SUPREME COURT.
Originally published in "The Independent" (Launceston), Saturday 4 May 1833
We have been kindly favoured with the following account of the Supreme Court business by a disinterested friend, but regret having been obliged to curtail it.
Second Sessions 1833. Monday, April 29.
At 10 o'clock Mr. Justice Montagu took his seat on the Bench, when two gentlemen summoned to attend as jurors, were respectively fined 20l. for non attendance. After some delay a jury being found, and Captain Friend being appointed Foreman, his Honor caused a case of assault to be called on, after the decision of which the trials proceeded as follows:
John Williams and Alexander Marsden, for stealing two geese: alias one goose and one gander, were upon the sufficient (may we add, sympathetic) evidence of one "Gosling," and other witnesses, found guilty and sentenced to transportation for 7 years.
His Honor, in passing sentence, observed that he was determined to protect the public from all aggressions similar to the one of which the prisoners had been convicted.
George Frankland (not the Surveyor General) for stealing 6 sickles, the property of P. W. Welsh, was found guilty, and by (as we presume) a sheer mistake, sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour in "Hobart Town Gaol" for 2 years.
Charles Douglas and Benjamin Parr, were found guilty of stealing from Thomas Mariott a loin of mutton and a fowl (the mutton being valued by the jury at fifteen pence — the fowl at one shilling) and sentenced to 7 years transportation.
Mr. Sutton was retained for one of the prisoners, and generously exerted his acumen for both, much to his honour as a practitioner, and equally creditable to his feelings as a man.
Willam Brumbie and William Sainsbury alias Parsons — assault, with intent to rob on the highway. Guilty. Transportation for life.
John Fisher, Mary Lowe, George Willis, Jane Hooper, Richard Kenny, Catherine Anderson, discharged by proclamation.
Tuesday, April 30.
After proceedings of minor public importance, in pronouncing judgement upon which, however, his Honor very forcibly displayed the correctness of his conceptions in relation to youthful violations of propriety, and his inflexible regard for the impartial administration of "justice tempered with mercy," —
Edward Gadsby, Joseph Counsel, James Chamberlain and William Kilton were tried for a robbery at Smith's ex-public-house, on the banks of the Tamar — and after very tedious evidence had been adduced, were acquitted without being called upon for a defence!
At frequent intervals during the hearing of the case, both jury and judge seemed to feel with the public that occasionally accusers are not excusable.
John Craige for stealing 28 lbs of paint the property of Wm Benson. Guilty.
John Ryley for assaulting Mary Stephen; first, (as laid in the information) with intent to kill — secondly with intent to maim — and thirdly to do some grievous bodily pain, was upon the last division or count of the charge, found guilty.
As respects this case, Mr. Justice Montagu most indignantly addressed Mr. Wm. Field (one of the witnesses), by whom his Honor avowed that he would not be trifled with; whose "tricks" his Honor stated himself to be well acquainted with — and whose farm at the Swamp (where the imputed offence was charged to have been committed) his Honor pronounced to be "a most horrid den of thieves!" His Honor also remarked Mrs. Stephen's character as less than sacred, and apparently extenuated the prisoner's offence by alluding to those whom he had been surrounded, and by whose control he must have been influenced.
We venture to hope this deluded young man may be deemed an object of mercy.
Francis Wright, charged with burglary in the dwelling house of W. Lyttleton, Esq. was acquitted.
Thomas Merrett was tried for stealing 6 sheep, the property of Mr. H. Clayton, and after a denovo decision on the part of the jury, pronounced guilty, and had sentenced of death recorded.
The jury in this case evidently laboured under a preposterous burden of technicality: it seems that by "common law" as the prisoner was charged with having stolen six sheep, if one of the six, was an ewe, he must be acquitted as to that one. The Judge animadverted on the gross absurdity of existing enactments in relation to the case, and observed that whilst by common law a man might have been transported for stealing a sheep, yet under Peel's act it now became necessary to designate the animals stolen, as either ewes, wedders, lambs or rams.
Wm. Hutlock for sheep stealing - the sheep alleged to have been stolen being the property of Mr. Dyeball - was acquitted.
Elizabeth Livermore, an aged woman, dressed as a widow, for feloniously receiving the said sheep knowing them to be stolen, pleaded guilty, and after a very eloquent and feeling charge from his Honor, who described her as "a very bad old woman, far more deserving of punishment than was the thief, whom she had tempted into the commission of a capital offense against the laws of his country." His Honor added "The sentence of this count is, that you Elizabeth Livermore be transported for the term of fourteen years, which in the usual course of nature is a term that judging from your now advanced age, will bear you to the grave."
Mr. Jonathan Griffiths pleaded guilty to an assault.
Thomas Darcy, for stealing a pair of boots, the property of George Craig, was found guilty and sentenced to 7 years' transportation.
Several prisoners were then discharged by proclamation.
A man whose name our informant did not distinctly hear, was committed for contempt of court, and prevarication. We trust this circumstance may prove a caution.
Mr. J. Griffiths being called upon to receive the judgement of the Court, through the medium of his legal adviser Mr. Sutton, addressed Mr. Justice Montagu in a very pathetic and forcible appeal, to which his Honor appropriately replied - after which, the court pronounced sentence of a fine of eighty pounds with imprisonment until such fine should be paid; and the jury were discharged.
Our worthy Under-Sheriff's, and Chief Constable's sedulous attention to their important duties during the above proceedings, is entitled to unqualified approval.
Source: Supreme Court (1833, May 4). The Independent (Launceston, Tas. : 1831 - 1835), p. 2.
No comments