NORRIS, ALFRED JNR

Alfred James Norris was the son of Alfred James Norris (a grazier) and Mary Ann Hand.

Alfred James Norris Jnr was born in 1859 at Windsor NSW, and married in Mudgee in 1897 (aged 38 years) to Marie Jane Wilkins (aged 28). 

His son was Leslie W Norris, born 1897 in Mudgee.

Alfred died from pneumonia on 11th July, 1919 in Gulgong.

THREE BROTHERS

... About Sid Norris, of Cullenbone. Sid, or “Wingie” as he was generally known, was one of three brothers, all lacking limbs. He was minus an arm, lost in an accident. His brother Jim [sic William], of Cobborah, also an hotelkeeper, had a leg missing, whereas the youngest, “No Arm” Norris [Alfred Jnr], a farmer of Tallewang, was born just as the name says.

Alfred declined the tempting offers of sideshow proprietors and capably ran his mixed farm. He rode his horse with the reins about his neck and worked his plough horses in similar fashion. He smoked a pipe which he filled by nudging it in a shirt pocket filled with tobacco. But he could light it only with his boots off, holding the matchbox (wax in those days) in the toes of one foot and the match to be lit in the toes of his other foot, capping the whole strange performance by applying match to pipe.

Source: Letter to The bulletin.Vol. 80 No. 4123 (18 Feb 1959)

1890 - ESTATE SEQUESTRATED.

Re Richard Hough v. Alfred Norris, of Ford's Creek, creditor's petition. Mr Gordon, instructed by Mr. O'Brien (for Mr Meares of Mudgee), appeared on behalf of the petitioning creditor; and Mr Heydon, instructed by Messrs. Curtiss and Barry (for Mr. Clarke, of Mudgee), for the respondent.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent was indebted to him in the aggregate sum of £214 8s 8d, in respect to a judgment recovered against Norris in the District Court at Mudgee on April 29 last for £200 and costs. It was stated that the judgment was given on an action for slander. The alleged act of bankruptcy relied upon was that the respondent made on April 25 last an assignment of 700 sheep belonging to him to his brother Rowland Norris, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors. The petitioner stated that he had known the respondent for the last three years or more, and during that time Alfred Norris had always been the owner of a flock of sheep, numbering some hundreds, which he had always been in the habit of shepherding himself. Hough had been informed, and verily believed, that on the 25th April last Alfred Norris made and executed on assignment by deed of 700 sheep, more or less, of mixed ages and sexes, branded tarbrand N, belonging to him and then depasturing at Ford's Creek, near Gulgong, to his brother Rowland Norris, upon trust for the benefit of Mrs. Mary Ann Winters, mother of the said Alfred Norris. The petitioner believed that those sheep were all the property of any kind that the respondent had been possessed of. Alfred Norris was a single man, had always lived at his mother's house, had no residence of his own, and the petitioner could not discover or hear or any property of any kind belonging to the respondent on which execution could be levied to recover the amount of the petitioner's judgment.

Hough verily believed that the assignment by Norris of the 700 sheep was made and executed by him solely to try and prevent the petitioner from obtaining the amount of any verdict he (Hough) might recover in the action, and to defeat and delay him in obtaining payment of the amount of such verdict. The consideration expressed in the deed of assignment was the natural love and affection which Alfred Norris bears to his mother, Mary Ann Winters, wife of John Winters, and the sum of 10s paid by Rowland Norris to Alfred Norris.

In the affidavit of C. D. Meares, attorney for Richard Hough, he deposed that the plaint in the action Hough v. Norris was entered on April 15 last, and served on Norris on April 19; on April 24 the attorneys for the defendant demanded a jury; the action was tried on April 29, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. Mr. Meares had made diligent inquiries, but could not discover or hear of any property of any kind belonging to the respondent. Mr Meares believed that Norris executed the deed of assignment solely for the purpose of preventing Hough from recovering the amount of any verdict which he might obtain in the slander action, and to defeat and delay the plaintiff in obtaining payment of the amount of such verdict. On May 12 Mr Meares asked the attorney for Norris whether he intended to pay the amount of the verdict, and they replied that he did not intend to do so.

In affidavits the respondent Norris swore that on April 25 last he was in perfectly solvent circumstances without a creditor in the world, and he assigned the property referred to make provision for his mother, as he was lawfully entitled to do. He was not at the time indebted to any person in any sum whatever, either as an actual debt or as a contingent liability. He was 27 years old, was born without arms, and had been dependent upon his mother to look after him, being unable to dress or wash himself. On April 25, being in solvent circumstances he made an assignment of certain sheep to his brother as trustee for his mother, who was a married woman, and with a view to make some provision for her. The judgment of Richard Hough against him was the result of a verdict for defamatory language alleged to have been uttered by the deponent, and no part of such judgment was for a debt or liquidated damages.

His Honour, in giving judgment, said that the respondent was served on the 19th April with a plaint in the District Court, and the case came on on the 25th of the same month. The action was for slander and the plaintiff succeeded in getting a verdict for £200. That was the largest possible sum that could be awarded in the District Court. That was, he thought, a fact in the case which he was entitled to take into consideration as to the question of what the respondent was likely to expect. On the 24th April the respondent asked for a jury and on the 25th he made that assignment for the benefit of his mother. The question for him to consider was, whether that was such a settlement as would be void under the Act 14 Elizabeth, cap 6, because if it was it was conceded that this was an act of bankruptcy under subsection B of section 4. In order to bring it under that Act he must find that it was done with intent to defeat, hinder, or delay his creditors. The case of Barlow and Bishop was one of many authorities to show that the creditor attempted to be defrauded need not then be an existing creditor, but might be a person who was about then to become a creditor. A similar question arose in Ex parte Mercer. Just at the particular crisis when the respondent might reasonably have expected that a verdict would be entered against him for malicious slander, then he made that settlement which was a purely voluntary action on his part. The respondent did not say who he made the settlement at that particular time—he gave no reason whatever for doing so. Now, sitting there as a jury, he could not see that the respondent had any other object in view than to defeat and delay his creditors. It was clear that the sole object of the respondent was to put him self in such a position that he would not be responsible for the result of the action, which he must have well known would go against him. He found that the respondent did intend to defeat and delay his creditors, and that the settlement was void under the statute of Elizabeth, and was an act of bankruptcy under subsection B of section 4 of the Act. He therefore made an order sequestrating the estate of the respondent, fixed the date of the act of bankruptcy as April 20th last, and appointed Mr Norris official assignee. His Honor also continued for a week the injunction already granted to restrain Rowland Norris and his mother from disposing of the sheep.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) Fri 6 Jun 1890 Page 4

1900 - ALL DROVERS are required to give the requisite notice when passing through my Run, situated at the junction of the Gulgong and Guntawang Roads. Anyone not complying with the Act will be prosecuted without respect to persons.

ALFRED NORRIS, Ford's Creek, Gulgong.
Source: Mudgee Guardian and North-Western Representative (NSW : 1890 - 1954) Fri 1 Jun 1900 Page 4

1901 - DANGER

The bridge over the creek near Paine’s Hotel, Cullenbone is a dangerous concern. There is generally a hole in it just large enough for a horse’s leg to go through. It is a bridge of patches.

Source: The Gulgong Advertiser, July 5 1901

1919 - MR. A. J. NORRIS.

Much sympathy is felt for the bereaved in connection with the death of Mr. Alfred James Norris. The sad event occurred early on Friday morning at the residence of M. L. Norris, in Medley-street.

The late Mr. Norris was 61 years of age, and was a native of Windsor.

He was ill a week, and on Sunday prior to his death his son brought him to Gulgong for medical attention. The deceased rallied on Thursday morning, but at night he took a bad turn, and though Drs. Lees and Nickoll (Mudgee), and Nurse Bull gave every attention to the case, death took place early on Friday morning. The immediate cause of death was pneumonia. The late Mr. Norris is survived by a sorrowing wife and one son, Mr. Leslie Norris, proprietor of the Medley-street motor garage. 

Deceased had resided at Tallewang for 15 years, and prior to taking up a freehold property of 650 acres there, he resided at Cullenbone for many years.

The late Mr. Norris is also survived by the following sisters: — Mrs. J. Niven [Clara] (Spring Ridge), Mrs. Tapper (Mudgee), Mrs. C. Grady (Mudgee), Mrs. Rodgerson (Sydney), and a brother., Mr. Sid. Norris, of the Junction Hotel, Slasher's Flat.