Surprises near Sturdee Street

For those who know me and think that I've had my interest in cool street art only since the Timespanner dabbling began -- I present the Surprises near Sturdee Street, downtown Auckland. Quite near the Tepid Baths area, where Fanshawe, Sturdee and Customs Streets are a tangle. I took these around 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legacy of Clay

These photos come from my "vault" -- backups of images taken a digital camera ago (older and smaller, but still a good 'un) around 2004. They're of the Ambrico Kiln at Ambrico Place, New Lynn. This is just about the only relic left of the clay industry of the Avondale-Blockhouse Bay-New Lynn area that's left above ground and not covered over by newer developments.

"Ambrico" is derived from the company Amalgamated Brick (and Pipe) Company. The old kiln, dating from the 1920s, has been the scene of municipal squabbles in the recent past -- more info here.

 

I think I like this because of the whole "urban ruins" feel. Hopefully, it won't ever be allowed to completely collapse and lost to us forever.

 

An early spat over the news from abroad

I found this while looking in Papers Past for early 1850s stuff.

Thomas Henderson purchased the brig Spencer in April 1852 in Sydney, and in August sailed into Auckland with some overseas papers which were, in those days, highly important sources of imformation to the local newspapers. Both the New Zealander and the Southern Cross vied for the information. That month, the competition turned somewhat catty.

We have been reduced to the alternative either of passing the English intelligence, received via Melbourne, unnoticed, or of reprinting it almost verbatim from the pages of the 'New Zealander.' The cause of this may be briefly stated; and it is an explanation equally due to our subscribers and ourselves.

The "Spencer" brought no mail; but by the kindness of Mr. Henderson, it was intended that we should be put in possession of the latest issues of the 'Melbourne Argus.' The morning of the "Spencer's" arrival preceded that of the publication of the New Zealander and at the suggestion of the Boarding Officer, and with a courteous consideration for his fellow colonists, Mr. Henderson permitted the proprietors of that journal the first use of his papers, on condition that they should immediately afterwards be transmitted to us. This was not done; our collector, therefore, went for them to the ' New Zealander' office, by Mr. Henderson’s instructions, where the restoration of the property was peremptorily refused.

According to the declaration of Mr. John Williamson he, the Government Printer, had an arrangement with the Government Boarding Officer, to procure papers and information for his Journal. He knew (he said) nothing of Mr. Henderson, and should pay no attention to any order of his. No doubt this arrangement of Mr. Williamson's is an extremely convenient one; an admirable safety valve through which his high pressure integrity may escape. At all events, on the present occasion, it has enabled him to despoil Mr. Henderson and defraud us with a safe conscience; for although a part of Mr. Henderson’s papers were eventually given up by Mr. Wilson, they were so cut and mutilated, so filched for previous and. future publication, of almost every available matter of extract — the most important journal being still entirely retained — that we have had no other resource than to reproduce so far from the print that has thus honestly anticipated us. Thanks to "private kindness," we have, since, been supplied with duplicate copies of every Melbourne Journal, except that which announces the arrival of the Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamer "Chusan." We have thereby, happily been enabled to supply all those items of general intelligence, of which Mr. John Williamson so barefacedly endeavoured to make exclusive appropriation.

(Southern Cross, 24 August 1852)

Stung, the New Zealander retaliated.

The Southern Cross has apologised this morning to its few subscribers for a repetition of the neglect (of which it is often guilty when it does not acknowledge it) of not supplying the latest news, or only supplying it meagrely and imperfectly; and has endeavoured to throw the blame on us for its deficiency with respect to the intelligence brought by the Spencer.

The facts of the case are :— The boarding officer, Mr. Mitford, brought us a file of Melbourne papers from the Spencer on Friday afternoon, which he said Mr. Henderson had given him for the New Zealander, with a request, that as he would be first on shore, he would send them to our office. Mr. Mitford kindly delivered the papers himself, observing that Mr. Henderson was sorry he had not a copy of the paper of the 31st, the day after the steamer Chusan arrived at Melbourne; but he did not so much as name the Southern Cross. On Saturday afternoon Mr. Hughes, the collector for the Cross called and, in a tone not very civil, demanded the papers which he said Mr. Henderson had ordered to be sent to the Southern Cross. He was informed that we had received no such message from Mr. Henderson, the papers had been given us by Mr. Mitford, who might, for ought we knew, according to an understanding we had with him when he brought us papers, call for them again; but we explicitly, more than once, offered to lend the papers to Mr. Hughes for the Southern Cross. He said no; he would see Mr. Henderson, who would "know how to treat Mr. Mitford again when he boarded his vessel, for not attending to what he had told him.”

He returned some time later with an open note from Mr. Henderson, addressed to Mr. Mitford, requesting the papers for the Cross, upon which we at once handed Mr. Hughes every paper Mr. Mitford had brought us. They certainly were necessarily cut up for use, owing to the late hour at which we received them on the night before our publication; but the paper of the 31st, which the Cross untruthfully asserts we kept back, was not received from Mr. Mitford at all;— we were kindly favored with that at a much later hour by Mr. Thomas Lewis.

It comes very ungraciously from the Southern Cross, from its reporter up to the proprietor, Mr. Brown himself, to charge us with any unwillingness to oblige them. They know that in their several capacities they have been under obligations to us. We have never been loath to observe the practices of accommodation usual between printing offices elsewhere, and have enabled them before now, by supplying them with paper, &c, to go on, when otherwise they would have been at a stand-still; and as much as ten columns of standing type have been lent them, not long since, to afford them an equal opportunity with our own paper to publish a report of a local matter of importance, compiled by ourselves, but which they had not the magnanimity to acknowledge. We do not like to mention these things, but feel urged to say thus much in our defence, although indeed it may be hardly necessary in this community to set up any defence against the attacks of the Southern Cross.

If we had been desirous to arraign the parties connected with the Cross, we have too often had ample reason to do so. It is sometimes usual for persons to leave advertisements at the office of one paper, which they intend should appear in both, with a request that a copy may be sent to the other office. Now we challenge them to mention any instance of neglect on our part in such a case, while on theirs it is not of singular occurrence. We may give as a recent instance Mr. Adlerman Mason’s address to the electors, which had appeared twice in the Cross, before he called to enquire why we had not inserted it, and was surprised to learn that the people of the Cross had not sent us word to copy it according to his directions. We might enumerate many similar instances of un-neighbourly treatment, and of civilities unreciprocated, by the gentlemen of the Southern Cross, but we have passed over these private annoyances, to merely explain, because we think it due to ourselves to do so, a matter in relation to which the Cross has thought fit to bring not only our names before the public, but also that of a gentleman who has incurred its displeasure by doing us a favor.
The Proprietors of the "New-Zealander."

 (25 August 1852)

The Southern Cross fired another shot.

TO THE PROPRIETORS OF THE 'NEW ZEALANDER.'
Gentlemen, —I would not waste space on your attempted refutation, which is in fact a perfect confirmation of the accusation preferred against you of having cut, mutilated, and made valueless papers intended for the Southern Cross, were it not that charges equally untrue are brought by against myself personally.

I may not, perhaps, be so polished in manner, or such a pattern of urbanity and gentleness as Mr. John Williamson, nevertheless I must deny the charge of incivility in toto.

To prove that nothing but the truth was stated by me in my report of the conversation that took place between Mr. Williamson and me last Saturday, I will, as nearly as possible, rehearse the conversation that then took place.

I saw Mr. Williamson in the shop, and after the usual good morning, I said I have called for Mr. Henderson’s Melbourne papers, that he directed to be sent to the Cross office after you had published. Mr. Williamson said, I don't know anything about Mr. Henderson’s papers; Mr.Mitford brought some papers to us—and he then called Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson said Mr. Mitford had not mentioned a word about their being sent to the Cross. I said it was strange that Mr. Henderson should direct me to them for the papers, if no such order had been given to Mr. Mitford. Mr. Williamson said, I will lend you the papers for the Cross —that is, from our office to yours—but I do not know Mr. Henderson in the matter. I declined to accept them as a loan, knowing that Mr. Henderson would expect them to be returned to him after we published. I then inquired if he would give them to me if I obtained a written order from Mr. Henderson. He said that they had an arrangement with Mr. Mitford to bring them papers and information when he boarded vessels, and that they would give them up to no one but him or to his order. I said, if that is the case, Mr. Henderson would know how to treat Mr. Mitford when he inquired for papers again onboard his vessel. Mr. Williamson again offered the papers as a loan; which I declined, and left. I must leave it to the public to find where the incivility that you complain of rests. Having obtained an order from Mr. Henderson to Mr. Mitford for the papers, and having wasted the whole of Saturday afternoon in a fruitless search for that gentleman, I called and showed the order to Mr. Wilson, who immediately gave me the papers, so much mutilated as to be almost useless.

No advertisements left at the office of the Southern Cross with instructions to be forwarded to the New Zealander were ever withheld. The instance, of Mr. Mason's, so particularly pointed out, is unfounded, Mr. Mason having left no orders on the subject; and it is not the business either of the proprietor or the editor to attend to such matters. The type you boast so much about, was lent by your own proposal, and more to serve yourselves than to oblige the Southern Cross; since, by re-printing the speeches delivered at the public meeting for repudiating the New Zealand Company's debt, "the few subscribers" of the Southern Cross were afforded an opportunity of admiring the eloquence of Mr. John Williamson on that occasion. As the Printers of the Southern Cross offered to set their share of the ten columns of type, I think the obligation was very slight. I shall only further add, that private papers are frequently lent to both offices. When they reach the office of the Southern Cross first, they are invariably forwarded to you, or returned to the owner, uncut and uninjured. They are never plundered and defaced in the shameful manner in which Mr. Henderson’s were. I remain, &c. Stephen E. Hughes.

(Southern Cross, 27 August 1852)

And there, apart from at least one letter to the editor of the New Zealander blaming the Southern Cross editor for having a grudge against Mitford, the matter rested.

Facebook page for the St James Theatre, Auckland

Just found this page, which provides additional history on the old landmark in our city.

The development of Weetbix -- the sequel

Bonzer sent in this comment, after some discussion, for the first post on the topic:

"My mom (his third daughter) sent me this. His moving around I think probably explains why there is so much debate about his nationality, etc. I add a little info in brackets.

"Daddy [Bennison Osborne] was born in Tighes Hill, Newcastle [Australia], in 1894. Mummy was born in Christchurch, N.Z. on October 7, 1911. Bennie was born on March 7, 1936 in England (while Daddy was running Weetabix). I was born in Boston on June 22, 1939, Tiki was born in Tampa, FL on August 2, 1941.

"Daddy invented Weetbix in N.S.W. [Australia] Arthur Shannon funded him to take it to N.Z., where it really took off. From there, he took it to South Africa (good wheat there). When it was thoroughly established there (as the British and African Cereal Corporation), he went to England to start it there but changed the name (can't remember why but he wanted it to be close to the old name so he just added an "a" in the middle). Stuart has the silver tray with the inscription naming Daddy as the Managing Director of the Corporation. The British newspapers have Daddy thoroughly recorded (with Mac) as bringing the product to England. He looked at 33 sites in England before he chose Burton Latimer."

The historical society of Burton Latimer has an excellent history site on the web, truly amazing in its depth and range of images. In an article on the site, The Mills of Burton Latimer, the society says:

"About 1932 four South African Seventh Day Adventists, Scutton, Vermass, MacFarlane and Osborne set up the British and South Africa Cereal Company to market a product they called Weetabix and which they had been selling in South Africa. They rented the disused buildings from Whitworth Bros., buying the wheat for the ‘biscuits’ from the same source. The South Africans did not make a success of the venture and after a few months an advertising agency took them to court for a £1,000 bill, they also owed Frank George, of Whitworths, money for wheat and eventually he took over the company as a bad debt."

This is the first website where someone named Osborne is referred to, outside of those repetitive (copied off each other) Wiki sites. Still, it would appear that Osborne is a bit of a hard luck story. Bonzer, if you have access to scans of those British newspaper articles, they would be great to put up here, just to help set the record straight (and Osborne's perceived nationality, as well!).

I've just seen Bennison and Dorothy Osborne noted on the Burton Latimer electoral roll of 1934 here, at Constantia House, part of the mill complex. The Weetabix complex is pictured here.

Update 8 August 2011: John Baskerville Bagnall, Arthur Shannon's nephew, enters the fray in favour of his uncle as Weet-Bix originator with a lengthy page on the story, here.

More old postcards

Somewhere along the line, I found these postcards and bought them. No idea where the photographs were taken -- but the colourisation is effective and does add to them, I feel.

 

 

A memorial under the Harbour Bridge

These are photos from and by my friend Bill Ellis.

There's a memorial at the Auckland Harbour Bridge, in memory of those workers who died in the course of the construction of the bridge.

TO THE MEMORY OF

THOSE MEN WHO LOST THEIR

LIVES ACCIDENTALLY DURING THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THE

AUCKLAND HARBOUR BRIDGE

JAMES NICHOL WILLIAMSON - AGED 48

CARPENTER 26.1.58

JAMES ALEX WESTERN - AGED 28

STEEL ERECTOR 7.2.59

JOHN JOSEPH PATRICK McCORMICK - AGED 46

CARPENTER 21.4.59

A small memorial, over which thousands unknowingly pass every single day of the year.

A Bethell headstone mystery

Back when I was last at Motat a few weeks ago, on the way out and walking past the side of the complex, at the rear of the old St Saviour's Church buiding which is part of the Victorian Village there, my friend and I spotted these.

One in particular caught my eye.

I thought, "Hang on ... wasn't Clara one of John Neale Bethell's wives?" This being the John Bethell buried at St Ninians in Avondale. The answer is yes.

The above headstone, for John Bethell  and both of his wives (one, Catherine, died in 1900; he later married Clara, who died in 1918), leaves off the second "e" in his middle name Neale. Was it installed later, after his own death in 1943?

I had wondered why the Bethell headstone was part of the same block as that of Jessie Ingram, the wife of an Avondale postmaster (1902-1906) Duncan Ingram.

 

A Miss Jessie Bethell was noted in 1895 as having found a message in a bottle in 1895 on the West Coast of the Waitakeres (perhaps close to Bethell's Beach? -- Brisbane Courier, 8 October 1895, p. 3), so at some stage she may have married Duncan Ingram -- and was buried in the Bethell family plot here in Avondale. A number of the Ingrams married Bethells, according to the Presbyterian Church marriage register.

But -- that still doesn't explain why and how Clara's headstone ended up all the way over in Western Springs, close to Chinaman's Hill. As soon as I find out more information, I'll post an update.

Update posted.

The Astley House

Image: AWHS Collection

At the St Jude’s “Avondale Then and Now” photo exhibition, a member of the local community approached me and asked why I had identified an image of the house at 160 New Windsor Road as the “Astley House”. She felt sure it was the “Dickey House”.

The answer, as I suspected, was that we were both correct, always a good thing in terms of local history.

The Astley family arrived in Auckland in 1880, Elijah Astley and his sons worked at the Ireland Brothers tannery in Panmure, before shifting to the Gittos Tannery at Avondale. After first living in Richardson Road, the family saved enough to purchase a 12-acre section along New Windsor Road in September 1882, and had their house built there in 1883 “The rooms were large, but some of them were left unfinished, though habitable, for a considerable time. To our eyes it seemed, and was, a fine family home and our own property, but it was sadly deficient in the amenities which are regarded as indispensable in a modern home today.” (John E. Astley, “The Astley Saga, A Post-Pioneer Auckland Family”, Journal of the Auckland Historical Society, [Part One] October 1966)

The two-storey English Colonial style building was the size it was, most likely, to accommodate the large Astley family (total of 10 children when they arrived from England). Elijah Astley founded the Astley Tannery in New Lynn, one of the district’s most enduring industries.

Eijah Astley died 10 December 1905. In 1907, his son John Edward Astley and Thomas Atherton transferred the property to Mr and Mrs. Lamey from Morrinsville, who in turn transferred to Robert Dickey of Penrose in 1918. The Dickey name remains in the name Dickey Street, close to the original land holding.

So yes: the house at 160 New Windsor Road is both the Astley House and the Dickey House. Call it what you will – but most use the first name.

Upper Rosebank Road Mural

I'm grateful to a very kind friend of mine who regularly gets up as early as the dawn chorus and so offered to take a couple iof snaps of the mural in Avondale which faces onto the Auckland City Council carpark beside the upper part of Rosebank Road (former Brown Street). I can't say who he is (but he and his good lady regularly view Timespanner) so -- hey there, you guys know who you are, so thanks!

The early 1950s scene looks from across on the western side of Rosebank Road, up "Station Hill" (Upper Rosebank) towards the railway goods shed at the top. Our post office building is on the left, and Unity Building on the right.

Usually, there are cars parked here all day, so it's hard to get a good shot of the wall. Luckily, as I said, I have an early riser friend.

 

Avondale Then & Now exhibition

A photo taken Friday, while the old 1907 Church Hall at the back of St Jude's Church was being set up. The committee members at St Jude's have done a huge amount of work setting the exhibition up -- and running a very successful and well-patronised first day yesterday.

The exhibition was a golden opportunity for the Avondale-Waterview Historical Society to display two of our treasures -- a c.1966 aerial of the Airest Factory on Rosebank Road, and our December 1957 aerial of Avondale (right).

 

City Councillor (and local community member) Noelene Raffills (left) did the honours in opening the exhibition at 9 o'clock yesterday morning.

 

Part (only a small part!) of the finished display. Excellent value for money in refreshments put on too, by the way -- in return for $5, the customer received a small cuppa, a sandwich, small meat pie, and a small cake. Plus, a chance to see a comprehensive slideshow of images from the past and present of the suburb, and chat with community membgers past and present, all of us pointing out where places were, familiar faces.

The AWHS supported the exhibition by providing images. A lot of those finally chosen came from us, which was cool to see. Some, originally colour, have been on view in their original form for the first time in public.

I've done one heritage walk in conjunction with the exhibition, starting and finishing at the church -- today is walk number 2. (I think I've recovered enough!) I'm fortunate that Auckland City Council loaned the use of an amplifier for it, otherwise last night I'd not only have been knackered, I'd have been hoarse as well!

All in all -- while I'm tired, it's been a great weekend for Avondale's local stories.

Happy birthday, Timespanner

This time last year, I was tinkering around in the Blogger site, after having had an odd dream about ordering a blog from a post office of all things (!), and Timespanner was born. Kicked off initially because I wanted a better online description of The Zoo War than was provided in library catalogues, it soon became an integral part of what I like and feel compelled to do, more often than not -- find out why things are the way they are, who people were, and generally explore through time.

Thank you to regular readers of this blog, and to those who've stumbled across it from out of the Internet wildernesses, found something here of help for their own nresearch, and were kind enough to add to the storehouse here as well.

And thanks especially to Liz, who assured me for months before 20 September 2008 that blogging was fun. As I'm not particularly into keeping diaries myself, and that's what blogs seemed to me to be, nor did I think I was a long-term spouter of opinion, I doubted I'd ever be doing this. I'm glad, very much so, that I was wrong.

Cheers, all.

Why I love St Matthews-in-the-City

A photo essay.

"Lost at the bottom of Swanson Street ..."

From the Auckland City Council's City Scene, 24 February 2008:

"A new public sculpture marks the site of the city's original foreshore on the corner of Swanson and Queen streets. The 7m tall artwork created by well-known New Zealand sculptor Fred Graham is entitled Te Waka Taumata o Ngati Paoa or resting canoe. Mr Graham used Corten and stainless steel in the design, which will develop a weathered, rust-like appearance over time.

"The sculpture provides a strong visual presence on our main street. It captures the historical and cultural significance of the area, and most importantly, it tells a story of our city," says Councillor Greg Moyle, chairperson of the council's Arts, Culture and Recreation Committee."

Brian Rusdman, NZ Herald, 19 March 2008:

"...Fred Graham's newly installed stylised waka sternpost, 7m high, is lost at the bottom of Swanson St."

It is certainly a visual surprise -- if you're doing what I was doing last night along Queen Street, looking at old building facades, thinking, "Hmm, would that look interesting on Timespanner, I wonder...?" So, my eyes caught sight of the birds, and then the anchor stone.

People flow around the sculpture in rush hour, as waves flow around the prow of a waka, but -- I agree with Brian Rudman. The sculpture is somewhat lost beside the glare of Burger King, at the foot of Swanson Street. Back in the 1860s, the Royal Oak Hotel was on one side, the Victoria Hotel on the other (check out photo 4-414, Heritage Images online.) Today, it's just part of Queen Street's consumer landscape.