Person Index

Speedy, Peter

b: 1842
d: 9 JAN 1924
Listed under Taita
NZPO 1880 - 81 Speedy P. farmer

Hutt City Library Online Database
Main Title: Speedy home
Notes: Indexes: E8
Summary: The home of Peter Speedy, one of the early houses to be built at Belmont. It stood on the site of the Belmont Memorial Hall and was destroyed by fire sometime between 1930 and 1935. When the Hutt settlement was formed in 1840, the Maoris made their excursions into the valley via the Speedy Stream and across the river through the Speedy property which was then a farm.
Language: English
Subject: Houses
Heritage resources
- photo in scrapbook attached to Peter Speedy (RIN 817)

- unsure if correct person?
Wellington Independent 15 December 1863
Sheep Inspector''s Report, (continued).
Report of the number and condition of the Sheep depastured in the Wellington and West Coast Districts for 1863.
Station: Waiwetu, Name of owner or person in charge: W. Ebden, No. of Sheep: 47, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 1 11 1/2
Station: Taita, Name of owner or person in charge: W. R. Welch, No. of Sheep: 39, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 1 7 1/2
Station: Waiwetu, Name of owner or person in charge: F. Freathey, No. of Sheep: 40, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 1 8
Station: Taita, Name of owner or person in charge: Harris, No. of Sheep: 24, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 1 0
Station: Taita, Name of owner or person in charge: Geo. Buck, No. of Sheep: 20, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 0 10
Station: Auburn, (sic) Hutt, Name of owner or person in charge: H. Speedy (sic), No. of Sheep: 168, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 7 0
Station: Belmont, Name of owner or person in charge: W. H. Ellerm, No. of Sheep: 50, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 2 1 1/2
Station: Stokes Valley, Name of owner or person in charge: G. Sykes, No. of Sheep: 100, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 4 2
Station: Hutt, Name of owner or person in charge: W. C. Devereux, No. of Sheep: 11, Assessment 1/2 d each: 0 0 5 1/2

Marriage Details
1868/7190, Bride: Matilda Milne, Groom: Peter Speedy

Evening Post 22 August 1868
On the 13th inst., at Wellington, by the Rev. John Moir, Mr. Peter Speedy, of the Hutt, to Matilda, eldest daughter of Mr. W. S. Milne, of the Taita, Hutt

Wellington Independent 12 March 1873
His Honor, in charging the grand jury, said they were no doubt aware that the ordinary date for the Bitting of the court had been anticipated by a few weeks for the purpose of enabling him to preside at the usual sittings of the Supreme Court in Auckland in April, in consequence of his Honor the Chief Justice having been called upon to administer the affairs of the colony in the absence of the distinguished gentleman whom her Majesty had appointed to succeed Sir George Bowen in the administration of the government. He was happy to say that their duties on the present occasion would be very short. There were only two cases on the calendar for hearing, but they were cases of considerable importance as affecting one of the most important avocations of the inhabitants of the colony. The cases were both sheep-stealing cases, and in a country a large portion of whose wealth depended upon pastoral pursuits there could be nothing demanding more serious attention than to see that property of this description should receive the most thorough protection of the law. There was reason to fear that the lax system that prevailed throughout the colony, and the fact that much of the land was unfenced, placed in the way of weak-minded persons a temptation to commit depredations on the property of their neighbors. It was therefore necessary that in all cases where a prima facie charge of this nature was made out that investigation of the kind instituted in the present cases should be made, because if such a crime should become rife amongst the community a great blow would be given to one of the foremost industries of the colony. In the old country the offence of sheep stealing was not very long ago considered a capital crime. It was a subject for which we might feel thankful that we lived in a highly civilised country where it was not thought necessary to inflict such extreme penalties for this class of offence, but he hoped they would not lapse into the contrary extreme to that which once prevailed in the old country by treating such offences as the one with which the prisoner was charged as offences of a comparatively venial character. He trusted this kind of lax mortality would not be practised in the colony to any great extent, and if the law were administered with vigor its effect must be not only to give full protection to property but to keep the colony from lapsing into a state of the greatest immorality. His Honor explained to the jury the bearing of the law upon the cases before them.
The Jury then retired and after a short absence returned into Court with a true bill in each of the two cases on the calendar.
Charles Death was charged with having on the 6th February stolen eight ewes, one sheep and two lambs, the property of Peter Speedy, a sheep farmer at the Hutt.
Mr Gordon Allan defended the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutor said the prisoner and himself owned land which was divided by a distance of about a quarter of a mile. On the 6th February, witness having missed some sheep, he examined the prisoner''s flock, and found more of his (witness''s) sheep among the flock than he had sold to him about a fortnight before. Told prisoner what he had seen, and after some conversation it was agreed that prisoner''s sheep should be mustered for examination. Next day the sheep were mustered, but the only ones like witness''s were the ten which had been sold to prisoner. Witness felt pretty certain that there were more of his sheep about the place, and on further examination he found eleven sheep concealed under some furze in a pen in a distant part of the paddock. Prisoner came up and asked what witness was doing there, and when witness told him the sheep looked very much like his, prisoner said they belonged to him. The legs of the sheep were tied; and their ears were cut and bleeding. It seemed to him that the ears had been cut to destroy witness''s ear mark, and when witness pointed out to him the remains of the old ear mark where the fresh cut had not been made low enough down to cut away the base of the original mark prisodnr (sic) said "To tell you the truth the sheep are your''s," and he was quite willing that witness should take them away. Witness had mustered his own sheep, and had missed as many as thirty, and those found on prisoner''s place were of the same description as witness had lost.
Cross-examined by Mr Allan Could not say when he saw the missing sheep last. They had no other mark but the ear mark, but witness could tell any of his sheep without a mark to guide him, though he wound not undertake to swear to any particular sheep without a mark. After some further conversation with the prisoner about the sheep witness agreed to sell them to him at eight shillings per head, and his wife gave a promissory note for the amount. Witness did not lay any information against the prisoner for sheep stealing, nor was he aware by whom the information was laid. The first intimation he had of any prosecution being instituted was about tbe 14th February, when a constable came to witness''s house, read a paper, and asked witness if the contents were correct. Witness replied in the affirmative. The facts contained in the paper were, he believed, communicated by some of the neighbors.
Cross-examined by Mr Izard: The promissory note was returned and the sheep taken back before the information charging the prisoner with sheep stealing was laid.
David Speedy corroborated the testimony of his brother as to the main facts.
Mr Allan and Mr Izard having addressed the jury.
His Honor reviewed the evidence and summed up the facts of the case.
The jury, after an absence of about two hours, returned a verdict of guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of his having a wife and family, and also on account of this being his first offence. Inspector Acheson, in answer to his Honor, said the offence with which the prisoner was charged was not, he believed, a common one in the province. His Honor said he was glad to hear that such was the case, as the offence was really a most serious one, and one which must be suppressed with a vigorous hand. He would hear any evidence to character that might be producible.
Henry Death, a cousin of the prisoner, said the prisoner had always borne a good character, and was known as a hard-working man. He has a wife and two children.
Joe (sic) Mabey said he had known the prisoner for fifteen years, and had never heard of him doing anything wrong until the present occasion.
His Honor said he was very much disposed to give the fullest possible consideration to the recommendation which the jury had given, although there seemed to be no ground whatever for the recommendation as far as he could see; but, notwitstanding that, he had endeavoured to ascertain whether it was a case in which a recommendation of mercy ought to have weight, and he was sorry to say it was not so deserving of mercy as he could have wished, because there were considerations in the case displaying great moral obliquity on the part of the prisoner, The theft showed more of the action of the rogue than the fool, because after stealing his neighbour''s sheep, he made a deliberate attempt to defend himself in the possession of them. He deluded the prosecutor into the belief that he was trying to find his sheep by pretending to make a muster, while at the same time he knew he had eleven of them hidden. The case was by no means a light one. Still, as he had heard that prisoner had borne a good character, and that he had a family, he was induced to do what he otherwise would have considerable doubts about, knowing that for many years sheep stealing was punishable by death, and that it was even now punishable by a sentence of fourteen years penal servitude. Having learned from the Inspector that the offence was not a common one, the prisoner would be sentenced to eighteen calendar months with hard labor.

Evening Post 8 April 1886
Resignation of a School Committee.
A meeting of the Lower Hutt School Committee was held in the Schoolhouse, Hutt, on Tuesday evening last. Mr. David Speedy was in the chair, and there were also present Messrs. Knight, Cudby, McNab, Jones, Caverhill, and Damant. A letter was received and read from the Education Board, enclosing a copy of the Board''s decision, acquitting Mr. Richards, the headmaster, on the charges brought against him. The following resolution was then unanimously passed - "That this Committee being dissatisfied with the decision arrived at by the Education Board on the charges brought against Mr. Richards, the headmaster of this school, they therefore tender their resignation as a Committee, and that the clerk be instructed to forward the same to the Chairman of the Education Board at once."

Evening Post 11 May 1886
The Charges Against the Lower Hutt Schoolmaster.
A meeting of the householders in the Lower Hutt School district was held in the schoolroom last evening for the purpose of considering the serious charges recently brought against Mr. Richards, the headmaster. There was a fair attendance, about 60 persons being present.
Mr. S. Smith was voted to the chair, and having explained the object of the meeting, called upon Mr. W. A. Fitzherbert, Chairman of the new committee, to say something with reference to the matter which the householders had met to consider.
Mr. Fitzberbert explained that as the old committee had resigned without preparing a report, their successors were unable to make a report to the householders as to the recent proceedings. A copy of the evidence taken at the enquiry into the charges against the master was in the possession of the new committee, but they declined to read it over to the present meeting for fear of a libel action. The copy handed over to the new committee was subsequently sent to Mr. Dimant, the secretary of the late committee, and if that gentleman felt inclined he could read its contents to the meeting; but the committee had determined not to lay themselves open to an act of law by doing so.
Mr. W. C. Brown said that the action of the old committee in resigning had placed their successors in a peculiar position. His contention was that the old committee, although they had tendered their resignation, remained in office until the election of their successors. So far as he could say the new committee had no power to censure or discharge the master. In fact he considered himself a nice sort of committee young man a do-as-you-are-told young man. (Laughter.) The committee had not even the power to pay for sweeping out the schoolroom, and the work had to be done by children. He did not see that the new committee had anything to do with the charges against the master, and if an accusation was to be made against that gentleman it must come up as a fresh matter.
Mr. Dimant explained that if the chairman of the old committee had been in the district, a report from them would have been submitted at the meeting of householders, but as that gentleman was away, he (Mr. Dimant), as secretary, did not care to prepare one himself. As to the charges against the master, he had no desire to bring up the matter. The Education Board had dealt with it, and in consequence of the action of that body, the committee had resigned. He had no desire, after that, to be concerned in the matter, but if the first meeting of householders had asked him to explain the charges, he would have done so, action or no action. Since that meeting the new committee had sent him the papers in connection with the charges, but as he did not consider he had now any right to them, he had returned them. He did not feel justified in reading over the evidence to the present meeting, now that the old committee were out of office.
Mr. Everest asked Mr. Dimant whether he would read over the evidence to the present meeting. Mr. Dimant asked why the new committee could not do that.
Mr. Everest wished to know whether Mr. Dimant did not consider the report of the enquiry dead to the new committee.
Mr. Dimant replied in the negative, and added that he was not there to advise the new committee.
The Chairman remarked that Mr. Dimant''s speech was first rate, but was not altogether satisfactory. Mr. Dimant — Perhaps not.
The Chairman said he took it that the householders had met to hear the report of the enquiry, and such being the case he thought Mr. Dimant should read over the evidence. Most of the householders wished to know something about the charges against the master. They seemed to be very mystererious indeed.
Mr. Caverhill said that at the annual meeting of householders they were told the report would be presented at the present meeting. Why, he asked, was there an objection to lay it before the present meeting?
Mr. Fitzherbert said he for one would not take the responsibility of laying the report before the meeting.
Some remarks made by a gentleman sotto voce having caused a laugh, the Chairman said — You may grin, chaps. (Great laugh.) A new committeeman has just told me that his tongue is tied. That is a specimen of a committeeman for you (A laugh.)
Mr. Brown considered that the old committee, or those who made the complaints against the master, should get up and say something about the charges. The Chairman - You are right, mate. (A laugh.)
Mr. Caverhill said he did not hold with those who thought the charges should be given publicity to by the persons who made them.
A gentleman present said the Board of Education had acquitted Mr. Richards, and consequently the thing was done with. The present committee were not going to put themselves into an action for libel by making public the charges against the master.
Another householder wished to know why the old committee had not taken the matter into a Court of law if they considered they had a case.
The Chairman asked whether the old committee considered the evidence so bad that they did not like the householders to hear it. The householders had met to allay some nasty insinuations that had been flying about the Hutt for some time past. He had children at the school, and had a right to know whether they were likely to be treated in an improper manner. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Dimant asked whether the new committee had any objection to read the minutes of the old committee''s meeting. He said that if that were done the householders would know all about the charges.
The Chairman - Why do you want to entrap us poor innocent men into something you won''t do yourself (Laughter.)
Mr. Everest asked Mr. Dimant why he would not read the minutes.
Mr. Dimant said he did not see that he was called upon to do so.
Mr. Everest asserted that Mr. Dimant was ashamed to read them.
Mr. Brown said that if there were no lies there could not be libel. If he been a member of the old committee he would read the minutes.
The Chairman said that as there seemed to be a disinclination to say or do anything from fear of libel, he would suggest that the meeting pass a resolution indemnifying the old or the new committee for making public the charges. He for one was willing to take upon himself a share of the responsibility. He really thought the meeting should be enlightened on the subject. To withhold anything about the matter under notice was not to treat the householders properly.
A Voice - What about the Supreme Court?
The Chairman said he knew nothing about the Supreme Court. They were there as a lot of poor clodhoppers wishing to know something about charges against the local schoolmaster.
Mr. Brown said that Mr. Dimant, who knew all about the matter, was trying to crawl out of the affair. If that gentleman had the courage of his own convictions, why did he not get up and state what he knew.
Mr. Dimant stated that he was one of seven members, and was not going to take the responsibility of that number upon his shoulders. The old committee never brought any charges against the master. Charges were preferred against the master, and the committee took some evidence and came to a decision. The Board of Education came to a different conclusion, and hence the resignation of the committee. The decision by the committee was a unanimous one.
Mr. Graham — That is not true.
The Chairman - You have no voice in this meeting, Mr. Graham.
Mr. Dimant maintained that the committee''s decision was unanimous. He denied that he had, as stated, a "dead set" against Mr. Richards. He had not the slightest feeling against the master. He had no fear of an action at law over what he had done, because he had not said or done anything he was not prepared to adhere to. He was sorry to see the feeling exhibited at the present meeting, because he was afraid that it would do the master no good. Mr. Richards would have to say, "Save me from my friends." He was sorry for Mr. Richards and his family''s sake. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Cudby, another member of the old committee, agreed with Mr. Dimant that the decision with reference to the master''s alleged conduct was unanimous. He maintained that it was not the duty of the late committee to explain the charges.
Mr. Brown — Don''t you think you should have called the householders together before you resigned.
Mr. Cudby — No.
Mr. C. Bunny, secretary of the new committee, expressed the opinion that all who were unbiased would agree that the new committee had taken a proper course in declining to read over the evidence relative to the charges.
The Chairman was astonished that, after all the indignation expressed by certain people in reference to the master, no one would come-forward and explain the charges.
After a pause of several minutes, Mr. Caverhill came forward, and repeated a charge he had made against Mr. Richards regarding his conduct towards his (Mr. Caverhill''s) two little girls. Mr. Caverhill said he was satisfied that his children spoke the truth.
Mr. P. Speedy made a similar charge against the master with respect to his daughter.
The Chairman — Of course you object to that treatment.
Mr. Speedy — I do.
The Chairman said he hoped no one present had attended the meeting with a party feeling. He had heard that an effort had been made to get together a party at the present meeting to support a certain person. He hoped that report was not true. He trusted the meeting would impartially decide whether they had confidence in the master.
Mr. Payne suggested that a vote should be taken as to whether the late committee were justified in resigning.
Mr. J. Cavanaugh proposed, "That this meeting has no faith in the action of the late committee."
Mr. Cramp seconded.
An amendment was moved by Mr. T. Smith, Mr. T. P. Allen seconding, "That this meeting views with concern the evidence brought before it, and recommends that the headmaster be removed from his position failing his resignation, that a deputation wait upon the Education Board, and advise it of what has transpired at this meeting."
The amendment was carried by 25 to 4, many persons abstaining from voting. The motion was not put.
Messrs. S. Smith, J. Smith, T. P. Allen, Eglinton, and H. Southey were appointed to carry out the terms of the resolution, and the proceedings terminated with votes of thanks to the Chairman and representatives of the press.

Evening Post 15 May 1886
It is stated that legal proceedings are to be taken against Messrs. Caverhill and P. Speedy for the statements made by them at the meeting of Lower Hutt householders held last Monday with reference to alleged misconduct on the part of Mr. Richards, master of the local school. The remarks of both gentlemen are considered libellous, and we understand that Mr. Richards has instructed Messrs. Bell, Gully, and Izard to commence an action against them.

Evening Post 8 September 1886
Supreme Court.
This Day.
(Before Mr. Justice Richmond and a special jury.)
In this action Charles Alfred Richards, head-master of the Lower Hutt

School, sues to recover from Peter Speedy, a farmer in the Lower Hutt

district, the sum of 500 pounds as damages for alleged slanderous

statements made at a meeting of the householders of the Lower Hutt of the

10th of May last.
The following were sworn in as jurors:- Messrs. H. P. Higginson (foreman),

J. Staples, P. Brown, T. J. Mountain, A. Clark, W. F. Barraud, L. W.

Ludwig, D. McDougall, G. B. Clark, C. Stewart, S. J. Dyer, and H. C.

Mr. Chapman appears for the plaintiff, and Mr. Travers for the defense.

Mr. Chapman having stated the pleading.
Mr. Travers opened the case for the defence. He admitted that the

statements in question were made by his client, but pleaded that the latter

was justified in making them. Counsel also claimed qualified privilege for

the use of the statements. Mr. Travers went on to say that the plaintiff

was the master of the Lower Hutt School, and the defendant a farmer at

Belmont, in the Lower Hutt school district. Defendant was a married man,

and two of his children (girls) had been attending the Lower Hutt School.

In the beginning of the present year Mrs. Speedy overheard an altercation

between her two daughters, girls about 10 or 12 years of age. Mrs. Speedy

heard one of the girls say to the other, "If you don''t mind I''ll tell

mother what Mr. Richards did to you." Mrs. Speedy made enquiries, and in

consequence of what she heard she determined not to send her children to

the school any longer. The School Committee subsequently considered

complaints against Mr. Richards, and passed a resolution that he had been

guilty of indiscretion and should be removed from the school. The Board of

Education did not act on the resolution, and the Committee thereupon

resigned. Under the Act, however, they held office until the election of

their successors. At the annual meeting of householders soon after, the now

Committee were instructed to bring up a report on the subject of the

charges against Mr. Richards, and the meeting was adjourned for a

fortnight. At the second meeting the new committed did not present a

report, but Mr. Speedy and Mr. Caverhill stated to the householders the

nature of their complaints against Mr. Richards. Before these gentlemen

made the statements they took the opinion of a lawyer who stood high in the

profession, and in consequence of the advice which they received, they

stated to the second meeting of householders the nature of their complaints

against the schoolmaster.
Matilda Speedy, wife of the defendant deposed that she was the mother of

eight children, five of whom were girls. She knew the plaintiff, who was a

school teacher at the Lower Hutt in December last. Two of her girls were

going to the school in December last. Ellen, the eldest of the two, would

be 13 years this month, and Agnes was 11. In March last she overheard a

conversation between two of the girls, Grace (the eldest daughter) and

Agnes. Mr. Richards'' name was mentioned. After what she heard she spoke to

the girls, and when her husband returned home she told him what she had

heard. In consequence of what she heard she would not send the children to

the school any longer.
Cross examined by Mr. Chapman — Her daughter Grace was 17. Witness, after

over-hearing what the girls had been saying, turned to Agnes in the kitchen

and asked what had occurred at the school. Agnes was at the school since

she was 7 or 8. Grace was at the school between the ages of 8 and 14. Prior

to this witness had never heard anything against Mr. Richards'' moral

Agnes Speedy, daughter of the last witness, gave evidence that she had

been attending the defendant''s school. Her sister Ellen had also been a

pupil. She recollected a dispute one day between her sister Grace and

herself at the back of their house. Twice Mr. Richards placed her on the

table put his hands up her clothes, and tickled her. Bessie Caverhill and

herself were the only other children in the room. On each occasion she and

Bessie Caverhill were sweeping out the school after school hours. She told

several of the pupils about Mr. Richards'' conduct.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chapman — About three weeks after Mr. Richards

placed her on the table she told her sister Grace about the matter. She

told her sister because she thought Mr. Richards'' conduct was wrong. She

was afraid to tell her mother. She did not know why she did not tell her

sister before. She was certain that Mr. Richards, Bessie Caverhill, and

herself were the only occupants of the room on either occasion. Mr.

Richards got them to sweep out his room on both occasions. On the second

occasion two other pupils, Annie Donnolly and Amy Page, were in an

adjoining room, also engaged in sweeping, She also thought that those girls

were in another room on the first occasion. The adjoining room was occupied

by Miss Speedy, her cousin, who was teacher in the school. There was glass

in the door between the two rooms. She did not recollect what she said at

the enquiry held at the Hutt into the charge against Mr. Richards. She did

not recollect then stating that there were four girls in the room. What she

said was that there were four girls in the schoolhouse. On one occasion Mr.

Richards jumped her off the table into his arms. He did the same with

Bessie Caverhill. They thought it was only fun. Sometimes Mr. Richards used

to play with the young children. On the occasion referred to Mr. Richards

played with Bessie Caverhill and herself for about half an hour.
Amy Payne, 12 years of age, deposed that her father was station-master at

the Hutt, She knew Annie Donnelly and Emily Judd. Sometimes she used to

stop after school hours to sweep up the school.
On one occasion she saw Mr. Richards put his hand up Emily Judd''s clothes.

Mr. Richards was sitting on a form, and Emily Judd was on his knee. Before

the meeting at the Hutt Mr. Richards told them that if anyone spoke to them

about such matters they were to say they only imagined them.
By Mr. Chapman - When the enquiry was held Mr. Richards told her to speak

the truth. She was certain he told her to say that she only imagined

things. Before the affair with Emily Judd she did not see Mr. Richards do

anything like that. She told her mother about Emily Judd. She had been to

the school ever since.
Re-examined — After he asked her to say she imagined things Mr. Richards

told her to speak the truth.
By His Honor - Witness was one of the paid sweepers of the school. Annie

Donnelly was the other sweeper. They swept out the school three times a

week. Agnes Speedy once told her about something Mr. Richards had done to

her. Agnes Speedy lived at Belmont, and had to wait for the train. Bessie

Caverhill also lived at Belmont, and, like Agnes Speedy, she had to wait

for the train to take her home.
Annie Donnelly, living at the Hutt, and whose father works in Wellington,

stated that she had been attending the Lower Hutt school. She was one of

the paid sweepers. One day she saw Mr. Richards put his hands up Emily

Judd''s clothes. This was in the room used by Miss Speedy, the teacher.

Witness was outside, and on going into the room she saw Mr. Richards with

Emily Judd on his knee. When witness entered the room Mr. Richards got up

and told Emily to go and see whether Mr. Heenan''s windows were shut. Mr.

Heenan was one of the teachers. Mr. Richards subsequently told her to say

that she only imagined having seen him with Emily Judd.
By Mr. Chapman — She did not think it was right for Mr. Richards to do

what he did. Mr. Richards took Emily Judd on to his knee while witness was

in the room. Witness did not consider that Mr. Richards, was playing with

Emily Judd. Emily was on the master''s knee for about five minutes. Emily

did not cry out. When Mr. Richards told Emily to see whether Mr. Heenan''s

windows were closed she went willingly, Mr. Richards then went home.

Witness did not think that Mr. Richards was playing because Emily Judd

seemed to be frightened, as she did not know what the master was going to

do with her. When the enquiry was held she did not recollect saying she

thought Mr. Richards was playing with Emily. Agnes Speedy and Bessie

Caverhill were in the habit of playing about the school for about an hour

and a-half until the train started for Belmont.
Emily Judd, aged 13, deposed that she recollected that one day Annie

Donnelly, Amy Payne, Mr. Richards, and herself were in the room. Mr.

Richards pulled her to him, and put her on his knee. He put his hand up her

clothes and tickled her and kissed her. He only did that once, that

afternoon. She did not think his behaviour was right, but she did not say

anything to him on the subject. She spoke, however, to the other girls

about the matter. The other girls were in the room the whole time. She was

afraid of what Mr. Richards did to her. She did not speak to her mother on

the subject until her mother asked her about the matter. She did not

struggle, but she moved about a little when she was on Mr. Richards'' knee.

By Mr. Chapman — She did not tell her mother until some months after the

occurrence. She still went to the school. She did not like to call out when

Mr. Richards had her on his knee. She believed she was on Mr. Richards''

knee for more than five minutes. Mr. Richards was talking to her while she

was on his knee. He said they were good girls. She sometimes used to take

bunches of flowers to Mr. Richards, and he always thanked her for them. He

always behaved kindly to her.
Ellen Speedy deposed that one day Mr. Richards took hold of her by the

legs and squeezed her into him. There was no one else in the room. It was

the dinner hour. Mr. Richards had kept her in. After getting hold of her he

let her go without doing her lessons. When she got outside she told her

sister Agnes about the matter. She did not like to tell her mother. She was

ashamed. She considered Mr. Richards'' conduct wrong. She ceased going to

the school after her mother got to know about the matter.
By Mr. Chapman — Mr. Richards never kissed her before. She would be 13 next Monday.
Christina Brandt, aged 14, gave evidence that she recollected being on a

visit to Mrs. Mackay, of the Wairarapa. She never recollected seeing

anything between Mr. Richards and a girl of the name of Devereaux. She

never told Mrs. Mackay that she did, neither did she tell one of the Speedy

girls. Miss Devereaux does not speak the truth. Miss Devereaux said

improper things about Mr. Richards and witness''s father.
Bessie Caverhill, an intelligent girl of 8, was sworn after his Honour had satisfied himself that she understood the nature of an oath. She deposed that she used to go to Mr. Richards'' school. She never saw Mr. Richards put his hands up Agnes Speedy''s clothes. On one occasion Mr. Richards treated her in that manner. She told her mother about the occurrence after her mother had questioned her on the subject. Her mother got to know of the matter through Mrs. Speedy. She did not like to tell her mother.
By Mr. Chapman — Mr. Richards put his hand up her clothes on more than one occasion. On either occasion that Mr. Richards told hold of her it was after school hours. Mr. Richards also kissed her and played with her. She was not angry with him. She had spoken to her father about the matter several times. She was sure that Mr Richards had put his hand up her clothes more than twice. When the enquiry was held she did not say that Mr. Richards had only put his hands up her clothes twice. There were other girls besides herself who used to stay in and about the school until the train went. Mr. Richards often used to play with them.
By Mr. Travers — She did not like Mr. Richards tossing her about.
The Court then adjourned for luncheon.
On resuming at 2.15 o''clock, Amy Caverhill, mother of the last witness, deposed that three of her children had been attending the school. In consequence of something she heard from the children, in replies to queries which she put to them, she made a communication to her husband, and the children had not been to the school since then. What they told her was in reference to Mr. Richards.
By Mr. Travers— She repeated her questions the morning before the enquiry at the school and Bessie gave the same replies. She again asked the questions this morning and again the same replies were returned. She did not think the child had asked Bessie any questions except in witness'' presence.
To Mr. Travers — You never asked the girl anything.
Peter Speedy, the defendant, deposed that he was present at the enquiry by the School Committee. He was also present at the annual meeting of householders, which was held in the school-room. Mr. Richards was present at the enquiry, but witness did not notice whether he was at the annnal meeting. After the election of the new committee there was some talk about the investigation in reference to Mr. Richards. The new committee were asked to read the evidence, but they refused. Ultimately it was decided that the householders should meet again to discuss the charges. In the interval between the two meetings witness took legal advice on the subject. He was present at the second meeting. There was a report of the proceedings in the Evening Post. Reporters were admitted, and a young gentleman named Wylie, connected with the Telegraph Department, also took notes. The Committee declined to state the charges, and at the request of the meeting he made a very short statement. He had previously taken legal advice, and was acting on that advice when he made the statement about Mr. Richards. The statement made was based on what he had heard from his children.
By Mr. Chapman — It was the second week in March when his wife told him about the matter. He did not know who called the second meeting of householders, and he had nothing to do with the management. Mr. Samuel Smith was chairman of the meeting. Mr. Smith, who was a householder, and had children at the school, was not a member of the Committee. If persons not householders had liked they could have got into the hall. Mr. Wylie Was not a householder, but lived in Wellington, Witness treated it as a meeting of householders. He did not think that outsiders would be there. He did not think that the matter concerned other than householders. He had not spoken on the subject to many people. He had kept the matter pretty quiet. His wife might have mentioned it to a few. He was not a householder, but lived outside the Lower Hutt school district.
Thomas William Caverhill, farmer, Belmont, deposed he lived outside the Lower Hutt school district. He was present at the annnal election, but did not take part in it. In March last he got information from his wife respecting complaints against Mr. Richards. He wrote to the Committee that he had a grave charge against the master, and a meeting of the Committee was held. He was present. After he had stated the charges, Mr. Richards was called in and asked what he had to say. He admitted that he had kissed the children, felt their legs, and tossed them about. He said he had treated them as it they were his own children. Witness reminded him that there were other charges against him, and Mr. Richards then said that a conspiracy had been got up to ruin him. Witness had no ill-feeling against Mr. Richards, but he had heard Mr. Richards say that he would ruin witness. Mr. Richards

promised to resign, and asked them to keep the matter quiet. Mr. Richards

had not resigned.
[Left sitting.]

more before articles before and after ones have about Richards
query Richards

Evening Post 3 June 1889
THE undersigned have mutually agreed to charge the following prices for Milk, to be delivered at the Lower Hutt Railway Station:- 8d per gallon from 1st June instant to 30th September, 1889; 5d per gallon from 1st October to 30th April 1890.
E. J. Riddiford
S. S. Mason
D. Judd
W. Clout
J. Cavanagh
Perry Bros.
E. Hayes
James Judd
Thomas Avery
John Farrelly
George Chittick
Stephen Judd
George Windrun
Peter Speedy

Evening Post 9 Januuary 1924
SPEEDY.- On Wednesday, 9th January, 1924, at his residence, Belmont, Lower Hutt, Peter, beloved husband of Matilda Speedy; aged 82 years. Private interment.
THE Funeral of the late Peter Speedy will leave his late residence, Belmont, Lower Hutt, Thursday, 10th January, 1924, at 3 p.m., for the Taita Cemetery. Private interment.
J. R. Croft, Undertaker,
Hutt and Petone. Tel. 3621 (3 rings).

Death Details
1931/3471, Matilda Speedy, Aged: 82Y - Date of Death 24/5/1931 from Death Registration

Evening Post 25 May 1931
SPEEDY.- On 24th May, 1931, at her late residence, Belmont, Lower Hutt, Matilda, widow of the late Peter Speedy; aged 82 years.
Evening Post 16 June 1931
The death, occurred at her residence at Belmont recently of Mrs. Matilda Speedy, who was in her 83rd year. She was among the oldest of the settlers ot the Hutt Valley, and the eldest daughter of the late Mr. William Scott (sic), of Taita. Born in the Hutt Valley, in 1848, Mrs. Speedy was educated at the Bev. Mr. Dron''s school, and later, at Wellington, was married to the late Mr. Peter Speedy, of Belmont, by the Rev. Mr. Moir. Her many friends will recall with pleasure her reminiscences of the early days of the Hutt Valley, which she lived to see pass through various stages of development to what it is today. Among her reminiscences (which in these days of rapid-transport are of interest) she would tell of the laborious coach trip from Wellington to Belmont, which was undertaken when the late Mr. Speedy brought his bride home to the latter place, where she resided until her death. Mrs. Speedy was predeceased by her husband and one daughter, the late Mrs. F. A. Mason, of Foxton, and is survived by three sons — Mr. David Speedy (Palmerston North), Mr. William Speedy (Martinborough), Mr. Jack Speedy (Belmont), and six daughters, Mrs T McIvor (Featherston), Mrs. J. McLeod (Palmerston North), Mrs. C. J. D. Skinner (Mahina Bay), Mrs. 0. Farquhar (Palmerston North), Mrs. M. F. Keir (Seatoun), and Mrs. F. A. Stuart (Lower Hutt). There are nine grandchildren and three great-grandchildren

Probate Matilda Speedy, Place: Bemont, Occ: Widow, AAOM 6029 48764, Filed: 2/6/1931, Will, Archives NZ, Wellington

unsure if correct person?
Evening Post 14 November 1933
Hutt Fire Brigade
Annual Report
the only serious loss during the year was the case of Mr. Speedy''s house at Belmont, outside the borough, the building being doomed before the alarm was given.
  • 1842 - Birth -
  • 9 JAN 1924 - Death -
1842 - 9 JAN 1924
Family Group Sheet - Child
Death9 JAN 1924
Marriage13 AUG 1868to Matilda Milne at Wellington
Family Group Sheet - Spouse
Death9 JAN 1924
Marriage13 AUG 1868to Matilda Milne at Wellington
PARENT (F) Matilda Milne
Death24 MAY 1931
Marriage13 AUG 1868to Peter SPEEDY at Wellington
FatherWilliam Scott Milne
MotherGrace Yule
FGrace Milne SPEEDY
FElizabeth Agnes SPEEDY
FMatilda May SPEEDY
MWilliam Alexander SPEEDY
FMary Florence SPEEDY
FMargaret SPEEDY
Hortense SPEEDY
Descendancy Chart
Peter SPEEDY b: 1842 d: 9 JAN 1924
Matilda Milne b: 1848 d: 24 MAY 1931
Ellen SPEEDY b: 1873
John SPEEDY b: 1886
Margaret SPEEDY b: 1889
Hortense SPEEDY b: 1892
  • Top Surnames

    Unknown (118)
    Peck (69)
    Harris (63)
    Welch (61)
    Hooper (55)
    Hirst (52)
    Avery (51)
    August (48)
    Gaskin (44)
    Judd (41)
  • Wedding Venue Bookings

    To book a wedding email
    or phone Daphne Daysh 04 977 2055 or 027 687 2055