1. Rose Beatrice Curtis (1880 - 1909) married Willie Brunton Nicoll (1879 - 1959) in 1901. During their brief marriage, Rose and Willie had a number of children:
1.1 Willie James Herbert Nicoll (1901 - 1955). Willie married Hilda May Lavinia Batt in 1926.
1.2 Harold Leonard Frederick Nicoll (1902 - 1964). Harold married Dorothy Cecil Vorback (22 February 1906 - 1987) in 1929.
1.3 Rita Violet Ellen Nicoll (1904 -1923). Rita died early, aged just 18 years. It appears that she sadly died as the result of a botched abortion, in the days before abortion was legal in New Zealand. The NZ Truth published this report about the Depositions hearing with respect to the two men charged with her murder - her boyfriend Thomas Viggars, and Richard Hollis - on 26 May 1923:
ANOTHER
MURDER CHARGE
FATAL
RESULT OF ILLEGAL OPERATION
Two
Youths Committed For Trial
DEAD
GIRL'S DEPOSITION
The
extraordinary interest taken throughout Marlborough in the pitiful
death of the pretty young girl, Rita Violet Ellen Nicoll, who died
recently at the Wairau Hospital from the effects, of an alleged
illegal operation, was well exemplified, when in the presence of a
crowded Court room.
Magistrate
T. E. Maunsell committed for trial on the capital charge of murder,
two young men alleged to have been concerned in the girl's death.
These were Richard Hollis who is alleged to have performed the
illegal operation and Thomas Viggars, a well known Blenheim youth,
against whom it is alleged that he procured Hollis to perform the
alleged criminal act.
The
two young men were originally arrested on the charges mentioned
above, but after the inquest on the dead girl fresh informations were
sworn and they were apprehended for murder.
When
the case came before the Magistrate Crown Prosecutor C. H. Mills was
granted formal permission to withdraw the original charges, and the
accused were then charged on two counts — first, murder of the girl
Nicoll on May 7 (the date of her death), and, second, with using an
instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage.
Mr.
A. C. Nathan appeared on behalf of the accused Viggars, while Mr. C.
T. Smith appeared for Hollis.
Viggars's
counsel objected to BOTH THE CHARGES BEING HEARD AT ONCE, claiming
that, evidence relevant to one charge would not necessarily be
relevant to the other, and after some argument the Crown agreed to
take the murder change first and to be guided by circumstances as to
whether the second count should be proceeded with.
The
Crown Prosecutor opened the case with a brief review of the evidence
to be submitted, his statement roughly traversing the evidence
adduced at the Coroner's inquest, and then proceeded to call his
witnesses who were quickly disposed of, the defence not asking a
single question, though counsel for both accused raised plenty of
objections to the admission of a great deal of the evidence,
principally on the grounds that it was not in accord with the law of
evidence and also on the ground that what might be evidence against
one accused was not necessarily evidence against the other.
Vincent
Henry Dodson, a farmer residing at Spring Creek, said the late Rita
Nicoll was employed by him as a domestic servant for 16 months. She
left witness's employment on Saturday, April 21, at about 6.15 p.m.
and caught the train to Blenheim. Her health then appeared to be
quite all right. Witness said he knew the accused Viggars and had
often seen him at the gate in company with the deceased girl.
Viggars usually arrived on a motor cycle and the pair were in the
habit of going away together on the machine. The girl started going
with Viggars about three months after she entered witness's employ,
and after that she went with no one else. Deceased left witness's
employ of her own free will, having given a week's notice. As to her
behavior, she was "THE BEST GIRL WE EVER HAD."
Mrs.
Wilhelmina Bagby, an aunt of the deceased girl, said she resided in
Eltham Road, Blenheim. The girl was just on 19 years of age.
Witness
gave evidence as to the girl's illness on the lines of her statement
at the recent inquest.
Witness
said the girl appeared to be in quite good health until witness saw
her in bed about 7.30 on the Tuesday morning (April 22) when witness,
after a talk with the girl, decided to call in Dr. Russell Adams.
However, when the doctor arrived the girl declined to allow him to
examine her. The girl was up all day on Wednesday until 8.30 p.m.,
but was very ill. During the night witness was called by her little
girl and went to see Rita and found her in terrible pain and in a
very serious condition. She was taken to the Wairau Hospital.
Witness
said she knew the accused Viggars, who was introduced to her by her
niece eight or nine months ago. She had seen the girl in company
with Viggars on a motor cycle. Witness identified three photographs
of the girl, which were produced by the prosecution.
Dr.
Julian, medical superintendent at Wairau Hospital, gave evidence on
the lines of his statement to the Coroner, regarding the admission of
the girl to the hospital, her condition when she arrived, her
treatment there, and her death" on May 7. He asked Dr. Russell
Adams to consult with him on the case. On the following morning
witness considered the girl's condition hopeless and about 9.55 a.m.
had a conversation with her. Witness told her that she was dying and
she replied that she knew she was dying.
Mr.
Nathan challenged this as "hearsay" evidence, but Mr. Mills
argued that the evidence was permissible as showing that the girl
knew she was in a dying condition. Proceeding, witness related that
the girl said SHE KNEW SHE WAS DYING and had no hope of recovery.
Witness asked her if she knew she was pregnant.
In
reply to the Bench, witness said he was satisfied from her demeanor
that she knew she was dying.
Witness
proceeded that the girl replied that she knew she had been pregnant.
He asked her if an instrument had been used.
Mr.
Nathan again objected to this evidence and his Worship said he would
note the objection to the whole of the conversation between witness
and deceased, but he would admit the evidence.
Witness
said the girl replied to him that an instrument had been used. He
asked her by whom and she replied, "Hollis." He asked her
Hollis's Christian name and she said she did not know. He asked her
where the Instrument was used and she replied "High Street."
He asked her whereabouts in High Street and she did not answer. He
then asked her. "Was it in Hollis's butcher's shop?"
(belonging to accused's brother) and she said "yes." He
asked her when the instrument was used and she replied "on the
Monday evening" immediately prior to her admission to the
hospital. Witness asked her who took her there and she said, "my
boy, Viggars." Her mind at the time was perfectly clear.
Witness proceeded that he communicated with Senior-Sergeant Clarkson
on the telephone.
What
did you tell him? — That the girl's condition was hopeless in my
opinion. Anything further? — He said he would get a Justice and
come up.
What
time was that conversation? Just prior to my conversation with Miss
Nicoll. It would be about 10 minutes to 10.
Shortly
after that did Senior Sergeant Clarkson come to the hospital? - About
half an hour after.
Accompanied
by whom? A Justice of the Peace, Mr. Hill; the Clerk of the Court: a
man whom I understood to be Hollis; a policeman, and others.
Well,
you were present when the party arrived ?- Yes.
Was
a statement obtained at that stage, from the deceased?— Yes.
By
whom?— Mr. Hill, the Justice of the Peace.
Mr.
Mills then asked that witness stand down till tbe Registrar of the
Supreme Court in whose custody it is, formally produced the
deposition made by the girl.
This'
was done, the Registrar, Mr. A. F. Bent, deposing that he was present
when a deposition was made by Rita Nicoll to Mr. Hill, J.P., and was
handed to witness as Registrar. Witness proceeded to read the
deposition, and Mr. Nathan asked that his formal objection to the
admissability of this evidence be noted.
Witness
said each of the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine the
girl if they had desired to do so.
The
evidence of Dr. Julian was then resumed. He was handed the
deposition, which he read. He said that it was the statement made by
Rita Nicoll on May 4 in his presence. At that time she was
dangerously ill, but capable of understanding what was said to her.
She lingered on until May 7. After the death an examination was held
at which he was present. Witness described injuries which could have
been caused by some perforating instrument more or less pointed or
rounded. The cause of death was septic pneumonia due to puerperal
infection caused by a surgically dirty instrument used by an
unskilled person. Septic pneumonia, he added, was a complication
which might follow any septic infection.
To
the Bench: An unskilled person could cause a miscarriage at four
months* pregnancy without endangering life, but would require to know
of one or two small points.
Dr.
R. Noble Adams gave evidence as to the post mortem, which he
performed on the body of the girl. There were external signs of
acute septic infection. Witness corroborated Dr. Julian's evidence as
to injuries to the girl. In witness's opinion the injuries must have
been caused by some more or less sharp instrument, probably straight.
They conld not have been caused by any. surgical instruments m
common usage. The cause of death was pneumonia arising from an acute
septic infection primarily caused by the use of some unsterilisecl
instrument.
Dr.
Russell Adams deposed that he was called to Mrs. Bagbys house on
April 25 to see Miss Rita Nicoll. The girl was in bed, but witness
did not make an examination because the girl DID NOT WISH TO SEE HIM
at all. Subsequently, on May 3 witness was called into consultation
on the case by Dr. Julian at the Wairau Hospital. Witness examined
the girl, who was suffering in witness's opinion, from puerperal
septicaemia and secondary pneumonia. She was, in a very critical
state. Witness was satisfied that the treatment being accorded her
was correct. From the examination which he made witness formed the
opinion that the primary cause of the septicaemia was abortion.
Edward
Johnston Hill, a Justice of the Peace, gave evidence that on May 4 at
the request of Senior-Sergeant Clarkson he accompanied the Sergeant
to the hospital to take a deposition. They met Dr. Julian in the
corridor and, in reply to a question by the Sergeant, the doctor
said, "It is a hopeless case."
Mr.
Nathan objected to this answer, but his Worship, ruling that the
Justice must be satisfied as to the deponent's condition, overruled
the objection, though he noted it.
Witness
proceeded that he was aware when he went to the hospital that he was
to take a deposition in regard to an information which had been laid,
and he was quite satisfied when he had seen her that the girl was
able and willing to give evidence. Witness was also satisfied that
it would have been impossible to have taken her evidence in open
Court in the ordinary manner, for from her condition as described by
the doctor, he was of opinion that she might have died at any moment.
He felt sure of this. The Senior-Sergeant administered the oath to
the girl. Miss Nicoll could only articulate "yes" or "no"
to questions put to her by the Sergeant. She made no straightout
statement herself, except that she said, onn one occasion, "yes,
my boy, Tommy." Witness said he personally wrote the statement
in the form of a deposition. It was the statement previously read in
Court. After writing the statement it was read over by witness to
the girl and to the two accused. Both accused were invited to ask
the girl any question and Hollis replied: "No; I don't want to
upset her." Viggars simply said, "No."'
Witness
added that VIGGARS WAS NOT PRESENT at the time the deposition was
written and signed, but he was present just after the girl put her
mark on the document as signature and it was read over to him and he
was asked if he had any questions and replied, "No."
Hollis
was not represented by counsel, though witness had tried to get in
touch with Mr. Smith.
Witness
said he took Viggars to the bedside and said: "Rita, do you
recognise this young man standing here?" She replied: "Yes,
that's my boy, Tommy." Witness said: "Tommy who?" and
she said: "Tommy Viggars." On going into the room, witness
said to the girl, "Rita, I have brought a Justice to obtain a
statement from you as to the cause of your illness," and she
replied, in a low voice, "Yes." She was quite rational and
appeared to understand all that was said and all that was going on.
Replying
to a question by the Bench, witness said the girl had the pen in her
fingers to make her mark or signature, but MR. HILL GUIDED HER HAND.
Constable Canning, on relieving duty in Blenheim, gave evidence that
he was present at the hospital when the girl's depositions were
taken. Later in the day witness was on duty on the street and
Viggars approached him and said: "I have been round to the
police station to report, but the Sergeant is not there. If I report
to you, will that do?" Witness replied, "Yes."
Viggars then said: "I did not like the look of the girl to-day."
Witness replied: "No; no more do I.'! Viggars then asked: "How
will I be getting on?" Witness said: "From what I hear,
you asked Hollis to do the job." Viggars replied: "He did
not want much asking. I am sorry for the girl."
Constable
Doggett, in charge of the Picton district and police gaoler at
Picton, said Hollis had been in his custody since May 4. At about 2
p.m. on May 8 Hollis asked witness if he had heard HOW THE GIRL
NICOLL WAS GETTING ON. Mr. Nathan objected to any of this evidence
being taken as regards Viggars. The Crown Solicitor said Mr. Nathan
could rest assured that this evidence did not affect Viggars. Mr.
Nathans objection was noted.
Witness
said he told Hollis he was in a position to tell him how the girl
was, but that it was his duty to warn him that anything he might say
might be used in evidence against him. He replied: "Yes; I
understand." Witness then told him the girl had died the
previous morning. He simply said, "Ahem!" A little later
he said: "I expect that will make it worse." Witness said:
"It's a wonder you got implicated in this matter at all,” and
he replied: "Yes; it's a wonder to me and to everyone else."
This
concluded the evidence.
Neither
of the counsel for the accused addressed the Court.
His
Worship said he took it that so far as Viggars was concerned, the
Crown proposed to ask the jury to find that he ought to have known
better than to take part in an action likely to cause death.
Mr.
Mills: That is so, your Worship.
His
Worship said that so far as Hollis was concerned, he had some doubt
as to whether a murder charge would lie, but no doubt the Supreme
Court would direct the Jury in the matter.
Both
accused, who reserved their defence and who were not asked to plead,
as it was a murder charge, were committed for trial at the Supreme
Court sessions to be held, in Blenheim on June 5.
Viggars
was admitted to bail in his own recognizance of £200 and two
approved sureties of £500 each.
There
was no application for bail for Hollis.
Papers such as the Auckland Star reported, on 7 June 1923, that both Thomas Viggars and Richard Hollis had been convicted in the Supreme Court, on a lesser charge of manslaughter of Rita:
MANSLAUGHTER.
TWO
MEN SENTENCED.
SEVEN
YEARS' HARD LABOUR.
AND
18 MONTHS' HARD LABOUR.
(By
Telegraph.—Press Association.)
BLENHEIM,
this day.
After
a trial extending over two days of Richard Arthur Thomas Hollis and
Thomas Whiston Viggars, on charges arising out of the recent death of
Rita Violet Ellen Nicoll, a young woman who died in Wairau Hospital
after the effects of an illegal operation, the jury returned a
verdict of guilty against both accused, with a recommendation for
leniency in the case of Viggars.
Hollis,
who had a previous conviction for a similar offence, was sentenced to
seven years' hard labour, and Viggars to eighteen months' hard
labour. The two accused men were committed from the Lower Court on a
charge of murder, but the Grand Jury threw out the bill on the murder
charge, and returned a true bill charging accused with manslaughter.
Sir
John Salmond said he could not accept the plea ofViggars counsel for
probation, and must impose imprisonment as a salutary warning to the
young man. However, he perfectly agreed to the recommendations of
the jury towards leniency, and he thought eighteen months would meet
the case.
Rose and Willie's fourth child was only 12 months old when they separated, and he became the subject of proceedings:
1.4 Augustus Cecil Neale "Cecil" Nicoll (1905 - October 1943, Marlborough)Rose and Willie's fourth child was only 12 months old when they separated, and he became the subject of proceedings:
The following article appeared in the 19 September 1908 edition of the Marlborough Express:
HUSBAND
AND WIFE.
Yesterday
afternoon, Mr T. Scott- Smith, S.M., heard a case brought by Rose
Nicoll against her husband, Willie Nicoll, for maintenance of his
child aged 12 months.
Mr
McNab, who appeared for the husband, applied for a separation order,
and also asked for the custody of the child, on the ground that the
wife had deserted the defendant and had been away from him since 28th
January last.
Counsel
for plaintiff said his client would agree to a separation order;
provided she were allowed the custody of the child. The child was
only 12 months old. If defendant would not agree he (counsel) was
not prepared to go on with the information for separation, as it had
only just been served. The question was whether the husband had
failed to provide adequate maintenance for the child. The wife was
not asking anything for herself.
Mr
McNab said the wife had left her husband in 1906, and on the 12th
May, 1907, he had taken her back. Later on there was a disturbance,
and the wife again cleared out, taking the child with her. There
were three other children of the marriage who had been left with the
husband and he had to keep them. He was only a working man and he
would be better able to keep the youngest child along with the
others.
Counsel
for plaintiff suggested that an order be made for the maintenance of
the child, the money to be paid to the Clerk of the Court; such order
could be varied at any time if the money were not being properly
applied. He did not wish to claim any large amount. No evidence was
called, and after counsel had discussed the matter conversationally
an agreement was come to in the following terms: — The separation
order was granted, the husband to pay 4s per week in monthly
instalments towards the maintenance of child, no mention being made
as to the custody in the meantime; an order also to be made allowing
the husband the custody of the three children at present in his care.
His Worship accordingly made the orders in accordance with the
agreement arrived at.
Eileen Mabel Curtis Nicoll (1909 - 1909). This baby died at the age of just seven weeks.
Probably as a result of the birth, Rose also died in 1909. I think, following Rose's death, Cecil was probably returned to his father's care.
In 1921 Willie Brunton Nicoll married Susannah Maber.
2. Harold Sidney Curtis (1886 - 1965) married Esther Knapp (1886) in Palmerston North in July 1905. However, by March 1906 they had been granted a separation order and later in 1906 there is reference to him not obeying an order of the Court to maintain his wife.
They were divorced in May 1919:
Harold then married Charlotte Alvina Hardy (1892 - 1952)in 1920. Harold and Esther had at least two daughters:
2.1 Leah Ellen Curtis (1905). Leah married Charles James Harrison (8 December 1900 - 1982) in 1927.
2.2 Vera Curtis (1907 - 1956). Vera married Frederick Ralph Lewis in 1928.
No comments:
Post a Comment