R v Jones, 1807

Thomas Jones was next indicted on a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury: the fact with which he stood charged in the indictment having taken place before a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction on the 17th of March last, during a trial for rape, with which John Burke stood charged before the said Court; the present prosecution being grounded on an answer given by Thomas Jones, now at the bar, to a question that was then put to him by the said John Burke, to the following effect; viz. Did you not, on the Sunday after the transaction had taken place (meaning the crime with which he the said Burke stood charged) send Mary Cox and Mary McDonald to me, to require that I should give up a note of hand I held of yours for £7 10s. in which case you would drop all further prosecution against me; or otherwise that you would proceed in the said prosecution:- to which question the prisoner at the bar had answered that he did not.

Mary Cox deposed, that she lived with Jones at the time; and that in consequence of the transaction between Burke and herself, Jones had determined to part with her; that Jones said to her on the Sunday evening stated, "since Burke has been the occasion of your being turned out of house and home you may go to him, and see what he will do for you;" that Mary McDonald went with her to Burke; but that she did not mention anything about the note to him until he himself had of his own accord promised to give it to her; but that he did not do so.

Mary McDonald deposed that Jones requested her to accompany Mary Cox, the foregoing evidence, to the house of Burke, and endeavour to get the name from him; at the same time promising that if she succeeded in doing so, he would give her ₤3 out of it.

Edward Kelly deposed to the truth of the testimony given by the last evidence; and John Burke deposed, that both the women came to him and told him, that if he would give up the note and forgive the debt of 2l. 10s. due to him from Jones, the prosecution should be dropped.

Here the evidence closed; and the prisoner being put on his defence combatted the testimony that had been adduced against him; but without being able to affect any of the material points. The question upon which this prosecution was set up he declared his utter misconception of when put to him before the former Court; and that this misconception of the question had originated in the circumstance of the note which Burke then held having been drawn in favour of Brien Riley, and not of himself; wherefore he had misunderstood the question, from the idea, that as he had never granted a note in Burke’s favour, so it was not possible that Burke could hold a note of his, all the various penalties attached to the crime of perjury you defence likewise reminded the Court of; which having cleared, upon re open he was found guilty; and sentenced to stand in the pillory for one hour; his ears to be nailed thereto; and afterwards to be transported 7 years.

[1] Although the use of the pillory came to an end in England in 1815 with the introduction of the Pillory Abolition Act (56 Geo. 3 c.138), Woods reminds us that the use of the pillory continued in New South Wales during the 1820s and 1830s. (See R. v. Charlton, 1825; R. v. Rogers, 1826; R. v. Cartwright, 1833; R. v. Stokes, 1834, all online and cited in Woods at 129 note 55). It was not until after the major law reforms of England in the late 1830s that pillory abolition laws were formally adopted in the colony (see Pillory [Final] Abolition Act 1 Vic. c. 23).