Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

Maitland Quarter Sessions
This Court opened on Monday morning before the
Chairman, S. Raymond, Esq , assisted during the day
by the following magistrates: C. M. Doyle, Esq., A.
Lang, Esq., J. B. Lethbridge, Esq.
The barristers present were the Crown Prosecutor,
Mr. Purefoy, and Mr. Holroyd.
WOUNDING WITH INTENT.
John Malone »as indicted for wounding David Ains-
worth on the head, body, and shoulders, with intent to
do him bodily harm, at Four Mile Creek, on the 10th
November, 1849.
The Crown Prosecutor stated the case to the jury.
It appeared from the evidence of David Ainsworth,
Robert Gordon, and Joseph Chambers, that on the 10th
November, Mr. Gordon as assistant bailiff of the Court
of Petty Sessions, Maitland, executed a levy on the
household goods of the defendant, at Four Mile Creek,
and left Ainsworth in charge ; defendant was not at
home at the time, and on returning home and hearing
from his little boy, who was crying, that Mr. Gordon
had made a levy, he picked up a hoe, ran in, and on
Ainsworth's telling him he had been pit there [n charge
by Mr. Gordon, defendant struck Ainsworth on the
head with the hoe, knocking him down insensible for a
short time ; on Ainsworth's rising defendant struck
bim again with the boe on the side, and then pushed
him out of doors, and again struck him with the hoe on
the shoulder ; he then picked up a large stick, and in
spite of Ainsworth's entreaties for mercy he struck him
several blows with the stick ; Ainsworth got away from
him, and running homewards he overtook Mr. Gordon,
his head being still bleeding from the effects of the
first blow with the hoe. Ainsworth was confined to his
bed and house for nearly a fortnight, under the care of
Dr. Brown, from the effeots of the injuries he received
from defendant.
In defence defendant said that his little boy told bim
that he was crying, because Ainsworth had struck him
and knocked him down, when having questioned Ains-
worth he threw him down, and he fell between two
stumps on some pieces of old iron hoop and tools ; he
saw no more of Ainsworth, but walked in-doors. He
called Mary Hogan and Mary Foley, who gave precisely
the same account of the transaction as himself. Both
these witnesses were severely cross-examined by the
Crown Prosecutor, and they differed in their accounts
of how much they saw of the transaction.
Ainsworth was recalled and deposed that he did not
see either cf the women near the house, but met one
a hundred and twenty yards from it as he was running
away.
The jury returned n verdict of common assault, giving
their opinion that tiie assault was committed with the
hoe.
The defendant was sentenced to six months' impri-
sonment in Maitland gaol, with hard labour.
SHEEP STEALING.
Peter Mitchell was indicted for stealing one sheep,
the property of Andrew Doyle and another, at Wollombi
on the 2nd October, 1849.
It appeared from the evidence of Andrew Doyle,
Edward Doyle, William Dalziel, and John Peno, that
the prisoner was a shepherd, in the employ first of Mr.
Edward Doyle, and subsequently of Messrs. Edward
and Andrew Doyle, living at their station of Wyalla, In
the Wollombi district ; about the 2nd of October, Mr.
Andrew Doyle chanced, on visiting the station, to enter
the hut of the prisoner and to observe some roast mut-
ton on the table ; he made no remark, but as no mut-
ton was ever allowed to be served out as rations, and
from subsequent information he obtained from William
Dakiel, another shepherd, who had just entered their
employ, he suspected it was part of a stolen sheep ; he
therefore approached the hut in the evening, and list-
ened to a conversation between the prisoner and Dal-
ziel, in which the prisoner, in answer to Dalziel's
remarks, said that Kelly (another shepherd, who had
just left) was a right man. and would not inform on
him, and that he and Kelly had killed several sheep,
and that shearing time would be a good time to kill '
another, as the master would be busy. Dalziel also
deposed to this conversation, in which however he de-
scribed prisoner as saying that Kelly had killed several
sheep, and that he (prisoner) had helped to eat them,
and prisoner also urged Dalziel to kill a sheep during
the shearing time, telling him he would be often short of
rations if he did not kill meat. Dalziel also described
part of the carcase of a sheep he observed near the hut,
Peno, who was also in Messrs. Doyle's employ, and
who accompanied Mr. Doyle to the hut that evening,
deposed to the conversation he overheard between
prisoner and Dalziel. Mr. Doyle described several
sheepskins which were produced at the station as hav-
ing been those of sheep killed by native dogs, but which
he believed from examination had been killed in the
ordinary way. Dalziel, it appeared, absconded from
the station on hearing that prisoner was to be prose,
cuted, but was afterwards apprehended, and was now
brought from the gaol to give evidence.
In defence prisoner put in a written statement, deny-
ing that he killed or stole any sheep, and stating his
belief that he was prosecuted for the purpose of de-
priving him of the wages due to him. He called
George Mathews, a prisoner in the gaol, to prove the
handwriting of a document produced to be Dalziel's
(Dalziel having denied it), but he only proved that
another prisoner said it was.
The jury retired for a few minutes, and returned a
verdict of not guilty. Mitchell was then discharged.
STEALING OR RECEIVING.
John Rinker was indicted for stealing an oar, the
property of Henry Smith, at Newcastle, on the 21st
September, 1849. In a second count he was indicted
for receiving the oar, knowing it to be stolen.
It appeared from the evidence of Captain Livingstone,
harbour master of Newcastle, that on the second visit
of the barque Josephine Captain Henry Smith to New-
castle it was reported to him tint a couple of oars
were loot or had been taken from the vessel, the Jose-
phine sailed and was away nine weeks, and on her
third visit Captain L. was on board her, on the 26th
November, when the chief mate and four hands pursued
the prisoner, who was pulling towards shore m his own
boat, and having caught him, they returned on board
with him and an oar, which Captam Smith immediately
claimed as one of those taken from him, and accused
the prisoner as havng been the cause of his losing the
then chief mate and two hands at New Zealand, for
want of those oars ;, the prisoner told him that he had
bought the oar for 5s from a man belonging to the
Emma but that the captain could keep it if it was his
oar, but he begged him to remembei that he (prisoner)
had a large family ; the carpenter and others on board
the Josephine identified the oar in the presence of the
prisoner and Captain L , by the leather and some
marks Captain Livingstone deposed that the Emma
was not in the harbour during the Josephine's second
visit, nor had been since , the oar was an ash oar, of
fifteen or sixteen feet long and worth about 12s/
The prisoner, in defence, said that he openly bought
the oar from a sailor on the wharf, who had formerly
belonged to the Emma, and used it openly about the
harbour for several weeks ; that that morning he went
on board the Josephine to sell fish, and as he was leav-
ing the oar was claimed by one of the hands, and
afterwards he was pursued.
The jury retired for ten minutes and returned with
a verdict of not guilty ; Rinker was discharged.
STEALING A BLANKET
James Cordwell was indicted for stealing a blanket,
the property of Michael Ryan, at Raymond Terrace, on
the 2nd lanuary 1850
It appeared from the evidence of Johanna Ryan,
William Cahill, and Edward Wood, that Mrs Ryan on
that evening had a blanket hanging on the fence at the
back of her house, and that the prisoner came to her
house for a drink. Cahill a lad of fifteen years was
passing near the house with a wheelbarrow and he
observed prisoner take a blanket off Mrs. Ryan's fence,
and lay it on the ground for a moment while a team
was passing, when he took it up and folding it up
carried it before him towards a camp of the blacks.
Constable Wood afterwards apprehended him at a
public house when prisoner first said that he had not
seen the blanket and then that he took it to sleep on.
In defence the prisoner said he had not seen the
blanket, and knew nothing of it.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty The prisoner
who said he was seventy five years old, was sentenced
to three months imprisonment, with hard labour.
LARCENY.
John Shipton was indicted for stealing a spur, ring,
pencil-case and a vanety of other articles. the pro-
perty of Michael M'Cartney, at Maitland, on the 7th
December, 1849
It appeared from the ewdence of Michael Al Curtnej
and Thomas Lennard th it the prisoner had been m
Dr M Cartney's service, and left it on the 7th De
cember , Dr M Cartnej had missed severa' nrticles
priuouslv, and subsequently he missed manj more
from inf irmation he procuied a search warrant and
m a bot of the prisoner s he found a spur and other
articles which he identified as his, and other arti« les
were elsewhere found corresiKindiug with some that he
had missed , but some of the more \aluable articles
wluih he had missed were not found Constable Len
nard, who executed the warrant deposed to prisoner s
having the kej by him of the box in which some of the
things produced were found , prisoner made no objec
tion to the search prisoner pointed out the place
where some of the things were found, telling witness to
kei p them and not tell the doctor
Prisoner denied this, but made no further defence
The iun returned a icrdict of guiltv The pris mer
was sentenced to be worked twelve months in irons on
the roads.
STEAIIÎ.G GIRTHS
Philip Gerngan was indicted for stealing ten girths
the pr iperty of John Graham, at Maitland, on the 5th
December 1849
The pusoner pleaded guiltv
He was sentenced to six months labour on the roads
in irons
LARCENY
William Clarkson was indicted for stealing one pair
of boots two razors, and other articles, the j ropertj
of George Hemans, at Lnerpool Plains, on the 15th
No\ ember 1849
The prisoner pleaded guiltv and was sentenced to be
worked on the roads in irons for six months
STEALING TUMBLERS
Mary Maguire was indicted for stealing two tumblers,
the property of Henry Adams, at Maitland, on the 22nd
November, 1849
It appeared from the evidence of Henry Adams,
Thomas Clifton, and Thomas Ward, that on that after-
noon the Prisoner was drinking at Mr Adam's house,
and was noticed by Constable Clifton and Ward leaving
it with her arms crossed, as if covering something in
her shawl; they watched her and presently observed,
on a bullock-driver coming against her and shaking her
arm, that a tumbler dropped from her; the constables
went up, and though prisoner at first said that she had
nothing about her, she afterwards gave up another
tumbler. Mr. Adams identified the tumblers as his.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner
was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with
hard labour.
CATTLE STEALING.
Thomas Neerh was indicted for stealing a cow, the
property of Mary Maloney, at Four Mile Creek, on the
13th November, 1849 ; in a second count the cow was
laid as the proporty of John Maloney.
Mr. Purefoy appeared for the defence ; attorney, Mr.
C. Nichol.
It appeared from the evidence of Mary Maloney, John
Hickey, William Horan, John Stone, and Luke Gra-
ham, that Mrs. Maloney was the wife of John
Maloney, but had not been living with him for
many years ; for the last ten years she had been
living with another mnn, named John Malone, at
Four Mile Creek, and had had cattle running on his
land ; in November last Malone was away, and Mrs.
Maloney's toes having been crushed by an accident she
was obliged to go to Sydney and subsequently to live in
Maitland ; on returning home one day she met keepers
with some of her cattle, they having levied on them,
but not for her debt ; she had still two cows left, one
having a calf by her side, and the other being in calf ;
ehe was obliged to come into Maitland for some time,
and gave the prisoner, who had been lodging with
them, the keys of her house, to' take care of it ; the
.next morning, about the 14th or 15th November, he
brought her the keys, saying the place had been rohbed,
but by whom he could not tell, although he named
who had been there ; she subsequently found that her
two cows were gone, and many otht r things ; she went
to prisoner, but could get no satisfactory account of
either the cows or her other property ; from informa-
tion she afterwards went to the houses of John Stone
and William Horan, and in Stone's field she found
the cow which'had been in calf, and which had then a
calf by its side ; she never gave prisoner or any other
person permission to sell either of the cows, or any
other part of her property. The cow Mrs. Maloney
found at Stone's was a small horned cow, branded PC,
and known by the name of Chaney ; the cow at Horan's
waa a poley cow, branded FE, Mrs. Maloney thought.
Hickey deposed to prisoner's having brought a cow and
calf to his place, at Four Mile Creek, and left them for
about two days, when he took them away, and witness
thought he said he had sold the cow, and found a place
for the calf ; the cow was a little horned yellow cow,
heavy in calf, branded either DG or PC : the calf was
a little red one. Horan deposed that on the day of the
great squall he bought a cow and a calf from prisoner
for £1 2s. 6d. ; prisoner had two months previously been
talking of exchanging the cow with witness ibr a bull,
and had some discussion on it in Mrs. Malouey's pre-
sence, but they did not come to terms ; the oow waB
a poley red and white cow, and branded HP on the
tump ; the calf was nearly of the 'same color. Stone
deposed that he bought a cow ia calf from the prisoner ;
she was horned, and branded PC, and prisoner1 said
they called her Chaney; witness paid £1 Ss. for her,
and got the receipt produced. Graham deposed that
he sold Mrs. Maloney a cow, called Chaney, branded PC.
On the application of Mr. Purefby that the Crown
Prosecutor should elect which of the cows he charged
the prisoner with stealing, the Crown Prosecutor said
he would confine the charge to the cow sold to Horan.
Mr. Purefby, who had cross-examined the witnesses,
particularly Mrs. Maloney, at great length, and had
endeavoured particularly to prove, either that Mrs.
Maloney had authorised prisoner to sell her cows, or
had parted with them to him, addressed the jury at
lentib, dwelling on the points in the evidence that, with
rt terence to the cow sold by prisoner to Horan, went to
prove that prisoner was fully authorised by Mrs.
Maloney to sell her, and that she knew of the sale.
He contended that many portions of the evidence
showed that Mrs. Maloney's statements could not be
relied on. He called Mr. Joseph Chambers-who
proved that an affidavit was filed in his office, drawn
up by Mr. Turner, and signed by Mary Doolan. Major
Crummer-who proved that the affidavit was sworn
before him, on the 12th November, by Mrs. Maloney,
who then gave her name as Mary Doolan ; it was not
drawn up in his presence. Cecilia Rose-who deposed
that she lived with William Horan, and described the
sale of the cow by prisoner to Horan ; she saw prisoner
talking to Mrs. Maloney at her door, and leave her to
go and drive the cow out from her catttle, and then
saw Mrs. Maloney's son help prisoner to drive the cow
off the ground ; about a month after witness met Mrs.
Maloney in the street of Maitland, and in conversation
Mrs. Maloney said that she had sold the cow to pri-
soner, and must have her money, and that if she did
not get the money or the cow she'd have Neech. Alice
Cooper deposed that prisoner came to her husband to
ask permission to run a cow there, as Malone's people
had not convenience for her, and that afterwards he
told her he had sold the cow to Horan.
The Crown Prosecutor replied.
The jury retired for about ten minutes, and returned
with a verdict of not guilty. Neech was then dis-
charged.
The Court adjourned till Tuesday morning.
Tuesday, January 8, 1850.
(Before the Chairman, C. M. Doyle, Esq., J.P., A. Lang,
Esq., J.P., C. S. M'Douall, Esq., J.P., and W. F.
Gordon, Esq., J.P.)
LARCENY.
Mondiwa, an aboriginal black, was indicted for steal-
ing two pints of rum and two bottles, the property of
John Foley, at Clarence Town, on the 29th November,
1849.
It appeared from the evidence of Ellen Foley. Joseph
Croft, Frederick Henry, and Edmund Helen, that Mrs.
Foley had on that day bought some groceries and rum,
in Clarence Town, for the harvest, her husband being a
farmer, living about three miles from Clarence Town ;
before she got out of the township she sat down to
make up all the parcels into one, intending to carry it
home on her head ; Mondiwa, who knew her well, and
had often had food at her place, came up and offered to
carry the things home for her ; she refused, saying that
she could carry them herself, he then threatened with
an oath to kill her if she went home by herself, and
seizing a case bottle of rum from her bundle, he
ran off with it, and got away at the time, although
she ran after him. The prisoner, it appears, went
to Mr. Croft's inn, and Mr. Croft observing some-
thing in his shirt, took out a case bottle of rum
from his bosom , prisoner said it was his and it
was no matter to Mr Croft how he came by it ; Mrs.
Croft remarked that a woman had just complained of
having been threatened by prisoner with a razor, and
Mr Croft, on putting his hand into prisoner's bosom,
found he had a razor there , Mr Croft then went to
where he saw Mrs. Foley with one or two persons ; she
claimed the bottle as hers. The prisoner was appre-
hended by constable Henry, near Mr. Croft's inn. The
prisoner, it appeared, had been well known about
Clarence Town for many years . Helen, who was in the
service of Mr. O'Neil, publican, deposed to Mrs. Foley's
purchasing a similar bottle of rum to that produced ;
Helen saw Mondiwa take up a round bottle from Mrs.
Foley's things, but he was followed by a woman, and
the bottle taken from him.
The prisoner, in defence, said he did not take the
bottle of rum. In his cross-examination he said he
had taken the bottle, and given it up to Mr. Croft as
Mrs Foley's, for safety.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the pri-
soner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with
hard labour.
ROBBERY FROM A BUILDING.
Patrick Woods was indicted for breaking and enter-
ing a certain building belonging to and in the occupa-
tion of William Innes at Elmwood on the 25th July
1849 and stealing therefrom a quantity of flour, lard.
and two bags, the property of the said William Innes.
Mr. Purefoy appeared for the defence , attorney,
Mr. C. Nichol.
It appeared from the evidence of William Innes,
Maria Powell and George Wood that in July there
were three men engaged in pressing hay at Mr. In -
nés's place, Elmwood, about three miles from Mait-
land, being employed by Mr. Nicholson, to whom Mr.
Innes had sold his hay ; on the 25th they left , having
finished pressing the hay ; on the morning of the 25th
a building detached from the house, and which was
uspd as a store was found to hue been hruken into
three «-bibs nt the back having been pushed aside at
the bottom bv digging the cal th aw ly from thom , on
examination it wag found tint two bags of flour ron
taming about 3U0Ibs , and a tin of lard, were stolen
from the store Almut the ground nt the opening were
oliscncd milks of flour The three men had usually
cooked their fo>d in a hut ubjut 130 j mis from the
store and li »d used thei e two old s\ idi s , thes sp ides
were found to have fresh earth on them exsrtlj like
that about the f lot of the si il s and round the li mdlc
of one spade was wound a bit of checked <Ioth mi a
dra\ some dist mc from the store w is f Aind a piece
of checked cloth which w is floury md in t mid w is at
once recognised is one or exactly like one, tin prisoner
lind usually brought his victuals in the cloth lound
the spade handle ippeared to be a ] lee e of the same
cloth A search warrant h nmg been got the prisoner s
cott ige in West M iitluml was searehed, and a bag
coot lining about 100 lbs of flour w el e found in it and
asm di quinity of 1 ml , in a line or lylit of way
leading down from prisonei s cottage to the mer was a
post, against which and at its foot were fiesl marks of
finir, the pisoner sud he knew nothing of tin si
m irks, and that he had got some of the flour from Mr
Nicholson, and some from another person By the
river there was water communication from Mr
Innes s to the bunk at the bnt'om of this rylit of v\nv
Mr Wood who npjrehended the pnsoner, too's a
s imple of the rlom from the b ig and Mi Innes
brought in a s imple from a qnantitv of flour which he
had ground at Mr Grec n s null nt the s ime time and
from the same wheat is th it that was in the bags ,
Mr Innes saul lu could discover no diiference between
the two simples of fioui, loth being good household
flour, and no fine taken out of it the lird Mr Innes
said conespomlcd with tint he lost but he could not
ittemptto identifv it Hie pnsoner it a] peared, hid
been in the store f r i few minutes ibout i nick before
the 25th, at winch time the (lour laid Ac were there
and m sylit A « oni m w ith w horn the 11 iso ii r lodged
said she _,ot the lind fion i man who lind cillert in
two or three months hefcic , she gave the name ot this
poison Mr Innes, ni nnswei to a itirjmin sild he
never sold any flour or lint It appeared that at the
police office ex munition the prisonei had produced a
checked big which he sud w is the one he took out
Ins fiwd m , Mi Innes and Mrs Powell both deposed
tint they never saw him bring this big which was a
different colour and check from the i loth
Mr Purefov addressed the jury foi the defence, con
tending thit it w is impossible for them to anne at
the conclusion that the prisoner was the persoi who
broke open the stoie anel stole the goods , on the con
trary, he thought there were man) circumstances quite
inconsistent with such a conclusion. The learned
counsel went through the evidence to establish these
views. He called Catherine Fuller, who deposed that
prisoner lodged at her house, and was there all last
winter; she remembered his being employed pressing
hay for Mr. Nicholson, and his leaving on the Wed-
nesday evening before Mr. Wood came there with a
search warrant; prisoner wns in witness's house the
whole of that Wednesday night ; she was positive of
this ; lie came home between five and six o'clock, went
away to get paid, and .returned in about half an hour,
and did not again leave the house that evening or
night ; witness bought some lard from a man named
Murphy, which Mr. Wood found in a camp oven on her
premises ; witness told Mr. Wood she bought it from
Murphy, who was well known. This witness was
severely cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor ; Mr.
Purefoy also re-called Mr. Wood, und asked hiin
several questions as to the account the prisoner gave
of the flour when apprehended.
The Crown Prosecutor replied.
The jury retired about two o'clock. About six they
were called out and had the notes of the ev ¡dence re-
read over to them. They then again retired, and at
half-past seven o'clock, returned a verdict of guilty.
The prisoner was sentenced to twelve months hard
labour in the Maitland gaol.
STEALING A BAG.
John Slaney was indicted for srenling a bag. the pro-
perty of John Portus, at Morpeth, on the 8th Decem-
ber, 1849.
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Portus that on
that day the prisoner, a small settler, was at Mr.
Portus's mills purchasing some flour ; at the time there
were some bags hung up on the fence, drying ; as the
prisoners dray was leaving Mr. Portus received some
information from his daughter, a little girl of nine
years old, and he followed the dray, and found in it
an empty hag lying beside the flour, the bag bearing
i Mr. Portus's brand ; Mr. Portus asked him what made
bim take his bag ; the prisoner replied that it was his
bag ; Mr. Portus pointed out the place vacant on the
fence from which the bag appeared to hnve been taken,
when prisoner said if it was Mr. Portus's bag he could
not tell how it came into his dray, but that he believed
it to be his own ; the bag produced was the same, and
was witness's property ; the bag was then inside out,
as well as the others on the fence ; prisoner was much
in liquor, and appeared to have been fighting; there
was a boy with the dray also.
In defence, the prisoner said he had been drinking a
good deal that day, and did not know exactly what he
was doing, and thought the bag was his own. He called
Mr. John Wisdom, who gave him a good character for
honesty and industry during the five years he hud
known him. Three written characters were also put in
by the prisoner. Mr. Portus also voluntarily stated
that he had received several letters from respectable
individuals, since the occurrence, giving the prisoner a
very high character.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but recom»
mended the prisoner to mercy. He was sentenced to
one month's imprisonment, with hard labour,
DISCHARGE.
George Mathews, in custody since July, 1849, on a
charge of assault, was discharged on his own recog-
nisance to appear, when called on, the witnesses for
the prosecution not having been in attendance for two
sessions.
This closed the criminal business.
CIVIL BUSINESS.
(Before the Chairman, Major Crummer, A. Lang, Esq.,
and C. S, M'Douall, Esq.)
ROAD CASE.
Owen O'Neil applied to the court for an order to
have a road made from his farm, Cedar Creek, Wol-
lombi, to the nearest high road, being the main road
through the Wollombi district.
The application was opposed by Thomas Collyer, an
occupier of land between O'Neil'a farm and the road,
and by John Morey, the landlord of Collyer.
O'Neil produced witnesses, who proved service of the
necessary notices on the Surveyor General and on Coll-
yer and John Howell, occupiers of the land between
O'Neil and the road. He also produced evidence that
formerly a good track was allowed him through Coll
yer's land, but that recently it had been stopped up,
and that the track now allowed, along the mountain
side, was an indifferent horse-track, and not safe for
drays or carts.
Morey, on the other side, called Collyer as a witness,
who deposed that he had seen loaded drays travel hy-
the present road, and that £5 would make it good to
the extent of witness's farm, but that it would take
a good deal to make it good to tho high road ; the old
track ran right through witness's cultivation paddocks.
Collyer also deposed that he had offered to assist O'Neil
in making the present road good.
O'Neil stated that the present road could not be
made good.
The Court intimated that it had no power to order
that either of the roads pointed out should he laid out
by the Surveyor General, who would select the road
he thought most beneficial to the parties and the
public: but they advised the applicant and the op
posers to consent that the order should be made, trust-
ing to the Surveyor General to select the best route.
After some discussion both sides consented to this.
The Court then made an order that the Surveyor
General should lay out the nearest and most direct
road from O'Neil's farm to the high road, in an easterly
direction.
The Court then adjourned sine die.
$