|
[murder - drunkenness, defence of - Gundaroo]
R.
v. Bradley
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Stephen J., 5 November 1840
Source: Sydney Herald, 6 November 1840
Enoch Bradley, late of Yass, was indicted for the
murder of George Woodman, at Gunderoo on the 7th September last,
by shooting him with a pistol in the left side. It appeared that
the deceased was the landlord of the “Travellers Home” public house
at Gunderoo and on the day laid in the indictment, the prisoner
who was returning from his master’s sheep station about three miles
from the “Travellers Home,” met with an acquaintance, and they both
went into the deceased’s house and had some drink, when the prisoner
asked Woodman to give him some dinner, which the deceased refused,
telling him that he ought to go home and get his dinner, as the
house was not far off. The prisoner said he was at the sheep station,
and it was a far way to go, on which the deceased told the prisoner
to go about his business, as he did not want to have any thing to
say to him, as he was a government man, but he subsequently gave
him some dinner; after the prisoner had partaken of it, he said
to the deceased, “so you refused me my dinner did you,” the deceased
said “Yes I did refuse you,” upon which the prisoner replied “well
I hope the Devil will refuse your soul in hell” and kept walking
up and down for sometime, and about ten minutes after uttering the
above expression he went up to the deceased, stooped a little, put
his hand into his breast, pulled out a pistol and shot the deceased
in the left side; he instantly fell on the ground and called out
“oh Bradley, Bradley what have I done that you have shot me,” he
was then carried to his bed and expired in about a couple of hours;
as soon as the prisoner had shot him he threw the pistol from him
and said I have shot the man and I am willing to die for him; he
shortly after asked to have the pistol returned, in order that he
might load it to shoot himself, and then left the place.
In the examination of this
witness in this case it appeared that when the case was enquired
into before the magistrates at Yass, that there was a general inclination
among all the witnesses to screen the prisoner, and it was not until
the magistrates had threatened to cancel the tickets-of-leave held
by the principal witnesses, that they could be induced to speak
the truth. The prisoner in defence denied all knowledge of the
murder, and alledged that the first account he heard of it was from
his master, who sent for him from the sheep run, and accused him
of having shot the deceased. The Jury found the prisoner guilty.
Mr. Carter prayed the judgment
of the court on the prisoner, who on being called on for what he
had to say why judgment should not be passed upon him, in an impudent
manner said, all I’ve to say is, that that I am innocent and its
a made up job against me by three of the witnesses.
His Honor in feeling and
impressive address commented on the enormity of the crime, committed
by the prisoner, which was, he was sorry to say perpetrated by him
under the influence of liquor, but this instead of being a mitigating
circumstance, was in the eye of religion, reason, and the law, an
aggravation of the offence and as he was convinced the act of which
the prisoner had been found guilty was a cool-blooded deliberate
and attrocious murder he should certainly represent it as such to
the Governor, he then admonished the prisoner to prepare for a future
state as he could hold out no hopes of mercy to him on this side
the grave. He then passed sentence of death on in the usual form.
The prisoner heard his sentence unmoved and after turning to enter
the case he turned round again and pointing to the witness-box exclaimed
these are the men that did the murder.
His Honor called on two
of the witnesses named Jackson and Mason, both ticket-of-leave holders,
and stated to them that as they had that day in his opinion [not]
spoken the truth he would to punish them for their conduct before
the magistrate order their tickets to be cancelled for twelve months
respectively.
|