Family Squabble

Oakleigh and Fern Tree Gully Times, Tuesday January 19th, 1892

Senior Constable Gray V Wm Tiesler, unlawful assault, and

William Tiesler V Fritz Tiesler, unlawful assault.

These two cases which rose out of a drunken Christmas spree, were heard together. Mr Tanner appeared for Fritz Tiesler and Mr Morgan for William Tiesler.

Fritz Tiesler deposed that on the 25th December, 1891, when at home with his friends his little sister came running up from his father's house and said William was killing his father. Went over and found his brother rolling around drunk and in the act  of drinking a cup of beer.

On remonstrating with him about his conduct was struck by him and knocked down, and after a scuffle escaped to his own place followed by his enraged brother threatening him. Witness dared him to follow him into his place, but he did and renewed the assault and at last became so violent that he had to be tired with a clothes line around the legs and arms; with the help of Mr Young; and delivered over to the Police. His father is a cripple and has been for many years. denied assaulting his brother first or knocking him down. He learned from the Senior Constable that the doctor was sent to inspect his brother in the lock-up. He gave the defendant in charge for assault.

George Young deposed that he was present at Fritz Tiesler's house on the day in question, and now corroborated the evidence already given, adding that the defendant threatened him also with a paling after following them to Fritz's house. He made a blow at witness, after which he got him down and tied him. William fell through dodging his blow.

William sic:(Fritz) Tiesler senior gave evidence of drunkeness and violence of his son, the defendant, and his assault on himself. Saw William knock Fritz (junior) down and scuffle ; Young separated them.

John David was at Fritz Tiesler's place also at that date and saw little girl, crying, who said William Tiesler was killing his father, and asked Fritz to go over. Saw William Tiesler pursuing them afterwards and the assault that followed. 

Mr Morgan asserted that the case was brought on by the police because William Tiesler refused to pay the doctor's fee and expenses, and for the defence called - George Chickley, labourer, who said he saw Fritz Tiesler come into his father's house when William said "Hello Fritz" whereupon Fritz told him to go to bed. William replied that that he would not be dictated to by him, and Fritz then knocked him down and a struggle ensued. He did not see a cup of beer thrown. lifted Fritz off his brother, and he then ran away. Witness went home after that. To Mr Tanner - Was in the employ of William. He did not see him strike Fritz. Was positive that Fritz struck first. Mrs William Tiesler remembered the day in question. Her husband and George Chickley were together. They were trying to get her husband to bed. When ordered to bed by Fritz, he said he would go when he liked. Then Fritz struck him, knocking him down. Afterwards Fritz struck him with a piece of paling, and Fritz's wife, seeing it called out, "Fritz, don't."

William Tiesler defendant, contradicted his brother's evidence and detailed the bad usage which he said he had received from him, being tired  down in a barbarous manner and dragged by a rope.

Senior Constable Grey deposed that he was not present when defendant was first locked up. When he saw him he could not wake him, so, for fear of accident, he sent for a doctor. Had he woke up, he would not have sent.

The bench dismissed both cases in consequence of the contradictory nature of the evidence. 

Railway Accident at Oakleigh, 

Oakleigh and Fern Tree Gully Times, Saturday November 25th, 1893

On Saturday night a fatal accident befell a young man named W. Tiesler, a market gardener residing in South Oakleigh. The deceased was returning home from visiting the town after tea, and from the testimony of witnesses appeared to be slightly under the influence of liquor. When the accident happened Tiesler was walking along the line near Young's gates. A magisterial inquiry was held on Sunday afternoon before Mr Chas. Nelson, J.P., when the following evidence was taken.:-

Mr S. Halliday, labourer, said he was returning from Oakleigh station on night of accident ; came by train which arrived Oakleigh at 11.40; walked half a mile along the line east from Oakleigh when he saw a dark object on the track between the rails on the down line ; went over  and touched the object with his foot and it yielded to the pressure; then struck a match and saw it was the body of a man ; also saw the wheel of the engine had torn the heel off  one boot from the foot, which was crushed; lifted up one leg-- the only one he saw--and there was no movement ; put it down. Saddled the pony and rode  in to inform the Oakleigh police ; the body was partly stripped ; lived about 200 yards from the scene of the accident; it would not take more than ten minutes to walk home from where the accident occurred ; after seeing police returned with them and found the body to be that of W. Tiesler, and he was quite dead.

Oakleigh Junction Hotel & Railway Station

(Looking east)

Constable E. Thompson, stationed at Oakleigh, said he was on duty at Oakleigh station at 11.25on Saturday night. Saw a man come out of the Oakleigh Junction Hotel, and in doing so he tripped and fell; he got up and walked away smartly across Portman-street, and jumped  over the railway fence into the railway hard; saw Mr Munday and asked him whether it was Tiesler that had just come out of the hotel and he (Munday) said it was ; was 40 or 50 yards away when he saw deceased come out of the hotel ; he appeared to be quite sober and jumped over the railway fence, although he may have been drinking ; but he appeared quite able to go home without assistance.

Senior-const. Grey said he saw deceased, W. Tiesler. Previous witness, Holliday, informed him of accident; the body was much mutilated; on the body found 1s 5d., and saw remains of bottle which had contained beer ; had the body removed to the Oakleigh Junction hotel for purpose of this enquiry ; the body was found at the 10 mile post.

   Dr W.H.Cutts said  he had examined the body of the deceased and found the following injuries:- The head with the exception of the face and part of the forehead was smashed to pieces and carried away. The remains of the brain were protruding ; there were bruises and lacerations on the face. The right arm, with its attachments, was shattered between the joint and the root of the neck. The right side was much contused ; there was a hole 2 inches long about the region of the 4th or5th rib and most of the ribs on that side were broken. Two fingers of the right hand were torn and two were missing. The right leg was fractured a few inched above the knee. There was an extensive contused lacerated wound on the left side of the body starting from the armpit, extending nearly to the centre. The left hand was much lacerated, and in addition there were bruises on many parts of the body, but principally on the right side. The cause of death, from evidence, was through being run down by a train.

David Blackie, clerk in railway department, stationed at Oakleigh ; Was not on duty on Saturday night, but knew time-table, which is the working one ; the 11.10 down train from Melbourne is due at Oakleigh at 11.45 p.m., remains at Oakleigh 30 seconds and then proceeds to Dandenong, where the train remains all night. He was positive the train passed through Oakleigh, although according  to train register found the train 5 minutes later than usual. About 2 minutes would elapse before train came to the spot where the accident occurred.

Deceased was about 30 years of age. A verdict was given according to medical testimony.