William Blair, et all, 1888
Below also see: William Johnson and Joseph Howard, 1890,
Thomas O’Donnell, William Blair, Edward Maroney, 1892,
William O’Brien, 1897 – Sodomy
The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 20 Oct 1888 1
THE BROOKONG SHEARING
DISTURBANCES.
———◦———
THE TRIAL OF THE PRISONERS.
————
(By Telegraph.)
(From Our Correspondent.)
Wagga, Friday.
The Circuit Court was held to-day before Mr Justice Windeyer, the Crown Prosecutor being Mr CG Heydon. The cases of the Brookong shearing disturbances were proceeded with. William Blair, Joseph Casey, William Jackson, William Tyson (or Tysall), alias Pincher), Alfred Collins (alias Nipper Collins), Brian Lee, John Parker, Walter Head (secretary of the Wagga branch of the Shearers’ Union), John Jones Woodcock, alias John Jones, Alexander Armstrong, alias Snowey, alias Scott, were charged with riot and assault. All pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr F Brown, barrister of Beechworth, Victoria, instructed by Mr EB Thompson, solicitor. The prisoners challenged altogether 31 jurors. The Crown set aside 10. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case to the jury. For many years it had been the custom at Brookong to shear under a certain agreement, and the station declined to the request of the union to alter it this year. The union men refused to work, and it became necessary to obtain others. About the 11th August the formation of the union camp was commenced beside the main stock route to Urana. On the 13th the men shearing were interviewed by about 30 unionists, who endeavoured to induce them to break their written agreement with Mr Halliday. The men refused. About 2 o’clock in the morning of the 14th a large body of unionists went to the men’s huts and compelled the shearers to go to the camp, where they were detained for nine days. Mr Anderson, manager of the station, obtained police assistance and went to the camp, and told the men that anyone who liked could go, but when they attempted to take their swags from the heap the unionists formed 12 deep round them, and maltreated them, beating and kicking the patrols set. Every avenue to the station was guarded. Men on the way to the station were intercepted and taken to the camp. One man on horseback was chased by nine unionists, who seized him. His hands were tied, and he was taken to the camp. Two lads with him were also detained. The unionists, having defied the police, became emboldened, and next day they intercepted 14 men on the way to the station, whom they assaulted and took to the camp. All the prisoners excepting Head, who was only arrested this morning, took part in the assault at one time or another. An organisation was deliberately formed to set aside the law by men armed with bludgeons, many of whom were not shearers, but larrikins hired for the purpose.
The following witnesses were examined:—Sergeant Rootes, of Urana, arrested the prisoners, and identified them as being concerned in the riot at Brookong. Constable Stanley gave corroborative evidence. Senior-constable Dixon testified that he saw the men knocked down and kicked, and their coats torn off their backs, several having black eyes and cuts. Robert Blair Anderson, manager of the station, identified the prisoners, and corroborated the evidence as to the ill-treatment of the men. Vernon White, Duncan McInnes, William McInnes, Alexander Russell Barnes, Joseph Chappell, John Lewis, Henry Castle, Christopher Graeber, Solomon Watkins, Arthur Boswood, Frederick Deacon, shearers mostly brought from Tasmania, detailed their capture, detention, and ill-treatment. William Henry Barnes, overseer of the station, stated that there were 300 men when the camp broke up. Inspector Harrison detailed the proceedings of the police at the scene of the riot.
The Court was adjourned till to-morrow morning. During the proceedings only a limited number of the public were allowed in court. There was a crowd outside the court, but no manifestation of feeling was exhibited.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 22 Oct 1888 2
THE BROOKONG SHEARING
DISTURBANCES.
———◦———
CONVICTION OF THE RIOTERS.
————
(By Telegraph.)
(From Our Correspondent.)
Wagga Wagga, Sunday.
At the Circuit Court yesterday, the Brookong shearing cases were continued before his Honor Mr Justice Windeyer. Mr Brown, barrister, informed the Court that he did not intend to call witnesses for the defence, but several persons desired to make statements.
Bryan Lee, delegate, said that he was not responsible for the blows struck or for the riot. He was not present when it occurred. He knew nothing about it.
John Parker, delegate, disclaimed all knowledge of or participation in the disturbance.
Walter Head, secretary to the Wagga branch of the union, said that he only visited the camp as secretary after interviewing Halliday. He saw no disturbance during his stay, nor did he take part in any disturbance. He was settled with a family [at] Wagga, where he resided for some years, and was well known. The last thing he expected was to be charged with riot. He laid stress upon the fact of his sudden arrest on the morning the trial commenced, and no time had been afforded him to prepare his defence.
Wm Jackson declared his innocence of taking part in any riotous proceedings.
The prisoners Alexander Armstrong, John Jones, Alfred Collins, Joseph Casey, Wm Blair, and William Tysall made no remarks.
Mr Brown addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners, and urged that a trade union was within the law. The shearers might have had grievances in the past such as low wages, bad rations and houesing, [sic] and to seek redress they had a perfect right to combine. In the present case there had been no trespass on the Brookong run. In camping on the Government reserve, the men had a perfect right there until ordered away by the properly constituted authority. For years the union had urged its views on all shearers while they were camped, and had interviewed allcomers. There was nothing unlawful in having leaders unless the latter led the men into mischief. The jury were asked to believe that because Lee and Parker were delegates they were responsible for any blows that were struck. There was no evidence that any row took place. The non-unionists did not assault the unionists by placing the pickets to watch the fires at the camp. In that they were acting perfectly legitimately. He referred strongly to Head’s case, and said that what happened to them might occur to any man. He asked the jury to acquit Head, as he was not in camp until long after the alleged affray. He also asked the jury to acquit Lee and Parker, who all along would not sanction any violence. He contended that there was no evidence against the others, and he insisted that all the disturbances and sudden affrays were unpremeditated, and consequently there was no riot.
Mr Heydon, in reply, said he was not surprised at the action of the counsel for the defence in setting up arguments which were calculated to mislead the jury on the real point at issue. The Crown had never attacked the union, and he admitted that it was perfectly legal to form an association. He urged the jury, whether they were in favour or not of the union, not to allow that to influence them one way or the other, but simply to try whether the prisoners were guilty of a violation of the law. He referred to counsel endeavouring to get off the ringleaders and to convict the tools and dupes, who were men of less ability and education. Some had the knack of getting others to pull out the chestnuts out of the fire. The prisoners had been guilty of assault and conspiracy, yet the Attorney-General had leniently indicted them for riot only. No witnesses were called for the defence. The Crown witnesses who gave their evidence with remarkable fairness were uncontradicted. If the jury did not find the prisoners guilty on such clear evidence the crime of riot had better be expunged from the statutes. There never was clearer case.
The Judge addressed the jury at considerable length, analysing the evidence affecting each prisoner.
The jury retired at 1 pm, and returned at 2 o’clock with a verdict of all guilty except Head, who was discharged. The foreman informed the Judge that the reason for Head’s acquittal was that the jury did not think there was evidence that Head knew that the men were kept prisoners, or that the camp was an illegal assemblage.
In answer to the usual questions if they had anything to say why sentence should not be passed, [Joseph] Casey said it was the first time he was ever before a court of justice, and he hoped for leniency. [William] Jackson said he had a mother and two sisters to maintain; he was their sole support. He begged for clemency of the Court. [William] Blair said he was a married man. He came to this part of the country with good intentions, and had no idea of getting into trouble. [Alfred] Collins said he was a married man, and came from Victoria six weeks ago to get work. [Alexander] Armstrong said he was never in trouble before. He was the sole support of his mother and young brother. [Bryan or Brian] Lee threw himself on the mercy of the Court. [John Jones] Woodcock said he had only been a few weeks in the colony, he came from New Zealand. He landed in Victoria on the 11th of August, and was charged with riot on the 14th. He felt the position in which he was place the more as his wife and young child were dependant on him.
His Honor addressed the prisoners and said: “You have been found guilty on the clearest evidence, of a most dangerous attack on society. If organisations of this kind were permitted, if lawless bodies of men, organising themselves with the discipline of a military force, were permitted to go about the country interfering with honest working men, there would be no safety for any man in the community. I am glad to find that the jury have arrived at the only conclusion rational men could arrive at in such a case, and with no more deliberation than was necessary to consider the case of each prisoner separately. It would have been a scandal upon the administration of justice, and a disgrace to law-abiding and respectable citizens in this part of the colony, if crime such as this had been lightly treated or passed over. We have juries who are honest and fearless enough to declare the truth, and I congratulate the inhabitants of this part of the country on having such a jury empannelled, [sic] for I am sorry to say that I have had experience in another part of the colony of a case of a similar kind where justice was not done—in fact, I have no hesitation in saying that the verdict in the case I refer to at Deniliquin was a disgrace to the jury who returned it. I do not suppose any excepting the residents in this district know of the state of things going on here. I have had a tolerable knowledge of the country, but I had no idea until I came to try this case what state of things existed here—a state of things probably unparalleled in the history of the country. I thought not have thought it possible that two or three hundred men should camp on a road for the purpose of preventing honest men going to work, and to capture and bind them prisoners, and hold them for days, unless one heard these things in a court of justice. Let any one contemplate what may follow if this kind of thing were permitted—there would be an end to all liberty and safety; but the law exists for the protection of every man, high or low, in the community, and those who took part in proceedings of this kind must expect to have the hand of every law-abiding man armed against him. If a man’s liberty was interfered with, if his life was threatened by overwhelming numbers, he and every other honest man is entitled to protect himself by taking the lives of those who come upon him. This is in law deemed justifiable homicide. On the other hand, if lawless persons took life they were guilty of murder. It is a matter for regret to see so many young men found guilty of so serious an offence against society. Some of you have been made tools of by other designing men, and I am glad the jury have found you, [John] Parker and [Bryan or Brian] Lee, guilty with the rest. My opinion is that you are more guilty than the rest. You are better educated, and more intelligent, than the others. It is quite evident that you have been treated as leaders. Those who have education and superior ability must take the responsibility of connecting themselves with such proceedings. Those who are ignorant and of less ability are less guilty. In this case it has been shown that acts of violence had been committed the thoughts of which makes one’s blood run cold—men knocked down, kicked, and generally maltreated in a most brutal manner, one man having two ribs broken. This proves that it was a riot of no ordinary character. The sentence I have to impose upon you is severe, but it is necessary to teach those who engage in such lawless proceedings the risks they run. I am sorry to hear that so many lately arrived in the colony, where every man has a chance to get a living by honest industry. That you have wives and children is to be regretted, but unfortunately it often happens that criminals bring sorrow and disgrace upon others. The law must be vindicated. His Honor proceeded to deliver the sentences as follows:—Casey, Blair, and Collins, one year’s hard labour in Albury gaol; Jackson, Tyson, Armstrong, and Woodcock, two years’ hard labour in Goulburn gaol; Parker and Lee, three years’ hard labour in Goulburn gaol.
William Johnson and Joseph Howard, 1890
The Argus, Sat 2 Aug 1890 3
MELBOURNE GENERAL
SESSIONS.
———◦———
The following is the list of cases for trial at the sittings of the Melbourne General Sessions Court, which commence on Monday, before his Honor Judge Worthington:—
…
William Johnson and Joseph Howard, robbery in company.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Argus, Mon 18 Aug 1890 4
MELBOURNE GENERAL
SESSIONS.
———◦———
(Before His Honor Judge Worthington.)
Saturday, Aug 16.
Me Walsh and Mr Finlayson prosecuted for the Crown.
SENTENCES.
The following sentences were passed on prisoners who had pleaded guilty or who had been found guilty during the sessions:—
…
Wm Johnson and Alex [aka Joseph] Howard, for robbery in company, were sentenced each to two years’ hard labour, the first four days of the first and every succeeding third month of the last year to be in solitary confinement. There were two previous convictions against Johnson and three against Howard.
Thomas O’Donnell, William Blair, Edward Maroney, 1892
The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 7 Apr 1892 5
POLICE.
———◦———
Mr James Giles, DSM, presided in the Charge Division and Mr Cornelius Delohery, SM, in the Summons Division of the Central Police Court yesterday.
…
Thomas O’Donnell, 22, William Blair, 22, and Edward Maloney, [sic] 29, were charged with having assaulted Thomas Cowan, and with having robbed him of a silver watch valued at £6. The prosecutor, a railway porter, deposed that on Saturday night last he was going home, but, being slightly under the influence of liquor, he asked three men, who he could not identify as the prisoners, in Castlereagh-street, whether he was taking the right course for Palmer-street. He received a reply, and simultaneously a blow in the face, which caused him to become unconscious. Upon recovering he found that his watch had been stolen. Constables Daley, Jones, and Taylor deposed that they were coming along Castlereagh-street about the time stated, and saw the accused walking rapidly. The men were searched, and O’Donnell was observed to drop the watch stolen from the prosecutor. The accused were committed to take their trial at the Court of Quarter Sessions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 14 Apr 1892 6
METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
Wednesday.
(Before his Honor Judge Backhouse.)
Mr WL Merewether prosecuted for the Crown.
…
ASSAULT AND ROBBERY.
Thomas O’Donnell, William Blair, and Edward Maroney were charged with having on the 2nd April last together assaulted Thomas Cowan and robbed him of a silver watch.
Mr Gannon appeared for Blair and Maroney.
From the evidence, it appeared that prosecutor on the night of the 2nd instant asked some men in Castlereagh-street the nearest way to Palmer-street. The men struck prosecutor, knocking him senseless to the ground. When prosecutor regained his senses, he found that his watch had been stolen, and he reported the occurrence to the police. At a quarter-past 1 o’clock in the morning Constables Taylor, Jones and Daly noticed the three prisoners walking quickly along Castlereagh-street, and stopping them, finally searched them. During the search O’Donnell dropped the silver watch which was reported to be stolen. The three were then taken to the watch-house and charged.
Thomas O’Donnell went into the witness box, and said that he was a groom for a cabman, and on the night in question he was passing along Castlereagh-street, when some cabmen told him there had been a fight there a few minutes previously. Accused then walked on, and near the spot where he had been told a fight had taken place, he saw the watch lying on the pavement, and he picked it up. Shortly after this he met Maroney, and then Blair, whom he had not before known. When the constable searched him he dropped the watch through fright. He had intended to report what he had found to the police.
His Honor thought that the second count should be withdrawn, and the jury should consider the first charge, that of assault and robbery. He thought that the charge against each of the prisoners was different. In reference to O’Donnell’s statement, his Honor said that, believing it to be true, the accused was still guilty of larceny. He pointed out that on the night of the arrest O’Donnell had denied that he had dropped the watch, and he had said nothing of having found it. He did not think that the circumstance that Blair and Maroney were in company with O’Donnell, who had the watch, was by itself important unless he were further implicated in the charge. He thought that had there been any truth in O’Donnell’s statement of having found the watch, he would have said so in the lower Court.
Mr Gannon pointed out that when a prisoner was about to be committed it was always advisable for him to reserve his defence.
His Honor did not think that that was the case when a man was not guilty. The jury would always attach more weight to the defence set up at the outset of the trial.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty against all three prisoners. The prisoners were then remanded for sentence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 22 Apr 1892 7
METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
Thursday.
(Before his Honor Judge Backhouse.)
Mr John Armstrong prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.
…
SENTENCES.
William Blair, Edward Maroney, and Thomas O’Donnell, found guilty on the 13th April of having assaulted Thomas Cowan and robbed him of a watch, were brought up for sentence. All three prisoners had previous records against them. Blair had got 12 months for being concerned in the shearers’ riots at Brookong. His Honor said the sentence must be a severe one, for the prisoners had attacked a perfectly inoffensive man and robbed him. The sentence on each prisoner would be five years’ penal servitude. Within one month they could make any statement they liked, and it would be considered. He did not for one moment say that the verdict of the jury was wrong, but the case was one of those which were not perfectly clear, and a mistake might have been made. Still, he thought the facts about the prisoners’ characters in the possession of the police strongly supported the verdict of the jury.
…
Judge Backhouse stated at the Quarter Sessions yesterday that in future he intends to allow all accused persons who appear before him to sit outside the dock, provided that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that violence will be used.
…
At the Quarter Sessions yesterday, William Blair, Edward Maroney, and Thomas O’Donnell were sentenced to five years’ penal servitude for assault and robbery.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
William Blair, Gaol photo sheet 8
![SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6054], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1891-1892, No. 5350, p. 123, R5104](/images/trials/1888-OBrien-6054-gaol-photo-5350-p-123-William-Blair.jpg "SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6054], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1891-1892, No. 5350, p. 123, R5104") |
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
No. 5350
Date when Portrait was taken: 6-4-1892
Name: William Blair
|
Native place: BC Victoria Year of birth: 1862 Arrived Ship: Trade or occupation Religion: C of England Education, degree of: R & W Height: 5' 9½" Weight On committal: 156 Colour of hair: Brown Colour of eyes: Blue Marks or special features: Mole under right 3rd finger. Scar inside right wrist. 5 pointed above anchor – over scroll with HOPE inside on inside R[ight].F[ore].A[rm]. scars on left thumb. (?) of heart (flattened ?) |
Where and when tried: Sydney Q.S. Offence: Robbery in company Sentence: 5 years PS Remarks:—Convicted with Thomas O’Donnell & Edward Maroney. Sentence remitted on 29th June 1892
|
|
(No. of previous Portrait ... ) CONVICTIONS |
|||||
| Where and When | Offence. | Sentence | |||
|
Urana PC Wagga Wagga CC |
24 20 |
8 10 |
1888 1888 |
Obscene language Riot |
3 months C 12 months HL |
William O’Brien, 1897
The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 15 May 1897 9
METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
The Metropolitan Quarter Sessions will be opened at Darlinghurst on Monday before Judge Docker. The cases set down for trial are—Adolph Reichenberg, forgery; Kate McDonald and Emily Walker, receiving stolen property; Sylvester Murray and Patrick Murphy, breaking end entering; James Pride, stealing; Henare Walker, false pretences; Edward O’Connell, inflicting grievous bodily harm; Arthur Roscarrock, being found at night with house-breaking implements; Gordon Foster, fortune-telling; William Clifford, uttering counterfeit coin; Raymond Schoer, assault; John William Wair, stealing from the person; William O’Brien, unlawful offence; Albert Fraser, house-breaking; William Standen, stealing; William Nicholl, assault with intent to rob; Thomas Smith and Frederick Williams, larceny; Robert Yeend, James Eley, Harriet Annetti Sarah Grace Eley, and Daisy Yeend, larceny; Alfred Lambert, false pretences; Peter Henry Fawcett, house-breaking; William John Dillon, false pretences; Herman Bahr, stealing from a ship; Bertie Holden, larceny; Thomas Toomey and William Harrington, attempting to steal; Patrick Finn, assault; William Jones, stealing from a vessel; Robert Sharpe, false pretences; Alexander Gray, stealing in a dwelling; Charles Green and Albert Williams, stealing from the person; George Couch, house-breaking with intent; John Macky, assault; William Cleary, assault and robbery; George Scott, stealing; Joseph Curran, stealing; David Patience, larceny; Mary Connors, maliciously wounding; William Merrey, horse-stealing; George Williams, stealing in a dwelling; Frank Conaty, house-breaking; Frederick West, assault; John James Coghlan, false pretences; Fred Williams and Frank Reid, breaking and entering; Theophilus Way, illegally pawning; George Cross, illegally pawning; Robert A Peach and Thomas Jones, malicious injury to property; George Williams, breaking and entering; James Stewart, William Westwood, and Thomas Gibbons, breaking and entering; Annie Peck, forgery; Joseph James, forgery.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Daily Telegraph, Wed 2 Jun 1897 10
METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
————
At the Metropolitan Quarter Sessions yesterday, before Judge Docker,
…
CASES FOR TO-DAY.
John Reinan, stealing; John William Weir, stealing from the person; William O’Brien, unnatural offence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 3 Jun 1897 11
METROPOLITAN QUARTER SESSIONS.
(Before his Honor Docker.)
Mr JHP Murray was Crown Prosecutor.
A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
His Honor, on taking his seat, referred to the remarks he made on Friday [28 May 1897] on the subject of the appointment of a public prosecutor. 12 He said that an impression seemed to have gained ground that his remarks were intended to apply to the office of the Clerk of the Peace and the Crown Prosecutor. It was difficult to see how any person who had heard his remarks, or had read the condensed account in the newspapers of what he said, could have come to any other conclusion than that his remarks applied solely to the manner in which cases were presented at the police courts. He referred in terms of praise to the manner in which the duties of the Clerk of the Peace Department were carried out, and said that from his experience those who carried out the duties of Crown Prosecutor were able and competent men. A magistrate could not be expected to look after every detail of each case brought before him. The need was for a public prosecutor, who could instruct the police in prosecutions at the police courts.
…
UNLAWFUL OFFENCE.
William O’Brien was found guilty of an attempt to commit an unlawful offence, [with Thomas Brown], the jury finding that the attempt had been made with the consent of the prosecutor. He was remanded for sentence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Barrier Miner, Fri 4 Jun 1897 13
INTERCOLONIAL NEWS.
———◦———
(By Telegraph.)
———
NEW SOUTH WALES.
Sydney, Friday Afternoon.
…
At the Quarter Sessions to-day William O’Brien was found guilty of an unnatural offence and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
William O’Brien, Gaol photo sheet 14
![SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6061], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1897-1897, No. 7017, p. 75, R5106. Emphasis added.](/images/trials/1888-OBrien-6061-gaol-photo-7017.jpg "SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6061], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1897-1897, No. 7017, p. 75, R5106. Emphasis added.") |
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
No. 7017
E[ntry] book 1927
Date when Portrait was taken: 5-6-1897
Name: William O’Brien
(aka William Thompson, William Blair,
William Gleeson, William Johnston, John Blair)
|
Native place: Ireland Year of birth: 1862 Arrived Ship: Altona Trade or occupation Religion: Wesleyan Education, degree of: Read & Write Height: 5' 8½" Weight On committal: 157 Colour of hair: Brown Colour of eyes: Blue |
Marks or special features: Right fore arm Heart star and anchor confirmed on inside upper arm. Female bust within a wreath. Scar on inside wrist. Left forearm Bleeding heart. Upper arm Ballet girl scar on heel of fore finger and left side of chin |
|
(No. of previous Portrait .. [Darlinghurst] 5350) CONVICTIONS |
|||||
| Where and When | Offence. | Sentence | |||
|
Urana PC Wagga C Court Melbourne PC ditto Mel Gen Sessions Sydney Q.S Central PC ditto Sydney Q.S |
24 20 27 7 4 13 2 8 2 |
8 10 12 6 8 4 6 12 1 |
1888 1888 1889 1890 1890 1892 1896 1896 1897 |
Obscene language Riot Unlawfully assault Larceny Robbery in company Robbery in company False pretences Drunk and disorderly Attempt Sodomy |
3 months C 12 months HL Fine or 1 month C Fine or 1 month HL 2 years Hl & solitary confinement 5 years PS 6 months HL 20/- or 14 Days HL 3 years PS |
1 The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 20 Oct 1888, p. 14. Emphasis added.
Extensive details of trial are available in: The Wagga Wagga Advertiser, Thu 11 Oct 1888, p. 2.; The Wagga Wagga Advertiser, Sat 20 Oct 1888, p. 2; and The Wagga Wagga Advertiser, Tue 23 Oct 1888, p. 2.
2 The Sydney Morning Herald, Mon 22 Oct 1888, p. 7. Emphasis added.
3 The Argus, Sat 2 Aug 1890, p. 10. Emphasis added.
4 The Argus, Mon 18 Aug 1890, p. 10. Emphasis added.
5 The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 5 Apr 1892, p. 4. Emphasis added.
6 The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 14 Apr 1892, p. 7. Emphasis added.
7 The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 22 Apr 1892, pp. 3, 4. Emphasis added.
8 SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6054], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1891-1892, No. 5350, p. 123, R5104.
9 The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 15 May 1897, p. 7. Emphasis added.
10 The Daily Telegraph, Wed 2 Jun 1897, p. 2. Emphasis added.
11 The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 3 Jun 1897, p. 3.
12 The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 29 May 1897, p. 7. Emphasis added.
“FALSE PRETENCES.
John James Coghlan, a young man, pleaded not guilty to three charges of having on dates varying from 3rd March to 11th March stolen a bicycle, the property of Charles Wynne and another. The accused, in the course of his statement to the jury, admitted that being in need of money he had obtained the bicycles from Messrs Wynne and Co on the representation that he would pay for them on the time-payment system, and had then disposed of them for ready money. His Honor said that looking at the manner in which the case had been drawn up he was bound to say there had been great carelessness somewhere. The circumstances made it quite clear that there was urgent need for a public prosecutor. The case should have been very simple, but as prepared it had caused the Crown a great amount of time and trouble. the charge was one of stealing, but the circumstances pointed to a case of false pretences. The accused was found guilty and remanded for sentence. The jury added a rider to their verdict emphasising his Honor’s remarks as to the need for a public prosecutor.”
13 Barrier Miner, Fri 4 Jun 1897, p. 4.
14 SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6061], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1897-1897, No. 7017, p. 75, R5106. Emphasis added.