[stealing from a dwelling house]

R. v. Gibson

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 5 October 1839

Source: Cornwall Chronicle, 5 October 1839[1]

Before His Honor Mr. Justice Montagu and a Military Jury

            William Gibson, laborer, stood charged with stealing from the dwelling-house of John Jones, on the 19th August.

            John Jones, sworn. - Lives near the Scottish Chiefs, in Wellington-street; returned home on the night of the 19th August, and found, during his temporary absence for a light, that his house had been plundered of several articles; next morning he met the prisoner, who had in his waistcoat pocket a box of Lucifers, being part of the property stolen; gave information at the Police Office, and the prisoner was apprehended.

            [C]. Baldwin, a constable, apprehended the prisoner on the morning after the robbery; took his boots off and examined them with marks of footsteps on the premises; they corresponded exactly.

            The prisoner, in his defence, said he purchased the box of Lucifers in Mr. Nerrington’s shop, and a comb, and called Joseph Nerrington, who being sworn, could not state positively that he had ever seen the prisoner before, or sold him a box or comb.

Verdict - Guilty.

His Honor sentenced the prisoner, whose character was of the worst description, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his natural life, and to be sent to Port Arthur.

Pedder C.J., 5 October 1839

Source: Launceston Advertiser, 10 October 1839

            The October sessions of the Supreme Court commenced on Saturday, before His Honor Mr. Justice Montagu.

In consequence of the illness of the Attorney-General, the several indictments were read by the Clerk of the Court, - His Honor the Judge, examining the witnesses for the crown.

William Gibson - charged with a burglary, in the house of one John Jones, situate in Wellington-street, Launceston - Verdict, Guilty.

            The prisoner was addressed by His Honor, previous to passing sentence, as to the vicious course which, from the police records, it was evident he had been pursuing for many years. He had been twice convicted in England before being sent to this country; here he had, during the term of his transportation, passed through the whole ordeal of punishment - the chain-gang, the road party, solitary confinement, and the lash; and since he became again free, it was notorious he had lived by pilfering and roguery. His Honor would see that he should not again trouble the settled districts for many years to come - and not again, until he had shewn by continued good conduct that he was fit so to be indulged. The sentence of the court was that prisoner should be transported for the term of his natural life; and it would be recommended that prisoner be sent to Port Arthur for six or seven years; and if during that period of probation his conduct evidenced contrition and repentance, he might then, perhaps, be again permitted to come into the settled districts, but certainly not otherwise.