John Youard

218

Dianne Jones on 30th March 2022

BACK TO WA: As a high profile businessman in Geraldton, John Youard's name was often in the newspapers. His standing in the community seems evident from this particular piece in the Daily Advertiser, Tue 28 Feb, 1893, p2: "BE JUST AND FEAR NOT." ARE THINGS EQUITABLE? DURING the last four weeks the result of the efforts of the arbitrators appointed to value the land resumed in Geraldton by the Government has been subjected to the keenest scrutiny, and while it has been seen that, on the whole, substantial justice has been done the owners of property reclaimed by the Crown, it has been discovered that in one instance a grave mistake has been made, and the compensation awarded was not anything like what it should have been. It is the duty of a public journal to ventilate the grievances of a community, and to insist that they shall receive in the proper quarter the attention their nature demands. It is none the less its duty, also, to protect the rights of the individual, and to shelter him from injustice of whatever sort or kind. Á wrong, whether intentional or inflicted through oversight, is nevertheless a wrong, and calls for the immediate attention of those in whose hands a remedy lies. Now, the verdict of our leading and most intelligent townsmen declares, the voice of impartial public opinion proclaims, and both newspapers are in accord in contending that one person in Geraldton has been a severe sufferer through the result of the arbitration proceedings. The person referred to is a most useful resident of Geraldton—a man, too, who has spent the best years of his life, in our midst, and has worked hard to rear up a yery large family. It is Mr. JOHN YOUARD. His case has been freely commented upon by all sorts and conditions of men in the community for the last four weeks, and the unanimous opinion is that he is the victim of injustice •—not wilful injustice certainly,—but injustice all the same. It therefore devolves upon us, in the interests of fair play, to advocate his cause, and we do so with pleasure, knowing its righteousness, and believing that, although it may not be customary for the authorities to interfere with the work of arbitrators, they will see that the present instance calls specially for their intervention if a grievous wrong is not to be perpetrated on a deserving citizen. We will now proceed to show how Mr. YOUARD has been unfairly treated. To do so, we must institute a comparison between him and his next door neighbours. Take Messrs. LINTHORNE and KEELEY for example. They have each a quarter block. LINTHORNE has upon his piece an iron building with five small rooms ; on KEELEY'S property there is erected a flimsy tenement largely consisting of wattle and daub. Both comprise two businesses. For these two quarter blocks, and these two businesses, they receive from the Government £1,710, The amount we regard as by no means excessive, considering the position of the land and the inconvenience and loss the owners must suffer in consequence of being disturbed. But now look at the other side of the picture! How has Mr. YOUARD been dealt with? He has a half block—exactly the same size as Messrs LINTHORNE and KEELEY'S—there stands on it a substantial, highly finished and exquisitely ornamented stone building comprising a large shop, a sitting room, two bed rooms, a dining room and a kitchen, all of which are adorned with all the beauties of architectural art. Besides these, there is a porch, a wash house, a work shop and warehouse among the out buildings, and a stable, hay room, and another compact apartment under one roof on the same piece of ground. Mr. YOUARD has also two businesses—the decorating business and the store business. Both of these are established a great many years, in fact Mr. YOUARD, if we recollect 'aright, was the very first to carry on the avocations of storekeeper and house decorator in that part of the terrace. His shop trade is now practically ruined. During the last six months hé has not deemed it advisable to replenish his stocks fearing that he would have eventually to sacrifice them under the auctioneer's hammer, and, while his cash sales have diminished materially, several of his regular customers have deserted him entirely. He has no place to remove to where he can be so well accommodated as at present, and no place where he can re-commence trade with the same prospects of success. And now listen ! For this half block of land in a splendid situation, with its costly buildings and outhouses, with its two prosperous businesses—one of which is totally destroyed—Mr. YOUARD has been awarded £1726 or only £16 more than Messrs. KEELEY and LINTHORNE! The question is—would the buildings on Mr, YOUARD'S half grant be regarded as of more value than those which are on the opposite half grant (KEELEY'S and LIN- THORNE'S), whether considered separately or collectively? If so, would that value, relatively considered, be material ? If so, what would be the true difference ? This, whatever it may be—and we fully believe it will run up into some hundreds—is positively Mr. YOUARD'S due and right. Now for another aspect of the question. Messrs KEELEY'S and LINTHORNE'S businesses combined do not, we think, represent in dimensions the trade of Mr. YOUARD'S store and decorating departments, nor are they likely to suffer to the same extent from the interruption, as well as ruin to trade, which the resumption of his land involves. Neither of them has a store to break up, stock to sacrifice, extensive shop fittings to pull down, nor the same quantity of furniture to shift. Besides, the action of the Government in giving Mr. YOUARD a week's notice to quit drove him to make arrangements which he then considered safe, and which now necessitate his paying 8 per cent on £1,320 from the 28th September, 1892 for a small house purchased by him to shelter his family. The more we enquire into Mr. YOUARD'S case the more clearly we become convinced that it is a hard one, and demands at least a re-consideration. Another way of showing the injustice done Mr. YOUARD. The arbitrators awarded Mm £450 for a vacant half block alongside of LINTHORNE'S and KEELEY'S. In view of this, they must have valued the ground of the latter at the same price. Now we will set down the cost of the buildings at £600. It then follows that if the ground was worth £450 and the buildings £600, the businesses must have been estimated at £660. Now if Mr. YOUARD has been treated alike in so far as being allowed £450 for his block with the house on it, and £660 for his businesses, it follows that the total sum allotted him for his beautiful residence, and several outhouses has been the inadequate amount of £616! Is this equitable? (https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/255619825) From whatever point of view we look at the arbitration awards, in so far as they concern Mr. YOUARD, we discern him the victim of an injustice, and until that injustice is removed it will be no credit to the Government or to the country. Mr. YOUARD does not ask for generous treatment. He merely wants fair play. And can anyone, after a perusal of the foregoing, after gaining a knowledge of the circumstances as we have taken the trouble of doing, come to any other conclusion than that a mistake—and a great mistake—has been committed, and that he is the unfortunate sufferer. As we have said before, we do not state that Messrs. LINTHORNE and KEELEY, or any one else, have received a shilling more than their due. But we contend that Mr. YOUARD has not been awarded what he is justly entitled to, and, in the interests of honest dealing, in the interests of fair play which every Briton prizes, we call upon the authorities to investigate his case, and endeavour to ascertain whether he has been treated with that justice which is every man's due.

218

Dianne Jones on 29th March 2022

8 September, 1857: He was sent from Portsmouth to board the Nile for transportation to WA. By this time, he had served 3 years 11 months 21 days of his life sentence. Boarded as convict #7/4012; behaviour on the voyage "good" (Western Australia, Australia, Convict Records, 1846-1930; Convict Department, Registers; Convicts Transported Per Nile (R32)). --0--

218

Dianne Jones on 29th March 2022

13 June, 1857: Admitted to Portsmouth prison, Cumberland Street, Portsmouth, Hampshire. Portsmouth, Chatham, Portland and Spike Island in Ireland were listed public works stations and the second stage in the penal process. After separate confinement, prisoners were “placed on work parties at various locations, most commonly naval stations, where maintenance of facilities was vital for the effective protection of Britain’s far flung commercial and military influences around the world. While there, attitude and behaviour were monitored closely. In theory, only after consistently positive reports was a prisoner moved on to the third stage of his incarceration—transportation.” (Edgar, p40) John Youard was listed as inmate #4012, with all details as per his previous jail records. At Portsmouth, he served 2 months 27 days; behaviour "good" Two unusual events are noted on this record: a visit (unidentified) on 2 September, and a special visit on 3 September (also no details) (UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951 for John Youard; Portsmouth Prison; Registers of Prisoners; 1855-1858). --0--

218

Dianne Jones on 29th March 2022

13 February, 1854: Admitted to Parkhurst prison, Clissold Road, Newport (Isle of Wight), Hampshire. Parkhurst was opened in 1838 "as a prison for young male offenders, ideally aged 16 and under (though some also aged in their late teens), to provide them with a course of moral, religious and industrial training, together with corrective discipline, to prepare them for emigration (both as free emigrants and convicts). By the mid 1850s, the Parkhurst boys were no longer exiled but liberated in the UK, and the function of the prison was broadened to include all boys sentenced to terms exceeding one year imprisonment." (https://www.prisonhistory.org/prison/parkhurst-prison/) Clearly, John Youard missed the cut for liberation in the UK. He was listed as inmate #109, 14 years old when convicted, 5' tall, fresh complexion, light brown hair, hazel eyes and slender build; health "good". Next of kin -- his father John Youard, Burnham Market, Norfolk. Able to read and write imperfectly; Protestant. Other details as per his Newgate record. He served 3 years 4 months at Parkhurst; behaviour "good", and was classified as a Class 1 prisoner when sent, next, to Portsmouth (UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951 for John Youard; Parkhurst Prison; Register of Prisoners; 1853-1863). --0--

218

Dianne Jones on 29th March 2022

22 December, 1853: John Youard was admitted to Millbank prison, Westminster, London. He served 1 month 22 days in separate confinement -- behaviour "good". “After a sentence of transportation was handed down, the prisoner entered into a separate stage where he was placed into an individual cell, isolated from others, apart from brief periods of exercise and attendance at chapel. However, no communication of any kind with other prisoners was permitted at any time. The philosophy behind this penal methodology had its provenances in the religious, monastic traditions; i.e., that in the isolation of his cell the malefactor would be able to contemplate the errors of his way, unadulterated by the negative influences of former contemporaries, and be reformed.” (Edgar, 2018, pp39-40) When first put into practice, the mandated period of separate confinement was 18 months. By the late 1840s, authorities had conceded that such conditions of imprisonment were “injurious to many prisoners’ mental health” and the stint was reduced to 12 months. Periods of separate confinement were reduced further “as a prisoner displayed good behaviour tendencies” (Edgar, p40). Millbank, Pentonville, Wakefield and Mountjoy in Ireland were the “Probation” or “Separate” prisons, as were some local jails. --0--

218

Dianne Jones on 29th March 2022

22 September, 1853: Tried before Baron Martin in the Old Bailey, found guilty and sentenced to transportation for life. Several newspapers reported on the trial, including the Morning Chronicle, 23 September 1853, p8: "NEW COURT.-[Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.] John Youard, 14, servant, was indicted for feloniously accusing Joseph Kahn of an unnatural crime, with intent to extort from him the sum of £100. Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Parry prosecuted; and Mr. Clarkson appeared for the prisoner, who is a respectable-looking youth. Mr. Ballantine having stated the case to the jury, called the prosecutor, who is proprietor of the celebrated anatomical museum in Regent-street, and the substance of his evidence, which is unfit for detail in full, went to prove that he took the prisoner into his service to drive a horse and chaise and deliver bills of the exhibition. The prisoner came to him in a very destitute state, and prosecutor kindly forwarded him a few pounds to buy what he required, he (prosecutor) finding him a living. After he had been a short time in prosecutor's employment, he complained of being unwell, and was in consequence absent from his employment. When he came back he again complained of being unwell, and Dr. Kahn then gave orders that he should be attended to by a medical gentleman, who could not find that anything was the matter with him, and they thought that he was only pretending to be unwell to avoid his work. After some time the prisoner told the prosecutor that he was unwell in consequence of what he (prosecutor) had done to him; and then, much to the surprise of the prosecutor, he made the charge in question, which is unfit for publication. The prosecutor was much excited at hearing such a statement, and asked the boy who had instigated him to make such an infamous charge; but he denied that any one had done so, and persisted in his statement, and ultimately said that he had heard through the papers that a boy at Birmingham had got £300 out of a person to suppress a charge of a similar character. The prosecutor finally consented to come to some arrangement, and having consulted the police, the result was that at the interview, when the prosecutor, as prisoner thought, was about to accede to his terms, some of the police were hidden in the room, so that the whole conversation could be overheard. A written agreement was then drawn up, and signed by the prisoner, by which he bound himself not to further annoy Dr. Kahn if £50 was paid down and a further £50 at some future period. As soon as the prisoner had signed the paper, the police came from their hiding place and prisoner then fell upon his knees, and begged forgiveness at once, admitting that the whole charge was untrue and entreated for his father's sake that the charge would not be pressed. The prosecutor, who was most minutely cross-examined by Mr. Clarkson, firmly and positively denied each of the particular portions of the impropriety imputed to him, and most distinctly asserted that he had never in any way at all touched the prisoner, or had ever to his knowledge been in the company of the prisoner without some other person. The statements made by the prosecutor were fully borne out by the other witnesses. Mr. Clarkson, on behalf of the prisoner, said the position he was placed in was a very painful one, as he felt, after hearing the evidence given by the prosecutor, that he was in every particular speaking the truth. Still it became his duty to put certain questions, and he thought it better that he had done so, as it had given him the opportunity of answering them; and after he (Mr. Clarkson) had heard him answer some half-dozen interrogatories, he felt it was no part of his duty to further press the defence, and therefore, consistent with his duty, he should retire, considering he had done all that a counsel was called upon to do. Still he could not account for the motive which had led the prisoner, who was very young, to make so heinous a charge. Mr. Baron Martin said Mr. Clarkson had acted in a manner perfectly consistent and honourable, and he (the learned judge) had allowed the case to go to a greater length than was necessary to ensure the prisoner's conviction..." --0--

218

Dianne Jones on 29th March 2022

IN ENGLAND -- MORE ABOUT HIS COMMITTAL, CONVICTION & JAIL TIME: 13 September, 1853: John Youard was brought into custody and admitted to Newgate prison, corner Newgate Street and Old Bailey, London, having been committed to stand trial by J Hardwicke Esq at the Marlboro Street Police Court. He was charged with "feloniously accusing Joseph Kahn of the crime of B...y with intent to extort from him the sum of £100". In Newgate, he was listed as 14 years old, 5' tall, fresh complexion, light brown hair, hazel eyes and slender build; a servant, from Birmingham (UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951 for John Youard; Newgate Prison; Registers of Prisoners; mislabelled as 1862). --0--

221

D Wong on 22nd June 2016

Old Bailey: JOHN YOUARD, Theft > extortion, 19th September 1853. Offence: Theft > extortion Verdict: Guilty > no_subcategory Punishment: Transportation JOHN YOUARD , feloniously accusing Joseph Kahn of an abominable crime, with intent to extort money from him. MESSRS. BALLANTINE and PARRY conducted the Prosecution; MR. CLARKSON conducted the Defence. (The particulars of this case were unfit for publication.) GUILTY . Aged 14.— Transported for Life. John was tried in 1853 and arrived in WA 5 years later, so he was 19 years old on arrival. He was 5’4 ½” tall, light brown hair, grey eyes, fresh complexion, middling stout, semi literate, protestant, single. Occupation: House Painter. 9/6/1859: TOL CP Perth 1859: was working for himself. 14/4/1869: Free Pardon 7/4/1860: Married Martha (Matilda) Jones – Perth. (Martha born 15/3/1837 Midsummer Norton, Somerset and died 11/3/1924 at Geraldton WA, aged 86) 1860: They were resident at St Mary Abbots, Kensington, England. 1862: Back in Perth – 6 children born. 1867: At Geraldton – 2 children born. 1870: To Manchester England for 6 years with family – 3 children born there. Aug. 1876 – Return to Fremantle. 1881: 1 daughter born Geraldton. 8/10/1903: John died at Geraldton and was buried at the Eastern Road Cemetery, Geraldton, WA.