Where is mount rennie

Inspired by natural elements of the West Coast, and featuring in-house brewed signature beer, decadent breakfast, and coffee — all intended to foster collectively and sharing amongst patrons. Niche vendors, like Rosemary Rocksalt serve breakfast and sandwiches, but are predominantly known for their bagels.

Itching for chocolate or pastries — check out Beta5 chocolates , nationally and internationally recognized. Looking for a night out - Burdock and Co , sourcing wines and food from growers and vinters with values matching the vendor. Craving sushi, consider Sushiyama featuring authentic Japanese rolls with those to excite your tastebuds.

China Creek North parks offers a jogging track, playground and fields — with the high point of the park offering stunning views of the North Shore Mountains. Open Door Yoga and Yoga on 7th are only two of the possible yoga studios. Many of the streets of Mount Pleasant double as bike lanes, making getting around town a breeze.

The rape caused a " frenzy " of outrage and sensation in Sydney. The Sydney press focused on the brutal nature of the perpetrators. The Sydney Daily Telegraph newspaper described the crime as one "which no parallel can be found in the crimes of civilized life or in the savageries of barbarism".

The Sydney Bulletin newspaper instead argued that that Hicks was an "unfortunate", or in other words, a prostitute. It focused on her lack of virginity. Crucially though it ignored Hick's claim that she had been raped at the age of fourteen by a married man. Geoffrey Partington notes that the Bulletin likened the incident to British oppression of the Irish. The death penalty for rape had been introduced in Justice Windeyer declared the crime as a "most atrocious crime, a crime so horrible that every lover of his country must feel that it is a disgrace to our civilization".

Nine men were convicted and sentenced to death. Two were acquitted. Sweetman received fourteen years prison with two floggings for his part. There was an outcry over the death penalty being too harsh for the nine men.

In , the Sydney Town Hall was said to have been packed to protest against the hangings. A deputation of citizens attended the governor in support of the hanging.

Five eventually had their sentences reduced to life imprisonment by the Governor. However, for the first three years they had to be served in fetters. The remaining four were hanged in January One of the men was seventeen. Bondi resident Robert Howard botched the hangings when he miscalculated the drop necessary for the youths. One of the three struggled for six minutes and bit his tongue in half in the process. McLean kept Hicks and Sweetman as the protagonists in the novel.

However, he used other names for other participants in the events. The incident has been compared to the Sydney gang rapes of All translations of mount rennie rape case. Both these men were arrested in Waterloo, and were also recognised by the man who first gave information to the police.

The latter are in possession of information which they hope will lead to the detection of the other offenders. At the Water Police Court before Mr.

The court was crowded when the case was called on, as it was anticipated that some of the particulars of the outrage on the girl might be heard by the Bench. Tho police, however, asked that the prisoners should be remanded until Friday next, and the magistrate granted the application.

The whole of the men who have been apprehended and charged with being concerned in the assault will be brought before the Court on Friday morning, when it is expected that, the girl will be sufficiently re-covered to be enabled to give evidence regarding the terrible crime which is alleged to have been perpetrated at Moore Park last week. William Newman, 18, of no occupation, was charged with being concerned with others in committing a criminal assault on one Mary Jane Hicks on the 9th instant the accused was remanded until tomorrow morning when the whole of the prisoners will be brought before the bench.

Yesterday morning in the Water Police Court, before Mr. Roberts, appeared for the Crown; Mr. Wallace appeared for Miller, Mr. Gannon for Fuller and Mangan, Mr. Shorter for Douglas, and Mr. Williamson for Hill and Duffy. The Court having been cleared, The Bench said he thought it would defeat the ends of justice if the evidence should be reported from day to day. Of course he had no power to prevent its publication, but he would suggest to and request the press not to publish the evidence until the case should have been completed, otherwise the ends of justice might be defeated.

Roberts asked the Bench to make an order prohibiting the publication of the evidence, as the Bench had power to make that order. The Bench said that members of the press might remain in court, on condition that they did not report any of the evidence; but if they published the evidence they would be excluded. Roberts said he should oppose the application for bail for any of the accused, and. The Bench said he could not hear of it, and should refuse bail to any of the accused.

Justice Windeyer, the trial of the prisoners concerned in the Waterloo outrage continued. Teece, with him Mr. Pring, instructed by Mr. Williams, Crown Solicitor, appeared for the prosecution. Elles and Scholes, instructed by Mr. Gilson, instructed by Mr. Gannon appeared for Hill and Mangan; Mr. Levien, for Read; Mr. Moriarrty, instructed by Mr. Williamson Williamson and Williamson , for Boyce; Mr. Teece then called the complainant, who denied the allegations made against her by the witness Doran and other witnesses were recalled by the Crown to give rebutting evidence.

Mr Gibson proceeded to address the jury on behalf of Hill and Mangan. He referred briefly to the character of the charge which had been preferred against the prisoners. He said the charge was one of rape under most extraordinary circumstances and he thought such an extraordinary case had never before come before a court of justice. Very little circumstantial evidence had been given in the case, but the evidence for the most part had been direct evidence.

He then reviewed the evidence at great length, and contended that there had been a mistake made with regard to the identification of Hill and also that there was a great deal of conflict of statements on the part of the Crown witnesses with regard to the movements and actions of the person whom they had taken to be Hill.

He contended that it had been clearly shown that Hill had taken no part in the outrage that had been committed. With regard to the prisoner Mangan, he submitted that a substantial alibi had been proved by respectable witnesses, including a number of men with whom he was employed on the day of the outrage.

Elles, on behalf of the prisoner Newman applied to be allowed to call evidence in defence as the witness had not been in attendance at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

Cross examined by Mr. Teece; He stated he had been convicted of duck stealing; had never spoken a word to the witness Newman about this case. William Bogus, 17 years, stated he was at work at Rockdale on the day of the outrage and left work at 17 minutes past 4, reaching Sydney by tram at a quarter to 5 on the afternoon of the date of the outrage; when he left the Redfern station he went down George-street and saw the prisoner Newman whom he knew at Christ Church, at 10 minutes to 5; they stopped and spoke for about three minutes, and witness then went down George Street.

His Honor said that he would require all the witnesses in this case to attend until they were discharged. Constable Meyers, called by the Crown, stated that when he served the subpoena upon Bogus he said he had been working at Rockdale all the day and had not any opportunity of seeing, the prisoner Newman.

Canaway, representing the prisoner Duffy, addressed the jury for the defence. He had brought evidence to show that she was not. Her statement that she had been forced into a cab was on the face of it most improbable, and he traversed her evidence to show how unlikely her story was, and in what points she had contradicted herself.

He contended that her statements as to the order of the assault differed, and that in one she had omitted to name one of her alleged assailants. Moreover he maintained that she was a consenting party so far as his client was concerned, and on these grounds he claimed an acquittal at their hands. Elles, addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners Newman, Oscroft, Martin, Miller and Keegan He did not intend to rest his defence upon any hypothesis as his learned friend had done, but to rest it upon the difficulty, almost impossibility, of identification by a woman who had been assaulted by so many men.

He contended that the evidence respecting identification on the part of the complainant was very unsatisfactory. He pointed out that before the jury could convict they would have to be satisfied that the prisoners either perpetrated the offence or aided those by whom it was committed.

The case was one in which there must be no doubt or balancing of probabilities. He contended that it would be very dangerous for the jury to rely upon any evidence of identification given by the girl Hicks.

He then went through the evidence and called attention to what he considered were discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses for the Crown. Edmunds then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Donnellan. He said no one would dispute the fact that an outrage had been committed upon the complainant Mary Jane Hicks, but t was for the jury to say which of the prisoners were concerned in it. He commented upon the different statements made by the girl, and asserted that she had made distinct statements, viz.

He contended that she did not say a word about Donnellan until after she had named seven or eight others.

He referred to the evidence given by the witnesses Smith and Brown and pointed out that the witnesses had made different statements, and therefore their evidence could not be relied upon. In conclusion, he called attention to the evidence which had been given on behalf of his client, and contended that a substantial alibi had been made out on his behalf. Moriarty then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Boyce. He contended that she was in such an excited state when called upon to identify the prisoners that her word could not be relied upon.

He submitted that they could not rely upon the evidence of the lad Colley, nor of two of the other witnesses, because they declared they recognised some of the men at a distance of yards. The evidence of Smith, an intelligent witness, who deposed to having seen the crime committed, went to show that the prisoner Boyce was not one of the perpetrators. A statement made by Duffy, one of the prisoners, had been read, but the jury must discard it altogether so far as it referred in any way whatever to any one of the other prisoners.

The Court was still sitting when we went to press. His Honour, in committing his address, said he regretted very much that he had found it necessary to keep the gentlemen of the jury sitting for so many hours at a time, but as some of them were not in good health, he thought it desirable to push the business on, looking at the great importance of the case with which they were dealing. It was desirable that the case, when once begun, should be brought to a conclusion in the ordinary way.

He was afraid he did put some pressure upon the counsel in the case, and he could not sufficiently thank them for the able manner in which they had defended the prisoners. He his Honour knew what the responsibility of counsel was, and the course he adopted was one which had been followed over and over again. The jury could not be too careful in weighing the evidence which had been given, and in giving a cool and collected decision.

The jury had already been told in most expressive terms how great their responsibility in the case was.

They had been told on the one hand that the case was one of the utmost importance to the prisoners, but it was no less the fact that on the other hand it was one of the greatest importance to society. He need not urge upon them the necessity of dismissing from their minds anything they may have read or heard respecting the case with which they had to deal, nor could he sufficiently impress upon them the necessity of considering the horrible facts which had been given in evidence before them with all the coolness they could command.

The facts of the case were calculated to disturb the calmest and best balanced minds. They were of an character not only calculated to enlist the sympathy of everyone present for the victim of the outrage, but were also calculated to raise a feeling of disgust, and he might be permitted tosay hatred, towards those who could be considered capable of committing such a crime. The jury, however, should not allow any such prejudice to act on their minds in weighing the evidence that had been produced.

They must as far as possible dismiss all feeling in the matter. It was of momentous importance, not only to the prisoners, who had at stake everything that was dear in this world; but it was of the greatest importance to the State and to society that the truth should be arrived at boldly and fearlessly.

There was no doubt a horrible crime had been committed, and those guilty of it should be brought to justice. In this case, as in every other case, the jury must get beyond suspicion. His Honour, then repeated the facts of the case according to the statement of the girl, Mary Jane Hicks.

The case for the Crown was that those who took part in the assault upon the man Stanley were acting with the common design, their design being to commit rape upon the complainant. He then defined the offence with which the prisoners were charged, and pointed out that with only one exception the learned counsel for the defence had not attempted to set up the question of consent on the part of the unfortunate girl Hicks.

The facts showed that the girl screamed time after time, and resisted the assaults made upon her. He pointed out that the horrible assaults made upon the girl precluded the idea of consent, and, with one exception, the learned counsel had honourably acquitted her of any such horrible immorality. There were circum-stances in this case which would cause them to dismiss any idea of consent from their minds.

His Honour then went on to explain that the law protected even the very worst character from assaults such as had been made upon this unfortunate girl. He considered the evidence worthy of the gravest consideration. The witnesses were respect-able working men in the municipality of Waterloo, who said they had seen him working during the time he was alleged to have been concerned in the outrage on the girl. The case of Oscroft was the next one dealt with by his Honour, who read portions of the evidence, showing that the prisoner was on the ground at the time the assaults were committed, even if he did not participate in the outrage itself.

The girl mentioned the name of Oscroft several times, but appeared to have entertained some doubt on one occasion at the police station as to whether he was the man, and on another occasion she expressed herself sure that Oscroft was one of the set engaged in assaulting her. It appeared that the girl had been assaulted by two different sets of four each, and Oscroft was named by her as being concerned with the second set. There was also evidence to show that he had set out for and returned from his usual business at the usual time that day, and that he did his usual work, or at any rate made his usual wage.

On the other hand, it was quite possible that the evidence bearing on this point, which was not very strong, must have been given in mistake, the witness, perhaps, confusing his recollections of one day with those of another. The prosecutrix corroborated the evidence of Stanley in this particular, and further charged Hill with having taken her into the bush.

She stated that she did not see Hill again till she was sitting with two men by the drain. It was proved beyond a doubt that the girl was taken by someone to the swamp.

Hill admitted himself, that he was present on the occasion, and if the jury believed what the girl said of him, whether he actually outraged her or not, then he was the main cause of the outrage having taken place, and therefore guilty accordingly; and if he carried her off for the purpose of being outraged by the others, then he was just as guilty as the rest, for without his interference the outrage would in all probability not had taken place.

The girl herself did not accuse Hill of having actually outraged her, but another witness averred that Hill had his arms around her waist, the girl not appearing unwilling, although she had just uttered a scream, when one of the others threw her down and effected an assault.

She then got up by herself and was walking away, when Hill, it is said, went after and brought her back.

He is even alleged to have thrown her down himself, although he does not appear to have succeeded in effecting any further assault. One witness—Stanley—was positive in asserting that Hill had called to three others to come up and assault the girl the very moment after he had told the girl to rely on his protection. The prisoners were armed with knives and sticks, while Stanley had no weapon, so that he was unable, single-handed, to rescue the girl. His Honour next referred to the case of Miller, and read the evidence relative to his identification by the girl.

When she first saw him she was in a half-fainting condition, and said she did not think he was there. Soon after she was confronted with him, and said he was one of the men. In her deposition she positively declared that Miller was one of the men who assaulted her, and that it was he who at one time put his hand over her mouth. The witness, Smith, identified Miller, as one of the men who took part in the outrage.

The evidence of Denny against Miller was read, and then his Honour read the evidence against Keegan, which showed that the girl at once recognised Keegan when he was placed before her, and about a week after she identified him amongst a number of men, and afterwards recognised several of the prisoners. She recognised Keegan by his pale face. She identified Miller as the man having his handover her mouth, and Keegan as the man who held her legs.

His Honour then proceeded to deal with the evidence with respect to Duffy. When Duffy was arrested he denied having been connected with the outrage. His Honour then read the evidence of the complainant, in which she asserted that Duffy was one of the first four who criminally assaulted her, and that it was Duffy who threw her down.

His Honour read the statement which was made by Duffy whilst in gaol. He was identified by a number of the Crown witnesses as one who was present and took part in the outrage. His Honour then referred to the evidence called by Duffy in de-fence, and read the evidence given by the witness, Matthew Doran, which was to the effect that at one time he had been on terms of intimacy with the complainant, while on the other hand the complainant denied the allegations made, and had stated that she had never seen Doran in her life before.

The girl was nothing more than a wreck at the present time, in consequence of the treat-ment she had received, and no sane person could believe that she consented to what had taken place. With regard to the evidence called to prove an alibi on behalf of Donnellan, the jury would have to decide whether the alibi was not supported by witnesses of such question-able character that they could not be believed. The question was, did their evidence outweigh the evidence given on behalf of tho Crown.

The next prisoner was Martin, who, when arrested, said that on the day of the outrage he was out at Botany all day fishing by himself. He was identified by Mary Jane Hicks as one of the four who were present at the time she threw herself into the drain.