[murder – manslaughter – domestic violence]

R. v. Currie

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 31 January 1840

Source: Tasmanian, 7 February 1840[1]

            William Currie was indicted for the murder of Anne Podmore, with whom he cohabited, in the township of Sorell. Currie was defended by Mr. Sydney Stephen and Mr. Horne. This case, which excited great interest, from the well-known station of the prisoner, occupied the whole day.

The first witness examined was Mr. Diggory Mills, who deposed to the following effect: - He was sent for to the deceased by Currie, on the evening of the day before she died; he found that she had been bruized, and otherwise ill used; there were various bruizes on the body, and an extravasation of blood at the lower part of the abdomen; this Mr. Mills supposed was caused either by a kick or a blow, there being a bruize externally immediately over the part where the extravasation was situated.

Cross-examined by Mr. Horne. - A messenger from Mr. Currie came to him, to bring him to see the deceased; Mr. C. was at home when witness arrived there, and told him that he deceased had been in a constant state of intoxication for the last three weeks; witness informed Mr. C. of her condition, and told him he thought she would not recover; Mr. C. then requested further assistance; Dr. Murdoch was sent for, but did not come then; no other medical man came till three or four days after Anne Podmore’s death; witness had known the deceased about a year and a half; but could not speak as to her sober habits; the bruize spoken of on the abdomen, might have been caused by a fall, as might also the extravasation internally; the other bruizes and scratches might also have been occasioned by a fall or falls; there was an incised wound on the occiput, extending to the bone, and about a quarter of an inch in extent; it was a recent wound, but no artery was cut through; there was no fracture of the skull; the incised wound of itself could not have caused death.

            The Learned Counsel proceeded to elicit from Mr. Mill, that neither of the wounds could, singly, have caused the death of the deceased, but, unitedly, Mr Mill said, they might, from the shock given to the nervous system. The blood extravasated on the abdomen, amounted, in quantity, to about two teaspoonsful: this was just under the skin, but not in the cavity of the abdomen.

            John Hughes. - Was assigned to Mr. Currie, and knew Ann Podmore; saw her return home, on the Tuesday previous to the Friday on which she died; this was about three o’clock in the afternoon; she was standing inside the passage, and Mr. C. was holding her up by the arm; Mr. C. called witness to go to him, but witness did not, as he had other business to attend to; the fact was, witness did not wish to see them quarrelling: Mr. C. then called to a lodger in the house, named Smith, and asked him, if Ann Podmore was not drunk? Smith said - “For God’s sake, don’t ask me a word about it!” Deceased had on only a night-gown, she had neither a cap nor shoes. Witness next saw Mr. C. and the deceased on the fore part of the following day, when he heard Mr. C. call her a “drunken b----.” Quarrelling again took place that day between them both; witness heard a noise, as if chairs or tables were being knocked about; the deceased and the prisoner lived together as man and wife.

His Honor. - When this quarrelling you speak of took place, did you hear Ann Podmore say anything?

Witness. - I heard her say, your Honor, “Oh! Currie, don’t!” This witness further deposed, that the quarrelling and scuffling were repeated during the night of the Wednesday, and on the following morning, about 6 o’clock, witness observed his mistress, (the deceased) sprawling on the floor, half way in and half way out of the door-way of her bed-room; when she was thus situated he saw Mr. C strike her twice with a stick, which he held in both hands; the deceased was lying on her hands and feet, with her back uppermost; Mr. C. said, “John, this woman has been at the liquor again, I can’t keep her from it, and she will kill herself by it.” Saw her next at dusk, when Mr. C. was leading her by the arm from the bed-room; she appeared in a very ridiculous state; she had cuts on her face, and her clothes were torn off her back; witness could not say whether she was drunk or not; one of her eyes was closed; Mr. C. set her down upon a chair in the long room, and wiped her face with a wet towel; deceased said “I think I am drunk, I am sure I am, I must be so, that was a very good glass of grog you gave me, Mr. Currie;” witness was confident that the deceased at this time was not in her proper senses.

On his cross-examination by Mr. Stephen, this witness acknowledged that he had varied somewhat from the testimony he had given before the Coroner, at Pitt Water; but nothing materially occurred to shake his evidence.

Being further examined by Mr. Stephen. - Hughes said, he had had frequent quarrels with Currie, but he entertained no animosity whatever against him; Currie wiped the deceased’s face very gently, not as if “currying” her face. (This joke (!) emanated from the Attorney-General.)

Margaret Macguire stated. -  That the deceased came to her mother’s (Mrs. Redpath) early on the morning of the Wednesday; she was not drunk; witness went round to the back gate, and led the deceased that way, as she wished her to leave her premises; saw Mr. C., who asked, if Ann was at witness’s house? witness said, she was not; he then asked, if witness knew where she was; witness said she did not; he then said, “I don’t want to have anything to do with her, but I want to bring her home to the baby;” witness told him it was no use his coming to her; if she (witness) found her in her place, she would bring her home; he then said, “if you do, Margaret, I will not put a finger-end upon her any more;” he then left witness’s house; witness persuaded the deceased to go home, but she would not at first; however, she at last did return, accompanied by the witness; on her return, Currie asked, pointing to a broken window, “who did that?” Ann said, “I did;” he asked “what for?” Ann answered, “because I was afraid of you;” Currie then left the room, when the deceased lifted up her petticoats, to show the witness in what a state she was in; witness observed many bruises about the body of the deceased, who said to her, (clasping her hands) “don’t leave me, or I shall be tortured.”

Other witnesses were examined, and amongst the rest, a Mrs. Featherstone, who delivered her evidence in a very pert, and “bouncible” manner.

Mr. S. Stephen in an able address to the Jury, animadverted upon the evidence produced. He stated, that the Jury were at liberty either to bring in a verdict of Guilty of the murder, (provided the evidence warranted such a result,) or for manslaughter, or for acquittal; and then called his witnesses.

Doctors Bedford and Hobson, being examined for the defence, stated, that the wounds and bruises, sworn to, were not of such a character as to cause death: neither of these gentlemen, it is true, saw the body of the deceased; but, from the testimony adduced by the medical witnesses examined, they arrived at the conclusion, that the injuries inflicted could not have proved fatal.

The following witnesses were called as to the character of the prisoner, who each testified to his general good and harmless disposition: - Messrs. Breton, Glover, Gordon, Marshall, and Jewell.

After a most minute and elaborate summing up, His Honor left the case in the hands of the Jury, who found Currie Guilty of the minor offence of Manslaughter.

Pedder C.J., 6 February 1840

Source: True Colonist, 7 February 1840[2]

            William Currie, for manslaughter, Thomas Oakley and George Laybourne, for cattle stealing, were sentenced to transportation for Life.

            We were much astonished at the sentence passed upon Currie, because the verdict was clearly contrary to evidence, and we expected that his counsel would on these grounds have moved for and obtained an arrest of judgment. Several witnesses swore that they had seen Currie at different times within 8 or 10 days, beat and ill-treat the deceased, Ann Podmore, who was his concubine. These witnesses, with one exception, were persons of very bad character. Mr. Diggory Mills, who made the post mortem examination, (and whose description of the several wounds, Drs. Hobson and Bedford, said was unintelligible to them as medical men) swore on the trial that he had seen several external wounds on the body, that some of them were recent, and some of older date. That the most recent was a wound on the abdomen, under the integuments, in which he found about two teaspoon-fulls of extravasated blood. That none of these wounds separately could have caused death, but that all put together might have produced that effect, by a shock of the nervous system. One of the witnesses swore that the deceased had shewn her this wound on the abdomen on the 5th; that was seven days before her death - yet this Dr. Diggory Mills says was the most recent wound. How, then, did this shock of the nervous system occur, which caused death? Mr. Crichton, the District Surgeon at Richmond, had examined the body after it had been cut up by Dr. Diggory Mills, he saw the wounds described by Mr. Mills, and declared that none of them could have produced death. Dr. Bedford and Dr. Hobson heard the whole of the evidence of the other two medical men, and being sworn, proved that in their opinion the wounds described could not have produced death. After these medical witnesses had given their testimony. The Judge said to the Counsel for the prisoner: - Do you call any more witnesses? This was said in a tone which implied to us, and most of those who heard it. Surely, after this evidence, you see no necessity to call any more. Unfortunately for poor Currie, his Counsel understood the Judge as we did, and they only called a few of the most respectable inhabitants of the district, with the Police Magistrate, the Coroner, and Chief Constable at their head, to speak as to character, and each of them gave Currie the highest character for honesty and humanity. There were many witnesses outside, ready to be called, who could have proved that most of the wounds were inflicted by the deceased falling about when drunk. Particularly the wound on the abdomen, which she shewed to one witness, and stated that she had received it by falling in scrumbling over a paling fence when drunk. And there were many others who could have proved that four of the witnesses for the prosecution were not to be believed upon their oaths, and had malice against Mr. Currie. But all this evidence was thought to be perfectly superfluous after the evidence of the medical men. Since the trial, a great number of certificates and affidavits had been sent in by the several witnesses who were not examined on the trial, and these were sent under cover to the Judge before sentence, by Mr. Stephen, the counsel for Currie. His Honor returned them unopened, with a note to Mr. Stephen, saying, that he made it a rule to pass sentence always according to the evidence on the trial, but said he had better send them to the Council where we have no doubt His Honor will give them full consideration, and on the facts there shewn, recommenced that Currie be pardoned. There are circumstances connected with this case that we shall feel it our duty to bring very fully before the public, as soon as the case is disposed of in Council. By doing so at present, it would appear that we were wishing to influence the decision of the Council, which, as a friend of Currie’s, we would wish to see on the fair legal merits of the evidence. His friends ought not however to neglect sending in to the Council a memorial, to which we know every man of the most moderate pretentions to honesty who knows him, will affix his signature. We have no misgivings as to the result.

Source: True Colonist, 8 May 1840

Mr. Currie. - We are happy to find, that Mr. William Currie, of the Blue Bell, Sorell, who was convicted of manslaughter, on most extraordinary evidence, and sentenced to transportation for life, has been discharged, on the case being reported to the Governor The Colonial Times says, that Mr. Currie was discharged in consequence of the article headed “Minor Jurors,” which appeared in that Journal, Lieut. Rumbold, one of the Jurors in Mr. Currie’s case being under age. In justice to Mr. Currie, and to the Governor, we are called upon to correct this mistake of the Colonial Times. If Mr. Currie was discharged because one of the Jurors was a minor, then have nearly all the convictions, transportations, and hanging, under our Supreme Court Act been illegal. And Mr. Currie is subject to all the moral stain of his conviction, having escaped from punishment by a fortunate chance. But this is not true. The Colonial Times has really found a “mare’s nest,” in its objection to a minor sitting on a sort of Court Martial, or, at least, a Martial Court of Justice. It has been objected to, at a very early period of the Colony - and again shortly after the present Court Act came into operation here, and the objection has been overruled. And, we can tell the Colonial Times, frightful as it appears, that a boy of six years of age, if he holds a commission in Her Majesty’s land or sea forces, is eligible to sit as a juryman on the life or death of any man in this land. Mr. Currie was discharged, first, because his conviction was contrary to evidence, the medical witnesses having proved that the wounds or bruises which he was accused of having inflicted, could not have caused death. Second, on the force of evidence sent in on affidavit after the trial, which Mr. Currie’s counsel omitted to call on his defence, considering his acquittal certain after they heard the evidence of the medical men. Third, these reasons were supported by the very excellent character which Mr. Currie received from numbers of the most respectable individuals in the Colony. Mr. Currie, by his discharge, is not only free from the legal consequences, but also from the moral stain of a conviction for manslaughter.