Moorlands - The Last Mayne Standing

The Mayne family are to many part of Brisbane’s folklore. A family who did not survive in time but have become the talking point for those who love a good story. A murder mystery, ghosts, ghost tours, the plot for theatre plays are all part of the Mayne story or is it the real story.

Rosamond Siemon wrote a novel “The Mayne Inheritance” in 1997 and was ironically published by the University of Queensland Press. This post is not about the book the Mayne Inheritance or whether Patrick Mayne was a murderer and all of the other stories that have evolved out of Simeon’s 1997 book. This post is about who has really benefited from the Mayne inheritance. The content of each will of the last two surviving children in Dr. James O’Neil Mayne and his younger sister Mary Emelia Mayne have created a legacy that has been benefitted by many and is really the untold story of the Mayne family.

If you have no knowledge of the Mayne family or the book the "Mayne Inheritance" then the following web links may assist. It may be necessary to read the Simeon's book to get a real sense of the Mayne family story. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mayne_Inheritance

https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayne-patrick-13088

This is Moorlands the grand 19th century home of the Mayne family. Designed by Richard Gailey at the request of Mary Mayne it was another of those grand villas on large estates on the edge of the Brisbane town. A house with its own story to tell. Mary Mayne and her five surviving children all lived there at some point in time. Is this the last visual link to the Mayne family or have they left a legacy that may never fade? The last Mayne standing is quite a catchy title for this post but even though there are no more Mayne descendents there is now a lot more that is visible which makes up the Mayne family's legacy.

After Patrick Mayne died his wife Mary a very astute business person traded the family out of Patrick's debt and wisely created the portfolio that would establish the family's real wealth. The following written by Bernadette Turner provides an insight into Mary Mayne.

Mary Mayne: Matriarch and Colonial Businesswoman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Bernadette Turner

Extract

Mary Mayne was the mother of Mary Emelia and James Mayne, two of the most significant benefactors to The University of Queensland, and the impulse for their philanthropy can partly be traced directly to her. She was an extremely successful businesswoman in colonial Brisbane, yet her business achievements have been overlooked by assumptions that the family's wealth came only from the foundations laid by her husband, Patrick — even though it was her fortune, as well as his, which funded her children's final bequests to the university. By the time of Patrick's death in August 1865, Mary was experienced in business, which was unusual for married women during this era. Her experience and skills enabled her to take over the administration of his estate and, despite his debts, to preserve most of his property holdings. At the same time, she amassed her own fortune. Although she faced a number of hurdles, her success proves that widows with skills and assets were able to operate as effectively as men in the commercial world, and undermines simplistic assumptions about the impact of gender discriminatory barriers in colonial society.

An Alternative View of The Mayne Inheritance

Brisbane barrister Stephen Sheaffe AM wrote an article for the Bar Association of Queensland's on line journal Hearsay challenging Simeon's version of the Mayne family and the manner in which the family inheritance was created. 

https://www.hearsay.org.au/the-true-facts-behind-the-mayne-inheritance/

I have provided some exerts from the article but a complete read of Sheaffe's article is worth while for those who want to hear another point of view.

The Mayne Inheritance, written by Rosamond Siemon and first published in 1997, asserts that the magnificent University of Queensland standing on the bend in the river at St Lucia was built on land purchased with money tainted by murder and theft. The author pleads that if it was not for a murder and robbery the university may not have been built at this iconic location. It is a well written, extraordinary and irresistible tale that has been well acclaimed but has stirred the emotions of professional and amateur historians.

The university, originally located adjacent to the Botanical Gardens in Brisbane was considering options to relocate to another site. In 1927, siblings James and Amelia Mayne stepped forward and offered to fund the acquisition of the beautiful rich land at St Lucia for the benefit of the university. The offer was accepted, the land was acquired and it must have been a proud moment when in 1937 they witnessed the ceremony for the laying of the foundation stone for the new Forgan Smith building. On their deaths, James and Amelia bequeathed their large estate to the university, they being very significant university benefactors and possibly the largest in the history of the state. The annual cash distribution to the Medical School from the Mayne Trust totals many millions of dollars.

Issues

Siemon maintains that in 1848 Robert Cox arrived in Brisbane with a large sum of money in his bag. Notwithstanding that William Fyfe was convicted of Cox’s murder, Siemon alleges that Mayne murdered him, stole his money and used the funds to purchase a butcher shop in Queen Street. This acquisition was the foundation stone for a massive property empire that was built over the following decades. Finally, she asserts that in 1865 Mayne confessed to the murder. Ultimately, it was this property empire that funded the purchase of the university land.

In this paper, I have only considered original sources to determine whether there is any evidentiary basis to support Siemon’s contentions. The evidence I have examined include: The statements tendered at the inquest [3] , the newspaper recordings of the evidence tendered at the murder trial in Sydney and the oral comments made by Siemon in our discussions. I have not relied on the opinions and comments of any academics. I have examined the evidence, applied a strict forensic legal discipline and asked whether there is any evidence to support the contentions raised.

There are four issues:

1. Is there any evidence to prove that Cox possessed a large sum of money in 1848?

1. Is there any evidence to prove Mayne murdered Cox in 1848?

1. Is there any evidence to prove that Mayne stole Cox’s money and used these funds to acquire a butcher shop in 1849?

1. Is there any evidence to prove that Mayne made a deathbed confession to murdering Cox?

To consider these questions and to form my own opinions, I had the privilege of visiting Siemon at her home on three separate occasions to discuss the evidence that she relied on. During our friendly and amicable discussions, Siemon maintained her view that Mayne murdered Cox although she did make one major concession that will be referred to later herein.

This paper considers the issues raised in the debate held at the university on 12 May 2013 between both Siemon and I. The topic for debate was: Did Patrick Mayne murder Robert Cox? We also participated in a short debate on ABC radio a few days before the university debate, when jointly interviewed by Steve Austin.

Is there evidence to prove that Cox possessed large sums of money?

Richard Smith came with Cox from the Tweed and gave evidence that Cox had a £4 order with him and he did not see any other money in his possession [7] . This £4 order was handed to Sutton and Smith observed Sutton give Cox £2 and promise the rest when the order was ascertained to be good. In his statement, Smith also made the vague statement that “Cox had 16 or 17 thousand feet of cedar which I think he sold before he left the Tweed. My reason for supposing he sold (it) is that I know he had no intention of returning to the Tweed and that he brought the timber to the place where the vessel was building”. Based on this statement, Smith said he believed that Cox had other money in his possession as he had sold the timber, but he did not see any.

Joseph Liddiard, a blacksmith gave the best evidence on the issue of money. Liddiard became acquainted with Cox on the Friday when they discussed work and money. Liddiard offered Cox work in his blacksmith shop and the reply came that; “he had about 25/- to spend, and that when that was gone he would come to work”. Cox also told Liddiard that he had deposited money with Sutton of which only 25/- remained. Thomas Gnosill confirmed the existence of the £4 money order and that Cox received £2 from Sutton, though he said that he did not know if Cox had any other money in his possession. Cox and Liddiard again met on Saturday when walking between Campbell’s Public House and the Bush Inn. Cox now stated that all his money was gone except six pence and what he had earlier consumed at the Bush Inn was not paid for.

After the murder, the police collected and examined all the papers belonging to Cox that had been left at Nosely’s house and these documents were tendered at the inquest. These documents did not provide any evidence of a money order, of a contract for the sale of timber, an invoice or receipt. There was simply no documentary evidence to prove that Cox possessed any money.

The submission made by Mr Holroyd, the barrister for Fyfe at the Sydney trial, and recorded in the newspaper [8] , also adds weight to the inference that Cox did not have money. Holroyd submitted that money was not a motive for the murder as it was proved that all of Cox’s money had been expended.

The relationship between Cox and Fyfe also had a bearing on the issue of money. They were both former convicts from Moreton Bay and knew each other from that time. Cox came from the Tweed a few days earlier and Fyfe commenced work at the hotel as a cook a few days before that. After they met up, they were very close for a short time but eventually the relationship detoriated. Thomas Gnossill observed Cox and Fyfe at breakfast together on Friday morning and to him they appeared like brothers, but by Saturday they were arguing and the relationship had deteriorated .

John Connell gave evidence that on Saturday afternoon between 3 and 5 pm, he observed Cox lying in Fyfe’s bed. They had been drinking and Fyfe was three parts drunk and Cox half drunk. Connell overheard Cox complain that Fyfe had some of his money and in reply, Fyfe shook his hand and said that before he left town he “would knock that man’s head off - that he would have satisfaction of him or kick him in the ribs or something like that”.

After dinner on the Saturday evening, Charlotte also observed Cox and Fyfe in Fyfe’s bed together. She overheard them arguing and heard Cox accuse Fyfe of robbing him. Charlotte asked her father if he thought Cox had any money and the reply came that he thought not.

Connell said he overheard Cox accuse Fyfe of robbing him. Fyfe informed Sutton of the allegations and Sutton responded by telling him not to pay any attention to it and said: “I do not think he had sixpence about him”. Connell also swore that he thought Cox was in danger and he himself was afraid to sleep in the kitchen.

Finally, the reader should be reminded that in 1848, cash was not available like today and there were no banks in Brisbane or elsewhere. If a significant transaction occurred it was usually by money order or calabashes and it would be almost impossible for a timber purchase to be paid in cash.

Siemon appears to have relied on Smith’s vague statement that Cox had sold timber and he may have possessed money. Smith does not say how much was paid for the timber if at all, how it was paid and how he came to have received this information. It seems that this unsubstantiated comment is contrary to every other piece of evidence. Also, it is probable that Cox was an employee and was paid £4 for his services to help extract timber from the Tweed, and Cox was not the owner of the timber. To cut and transport a large volume of cedar I think a crew of axemen, a team of bullocks or horses and organisational skill would be required. It is fanciful to suggest that Cox received a large sum of money in cash for the sale of timber. Furthermore, if he did have cash in his back pocket, why would he be staying at the rough Bush Inn and having to draw down on his money order with Sutton. The evidence is overwhelming that Cox had a £4 money order and this money had been expended and only sixpence remained. The submission by Holroyd that money was not a motive for the murder as all of Cox’s money had been expended is overwhelmingly accurate.

The assertion that Cox possessed a large quantity of cash is wrong and against the evidence

Is there evidence to prove that Mayne murdered Cox?

There is no direct or even circumstantial evidence that Mayne murdered Cox. There are no witnesses to the murder and there is no evidence that Mayne was even present at the time of the murder. Mayne was at the Bush Inn on Saturday evening and early on Sunday morning. He was present at about 9 pm for about 5 minutes and returned with William Lynch, George Platt and Connell at about 12.40 am and stayed until later and during this time they were inside the Bush Inn drinking ginger beer and wine at the bar. The evidence was that they left at about 3am, though Charlotte, being in bed at the time, heard them arrive and leave and gave evidence of slightly different times. Platt and Lynch returned with Mayne to his residence and talked until 4 am.

There is no evidence that Mayne was drunk, and there is absolutely no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that he murdered Cox. He did not return in the morning and there is no evidence that he stole money. The police took a statement from Mayne, they did not suspect him of being the murderer and no mention was made in the police statements that he was arrested. He was not mentioned as being a suspect in the newspapers.

In my view the claim made by Siemon, that Mayne murdered Cox can be rejected categorically as there is not a scintilla of evidence.

Is there evidence to prove that Mayne used stolen money to purchase the butcher shop?

Not one witness or document is available to support the thesis that theft was the source of the acquisition money. Siemon says that Mayne must have used stolen money, how else could he have funded the purchase. She maintains that he could not move from a penniless Irishman to a substantial property holder in a few short years by legal means only. This allegation has a taint of race or religious prejudice but during those early years, when land was cheap, many people became wealthy property owners.

Siemon’s allegations are extraordinary considering nothing is known about the transaction to acquire the butcher business. Did Mayne acquire the business with or without the real estate, what price was paid, did the seller owe money to a money lender or a third party, was the seller struggling and prepared to accept any price. The money-lenders may have been keen to call in the loan and Mayne agreed to take over the seller’s loan obligation and in these circumstances he would not have needed cash. Mayne may have acquired the business at a very modest price as it was run-down and rented the buildings for a short period until he could afford to purchase the real estate. There are many options available to a purchaser without resort to a baseless claim of theft.

Siemon conceded that Mayne had an extraordinary ability as a businessman. It is highly probable that these skills, together with the skills of his wife, were present for years before they were married. They must have been endowed with skills of thrift and carefulness with money. They were both employed for many years in Brisbane, he a slaughter-man and she a house-keeper and they lived at Moggill for a time, away from the temptation of shops and hotels. It is possible they saved sufficient money for a deposit or even the entire purchase price for a run-down butcher shop at a small-town price. If they did not have sufficient funds for the purchase, a vendor’s mortgage or borrowings may have provided the balance of the funds.

To borrow the large sums of money required to fund his massive property empire, Mayne must have had a sound credit reputation. This reputation could only have been gained by borrowing money and making the required repayments when it was due and owing. This reputation may have begun when he borrowed money to acquire his first business and land, namely the butcher shop.

Timing in the property market is also very important . Mayne acquired his first property in 1849 when land was cheap, at the very time the population of Brisbane began to increase with the arrival of the Lang immigrants. Mayne was the beneficiary of this boom and he did very well as a property tycoon. The alleged stolen funds of £250-£300 would not have made a major difference to the massive increase in wealth that he achieved over the years. His empire was built on borrowed money, on land price increases and not by the theft of a relatively small, unknown and unspecified sum of money.

The allegation that Mayne purchased the business from stolen money is without any factual foundation.

Is there evidence of a confession?

A confession of murder is highly probative and is the best and strongest evidence of guilt. To be a valid confession it must be made with a voluntary mind and must not be made after an inducement was given. Furthermore, a confession is inadmissible if the person making it was of unsound mind at the time.

Siemon clearly appreciated the power of a confession as she repeatedly asserted throughout the book that Mayne made a deathbed confession to murder. The reader is left in no doubt that a confession was made. On page one the author confidently asserts that the murderer confessed in August 1865, on page two she again asserts a deathbed confession and on page 14 the author said that Charlotte’s evidence makes feasible Patrick Mayne’s deathbed confession to the murder of Cox. [9] She wrote that the confession was overheard and by the time of his death it was public knowledge. The confession, she wrote, created a surging buzz of excitement and anticipation [10] .

An examination of this and any alleged confession requires consideration of critical issues, such as who heard the confession, who did he confess to, was the confession in writing or reduced to writing, what words were said, was he of sound mind and what were the circumstances surrounding the alleged confession.

The Mayne Inheritance published in 1997, 132 years after the death is silent on these vital issues. To allege a confession, Siemon should have viewed a document that recorded the exact words used. Unfortunately, she has not done so, though she does attempt to set out the circumstances surrounding the confession. She writes that a codicil appointing Mary as a trustee and executor was drafted by solicitors Raff and Darragh and about ten days before the death, the codicil was executed by Mayne in the presence of Queen Street businessman Robert Cribb and another.

She noted that several people may have visited Mayne during his dying days, people such as Dr Hugh Bell, Father Dunne, the nurse, his maid, his solicitor, members of the family and friends. She does not say they did visit but infers, probably accurately that they did. Also Siemon does not say that Mayne confessed to any of these visitors, but wrote that they could have heard a confession if one was made and they were present. She wrote:

Any one of those could have overheard a rambling or delirious Patrick and subsequently disclose his death-bed confession to murder, which became public property before he died.

Anyone who had ever been harangued by the hellfire preachers about the plight of unrepentant sinner brought to divine justice and the horrific eternal hell of the damned might have shared Patrick’s terrible fear. He had a few despairing weeks to ponder on his future damnation: weeks when he was suspended agonisingly between the successful man he had built himself up to be and the murderer about to face his god. Now, shrunk in illness, with nothing left, not even his size to intimidate his terror, he desperately wanted salvation.

The story was out. Patrick Mayne had committed a murder and the wrong man was hanged for it. The town knew of it several days before he died on 17 August.

Mayne’s confession to the murder in 1848 of Robert Cox created a surging buzz of excitement and anticipation. The public perceived that Patrick was a murderer…

The statement that Mayne must have confessed as he was a dying unrepentant sinner and could not resist the haranguing of a hellfire preacher is not evidence of a confession but is simply emotional and exaggerated story telling. The suggestion that the story about the confession was out in the public arena and that it created a buzz of excitement is baseless. If this occurred, it would have been recorded in private diaries, letters, newspapers and history books. No such contemporaneously written document is known to exist and no evidence is available to prove it was made public. Furthermore, there is simply no evidence that Mayne was then delirious.

If Father Dunne had taken a deathbed confession, and it will never be known if he did, he would never have divulged it to the public or anyone else. If he did, it would constitute a serious breach of the sanctity of a confession, one of the most basic tenets held by the Catholic Church.

This evidence of a confession was raised by me with Siemon at the first of my three visits to her home. Initially, she explained that it was recorded in Father Dunne’s dairy. Siemon explained that about two years before the book was published, she visited the Catholic Archives adjacent to St Stephens Cathedral. She was directed by archivist, Father Martin to a desk where documents were presented to her for viewing. A lady librarian left a copy of Father Dunne’s letter book, about 10 inches by 12 inches in size on an adjacent desk. She said the book contained carbon copies of Father Dunne’s hand-written notes, interviews and letters written during colonial times. An impression, she said, was given that she was not permitted to look at this book but she did. It was this book she said, that recorded the details of the confession.

On closer examination by me, she admitted she could not read the words in the book, as it was almost upside down when she attempted to read it. Despite this, she reiterated that the letters must have confirmed that Mayne admitted killing someone. I rejoined, asking, whether she observed Cox’s name being mentioned, and she replied no. I asked, could Mayne have confessed to killing Schilling and not Cox, and she responded by saying, possibly.

In response to these comments, I also visited the archives to confirm the story and was given access to father Dunne’s diaries. Not only was nothing able to be gleaned from the dairies on the issue, Father Dunne’s handwriting was indecipherable.

After this enquiry at the archives, I again spoke to Siemon about the evidence to support a confession and she conceded that evidence does not exist. In March 2013, Siemon and I were interviewed by Steve Austin on radio about the Mayne Inheritance and again she conceded publically that there was no evidence of a confession.

These concessions mean that her allegations in the book that Mayne confessed are false. The suggestion that Mayne confessed to murdering Mayne can now, at last be buried once and for all. There is no evidence of a confession. In any event, if her assertion that Mayne was of unsound mind is correct his confession has absolutely no probative value.

In summary

Despite this book achieving legendary status, it cannot be used as an accurate portrayal of the history of the Mayne family. This book may have achieved this status because of the deep ingrained tall poppy syndrome. Another reason is its exaggerated and well written prose - it is a very interesting, captivating and easy to read tale. The refusal of the horses to pull the hearse at his funeral being evidence of guilt, the allegation that he was ostracized by the community (the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary), his mental health, the alleged agreement not to have children, other murder allegations and many other issues all make a great story.

In my view the book should be classified, not as a history book but a novel of murder and intrigue set in colonial Brisbane.

Who was James O'Neil Mayne?

Telegraph (Brisbane, Qld. : 1872 - 1947), Tuesday 19 October 1926, page 5

________________________________________

DR. MAYNE'S CAREER.

Dr. James O'Neil 'Mayne, who has lived in retirement for many years, Joined the permanent staff of the Brisbane General Hospital as a resident medical officer in November, 1891, and continued in that capacity until October, 1898, when he succeeded Dr. Jackson as medical superintendent. He filled, the position just over six years, during which, according to the hospital "Monthly Chronicle." of December 24, 1904, "he showed generous self-sacrificing devotion to the hospital and its objects — giving years of his life to patient, earnest endeavour to relieve human suffering ; to make men and women happier, that he might leave the world better than he found it. He was ever mindful of others, and forgetful of self,” adds the official tribute. "Those who lived with him, and knew his daily life and the greatness of his kindly heart, pray that the God whom he worshipped in every act of his life may speedily restore him to health and happiness."

These comments were made on the occasion of his resignation, following treatment in the Sydney Hospital, for a poisoned hand, which caused him very great suffering for some time it being feared that the result would be permanent disablement. On December, 1904, at a special meeting convened for urgent business the committee received a letter from Dr. Mayne, tendering his resignation of the office of medical superintendent, and asking that the committee would permit his locum tenens to Continue to act until arrangements for his successor were made. Alluding to his recent painful illness, the doctor said : “As you are aware, my health has been unsatisfactory for some time, and the distress I have lately undergone has left me quite unfit to take up my work again. If I were not assured that I must be free from such responsibility for some considerable time, I would not have adopted this course, which is determined upon after mature deliberation, and at the cost of personal inclination." The members of the committee present expressed their deep sympathy, and their regret at the great loss the hospital would sustain. The resignation was formally accepted. 

The circumstances were reported at the bi-monthly general meeting held on December 13, 1904, and it was directed that a valedictory letter expressing the sentiments of the committee should follow Dr. Mayne, who had mean while returned to Sydney. 

UNOSTENTATIOUS BENEVOLENCE 

Dr. Mayne's benevolence is in exactly inverse proportion to his love of the limelight. How few citizens of Brisbane know him, or even know of him, yet how great his benefactions are even the few privileged persons who do know him, can only guess, and the same is true of Miss Mayne. Not long since, it will be remembered Dr. Mayne handed over to the University 640 acres of land at Moggill. Bom in Brisbane at a time when there was no thought of establishing a university here, Dr. Mayne, found It necessary to go south to get his medical degree. No doubt this has begot in him a desire to help the altogether inadequately housed university which Queensland now possess. Upon retiring from the position of Medical Superintendent of the Brisbane Hospital over 20 years ago, Dr. Mayne went into retirement at Moorlands, River Road, Toowong, where he still lives with his sister. For some years he was a keen follower of racing. The doctor is a great lover of animals and at one time kept some good horses himself, though he did not race. He also was interested in Jersey cattle, some of which, he brought into Queensland from Ireland. Even now the motor car does not appeal to him. He contents himself with driving out behind a fine horse. This public benefactor, who is bordering on 60 years of age, is a son of the late Mr. Patrick Mayne, who was one of Brisbane's earliest aldermen. Mr. Mayne, senior was interested in grazing pursuits. Mr. Willie Mayne, a brother, who was a B.A., and who died some years ago, was a fine horseman and cricketer. Another brother was the late Mr. Isaac Mayne, who was a solicitor. The beautiful stained glass window over the altar of St. Stephen's Cathedral, Brisbane, is a memorial to these two brothers. One of the sisters has taken the veil in the church.

The Estate of James O'Neil Mayne

Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954), Thursday 9 February 1939, page 1

---

BIG GIFT TO UNIVERSITY

Estate Of Late Dr. Mayne PLANS TO HELP MEDICAL SCHOOL

Dr. James O'Neil Mayne, who died on January 31, left his entire estate, except personal belongings, to the Medical School of the University of Queensland. Details of the estate have not been compiled, but it appears certain that the University will benefit even more than it did in his lifetime, when he presented the St. Lucia site of 200 acres at a cost of more than £50,000, and when, in 1923, he gave 693 acres at Moggill for agricultural purposes.

An estimate places the value of the bequest at upwards of £100,000. The estate consists almost solely of land and buildings in Queen Street and elsewhere in Brisbane. The will expresses a wish that this property should not be sold, but that the University should draw the net revenue from it. It also expresses a wish that Dr Mayne's late home. Moorlands of which he owned three-fifths, should be retained for University purposes after the occupancy of his sister, Miss Mary Amelia Mavne. who owns the remaining two-fifths. These expressions, however, are not binding on the trustees of the estate being merely inserted as Dr. Mavne's personal desires.

Medical Scholarships

The will provides that all pictures furniture, plate, books, and other articles of personal, domestic, or household use or ornament are devised to his sister. The residue of the estate is devised to trustees upon trust after payment of all funeral and testamentary expenses and debts to establish a fund the net income of which is to be applied perpetuity for the benefit of the Medical School of the University and particularly for the following purposes: —

Purchase of equipment for the use of the Medical School.

Establishment and maintenance of chairs of medicine and surgery.

Endowment of medical research work, and the granting of scholarships within the Medical School.

The scholarships and endowments are to be made available to any graduate or undergraduate of the University or to such other persons as the Senate of the University and the trustees under the will shall think fit.

Home Also For University

The will further provides that Miss Mayne shall be allowed to occupy Moorlands and so much of the land surrounding it as she may require, rent free, for as long as she shall desire, and that, if possible, after her occupancy, Moorlands shall be retained for and be used by the University. The will asks that the University will maintain and keep in repair in perpetuity the Mayne family tomb at Toowong cemetery. The The trustees under the will are Dr. Arnold William Robertson. Dr. Charles Ferdinand Marks, and Mr. J. H. Lalor solicitor, of Messrs. Thynne and Macartney. They are all comparatively young men. 

Further reading can be found at the following web links.

https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayne-james-oneil-7540

https://rbwhfoundation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/James-Mayne.pdf

Obituary - James O'Neil Mayne - Obituaries Australia (anu.edu.au

Mary Amelia (Emelia) Mayne and Her Estate

Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954), Friday 18 October 1940, page 3

________________________________________

LARGE ESTATE LEFT TO UNIVERSITY

Miss M. E. Mayne's Will:

MISS MARY EMELIA MAYNE, who died on August 12, left her entire estate to the Medical School of the University of Queensland. Her brother, the late Dr. James O'Neil Mayne, had made a similar bequest.

Dr. Mayne left an estate of| £113,334. gross to the Medical School, with the exception of personal belongings. The estate left oy Miss Mayne ,is described as 'considerable,' but not as great as that left by her brother. During her lifetime she, in association with her brother, gave the site for the new University at St. Lucia, at a cost of more than £50,000. Miss Mayne, who died at the age Df 84, formerly lived at Moorlands, the family home in Coronation Drive, Auchenflower. In her will she expressed the wish that, if possible, the property should be retained for and used by the University. She owned two-fifths of the property, the other three-fifths being owned by Dr. Mayne. In his will. her brother mentioned his hope that the home should be retained for the University after the death of his sister. Besides Moorlands, Miss Mayne owned the Queen Street half of the Brisbane Arcade, which runs from Queen Street to Adelaide Street. The estate is devised to trustees upon trust, after payment of all funeral and testamentary expenses and debts, to establish a fund, the net income of this to be applied in perpetuity for the benefit of the Medical School and. in particular, for the following purposes.

For the purchase of equipment for the Medical School. For the establishment and maintenance of chairs of medicine and surgery. For the endowment of medical research work and the granting of scholarships within the Medical School. These three stipulations for use of the income from the estate are identical with those named in her brother's will. The endowments and scholarships are to be 'made available' to any graduate or undergraduate of the University of Queensland, or to such other person as the Senate of the University and the trustees think fit.

Miss Mayne provided that, as far as practicable, the trusts created under her will in favour of the University, and the income from them should be used and applied as a consolidated, or blended, fund with the trusts and income- created under the will of her brother. 

Last Of Family 

Miss Mayne was the last member of her family, which was one of the oldest in Brisbane. Her father, Mr. Patrick Mayne, was one of the city's earliest aldermen. Dr. Mayne died on Januarv 31, 1939. Two other brothers, Mr. Willie Mayne and Mr. Isaac Mayne, died many years ago. The Vice-chancellor of the University (Mr. J. D. Story) said last night that the bequest was a great asset to the University. Ultimately, the medical faculty would benefit greatly.

The last Two Maynes and the Charitable Trusts 

James O'Neil Mayne and Mary Amelia Mayne have been permanently written into Queensland's history with the two charitable trusts that were created to manage their estates following their deaths.

James O’Neil Mayne Estate Registered Charitable Organisation 

Mary Emelia Mayne Estate – Registered Charity

The Registered Charitable Trusts Today 

The following information available online provides some information into how the Queensland University and the Medical School have benefitted from the astute management of these two trusts. The trusts are still administered by the same initial law firm.

James O’Neil Mayne Estate Registered Charitable Organisation 

https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/d311b2aca3dd459e67b12a1f23395b7b#financials-documents

Some Key Figures from Financial Statements 2018 Summary

Net Surplus $2,778,527

Cash at Bank $10,896,401

Total Non Current Assets $51,392,496

Total Assets $64,059,347

The Trust's sole purpose is to provide valuable funding to the Medical School of The University of Queensland which the trust has done since 1939 - The yearly funds are applied for the maintenance and upkeep of the Medical School within The University of Queensland and for medical research, the purchase of equipment for use by the School and for granting of scholarships within the school and when appropriate the establishment and maintenance of Chairs of Medicine and Surgery as per the Will.

Mary Emelia Mayne Estate – Registered Charity

https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/09394f02fae0cc662566eef300a8bc7c

The Trust's sole purpose is to provide valuable funding to the Medical School of The University of Queensland which the trust has done since 1939 - The yearly funds are applied for the maintenance and upkeep of the Medical School within The University of Queensland and for medical research, the purchase of equipment for use by the School and for granting of scholarships within the school and when appropriate the establishment and maintenance of Chairs of Medicine and Surgery as per the Will.

Total Assets as at 30th June 2018 $36,410,749

Who is the last Mayne standing? This is a question that may never hopefully be answered. Every student who has passed through the Queensland University and studied or graduated from the School of Medicine has benefitted from the Mayne family inheritance. Regardless of how the money was generated the benefits to the people of Queensland will hopefully go on for ever.