[burglary, meaning of]

R. v. Allman and others

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 9 January 1840

Source: Cornwall Chronicle, 18 January 1840[1]

            John Allman, Joseph Williams and Thomas Brown were charged with burglariously breaking and entering the house of Mr. John Archer, and putting George Alexander (his servant) in bodily fear.

            George Alexander deposed, that he resides in a small house at Killafaddy, the property of his master Mr. John Archer, the house is situated at the foot of Hobler’s Bridge, of which deponent has charge; that on the eleventh of last October late in the night, deponent was awakened out of his sleep by a knocking at the door; on enquiring who was there a voice answered “me”; the enquiry was repeated a second time, and a similar answer was returned; witness then imagining it to be some person who wished to cross the bridge, rose and opened the door, when in walked two of the prisoners, followed by another man, whom the witness has never since seen; the third man went out immediately afterwards and did not return; the other two then began to search the place for provisions; they found about 3lbs of flour, and a little tea and sugar, which they at once appropriated, as also a pair of boots belonging to deponent; they afterwards took three dollars from the pocket of a pair of trowsers belonging to him; after staying about half an hour they retired with their booty, making the witness open the gates for them; is quite sure that the two prisoners are the men, one of them having lighted a lamp whilst ransacking the house; witness knew Williams the moment he entered, having seen him before in the treadmill yard; the boots then produced belonged to witness; the other things were the property of his master.

The witness underwent a long cross-examination from Brown, but nothing was elicited from him in any way beneficial to the interrogator.

James Condell deposed to apprehending the three prisoners on the west bank of the Tamar, and to finding the boots upon Brown’s feet.

His Honor in summing up, informed the Jury, that the offence of burglary might be committed in several ways, actually and constructively; they, of course, understood the nature of the actual offence. It was called constructive burglary, when the offenders obtained admission from the parties inside by threats of violence; it might also be committed fraudulently, in which the burglars achieved their object under false pretences and misrepresentations. Whether the prisoners had been guilty of burglary in either of these senses it would be for the Jury to decide.

Verdict - Guilty of larceny against two of the prisoners; Allman, Not Guilty.