Skip to Content

Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899

R v O'Brien and others [1831] NSWSupC 37

receiving stolen goods - felony attaint - convict evidence - pardon - approver, evidence of - self incrimination, privilege against

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Stephen J., 17 June 1831

Source: Sydney Gazette, 21 June 1831[1 ]

Michael O'Brien, Mary O'Brien, John O'Hara, James O'Hara, Mary Ann O'Hara, Mary O'Hara, and Michael Cantwell, were indicted for feloniously receiving sixty yards of print, and forty yards of calico, the property of Michael McQuade; one watch, one chain, and one hat, the property of Robert Crawford; one watch, one chain, and one shirt, the property of William Aird; one hat and one shirt, the property of John Carlton Atkinson; two bolts of canvas, the property of  Hon. Alexander McLeay; fifty yards of fustian, the property of John White; one cloak, one bonnet, and five yards of serge, the property of Francis Mowatt; and one chest of tea, and ten pounds of tobacco, the property of Thomas Henry Hart, they (the prisoners) well-knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen by one John Walmsley and one William Webber, at the Seven Hills, on the 18th of January last.

Mr. W. H. Moore called John Walmsley, an approver.

Mr. Therry, of counsel for the prisoner, requested the learned Judge would take a note that he (Mr. T.) objected to the competency of this witness, on the grounds urged by him on the preceeding day.  The learned gentleman then briefly recapitulated the heads of those objections.

Mr. Justice Stephen said he had already given his opinion with respect to the validity of the objections, which opinion was confirmed by those of his learned colleagues with whom, since the last trials, he had had an opportunity of consulting.  It was, however, still open to the learned counsel to moot them in full Court if he thought proper.

The examination of the witness was then proceeded with by Mr. Moore:-

John Walmsley - I know the prisoners at the bar; I have known them for eight or nine months, or more; they all lived at the Seven Hills, except John and James O'Hara, who lived on a farm at a place called Little Douel, but were frequently at O'Brien's; I was first brought acquainted with them by Mary and Mary Ann O'Hara, and Mrs. O'Brien, who told us to come again, and to bring with us some prints and calicoes, which we had taken from Mr. McQuade's cart, and planted in the bush; that robbery had been the subject of conversation between us; John Donohoe and William Webber were with me when this conversation passed; we promised that we would return in about a fortnight or three weeks at the outside, and bring some of the prints with us; we then went away, and on our journey towards the Cowpastures, Donohoe was shot by the mounted police on Mr. Wentwoth's farm of Greendale, and Webber and I made our escape; when we met the mounted police, they holloaed out to us, and asked us who we were? we made no answer, and they fired on us directly, and shot Donohoe dead; Webber and I made our escape, and got on the Liverpool-road; about a fortnight after, we went to the house of O'Brien, and there saw Mary and Mary Ann O'Hara; at that time we had the prints and calicoes in the bush, on Michael O'Brien's ground; the girls asked us if we had the articles, and we told them where they were; we then went to the place where we left the prints and calico, near a water-hole, in the bush, and presently after, the girls came there to meet us; when they had been some time with us, Mrs. O'Brien came down from the house to see what detained them so long; the girls then filled a bucket with water from the hole, which they gave to her to carry up to the house, and took the prints and calico from us themselves; there were 17 or 18 pieces of print, and two pieces of calico; we saw the girls take them into the house, from where we stood at the distance of six or seven rods from it; we did not go into the house then, as the girls told us we had better remain in the bush till their godfather, Michael O'Brien, returned home; soon after this, Michael O'Brien came home, and we then went into the house; he first came to us in the bush, and enquired about our companion, Donohoe; while we were talking in the bush, Webber put his hand into his pocket, and gave Michael O'Brien a £1 note, and he then asked us to go into the house; after we went in, we sent Michael O'Brien to Parramatta for some rum, and some gunpowder; we stopped there till O'Brien returned in the evening, bringing with him the rum and the powder; while we were drinking, James O'Hara, and a man named John Hughes, came in James O'Hara came into the room where we were and drank with us till late at night, when Webber and I lay down to rest; next morning James O'Hara said he was going to the farm at Little Douel, and would take some of the prints and calicoes in the cart with him, which he did, and went away in company with John Hughes; Michael O'Brien had heard of the robbery of McQuade's cart, and asked us if we did it; Mary O'Hara, Mary Ann O'Hara, James O'Hara, and Mary O'Brien, were present at the time; we told them that we had committed the robbery; we remained two days at O'Brien's after James O'Hara went away, and then left the place while we were there, the three female prisoners cut up some of the prints, and made some gowns and bed furniture; we remained at O'Brien's house, at that time, three or four days altogether; after that about the time of the Parramatta races, we were there again, and saw John O'Hara, and Mary, and Mary Ann O'Hara coming down from the house to get some water; we hailed them, and they came to us in the bush; I at first took John for James O'Hara and said, ``Is that you, Jem?" He replied, ``No, it's John."  I had not seen John before; I gave him eighteen shillings to go to some public house and get half a gallon of rum; they all three asked us to go up to the house, which we did and Michael O'Brien saddled a horse and went away to get the rum; I had then a silver watch of which I had robbed Mr. Robert Crawford on the first day of the races; John O'Hara asked me for it, and I gave it to him, telling him, at the same time, that he had better mind what he was about, as Mr. Crawford, from whom I had taken it, lived at a very short distance off; he said ``Never mind, I'll take care of it, he'll never see it again;"  Webber took out a watch [?] which we robbed Mr. Aird of Parramatta, on the same morning that we robbed Mr. Crawford, and gave it to James O'Hara, telling him that he had robbed Mr. Aird of it; Webber had also given another watch to James O'Hara, at our first visit to the house which we took from a butcher, whose name I do not know, at Emu Plains; when James O'Hara got the second watch he returned the first to Webber saying that it was too remarkable to keep; there was also a hat taken from Mr. Aird, which Webber gave to James O'Hara; it was a black beaver hat; a hat belonging to Mr. Crawford was given to John O'Hara by me; I also gave James O'Hara a sovereign; the second time we went to O'Brien's Webber and I lived in the house four or five days and when we were going away they gave us [?] and provisions to take with us; after this, we went there again very frequently, and on one occasion we brought with us a gold watch which we took from Mr. Mowatt, and which I gave to Michael O'Brien, who said he would sell it and get out of the country with the money; I also gave him a black coat belonging to Mr. Mowatt, a Leghorn bonnett, also taken from Mr. Mowatt; was given to Mary O'Hara, and the serge lining of the coat, which we cut out to Mary Ann O'Hara; the females were present when we told O'Brien that these things were taken from a gentleman whom we had robbed on the Liverpool-road, but whose name we did not then know;  I think we remained at O'Brien's, that time, two or three days; whenever we went there, we remained some days;  When we robbed McQuade's cart, we took a great number of pieces of prints and calico; we took part of them to Michael O'Brien's, and left the remainder in the bush on Dr. Harris's estate; we robbed the cart on the Windsor road; we robbed Mr. McLeay's cart on the other side of Liverpool, on the Cowpasture road, on a Saturday morning, but I cannot remember how long ago;  It was before harvest; we took two bolts of canvas from the cart, and brought it to O'Brien's, where, I believe, it was cut up and made into bags, as there are some bags at the police office, which I think were made of the same canvass; we also robbed Mr. Henry Hart's cart, before Christmas last, and took a chest of tea, some rum and tobacco.

Cross-examined by Dr. Wardell - Did you ever see this before?  [holding up the pardon.]

A.-  I saw it yesterday in Court.

Q.-  You never knew it was in existence before?

A.-  No.

Q.-  How!  no?

A.-  I believe it was read to me in the cell.

Q.-  You stated just now that you never saw it till yesterday.  Who read it to you?

A.-  The Sheriff, I believe.

Q.-  What did he tell you?

A.-  I forget.

Q.-  Can't you remember the purport of what he said?

A.-  I cannot.

Q.-  You can't?  Perhaps it was a matter of perfect indifference to you, when he came to the cell and read it to you, eh?

A.-  I can't give you an answer to that.

Q.-  What! can't you say whether you cared about it, or whether it was a matter of perfect indifference to you?

A.-  Yes, I cared about it.

Q.-  You cared.  What made you care?

A.-  When that was read to me I thought my life was saved.

Q.  -  Don't you think you would have been much safer if he had left it with you?  What made you think yourself safe when it was read to you?

A.  -  It was read to me as a respite, I believe.

Q.  -  Only as a respite?

A.  I forget what passed in the cell, in regard of that.

Q.  -  What! every word that passed, independent of the reading?

A.  -  I don't remember.

Q.  -  You can't remember a single word that was said when this instrument was read to you?

A.  -  What I understood when it was read was, that I was free from all the robberies I had committed in the country.

Q.  -  All?

A.  -  Yes., that I was free from all.

Q.  -  You understood this to release you from all the crimes you had committed?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  Did you hear this read to you?  ``Whereas the said John Walmsley was tried and convicted on two charges of highway robbery and housebreaking."  Do you remember that?

A.  -  I do.

Q.  -  ``I do hereby grant him a free and unconditional pardon for the crimes of which he has been so convicted."  You see your pardon only extends to two crimes.  What do you think now?  What are the favourable circumstances here mentioned which obtained you a pardon?

A.  -  By the information I gave.

Q.  -  Yes:  In consequence of promising to give information, and evidence against the prisoners at the bar, among others, you obtained this pardon?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  Now, if you had been told, after you received this pardon, that unless you gave evidence against the prisoners at the bar, you would not be released, would you have given evidence?

A.  -  I had no promises made to me.

Q.  -  No: but did you not thoroughly understand what this was done for?  If you had said you had no evidence to give, do you think you would have got this pardon?

A.  -  I don't know, Sir.

Q.  -  Come, be honest for once in your life if you can.  It's a very plain question: never mind which way it cuts.  If you had stated, when the pardon was read to you, that you had, or would give no evidence against these or any other persons, do you think you would have got it?

A.  -  I don't think I should.

Q.  -  No; you don't think you should.  Then, in plain language, you were bribed, or encouraged by a pardon to give evidence?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  And you understood that the pardon covered all your sins?

A.  -  No, not my sins.

Q.  -  Oh! not your sins; but you understood it to cover all your crimes?

A.  -  I did.

Q.  -  And you understood that it was granted to encourage you to give evidence?  -  Eh?  -  Come, you answered the question before; don't stumble now.  You understood so?  -  Say yes or no, I don't care which answer.

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  --- Yes: and you expected it to relieve you from the consequences of all your crimes?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  Then the inducements to give evidence, in your opinion was that you were to be saved from further prosecutions, and not to be hanged on the convictions already obtained?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  Well, now, that's a condition, and if you did not perform it you were not to receive the benefit of the pardon, or of being secured from further prosections?

A.  -  I suppose not.

Q.  -  Then, in fact, you come forward now under these well-understood promises?  You understand the bargain, and expect to have all further prosecutions against you stopped, for giving evidence here?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  You were not tried for the robbery of Mr. Crawford?

A.  -  No.

Q.  -  Nor for robbing McQuade's cart?

A.  -  No.

Q.  -  Nor for robbing Mr. Nowatt?

A.  -  No.

Q.  -  Nor for murdering Mr. Clements?

A.  -  I did not murder him.

Q.  -  Well, for shooting at him?

A.  -  I did not shoot at him.

Q.  -  Who was it that shot Clement's?

A.  -  I'll not answer that.

Dr. Wardell submitted to the Court that the witness was bound to answer the question.  He had already admitted quite enough to hang him, and could not be placed in a worse situation by any answer he could give.

The learned Judge ruled that the witness was not bound to answer questions relating to any offences he might have committed, except those for which he had obtained a pardon.

Cross-examination continued - Well, who was it that shot at him, as you heard?

A.-  I'll not answer.

Q.-  What!  Are you stomached at last?  Why are you afraid of answering that?

A.-  I'll not answer any thing about it.

Q.  -  Suppose you had been told, before you came into Court, that, although you gave evidence against the prisoners at the bar, you would still be tried for other robberies, would you have given evidence? - Would you have split?

A.-  I would.  If a man has got it in him he will do it.

Q.  -  You swear, although, after you had admitted all these crimes, you had been told that you would be tried, and that what you said would be taken as evidence against yourself, still you would have given the testimony you have given here to-day?

A.  -  I would.

Q.  -  You would?  Though you promised to give evidence, in order to save your neck, when you got this pardon?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  How did your acquaintance commence with all these people at the bar?

A.  -  Through Donohoe, who lived in the neighbourhood.

Q.  -  Come, out with it:  Was it not a robbery in O'Brien's house that first brought you acquainted?

A.  -  It was not a robbery, for we took nothing.

Q. -  Was it not your intention to commit a robbery ?  Donohoe committed a robbery the first time he was at the house?

A.  -  No.

Q.  -  He tried?

A.  The only thing we went there for was a little flour, which was given to us.

Q.  --- And if it had not, you would have helped yourselves?

A.  -  It was given to us by O'Brien and the two girls.

Q.  -  The first time they saw you there?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  Suppose they had refused you, would you have taken it?

A.  -  There is no doubt we would have had something to eat.

Q.  -  How many were there of you at that time?

A.  -  Three.

Q.  -  Well armed, no doubt?  The women were no match for you?

A.  There was no match in the case.

Q. -  Yes, you got it without a fight?

A.  -  There was no occasion for a fight.

Q.  -  Are there many houses in the neighbourhood?

A.  -  Yes, a good many.

Q.  -  How near, and in what direction?

A.  -  There is one within a hundreds rods.

Q.  -  That's about a quarter of a mile.  Is the bush pretty thick between?

A.  -  No; about O'Brien's house there is clear ground.

Q.  How far off from the house is the thick brush?

A.  -  I never measured it.

Q.  -  Well, what is the next nearest house?  Is it one, two, or three miles off?

A.  -  It is not a mile off.

Q.  -  What is the next nearest house?

A.  -  I don't know any thing about it.

Q.  -  I suppose there would have been time for you to have murdered all the people at O'Brien's, and to plunder the house, before assistance could come?

A.  -  We had no necessity to do so.

Q.  --- How many do you say there were of you?

A.  --- Three.

Q.  --- How many fire-arms had you.

A.  -  A fowling-piece and a brace of pistols each.

Q.  -  Quite enough to scare the whole lot of them, if you found them together, at any time?

A.  -  We were not.

Q.  -  You were not?  -  Suppose they had offered any resistance, what would have been the consequence?

A.  -  They might have taken us treacherously at any time; our arms were often in the bed-room, and we in the kitchen.

Q.  -  But you always took good care to be provided against a surprise?  -  You were never afraid of being taken in?

A.  -  Not there.

Q.  -  But what would have been the consequence to them if they atrempted [sic] it?  -  You had the reputation of being men who would not stick at murder, had you not?

A. -  Yes, I believe we had.

Q.  -  Well, suppose these people had attempted to take you by surprise, and the attempt failed, would you have tried to ``serve them out?"

A.  -  No, we would not.

Q.  -  That's perfectly true, is it! - You expect us to believe that?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  You have no revenge in your disposition, then?

A.  -  None whatever.

Q.  -  What made you take to the bush?

A.  -  I was led away by another man.

Q.  -  By whom?

A.  -  By some men from Plomer's gang.

Q.  -  Oh! you were in Plomer's gang before you took the bush?  That's the last of all gangs you arrive at?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  Now, would you not like to ``serve out" Plomer for the way he treated you?

A.  -  No, I would not.

Q.  -  What induced the parties at the bar to treat you so kindly?  -  You took every thing there; what was that for?

A.  -  We gave it to them out of charity.

Q.  -  What!  You put your neck in a halter, out of charity?  And is that the best answer you can give.

A.  -  If we had not such friends as them, when in the bush, we could not have reigned so long.

Q.  -  Were the other persons to whom you gave part of the plunder, equally objects of charity?

A.  -  I don't know.

Q.  -  Who is the John Hughes you have spoken of[?]

A.  -  He lives at a place called ``Big Douel."

Q.  -  So the first time, you saw the women at the bar, they invited you to bring your plunder to them, and you brought it, out of charity?

A.  -  Yes.

Q.  -  You swear that?

A.  -  Yes, we took them to be friends.

Dr. Wardell here submitted to the Court, that the witness was clealry [sic] incompetent, as he was giving evidence under a conditional promise.

Mr. Justice Stephen asked the witness -  Do you conceive from the wording of the pardon which has been read to you, that you are expected to give evidence against the prisoners, or that you are merely to make a full disclosure of the truth, as far as you know, whether for or against?

A.-  I understand that I am expected to tell the truth.

Dr. Wardell - you were in the condemned cells when that pardon was read to you?

A.-  Yes.

Q.  -  And, instead of expecting the Sheriff with a pardon, you expected Jack Ketch with a halter?

A.  -  Not then.

Q.  -  But the day was fixed for you execution?

A.  -  Yes, but I did not expect that pardon when I gave information.

Q.  -  Who was out the longest in the bush?

A.  -  I don't know.

Q.  -  Who sent his compliments to somebody?

A.  -  I don't know what you mean.

Q.  -  Who was it sent a message to Mr. McLeay, to say that, if his neck was saved, he wouldsplit?

A.  -  I did not.

Q.  -  Well, who was out the longest?

A.  -  Webber.

Q.  -  Aye, I thought so!  And when you got a hint of that message having been sent, you thought it then high time to make these disclosures.  Was not that it?

Dr. Wardell again submitted that the witness was incompetent, on the authority of a case reported in 2 Carrington and Payne, p. 62, where it was laid down as a general rule that the Judges would not admit an accomplice to give evidence, if it appeared that he was charged with any other felony than that in which he was to be a witness.

Mr. Justice Stephen was of opinion that the authority cited by Dr. Wardell merely referred to a rule adopted by the Judges, with respect to the discretion exercised by them in admitting the testimony of an accomplice, and did not alter the law respecting the competency of an admitted approver.  An accomplice was a competent witness, and the jury might act upon his testimony, even though unsupported, if they believed it.

Thomas Quigley - I am a serjeant in the mounted police; on or about the 14th of January last, I went to the premises of Michael O'Brien, and saw the three female prisoners there; I was with a party under the command of Captain Forbes, who ordered me to search the dwelling and premises; I did so, and took such articles as he pointed out in charge; I took two canvas bed-tickens, one old black coat, one gown, three bed curtains, one pistol, a fowling-piece, and eight canvas sacks, all of which I delivered at the police-office at Sydney, having previously marked them, in order that I might identify them again; I did not see Michael O'Brien in the house when I went there; I saw other property in the house, but took nothing but what Captain Forbes pointed out; the articles now before the Court are the same I took away; I am not certain that Mrs. O'Brien was present, but I am certain the other female prisoners were; they said the property belonged to O'Brien.

Benjamin Hodghen, Chief Constable of Windsor, said, on the 17th of January last I searched the house of the prisoner, O'Brien; I saw Mary O'Hara, Mary Ann O'Hara, Mary O'Brien, and, I think, Michael Cantwell, there; the first things which attracted my notice were several patters of prints lying on the floor, and, upon searching the house, in a bonnet-box under the bed, I found a leghorn bonnet; I enquired of the younger female prisoners where they got it, and they said the old man, O'Brien, had brought it from Sydney; I then went into the kitchen, and noticed a white serge petticoat on Mary O'Hara; after that I returned to the bed-room where I found the bonnet, and after some further search, I found, in a small basket, some remnants of serge which appeared to have been cut off a coat or cloak; I put them back into the basket, and then proceeded to Windsor for a warrant to apprehend the parties, one of the girls being then so unwell that I did not think proper to remove her unless by direction of a magistrate; before leaving the house, however, I called Mary Ann O'Hara, who was ill, aside, and, in the presence of a constable, I told her it was evident that the bushrangers were in the habit of coming to the house, and to tell me the truth if it was so or not; she said she never saw them at the house but once, and that was when they took the flour away; I said, ``When did you see them then?"  She replied, ``At a slip pannel [sic] just at the back of the house;"  I asked her if she knew them, and she said she did; I asked who they were? she said ``Walmsley and Webber;" I asked her if they were armed, and she said they were; I asked her how they were armed, and she said each had a gun and a brace of pistols; I then enquired what they said to her; she said they first enquired if the constables had been there; I asked who had brought all the prints there; she said Michael O'Brien had brought in seven pieces of print and one piece of calico; after this I proceeded to Windsor, and, on the following day, returned with a warrant to apprehend them; on my return I found that the two girls had been taken away by the police, and also the bonnet and box; I then made a farther search, and found a coarse Indian quilt, made of blue stuff, three new calico shirts, six links of a steel watch-chain, one white serge petticoat, a quantity of white thread, a roll of narrow white ribbon, a new India table-cloth, a new calico shirt, a pair of men's cotton stockings, marked ``W. Croft," three pairs of woollen stockings, a pair of flannel drawers, a new red India print gown, seven new pairs of men's riding gloves, a small fancy box, with a watch paper in it, four gold brooches, and an old paper box, with a tooth-pick and several other small articles in it, all of which I took to Sydney, and delivered over to the custody of the police; after this, in consequence of information I received from Walmsley, I searched Cain'' farm, on Doctor Harris' estate, and found, in the bush, seventeen pieces of print, similar to that I saw at O'Brien's, and some other articles.

Cross-examined by Dr. Wardell - When I returned the second day, the bonnet was gone, but I found the serge petticoat behind the door; I believe one of the girls took the bonnet to wear; I did not see here wear it, but I have no doubt she did; I held out no threats or promises to Mary Ann O'Hara before I had the conversation with her about the bushrangers.

By Mr. Therry - In the interval between my first visit to O'Brien's, there was opportunity enough afforded to have removed any property which they were afraid of being discovered.

John Skinner, assistant chief constable of Sydney, said Mary and Mary Ann O'Hara were given into my custody by the chief constable, about three or four months ago; I took the bonnet now before the Court from the head of Mary O'Hara; it has been in the custody of the police ever since; the hat now produced I took from the head of Michael O'Brien.

Michael McQuade - I am a general dealer and live at Windsor; in August last, I loaded two carts in Sydney to send to Windsor; in one of the carts there were a puncheon of rum, a crate of English delft, fifty pieces of India print, five pieces of calico, and other articles; James Quinn, a servant of mine, proceeded in charge of the carts; I received information that the carts had been robbed, and I afterwards saw some print, answering the description of mine, at Windsor, and also at the police office at Sydney; the pieces of print now shown to me are of a similar kind and appearance to those I put into the carts.

Cross-examined by Mr. Terry.  The print is very common; there is nothing remarkable about it.

The several other persons named in the indictment, excepting Mr. McLeay, whose carter gave evidence, were then called, and detailed the circumstances of the robberies committed on them by Walmsley and Webber; the witnesses also identified various articles of property found in the possession of the prisoners, as part of the articles taken from them by the robbers.

At an advanced hour in the evening, the learned Judge summed up the evidence, telling the jury that there was nothing whatever to affect tho prisoner, Cantwell, and that he, at all events, was entitled to an acquittal.

The jury found Cantwell - Not guilty; the other prisoners - Guilty.

 

Forbes C.J., Stephen and Dowling JJ, 27 June 1831

Source: Sydney Herald, 11 July 1831

Michael O'Brien, Mary O'Brien, James O'Hara, John O'Hara, Mary O'Hara, and Mary Ann O'Hara, were placed at the bar to receive sentence, when Mr. R. Therry, in arrest of judgment, argued that the principal evidence upon which these parties were convicted, was an incompetent evidence; the pardon under which it was contended he was a competent witness was valid, the Governor having power to grant only conditional pardons; secondly, that no attainder was set out in the pardon according to the authority laid down in Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown, thirdly, according to the practice of the Judges in England, as laid down by Judge Park at the Oxford Spring Circuit, in 1826, that the Judges will not admit an accomplice to give evidence if charged with any other offence than that on the trial of which he was to be a witness.  Carrington on Criminal Law, page 62; fourthly, a non-compliance with the Act of Parliament, as Walmsley had never for one moment since the pardon had been granted, been a free agent as required by the Act.

Mr. Williams followed on the same side.

The Court then directed the next case to be argued, as some of the points were similar.

 

Forbes C.J., Stephen and Dowling JJ, 28 June 1831

Source: Sydney Herald, 11 July 1831

Michael O'Brien, Mary O'Brien, James O'Hara, John O'Hara, Mary O'Hara, and Mary Ann O'Hara, were then placed at the bar.  On the points raised, the Court observed, that the pardon removed all objections as to the competency of the witness, and they saw no circumstance to restrain them from passing sentence upon the prisoners, which was, that they should be each transported for the term of 14 years.

Notes

[1 ] See also Sydney Herald, 20 June 1821.  On the point of law, see also R. v. Farrell, Dingle and Woodward, 1831; R. v. Smith, 1831.

Published by the Division of Law, Macquarie University