George James Moule (27 Mar 1854 - 18 Nov 1930)
George James Moule was born on the 27 March 1854 in Newark, New Jersey, USA to parents James Lancelot Moule and Elizabeth Moule (nee Parkinson). He was their second son and third child.
Not long before (between 1845 and 1854) his parents had moved to Newark, New Jersey, USA from Birmingham, England.
In 1866, when George was aged 12, his father died in America.
George James Moule travels to Adelaide from London on the ship "Stratton Audley"on 16 November 1873.
He is listed as a Broker/Traveller.
On 20 November 1878 he married Elizabeth Georgina Kerbey at Bentham Street Christian Church, North Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
On 14 September 1879 first born Olive Lilian Moule arrives. NEVER MARRIES.
On 9 October 1881 second born Eva Gertrude Moule arrives. NEVER MARRIES.
On 27 December 1883, first son and third child Ernest Osmond Moule is born.
On 28 February 1884, George James Moule lists his villa residence on Glen Osmond Road for sale in the newspaper. Written is:
"Choice VILLA RESIDENCE, GLEN OSMOND ROAD, containing Seven Rooms, Bath, Pantry, and all usual conveniences, on land about 60 feet frontage by 150 feet, with Garden laid out and nicely planted. 700 pounds - can remain on mortgage for three years at 7 per cent. Occupant, George Moule, Esq."
On 21 March 1884 he was living at 10 Regent Street, Parkside. He is listed as a wheatbroker.
On 11 October 1888, second son and fourth child Leonard Vivian Moule arrives.
On 8 July 1890, fifth child Iris Myrtle Moule arrives.
On 14 February 1895, George's mother Elizabeth Moule (nee Parkinson) dies at their home on Regent Street (presumably a different one than number 10)
On 11 October 1896, sixth and last child Edna Dorothy Moule arrives.
In "The Advertiser" of 12 February 1901 it states: "Police Court - Adelaide - On February 9 - J. J. Grathead was fined 5/ and costs, amounting to £2 7/ in all, for having neglected to give notice to George James Moule, surveyor, as provided by section 38 of the Building Act, 1881, before commencing to do certain work in connection with the erection of a building in Foster Street, Parkside."
In "The Advertiser" of 25 December 1903 it states: "Prosecution of Bakers - Alleged Short-Weight Bread - A Raid at Unley - Several bakers were recently intercepted at Unley by Inspector Moule, who weighed their bread. As a consequence it was decided lo take action against the persons concerned. The cases came on for hearing at the Adelaide Police Court on Thursday morning, before Messrs. J. Gordon, S.M., and T. J. Matters.
G. A. Muth was first called upon. He was charged on the information of George James Moule, inspector of weights and measures for the corporation of the town of Unley, with having on December 16 carried about for sale or delivery on the South Railway Parade a quantity of bread, the first 12 loaves of which taken indiscriminately by the informant were deficient in weight on the whole by 11 1/2 oz avoirdupois, according to the weight per loaf at which it was professed to be sold, contrary to by law No. 16. Mr. R. H. Labhlean appeared for the informant, and Mr. W. Henderson defended.
Mr Henderson led off with a technical objection that the information disclosed no offence. This was overruled by the S.M.
Inspector Moule deposed to having taken a dozen loaves from the informant's cart and weighed them on a pair of local standard scales, with local standard weights tested last March. He found the loaves to aggregate a weight which was 11 1/2 oz. short.
The driver of the cart (George Kenny) stated that after Inspector Moule weighed the bread it was put back into the cart and witness subsequently sold it to his customers.
Mr. Henderson applied for a dismissal. The evidence did not support the information.
The S.M.- That is not the point.
Mr. Henderson thought the point raised that the defendant was not the person who carried the bread about was fatal. The by-law was bad because it did not say what weight the bread had to be.
The S.M. - It has not been shown whether this was fancy bread or not.
Mr. Lathlean- Oh, ordinary bread, your worship.
The S.M., after a brief consultation with his colleague, said he intended to dismiss the information.
After a further discussion between bench and counsel, the case was dismissed without costs. The court considered that there were two classes of offence. Tho owner of the cart and the driver were separately liable and should be charged in that manner.
C. R Mills was charged with having similarly offended on the Unley Road on December 16. The dozen loaves taken from his cart indiscriminately were alleged to be 22 1/2 oz. under weight. Mr. E. H. Limbert appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Lathlean, for the prosecution, asked that the information should be dismissed. He said of course he was entitled to lay this and two other informations again without fees, but the case against Dodderidge would be taken at once."
In "The Advertiser" of 27 January 1904 it states: "Short-Weight Bread: Successful Prosecutions - A few weeks ago Inspector Moule, of Unley, proceeded' against several bakers at the Adelaide Police Court on charges of having carried about for sale or delivery bread of less weight than 2 lb. per loaf. The charges were withdrawn owing to the difficulty experienced in establishing a prima facie case, but the court allowed fresh informations to be laid without fees against the defendants. For a master baker to be found guilty of this offence it would be necessary for his driver to admit being in his service, and as the driver has to be warned that he need not say anything that might incrimi nate himself the difficulty was apparent.
On Tuesday four bakers' drivers were brought up at the Police Court.
Charles Short, a driver in the employ of R Miller, of Greenhill Road, Dulwich, was charged on the information of George James Moule inspector of weights and measures for the Unley Corporation, with having on December 16, 1903, carried about for sale or delivery within the town, a quantity of bread, the first 12 loaves of which taken indiscriminately by the infor- mant were in,the whole deficient in weight 13 oz., avoirdupois, according to the weight per loaf at which it was professed to be sold, Mr. W.J Henderson appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty, and Mr JL H. Lathlean prosecuted for the informant. A fine of £1 was inflicted, and the defendant had also to pay £2 1/ costs."
In "The Advertiser" of 2 June 1905 it states: "Short-Weight Bread. Three Convictions -
At the last meeting of the Unley Council Inspector Moule was instructed to prosecute certain shopkeepers for selling short-weight bread within the municipality of Unley. At the Police Court on Thursday morning, before Messrs. J. Gordon, SJVL, R. T. Wallmann, and C. E. Taplin, the cases were dealt with.
On the 26 March 1908, George's wife Elizabeth dies and is buried at Road 1 South, Path 10, Site 17 in West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide.
In "The Advertiser" of 31 August 1910 it states "A Rate Collector Assaulted - His Assailant Fined - The Adelaide Police Court on Tuesday, before Mr. J. Gordon. S.M. and justices, John O'Sullivan was charged on the information of George James Moule with having assaulted him at Charles-street, Unley, on August 23. Mr. L. H. Haslam, for Messrs. Holland & Lathlean. appeared for the informant. The defendant pleaded not guilty. George James Moule, rate collector for the corporation of the City of Unley, said that about 3.15 pm. on August 23, be went to the house of the defendant, and asked him the name of the agent of the house. The defendant told the witness he did not know. The defendant also said, "Why pick on me?" and then attacked him with a stick.
He died on 18 November 1930 at Kapunda, South Australia. He was 76. He is buried at West Terrace Cemetery at Road 1 South, Path 10, Site 18 next to first wife Elizabeth.
DESCENDANTS OF GEORGE JAMES MOULE AND ELIZABETH MOULE ARE FROM ERNEST OSMOND MOULE AND LEONARD VIVIAN MOULE. ALL OTHER SIBLINGS HAD NO CHILDREN.
 |
| George James Moule |
Not long before (between 1845 and 1854) his parents had moved to Newark, New Jersey, USA from Birmingham, England.
In 1866, when George was aged 12, his father died in America.
George James Moule travels to Adelaide from London on the ship "Stratton Audley"on 16 November 1873.
 |
| 1873 - George James Moule shipping ticket from London to Adelaide |
He is listed as a Broker/Traveller.
On 20 November 1878 he married Elizabeth Georgina Kerbey at Bentham Street Christian Church, North Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
On 14 September 1879 first born Olive Lilian Moule arrives. NEVER MARRIES.
On 9 October 1881 second born Eva Gertrude Moule arrives. NEVER MARRIES.
On 27 December 1883, first son and third child Ernest Osmond Moule is born.
On 28 February 1884, George James Moule lists his villa residence on Glen Osmond Road for sale in the newspaper. Written is:
"Choice VILLA RESIDENCE, GLEN OSMOND ROAD, containing Seven Rooms, Bath, Pantry, and all usual conveniences, on land about 60 feet frontage by 150 feet, with Garden laid out and nicely planted. 700 pounds - can remain on mortgage for three years at 7 per cent. Occupant, George Moule, Esq."
On 21 March 1884 he was living at 10 Regent Street, Parkside. He is listed as a wheatbroker.
 |
| 10 Regent Street in 1886 |
On 8 July 1890, fifth child Iris Myrtle Moule arrives.
On 14 February 1895, George's mother Elizabeth Moule (nee Parkinson) dies at their home on Regent Street (presumably a different one than number 10)
On 11 October 1896, sixth and last child Edna Dorothy Moule arrives.
In "The Advertiser" of 12 February 1901 it states: "Police Court - Adelaide - On February 9 - J. J. Grathead was fined 5/ and costs, amounting to £2 7/ in all, for having neglected to give notice to George James Moule, surveyor, as provided by section 38 of the Building Act, 1881, before commencing to do certain work in connection with the erection of a building in Foster Street, Parkside."
In "The Advertiser" of 25 December 1903 it states: "Prosecution of Bakers - Alleged Short-Weight Bread - A Raid at Unley - Several bakers were recently intercepted at Unley by Inspector Moule, who weighed their bread. As a consequence it was decided lo take action against the persons concerned. The cases came on for hearing at the Adelaide Police Court on Thursday morning, before Messrs. J. Gordon, S.M., and T. J. Matters.
G. A. Muth was first called upon. He was charged on the information of George James Moule, inspector of weights and measures for the corporation of the town of Unley, with having on December 16 carried about for sale or delivery on the South Railway Parade a quantity of bread, the first 12 loaves of which taken indiscriminately by the informant were deficient in weight on the whole by 11 1/2 oz avoirdupois, according to the weight per loaf at which it was professed to be sold, contrary to by law No. 16. Mr. R. H. Labhlean appeared for the informant, and Mr. W. Henderson defended.
Mr Henderson led off with a technical objection that the information disclosed no offence. This was overruled by the S.M.
Inspector Moule deposed to having taken a dozen loaves from the informant's cart and weighed them on a pair of local standard scales, with local standard weights tested last March. He found the loaves to aggregate a weight which was 11 1/2 oz. short.
The driver of the cart (George Kenny) stated that after Inspector Moule weighed the bread it was put back into the cart and witness subsequently sold it to his customers.
Mr. Henderson applied for a dismissal. The evidence did not support the information.
The S.M.- That is not the point.
Mr. Henderson thought the point raised that the defendant was not the person who carried the bread about was fatal. The by-law was bad because it did not say what weight the bread had to be.
The S.M. - It has not been shown whether this was fancy bread or not.
Mr. Lathlean- Oh, ordinary bread, your worship.
The S.M., after a brief consultation with his colleague, said he intended to dismiss the information.
After a further discussion between bench and counsel, the case was dismissed without costs. The court considered that there were two classes of offence. Tho owner of the cart and the driver were separately liable and should be charged in that manner.
C. R Mills was charged with having similarly offended on the Unley Road on December 16. The dozen loaves taken from his cart indiscriminately were alleged to be 22 1/2 oz. under weight. Mr. E. H. Limbert appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Lathlean, for the prosecution, asked that the information should be dismissed. He said of course he was entitled to lay this and two other informations again without fees, but the case against Dodderidge would be taken at once."
In "The Advertiser" of 27 January 1904 it states: "Short-Weight Bread: Successful Prosecutions - A few weeks ago Inspector Moule, of Unley, proceeded' against several bakers at the Adelaide Police Court on charges of having carried about for sale or delivery bread of less weight than 2 lb. per loaf. The charges were withdrawn owing to the difficulty experienced in establishing a prima facie case, but the court allowed fresh informations to be laid without fees against the defendants. For a master baker to be found guilty of this offence it would be necessary for his driver to admit being in his service, and as the driver has to be warned that he need not say anything that might incrimi nate himself the difficulty was apparent.
On Tuesday four bakers' drivers were brought up at the Police Court.
Charles Short, a driver in the employ of R Miller, of Greenhill Road, Dulwich, was charged on the information of George James Moule inspector of weights and measures for the Unley Corporation, with having on December 16, 1903, carried about for sale or delivery within the town, a quantity of bread, the first 12 loaves of which taken indiscriminately by the infor- mant were in,the whole deficient in weight 13 oz., avoirdupois, according to the weight per loaf at which it was professed to be sold, Mr. W.J Henderson appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty, and Mr JL H. Lathlean prosecuted for the informant. A fine of £1 was inflicted, and the defendant had also to pay £2 1/ costs."
In "The Advertiser" of 2 June 1905 it states: "Short-Weight Bread. Three Convictions -
At the last meeting of the Unley Council Inspector Moule was instructed to prosecute certain shopkeepers for selling short-weight bread within the municipality of Unley. At the Police Court on Thursday morning, before Messrs. J. Gordon, SJVL, R. T. Wallmann, and C. E. Taplin, the cases were dealt with.
Stanley Storer was first charged on the information of George James Moule with having sold to George Warren, on May 20, a loaf of bread which was less than the standard weight- Mr. R. H. Lathlean prosecuted, and Mr. N. A. Webb appeared for the informant.
Inspector Moule stated that he was present when Warren purchased the bread. He took the bread to the Unley Town Hall and weighed it on the standard scales, and found that it was 31 oz. short. Two day later he again weighed the bread and found it had lost 1/4 oz. during the 48 hours.
Mr. Webb submitted that the principal of the business, who was the defendants father, was the person liable under the Acts.
The S.M.-I don't think so.
Stanley Storer stated that the loaf in question was stale when it was sold to Warren.
The Bench, in finding the defendant guilty, stated that the deficiency was a se- rious one, as it amounted to nearly 10 per cent, and the bread could hardly have lost weight in the manner suggested by the de-fence. The selling of such short-weight bread was defrauding the public and was simply scandalous. The defendant would have to pay a penalty of £1, £2 2/ coun-sel's fee, 5/ witness fee, and £1 court fees; or £4 7/ in all.
Mr. Webb asked the court to state a case on the point raised for an appeal, and the request was granted.
Herbert Fowler, who is in the employ of Walter Hastwell, of Unley-road, for a simi- lar offence, was fined £3 6/ in all. The shortage in this case was 2 oz.
Mrs. Hastwell, the wife of Walter Hast well, was fined £2 in all. The shortage amounted to 3 oz."
On the 26 March 1908, George's wife Elizabeth dies and is buried at Road 1 South, Path 10, Site 17 in West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide.
In "The Advertiser" of 31 August 1910 it states "A Rate Collector Assaulted - His Assailant Fined - The Adelaide Police Court on Tuesday, before Mr. J. Gordon. S.M. and justices, John O'Sullivan was charged on the information of George James Moule with having assaulted him at Charles-street, Unley, on August 23. Mr. L. H. Haslam, for Messrs. Holland & Lathlean. appeared for the informant. The defendant pleaded not guilty. George James Moule, rate collector for the corporation of the City of Unley, said that about 3.15 pm. on August 23, be went to the house of the defendant, and asked him the name of the agent of the house. The defendant told the witness he did not know. The defendant also said, "Why pick on me?" and then attacked him with a stick.
Hetty McMaster stated that on Tuesday last she saw the defendant strike the informant with a stick.
Alice McKinnon said she saw the defen- dant hit the informant and tell him to "go out."
John O'Sullivan said he told the infor- mant the name of the agent of the houses, but said he did not know the owner. When he tried to shut the door the informant put his foot inside to stop him. He did not strike the accused, and went for his stick as he did not know who the informant might have been.
The S.M. (to the accused)-You acted in an illegal and improper manner. There was no provocation to strike the informant. Fined £1 16/ in all."
On the 4 July 1917 George married Sarah Maria Scott at the Baptist Manse in Goodwood, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
On the 4 July 1917 George married Sarah Maria Scott at the Baptist Manse in Goodwood, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
He died on 18 November 1930 at Kapunda, South Australia. He was 76. He is buried at West Terrace Cemetery at Road 1 South, Path 10, Site 18 next to first wife Elizabeth.
DESCENDANTS OF GEORGE JAMES MOULE AND ELIZABETH MOULE ARE FROM ERNEST OSMOND MOULE AND LEONARD VIVIAN MOULE. ALL OTHER SIBLINGS HAD NO CHILDREN.
Comments
Post a Comment