Category: New South Wales Bushrangers

Articles pertaining to bushrangers that predominantly operated in New South Wales, and what is now the Australian Capital Territory.

Spotlight: Trial of Sam Poo for Wilful Murder (13/10/1865)

Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954), Friday 13 October 1865, page 5

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10TH.

WILFUL MURDER.

Sam Poo was charged with the wilful murder of constable John Ward, on the 3rd February, 1865, at Talbragar, to which he pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Innes, at the request of his Honor, defended the prisoner.

The Government interpreter Sing Shigh translated the evidence to the prisoner.

Mr. Butler having opened the case.

John Clough was called, and deposed: I am in the employ of Mr. Plunkett, at Talbragar; I remember the day that constable Ward was shot; I saw the prisoner in that neighbourhood the day after Ward was shot; I was coming through the scrub, and I saw him covering me with a gun; he asked me where I was going, and on my telling him that I was going to Mr. Plunkett’s, he said, “Go on, or I will give you one too,” Pointing to the gun and a pistol that was lying near him on a log. The gun shown me (one that had been cut down in the barrel) is the gun he had; it had a piece of leather near the nipple like that now on the gun; I did not notice the pistol-could not swear it was a pistol; the prisoner was dressed in a serge shirt and corduroy trousers like those worn by the prisoner now; he had a hat like the prisoner’s.

By Mr. Innes: Never saw the prisoner before that; my brother was with me when he stopped me, but he stood some way off; I am positive the prisoner is the man; he did not offer to molest us; he had a swag with him, but we had nothing with us; I asked him where he was going and whether he was lost, and told him I would soon fetch somebody to shift him out of that; it was a piece of rag the prisoner had over the nipple of the gun; it did not occur to me that the prisoner might think we were going to stick him up; I could see his face plainly, and I did not think he was an old man; he was rather stouter than he is now.

Elizabeth Golding deposed: I live with my husband near Mr. Plunkett’s; on the 30th January, I saw the prisoner at my place; he came and spoke to my little girl; it was in the forenoon, and he went away; soon after he retuned; I asked him what he came back for, when he said, “If I cannot have my will of the girl, I will of you.”; he had a gun with him like that shown me; it had a precisely similar piece of leather round the barrel; I ran off to get assistance; the prisoner is the man.

By Mr. Innes: The prisoner was dressed then as he is now. I never saw him before. I am certain he is the man. My husband came back with me and the prisoner was gone.

James Francis Plunkett deposed: I live at Talbragar and remember constable Ward being shot. I found Ward lying in the bush wounded. I remember seeing the prisoner the night before Ward was shot. I remember seeing in one of the shepherds’ huts some things strewed about in confusion. There was a mess as if a flour bag had been emptied, and on the floor was a piece of a leather legging which had been cut. The leather round the gun is similar to that of the leggings. I found the things disturbed in the hut three or four days after Ward was shot. I found Ward wounded and took him to my house, where he died at four o’clock in the afternoon. He said he knew he was dying, and asked repeatedly “What is to become of my wife and children?” He knew he was dying and I took down a statement in writing. Afterwards he made other statements which I did not put down. This statement (produced) is the one I wrote.

By Mr. Innes: Constable Ward knew he was dying. He asked us to pray for him. The prayers we offered up were those of the Church of England for the sick and dying. I read the whole service. I sent for a doctor, who was forty-five miles away. I do not know whether he requested me to do so; probably he did so. The doctor came and remained till after Ward was dead. His family were, at his request, also sent for, but they did not arrive till he was buried. I read a portion of the service, and my wife read the rest.

Mr. Innes submitted to his Honor whether the declaration of the deceased could be admitted, as it had been ruled that where, after a declaration had been made, some hope of recovery had been expressed by a person who afterwards died, such a declaration could not be received. Mr. Plunkett had said that probably constable Ward expressed a wish for a doctor to be sent for, and this, he contended, was sufficient lo show that the deceased entertained hopes of recovery. The learned counsel concluded by quoting authorities in support of his argument.

His Honor said there was no positive evidence that Ward had made any request for a doctor. The witness could not remember, but he positively stated that Ward was firm in his conviction that he should die. The declaration, therefore, must be admitted.

Mr. Innis requested that the point might be reserved.

Mr. Butler then handed in the dying declaration of Ward, which was read as follows:— “I, John Ward, senior constable, stationed at Coonabarabran, do hereby solemnly declare, believing myself dangerously ill, and at the point of death, that on the 3rd day of February, 1865, I met two men on the Mudgee side of Barney’s Reef, who told me that a Chinaman was about sticking up people. When I got on the Talbragar side of Barney’s Reef, I sighted a Chinaman, and when he saw me he left the road and went into the bush. I chased and overtook him and told him that I was a policeman, and ordered him to put down his gun. He ran at me, and said, ‘You, policeman, me fire.’ When he presented his gun, I got off my horse, and took out my revolver. He followed me round the horse, fired at, and wounded me. I fired one shot at him, and then fell. I fired two more when I was on the ground. He ran away in the bush, loading his gun. To the best of my belief, the Chinaman was a short little cranky old man; he had a gun and a pistol.”

Examination resumed: After I had written the statement just rend, the deceased described the dress of the Chinaman who shot him. He said it would be of no use, for the Chinaman would change his clothes. He described the man’s dress, saying he wore a blue shirt and a strangely made cap. He said the man who shot him appeared to be a cranky, little, short old man.

Alfred Smith deposed: I was driving some sheep, on the evening of the 3rd February, at Talbragar, when I heard the report of firearms. A young man was with me, and on turning round I saw a man walking through the bush. He was dressed in a blue serge shirt and darkish trousers. His appearance corresponded with the prisoner’s. Afterwards I heard that constable Ward had been shot.

By Mr. Innes: I was near enough to see whether the man who was running away was an European or a Chinaman; I was 250 or 300 yards from him.

Thomas Matthew Morris deposed to being with the last witness, and seeing a man pass him in the bush riding, a few minutes before he heard shots fired; after the firing he saw a man coming from the same direction carrying something in his hand, which he thought was a gun ; in appearance and dress he resembled the prisoner.

Alfred Smith recalled: When I saw the man who passed after the shots were fired, he had something in his hand, which I believed was a gun.

Dr. William King deposed: I attended constable Ward, and found one wound in the pelvis, which was evidently caused by a bullet; there were other small wounds; I saw the deceased before his death; his case was a hopeless one.

Constable Burns deposed: I went out with two constables and a black tracker to scour the country, after it was ascertained that constable Ward was shot; we returned in a few days unsuccessful, and getting fresh information we started again; we met with the prisoner in the bush, our attention being drawn to him hy his firing off a gun; he ran into the scrub which was very thick, and we had to dismount to follow him; we fired after him and eventually brought him to bay and arrested him; the prisoner was dressed then as Chinamen usually dress; he had two jumpers on (produced) and the other clothes he now wears; he had the gun now shown me which has been cut down; it was loaded with a bullet and slugs which I produce; he also had the pistol now in court.

By Mr. Innes: The prisoner was shot and gave a scream, and was afterwards knocked senseless with a blow on the head; he was injured seriously, and was not expected to recover.

Dr. King recalled: The wounds I saw on Ward’s body might have been produced by a bullet and slugs similar to the charge shown me.

Mr. Innes asked his Honor whether there was anything to go to the jury on the charge of murder.

His Honor considered that there was ample evidence to sustain an indictment for murder.

Mr. Innes then made a telling speech in the prisoner’s behalf.

His Honor having gone through the evidence, pointed out its various features; the jury retired, and after a short interval, returned with a verdict of guilty. Sentence deferred.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 0

Spotlight: William Monckton (various excerpts)

Manilla Express (NSW : 1899 – 1954), Saturday 7 October 1905, page 4

WILLIAM MONCKTON.

Among visitors at the Howell races on Monday last was Mr. William Monckton, interest in whose earlier career has been revived of late by the publication of his Narrative “Three Years with Thunderbolt’ in a city paper. It was a long while since our repre sentative had previously seen Mr. Monckton. Mr. Monckton informed us that a book dealing with the history of his adventures whilst with “Thunderbolt” will shortly be published. A sensational drama founded on the outlaw’s career is shortly to be staged at the Theatre Royal-Sydney, and it is not improbable that Mr. Monckton will add to the realism of its production by representing in his own person one of the characters in the play. Mr. Monckton looks well. He has led an uneventful life for a long time now, but we could not help observing that his old love for the race meeting is still uppermost, and he was an interested spectator at the good sport provided by tho Howell Jockey Club in celebration of Eight Hour Day. — Inverell Times.

Warialda Standard and Northern Districts’ Advertiser (NSW : 1900 – 1954), Tuesday 10 October 1905, page 3

WILLIAM MONCKTON.

Among visitors at the Howell races on Monday last, (says Wednesday’s “Inverell Times”) was Mr. William MonCkton, interest in whose earlier career has been revived of late by the publication of his narrative ” Three years with Thunderbolt ” in a city paper. It was a long while since our representative had previously seen Mr. Monckton. He was then under arrest, having surrendered to the police voluntarily. Now he is a well-respected resident of the district, a man anyone would trust with their last coin. Mr. Monckton informed us that a book dealing with the history of his adventures whilst with Thunderbolt would shortly he published. A sensational drama founded on the outlaw’s career is shortly to be staged at the Theatre Royal, Sydney, and it is not improbable that Mr. Monckton will add to the realism of its production by representing in his own person one of the characters in the play. Mr. Monckton looks well. He has led an uneventful life for a long time now, but we could not help observing that his old love for the race meeting is still uppermost, and he was an interested spectator at the good sport provided by the Howell Jockey Club in celebration of Eight Hour Day.

Uralla Times (NSW : 1923 – 1954), Thursday 8 October 1931, page 1

THUNDERBOLT.

LECTURE BY WILLIAM MONCKTON.

His first public speeches in a life of almost 80 years were made by Mr. William Monckton on Saturday last, at Uralla Picture Theatre.

Mr. Monckton, who, as a boy, spent years with Thunderbolt, consented to lecture on his experiences, to help the funds of Armidale hospital, and accordingly addressed gatherings during the afternoon and night.

The addresses were given in conjunction with a splendid, educational film, “The Romance of the Reaper,” showing the amazing development of harvesting machinery in the past hundred years.

The Secretary of the hospital, who was introduced by Mr. A. L. Munro, thanked Uralla Pictures Ltd. and the I. H. Co., and McRae’s Ltd., for assistance in connection therewith, the Uralla Workers’ Union for foregoing their weekly dance, and last, but, not least, Mr. Monckton for giving his address.

“I am glad to be here to show appreciation on behalf of the hospital,” said the Speaker. “It exists for all those who can’t pay, as well as those who can — and so far it has paid its way, but now it needs assistance more then ever before.”

Mr. R. G. Crapp as chairman, in his usual breezy style, referred to the wide spread interest in Uralla on account of its being the centre of many of Thunderbolt’s exploits and of his death. Visitors from all parts left notes, many of them in terms, of endearment, on Thunderbolt’s grave. “You couldn’t apply them to the bushrangers of to-day”‘ added Mr .Crapp.

Mr. Monckton’s story, which in the main followed that given by him to Ambrose Pratt for the book “Three Years with Thunderbolt,” threw fresh light on various incidents during those three years, but chiefly on the animosity between him and his stepfather and on the identification of Thunderbolt’s body at Uralla after the outlaw had been shot by Constable Walker.

Mr. Monckton told how his father died when he was but five years of age, and some time later his mother married again, more for the children’s sake than her own. From the first his stepfather treated him with the utmost harshness and, failing to enforce obedience otherwise, tried to do so by claiming that he was really his son. This final insult, hotly resented, also failed and acts of fiendish cruelty followed. Several times he ran away, only to be dragged back and flogged. In his last attempt to escape, his father learned of his hiding place, and, with capture imminent he fled for protection to Thunderbolt, who was camped in the vicinity.

Thus began his three years career of adventure, which ended when he left Thunderbolt, gave himself up, and was released for good conduct after serving fourteen months of his sentence of three years.

Stories circulated at the time of Thunderbolt’s death (1) That the man shot was not Thunderbolt, (2) that Mr. Monckton was a prisoner when he identified him, were given the lie direct. He was on his way home, a free man, when Supt. Brown, of the Armidale police galloped up to ask him to view the body, which he did. At his direction the police looked for and found certain old bullet wounds and he further identified the dead man by marks on his hat. “If anyone still maintains that Thunderbolt was not shot, let them tell us where he is, or what became of him,” he challenged.

“Finally, if anyone thinks I have been in the slightest degree a desperate character since that time, they are invited to make inquiries in the Inverell district centres I have lived in ever since,” said Mr. Monckton.

Rousing applause greeted Mr. Monckton at the close of his address.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 0

Spotlight: Capture of Mason, the mate of Thunderbolt (21/09/1867)

Armidale Express and New England General Advertiser (NSW : 1856 – 1861; 1863 – 1889; 1891 – 1954), Saturday 21 September 1867, page 4

Epitome of News

CAPTURE OF MASON, THE MATE OF THUNDERBOLT.

(From last Saturday’s Tamworth Examiner.)

The mate of the notorious Thunderbolt, the youth Mason, has fallen into the hands of the police, and is now safely lodged in the gaol at Tamworth.

In a late issue we gave some of the particulars of a chase by the police of Ward and Mason in the Borah Ranges, and expressed an opinion that the pursuit would probably result in the capture of either one or other of these worthies, and such has proved to be the case. It seems that when constables Lynch and McCausland came upon Ward, Mason, and the mistress of the former on the Borah Ranges, they directed their efforts almost exclusively to the apprehension of Thunderbolt, but he managed to escape with the loss of the spare horse he was leading. Mason could have been then arrested had the police been as anxious for his apprehension as for Ward’s, but as he was not such a dangerous character, he was temporarily allowed to escape. During the pursuit Ward and Mason got separated, and from that time until the latter was arrested, they did not again meet. Mason, believing his mate had fallen into the hands of the police, started off as rapidly as possible from the scene of the encounter, and made his way to Bunnawannah station, and thence to the station of Mr. William Dangar, and the Old Oreel, about thirty-five miles from Millie. He was riding a horse of Mr. Pringle’s, and on reaching Millie the animal knocked up, and Mason then threw away his arms and the saddle and bridle, and proceeded the rest of the distance to Oreel on foot. He got to the station on the morning of the 3rd inst.

In the meantime the police had received information of his presence in the neighbourhood of Millie, and Senior-constable Connerty, of Narrabri, and other members of the force, started in pursuit.

On reaching Millie they separated, Connerty taking the bush in the direction of Oreel. He camped some distance from the station on the evening of the 3rd, and early next morning proceeded up to the station, and seeing Mason there, at once arrested him. He admitted he was the person the constable was in search of, and also that he had been engaged with Thunderbolt in a mail robbery. On searching him, cheques to the amount of upwards of £99 were found in his possession, which had been taken from the Merriwa mail. He was conveyed to Narrabri, and from thence to Tamworth, where he arrived on Sunday last.

His name is Thomas Mason, and he seems to be about 16 years of age. He is of slight build, fair complexion, and not by any means tall for his age. There does not appear to be any trace of insanity about him, as was at one time reported, nor any-thing in his outward appearance to indicate criminal propensities. He states that he was apprenticed out of the Orphan School to a Mr. Shaw, in the employment of Messrs. Gilchrist, Watt, and Co., of Sydney, at the age of 12 or 13 years. He remained with him some time, when he left and proceeded up country. He changed his employers frequently, the last he had being Edwards, and with whom he says he was engaged fencing, when he took up with Thunderbolt. He says be did not at first know who Thunderbolt was; that the latter represented himself as a squatter, and engaged him (Mason) to assist in taking a mob of horses overland. He soon, however, became aware of the character of his new employer, and after having witnessed the first robbery, did not have any compunction at adopting a bushranger’s life.

He was brought before the Police Court on Tuesday last, and remanded on five charges of highway robbery.

We compile the following from the various journals to hand :—

[…]

The ‘ Yass Courier’ reports the capture of three of the “Blue Cap” gang of bushrangers, namely Jack-the-devil, Duce, and an aboriginal named Jemmy. This leaves two others at large. The gang, after the attack on the Narrandera mail, near Nariah, were so closely persued by the police that they took to the “Levels,” where they know the country well. Here, on Saturday, 31st August, senior-constable Usher, and constables Little and White, after a long gallop, succeeded in getting up to them, and the three bushrangers, on being called on to surrender, immediately did so, without attempting any opposition.

[…]

The ‘South Australian Register‘ says: —Captain Barber, of the steamer Providence, reports being stuck up by three bushrangers near one of the sheep-stations on the Darling. He had come on shore from the steamer, and was proceeding to the station for the purpose of transacting business, when he was stopped by three fellows who were splendidly mounted. One of them demanded whether he was the captain of the steamer, and whether they had any money on board. They went on board the vessel, but would not go below, and left without any booty.

[…]

Bromley, the victim of the Rokewood outrage in Victoria, has died of the injuries received. His dying deposition accused Whelan, the man now in custody, of having committed the offence.

[…]

The ‘Braidwood Dispatch‘ says:— We understand that James Clarke, the only surviving brother of the outlaw, and who was convicted at the March Sessions in 1865 for passing notes stolen from the Queanbeyan mail, and who was sentenced, by his Honor Judge Meymott, to three years’ hard labour on the roads, has been discharged from custody.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 0

Spotlight: An Interior Settlement of White People (19/09/1828)

Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Friday 19 September 1828, page 2

With the following article, an intelligent Correspondent, who was himself one of the victorious party, as well as among the sufferers by the late robberies in the New Country, has obligingly favored us. The same Correspondent most solemnly assures us, that he is quite convinced of the existence of an interior settlement of white people!!! The blacks speak of it with certainty. We shall now give the account in his own words:—

During the last month, a desperate party of bushrangers has been committing a series of depredations in the neighbourhood of Bathurst, and among the out-stations of the settlers. The establishments of Messrs. Arkell, West, Armstrong, James Hassall, Dr. Harris, H. O’Brien, and T. Mein, have been respectively plundered. The party, at the robbery of Mr. Hassall’s station, were five in number, and all well armed. Before the stores were surrendered, three men inside the hut defended themselves to the last shot, and were at last obliged to surrender, on account of the bushrangers placing the other men belonging to the station opposite the door, and daring the offenders to fire on their own men.

Stores to a very considerable amount were then taken, consisting of sugar, tea, tobacco, soap, clothing, fire-arms, &c. &c. The men were obliged to wait upon the banditti, making tea, cooking mutton chops, and bringing up the horses, three of which, together with a servant, they took away. The next morning the servant and one horse returned; and a stockman of Mr. S. Hassall was pressed to assist in driving the two horses, and two of Mr. West’s bullocks. Information was immediately sent to Bathurst, distant 70 miles from the station, to inform the Police. Serjeant Wilcocks, Corporal Prosser, and four privates, were immediately dispatched by Lieut. Brown, to pursue the robbers. Mr. H.’s robbery took place on the 22d of August.

On the 27th the soldiers were on the spot; and were joined the same evening by Messrs. Hassall and Walker, who had returned from a sheep station, about 80 miles farther in the interior. The next day the Police, Messrs. H. and W. with two servants, began the pursuit. At the same moment Mr. S. Hassal’s men, with the two horses returned. The bushrangers had now got six days start; but from the returned man the Serjeant learnt the spot on which the robbers encamped two nights after the robbery. An aboriginal was now wanted to track them; and on the second day’s march one was found. On the 30th the track of the bushrangers was frequently met with; and in the afternoon of the 31st five additional aborigines joined the party to track “the croppies.” The tracking now proceeded at the rate of four miles in the hour, till sun-down. Being near Mr. Hassal’s outermost station, fresh supplies were taken in, and the number of guides reduced, in order to furnish the means of longer pursuit. The Police gained only a few miles this day, on account of the difficulty of tracking over Dr. Harris’s cattle run. After ten hours incessant work the party encamped.

Early on the 2d Sept. the march commenced, and in proceeding over Cunningham’s Plains to the sheep station of Dr. Harris, all hopes of finding the tracks were nearly lost. Success, however, at length crowned the assiduous labours of the natives, who followed the tracks to the hut of Dr. Harris’ men. From this station three men joined the bushrangers, who took the liberty of tasting a sheep of the Doctor’s flock. The Police party recruited their stock of flour; and after gaining all the information the men were willing to give, continued the march to Mr. H. O’Brien’s station. Here the bushrangers had made free with three sheep, three men, one pack bullock, and some sundries, and made a promise to be considerably more free with some fat oxen and dairy cattle. Night prevented a more continued march.

On the 3d, breakfast was over, fresh supplies taken in, and all ready to march at the first dawn. Mr. Gregson, Mr. O’Brien’s overseer, here joined the party. An aboriginal belonging to this part of the country happened to meet with “the croppies,” and took the Police, and their black guides, to the place where he saw them; and by this opportunity a day’s march was gained. About noon a recent encampment of the bushrangers was discovered; the ashes were warm; a kangaroo dog, stolen from Mr. O’B. was also found lying beside it. The tracking operations were continued in the greatest possible silence; not a word spoken but in a whisper. About three in the afternoon, the blacks passed the word – “smoke” – “bullo bullock” – “make a light, croppy sit down.” Serjeant Wilcocks gave them the orders for the attack, expecting to meet with eleven, but only two were at the fire, playing at cards, and cooking a pot of mutton, upon whom a charge was made. They ran; and before they surrendered were both slightly wounded with balls and sword cuts in several places. The prisoners informed the Serjeant that the party was reduced to nine, and that the other men were then on a robbing expedition to Mr. Mein’s station. Serjeant Wilcocks then divided the party; him-self, two privates, and Mr. Hassal, took a station where they could at the same time keep an eye on the property that had been retaken, and on a passage that led to Mr. Mein’s. Corporal Prosser, two privates, Mr. Gregson, and Mr. Hassal’s servant, were stationed convenient to the route the bush-rangers had taken in the morning. Mr. Walker and servant had the custody of the two prisoners. About an hour elapsed when Mr. Hassall discovered the captain of the banditti, six others, a small pack of kangaroo dogs, and a bullock laden with the spoils of the expedition. The captain, soon perceived the Serjeant’s party, called his men together, threw up his hat, and called to the Police that they were ready. “Surrender” was out of the question. Hard firing commenced. The Police were soon together; but could not prevent the bushrangers ascending a very steep rocky precipice. Shelter was at once secured to the bushrangers behind the rocks, where the horses could not reach. Beaten from one fortress, another presented itself immediately; and retreat and fight was the order of the evening, till the want of day-light, and perhaps of ammunition, produced a cessation of hostilities. All the bushrangers escaped; none of the Police were hurt.

Soon as the party had boiled some tea, the fire was put out, some refreshment was hastily taken, the property and horses secured, the sentinels placed at a convenient distance, and “all hands on the look-out” for morning, or an attack from the bushrangers. At midnight it began to rain which was the first wet lodgings for the party. Early the next morning a party of the Police and a black ascended the hills, in order to secure the tracks, but the rain had effaced all traces of them. It was then agreed to find Mr. Mein’s station; and in search for it the party met the captain; a ball had passed through both thighs in the previous engagement. The trowsers, waistcoat, coat, and hat he wore, belonged to Mr. Hassall, a silk handkerchief to Mr. H’s servant, and shirt to Mr. Walker.

“The most notorious “Donohoe” is one of this party. During the engagement one of the bushrangers was seen to fall by three of the party that went with the Police, who, at that time, was wearing the hat and coat taken upon the captain. It is thought, from this fact, that one was killed, and removed by his companions. These mistaken and dangerous men were going to make an establishment of their own, about 300 miles in the interior, where, they maintain, exists a settlement of white people.”

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 0

Spotlight: Bushranging at the Levels (03/08/1867)

Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932), Saturday 3 August 1867, page 7

BUSHRANGING AT THE LEVELS. — Although every bushranger of distinction, with the exception of the man calling himself Captain Thunderbolt, has been brought to justice during the last few months, it is evident that the class is not yet extinct. Only last week two new aspirants for fame, created a sensation by robbing a number of places between Grenfell and the Flat, and at Spring and Stoney Creek; and we have now to chronicle their reappearance, accompanied by a third man, at the Levels. The first two are known as Cottrell alias ‘Blue Cap,’ and Jerry Duce, while there is little doubt as to the identity of their comrade. On Monday last the trio armed with revolvers, and well mounted, rode up to Marshall’s, Merool Creek, on the Levels, and having bailed up the inmates, began to search the premises for money and other valuables; after which they proceeded to the stores, which they rifled of a very large quantity of goods consisting, principally of clothing, provisions, and spirits. Having secured their booty on some packhorses, they then regaled themselves freely at the expense of Mr. Marshall, and then rode off. “Blue-cap,” who it appears, has now regularly “turned out,” was formerly a stockman on the Billabong, and some twelve months since was charged at Forbes Police Court with shooting at Mr. Dick Taylor, Mrs. Atkyn’s overseer, with intent to commit a murder. For this he was committed for trial, but was acquitted at Bathurst from insufficient evidence. Since then he has again been in company with another noted character named Cowan for stealing several head of cattle, the property of Messrs. Jones and Miller of Cadow, and here, too, he had a narrow escape. When the police came on “Blue Cap” and Duce at Stoney Creek after their former raid, and fired upon them in the dark, it was known that one of the two men was wounded, and it now turns out that Duce was shot through the hand. Two of the horses ridden by these fellows since they have taken to the bush have been identified as being the property of the O’Meally family, one of the horses being the racer Banjo. The police are on the tracks of the bushrangers, but it is supposed from the description of goods selected by them at Marshall’s that they would hide in the scrub for a period, and emerge only when compelled to do so through hunger. — Mudgee Record.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 0

Spotlight: The Bushrangers John and Thomas Clarke (22 June 1867)

Illustrated Adelaide Post (SA : 1867 – 1874), Saturday 22 June 1867, page 14

THE BUSHRANGERS JOHN AND THOMAS CLARKE.

SOME particulars of the apprehension of the Clarkes were published in our last, but the following additional circumstances connected with their capture have since been contributed by a Sydney journal:— “After the surrender Tom Clarke was very communicative, and spoke of the many hair-breadth escapes he had had with particular gusto, and this man’s mind and feelings are so deadened that he looked upon the awful position he was then in as a piece of by-play. His brother, on the contrary, was extremely morose, and it was with some difficulty that he would allow Dr. Pattison to dress his wound, which was a very bad one, the shot having taken a piece of his shirt into the orifice. The doctor had to probe the wound, at which he called out lustily. The ball passed right through the top of the left arm. Sir Watkin, the black tracker, was shot by Tom Clarke from the window of the hut, the ball striking him above the wrist of the left arm, splintering the bone very much, taking a zig-zag direction, and lodged in the elbow. After Tom Clarke was handcuffed, Sir Watkin went up to him, and said — ‘Tommy, you shot me cowardly.’ ‘ No,’ said Clarke, ‘I merely shot you in defence; you wanted to take my life.’ ‘Well,’ said Sir Watkin, ‘I forgive you;— shake hands.’ Tommy raised his manacled hands, which Sir Watkin heartily clenched and shook cordially. Sir Watkin is now under the medical care of Dr. Pattison, in the Braidwood hospital. On the evening when the two Clarkes made for Guinea’s hut, in which resided Thomas Berry, junior, and his wife, they shortly after their arrival laid down to sleep. About day-light, on the following morning, Tommy awoke first, calling Johnny, saying, ‘Johnny, I’ve had a dream that Byrnes (a senior sergeant stationed at Ballalaba) had trapped us.’ Johnny exclaimed, ‘all nonsense.’ ‘Well,’ said Tommy, ‘this day will tell something.’ This was related by Tommy Clarke while Dr. Pattison was dressing the wound of Johnny. After Sir Watkin’s and Johnny’s wounds had been attended to, Tommy pulled up his trousers to show a wound he had received in the affray—a flesh wound in the back, caused by a slug from Sir Watkin’s gun. While he was stripping to show his wound, Tommy pointed out two bullet-wound marks he had received in his legs, one on his left shin and the other on his right. He said the one on his right leg bad been very bad, so much so that he could scarcely at one time raise it to get into his saddle. This fact tallies with what had been stated that he had been wounded and walked very lame. Guinea’s hut, as it is called, where this affray took piece, is about two miles distant from the spot where Carroll and his party were barbarously murdered — a circumstance which is now fresh in the recollection of every person. In the hut the police found a quantity of ammunition, and a breech-loading rifle, supposed to belong to Carroll. It seems from circumstances that the dream that Tommy had, being fresh in his mind, must have somewhat cowed him, for had he made a bolt out of the hut, by removing a slab or otherwise, there might have been a possibility of escape; for when the constable left for Ballalaba for reinforcements, there were only three police and the wounded tracker to guard.” The prisoners were tried on the 28th ult. for shooting at a police constable named Walsh, and found guilty. They were sentenced to death, and the 25th inst. was appointed for their execution. Both heard their condemnation unmoved.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 2

Spotlight: Robbery Under Arms (17 June 1863)

New South Wales Police Gazette and Weekly Record of Crime (Sydney : 1860 – 1930), Wednesday 17 June 1863 (No.24), page 178

I.

Robbery under Arms.

At 11 p.m. on the 7th instant, the stores of the undermentioned persons at Possum Flat, near Young, were forcibly entered by three armed men, supposed to be Johnny Gilbert, Johnny O’Mealley, and another, and property as under stolen therefrom :— From Joseph McConnell, about £14 sterling, and a double barrel gun; from William Hooley, 4 ozs. 10 dwts. of gold; from Mrs. McCarthy, two gold rings, one engraved “E.F. & M.F., 3 July, 1803”; from William’O’Brien, a cash box, containing £37; from David Henry, a quantity of silver coin, amount not known, some printed calico, tobacco, and a revolver.

At 8 p.m. on the 2nd instant, the house of George Gatewood, Norwood, near Goulburn, was forcibly entered by four armed men (not described), with blackened faces covered with crape, and the following property stolen therefrom, viz., £12 sterling, a watch (not described), gun, canister of “powder, box of caps, three pairs blankets, and several articles of clothing. The robbers afterwards proceeded to the house of William Gatewood, son of the above, and forcibly stole therefrom a quantity of wearing apparel and trinkets.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 0

Spotlight: Conviction of the Bushrangers, Thomas & John Clarke (1 June 1867)

Bell’s Life in Sydney and Sporting Chronicle (NSW : 1860 – 1870), Saturday 1 June 1867, page 5

Conviction of the Bushrangers, Thomas & John Clarke.

SENTENCE OF DEATH!

CENTRAL CRIMINAL. COURT, TUESDAY, MAY 28.

(Before His Honor tho Chief Justice.)

WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MURDER.

Thomas Clarke and John Clarke were indicted for that they did, on the 27th Apr last, near Jinden, in the colony of New South Wales, wound one William Walsh, with intent to murder the said William Walsh.

The prisoners pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Messrs. Dalley and Blake, instructed by Mr Joseph Leary. Mr Isaacs, Solicitor-General, prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

The history of the capture of the outlaw Thomas Clarke and his brother John, when the prisoners fired upon and wounded Walsh is familiar to our readers. We therefore deem it only necessary to give the opening of the case by the Solicitor-General, the summing up of the Judge, the verdict and the sentence.

The Solicitor-General, in opening the case said the jury had a duty of a most difficult nature to perform. They were called upon to try the prisoners at the bar on a capital charge and it devolved upon them to weigh the evidence carefully as it applied to one or both prisoners Thomas Clarke was outlawed by an Act of the Legislature for several felonies. It therefore became the duty of the police to pursue him and secure his apprehension. In the discharge of this duty, it is alleged by the Crown that a constable was shot at and wounded by Thomas Clarke. With regard to the prisoner John Clarke, it was alleged that he also, in company with his brother, fired upon the police sent to arrest them, and that by Thomas Clarke constable William Walsh was wounded. He was not anxious to anticipate any portion of the evidence; but he believed it would be such as to bring the charge, from the lips of three or four witnesses, conclusively home to the prisoners. The principal facts were these: On the evening of the 20th April last, a party of police, under the command of senior-constable Wright, consisting of constables Walsh, Lenehan, J. Wright, Egan, and an aboriginal tracker named Sir Watkin Wynne, arrived close to a hut neat Jinden. They saw, at about 1 o’clock in the morning of 27th April, in a paddock in front of the hut, two horses, which they led towards a haystack. At about 6 o’clock the same morning they saw the two prisoners, Thomas and John Clarke, coming out of the hut towards the horses. The party under sub-inspector Wright attacked the prisoners, who retreated to the hut, and fired upon their pursuers. Constable Walsh and the aboriginal tracker Sir Watkin had approached nearer to the hut than the others. Thomas Clarke, who knew constable Walsh, deliberately fired at him, and wounded him in the thigh. After both had seen Walsh, whom the prisoners knew, it would be proved that John Clarke fired, and wounded Sir Watkin. This shot was fired by John Clarke, through a square hole at the end of the hut. It would also be proved that when the prisoners surrendered to Walsh that there was no one in the hut when the firing took place but Thomas and John Clarke. The nature of the wound indicted upon constable Walsh, the subject under immediate inquiry, would be described to them, and other circumstances that would point to the guilt of the prisoners. The crime, in law, was one which would deprive the prisoners of life. It was, therefore, a case of life or death with which the jury had to deal. The jury had thus a solemn responsibility cast upon them. They had sworn to give a verdict according to the evidence. If any juror, from conscientious principles, had an objection to find a person guilty, when he knew that the effect of his verdict would deprive a fellow-creature of life, he was equally guilty of a serious crime if he continued to sit in the jury-box, and refused to give his verdict according to the evidence because the extreme penalty of the law was involved. He felt sure, however, that the jury would discharge their duty fearlessly and conscientiously, without any feeling as to the effect of their verdict. The evidence of the witnesses would be given in a straightforward manner; and if they detailed the circumstances to which he had alluded, they had only one duty to discharge, solemn as it was to return a verdict of guilty. It was fortunate for the prisoners that they were in a country where the laws allowed them a fair and open trial. They were fortunate also in having secured two gentlemen of great learning, of great ability, and great eloquence to defend them; and they were tried before a magistrate, impartial, of great wisdom and experience in criminal practice. No doubt the two learned counsel, Mr Dalley and Mr Blake, would separately address the jury. After which they would have the lucid summary of the evidence by the Chief Justice. It would then rest with them to pronounce their verdict. If that verdict should be guilty, then the further duty of disposing of the prisoners devolved upon another power with which the jury had nothing to do. If the evidence was clear, they must not flinch from pronouncing their verdict. If there was any fair and reasonable doubt, they would be bound to give the prisoners the benefit of it. He would now call the witnesses to establish the charge.

[The witnesses for the Crown were then called and examined, after which, Mr Blake addressed the jury for Thomas Clarke, and Mr Dalley for John Clarke.]

His HONOR then summed up. He said that considering the great importance of this trial, he must express his regret at the great length to which the trial had extended; because it was impossible but that the attention of the jury must have been fatigued. Many extraneous matters had been introduced, but the facts lay in an extremely narrow compass. The prisoners stood charged with wounding a constable, in discharge of his duty, with intent to kill him. The first question was, did the prisoner Thomas Clarke fire the shot, and wound Walsh? Secondly, what was his intention in firing the shot? Walsh’s evidence, supported by that of more than one other witness, proved that the shot proceeded from the revolver of Clarke. Whether the shot fired from that pistol reached the body of the constable directly, or whether it touched the ground first, was a matter, of no moment.

The simple questions were, first, was the wound inflicted by the prisoner at all? If not, it would be absurd to suppose that it was inflicted by persons standing behind Walsh. Whether the prisoners turned round and shot him or not, no one behind Walsh inflicted the wound; since the wound was inflicted in the man’s front.

He (the Chief Justice) would not follow the learned counsel into any question as to the propriety of the punishment of death. He would suppose that the jury would discharge their [maths?] and find simply a matter of fact and of inferences arising from fact according to their conscientious views, and not for one moment be induced to swerve from the truth by any consideration of what the result of their verdict would be. Neither did he think it necessary to make any remarks on the Felons’ Apprehension Act. He understood Mr Dalley to say that the necessity for that Act was a disgrace to our civilisation. ln that he (the Chief Justice) agreed with him. The existence of the outrages which gave birth to that law was discreditable to us. The law had been recommended from this bench years before it was passed, and was simply a re-enactment of laws as old as the time of Alfred the Great, and adopted by Sovereigns the most enlightened that England ever had known. It was adopted here in consequence of a series of outrages that unless checked would paralyse industry, and render all property and life insecure. It was a system of outrage not directed against large property or for the re-dress of grievances; but against all classes of the community, rich and poor, high and low. Where have those robbers been known to pass by the hoards of the poor man, or of the widow or the orphan when it suited their purposes to rob them? They had been the common robbers of all classes; and they had been murderers of the worst kind. The slightest resistance had been met by attempts to take life. The law was directed only against persons having arms in their hands and likely to use arms in taking life. And not until a criminal had committed a crime punishable with death was he outlawed. Notice was given in every quarter of the country, and then only could the outlaw be shot down. That is the law as it stands in our statute book. (But for the purpose of this trial it was of no importance whether this man was an outlaw or not. It would be quite sufficient if the jury found that the constables were acting with a common design to take Clarke, believing that he was outlawed, or that he had committed a felony. A constable has power to arrest any man whom he suspects to be guilty of felony; and if he cannot otherwise take him, he has power to shoot him down. The law has always been so. The constables are ministers of justice. And are they to expose their own lives to thieves and murderers without the protection of the law? Will any Judge uphold it as law that a constable is to wait until he is shot at, if he sees that revolvers are worn by the men he is seeking to arrest? Do they meet as soldiers in single combat, in honourable warfare? Although he made every allowance for gallant feeling in a man who having shot at another, and finding himself shot, asked and granted forgiveness, he (the Chief Justice) could not but feel it to be a humiliation that this constable (Walsh) on the impulse of the moment did not remember that these men were charged with felony and murder; that he descended, as a minister of justice to shake hands with a man whom he believed to be a robber and a murderer, was a degradation to his character. He (the Chief Justice) had no notion of such tampering with crime. To treat such men cruelly would be barbarous and un-English; but the constable might have said when the man held out his hand, “No, sir, you have shot me, and I have shot at you. I forgive the personal injury; but you are my prisoner. We are not on the same platform. My hand meets not that of a man whom I believe to be a felon.” He (the Chief Justico) sat there to see principles of honour and honesty carried out, and to teach men right notions, and how to act up to them, and not to let the land of his adoption, the land of his children be disgraced by such deeds as these. But these remarks had nothing to do with the trial. A man must be supposed innocent of all crimes laid to his charge until found guilty. It is nothing to a constable whether the man he seeks to arrest is guilty or not. If he is charged with felony, it is his duty to surrender, and it is the duty of the constable to arrest him. The question was did the prisoner Thomas Clarke shoot. If they had any reasonable doubt that he did so, they must acquit both prisoners. They were not nicely to weigh the probabilities of opposing evidence. The next question was this — Was Walsh, when he was shot, in the execution of his duty as a constable endeavouring to arrest the Clarkes for felony, and one of them because he believed him to be an outlaw? The evidence was that a party had been formed to arrest two persons, whom they believed to be guilty of several robberies, and of more than one murder. Then if so, were the Clarkes, or was Thomas Clarke conscious of that fact? On this subject his Honor read a short extract from Archbold to the effect that when an officer of justice is killed in the discharge of his duty, in quelling an affray or arresting a person charged with felony — if the slayer know: the officer’s business, the slaying is murder. The question was, did Thomas Clarke, when he fired at Walsh, know that he was a constable; According to the evidence Clarke, when within twenty yards of Walsh, turned round and fired at him. Walsh said he was known personally to both prisoners. It was said that when Walsh came back with his new party, Thomas Clarke said to him “If I had known you were here, I would have surrendered long ago.” But he also said “I called for you several times.” How could he call on the man unless he knew him? The next question was, did Walsh do more than was reasonably necessary to protect himself and to apprehend the prisoners? A constable is not bound to wait until he is shot at. He has a right to use his own firearms. (His Honor then read part of the evidence of Walsh, as to at Thomas Clarke, and that Thomas Clarke turned round, took aim at him (Walsh) and fired.) A person who aims at a vital part, whether the person shot at dies or not, is responsible for his intention. Something was said about discrepancies. The jury would judge how far they were material. If they met with two or three persons who saw an event, they would agree in their account of the event, but differ as to circumstances. The more witnesses, the more variations there would be. One man may have been so excited that he forgot the nature of the ground over which he passed. (His Honor then read the evidence of William Wright as to his calling on the prisoners to stand and surrender.) The question remained whether, from all circumstances, the prisoners were likely to have known that they were officers of justice. Then came this great question, did or did not the prisoner Thomas Clarke, at the moment he fired intend to take life, for nothing he did afterwards could make him guilty of this charge. Mistakes might be made as to a man’s intention. But looking at the matter as men of common sense, did they believe in their hearts that this man did intend to take life? As to his having no bad feeling, because he did not take life afterwards when he was safe in the house, it might be that he felt that it was better to abstain when there were at least two to one against him. He might have thought that to take life would be useless. When he shot he may have thought that to take the life of two or three would diminish the numbers of their enemies, whereas by merely wounding they would not accomplish this, for a wounded man might still fire on them. By law a man is presumed to intend what circumstances show to be the natural and inevitable consequence of this act. What was the probable consequence of the man’s turning round and firing a revolver at a pursuer within twenty yards of him? This was a maxim of law from the earliest times; and it was not merely a rule of reason and propriety. When a man does an act, is it not natural that that which that particular act is likely to effect the man intended to effect? A man fires a pistol at another’s head. Does it not seem that he intended to take his life? That was the whole of the case as respected the prisoner Thomas Clarke. Now came the question as to John Clarke. He did not fire the shot. The rule is if two or more persons are engaged in an unlawful act, every one is responsible for the act of the others. If men go out for a lawful purpose, and one does something quite apart from the common purpose, there is no reason to invite the others. But if men go out for a common purpose of robbing, and one commits a murder in so doing, all are responsible as murderers. That is a rule that pervades the whole of the criminal law. And it is founded on common sense. It tends to deter men from banding together for unlawful purposes. There is a difficulty in this case. What illegal design were John and Thomas Clarke concerned in at the time the shot was fired? If they had been inside the house, doing all they could to kill or wound the constables, they would both have been engaged in felony. Then whatever one did the other was responsible for. That is the general principle. It is founded on good sense. But at the time when Thomas Clarke fired, John was committing no crime. He was endeavouring to run away. There was no crime in that.

The constables were entitled to shoot him for it. But it was no crime to try to escape. If he turned round and endeavoured to shoot the constable then he was guilty of murder. The difficulty is this: At the time the shot was fired they were both running away. The common design did not seem at that time to be illegal.

John must have known that the constables were endeavouring to arrest his brother. Whether he thought the constables sought to arrest both, or only his brother, was he acting in concert with his brother in resisting Walsh? They were both running away. Thomas turned and fired; John fired a second afterwards. Was his meaning, at that time, to kill or wound the apprehending constable? or was it merely to prevent his own or his brother’s apprehension? If the jury found that John was endeavouring to prevent the arrest, and intended to help his brother to the uttermost, not intending to kill but to wound, so as to prevent the apprehension, he would be equally responsible with his brother, because then there was a common design to help each other against the constables at all hazards. If the common design of wounding any one of the constables were proved, then, though John might not have intended to have killed Walsh at the moment, he is responsible for the capital felony. This is a point of law entirely new, and matter of reasoning from general principles alone. With these remarks he left the case in the hands of the jury.

His Honor concluded his address at ten minutes past 10.

The jury returned into court at 11 o’clock with a verdict of guilty against both prisoners.

The prisoners, in reply to the Clerk of Arraigns, had nothing to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon them.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, amidst the breathless silence of a very crowded court, then proceeded to pass sentence in a most impressive manner, as follows :— Thomas Clarke and John Clarke, if, in the opinion of most of those who hear me, or if it should be thought by a large portion of the community, that you are now about to receive a just retribution for your crimes, it is proper for me to say that no such feelings influence this Court. Such a principle does not belong to our law. You are not to receive punishment as a retribution, but because the taking of your lives is believed to be necessary for the peace and good order, for the safety as well as the welfare of the community: because of the example and warning that a capital execution may hold out to others, by acting as a terror and a restraint from the committal of similar crimes of which you stand convicted. This is the principle, the true principle, of all human punishment. I told the jury they were to conclude that you were innocent of those various crimes in respect of which efforts were made to apprehend you, and by which you were apprehended, and the jury took for granted that you were innocent. But now that I have to pass sentence upon you, I am not restricted by any such feeling. It is proper, however, in what I may say, that I should not hurt your feelings, nor add anything to your degradation, but for the good of the community show what really is the extent of the crime either committed or reasonably supposed to have been committed by you, and upon which the Executive will be asked whether mercy can be extended to you. Thomas Clarke, I hold in my hand a list of offences of which you stand charged within the last two years, and the amount of the whole, exclusive of murders of which you are supposed to be guilty, there are nine robberies of mails and thirty-six robberies of individuals; and among the individuals whom you have robbed there are all classes — Chinamen, labourers, publicans, storekeepers, draymen, and settlers. With respect to you, John Clarke, I find that the offences charged against you within the last year, most of which were committed in company with your brother, amount to twenty-six robberies. Consider your position. This is the result of a long career of bushranging. You have had many abettors — you both must have had many abettors in the district from which you come; and I have no doubt there are others, blind as they are, who have sympathised with your crimes generally. I shall not waste words in respect of such crimes imputed to you. The community is disgraced by the committal of such crimes. I would ask others — and this I recommend you to reflect upon before you die — what is the result, what the value of this course of wickedness, violence, and outrage which you have been pursuing for so long? In all the cases which have come before me it has been a question — Where is the money they have gained? What is the benefit of it? You have not now a shilling in the world after all your robberies. You have not, therefore profited by your career of crime. I have not heard of anyone being a gainer by such a lawless course except one (Gardiner) who is now serving thirty-two years’ penal servitude. A criminal career must end sooner or later. How many lives are taken, how much misery inflicted — and all this for no earthly good accruing to one of you. All is to end ignominiously! You, young men, might have pursued a very different career. You might have been the fathers of respectable families, happy — for happiness is to be found in the circle of home, made home, by honest industry. Instead of that you are to die a dishonoured death, in your young days, on the gallows. There is another consideration. You must have expected that, after you had taken to firearms and robbery the result must have been death. It is shocking to think of — infamous that you, should continue such a career. Those who pursue this course must not only reflect that there is a public shame hanging over them, but that they gain nothing by their robberies. You must have been constantly in terror — always in a state of alarm lest the police tracked you out. And the hard life you must lead. I am not willing to embitter your feelings; but what I am now saying may not be heard by this crowded Court, but I have a hope that other ears may hear me and be prevented from entering on a career similar to yours. I say men like you must be in constant fear of the police entering your dwellings when you have one, and hence you wander about like wild beasts, and undergo an amount of fatigue and privation more severe than that imposed on any labourer, and which, if directed to its proper channel, would bring you peace of mind, would more than furnish you with the comforts of this life. Take this into consideration, and you will admit that the balance must be against you. Tell me, where is the man you have ever heard of, who, by a course of bushranging, has gained a shilling’s worth of property he can call his own. If liberated tomorrow where are their gains? I will read you a list of bushrangers who have appeared during the last four years and a half, all of whom have been either shot dead, or hanged, or imprisoned for life — a list almost of demons. There was Peisley, he was executed. Davis, sentenced to death, but commuted to fifteen years. Gardiner, sentenced to thirty two years. Gilbert, shot dead. Ben Hall, shot dead. Bow and Fordyce, sentenced to death, commuted to imprisonment for life. Manns, executed. Vane, ten years. O’Mealley, shot dead. Burke, shot dead. Gordon, Ben Hall’s mate, sentenced to fifteen years. Dunleavy, the same. Dunn, executed. Lowry, shot dead. Foley, sentenced to fifteen years. Morgan, shot dead. Yourself, Thomas Clarke, and you John Clarke, about to be sentenced to be hanged. Fletcher, shot dead, Pat Connell, a mate and relation of yours Thomas Clarke, shot dead. Tom Connell, another relation, sentenced to death, but commuted to penal servitude for life; and Bill Scott, a mate of yours, believed to have been murdered. How many widows, how many orphans, how much property is lost by the career of these men? I have a list here which shows that since June, 1864, seven persons, mostly police, were killed, and sixteen policemen wounded — all within three years. Much as I have had to do with criminals, I do not know that there is anything in the world so abhorrent as the sympathy which has been expressed for this class of highway robbers — the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low — they have been held up as heroes worthy of example. But better days are coming. It was the convict element that was still working, that caused the sympathy I am alluding to. Yes, a brighter day is coming. You will not live to see it, for your days are numbered. A better and a healthier feeling is rising and pervading all classes. There will be no longer this vile sympathy which has hitherto so much disgraced us. It is shocking when I think of it. It pains me. It humiliates me when I reflect upon it. But two or three years ago one, a young man, the head and front of bushranging amongst us, was in the dock where you now stand, and was acquitted wrongfully — I say wrongfully acquitted. And there was rejoicing in this court, such an exhibition as would disgrace the vilest country on earth; but I am happy to say such days are gone. If there are any in this court now who participated in that unseemly exhibition, they live now to see their shame. I am grieved that two young men like you are to receive the last sentence of the law — that you are to pass away from a country which, by honest industry, you might have assisted to raise in the estimation of the world, but from which you pass after disgracing it.

His HONOR then, with much solemnity, pronounced the awful sentence of death upon the prisoners, who were then received by the gaolers to the condemned cells.

The prisoners remained apparently unconcerned at their fate. An elderly woman, said to be Mrs Clarke, stood near the dock, and her feelings can be better imagined than described to see her two sons conducted to their last habitation in this world.

The Court which had been orderly throughout the day, adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 2

Spotlight: Johnny Gilbert at Burrowa (27 May 1863)

Empire (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1875), Wednesday 27 May 1863, page 3

JOHNNY GILBERT AT BURROWA.

(From the Yass Courier‘s Marengo correspondent.)

MAY 19.—This morning, about ten o’clock, our little town, our rather village, was thrown into a state of excitement by a horseman galloping into it and reining up his panting steed at the police station. He handed a letter to the officer in command (Swan), the perusal of which caused all to be bustle; for instant boot and saddle was the order, and in a very short time horses were equipped, men armed and mounted, and they and the messenger all rode briskly away in the direction of Burrowa. Upon making the necessary inquiries, and proceeding to the scene of operations, I ascertained that a sticking-up case had occurred, which for coolness and effrontery eclipses all the late affairs of that class. It is well known that Mr. Allen Hancock, of Burrowa, has had for some time in training for the races a horse called “Jacky Morgan,” a provincial celebrity, and a great favourite in the betting circle. About seven o’clock this morning, as jockey in trainer Harry Wilson, was giving the horse his customary diurnal exercise near the Burrowa police barracks, a ponchoed horseman rode up to him, whom Wilson immediately recognised to be no other than the notorious Johnny Gilbert, whom Wilson has known for years. Gilbert instantly told the jockey to dismount, as he wanted the racer, but Wilson refused to do so, when Gilbert drew a revolver, and placing it close to Harry’s skull said, “Off at once, or take the consequences;” Wilson replied, “For God’s sake, Johnny, don’t ruin a poor fellow,” but all to no purpose, for Gilbert took the horse, and along with it a new jockey’s saddle and bridle, Wilson’s private property, which he had purchased only the day before. After Gilbert had cantered away, the unfortunate and almost broken-hearted jock, who by the way was to have raced the horse that very day, made all haste to his employer with the dismal intelligence. I am informed that Mr. Hancock lost no time in vain regrets, but instantly ordered one of his best horses to be saddled, and he in the interim loaded a double-barrelled gun, kissed his wife and family, and rode off, declaring most solemnly that he would never return alive without the stolen horse, and from what I know of his temperament, I’m pretty certain, if he drops across Gilbert, that he’ll keep his word.

Undoubtedly the “bush telegraph” must have been again at work, otherwise how would Gilbert have known the exact time and spot to have seized this racer, and that within rifle shot of the town, and within a stone’s throw of the police barrack itself. The daring sangfroid shown in this affair fully proves the great extent of harborage given to this scoundrel and his myrmidons, for him to dare almost to enter the town of Burrowa itself, where, as at Marengo, two out every three knew him by sight. I almost forgot to mention that this morning, about two hours after the previous robbery, the said Gilbert rode up to two drays, about three miles from Marengo (which were on the turn off road, near the Calabash) and told one of the carriers to stop and lower down a gin case, break it open, and hand him three or four bottles; the carrier hesitated, when Gilbert laughed derisively, threw open his poncho, and showed his belt bristling with revolvers, and also pointing significantly into the bush, thereby intimating that he bad plenty of assistance near at hand, which no doubt, he had, for it is my fixed impression that Gilbert is now at the head of the Wedden and Abercrombie band, and that Gardiner is leading another detachment in the Jingerra Ranges, whose tracks sergeant Brennan was on the other day. At all events, they are now possessed of some splendid horseflesh, three stolen racers, viz., Mr. Skillicorn’s, of Bathurst, Mr. Roberts’, of Currawang, and Mr. A. Hancock’s, of Burrowa.

I regret to state that the murderer, John Kellie, is still at large. Really what with our daily petty larcenies, weekly highway robberies, and bi-annual murders, we constitute a community which, however consistent, is unquestionably the reverse of Utopian.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 0

Spotlight: Local & General Intelligence, Tumut and Adelong (11 May 1865)

Tumut and Adelong Times (NSW : 1864 – 1867; 1899 – 1950), Thursday 11 May 1865, page 2

Local & General Intelligence

The Araluen Escort Robbery. — Daniel Ryan, of Murrumburrah, lately arrested at that place, by Mr. Bray’s volunteer party, on a charge of being concerned with Ben Hall’s gang, in the attack on the Araluen escort, and who was remanded to Braidwood for identification, has being identified as being with the party on the Araluen mountain, and also when they stuck up Boyd’s store, at Tarago. — Goulburn Argus.

Expensive Gents. — The Yass Courier calculates that, during four years, it has cost the colony £200,000 to hunt Hall, Gilbert, and Dunn, in which all the efforts of the police have been ineffectual.

Captain Thunderbolt and his Gang. — The Tamworth Examiner says : — After various petty robberies this gang were surprised by the police whilst in possession of Mr. Walford’s inn at Millie. The police had been tracking them for four days, and reached Mr. Walford’s about an hour after the bushrangers had arrived there. The situation of this house is on an open plain, without a tree for miles in any direction. The bushrangers, four in number, were at the house, at the time, one being outside on guard, and on the latter seeing four men galloping across the plain to the house, a whistle was given to those inside, and all four came out to see who it might be. On learning that it was the police, they all mounted their horses, one of them holding up his revolver as a challenge to the police to come on, at the same time retreating from the house to the open plain at the rear. They had all drawn their revolvers, but the police, nothing daunted, gave chase, and came within firing distance a short way from the house. Tunderbolt fired the first shot, to which the police replied, at the same time endeavours were made to cut off the young lad from the rest of the gang, who seemed not to be so well mounted as the others, Firing was continued on both sides with great vigour, when a well directed ball from the revolver of constable Dalton, took effect on the young lad, entered the back and came out near the stomach. He fell from his horse, and Dalton shouted to constable Norris to take charge of him, while he went after the others. On leaving with that intention, he fortunately turned round and saw the young vagabond, while on the ground, presenting his revolver at him. He threw himself on his horse’s neck, and the ball luckily passed over him. Constable Norris came up at this moment, and again fired at the ruffian, the ball taking effect, having entered the jaw and escaped at the back of the neck. During the whole of the time constable Lynch was keeping the other three bushrangers at bay, and succeeded in doing so, notwithstanding that Ward, who was mounted on a fine chesnut horse, several times rode between the police and the youth, constantly discharging his revolver at the same time, in order to give his mate time to escape. He was, however, unsuccessful. About forty shots were fired by the police, and their ammunition was nearly all expended. After securing the youth, they proceeded a short distance after the others, but their horses were completely knocked up, having ridden them fully five hundred miles. The fight is described by eye witnesses as an exceedingly plucky affair, and highly creditable to the police engaged. The encounter lasted altogether about an hour, and the balls from the several revolvers flew about in all directions, one passing through the whiskers of one of the police, but not injuring him. The youth who was shot was at once taken to the inn, and a doctor sent for to Moree; but he is in a very weak state, and it is doubtful if he will recover. The head of the gang, who goes under the name of ‘Thunderbolt,’ is named Ward, and has been engaged in several robberies. He was at one time employed in breaking in horses at the Tareela station. The second is supposed to be a man named McIntosh, and is said to be a brother of McIntosh who was mixed up with Picton in a cattle stealing case some years ago. The bushranger who is shot is named John Thomson, a youth about sixteen years of age, and is described as a very dangerous vagabond. He had frequently expressed a wish to join the bushrangers. The fourth man is known by the name of ‘Bull’ or ‘Bully.’ Thomson and Ward are well acquainted with the part of the country on which they have been recently committing their depredations, and the former with his companions will doubtless make for his old haunts on the head of some of the creeks running into the Barwin, near Walgott. [Thomson has since died.]

Attempt on Wendlan’s Life. — Almost as might have been expected, the life of Wendlan, who shot Morgan, has become endangered through the spirit of revenge on the part of some of the scoundrel’s accomplices. A fellow named Thomas Maslen has been brought before the Bench at Wahgunyah, charged with threatening to avenge Morgan’s death by shooting Wendlan. He was found with arms, powder, balls, caps, and a bottle of strychnine. On Wednesday, Sergeant Hayes stated to the Bench that Maslen could be identified as an accomplice of Morgan, and the prisoner was remanded for a week. — Albury Banner.

A Good Chase and Capture. — The police in this colony have been so unfortunate in their attempts to capture the more notorious bushrangers, that the notion has become general that they are unequal to their duties. But such conclusion is very erroneous, as may be easily seen by reference to the list of captures recently made. The latest successful chase we hear of occurred at Uralla in the North. A man with blackened face robbed a shepherd’s hut, taking from him his only half-crown and everything else of value, and not for three days could information be conveyed to the police. There, however, two troopers started, and after riding 350 miles in five days, succeeded in surprising the robber with his mate in camp, and both of them were lodged safely in limbo. — Pastoral Times.

Morgan’s Legacies. — The Pastoral Times hears that Mr. Commissioner Lockhart is engaged in the district around Albury in trying to clear the country of the wretched villains who aided and abetted the recently slain murderer. Little mercy should be shown to those who, residing on Crown Lands illegally, gave shelter and food to Morgan while he went forth to rob and kill. It is to be hoped that the other Commissioners of Crown Lands in the Wellington districts, and the country where Messrs. Hall, Gilbert, and Co. carry on their avocations, will see that the powers invested in them are used to rid their districts of the aiders and abettors in these crimes.

Posted on by AJFPhelan56 2