When the trial began on 27 April 1915, the Crown started off by explaining the case to the jury. The fact that Solly was not in Melbourne when the robbery occurred was something that needed to be addressed. They stated: “While the Crown contended that Burvill was not the man who actually took the notes, it believed that he was the person who had assisted the thief by procuring the paper which enabled the theft to be carried out.”
The Commonwealth Crimes Act allowed for a person who aided and abetted a crime to be found guilty of the actual crime. The basis of the Crown’s case was that the paper Solly bought was the same paper used in the fake packets. While Solly did not steal the money, he was the legal scapegoat.
Various Melbourne and Perth officials gave evidence explaining how they carried out their employment responsibilities. When cross-examined by Solly’s solicitor, Walter Wood of the Commonwealth Treasury in Melbourne admitted that when Solly worked there he “had nothing to do with the packing of notes.” The implication being that he did not have the knowledge to create the fake packages.
George Nicholl, a clerk in the Commonwealth Treasury, presented the money to the General Post Office in Melbourne for transportation to Perth. Until that moment, the money never left his sight. In his opinion, “It would not be possible, in that short space of time, to substitute ‘dummy’ packets.”
On the following day, Herbert Bryant put forward the case for Solly’s defence. He initially asked Justice Henry Hodges to dismiss it due to insufficient evidence. When his request was denied, he put Solly on the stand.
Solly explained that he met a man at a restaurant in Milsons Point, New South Wales and that the man asked if he knew someone who could cut some slips of paper. Thinking of Thomas Batho, and assuming he would appreciate the business, he ordered some paper to be cut to the required size. Once complete, Solly delivered it to the man at the restaurant and never saw him again.
He admitted that he denied knowing anything about the paper when Detective Burvett interviewed him, but claimed it was because he had forgotten all about it until Batho’s name was mentioned. He had no knowledge of the robbery, nor did he know that the paper he had purchased was going to be used in it.
Henry Daniels was a draper who lived at South Yarra and met Solly in Melbourne in 1913. In August or September 1914, he happened to be in the same restaurant at Milsons Point where he saw Solly hand over a package to another man. His evidence corroborated Solly’s statement.
James Millar and Matthew Rodgers both had considerable experience dealing with paper and provided evidence that the paper in the packages was made up of two different types, differing in colour and weight. Their expert statements contradicted the prosecution’s evidence that it was cut from one ream.
On 30 April 1915, Justice Hodges summed up the case for the jury. They had a number of questions they had to consider, chiefly, were the notes stolen by a Commonwealth officer in Melbourne. If the answer was yes, they had to decide if Solly was connected to the crime in some way. Justice Hodges said:
If the accused had obtained the paper for the dummy packets, not knowing what it was to be used for, he would perfectly innocent of intentionally helping the thief; but if he supplied them knowing that a crime was going to be committed, then he was aiding and abetting, even if he did not see the act committed.
The jury retired at 12:45 pm to consider the verdict. Six hours later, they returned. They were unable to agree. Solly was remanded to appear at the next Criminal Court.
The second trial got underway on 25 May 1915 before Chief Justice John Madden. Witnesses for the Crown gave similar evidence to that of the first trial. On 28 May, Mr Bryant, for the defence, submitted that, “there was no evidence that the theft of notes had been committed by a Commonwealth servant in Melbourne.” Chief Justice Madden disagreed.
Solly again gave evidence. During cross-examination, he declared in response to the prosecution, “I am an innocent man!” He had tried to find the man he had given the paper to but had had no luck. He also confirmed that for six years he had been writing letters to newspapers and was “dabbling in politics.” Were his political views relevant to the Crown’s case?
Trial number two concluded on 1 June. The Chief Justice summed up for the jury. They had to be sure that the person who committed the robbery, and everyone involved in the case, was a Commonwealth officer. The robbery also had to have occurred at Melbourne on 4 December. If they disagreed with any of those prerequisites, then they had no other option than to acquit.
At 9:30 pm, after six hours deliberating, the foreman advised that they could not agree. The jury was discharged, and the prosecution requested that Solly be remanded for trial before a special jury.
On 16 June, Justice Joseph Hood granted the prosecution’s application for a special jury. Two juries could not agree on a verdict so he surmised that “there was something in the case that common juries could not grapple with.”
For a third time, Solly appeared before the Criminal Court on 19 July 1915. The evidence was much the same as the first and second trials. After clarifying some procedural questions regarding the post office, the special jury retired for six hours. When they returned, the foreman informed the court that they also could not agree.
The prosecution again applied for a special jury for the next trial. Justice Hood’s response was one of surprise, “Are you going to have another shot at him?” The prosecution confirmed that yes, he believed there would be a fourth trial.
On 22 July 1915, Senator James Stewart asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General if a fourth trial would take place or whether they were intending “to seek a conviction by the process of exhaustion.” He further asked, “…did the Attorney-General consider this system in accord with the principles of British justice?” The questions were taken on notice.
By 26 July, the Attorney-General confirmed that they would not be taking Solly to trial for a fourth time. He was instead dealt with by a departmental board. The board found that the charge of stealing was proven and Solly was dismissed from service.
Solly was not in Melbourne when the theft occurred and, despite that important fact, there was no further investigation into the crime. No one else was charged with stealing the £2,000. There was no other conviction. The Attorney General and the Government were unwavering in their approach to the case; they only ever focused on Solly Burvill.
Pledge Your Support
Researching and writing stories for The Dusty Box is a labour of love. Unfortunately, it can also be a costly labour of love. While I will always endeavour to have free stories available (history, after all, should be for everyone) if you have the means to do so, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It’s $50 for a year - a bargain that equates to just over $4 a month (coffee isn’t even that cheap anymore!). To pledge your support, tap the button below.
Sources:
1915 'POST OFFICE THEFT.', The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), 28 April, p. 12. , viewed 24 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article154950424
1915 'MISSING BANK NOTES.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 29 April, p. 6. , viewed 24 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1513315
1915 'MISSING BANK NOTES.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 30 April, p. 10. , viewed 26 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1513462
1915 'MISSING BANK NOTES.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 1 May, p. 2. (SPECIAL WAR EDITION), viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article174609482
1915 'THE STOLEN BANK NOTES.', The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), 1 May, p. 12. , viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article154958580
1915 'MISSING BANK NOTES.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 26 May, p. 6. , viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1519761
1915 'MISSING BANK NOTES.', The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), 29 May, p. 18. , viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article154959416
1915 'MISSING BANK NOTES.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 2 June, p. 8. , viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1521442
1915 'MISSING NOTES.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 17 June, p. 12. , viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1524874
1915 'MISSING BANK NOTES.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 20 July, p. 9. , viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1538971
1915 'TRIAL OF SOLLY BURVILL.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 23 July, p. 4. , viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1540401
1915 'THE WAR CENSUS', The Evening Echo (Ballarat, Vic. : 1914 - 1918), 23 July, p. 4. (FOURTH EDITION), viewed 28 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article241680035
1915 'BURVILL NOT TO BE RETRIED', The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 - 1954), 26 July, p. 8. , viewed 29 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article242360871
1915 'SOLLY BURVILL', The Evening Echo (Ballarat, Vic. : 1914 - 1918), 28 September, p. 4. (FOURTH EDITION), viewed 29 Sep 2023, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article241686743
Anon (1907) General Post Office, Melbourne [picture].