[attempted murder - convict discipline - convict road gang - Perth Bridge]

R. v. Hudson

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Pedder C.J., 9 October 1837

Source: Cornwall Chronicle (Supplement), 14 October 1837[1]

John Hudson - charged with cutting and maiming with intent to murder Isaac Schofield; there were three counts in the indictment.

Isaac Schofield, sworn - I am Overseer to Perth Bridge Road Party; the prisoner at the Bar was under my superintendance on the 3rd of August last; he was on the works that day, I saw him near the Magistrate’s house about 10 o’clock in the forenoon; he asked me (Schofield) “what have you brought me here for?” I said, “you will know that when you get inside;” I turned round, and found myself struck by a heavy blow on the back of the head; I fell senseless and on coming to myself I heard the prisoner say, “I may as well be hanged outright, as knocked about in this manner;” prisoner was a convict under sentence to the Perth Bridge road party; Dr. Salmon examined the wound on my head.

Dr. John Richard Salmon deposed - that he found an incised wound at the back of the head of Prosecutor, caused by some blunt instrument; I did not consider the wound to be immediately dangerous at the time, but the effects may prove so; there was a considerable confusion; prosecutor was under my treatment 3 or 4 weeks; the wound penetrated to the skull, but the skull was not fractured; the wound was about 3 or 4 inches in length. 

Joseph Franks. - a wardsman, proved that when Schofield turned his back, the prisoner picked up a piece of board, and holding it in both hands, struck prosecutor at the back of the head, with great violence; Schofield fell; I saw a piece of the board break off, from the force of the blow.

Robert Styles. - corroborated the former evidence, and stated, that when prisoner struck the blow, he said, I may as well be hanged as knocked about in this manner.

Mr. Wm. Hamilton, District Constable at Perth - produced a piece of flooring-board, about 4 feet long, and weighing 9½ pounds, with which the wound was inflicted.

Prisoner - in his defence stated, he had received a few days before, seventy-five lashes; and was taken up again by Schofield, and expected to be flogged again, and that he was in a passion at the time; he called a witness, who proved that the prisoner was almost barefooted; that Schofield ordered him to carry a hand-barrow; prisoner told him he could not, as he had no shoes; Schofield told him he would put him in the gaol if he did not; prisoner told him he might as well do it at once, for he was always brow-beating him; prisoner took the hand-barrow, and Schofield went away; shortly after, Schofield called prisoner up to the office; a day or two before this occurrence took place, I saw prisoner without any shoes, but whether he had any then I cannot tell; the ground was very bad to work upon without shoes.

John Key - corroborated last witness, as to the words that passes; and also, that prisoner’s shoes were in a bad state.

Schofield re-called - on the morning in question, the prisoner asked my leave to go to the privy; I soon after went to look for him, and found him washing, which is not allowed in Government time; I told him to go to his work, and not to make worse of it, for he had committed himself already; prisoner answered, you may as well take me up to the office at once; I waited till the office was open, and then took him up; prisoner had been punished before he came into my gang, about five week previous to the day in question - Guilty Capitally.

Notes