The Argus at KellyGang 19/10/1880 (2)

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search
(full text transcription)

see previous

“1.  That an unsuccessful application was made on Friday last, the 15th day of October inst., by Mr Molesworth to his Honour Sir Redmond Barry, presiding in the Central Criminal Court, to postpone the trial of Edward Kelly, a prisoner committed on two charges of murder, until the next sittings of the said Central Criminal Court.

“2.  That on returning from the said court to my office I wrote and sent the following letter to the hon. the Attorney-General:- ‘Today an application was made in court for a postponement of Kelly’s trial until next sittings.  In support of that I made an affidavit, the gist of which was that, owing to the usual access of the prisoner’s friends being debarred him, he had been greatly embarrassed in preparing his defence; that his mother’s selection had been forfeited or confiscated, but that it was likely the Government would revoke that confiscation, and thereby funds might be obtained on security of the land, and that he would be unable to obtain counsel unless the postponement was granted.  This application was opposed successfully, the Crown prosecutor stating that if the prisoner were without means the Crown would supply them in the usual course.  Having regard to the time which the trial is calculated to occupy, and the time counsel would require to work up the case, I respectively submit that his fee should be 50 guineas, and I accordingly apply that you will be pleased to allow that amount.  As time so greatly presses, I beg your reply to-day.  If the Crown would allow the postponement, this application would be unnecessary.’

“3.  That in reply I received the letter following:- ‘Crown Law Offices, Melbourne, Oct. 15, 1880.  Sir, - By direction of the Attorney-General, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date, seeking the payment by the Crown of the necessary fees for the defence of Edward Kelly.  In reply, I am to point out that the application must be made to the sheriff, in accordance with the regulations in that behalf; and on the matter coming before the Attorney-General in proper course, he will be prepared to act as circumstances may warrant. - B C Harriman, Secretary to the Law Department.’

“4.  That in consequence thereof I wrote and posted to the sheriff at Melbourne the letter following:- ‘Sir, - In pursance of a letter received by me to-day from the Crown Law department, I beg to apply that Edward Kelly, as a prisoner in your custody awaiting trial for murder, and without means of defence, may have counsel assigned for his trial, meaning thereby the amount hereinafter referred to may be granted, the prisoner selecting his own counsel.  Allow me to point out that the prisoner has been committed on two charges, each forming a separate case; therefore counsel would require two fees, because he must prepare for both cases, notwithstanding that his services may not extend beyond the first case. 

In my letter to the hon. the Attorney-General 50 guineas was mentioned as counsel’s fee.  I am aware that the fee ordinarily paid out of the public purse is not so much, but I think I may urge that this is no ordinary case, but one that will take up a very great portion of any experienced barrister’s time, and to the absolute exclusion of any other business if he is to do justice to the prisoner’s case.  My belief is that it means a good week’s continuous work, including preparing for and going into court.  At Beechworth the case took a week, and practically there were no counsel’s speeches.  Surely, then, the fee I have named is only adequate to secure an experienced and able counsel. 

continued

, .1. , .2. , .3. , .4. , 


 ! The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original.

We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged.

We also apologise for any typographical errors.