The Ovens and Murray Advertiser 27/2/1879

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search

full text of the article


Tuesday February 25

(Before Mr WH Foster PM)


Thomas Lloyd was charged with giving to Edward Kelly, adjusted to be an outlaw, and his accomplice, information ? ? ? ? ? ? them further crime.

Mr JJB Bowman appeared for accused.

Superintendent Furnell asked for prisoner’s discharge.

Mr Bowman said the man had now been remanded from time to time, and this was a grand end to a grand fiasco. He had objected –

Mr Foster: “Pardon me, are you objecting to the discharge of your client?”

Mr Bowman sat down, and accused was discharged.

John McMonigal, Michael , and John McElroy were then brought up and discharged, on the application of the police.

Superintendent Furnell stated that one of the men, Joseph Ryan, had broken his leg. He intended to ask for his discharge, and perhaps the Police Magistrate would visit him in gaol.

Mr Foster assented, and subsequently went to the gaol, and formally discharged Ryan, who was removed to the Hospital.

James Quin was then brought forward, and in his case a remand was asked for.

Mr Foster asked on what grounds.

Superintendent Furnell said that on account of the scare, he was unable to bring forward his witnesses, who were afraid to appear.

Mr Zincke, for accused, desired to call the attention of the Bench to the fact that the man had already been remanded eight times, and up to the present naught had been advanced against him, save statements made in that Court. Not a particle of evidence had been brought forward.

He would also call attention to a fact that if the Bench persisted in remanding any man from time to time without reasonable cause, and without any evidence being advanced, they were liable to an action for damages. In proof of this, he would refer to the case of Davis versus Capper, which clearly showed that without evidence it was not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to remand. Besides, was it reasonable to ask for a remand under the circumstances? When he intended to apply for a habeas to test the cases in a higher court, he was refused a sight of the informations, and was told he could not go behind the remand warrant, but it had been proved by Mr Justice Barry that he could. True, he had failed to obtain the writ of habeas, merely because of a flaw in the application, and to show how the Supreme Court Bench agreed with the justice of his cause when Mr McFarland, who appeared on his instructions, asked when His Honor would re-hear the application. Mr Justice Barry had said that it was only common justice to the man to have the writ returned as soon as possible. The application for the writ of habeas had been discussed on pure technical grounds. He supposed McElroy had been discharged merely to battle him, but the same application could and would be made for the other of the prisoners were a remand again granted.

He would ask the Court whether it was not exceeding its jurisdiction in again remanding the accused without any evidence being brought against him. Were they to take the mere statement of Mr Furnell, or Mr Hare, or Mr Sadleir, he would ask the Court to refuse the application for a further remand.

As regarded Quin, he was serving a sentence for assault in the Beechworth gaol both before and at the very time of the Stringy Bark Creek murder, and therefore could not be charged as a accomplice. When leaving the gaol, so strong were his convictions, that he had said to the governor, What’s the use of letting me out; the police are sure to run me in again.” If there was an exceptional case amongst the whole lot, this was one. It had been said this was a dangerous man, because he had been guilty of two or three violent assaults, but was this any reason why he should be detained in gaol on an unsupported charge. Prisoner had now been eight weeks in gaol. No evidence had been brought against him, and the application for remand was unreasonable. It was the general custom, when a first remand was applied for, for the prosecuting constable to bring forward some sort of evidence, but even that form had not been gone through in these cases.

Some of the informations had been sworn by Mounted-Constable Mullane, who for months just before the murder of Sergeant Kennedy and his companions had been doing duty in that court.

He regarded all the remands as one remand, and he would ask if the application was reasonable or not. He would specially draw Mr Foster’s attention to the fact that on the 11th January when he first remanded the men, he (MrZincke) objected, and Mr Foster thought some evidence should be called, and remanded them on the supposition that the following week the police would be prepared with some evidence. There then was Mr Sadleir’s pledge, and he would ask had not that been broken and set aside. He would not characterize the whole proceedings, but would simply, as he had done before, denounce them. Everyone of the men, he believed, had an action for damages against the Court.

Mr Foster said that if he thought evidence was obtainable and was not produced, he would have no hesitation in refusing the application. The question in his mind, however was, is there a difficulty in getting evidence? It was to him a matter of great regret that evidence had not been produced are this, but under the circumstances, knowing the state of the country, and feeling that society must be protected, he considered the remand necessary. Prisoner was therefore remanded for eight days.

Quin: “For how many more eight days, I wonder.”

The remaining eight men were then brought up and remanded until Tuesday next.

When Isaiah Wright was remanded he tried to speak, but was properly and promptly stopped by Mr Foster, who refused to hear him. When leaving the box, however, with a savage look at the Bench, he said, “If ever I get out of this, I’ll make my name a terror to you.”

Mr Furnell said, “Surely, your Worship that is sufficient to keep this man in gaol.


The following are the returns for the Mitta Mitta division, from which it will be seen that the retiring member, Mr Rowley, has been returned by a large majority over his opponent, Mr NP Newman:- Bethanga, Rowley, 75; Newman, 23; Cotton Tree Creek, Rowley, 63; Newman, 19; Granite Flat, Rowley, 8; Newman, 4; Junction, Snowy Creek, Rowley, 9; Newman, 8. Total – Rowley, 155; Newman, 54. The official return will be made on Thursday.


A meeting of the ladies who have kindly consented to collect in the Beechworth district was held in the Church of England schoolroom, Beechworth, on Tuesday afternoon, when the various divisions of the district were made and allotted.


On Tuesday the committee met, there being present; The President (Mr ES Harris), Messrs Warren, Kyle, Dreyer, Crawford, Dodd, Lyon, Alderdice, Hyem, Gammon, O’Connor, Feely, and Dr Dobbyn. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Correspondence was received from the Secretary of the Beechworth United Shire Council, by direction of the water committee of that body, stating that the request to reduce the charge of 2s per 1000 gallons for water supplied to the institution could not be complied with – Received.

A letter was read from John Baldassari, Albury, enclosing post office order for £5, as a donation to the Hospital, and thanking the officers of the institution for the kindness displayed towards him while an inmate therein. – Acknowledged with thanks. The various sub-committees’ reports were read, considered satisfactory, and adopted.

On the names of the inpatients being read over, some discussion took place re testing Constable Keene, at present confined in the Hospital with a broken leg, as paying patient. The Secretary explained the case, and stated that the patient had expected that the Government would pay for him. Mr O’Connor moved, and Mr Lyon seconded, that Constable Keane be treated as a free patient. Mr Gammon considered that the functions of the Patients Committee were being encroached upon, and moved, as an amendment, that the matter be referred back to the Patients Committee. Both the motion and the amendment were withdrawn, on the President suggested that the Government be applied to in the matter, which suggestion was unanimously agreed to.

Mr Dreyer moved, and Mr Kyle seconded, that the case of Thomas Ellis be referred back to the Patients Committee: - Carried.

On the names of the out-patients being read over, Mr Gammon required to know the particulars of one case, which were supplied to his satisfaction. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned.

 ! 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.