Rectangle

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

Published by the Division of Law     Macquarie University

mulaw logo

 

 

[forgery - sentencing discretion]

R. v. Wilks

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Forbes C.J., 14 November 1834

Source: Sydney Gazette, 15 November 1834[1]

 

Joseph Wilks was indicted for falsely forging and counterfeiting a certain order for the payment of £7, at Concord, on the 5th of October 1833, with intent to defraud Richard Loseby.  The information contained three counts, merely varying the charge in its legal form so as to meet the several exigences [sic] of the case.

The prisoner addressed the court, and stated that when he disclosed the particulars attending the late horrid murder of Priest, otherwise Chapman, he was then in confinement under the present charge, and was given to understand that no prosecution would be pressed against him; but the Attorney General denied the assertion, and the learned Judge ordered the trial to proceed.

Richard Loseby being sworn, said I am a publican at Bong Bong; I know the prisoner; in October 1833, he came to my house; I am also a dealer; the prisoner purchased some spirits, and calico from me; he tendered me in payment an order for £7, purporting to be drawn by one James Nowland, overseer to Captain Bunn; Capt. B. was then alive, and the order was drawn upon him; this is the order; the prisoner endorsed the order in my presence, in the name of John White which he called himself; the prisoner carried goods away with him to the amount of £5 10s., and by my suggestion, left the rest of the property he had purchased of me, at my house; he said he had just been married, and he wanted the things for his wife; I enclosed the order with others to Mr. Comer, a publican, at Sydney; it was detained as a forgery; I afterwards saw it at Capt. Bunn's house who pronounced it to be a forgery, and refused to pay it; I lost £5 10s. by this transaction, being the amount of the things which the prisoner took away with him.

The witness was examined by the prisoner with considerable shrewdness, and put several questions to him, as to whether he had not been in the habit of preferring false charges of forgery against other persons, and whether he had not instigated several others to perjure themselves, in order to gratify his revenge, but they were all strenuously denied.

James Nowland being sworn, said I was overseer to the late Captain Bunn, at his estate, in the county of Saint Vincent; my orders were paid; I have seen the prisoner once as he was passing our station on a journey; this order is not in my handwriting; I never authorised any person to draw it for me; I know of no other James Nowland, overseer to George Bunn, in the colony; I know of no John White in Capt. Bunn's service; there is a Mr. John White residing at Bong Bong; I never had any dealings with him, and never saw him write.

This was case for the prosecution.  For the defence, the prisoner called upon

Lieut. Wm. F. Harvey, 17th regiment, who being sworn, said I cannot swear that I would not believe the witness Loseby on his oath.  (The prisoner wished to put questions to Mr. Harvey as to his opinion of particular acts of the witness Loseby, but they were over-ruled by the Court, as irrelevant.  The learned Judge read from the text book, the law of evidence upon this subject.)

Private Thomas Gill, 17th regt. Being sworn, said I know Richard Losely; I cannot say whether I would not believe him on his oath; he never hurt me that I know of.

The prisoner called upon John Mangan, who he stated was on board the hulk Phoenix, convicted of forgery, but on enquiry it turned out that he had been sent off to Norfolk Island.

The prisoner in his defence stated that he had been instrumental in bringing to light and defeating a conspiracy against the Military detachment at Bong Bong, in which the witness Loseby was principally engaged, and that it was on this account that the prosecutor was induced to prefer the present false charge against him from motives of revenge.  The learned Judge having charged the jury, they, without retiring, found a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, who was immediately sentenced to be transported to a penal settlement for the term of his natural life.

The prisoner observed, by being sent to a penal settlement, his life would be endangered, in consequence of the evidence he had formerly given in the case of murder before alluded to; and the learned Judge said that as he was aware of the fact pressed on his notice, and as there might be something in the apprehension expressed by the prisoner, he would cause the circumstance to be represented to the government, but sitting as he did, he had not other course to pursue than to award the sentence of the law.

 

Notes

[1] See also Sydney Herald, 17 November 1834; Australian, 18 November 1834.  The other case Wilks refers to is R. v. Mills, Chapman and Chapman, 1834.