R v Gregson, 1837

The whole of the proceedings on the prosecution against Mr. Gregson being now closed by the sentence and incarceration of Mr. Gregson, we are now in a condition to lay before our readers the full report of the proceedings, as far as is necessary, to enable the highest earthly tribunal, public opinion, to pronounce final judgment on the conduct and character of the whole parties concerned, namely, the prosecutor - the defendant - the witnesses - the counsel - the jury - and the Judge.

Our readers are already acquainted with the objection taken by Mr. Gregson against a jury of the officers of the 21st Regiment, as also that His Excellency had on application inserted a list of half-pay officers on the precept, and how Mr. Gregson’s objection was overruled by the Judge.

On the prosecution of Henry Arthur - this case was tried before the following jury:- Captain Robert Kellsall; Captain Charles Lonsdale; Captain Angus McKenzle; Captain McKay; Lieutenant Wrixon; Lieutenant Ainsley; and Lieutenant Munday.

Mr. Solicitor General conducted the case for the prosecutor - he addressed the Jury nearly as follows: Gentlemen of the Jury, “this is an indictment for an assault committed by defendant on plaintiff, by horse-whipping him in the public street. In the first place, gentlemen, I shall lay before you the facts and circumstances out of which this prosecution arose, and I shall endeavour to do so, without the least coloring, and after you are put in possession of all the facts of the case, I call upon you to pronounce your calm and deliberate verdict. Gentlemen, the circumstances, as will be proved to you, are as follows: - the night before the assault was committed, both the parties, plaintiff and defendant, were at the theatre, when from circumstances occurring while there, the prosecutor’s friend found himself compelled to seek, what is termed, gentlemanly satisfaction from the defendant for which purpose, the plaintiff saw the friend of the defendant, and from other circumstances, arising out of that interview, a public notice was made, in which the defendant, was branded with epithets, which I admit, were most grating to any person who had the least pretentions to the character of a gentleman. This notification signed by the friend of the plaintiff, who had sent him to the defendant. Now strange to say, the defendant thought proper to identify plaintiff, with the publication of this attack upon himself, with which it will be proved in evidence, he had no more to do than one of you had, and although a copy of the document may be produced before you to day, in the hand writing of the prosecutor, still on this position I stand - I say, the prosecutor was not identified in the affair, and I am confidence, that no ingenuity however great that may be used on the other side, can by any possibility remove me from it - and yet, Gentlemen, strange to say, without even knowing, whether the plaintiff identified himself with the publication or not, you will find the defendant goes up - runs up I believe, in the middle of Macquarie Street, to the plaintiff when he was in company with his friend, and says, “do you identify yourself with Mr. Jellicoe in that placard,” and without even waiting for an answer to the question, committed the assault, now complained of. It will also be proved to you, that a few minutes after, the defendant was taken in custody under a warrant. That after he was in the custody of the constable, he said to the plaintiff, You are a d___d scoundrel, you belong to a white feathered family, and several other most insulting epithets. Now, Gentlemen, I invite them on the other side, to go into the whole merits of the case, and when they are before you, I am confident your verdict will be such, as to teach the defendant, that such gross outrages against the public peace will not be looked upon by you with impunity.

“We copy the above with the report of the evidence from the Colonial Times, both corresponding very neatly with our notes and our recollection. But in connection with our remarks on this case, and with the ulterior proceedings for which our notes are reserved, we entreat the careful attention of the reader to the passages marked in Italics throughout, and compare them with the affidavits of Mr. Gregson (page 467) Messrs. Kermode, Anstey, and Stevens.”

Henry Arthur sworn, deposed. - I remember being at the theatre on the 31st October last, in company with another gentleman, in consequence of what passed with Mr. Gregson there, I saw Mr. Kermode the next morning; after I saw Mr. Kermode such a document as this paper was printed and stuck up in the stocks, and signed by Mr. Jellicoe. I remember a placard being published reflecting on Mr. Gregson on Tuesday; and I remember seeing the defendant on Wednesday morning; I was in company with Mr. Jellicoe near the gate of the Government house; I saw Mr. Gregson coming hastily towards me with a whip in his hand; he came up, and while I leaned on the arm of Mr. Jellicoe, he said, “do you identify yourself, Mr. Arthur, with that placard of Mr. Jellicoe,” and before he had completed the sentence; he struck me a blow across the back with a hunting whip, - or a bullock whip with a lash; I had not replied when defendant struck me - I swear it; this was instantly followed by another blow; Mr. Jellicoe had dropped a stick, I stopped and picked it up and struck Mr. Gregson in the face; while I was stooping, he struck me again on the back; after I had struck him the constables came up and separated us; the constables took him away instantly; on the way Mr. Gregson turned round and said “you are a damned infernal coward, you are one of the family, you are a white feather, and I have now had the satisfaction of thrashing you both.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gregson. - I swear that I did not admit that I was a party to that placard, and I had no bad feeling towards you; we were not on speaking terms; you were sitting in the Saloon at the Theatre when we came in; no notice was taken by either party; I had dined at the Macquarie Hotel that day; I was quite sober and did not swagger about at all that evening; I did not go out of the Saloon and return again almost immediately; when I first came into the Saloon, I went to the fire place; I did not go into the passage and have some conversation with Mr. Jellicoe; I spoke to a lady in the Saloon; I might have then gone into the passage and returned with my friend; I am not aware of any offensive observation made either to or at you; I recollect asking my friend when he was going to return up the country; he said, “I have two or three matters to settle with some blackguards before I can go out of town;” I did not, when I first entered, say, “here are two writers in the Colonist;” I did not consider myself a party to what took place at the Theatre.

Mr. Gregson here enquired of Mr. Arthur if he had not been several times placed in the watch-house for drunkenness.

The Solicitor General objected to its being answered, or any question that would tend to criminate the witness.

Mr. Gregson said the question was asked for the purpose of shewing what sort of a person was in the witness box, and how far his veracity might be depended on.

Mr. Solicitor General did not consider that Mr. Arthur was one whose veracity should be called in question.

Mr. Gregson doubted it very much, and he would shew he had reason so to do be, before he had done, if he was permitted.

The Solicitor General could not see what his having been put in the watch-house could have to do with his veracity.

His Honor stated he understood the question was put for the purpose of shewing the witness not worthy of being believed on his oath.

Mr. Gregson said that it was of the utmost importance to him to show out of this witness’s own mouth that he was a drunken dissipated, and quarrelsome man of a most overbearing and irascible temper, and one very likely to incite to commit a breach of the peace, and added I wish merely to shew the Court and the Jury the description of person who now stands in that box, and tells you he has been horsewhipped.

His Honor decided, that after the very great lengths he had permitted the plaintiff to go in opening the case, he did not see that he could shut out the defendant from pursuing the same course, and allowed the defendant to ask how often Mr. Arthur had been in the watchhouse, but at the same time he said Mr. Arthur was not bound to answer.

Mr. Gregson here referred to some legal authority relative to a witness being compelled to answer such questions, for he maintained, that unless he was permitted to show the character of the witness, he should ultimately suffer in the estimation of the respectable Jury he saw before him, and in the estimation of the public also.

Cross-examination resumed. - I have been continued in the watch-house on a charge of drunkeness, but I was innocent of the charge; I do not recollect whether I was convicted; I never was wheeled about the streets of Launceston in a wheelbarrow in a beastly state of intoxication; I was quite sober when I came with my friend’s message; I had no drink after I left the Theatre; when I came to Mr. Abbott’s I swear it was not two o’clock; my friend did not say to me, “no, no, Arthur, you are not a proper person to carry the message.” I swear he did not to the best of my recollection; I swear he did not say he would get another person; I swear you did not say I was acting like a bully when I came to Mr. Abbott’s; you said, you wondered I should come when I had been so lately posted as a coward, and said that you had no ill will towards me. I swear no hour was mentioned as not being a proper hour to name a friend; I don’t know if it is usual in points of honour to leave all to the friends. This is my hand-writing; about two hours after seeing Mr. Kermode I wrote this.” Mr. Kermode stated to me that Mr. Gregson would not meet Mr. Jellicoe, because he was a liar and a coward. That is a copy of the original. Mr. Jellicoe wrote the original; there five or six copies written; I did not go into Dr. Ross’s inner room;” I walked down to Dr. Ross’s when Mr. Jellicoe went to get them printed; I took no part in the publication whatever; I walked about the streets with Mr. Jellicoe while the placards were posting up. Mr. Kermode (shewing me this) said, “have you seen this;” I said “yes;” he then said, “you have got yourselves into a basket, and you will both be d___d well horsewhipped.” I went in company with Mr. Jellicoe to a gunsmith, to buy pistols after the placard was published: I cannot tell Mr. Jellicoe’s purpose in purchasing the pistols; they were small pistols. I presume they were bought to protect himself from you; I was not assured by Mr. Kermode that my friend had nothing to fear from you; I did not get the parties bound over to keep the peace; to the best of my recollection, I swear the sentry was not between us, when I was stooping to pick up the stick; I think he was on one side; you were not in the hands of the constables when I struck you, but they took hold of you immediately after; I was not aware that Mr. Kermode, as your friend, had demanded satisfaction from me for that insult; he did not say, he would horsewhip me; he never demanded satisfaction from me for that placard; he said you would not meet Mr. Jellicoe, but you would meet me; he wanted me to meet you, but I do not know for what; he might have said you would not meet me because I had been posted as a coward; no I beg pardon he did not say so; that (the placard in witness’s hand writing) is only a copy as a clerk would make a copy in an Attorney’s Office you told me I had been posted by Mr. George Stephen; I did not, in a loud bullying tone, demand satisfaction for my friend; you knocked Mr. Jellicoe against the wall at the Theatre; you did so because you conceived Mr. Jellicoe had called you a liar; Mr. Jellicoe did not call you a liar; you called him one, and knocked him down; you asked Mr. Jellicoe if he had told Mr. Cheyne, that he (Mr. Jellicoe) had called you out, and you refused to go, or any one else, he said he had not; you then got up and said you are a liar, and knocked him down. I swear you did not strike Mr. Jellicoe for calling you a liar; I was present when the assassin pistols were loaded; I was not the least alarmed for myself; I did not, but Mr. Jellicoe did propose to fight on foot or horseback; my objection to meet you was, because you had not given my friend satisfaction; Mr. Kermode told me, he would not leave me; I never thought of asking Mr. Kermode, why Mr. Gregson called me out.

William White examined. - I am a constable; I recollect the 3rd of November last, on the 2nd I received a warrant to apprehend Mr. Gregson; about 11 in the forenoon, I took Mr. Gregson in custody near the Government house gate, Mr. Arthur was there; I saw Mr Arthur and Mr. Jellicoe, coming down Macquarie street; I saw Mr. Gregson run across the road, seemingly from Mr. Abbott’s house; Mr. Gregson had a large hunting whip in his hand; he got hold of Mr. Arthur with the left hand, and started thrashing him with his right hand.[*]

Cross-examined - Mr. Arthur did not strike you while you were in custody; I did not see him strike you at all; you were laying on Mr. Arthur with all your might; Mr. A. could not have been stooping for his stick, for you had it in your hand, and I have it now; if Mr. Arthur had struck you I must have seen it, he could not have done so without my seeing it.

Henry Jellicoe examined. - I was in company, with plaintiff on the morning of the 3rd of November; I was walking with plaintiff down Macquarie street, near Government House gate; defendant crossed over, came up, and said, “Mr. Arthur, do you identify yourself with Mr. Jellicoe in that placard,” before plaintiff could reply defendant struck him with a whip on the shoulder; plaintiff then picked up my stock, and returned the blow; whilst plaintiff was picking it up; defendant struck him again; the constable then came up and took him in custody.

Cross-examined. - I think the constables did not come up until after the plaintiff had picked up the stick - I did stop near the little Emporium, and say, “No, Arthur, I will not mix you up in this business,” my reason was, Mr. Arthur being a Magistrate, I considered it an unpleasant transaction, and might be quietly put an end to.

Cross-examined. - I afterwards recollected the person I was going to ask was a magistrate; and I also thought I might as well ask one magistrate as another, I then asked plaintiff to be kind enough to act for me; we left the Macquarie Hotel together for the purpose of going to Mr. Gregson; my reason for saying what I did to the plaintiff was by no means on account of his being intoxicated, or because he was in any way mixed up with the fracas at the theatre, for he had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Gregson then addressed the Jury in his defence, but his delivery was so rapid and animated, evidently without preparation, that it was impossible for any reporter to follow. We intended to have given a full report of it as nearly as we could from recollection and the slight notes we took; but on reading the report to the Colonial Times, we found it in many respects so different from our own recollection that we resolved not to attempt it. We will therefore confine ourselves to the leading points on which he rested his defence.

He commenced by saying that he would not attempt to deny the fact that he had assaulted and horsewhipped the prosecutor; but he had not done so wantonly or maliciously, or without sufficient provocation at least to excuse, if not to justify the act, the prosecutor having committed the first breach of the peace by publishing an infamous placard applying the vilest epithets to the defendant, the provocation bring such as would in a civil action prevent the prosecutor from receiving any damages. He then shewed, by reference to the trial of Mr. Stuart for shooting Sir Alex Boswell, and some other cases, that even where the facts were clearly proved, the jury had a right to estimate the provocation against the assault and return a verdict of acquittal. He then related the whole narrative of the quarrel, from the meeting at the Theatre as we have already detailed it, and read Mr. Kermode’s printed statement, on coming to speak of the placard there referred to, his feelings became greatly agitated, he held the placard in his hand, and said to the following effect (for we cannot attempt to give his words,) “Look at this placard, gentlemen, and say, is it not a provocation sufficient to justify any assault? Which of you, gentlemen, would or could quietly submit to be so branded; had I instantly stabbed him to the heart, or shot him dead, would you not have returned a verdict of justifiable homicide? Could the consequences of this placard end with myself, I should have shewed it differently from what I do; but, gentlemen, consider that when I am dead, this infamous production of a cowardly scoundrel may, by some villain as base as himself, be raked up to disgrace my family by referring to their father as a being worthy of these atrocious epithets. Gentlemen, I appeal to you as men of honor, as military men, from whom society is apt to take its tone for honorable feelings, what would any of you do under such atrocious provocation? could you have proceeded more coolly, more deliberately than I did, I will prove to you that I saw this base slanderer with his friend proceeding through the streets of this Town, directing the sticking up of these atrocious placards; I avoided every thing that could lend to public outrage - I suppressed my feelings and used every inducement that a gentleman could make use of to bring the dastardly slanderer to act as a gentleman. In the first instance he sheltered himself behind the name of his friend, and would not wipe out what any gentleman would have felt as a stain on his own name. He then shelters himself behind this infamous Placard, he puts it forth as his shield, I had sent Mr. Kermode to him to offer him satisfaction (as my friend said I could not without compromising my character, meet his friend); having refused this offer, he with his friends put forth this placard within one hour then when an apology or satisfaction is demanded of him for this infamous, atrocious, diabolical slander and falsehood, he says - No! I cannot meet Mr. Gregson, for he has been posted!!! Yes, by him and his friend, who has been most unnecessarily brought before you to day; and after what I have seen of him this day, I will never again be the instrument of restoring to sobriety a man who had once forfeited the character of gentleman”. He then referred to the note which he sent by Mr. Kermode to Arthur, and the proceedings of the parties therein to refusing him apology or satisfaction, and then calling Mr. Champ out of bed to apprehend him in anticipation of the chastisement which Arthur merited and expected; and to protect himself against which, he purchased assassin pistols which he loaded and carried, one about his own person and his friend Jellicoe another. He then said, “I tried him in every way until I was satisfied that he had no pretensions left to the character of a gentleman; and finding that he had none I chastised him as was becoming his degraded character. Yes, gentlemen, I flogged him, not as I would horsewhip a man who had not proved himself void of all gentleman-like feeling, - no I flogged him as I would one of my hounds, and the coward took it more tamely than any house would have done; and now he comes to ask at your hands that you will find me guilty of an unjustifiable assault. Can you upon your honor, as gentlemen and soldiers, upon your oaths as jurors - can you say, that the flogging, which he has the shameless audacity to tell you he received, was unmerited and unjustifiable? Had any of you, gentlemen, been in my place, and not acted as I did would you not have been put out of the society of your brother officers? Yes, gentlemen, and had I tamely submitted to the slanders of that dastardly scoundrel, I should have forfeited my place in society which I trust I can prove to your satisfaction I never have disgraced.” He then recapitulated the strong points of his case, which are shewn in the affidavits, and cautioned the jury against being misled by the sarcasms or the twaddle of the ingenious Solicitor General. After a long and animated address to which we will not pretend to do justice, Mr. Gregson called Mr. Abbott.

E. Abbott, Esq., who deposed. - I was present at the theatre on the evening in question, the 3lst of October, and saw defendant strike Mr. Jellicoe; Mr. Jellicoe had just called you a liar; nothing could be more mild than your manner previous towards Mr. Jellicoe; both plaintiff and Mr. Jellicoe’s conduct were in the highest degree offensive; defendant and I were sitting by the fireside, smoking cigars, when Mr. Jellicoe and plaintiff came in and talked about settling some accounts with some blackguards; I told defendant I thought they were determined on a row; they returned two or three times, the last time you closed the doors after all the company had parted; you said if you could chastise those two gentlemen without public outrage you would do so; I had heard plaintiff in the course of the evening say something about writers in the Colonist newspaper, which I considered alluded to defendant and myself; you struck Mr. Jellicoe twice across his friend Mr. Arthur; going along the street plaintiff said they should fight at daylight in the morning very loud; I remarked the constables would hear them; they said they did not care if all Hobart Town heard them; I heard Mr. Jellicoe say “No Arthur I’ll find somebody else;” plaintiff afterwards came to my house in a very excited state; he came in without closing any of the doors; defendant told Mr. Arthur that his conduct was that of a bully; plaintiff insisted on your naming a friend; you said two o’clock in the morning was not a time to name a friend; the placard given to me I gave to Mr. Kermode; defendant said he should wait plaintiff’s answer; I did witness the flagellation of Mr. Henry Arthur; I saw Mr. Jellicoe hold out a pistol to defendant.

Cross-examined. - I saw Mr. Gregson about five minutes before he was taken into custody, at my house. Mr. Kermode made a communication to Mr. Gregson, in consequence of which he departed; defendant when at the theatre asked Mr. Jellicoe if he had said he had refused to go out with him - he said he had - defendant said it was a base untruth; Mr. Jellicoe then said “You are a liar, Sir.”

Mr. Solicitor replied as follows: Gentlemen - I think in the whole annals of jurisprudence, there never was a larger latitude given to any defendant, than has this day been given to the defendant - and I also think, never was such latitude more shamefully and grossly abused. Has he not, I ask, made a point of adding abuse to insult - and really I should think, from the tenor of his address, he had exhausted all the vocabularies of Billinsgate. Did you ever hear such language addressed by any person, to a man, given disguised in the habiliments of a gentleman. Here is a specimen of his language, (read), “These two bullies, Tom and Jerry, without courage to play their parts, scoundrel, the infamously, base, dastardly wretch.” Now, I would ask you, gentlemen, to go through the whole of the evidence and say, what provocation the plaintiff gave the defendant. The assault has been admitted and if by taking this case into your serious consideration, you can even and to your verdict, a recommendation to the favorable consideration of the Court, he never shall be called up for judgment, but, Gentlemen, I call upon you, to give such a verdict as shall restore to the plaintiff, that character, which has only been thrashed by the defendant, I ask you, has he called before you one tittle of evidence, to show you any provocation on the part of the plaintiff. Assuming, Gentlemen, for the sake of argument, that the defendant had a right to assume the plaintiff was identified with the placard - is there any proof that he sought satisfaction for the placard, not one word - is there any proof further than the plaintiff’s - thus without any explanation, the defendant found it necessary to treat him as a blackguard. I put Mr. Jellicoe in the box, for the purpose of giving the defendant an opportunity of cross examining him as much as he pleased, and you have heard his testimony. The defendant complains that it was two o’clock in the morning, when the plaintiff came with his friend’s message; Gentlemen, reparation for insult is generally sought immediately. “Injured honor is ripe, and brooks not delay.” I ask you Gentlemen, can any thing justify the epithets, this day applied to the plaintiff. Suppose the plaintiff had accepted the challenge, where would have been the honor of his friend. But the question is, have you the least evidence to identify the plaintiff with the publication of this paper - I do say it, because I think throughout the whole of this affair, the plaintiff has been most harshly used. Even supposing the words of writers in the Colonist had been used, or the term blackguard were applied “Why should the defendant and Mr. Abbott, have taken them to themselves - I cannot see why such an inference is to follow. I have one more topic to which I would draw your attention: - Had Mr. Gregson been a member of the “New lights,” or a leader amongst our Temperance Societies, or a local preacher, I should not so much have wondered at his new system of morality, viz:- that a man who has been once drunk or in the watch-house, is for ever to be looked upon as unfit to give evidence in a Court of Justice, and his veracity is to be doubted for ever after. Now, I believe Mr. Gregson is a tolerably temperate man, yet I should have thought he was not one very likely to accuse a person for making rather too free in his libations to Bachus. Gentlemen, I will once more remind you I leave Mr. Arthur’s character in your hands.

His Honor directed the Jury that the only question they had to consider was, whether the assault was committed or not? The provocation would be taken into consideration when the defendant was called up for judgment. They might if they found the defendant guilty, if they thought proper, recommend him to the consideration of the Court.

The Jury found him guilty of the assault, without any recommendation, as suggested to them by the Judge.

We have taken the following Reports of the important proceedings, in the case of Mr. Gregson, from the Colonial Times. The industry and ability shown by Mr. Toby the Reporter for that Journal, in both reporting the proceedings, and collecting the documents, is highly creditable to him, and to the Journal he is employed upon:-

Mr. Thomas George Gregson appeared this morning to receive the sentence of the Court, for an assault upon Mr. Henry Arthur, whereof he stood convicted.

Mr. Dobson, on behalf of Mr. Gregson, handed into the Court thirty-seven affidavits in mitigation of sentence.

The Solicitor General, in answer to a question put by His Honor, stated he had nothing to urge to the Court in aggravation. His Honor then directed the Clerk of the Court to read the affidavits, slowly and distinctly. The first was one of Mr. Gregson’s, the defendant - it was as follows:

T. G. Gregson of Risdon, maketh oath and saith that he is the defendant in this case; that on the night of the 31st October last, this defendant was at the Theatre, in Hobart Town, in the Saloon, in company with Edward Abbott, Esq., when Henry Arthur, Esq., the prosecutor in this case, accompanied by Henry Jellicoe, Esq., entered the saloon, and conducted themselves in a manner evidently intending to insult this deponent, and his companion making use of most insulting expressions, and behaving in a most offensive manner; after a considerable time, this deponent forbore to take any other notice of their conduct, than by directing the attention of Mr. Abbott to it; that after the said Henry Arthur, and the said Henry Jellicoe had several times repeated their conduct with additional aggravation; deponent finding their conduct unbearable, found himself compelled to address them, which he did at first in the mildest tone, and least possibly offensive manner; that the prosecutor and his companion replied in the most insulting language which led to an altercation; and this deponent further saith, that in this altercation the said Henry Jellicoe called this deponent a liar, which most insulting epithet provoked the deponent, in the excitement of the moment, to strike the person by whom it was uttered; and this deponent further saith, that the prosecutor in this case did thereupon conduct himself in such a violent and outrageous manner, that this deponent on the impulse of the moment, did disignate his conduct in terms of the strongest reprobation; but this deponent instantly took off his hat, and bowing to the prosecutor, said, “Mr. Arthur, I will treat you as a gentleman, although your conduct has been that of a bully and a coward;” and this deponent further saith, that afterwards, at two o’clock in the morning of the lst November, the prosecutor came to the house of Edward Abbott, Esq., where this deponent was, he, the prosecutor, being then in a state of inebriety, and did there and then, on behalf of another person, demand that deponent would appoint a friend to meet the prosecutor, as the friend of the other party; that deponent at first refused to comply, stating as a reason, that the prosecutor himself stood at the moment in the situation of principal in a quarrel with this deponent, and was therefore not a proper person to act as a friend in any dispute between deponent or any other person; but this deponent subsequently appointed William Kermode, Esq., to wait upon the prosecutor for arranging in the quarrel between this deponent and the prosecutor, that within one hour after Mr. Kermode left the prosecutor, as this deponent is credibly informed and believes, a placard in the handwriting of the prosecutor, of which a copy is hereunto annexed, was put into the hands of this deponent, that therefore this deponent did send the aforesaid William Kermode, Esq. (whose affidavit of the circumstances is before this honorable Court) to the prosecutor to enquire whether he the prosecutor was a party to the publication of the said placard, and the said William Kermode did afterwards inform this deponent that the prosecutor did admit to him the said William Kermode, that he the prosecutor did cause the publication of the said placard, and refused to give any explanation or satisfaction for having done so. And this deponent further saith, that the said prosecutor did afterwards address a note to the said William Kermode, which note is hereunto attached in the handwriting of the prosecutor, assigning the publication of the said placard as a reason for declining any further communication with the said William Kermode relating to this deponent, which is contrary to the evidence on oath before this honorable Court given by the prosecutor, he having sworn that he did not take occasion of the placard to refuse meeting this deponent as a gentleman; and this deponent further saith, that he the deponent did see the prosecutor aiding and abetting in posting printed copies of the said placard against the walls and lamp posts in different parts of the streets of Hobart Town, whereby this deponent saith that the prosecutor did commit a breach of the peace and provoke an assault; and this deponent further saith, that with a view to prevent a public outrage he the deponent did send the said William Kermode to the prosecutor, with a note which is hereunto annexed, giving him the prosecutor to understand that it was still open to him to give an explanation, or apology, for the provocation which he had given; and afterwards the said William Kermode did inform this deponent that he had read the aforesaid note to the prosecutor, who did thereupon refuse to give an explanation or apology; and this deponent further saith that on the 3rd day of November last, having seen the walls and lamp posts covered with the aforesaid placard reflecting infamy on his name, and being informed that the prosecutor was boastfully parading the streets, he the deponent under highly excited feelings did inflict upon the prosecutor the chastisement for which the deponent hath been convicted; but this deponent further saith on his oath aforesaid that before inflicting the said chastisement, he received from the prosecutor himself a most unequivocal avowal that he the prosecutor was a party to the publication of the said placard.

The next day was an affidavit of William Kermode, Esq., Previous to this affidavit being read, His Honor stated he had, at the request of Mr. Dobson, read it yesterday. Mr. Solicitor General said he had not had that opportunity afforded him. Mr. Dobson said he last evening had a conference with Mr. Solicitor General, when he communicated to him the purport of it - Mr. Solicitor General admitted it. The Affidavit was then read. [We refer our readers to Mr. Kermode’s amended affidavit, reported elsewhere.]

When the Clerk of the Court read the part stating Mr. Kermode’s opinion of Mr. Gregson having been excusable in horsewhipping Mr. Arthur, His Honor remarked, that part of the affidavit was improperly drawn, inasmuch as it was merely stating the opinion of another person. Affidavits made by the following gentlemen were then read:- Major De Gillern, Rev. Robert Knopwood, A.M., Anthony Fenn Kemp, Charles Swanston, G. F. Read, Francis Smith, Rev. Phillip Connolly, George Weston Gunning, J. H. Butcher, Andrew Crombie, James Gordon, Peter Murdoch, W. H. Breton, W. M. Orr, Lewis Beauvias, T. A. Lascelles, John Bell, S. R. Dawson, David Lord, P. T. Smith, W. H. Glover, A. Goldie, T. Hewitt, Edward Abbott, John G. Briggs, J. Morgan, James Smith, Walter Synnott, Frederick Synnott, John Wallace Murdoch, G. W. Cartwright, George Stokell, John Thomas Collicott, William Bunster, and John Beamont, Esquires.

The whole of the foregoing affidavits where to effect, that deponents had known the defendant, T. G. Gregson, Esq., for many years, (several of them for sixteen years) and that he was a humane, kind hearted man - one who was not apt to quarrel, but who would rather prevent a quarrel than provoke one - that he was a gentleman of the strictest integrity and a most benevolent man, and deponents all agreed they did not think Mr. Gregson would commit a breach of the peace, unless his resentment was called forth by gross insult. Mr. Gregson then craved permission to address a few words to the Court, which His Honor having granted. He stated he felt that, on the day of the trial of this case his excited feelings had led him to make use of expressions, and to evince feelings to the Court which he had since most sincerely regretted, and he begged to apologise to the Court for the same.

His Honor said, he certainly considered such an apology was called for, and he was very glad that the defendant had, by his expression of regret, saved him the trouble of commenting at considerable length on the feelings which he then evinced. His Honor then requested the defendant (who had been standing on the floor of the Court) to sit down, and addressing the Solicitor General, said. - “Do you wish Mr. Solicitor, further time to answer these affidavits, for I think there are two very important points to be taken into serious and deliberate consideration. They are in fact, contradictions to the evidence adduced on the trial. I refer to the statements of the defendant, and of Mr. Kermode. You will recollect on the trial, the question rested on the testimony of the plaintiff and Mr. Abbott’s, which testimony is materially contradicted by the affidavits I have mentioned.”

Mr. Solicitor General appeared to hesitate, when Mr. Rowlands requested His Honor to grant further time.

His Honor - I cannot Mr. Rowlands listen to your suggestions; if the counsel for the prosecution chooses to ask for time, he shall have it.

His Honor. - The question is, can you answer these points if time is given, more satisfactorily than they now appear in evidence.

The defendant here said, Your Honor, I have no doubt the plaintiff forgot the memorandum attached to my affidavit, having been ever shown to him.

Solicitor General. - I am not aware that I shall be able to adduce any additional evidence to that now before the Court, but at the request of the Solicitor in the case, I ask for time to answer the affidavits filed.

The defendant. - Could I, your Honor, such being the case, have an opportunity of examining Mr. Kermode in the box.

Solicitor General. - I am quite satisfied to receive the judgement of the Court, on the case as it now stands, and not crave an further time, and in doing so, I am quite willing to admit at the outset, that the character which the defendant has this day received, by so many respectable gentlemen, he is in the fullest sense entitled to - and I am sure, any person who is at all acquainted with the defendant, must know this to be a deviation from his general line of conduct, and such a deviation, as I hesitate not to say, calls for severe punishment - such a deviation, as to call upon this Court to pass such a sentence, as shall put an end to these disgraceful scenes. Then, with respect to the affidavits, you have those from the Church, both Catholic and Protestant - from the Magistracy, and from agriculturists, all in the same strain, and you can see at once, the master hand of the manufacturer. They all speak of the great provocation, and they all, I believe, with about two exceptions, close in the same, or very nearly the same words. I would call your Honor’s attention to the verdict of the Jury, and ask what provocation the defendant had received from the plaintiff, was it not clear, from their verdict that they considered he had received none, but I will make it as clear as the light to you, that as far as the plaintiff is concerned, the defendant has nothing whatever to complain of.

His Honor here interrupted Mr. McDowall, by stating he was out of order, in thus addressing the Court in aggravation, after what he had said.

Mr. Gregson said, in consequence of a distinct understanding, that Mr. McDowall did not intend to address the Court, he refrained from offering any observations.

Solicitor-General. - I contend your Honor, that I have a full right to make these observations, after your Honor has pointed out two strong points in the affidavits, which are contradictory to the evidence.

His Honor was looking for the practise in such cases, when the defendant requested His Honor would allow Mr. Solicitor General to proceed. His Honor said, it was not regular, and he regretted the introduction of any irregular proceedings, but allowed him to go on.

Mr. Solicitor General. – Wha[t] I wanted to explain to the Court was, that the defendant was labouring under a mistake, and that Mr. Kermode’s statement is perfectly reconcilable with the plaintiffs. That note which the defendant tells you, he believed Mr. Kermode had shown to the plaintiff. - Is there any proof that it was ever shown to him? Then there is the placard - is there, I ask, one title of evidence that tends to show, that the plaintiff was in any way whatever, mixed up with it. I told the Jury on the trial, they might if they thought proper, recommend the defendant to the favorable consideration of the Court, but did they do it. - No - they did not, and I am sure they were all convinced, that the plaintiff was not in any way answerable for the publication of that placard - and it is utterly inconsistent with common sense; it is utterly inconsistent with the defendants general character. The defendant knows, it would have been one of the most Quixotic messages ever heard of, to have demanded satisfaction from the plaintiff, for the publication of a placard (however libellous), by Mr. Jellicoe. Such a state of things is quite impossible, and I am sure, that the defendant in his moments of cool reflection will think so to, and admit that whatever Mr. Kermode might have done, that he (the defendant) never sought it; for defendant did not treat plaintiff as a principal, had he done so, he might have complained of his conduct. I submit to your Honor, that if defendant had sent Mr. Kermode to plaintiff to know whether he identified himself with the placard, and had found he did, but would not meet him, why then I say ask the question himself at all. Mr. Kermode must have told defendant yes - but he won’t fight you because you have been posted. Defendant tells you he asked the question, and received a rough answer; the only way I can account for it is, from the excitement of the parties throughout the piece, and I do really think Mr. Kermode must be labouring under some mistake. With respect to what passed on the trial, defendant has apologized to the Court - but your Honor will, I think, remember there were others who were then made the subject of defendant’s animadversions.

Mr. Gregson. - Your Honor, the note to which the initials W. K. is attached, was written by me, that there might be no mistake in the matter, and the answer he brought me was, that Mr. Arthur would not meet me, and I think I can prove that Mr. Kermode was in no way mistaken.

His Honor. - On the trial, by the consent of both parties, I allowed the witnesses to go into evidence which did not at all bear upon the question of assault or no assault - the evidence as to that was very clear, and it was impossible the jury could have done otherwise than return a verdict of guilty. The facts now before me in mitigation I am very sorry were not before the jury, which facts are quite at variance in many particulars with the evidence on the trial - the first witness was Mr. Arthur, his testimony is contradicted by Mr. Abbott, by yourself, and Mr. Kermode; Mr. Jellicoe and Mr. Arthur agree as to the assault - you I think say the reverse. You say in your affidavit you did not strike Mr. Arthur until you have received a most unequivocal avowal that he was identified with the publication of the placard. That certainly is most material, but it is not stated in your affidavit whether it was an avowal to you or to Mr. Kermode. The words used by both parties should be inserted.

Mr. Gregson. - I assure your Honor that I asked Mr. Arthur the question, and his answer was “yes,” I then struck him.

His Honor. - Then we go to the theatre, the expressions there used, I believe, are confirmed by two or three witnesses with regard to the term “one or two blackguards;” it is quite clear that observation was made in your and Mr. Abbott’s presence - and, to say the least of it; I do think it was a very improper - a very unguarded expression for any person to make use of in the presence of a person with whom they were not on speaking terms and I think Mr. Gregson had a right to assume that insult was intended. Mr. Abbott swears he took it so, and I am bound, and I do believe he did think so - it was a very unnecessary, and a very improper allusion - for, what could it have to do with settling accounts with tradesmen, as they said the other day; but the question is, is Mr. Arthur in any way accountable for it, his friend having used it, except you are satisfied it was drawn out by Mr. Arthur from his putting the question to him. Then, as regards the expression, that Mr. Gregson should fight Mr. Jellicoe in the morning, and being called out loudly in the street, even supposing Mr. Arthur was not drunk, and he says he was not, it was not the conduct of a sober man to call out so that the constables could hear - it was exceedingly incautious. On the trial, I must say that I gave a greater latitude than nineteen out of twenty would have done, and I do say, that the defendant then made use of language most unjustifiable - most unbecoming - such language I never heard of in any Court of Justice throughout the British dominions - much more in one of its highest Courts. By the evidence, you attempted to prove that Mr. Jellicoe would not allow Mr. Arthur to carry his message, because he was unworthy the character of a gentleman; this, certainly, was very useless, and unnecessarily insulting Mr. Arthur. Then, remember the expressions you used of him - “a bully, a wretch, a base, dastardly wretch.” Then we come to the placard. If you believe Mr. Arthur’s testimony, he had nothing whatever to do with it - quite irresponsible for it - he looked on it on the same light as an attorney’s clerk copying a document; but I must say, although Mr. Arthur might not have suggested the publication of the placard, still he looks in a very suspicious light - he accompanies Mr. Jellicoe to the printing office, and a copy of the document is in his own hand-writing. The material question is, had you reasonable ground to believe Mr. Arthur was mixed up with it? - look at Mr. Kermode’s affidavit. The fact I want to come at is, did Mr. Arthur admit he was a party? You, distinctly swear you considered him so; but Mr. Arthur’s notes does not show it. Did Mr. Kermode, go to Mr. Arthur’s twice? Mr. Kermode’s affidavit only speaks of one meeting; and I certainly do feel a difficulty in assuming Mr. Arthur ever had Mr. Gregson’s note shown to him. I do not doubt Mr. Gregson, but Mr. Kermode told you he had shown it to him; but it would not, I think, be just to Mr. Arthur therefore to assume he saw it. I can only deal with the case according to the evidence before me, and what is it? - why, that you believed the facts to exist, and by the evidence it is proved they did not exist; but then Mr. Arthur swears Mr. Kermode did not demand satisfaction for the placard; Mr. Kermode swears he did; but did he show this document to Mr. Arthur? - there we are left in the dark. Mr. Kermode may have demanded satisfaction in such general terms, that Mr. Arthur might have supposed it was for something else. Can such contradictions be reconcilable when we look at the hurry and confusion caused by such circumstances - one recollects one fact, another recollects another, and both statements may be looked upon as perfect veracity, and perjury not be imputed to either party; but I do think, if Mr. Kermode had demanded satisfaction for the placard, Mr. Arthur would have been most likely to have remembered it. I really wish Mr. Kermode’s affidavit had been more explicit, and given us all that really did transpire. Mr. Arthur then says you called him a liar, and I believe Mr. Jellicoe confirms him; Mr. Abbott and yourself both say Mr. Jellicoe called you a liar, but does that, I ask, justify one gentleman horsewhipping another in the public streets not as a gentleman - not as a man - not as a fellow-creature, but as a hound? I say, does the provocation you received justify this in such a place, under such circumstances, in such a manner, as if he was unworthy to be looked on with any feeling of honor - with any charity, but to be struck like a hound. Oh no, Mr. Gregson, this is not the way to preserve peace and concord among society - this is not acting as a quiet and peaceable subject - this is not such conduct as a court of justice can pass by with impunity. I really, when I look at the manner in which you chastised Mr. Arthur, must say that I do think such conduct was most disgraceful. You have received a character by these affidavits for humanity, but I am sure you would not have beat one of your own hounds in the manner you did Mr. Arthur. I myself have known you for nine years past, and I have always considered you to bear the very highest possible character - I have looked on you as full of virtue and full of honor; still however, much I regret it, still it would be a dereliction of my duty was I to suffer such an assault to be passed by without punishment.

I have now, I believe, gone through the whole of the evidence; and it was impossible on that evidence to have come to any other conclusion than the Jury did - they had no circumstance before them of Mr. Kermode going to Mr. Arthur’s, or that Mr. Arthur had anything whatever to do with the placard, unless they disbelieved Mr. Arthur’s oath. Mr. Arthur’s conduct in the street was, I again say, most disgraceful, and also the use of the term, some blackguards, was very unnecessary and unbecoming; and as Mr. Arthur was with Mr. Jellicoe both times, I think it very natural for Mr. Gregson to have supposed he was a party; but I am satisfied Mr. Arthur considered himself to be no party, and I am also satisfied you thought he was, and I think you had grounds to think he was; but whether he was a party or not I cannot say, on the face of those affidavits. I wish the evidence now before me had been before the Jury, for on the trial there was not one title of evidence adduced against Mr. Arthur. Then comes your own affidavit. With regard to the placard, I hesitate not to say, a more atrocious infamous, unjustifiable, and gross violation of the peace of society I never saw - one more calculated to incite to a breach of the peace. It is not for me from this bench to say how gentlemen ought to settle such differences; but I think this placard is justly calculated to excite the just indignation of any gentleman; and I can only say, if the publisher of such a placard was convicted before this Court, this Court would be bound to visit him with very exemplary punishment indeed. Mr. Gregson’s passion was very naturally excited at such a publication, and such infamous placards are, in a community like this, highly injurious; and I can easily imagine how Mr. Gregson felt (on seeing one of them) towards the party publishing it. Then Mr. Kermode tells him that Mr. Arthur had admitted he was a party to it; but whether Mr. Arthur was a party to it or not does not appear, nor what Mr. Kermode said to him. It is a great pity we are so left in the dark as to whether Mr. Gregson’s note was ever shown to Mr. Arthur. I have no doubt you believed he had seen it, and that you rushed out of Mr. Abbott’s under that impression. These are the whole of the facts as they are now before me in evidence; the conclusion from which is, that from what Mr. Kermode said to you, you had reasonable ground for believing Mr. Arthur was a party to the publication of this placard. I do not think Mr. Arthur was a party to it, either by suggesting, writing, or publishing it, or in any other way than copying it. I could not refuse to try this case; but I assure you it had given me great pain to sit on this trial, knowing you, as I have done for so long a time, and being next door neighbours; but I have done my best to keep my mind quite free; I am glad, very glad, you made the apology you did to the Court; I wanted no apology; but I do say your address to the Court the other day was a most indecent and improper one, but I impute it to your excitement on the occasion; but I was also sorry for it, because I know the Press of this Colony gives publication to anything likely to inflame the public mind - they publish anything and everything that may tend to bring this Court and the administration of justice into contempt. I have read reports, and they are not impartial - they contain only one side of the question, while anything that may fall from the bench in explanation of such occurrences are invariably not reported at all. Consider the language you made use of, Mr. Gregson - a brute and a wretch. I see several smiling in the Court at what I am saying - not you, Mr. Gregson; but I do say such feeling evinced in a court of justice shows a bad state of mind, and a disposition to rejoice at anything that is bad. But Mr. Gregson, although Mr. Arthur has been most unjustly punished, still I think you may have grounds for great excuse; but you are far from being justified in assaulting Mr. Arthur in the manner you did. It is not proved (although you say he did) that Mr. Arthur ever admitted he was a party, or it might, I think, materially alter the case; but looking, as I have done, carefully, at all the affidavits where you have such a character given you, is it, because you have such a character, the Court can excuse you because it is the first offence, or because you have a wife and family. Mr. Gregson, it is quite impossible the Court can pass it by without some punishment. All the facts that are not proved will give you the benefit of, and the effect of circumstances may somewhat alter my opinion; I will, therefore, take the same bail for you to appear on Monday next.

Mr. Gregson. - May I be allowed in the meantime to amend Mr. Kermode’s affidavit, or to file any others?

His Honor. - I cannot allow it, unless the counsel for the prosecution will consent.

Solicitor General. - Oh, there can be no objection to have that amended, your Honor, or any other fact adduced they please.

Mr. Gregson craved more time, and His Honor gave him till Saturday, the 4^th of February.

Mr. Gregson appeared this morning to receive the sentence of the Court for the above assault.

His Honor Mr. Justice Montagu handed to the Clerk of the Court five affidavits which had been forwarded to him in the course of the week. The first was the affidavit of W. Kermode, Esq., and was as follows:-

William Kermode, of Mona Vale, near Ross, in Van Diemen’s Land, Esq. maketh oath and saith, that on the morning of the lst day of November last past, the above named defendant informed this deponent that the above named Henry Arthur had, about the hour of two o’clock on that morning, delivered to him a challenge to fight a duel with one Henry Jellicoe, Esq. and this deponent further saith, that the said defendant represented to this deponent the circumstances out of which the said message arose, and requested this deponent to act as his friend, and to see the said Henry Arthur in respect of the said message; and this deponent further saith, that he agreed to act as second or friend of said defendant, and accordingly, about the hour of eleven in the morning of the said lst of November, this deponent saw the said Henry Arthur, when he informed the said Henry Arthur that this deponent waited upon him as the friend of the said defendant, and in reference to a message which the said Henry Arthur had delivered to the said defendant as aforesaid; and deponent then informed the said Henry Arthur that deponent was in possession of all the facts connected with the case, and that deponent considered the said Henry Arthur, as much a principal in the transaction as Mr. Jellicoe, that the honor of the said defendant being placed in his hands, deponent could not, (by reason of circumstances which he then explained,) permit the said defendant to meet Mr. Jellicoe, but that as the same objection did not exist towards Mr. Arthur, that Mr. Gregson should afford him any satisfaction which he might require; and deponent further saith, that the said Henry Arthur declined such offer, and insisted that the said Mr. Gregson should meet the said Mr. Jellicoe, and which deponent stated to him was impossible, by reason of circumstances which deponent explained; and deponent further saith, that about the hour of twelve, and within one hour after this deponent had left the said Henry Arthur, this deponent saw in the hands of Mr. Macmichael a placard, signed “Henry Jellicoe,” but with the exception of such signature such placard was, as deponent believes, in the hand-writing of the said Henry Arthur, and who had been the second in such proposed duel, and which placard is as follows:-

“Having received from Mr. Gregson last evening a most unprovoked and uncalled for insult at the Theatre, and having demanded from him this morning that satisfaction which is due from one gentleman to another, and being refused it, I have only the alternative to brand Mr. Gregson as a liar, a bully, and a dastardly coward.

And deponent further saith, that this deponent then obtained such manuscript as the second of Mr. Gregson; and this deponent then observed the said Henry Arthur walking in Macquarie-street, in company with Mr. J. Wedge, and deponent immediately proceeded to the said Henry Arthur and produced to him the said manuscript, and asked him if he knew any thing of that placard, to which the said Henry Arthur replied “yes I do;” and deponent further saith, that about three o’clock in the afternoon of the said first day of November, this deponent saw the said Henry Arthur and the said Henry Jellicoe walking up and down the streets of Hobart Town, and at the time that certain printed placards similar to the said manuscript were being publicly affixed in the streets of Hobart Town; and deponent further saith, that under the above circumstances this deponent did then verily believe, and does believe, that not only in fact, but according to the usage upon such occasions, the said Henry Arthur was a principal in such publication, inasmuch as the character and conduct of the said Mr. Jellicoe was placed in his hands; and this deponent further saith, that acting under such belief and impression, this deponent called several times at the then residence of the said Henry Arthur, for the purpose of seeing him in reference thereto, and about 8 o’clock in the evening of the said first of November deponent received a note from the said Henry Arthur to the following purport:-

“Mr. Arthur presents his compliments to Mr. Kermode and begs to inform him, that after the alternative Mr. Jellicoe has had recourse to of posting Mr. Gregson, he must beg to decline holding any further communication with Mr. Kermode on the subject.

And deponent saith, that such note rendering the matter still more unsatisfactory, this deponent communicated the above circumstance to Mr. Gregson, and at the request of the said T. G. Gregson, on the second of November, waited upon the said Henry Arthur, for the purpose of obtaining from him an apology for such conduct, or of demanding satisfaction for the same; and deponent further saith, that upon that occasion he took with him the manuscript placard before set forth, and produced the same to the said Henry Arthur, when this deponent told the said Henry Arthur that he waited upon him at the request of the said T. G. Gregson to demand satisfaction from him for the publication of the said placard; deponent further saith, the said Henry Arthur refused to meet the said defendant, because the said defendant had been posted, meaning, as deponent believes, because the aforesaid placard had been so written, printed, and published; deponent further saith, that this deponent then left the said Henry Arthur and saw the said defendant, when deponent related to the said defendant all the matters which had taken place, as last mentioned between deponent and the said Henry Arthur, when the said defendant requested that this deponent would again wait upon the said Henry Arthur, and inform him that as he was a party to the said placard, he must either apologise for his conduct or afford the defendant satisfaction, and if not, that defendant would chastise him, and in order to prevent any misunderstanding, the said T. G. Gregson then wrote a memorandum to the following purport:-

“If Mr. Arthur persists in acting as the friend of a liar, and refuses to give me any satisfaction, after acknowledging himself a party to the infamous placard. I shall act according to the advice of my friends.

Deponent further said, that he thereupon, and about the hour of eleven o’clock of the night of the said second of November, waited upon the said Henry Arthur, when deponent informed him that to avoid any public breach of the peace, deponent had called again, to require either an apology or satisfaction, and, to avoid any misunderstanding, this deponent then produced the said last mentioned paper to the said Henry Arthur, who then read the same, and asked permission of this deponent to shew it to some friends in an adjoining room, and the said Henry Arthur then went into an adjoining room, and after remaining there full half an hour he returned to this deponent, and delivered him the said paper; and the said Henry Arthur then stated that he would neither apologise nor give satisfaction; and deponent further saith, that he thereupon returned to the said defendant, and fully apprised him of the said last mentioned circumstances, and deponent then affixed his initials W. K. to the said paper, and returned the same so[sic] the said defendant; and then delivered to the said defendant the said manuscript placard hereinbefore set forth.

The Clerk of the Court was proceeding to read an affidavit of Thomas Anstey, Esq., when the Solicitor General rose and said he understood that leave was given to the defendant to file a fuller affidavit of Mr. Kermode’s, but he objected to any other affidavits being put in.

His Honor, Mr. Gregson, and Mr. Dobson, all agreed, that leave was given to file any other affidavit they thought proper, and His Honor expected affidavits would have been filed, to prove that Mr. Arthur was drunk. His Honor then directed the clerk to proceed, he then read the following affidavits:-

Thomas Anstey, of Anstey Barton, in Van Diemen’s Land, Esq., maketh oath and saith, that on the afternoon of the lst November last, this deponent called at Dr. Ross’s, in Collins-street, in Hobart Town; that he there went into the first room on the left hand side of the entrance, and in that room he saw the prosecutor, Henry Arthur, sitting at a table along with Mr. Jellicoe; that the table was covered with placards; calling the defendant, T. G. Gregson, a liar, a bully, and a dastardly coward; that the said Henry Arthur was busily employed in arranging the placards on the table, which Mr. Jellicoe was then in the act of signing; that the said Henry Arthur said to this deponent, we have sent out one hundred placards with a man who will be back presently for some more, or for the remainder, or words to that effect.

Richard Stevens, of Hobart Town, Clerk, maketh oath and saith, that he was in the employ of Dr. Ross, of Hobart Town, in November last; that on the lst of November the above named Henry Arthur, the prosecutor, and Mr. Jellicoe, came together to Dr. Ross’s in the afternoon, and Mr. Jellicoe enquired if the bills (meaning the placards calling Mr. Gregson a liar, a bully, and a dastardly coward) were ready, and they were not ready; that the said Henry Arthur and Henry Jellicoe returned in about half an hour afterwards, and then the said Henry Arthur enquired of this deponent if the bills were ready; that deponent called Mr. Finlayson as he was unable to give an answer, and the said Henry Arthur and Henry Jellicoe then went into the room on the left hand side of the entrance room, and deponent went to the press room and got some placards which were then being struck off, and took them into the room to them; that the said Henry Arthur and Henry Jellicoe were both sitting at the table together, and deponent laid down the placards before them; T. Anstey, Esq., and E. McDowell, Esq., the Solicitor General, were likewise in the room, and while he the said E. McDowell was standing by the table, close to Mr. Jellicoe, the said Henry Arthur was speaking to him on the subject and explaining the whole affair, and deponent saw the said Henry Arthur give one of the placards to the Solicitor General, and he the said Henry Arthur said, we are going to post these bills up, or to stick those bills up, or words to that effect; the said Henry Jellicoe and Henry Arthur shortly afterwards left the room; that on going out, both Mr. Jellicoe and the said Henry Arthur said in deponent’s hearing to Mr. Finlayson, that there were the remainder of the bills, and asked if the man had returned; that this deponent was present and saw the said Henry Arthur deliver to Mr. Finlayson part of the said placards after being signed by Mr. Jellicoe, and said they were to be given to the man when he returned, (meaning the bill-sticker) to post up in the most conspicuous places; that the deponent, when the man returned, gave him part of the bills and Mr. Finlayson the remainder.

He also read affidavits much to the same effect, of Graham Finlayson, and William Wilson.

Mr. Gregson. - I would beg to draw your Honor’s attention, to the extraordinary circumstance, that Mr. Solicitor General in his opening address to the Jury, made use of the following words: - “I will prove to you by evidence, that Mr. Arthur had no more to do with the publication of that placard, than any one of you.”

His Honor. - That was in his address to the Jury, and he spoke from his instructions on the trial. You asked Mr. Arthur, if he was the author of the placard, and he denied it, and that was all he did deny.

Solicitor General. - I always thought a counsel spoke from his instructions, and I have yet to learn, that a counsel, at any rate it is something novel to expect him to impart his own private knowledge, and make use of it on a trial.

His Honor. - I agree with you Mr. Solicitor General, and in fact, so sacred is the duty of a counsel, not to make use of his private knowledge, that I look on it, as one of the greatest blessings in the practise of our Courts, for supposing they were to do it, in the case of a man tried for murder, or felony, or any other offence, when tried at the dock? A counsel when he comes into Court, has nothing whatever to do with what he privately knows of either the plaintiff or defendant.

Solicitor General. - There is one part of the affidavit of Stephens which I object to, if it is thereby intended to insinuate, that I was mixed up with these placards, it is that part where it states, “Mr. McDowell was along with Mr. Arthur and Mr. Jellicoe.” Mr. Gregson and Mr. Dobson both assured Mr. McDowell, nothing of the kind was meant.

Mr. Gregson. - Why I brought this under your Honor’s consideration was, Mr. McDowell appearing here as a counsel for the prosecutor, and being at the same time the King’s law officer.

His Honor. - I have nothing to do with him in his capacity of law officer. With regard to these affidavits, I have read them through with great attention, and I have not the slightest doubt but that Mr. Arthur was quite as much implicated in publishing that placard, as Mr. Jellicoe; but as I remarked the other day, your examination of Mr. Arthur in the witness box, was not sufficiently pointed, and I have not the least doubt that you believed Mr. Arthur was a party to it - but, before the affidavits were filed, the case appeared a perfect chaos, and it appeared still more so, from the non-examination of the witnesses, but I must own now, that all the ambiguity I then felt, is since reading the affidavits, at least, the material part of it is erased from my mind. I look upon what took place at the Theatre, as very material, indeed, very important, and I must say, the prosecutor’s conduct there, and then afterwards in the street, in the presence of constables, to call out in the manner he did, was most disgraceful and intemperate - indeed, he seems to have acted so violent, so rash, and so hasty, that I cannot but condemn his conduct, and was I called upon to say, whether Mr. Gregson or Mr. Arthur was the aggressor, I could scarcely decide, and on the present evidence now before me, I would not give an opinion. Then, as regards the placard, I do think a more infamous - disgraceful - disreputable - and illegal productions I ever saw; I think all the parties concerned in the publication of it, ought to be brought before the Court, and if they were brought before it, the Court would be bound to visit them all with very exemplary punishment, and much do I regret that you, Mr. Gregson, did not come before the Court and seek redress, where you assuredly would have found it - but, instead of doing this, you take the law in your own hands, and assault Mr. Arthur in a most unjustifiable manner, and from all the circumstances, I do consider it was a most aggravated assault, for you to lay wait for him, rush out upon him, and horsewhip him in a most brutal manner, and all this was not done in a moment of passion - oh! no, it was a premeditated and deliberate act. Yours, Mr. Gregson, is a very different case to the one I was called to try the other day, when the parties accidentally met in the street - but it is clear that you premeditated this gross and brutal assault. I have looked over, again and again, the affidavits you have filed, as to your character, some of them stating that you are a mild man, others that you are a peaceable man - others again, that you are an amiable man - others, that you are a humane man - others speak of your benevolence - higher character was never given to any gentleman in any Court of Justice, and I regret much, that such a man, bearing such a character should, after two months, have shown no symptoms of regret for such an act - but that you should, on the contrary, have aggravated it materially, by your observations in this Court on the trial - and I must again say, that your address to the Jury was most improper.

I will now point out, previous to passing the sentence, what I consider the principle points of aggravation in your case.

1st. - You should have come to the Court, and not have taken the law into your own hands; your having done so might have produced bloodshed. Mr. Arthur might have shot you, for pistols were bought and loaded on the occasion.

2nd. - I think a great aggravating feature is the assault having been committed in the public streets; had you gone into the field or any secluded spot out of the town, you would have been more excusable; but if such breaches of the peace as these are allowed there is no knowing where it will end, and I wish the Crown Officers would bring every such offence under the notice of the Court.

3rd. - The manner in which Mr. Arthur was assaulted - you struck him it is proved three times, as hard as you could, with a large whip. I do not think, according to the laws of honor, you would be justified; but I do not sit here to judge according to those laws, but I sit here to judge according to the laws of England.

4th. - Your case, I consider is much aggravated, from the fact of your not having up to this time offered any apology.

5th. - You, in this Court on trial, conducted yourself in a very indecent manner. As far as the Court is concerned I care not, but you made use of such malicious and wilfully insulting language to the plaintiff as I never before heard. I cannot see what impropriety there would have been in your saying at the onsent that you did commit this assault in the heat of passion, and expressed your sorrow for it.

6th. - I consider your conduct was aggravated, inasmuch as it was done when a warrant was out against you from the Police-office, for it appeared as if you set warrant and every thing else at defiance, and was determined to have your revenge at any risk; such an assault, under such circumstances, calls for very exemplary punishment; but looking at this affidavit of Mr. Kermodes’, where I see clearly you had reason to believe that Mr. Arthur was a party to the publication, and looking at the conduct of Mr. Arthur, which I saw again was most disgraceful and disreputable, I shall pass such a sentence as will teach you for the future that this Court can only look at the best means of protecting the public peace from such gross violations. I shall pass no comment on Mr. Kermode’s affidavit, perhaps it was drawn in the country and in a hurry, and in the absence of a professional gentleman, but I saw this Court is not bound act to on the opinion of any one. The sentence of the Court is, that you be imprisoned in His Majesty’s gaol at Hobart Town, for three months, and pay a fine to the King of £200, and be further imprisoned until the fine be paid.

[1] See also Hobart Town Courier, 27 January 1837; Tasmanian, 27 January 1837, very briefly reporting the trial. See also Gregson v. Arthur, 1837; Gregson v. Mitchell, 1837. For a Judge’s report and other documents see AOT MM 71/9, pp. 57-125; for Gregson see F.C. Green,’Thomas George Gregson (1798-1874)’, ADB, vol. 1, pp. 475-6 and L. Robson, A History of Tasmania (Melbourne, 1983), vol. 1, pp. 319-21.

[*] According to this Jansissary, Mr. Gregson had three hands, we saw enough of the affair to enable us to say that this evidence is not true. He is a hopeful hand for using in getting up a case he will no doubt soon get promotion – e.d.

[2] See also True Colonist, 10 February 1837. The same newspaper published a long commentary on this trial, on 24 February 1837, attacking the injustice of the sentence. A petition was subsequently presented to Lieutenant Governor Franklin, seeking royal mercy: Hobart Town Courier, 3 March 1837.