Charles Gray and the Law

In a 1909 letter to solicitors Messrs Field Luckie & Toogood Charles Gray instructed them to pay five pounds three shillings and ten pence from the proceeds “of the action myself v Meagher.” Nothing is known about what “the action” involved. (File 126/20 Pataka Art + Museum)

When Charles Gray’s older brother James died on 21 August 1925 he left bequests totalling £38,483. Charles was one of eleven family members who, in what the Evening Post described as “an interesting will case” contended in court that James “was not of sound mind, memory, or understanding, and did not know of the contents of the will nor approve of them” when the will was drawn up by the Public Trustee. They asked that the court not grant probate. The court heard that James Gray was hale and hearty but suddenly became ill, was taken to hospital and found to have appendicitis and peritonitis. Soon after he was operated on his sister recorded his wishes which the Public Trustee made into a will. This was read to him clause by clause before he signed on 19 August 1925. Sums were to go to his sister, Arthur Sims who worked on James’ farm for many years and lived in a house built by James on Motukaraka Point, the Salvation Army, Hutt County Council for building a tennis, bowling, and croquet court at Plimmerton, and to the Presbyterian Orphanage, the Anglican Boys’ Home in Lower Hutt and to the Home for the Aged Needy.

Before the court adjourned no less than seven medical doctors gave evidence as to the deceased’s capability at the time he signed the will. During the adjournment the two parties reached an agreement which his Honour Mr. Justice MacGregor called “wise and reflecting credit on all concerned.” The terms of the agreement were that after paying estate dues, expenses and debts, the remainder of the estate was to be halved, one half to go to the family and the other half, after other legacies had been paid out of it, to be divided between the three institutions mentioned in the will. (Evening Post, 28 June 1926, p10; Evening Post, 30 June 1926, p10)

This was by no means the only time that Charles Gray was involved in a civil court case. The first, when he was only 21, was the most notorious and caused a sensation which was covered in newspapers right throughout New Zealand.

On the evening of 18 December 1894 Gray went to see William Jones, a Pāuatahanui farmer. Jones was not there but his 19-year-old daughter Hannah was and Gray persuaded her to walk with him towards the gate. At the strawberry bed Gray “surprised her, and behaved improperly.” Hannah struggled but did not scream and “the result was her ruin against her will.” Hannah’s sister was a witness to part of the assault but was too ashamed to take any action or speak out. All of this came out at the Wellington Supreme Court before Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast and a special jury of four on 2 August 1895 when Gray was sued by William Jones, farmer of Pāuatahanui the father of Hannah. William Jones claimed £200 in damages for Gray’s alleged seduction of his daughter. (Evening Post, 2 August 1895, p2)

Hannah had previously “kept company” with Gray’s older brother Andrew. At the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company picnic on 22 November 1894, she met a young man named Charles Fisher, who wanted to keep company with her. Hannah agreed but said she would have to ask her father first. Her father advised her to write to Andrew Gray which she did but said she preferred him rather than Fisher. Later she wrote to Fisher saying that her father would not let her marry him. When Hannah’s pregnancy became obvious William Jones went to see Charles Gray who denied everything and said he would not marry his daughter in spite of the offer of £100 settlement and seven shillings and sixpence per week.

Andrew Gray, brother of the defendant, received a letter from Anna Jones dated 18 December, the day of the assault, in which she asked as they were old sweethearts, whether he intended to marry her because there was another young man from the Hutt who was interested in her. Andrew Gray said he had not encouraged her to write this letter, nor did he reply to it. Jones went to see Charles Fisher where he worked at Cross Creek to try and persuade him to “keep company” with Hannah. Jones said he said he was sorry he had refused his permission for them to get together. Fisher did not want to have anything more to do with Hannah as he had “suited himself” with another young lady. (Evening Post, 3 August 1895 p4)

The jury retired at 9pm on 2 August 1895 and returned after half an hour with a verdict for Jones of £100 in damages with £35/13/7 in costs. The case caused a sensation and news of it was telegraphed to most newspapers in New Zealand. Gray appealed but lost – and did not pay damges.

On 27 September William Jones’ solicitor filed a claim of bankruptcy against Charles Gray who was issued with a Court document saying he would be declared bankrupt if the £135/13/7 was not paid within seven days. To make quite sure the position was clear the document stated, “You are specially to note that the consequences of not complying with the requisitions of this notice are that you will have committed an act of Bankruptcy on which bankruptcy proceedings may be taken against you.” Gray then paid and no notice of bankruptcy was issued. (Bankruptcy Files: Gray, Charles – Bankruptcy Notice. R23211245. Archives New Zealand Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga.)

The whole sad episode was concluded, as far as the Courts were concerned, on 12 November 1895 when Gray, considered to be the father of Hannah’s child, was ordered to pay £4 for the mother’s expenses, and 5s a week towards the support of the child. (Evening Post, 12 November 1895, p2) After this court case Charles was on the West Cost for about two years and became alienated from the wider  Gray family.

According to many residents who lived at Pukerua Bay during his lifetime, Gray regarded himself as a sort of “lord of the manor”. He was said to be difficult to get along with and he “regarded Pukerua Bay as ‘his’ village.” (Hugh Young, personal communication) Ill feeling between Gray and people who lived in Pukerua Bay became public in November 1937 when George Baker was charged in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court with stealing firewood worth £2/10/0 from Charles Gray. Gray contended that six-foot lengths of manuka firewood had been cut and some stacked for him on his property. He later found some of the unstacked manuka missing and saw what he believed to be “his” manuka outside Baker’s house. Witnesses said that they collected the firewood but not from Gray’s land although as there were no fences between property boundaries it could be unclear whose land they were on.

Mr. A. B. Sievwright, the lawyer acting for Baker, asked Gray, “Is it not a fact that you set yourself out to persecute the people in this district?” to which Gray replied, “Quite untrue.” Sievwright then asked Gray if he was aware that a deputation was being formed to go the Minister of Justice to complain about Gray’s behaviour towards people of Pukerua Bay. Gray replied that he was quite unaware. NZ Truth (November 1937) reported that “Gray was described as the “Mussolini of Pukerua, Bay.” Gray however, strongly denied that he persecuted anyone, and declared he had suffered tremendously from pilfering.”

Albert Mann, another witness, said there were no fences showing ownership. When he was asked about the “protection league” he said that “It had been started to try and restrain Gray from picking upon the children and citizens for every trivial little thing.” Sub-Inspector Dempsey, in Gray’s defence, said he had not previously met Gray, but he would like to ask one question, “Was it not true that Gray gave the Post Office site, the school site, and the Plunket site to the district free?” The reply was that this was true.

Baker said that the Winter children collected wood cut down by the Public Works Department men who were building the road. He had previously helped the boys by carrying wood down to their house free of charge. On October 20 Mrs Winter sent her boys to ask him to help carry some timber. He went to the firewood stack that had been collected by the Winters and helped the boys with some heavy pieces and took it to their house. As a result of this kindness Mrs. Winter said he could take away a few pieces for himself, which he did. The Magistrate dismissed the case adding, “I am thoroughly disgusted with the whole situation which witnesses have disclosed as existing in Pukerua Bay.” (Evening Post, 27 November 1937, p11 “The magistrate at the conclusion of the case stated he was thoroughly dissatisfied with the state of affairs at Pukerua Bay as they had been revealed in Court. It seemed, he said, that both adults and children there had very, very loose methods of conducting themselves. Mr. Stilwell urged them rather to restrain themselves, especially in regard to this alleged Vigilance Committee. Unless they did so, there might conceivably be a breach of the peace, with unpleasant repercussions.” (NZ Truth November 1937)

In June 1922 W.H. Field M.P. wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice nominating Charles Gray to be a Justice of the Peace for Pukerua, pointing out that there was no JP in this fast-developing place. A letter from Constable O’Donnell of the Johnsonville Police Station dated 4 November 1923 to The Inspector of Police, Wellington states: “I respectively report that Charles Gray is a very respectable man, and a well known farmer of Pukerua. I consider him a most suitable person for appointment to the Commission of the Peace.”

In March 1924 the Minister of Justice was informed by the Under Secretary of Justice that Mr Roderick Mulhern of Pukerua had called in to the Ministry of Justice office to inform them of the 1895 civil action against Gray and that as a consequence Mulhern contended Gray was not a suitable person to be a Justice of the Peace. The Under Secretary’s memo to the Minister goes on to state:

“Enquiries also go to show that Mr. Gray has actively objected to certain proposed works by the Hutt County Council which, if carried out, would result in his being heavily rated. Mr. Mulhern was one who would derive benefit from the County Council’s proposals, and has apparently taken umbrage against Mr. Gray and has now, after a lapse of 29 years, dragged up the incident in Mr. Gray’s career in the hope, no doubt, that his name will be removed from the Commission. In view of the lapse of 29 years since the action was heard it is not deemed advisable to do anything in the matter, but the facts are brought before you for your information and for any action you may wish to be taken.”

A handwritten note at the bottom of the memo states: “After 29 years since the wrongdoing I think no action is needed. Moreover Mr Gray’s conduct since seems to have been unexceptionable.” (R Mulhern, Pukerua Date: 5 March 1924 Subject: As to suitability of C Gray of Pukerua to be a Justice of the Peace. R24659413. Archives New Zealand Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga.)

There was significant animosity between the three European land-owning families of Pukerua at the time. The Walls, who had been farming since the 1860’s on land at Pukerua leased and later purchased from Ngati Toa, regarded Gray as an intruder. “My father knew he (Gray) was unpredictable. We had only a spring water supply, and my father was not going to have his home threatened in any way, so he built the house (Kerehoma) of six-inch thick concrete in 1926,” commented the late Barbara Kay (neé Wall) (Personal communication). The Mulhern’s moved to Pukerua from Pāuatahanui in 1920 and their farm between the Walls and the Gray’s acted almost as a buffer.

A headline in the New Zealand Times of April 1924 read ““Like Kilkenny Cats” Pukerua Settlers Two-Year-Old Crossing Fight. Deputation To Minister”. This referred to a meeting in the office of the Minister for Public Works and Railways the Hon J. G. Coates’ to try and settle a debate about the location of a railway overbridge. There was a Gray faction and a Mulhern faction.

Walls were Anglican, Grays Presbyterian and Mulherns were Roman Catholic which in those days did not exactly help relationships. (New Zealand Times, 16 April 1924 p7)

In November 1931 Reg Wall took a case of “specific performance” against Charles Gray in the Supreme Court over land which Gray had agreed to buy but subsequently had reneged on the agreement. Specific performance is a legal term which requires the defendant to carry out a promise made or to be held in contempt of court. The claim also included “£60/16/3 for special damages.” In 1927 Gray had signed an agreement to buy 18½ acres of land at Pukerua Bay at £15 an acre from Wall. Gray refused to carry out the purchase although Wall was still willing to sell. Gray alleged in court that there were verbal conditions as part of the contract to purchase. Judgement was found for Wall with costs and witnesses’ expenses. In addition he was entitled to take off £39/14/3 from the purchase price of the property. (Evening Post, 1 December 1931, p11)

A mere four months before this Gray and his wife Elizabeth had been plaintiffs in the Magistrates Court having taken an action for slander. This was against Herbert Burgess for loudly abusing them on Easter Monday at the Pukerua Bay tennis courts. Burgess, a long-time resident of Pukerua Bay who died in 1973, upbraided “the plaintiffs for having reported his boy to the police and for having denied doing so.” Burgess did not deny using the words. The Magistrate said the case was not one for heavy damages as he did not think that anyone who heard the defendant on Easter Monday took the words seriously as he “was so obviously upset, and was beside himself with anger and indignation.” The Gray’s had claimed £300 but were awarded £10 each plus costs. (Evening Post, 29 July 1931, p11)

By Ashley Blair