The Argus at KellyGang 20/1/1879

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

The batch of prisoners who were lately arrested under the 5th section of the Felons Apprehension Act for aiding and abetting the Kelly gang of outlaws were brought up on remand at the Beechworth Police Court on Saturday, before Mr W H Forster, PM Mr J J B Bowman, instructed by Superintendent Sadleir, prosecuted for the police.

Mr Bowman applied for a further remand of the prisoners in order to secure the attendance of the witnesses for the prosecution, the principal of whom were constables at present out on duty after the Kellys. Mr Albert Read, who appeared on behalf of the majority of the prisoners, objected to any further remand on the ground that they could not be further remanded unless the police proved the absence of witnesses or other reasonable cause.

Mr Forster, P M considered that, under the circumstances, the police could not reasonbly produce their witnesses, and remanded 12 of the prisoners for eight days.

The charges against Perkins, Delaney, Woods, Miller, and the two Stewarts were withdrawn by Mr Bowman, as there was no evidence that they had committed any overt act. It was understood that when the prisoners were again brought before the Court the cases would be dealt with.






John M'Elroy, James Quinn, R Strickland, John Lloyd, John Quinn, John Hart, Isaiah Wright, J M'Monigan, Daniel Clancy, James Clancy, Michael Haney, Joseph Ryan, Henry Perkins, William Woods, Robert Miller, Daniel Delaney, Thomas Lloyd, Francis Hearty, Walter Stewart, and John Stewart, were brought up in the Beechworth Gaol this morning, before Mr WH Foster, PM, charged "that they did cause to be given to Edward Kelly, adjudged and declared to an outlaw, and his accomplices, information tending to facilitate the commission by them of further crime, contrary to the provisions of the Felons Apprehension Act 1878".

Mr J J B Bowman, instructed by Superintendent Sadleir, prosecuted for the police,

Mr F Brown appeared for the two Stewarts, and Mr W Zincke and Mr Albert Read for the rest.

Mr. Read applied that the cases should be heard in the Court-house, and Mr. Bowman applied for an adjournment to the Court-house, as he did not wish to stifle publicity. This was granted.

In the Court-house Mr. Read demanded that each should be tried separately, which was agreed to. Thomas Lloyd was the first brought up.

Mr. Bowman said he appeared for him, and would ask for a remand under the 5th section of the Outlawry Act. The 8th section of the Justices Statute gave the Bench power to remand. He could give evidence if necessary, and the occasion demanded the adoption of extraordinary means. The Bench could remand from time to time. Counsel quoted authorities, and argued that there was reasonable cause for the justices to remand the prisoner.

Mr. Read argued that after the first remand the Bench could not remand again, unless the police proved the absence of witnesses or other reasonable cause, and the Bench must be satisfied that proper diligence had been employed to get the witnesses.

Mr. Bowman said that the act itself was a reasonable cause.

Mr. Read asked for the warrant, and said that the remand warrant was not sufficient. The police magistrate said he could not go behind the remand warrant.

Mr. Zincke argued that the prisoner had a right to inspect every document connected with his case. Superintendent Sadleir had said the previous Saturday he would be ready, if a remand was granted, to show an overt act on the part of the prisoner, and he challenged him to show such overt act with which the prisoner was charged. Was it the intention of this act to lock these men up for a fortnight without any reasonable cause assigned?


.1. , .2. ,

 ! 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.