The First World War, which raged in Europe from 1914 to 1918, had a profound impact in the Geelong district. Many local men enlisted in the army, but unfortunately the casualty rate was very high and numerous servicemen never returned home, leaving families bereaved. There was intense pressure put on young unmarried men to enlist for war service, although conscription was not introduced. Two bitterly fought referendums on the issue had resulted in a narrow result against conscription, to the surprise of many observers. Luckily for Anastasia, her brothers were married with families and mostly too old to be expected to volunteer, and this was also the case with her husband Ernst Schefferle and his brothers. Ernst, born in 1881, was a married farmer in his mid-thirties at the height of the war, although some men of this age did volunteer and were accepted.
In the Geelong district, large numbers of people of German cultural background suffered in an anti-German atmosphere. Some residents even modified their names to sound more English. Indeed, certain locations around Geelong were renamed. Germantown was renamed Grovedale and Waldkirch became Freshwater Creek.
At the very end of the war, in the years 1918 and 1919 in particular, a global epidemic of influenza known as the Spanish Flu afflicted Australia and many people died. Some of those who survived the initial influenza infection suffered from the effects of the virus for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, this was what happened to Ernst.
On 14 February 1921, Ernst Schefferle was arrested and charged with the murder of a young farm laborer named William McIntyre. The tragic incident is extensively documented through contemporary newspaper articles and public records, including police and coroner’s reports now accessible online. Taken together, these sources provide a detailed account of events surrounding the case.
The newspaper coverage can be broadly categorized into three stages. Firstly, there are reports outlining Ernst Schefferle’s arrest on the day of the shooting. Secondly, there are articles from late February detailing the coroner’s inquest and Ernst’s committal to trial. Lastly, there are articles from mid-May that recount the proceedings and the verdict of the trial itself.
The first reports of the shooting are to be found in the papers of mid-February. An article published in the Melbourne Argus of 16 February 1921, under the headline “Farm Tragedy,” reflects the shock felt by the community regarding this unexpected turn of events. The article reads as follows: “Ernst Albert Schefferle, who was arrested at Bannockburn on Monday night on a charge of having willfully murdered a youth named William McIntyre, by shooting him, appeared before Mr. W.G. Smith, P.M., at Geelong City Court, on Tuesday. The application by the police of a remand for a week was granted. Additional details of the tragedy show that after the argument, during which McIntyre was shot, Schefferle was found at the riverside, in the act of divesting himself of his clothing, but he was persuaded to go to his home. Subsequently he told the police that he was sorry for what he had done, but Mclntyre had annoyed him greatly. Schefferle is one of the most prosperous orchardists in the district and has always been most generous in connection with charitable objects.” Ernst Schefferle was widely known as a member of a prominent farming family of the district, while the victim, William McIntyre, was a young man from a local family with established ties to the area.
The previous day, the Geelong Advertiser of 15 February, under the heading “Farm Laborer Shot Dead, Arrest of Well-known Orchardist”, reported the event as follows: “One of the farm properties near the Moorabool River, three miles from Bannockburn, was yesterday afternoon the scene of a shocking tragedy, the victim being William McIntyre, aged about 20 years, who was shot dead. Sometime later Ernest Albert Schefferle, farmer and orchardist, was arrested by mounted constable Esler on a charge of having willfully murdered McIntyre, and late last night he was brought to Geelong and lodged in the local goal. The tragedy occurred in one of the most picturesque parts of the Moorabool where Schefferle is a farmer and orchardist. He is a married man, 30 years of age, and lives with his wife and family, all of whom are well known in Geelong. McIntyre was in the employ of Ernest A. Schefferle until recently, when he went to work with Schefferle’s brother, and this seems to have caused some trouble. According to the story told to Constable Esler, Ernest Schefferle yesterday afternoon left home for the purpose of shooting birds, and he took with him a double-barrelled gun. On the way home he encountered McIntyre, and the two men had an argument. The allegation is that McIntyre called Schefferle a foul name, to which he took exception. Schefferle had his gun in his hands at the time and McIntyre attempted to run away, when the weapon was twice discharged, and McIntyre received the contents of both barrels in the back. The unfortunate young man was shockingly injured and death took place in a few moments. Schefferle then proceeded to his home, and in consequence of what he said to his wife she went for her brother-in-law who immediately communicated with the police at Bannockburn. Mounted constable Esler, who had returned to Bannockburn by the 5.25 p.m. train from Geelong, was motored by Mr. Jefferis to Schefferle’s farm. When the constable and Mr. Jefferis arrived, they were shown into a room, where Schefferle was sitting, crying like a child. He was told he would have to go into Geelong, and he made no demur.
“Schefferle, it is alleged, stated that he resented being spoken to by the deceased in an insulting manner, and he is said to have made an incriminating statement. Constable Esler then arrested Schefferle on a charge of having willfully murdered McIntyre, and brought him to Geelong, where he was locked up. The body of McIntyre was brought to the Geelong Morgue by Mounted-constable McQuillan, the officer in charge at Bannockburn. McIntyre, as has already been stated, had been in the employ of Schefferle, who had practically brought him up from a child and taught him all he knew about farming and orchard growing. The accused, who lived with his wife and two children, is said to be a most affectionate father. He is in comfortable circumstances and has one of the best farms in the district. He has been suffering from ill-health of late, and was under the care of Dr. J. E. Piper, who, it is said, found him to be very depressed in spirits. Only yesterday Schefferle had arranged to go for a health trip to Torquay with his family, but at the last moment he cancelled the arrangements. Several weeks ago, when a relative of his was assisting him with his farming operations, he complained of feelings which he said ‘maddened him, and it is stated that his peculiar conduct has been observed by neighbors. At the watchhouse last evening his demeanor was quiet. An inquest will be opened.”
On Wednesday 23 February 1921, the day after the final day of the coronial inquest into William McIntyre’s death, the Melbourne Herald published a report of the inquest, under the heading “Tragedy on Farm – Young Man Shot”, which reads: “Schefferle sent for trial. The inquest on the body of William McIntyre, a farm hand, who was shot dead on a farm at Sutherland’s Creek on February 14, was concluded yesterday afternoon. The Coroner found that McIntyre died of gunshot wounds maliciously and willfully inflicted by Ernest Albert Schefferle, who was committed for trial at the Supreme Court on May 10 on a charge of murder. Schefferle was formerly McIntyre’s employer.”
The previous day, Tuesday 22 February 1921, the Herald published an account of proceedings at the first day of the inquest as follows: “A coroner’s inquiry was conducted at the Supreme Court, Geelong, today in connection with the shooting of William McIntyre, 20, on Monday of last week at Sutherland’s Creek. Messrs J. P. McCabe Doyle and C. Just appeared to represent Ernest Albert Schefferle, who is under arrest charged with the murder of McIntyre. Peter Schefferle, dairy farmer, of Sutherland’s Creek, said that Ernest Albert Schefferle was his brother. Their farms adjoined. He employed William McIntyre as a farm laborer for about 12 months. Previously Mclntyre worked for Ernest Albert Schefferle for about four or five years. Although McIntyre was in his (witness’s) employ, McIntyre still used to go to help Ernst Schefferle. On a day previous to the shooting, when drilling was being done, Ernest Schefferle said to Mclntyre, “You have not gone away from my place yet. You know I have told you before to get off the place, and you have not done so. You know I can’t stand you here any longer.” Ernest Schefferle said to him (witness): “You know you should not keep him, Peter, because he has destroyed my daughter’s character.” His brother did not threaten Mclntyre, but he (witness) said, “You had better get away, Bill, he may kill you.” Peter Schefferle added that on Monday, February 14, he was carting manure. During the afternoon he loaded the dray and sent McIntyre away with it. He then went to get the cattle. On his way down the hill, he saw his brother come round the point in his (witness’s) paddock. He was carrying a gun; he thought his brother was shooting hares. Ernst Schefferle was then near the dray at which McIntyre was working. Instead of going for the cows he (witness) then also made toward the dray. When about 100 yards distant, he heard his brother, who was then five yards from McIntyre, talking. McIntyre then ran away, and a shot was fired. He could not then see his brother. The distance between his brother, and McIntyre would be about seven to ten yards. After the first shot, McIntyre continued running toward the house. A second shot was fired, and McIntyre screamed and fell to the ground. He did not see the second shot fired. He ran up to McIntyre and said: “Poor Bill, I am praying for you.” His brother was in a maddened condition. As he run up, the (witness) called out, “You’ve killed him. Ernie.” Ernst Schefferle said: “That’s what he gets for interfering with my daughter.” When Mclntyre fell, added Peter Schefferle, Ernest went on toward the river. He examined Mclntyre and saw a wound in the side and shot marks about the head. After having covered the body, he ran and told McIntyre’s father what had happened. He said, “Bill is dead; Ernie must have shot him.” To the Coroner, Peter Schefferle said there was no one else in the vicinity when the shooting occurred. He had no further conversation with his brother. Dr. Newman, who conducted the post-mortem examination, said a gun wad was found embedded in the chest wall. Death, he said, was due to internal hemorrhage, caused by a gunshot wound in the chest. In answer to Mr. Doyle, Dr. Newman said the injuries could not have been caused by a shot from the front. The shot entered the body on the right side of the back, below the blade bone.
Donald McIntyre said that while his son was in the employ of Ernest Schefferle, Ernest made an accusation that his (witness’s) son had “spoiled his daughter’s character.” On February 9, Ernst Schefferle hit him (witness) twice. Whenever the witness and Schefferle met, he added, they always had a row over Bill (William McIntyre) as Ernst Schefferle wanted the boy out of the district altogether.
George Cherdon, farmer, of Gheringhap, said that on February 14 he went toward the Moorabool River with his brother Joseph. On arriving at the river, they saw Ernst Schefferle, Mrs Schefferle, and a little boy sitting on the bank. He went across to Schefferle, who put one arm around his neck, and said, “I have shot Bill.” He asked “Where?” Schefferle replied, “In Peter’s paddock, but I can’t remember. I shot him because he called me a XXXX. Cherdon then asked where his gun was, and Schefferle replied that he could not remember anything.”
For the friends, family and relatives of Ernst Schefferle, this distressing turn of events was obviously a great shock, and the stress of the inquest must have been a tremendous. For the McIntyre family it must have been devastating.
When the actual trial commenced on 10 May 1921, it drew significant public attention, evidenced by the large crowds gathered outside the courthouse and extensive newspaper coverage. The legal defense team at the trial seem to have been very competent, and no doubt expensive. In short, the Muhlebach/Schefferle family appears to have ensured that Ernst was provided with the best legal representation available.
The defence lawyers were very well prepared in presenting their case. The focus of the defence team was on Ernst’s medical condition, highlighting his symptoms as consistent with encephalitis lethargica. The legal argument proved compelling enough to persuade the jury to deliver a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity. The witness testimony regarding the possible sexual abuse of a young girl was very likely also a factor in eliciting sympathy for Ernst. Nevertheless, it is the witness testimonies regarding Ernst’s affliction with encephalitis lethargica that are perhaps the most fascinating and illuminating aspects of the whole trial.
Several family members, including Anastasia, Harriet Lowndes, Martin Lowndes, and Peter Schefferle were called to testify at the trial. Enduring such intense scrutiny and public attention must have been quite distressing.
The trial occurred over two days. On the first day, the newspapers reported that the defense for Ernst Schefferle would be a plea of insanity at the time the act was committed. The Geelong Advertiser of 11 May reported the following: “In the Supreme Court yesterday before the Chief Justice Sir William Irvine, Ernst Albert Schefferle, was charged with the murder of William McIntyre. It was alleged that Schefferle shot McIntyre at Sutherland Creek on February 14th. When the trial opened every available seat in the body of the court and the public gallery was taken.
Mr. J. A. Gurner prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr. H. W. Bryant and Mr. Eugene Gorman (instructed by Messrs. Whyte, Just and Moore, and Doyle and Kerr defended Schefferle. Accused, who had grown a beard since his appearance in the lower court, took his place in the dock quietly. Mr. Bryant intimated that the defence would be a plea of insanity at the time the act was committed. It could not be said that accused was unfit to plead, but he was not in a fit condition to make his challenges. Mr. Bryant asked that Mr. J. P. Doyle be allowed to challenge for Schefferle. Fifteen jurors were challenged on behalf of the accused, while nine were ordered to stand down.
Evidence regarding the relations of Schefferle with McIntyre and the shooting, was given again by Donald McIntyre, the deceased’s father, and Peter Schefferle, the accused’s brother.
Dr. F. J. Newman, cross-examined by Mr. Bryant, said that he had seen Schefferle at the Geelong Jail on four occasions since the post-mortem. The witness had had considerable experience in mental cases. Schefferle appeared to him to be a stupid, slow-witted, boorish man, and did not seem to realize the position he was in. Questioned, the accused said he had been told he had murdered a man, and supposed that something would be done to him. Physically, witness continued, Schefferle was below par and his demeanor was one of stupidity. He seemed to be concerned how his farm was getting on. The witness’s second visit was on April 16th, when he observed little change in the accused. He was improving in physical condition. His memory, however was gone regarding what he had done. His appearance was still that of a genuine idiot. On May 9th the accused had improved to a greater degree physically, but had little cognizance of his act. He told the witness that he was to be tried the next day for murdering a man. He seemed to agree with everything which was said to him. Referring to the evidence that Schefferle had been under Dr. Piper before McIntyre was killed, the witness said the accused evidently had been so affected by his illness that he got into a state of a mania at the time he committed the alleged act. He would have no hesitation in believing that the man was insane at the time and had no control over himself.
George Churden, farmer, testified that the accused had put his arms around his neck and said he had shot Bill (deceased) because he had called him a certain name.
Constable James Lawrence McQuillan described an interview he had with Schefferle after the shooting. The accused said that McIntyre had been interfering with his daughter, and added, “A shadow seemed to come over me. I felt I was going to die and I felt I had to do it. I wanted him to leave the district, but he would not”. Similar evidence given by Constable Esler concluded the Crown case.
In opening the defence, Mr. Bryant submitted that Schefferle was not guilty on the ground of insanity. There were many forms of mind disease. In this case the mind of the accused had been poisoned by the effects of drowsiness and total inability to control himself, following an attack of influenza he had had two years ago. At the time of the shooting, he was entirely irresponsible for his actions.
Anastasia Schefferle, the wife of the accused, described a gradual change in Schefferle’s behavior following his illness. He seemed to lose interest in everything. On one occasion he exclaimed, “I am gone in my head and my chest is sinking in.” When she suggested that he should go to a private hospital he said: ”If I go to a private hospital, they will send me to the asylum.” On the day before the shooting her husband’s trouble seemed to be accentuated. The case stands part heard.”
On the final day of the trial, the Geelong Advertiser of 12 May 1921 continued its report, under the heading “Schefferle Not Guilty on Ground of Insanity”. The following detailed account followed: “Before the Chief Justice (Sir William Irvine) in the Supreme Court yesterday morning the trial of Ernst Albert Schefferle, who was charged with the murder of William McIntyre at Sutherland’s Creek on February 14th was continued. Before the doors were opened, a large crowd gathered outside the court buildings, and when the Chief Justice entered the chamber, every seat was taken. Mr. J. A. Gurney conducted the prosecution while Schefferle was defended by Messrs H. W. Bryant and E. Gorman (instructed by Whyte, Moore and Doyle). The case for the defendant was continued. It was submitted that at the time Schefferle was alleged to have shot McIntyre he was insane and was not responsible for his actions. Schefferle was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity.
Thomas Cullinan, a farmer living at Batesford, stated he had seen the accused before the tragedy. Schefferle told him that his head was bad. He seemed dull, drowsy and depressed. Otherwise, he was pale and sick looking.
Harriet Matilda Lowndes, sister-in-law of the accused, who saw Schefferle several times before the tragedy, described him as being wild and glaring. “He seemed very sleepy and ate little food.” On Saturday, February 12th, he heated a soldering iron to repair a portion of his windmill. When it was hot he wiped it on his trousers and brandished it in the air. Witness became frightened and went away.
Martin Lowndes, Schefferle’s brother-in-law, said that the accused was an energetic, jolly man before he contracted influenza. The last time witness saw him was on Friday, February 11th, when Schefferle said he was ill.
Herbert Addison Lamb, farmer, residing at Bannockburn, said he last saw the accused on Monday, February 9th, when he appeared very low spirited and despondent. In the course of conversation Schefferle said: “I feel very weak. I have a pain in my chest and my head is dizzy.” Schefferle, in answer to a question, said he did not feel inclined to see a doctor, and added that if he recovered he would go to Geelong and live. The expense of keeping his daughter in the city was worrying him. He thought he would be able to get a light job in Geelong. Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney, the witness said Schefferle had talked to him rationally.
Dr. James Ernest Piper said he had treated Schefferle twice. The first time was two years ago when the accused had pneumonic influenza in severe form. The second occasion was on February 10 when the accused called at the witness’s surgery and said he was very ill and sleepy. He had no appetite and was inclined to giddiness. He took no interest in anything. The witness made an examination, and found that Schefferle looked ill, being a dull yellow colour. The whites of his eyes were jaundiced. The accused was emotional in his talk and behavior. Schefferle had a very low pressure for a man of his age. After further description of Schefferle’s condition the witness said the accused’s condition lay in the brain. The accused was suffering from encephalitis lethargica, a sleeping sickness which made him irrational and semi-delirious. The witness took a serious view of the accused’s condition and told him that on no account was he to be treated at home. The witness said he was doubtful regarding Schefferle’s self-control. In that condition he was capable of harming his own children or others. His mentality was that of a child, and the best place for him was with his mother. The witness advised Schefferle to go to his mother’s place and go to bed. When Schefferle recovered, he would have to have a change. The accused at that time most certainly needed observation. In answer to a question the witness said that the accused would have a blurred idea that his act was wrong if at the time of the shooting he was in the same condition as he was when examined in the witness’s surgery. Answering Mr. Gurner, the witness said he did not think Schefferle was capable of knowing what he was doing when he shot the boy McIntyre. McIntyre had irritated the accused. If he had spoken kindly to Schefferle, the latter would probably have burst into tears and treated the boy affectionately.
Dr. Sydney Valentine Sewell, a specialist in nerve diseases, said he had examined the accused in the goal on Saturday week last. He had formed the definite opinion that the case was one of an inferior type of the brain being attacked by encephalitis lethargica. This disease was associated with general infection throughout the body. The germ was invisible and no microscope was powerful enough to see it. The disease was manifested by inflammation of the brain and its membrane. This inflammation would attack different parts of the brain in different cases, so that there could not be any definite clinical picture. The symptoms depended on the parts of the brain attacked. The only universal symptom was that of lethargy. In Schefferle’s case, the main incidence of the germ action was upon the frontal part of the brain. This part of the brain which was the latest to develop, distinguishes man from the higher apes and gave us reasonable control over our actions. It was the first part that underwent devolution, in the majority of cases, when the brain was attacked by disease. The person so affected would be a creature of impulse, and for that reason, they protected such cases by not allowing them to be nursed in upstairs rooms. Incidentally, the witness said there had been an epidemic of encephalitis lethargica and the mortality was high. As to Schefferle’s probable condition at the time of the shooting, the witness agreed with the conclusion of the previous medical witnesses. This concluded the case for the defence.
Medical evidence was then called by the Crown in rebuttal of the medical testimony for the defence. Dr. Clarence Godirev, a government medical officer, who said he had had a lengthy experience in hospitals for the insane, examined the accused on two occasions at the goal. Schefferle was rational, but somewhat slow of thought. He was not emotional except on one point. He had a perfect memory of recent and remote events. The accused had told the witness that he had no recollection of any incident from the time he went out to shoot birds until he was back in his home. The one point he betrayed emotion about was the reference to the alleged indecency of the deceased towards the accused’s child. This made him weep and his speech was broken. On March 16th the witness regarded the accused as a rational being of a somewhat low order of intellect, but he did not agree with the evidence given previously that the accused was suffering from encephalitis lethargica. That evidence was no more than suggestive. It appeared to be based on the evidence of his physical weakness and the statement that he was depressed and was inclined to be sleepy. Other symptoms of encephalitis lethargica, such as paralysis suggested by the drooping of an eyelid, double vision, and headaches, were not present. The basis of the encephalitis lethargica diagnosis was extremely slender. The witness, however, considered that the accused had impaired judgement.
Dr. Patrick Alfred Crocker, medical officer at the Geelong Goal, said that when he saw the accused on February 15th, the day after the shooting, Schefferle told him he did not know why he was in goal, but had the impression he was taken there on account of his illness.
In his address to the jury Mr. Bryant submitted that when Schefferle fired the fatal shot he had no mind within the meaning of the law. He had no desire to kill a man. The accused was a mere automation, a condition brought about by an attack of encephalitis lethargica.
The Chief Justice, in summing up, referred to the fact that the jury had the right if it so decided, to bring in a verdict of manslaughter. He added, however, that it was his duty to tell them that the evidence did not point to manslaughter. The law presumed every man to be sane and master of his actions. It remained for the accused through his counsel to establish the plea of insanity. There was an erroneous belief that a man who was insane was free of the consequences of his crime. There were hundreds of people at present confined in lunatic asylums who in the eyes of the law could be just as responsible for murder as the jurymen or himself. It depended entirely on the character and extent of the insanity. He had the greatest respect for the scientific views given regarding the case and had been extremely interested. The law, however, had to administer those principle that govern society. Otherwise, society could not exist. Though interesting, the medical evidence was really a secondary consideration. Common sense had to guide them in matters of this nature. For a long time, there had been a divergence of opinion among judges upon a question not yet settled known as the “doctrine of uncontrollable impulse”. While he held this to be admissible, he said it needed to be treated with great care. It affected the moral foundation of society. Undoubtedly the accused had many of the symptoms of encephalitis lethargica, but he charged the jury to consider the matter carefully.
After a little more than an hour’s retirement the jury returned to the court at 7.30p.m. and handed a written request to the judge. This read: “If the jury finds the prisoner fired the shot under an uncontrollable impulse what should the verdict be?” His Honor replied that if the jury found that the accused fired the shot by reason of mental disease and was incapable of controlling his action, they should return a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity.
After a further retirement of three minutes the jury returned and through their foreman (Mr J.S. Sharland), gave a verdict of “Not guilty on grounds of insanity.”
The Chief Justice ordered Schefferle to be kept in strict custody in such place and such manner as the court deemed fit until the Governors pleasure was known.
Despite the lateness of the hour, a large crowd remained to hear the verdict. When the result was known, Schefferle maintained the appearance of calmness and impassiveness he displayed the whole of the two days’ sitting.”
The judge and the jury placed great store on the devastating ability of the encephalitis lethargica virus to so affect a person’s mental capacity that he or she, under certain circumstances, could not be held responsible for their actions.
Encephalitis lethargica was often referred to as “sleepy sickness”. This condition, first identified in 1917, attacks the brain, leaving some victims immobilized, speechless, and trapped in a statue-like state. Between 1915 and 1926, a global epidemic of encephalitis lethargica wreaked havoc, infecting an estimated one million individuals, causing over 500,000 deaths. No recurrence of the epidemic has since been reported, though isolated cases continue to occur.
Most people who survived with encephalitis lethargica never returned to their pre-sickness vigor. In the words of the famed neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks: “They would be conscious and aware – yet not fully awake; they would sit motionless and speechless all day in their chairs, totally lacking energy, impetus, initiative, motive, appetite, affect or desire; they registered what went on about them without active attention, and with profound indifference. They neither conveyed nor felt the feeling of life; they were as insubstantial as ghosts, and as passive as zombies.”
One explanation of the virus’s sudden appearance and equally rapid disappearance lies in its association with the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. It is argued that the influenza virus lowered resistance to encephalitis lethargica in a catastrophic way. Encephalitis lethargica was most virulent between October 1918 and January 1919, which was around the time when Ernst contracted the so called Spanish Flu. The Flu and the outbreak of encephalitis lethargica are linked in time, even though a direct causal link has not been conclusively established. The pandemic associated with the virus eventually disappeared in 1927, as abruptly and mysteriously as it had first appeared. Modern neurological research points toward an autoimmune mechanism, where a preceding infection like influenza causes the immune system to mistakenly attack the brain.
Ernst Schefferle never fully recovered his mental health in the years following his initial affliction. Many survivors of the virus subsequently developed psychiatric disorders, often in the wake of several years of tolerable health. Witness testimony at the trial reveals Ernst experienced a severe case of Spanish influenza during the pandemic and afterwards developed symptoms consistent with “sleepy sickness”, and so the verdict reached by the jury does seem reasonable.
Even though Ernst was not found guilty of murder at the trial, he was of course confined in custody due to his mental condition. A transcript from a Police Gazette of 1921 has the entry: “Ernest Albert Schefferle – Murder – William McIntyre – Geelong S.C., 10th May, 1921 – Not guilty on grounds of insanity; to be detained during Governor’s pleasure”. It is unclear where he was detained during this period or what medical treatment he received. Nevertheless, he was released from a government institution in 1924. A transcript from a Police Gazette of 1924 has the entry: “Schefferle, Ernest A. 35938: tried at Geelong S.C., 10th May, 1921, murder; to be detained during the Governor’s pleasure; Victoria, orchardist, 6 feet, fresh complexion, grey hair, blue eyes. Released by special authority.”
One can only conclude from this entry that Ernst’s condition had been judged as sufficiently improved so as to allow him to be released from protective custody. However this freedom did not mean that Ernst’s woes were over.
Anastasia and her children move to Kirkstall
Following the turmoil of Ernst’s trial and subsequent conviction, Anastasia and the children remained at Sutherlands Creek for several years while Ernst was held in custody. Ernst was released in 1924, and this appears to coincide with the family’s relocation to a small farming property at Kirkstall, near Koroit. The timing of their move can be verified through electoral roll records for Anastasia and Ernst Schefferle during the 1920s. These records show that from 1912 to 1924, both Ernst and Anastasia were listed as residing in Sutherlands Creek, within the Corio electorate, subdivision of Geelong North. However, on the electoral rolls of 1925 and 1927 the residential address for both Ernst and Anastasia is listed as Kirkstall, within the Wannon electorate, subdivision of Koroit. This suggests that the family moved to the Kirkstall farm shortly after Ernst’s release in 1924.
The farm at Kirkstall may have been purchased through funds made available through selling farmland at Sutherlands Creek, but this is just conjecture. There is no information available with regard to how the move to Kirkstall was financed. Any financial arrangements made among the Lowndes and Muhleback/Schefferle families after Ernst’s detention and subsequent release in 1924 have not come to light, although some details of this may be in the archive. The circumstances surrounding Ernst’s release back into the community remain unclear. It is unknown whether he was granted complete freedom or whether he was required to report to authorities periodically.
It is possible that farmland in Kirkstall during the 1920s was relatively affordable, especially when compared to the cost of agricultural property close to Geelong. A sale of land at Sutherlands Creek could have financed the purchase of property at Kirkstall. Details about Ernst’s whereabouts during 1925 and 1926 are uncertain, although it is quite possible he spent at least some time with his family at Kirkstall.
By 1927 Ernst Schefferle was a patient at the “Mont Park Hospital for the Insane,” where he tragically took his own life on 26 November 1929. Ernst had been admitted to the hospital on 11 February 1927, suffering from “melancholia”. The coronial inquiry into his death, now available online, provides a somber account of his final years.
The coroner’s report states that upon his admission to Mont Park Hospital in 1927, Ernst was initially considered suicidal, but these tendencies subsided and soon all restrictions regarding a potential suicide risk were removed. He was placed in N Ward, where he remained until shortly before his death. In the week prior to his suicide, Ernst was transferred from N Ward to the Farm Block. The transfer to a new ward may have unsettled Ernst, however staff at the Farm Block reported no signs of distress. In N Ward, Ernst had maintained a reputation as a diligent worker and had shown no signs of depression during the past year. Notably, he had even been granted a brief home leave at one point and returned to the hospital of his own accord.
At the Farm Block, Ernst enjoyed greater freedom and could basically come and go during the day as he pleased. His condition was judged to have been much improved. Nevertheless, on the evening of 24 November 1929, staff at Mont Park Hospital noticed that Ernst had not returned to his quarters, prompting them to report his absence to the Heidelberg Police. Two days later, on 26 November 1929, Ernst was tragically found hanging from a tree in a paddock within the hospital grounds. The body was warm and Rigor Mortis had not set in. Ernst had used a long rope along with a kerosene tin to carry out the act.
The official coronial report concluded that Ernst had died from suffocation and heart failure due to his having hung himself. The police stated there were no suspicious circumstances. The report also identified Mrs. Anastasia Lowndes of Kirkstall, via Koroit, as his next of kin. It is notable that at this stage at Kirkstall she had already reverted to using her maiden name of Lowndes. At Sutherlands Creek she was regularly known as Mrs Schefferle, whereas at Kirkstall she was generally known as Anastasia Lowndes. Lionel always referred to her as Granny Anastasia Lowndes and it seems that over time there was very little local knowledge of her association with the tragedy that befell Ernst Schefferle at Sutherlands Creek. The matter was hushed up and kept secret.
There are no details of Ernst’s funeral, although his death certificate states that he was buried in Heidelberg Cemetery. In the coronial report, Anastasia Lowndes is the only relative listed as kin and it seems unlikely that she attended the graveside service. One can only imagine Anastasia feelings when she learned of Ernst’s death.
When Ernst died in late 1929, Eily was pregnant with Lionel, who was born just a couple of months after the death of his maternal grandfather. Catherine Muhlebach, Ernst’s mother, was still alive and living in Geelong. Most of Ernst’s brothers and sisters were at that time living in the Geelong district. Probate documents for Ernst’s estate are listed in the Victorian Government database and these might shed light on the circumstances of the financial settlement of his affairs, but these records are not online and are stored at the Public Record Office in North Melbourne.
Lionel once remarked that some older family members felt there should have been more financial support provided to the Kirkstall family from their Geelong relatives, but it is unclear on what basis this was felt to be the case. The extent of Anastasia’s relationships with Ernst’s Muhlebach/Schefferle relatives during his years in custody and after his release and subsequent hospitalization remain unknown. Details regarding Anastasia’s interactions with the Muhlebach/Schefferle family following Ernst’s death are also unclear. It is likely that most members of the extended family chose to move forward with their lives, distancing themselves from the tragic events of 1921 and 1929.
It would appear that some financial assistance was provided to Anastasia and Ernst during the years following his release and before his death, enabling the family to relocate to the small farming property on Hamilton’s Lane. The farm at Kirkstall might have been chosen due its remote location, well away from Geelong, offering the family a fresh start. Perhaps the property was available at an affordable price. The population in rural hamlets surrounding Koroit at that time was declining. Regardless of the reasons for purchasing property at Kirkstall, the farm was well-suited to the kind of mixed agriculture Anastasia was accustomed to from her previous farming life, first at Russell’s Creek and then at Sutherlands Creek.
At Kirkstall, Anastasia and her family maintained a small herd of dairy cows and a large flock of poultry. They grew vegetables in the extensive garden plot, and they developed an orchard at the front of the modest weatherboard house. They had kennels for an ever changing pack of unruly dogs which they used for herding dairy cattle and for hunting rabbits and foxes. The lane in which they lived contained other small farms as well as several houses not attached to farms. The majority of people living along Hamilton’s Lane struggled to make ends meet and over time most of the residents left to seek a better life elsewhere. It was a community of poor Australian rural people who lived according to the traditions of their Western District forebears.
Lionel and his brother Bill grew up knowing very little about their grandfather Ernst’s struggles and ultimate fate. Anastasia, it seems, chose not to disclose the full details of Ernst’s story to them, likely to protect the family from the stigma such revelations might bring. Eily would have known much more about this history than Lionel or Bill, but she seems not to have discussed the matter with her children.
Granny Anastasia was aware that due to the lack of adult male guardians in the household, Eily’s children might be taken from the home by the authorities. Eily was separated from her own husband when Lionel was growing up. In impoverished neighborhoods, many poor families headed by women faced this situation. The authorities seemed to consider they had every right to intervene to address the supposed moral jeopardy the children were placed in by not having a man in charge of the household. With no resident father figure as head of the family, what might a woman do to support herself and her children? There was a widespread presumption of prostitution or other malfeasance. Independent women of the lower classes were a threat to the moral order and this threat to decency might be met through firm government action backed by religious sanction.
Lionel was familiar with the Lowndes family at Bannockburn thanks to Anastasia and Eily, who maintained some contact with them during his childhood. However, Lionel knew little about Ernst Schefferle or his Muhlebach relatives. Lionel once mentioned to the author that as a young person he was aware that the elderly mother of his grandfather lived in Drumcondra, Geelong. He also mentioned that Ernst’s family had an association with a man named Muhlebach who had maintained a relationship with this woman who had been the wife of another man. Perhaps Lionel had been told certain salacious things when he visited his Lowndes family relatives in Bannockburn in 1946, or perhaps he had picked up things when overhearing conversation between the older members of his Kirkstall family. Years later, after Lionel and Bill had both moved to Melbourne, they did some family research and came to know more of this history, although it does seem they had some inkling of this background from a much earlier stage of their lives.
It is very likely that Anastasia’s three children, Eily, Orry and Gerry, suffered enduring trauma from the upheaval caused by the shooting and the trial. The family’s eventual relocation to Kirkstall came at a difficult and impressionable time in their lives. They were teenagers trying to fit into a new community. Having known them all, the author is of the view that this dire experience had a considerable impact on all within the family.
At Kirkstall, Eily, Orry and Gerry were raised without their father being present, in a household headed by their single mother. Not only was Ernst absent, Eily’s own husband, the unreliable Henry-Allan Jones, whom she married as a pregnant teenager, was also not present. In a world that kept secrets tightly held, many emotional and phycological issues were not adequately addressed. The author can attest that relationships within this family could be emotionally volatile, with occasional lapses of control.
Granny Anastasia’s children, Eily, Orry and Gerry, had a limited and disrupted school education. Anastasia did obtain a piano from somewhere, which Uncle Bill came to play moderately well. Bill apparently had been taught music by the nuns at the Koroit convent. On the farm there were a few old books in the house, which no one seemed to read, thankfully. Some of the dusty old books in the Kirkstall house extolled scientific notions of white supremacy, with cool looking Germanic gentlemen pictured as the ideal type of human and contrasting pictures of young bare-breasted black women captioned as primitive beauties.
Generally speaking many houses in the hamlets surrounding Koroit seemed to have had no books whatsoever, although pictorial newspapers, such as the “Warrnambool Standard,” the “Sun News Pictorial” and the “Truth”, were widely read. Amusingly, Grandma Margaret would hide her copy of the spicy “Truth” newspaper away from open view least the priest see it when he visited, as she said. Other forms of popular literature were the various Footy Records, thin publications issued at football matches listing the players in the teams and some general footy news. Additionally, there were the Racing Guides, the “Weekly Times” for livestock and land prices, and the “Koroit Sentinel,” for a bit of local news about births deaths and marriages and the local sport results.
Koroit was generally socially conservative and intolerant of virtually any manifestations of gender diversity. If you showed you were gay you might be thrown off a bridge or subject to some other form of violence. A culture of white supremacy, homophobia and misogyny was prevalent throughout the Western District. Sectarianism was a special feature of the Koroit district given its somewhat idiosyncratic demographic composition. The author grew up very much on the Catholic side of this divide, influenced mainly by Patricia’s Koroit Irish family. Lionel’s family at Kirkstall, though nominally Catholic, actually exhibited features more representative of the dominant culture of the poorer people of the Western District overall.
Lionel maintained that it was Anastasia who kept the family going, under conditions of considerable hardship. In Lionel’s youth, money on the farm was in short supply, given that these were the years of the great depression. It seems certain that Anastasia did not get the emotional support she deserved, and Eily was subject to bouts of anxiety and was struck with an air of nervous sadness much of the time. In the 1960s, Uncle Gerry portrayed a hard exterior and exuded an air of menace in his manner, at least as far as the author was concerned although others in the family have different recollections. Uncle Orry hated authority and the police in particular.
There was a deep well of anger and resentment in these men and women held under the surface. The conversation at Kirkstall and Koroit was often replete with grim tales of life’s hard side, regaled with ghoulish relish. Sometimes things would erupt for no apparent reason. Again, other members of the family will have different recollections, although the number of people who can recall those days is fast diminishing.
In many ways it was a harsh environment for children to grow up in. That said, there was a more positive aspect to life. The family had many local friends and acquaintances. The Kirkstall and Koroit communities were generous and resilient, despite their various social and cultural deficiencies. In the boomtimes of the 1960s, people’s hopes were buoyed by a general improvement in living conditions, an optimism which continued until the depressed years of the mid-seventies, which is when the author moved away, although always to return.
Catherine Muhlebach continued to live in Drumcondra well into the late 1930s. William, her eldest son, tragically died in September 1930 when the car in which he was traveling was in an accident. The car was being driven by his own son. Reports of this death were published in leading newspapers throughout the country, for William was very well known nationally as a livestock judge, as an orchardist, and as a fine breeder of sheep and cattle. His funeral was a very large one and attended by a bevy of prominent figures from the agricultural sector. This large funeral in Geelong stands in obvious contrast to the anonymous service accorded Ernst following his tragic death at Heidelburg the year before.
Catherine’s own death is reported in the Argus of 22 August 1938, as follows: “The death occurred at her home at Geelong on Saturday of Mrs. Katharine Muhlebach, aged 87 years. She came from Switzerland 66 years ago. Before going to Geelong, she lived in the Maude and Russell’s Bridge districts.”
Catherine’s life was quite remarkable. She had lived on two continents, had two husbands, and gave birth to twelve children. For over twenty years towards the end of her life she had lived in a nice neighborhood of Geelong. Previous to that she had lived for many years on a farm in a small but tight-knit rural community. The number of her descendants has not been counted, but it must be considerable. It is unlikely she ever saw her son Ernst’s children after Anastasia and the family moved to Kirkstall. It is most unlikely that she ever met either of Eily’s children, who were her great-grandsons. Lionel would have been eight years old, and Bill six, when Catherine died.
Shadows of the Western District 