Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c07/h03/mnt/178353/domains/unfitforpublication.org.au/html/plugins/system/gantry/gantry.php on line 406
1869, Charles Duffy and Augustus Chase - Unfit For Publication
Text Size

 

 

Empire, Sat 8 May 1869 1

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.
————

    APPOINTMENTS.—Mr Edward Bayly, as a clerk in the Central Police-office, Sydney, from the 22nd ultimo; also, Mr W Crane junior, from the 1st instant.

    SPECIAL MAGISTERIAL POWERS—An Order in Council has been made empowering Charles Hugh Fawcett, Esq, Police Magistrate at Casino, to exercise at Casino, Lismore, and Ballina, within the police district of Richmond, the special powers authorised to be given to police magistrates by the second clause of the Clerks of Petty Sessions Act of 1857, for a period of two years from the 5th April, 1869.

    SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGES— The undermentioned officiating ministers have been registered at this office, for the celebration of marriages:—Wesleyan Church: The Rev Daniel B Rigby, St Leonard’s; the Rev Alfred Swift, Parramatta; the Rev William M Bennett, Camden; the Rev John F Horsley, Port Macquarie; the Rev Frederick W Ward, Mudgee; the Rev Robert Allen, Narrabri, Wee Waa.

    BATHURST.—A Court of Quarter Sessions will be holden on the 31st May.

    DISTRICT COURT.—District Courts will be holden at Liverpool, on Wednesday, the 2nd, and at Campbelltown, on the 3rd June.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    [Unfortunately no newspaper reports could be located for the May 1869 trial at the Bathurst Quarter Sessions. The local newspaper, The Bathurst Times, is missing for all of 1869.]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Empire, Tue 6 Jul 1869 2

LAW.
————
SUPREME COURT.—Monday.
SITTINGS IN BANCO.

Business for This Day.

    BANCO COURT.—Crown Cases: The Queen v. Chase; The Queen v. Duffy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Empire, Wed 7 Jul 1869 3

LAW.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.—Tuesday.
SITTINGS IN BANCO.
(Before their Honors Sir Alfred Stephen, Chief Justice;
Mr Justice Cheeke, and Mr Justice Faucett.)

CROWN CASES
The Queen v. Chase.

    The prisoner was, at the Bathurst Quarter Sessions, convicted of an assault with intent to commit an unnatural offence upon a man named Charles Duffy. The crime had been perpetrated in the lockup, where they were both confined together, and the evidence clearly proved that both parties had equally participated in it.

    A question was raised for the opinion of the Court, as to whether under those circumstances the prisoner had been properly convicted of an assault.

    The Attorney General intimated that he was prepared to admit that the indictment had been incorrect. A fresh one, charging the prisoner with an attempt to commit the offence in question, would, however, be laid, and he requested that their Honors would delay their order quashing the conviction, until such fresh indictment should be filed.

    The Court made an order in accordance.

The Queen v. Duffy.

    This was a similar case with reference to Duffy, the other particeps criminis: and it, of course, was similarly disposed of.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 7 Jul 1869 4

LAW.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.—Tuesday.
SITTINGS IN BANCO.
Before their Honors Sir Alfred Stephen, Chief Justice;
Mr Justice Cheeke, and Mr Justice Faucett.

CROWN CASES
The Queen v. Chase.
The Queen v. Duffy.

    These were special cases from the Bathurst Quarter Sessions. The charge was one of assault, with intent to commit an offence against nature, the prisoners being at the time confined in a lock-up, and the assault alleged to have been made by [Augustus] Chase upon the other prisoner, [Charles] Duffy.

    There had been a conviction, but as there clearly appeared to have been consent, the Judge who presided at the Quarter Sessions reserved for the Supreme Court a question as to whether, under such circumstances, a conviction for assault could be sustained.

    The Attorney-General admitted that the conviction was bad, but intimated his intention to file an information for the attempt, which (omitting any allegation as to assault) would be clearly an indictable offence. He consequently requested that execution of the order for quashing this conviction might be delayed until the new information could be filed, and the prisoners arrested on the charge to be therein named.

    Their Honors made an order as requested.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sydney Mail, Sat 10 Jul 1869 5

LAW GAZETTE.
———◦———
SUPREME COURT.
SITTINGS.—SITTINGS IN BANCO.
Before their Honors Sir Alfred Stephen, Chief Justice;
Mr Justice Cheeke, and Mr Justice Faucett.

CROWN CASES
The Queen v. Chase.
The Queen v. Duffy.

    These were special cases from the Bathurst Quarter Sessions. The charge was one of assault, with intent to commit an offence against nature, the prisoners being at the time confined in a lock-up, and the assault alleged to have been made by Chase upon the other prisoner, Duffy.

    There had been a conviction, but as there clearly appeared to have been consent, the Judge who presided at the Quarter Sessions reserved for the Supreme Court a question as to whether, under such circumstances, a conviction for assault could be sustained.

    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that the conviction was bad, but intimated his intention to file an information for the attempt, which (omitting any allegation as to assault) would be clearly an indictable offence. He consequently requested that execution of the order for quashing this conviction might be delayed until the new information could be filed, and the prisoners arrested on the charge to be therein named.

    Their Honors made an order as requested.

 


1     Empire, (Sydney, NSW), Sat 8 May 1869, p. 2. Emphasis added.

2     Empire, (Sydney, NSW), Tye 6 Jul 1868, p. 4.

3     Empire, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 7 Jul 1868, p. 2.

4     The Sydney Morning Herald, (NSW), Wed 7 Jul 1869, p. 2. Emphasis added.

5     Sydney Mail, (NSW), Sat 10 Jul 1869, p. 3.