The Argus at KellyGang 27/1/1879

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

The 14 man who are now in custody on a charge of having given information and assistance to the Kelly gang were taken before Mr Foster police Magistrate at Beechworth on Saturday. Mr Bowman who on the previous occasion prosecuted on behalf of the Crown appeared for some of the prisoners as did also Mr Zincke, while Superintendent Hare prosecuted. The first prisoner placed in the dock was Isaiah Wright and Mr Hare at once asked for a further remand for seven days, on the ground that his police witnesses were out in the bush in pursuit of the outlaws and that in the present unsettled condition of the country it would not be safe to produce the other witnesses. The application was strenuously opposed by Messrs Bowman and Zincke who urged that a de- finite agreement had been made with Superintendent Sadleir on the previous Saturday that the charges should either be proceeded with or withdrawn. The police magistrate, however, decided that the remand sought for should be granted as he had to consider the interests of justice and was not bound by an agreement entered into by the police authorities and the prisoners' solicitors. The prisoners were therefore remanded for another week. The majority of the men retained a most stolid demeanour while in court, and appeared to take but little interest in the proceedings. The two Clancys however, eagerly scanned the faces of those present in the court, and when they saw two female relatives there, some rapid signals passed between them.







The adjourned cases against the men who are charged with being confederates of the Kellys were proceeded with at the court-house, Beechworth, yesterday. Mr Foster, PM was on the bench.

Superintendent Hare appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Crown, while Messrs Bowman and Zincke defended some of the prisoners.

Isaiah Wright, of Mansfield, better known as "Wild Wright," was first placed in the dock, an understanding having been arrived at on a previous occasion that each case should be taken separately.

Superintendent Hare said he appeared on behalf of the Crown, and would ask -

Mr Bowman desired to know by what authority or precedent Mr Hare appeared in that court at all. He was not the superintendent or inspector in charge of the district. The point had once been raised whether police officers could appear at all to prosecute in courts of law, and the question had been argued before his Honour the Chief Justice, who had ruled that the superintendent or inspector in charge of a district had a perfect right to prosecute and examine witnesses. There was both a superintendent and an inspector in this district, and why were they not in charge of the cases instead of Mr Hare? Last week the superintendent (Mr Sadlier) was present, and he saw in Court Mr Brooke Smith, the inspector of police in charge of the district. Why did he not prosecute? He would ask his worship whether Mr Hare would appear in that court as a lawyer.

Superintendent Hare - I am not here as a lawyer. I only represent the police, and intend to ask for the prisoners' remand.

The Police Magistrate - I think Mr Hare has a perfect right to appear here.

Mr Bowman - Of course, I must bow to your decision.

The clerk of the court then read over the charge against the prisoner, which was as follows :- " For that on or about the 2nd day of January, 1879, you did cause to be given to Edward Kelly, a person adjudged and declared to be an outlaw, and his accomplices information tending to facilitate the commission by them of further crimes, contrary to the provisions of the Felons' Apprehension Act 1878."


.1. , .2. , .3. , .4. , .5.

 ! 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.