to be drunk in Currie-street, and began rolling about among the ranks of a branch of the Salvation Army”.

The Advertiser, 19 July 1883, p. 7; The Register, 19 July 1883, p. 10

February 1885: Sophia was fined £2 for indecent language.

The Register, 18 February 1885, p. 7

According to the Australia Marriage Index, accessed via Ancestry, a Sophia Thomas married Fred Burrows on 27 June 1885 in Adelaide, South Australia. Sophia was the daughter of William and Fred, the son of Joseph. Considering there was a Joseph Burrows who owned a tobacconist’s shop in Hindley Street, one of Sophia’s haunts, it is very possible that Sophia Thomas married Fred Burrows, especially as she disappears from the newspapers after February 1885. I haven’t been able to find anything on Sophia Thomas or Sophia Thomas after this date, apart from one mention in an article from August 1885:

Sophia Thomas was found lying in the doorway of a cottage in Pirie-street, opposite the National Hotel. She had a ‘ghastly wound’ over one eye. She and her mother had been drinking and quarrelling throughout the day and her mother had bitten her on the face, almost taking off her whole right eyebrow. The police took her to hospital, where the wound was dressed, ‘and she afterwards returned to her home and went to bed’.

The Advertiser, 13 August 1885, p. 4