R v Manning, 1840

Richard Manning stood indicted for the wilful murder of Jessie Ives, near New Norfolk, on the 22nd of May 1836, nearly four years ago.

Mary Weaver, examined by the Solicitor General, who conducted the prosecution. - Lived in 1836 about two miles from the Woolpack Inn; Manning was in partnership with witness’s husband on the same farm, and lived in a hut about 100 yards off; Caroline Jessie Ives, (commonly known as Jessie Ives) lived at that time with the prisoner; on Whitsunday 1836, Jessie was in the hut with the prisoner; she seemed about 24 or 25 years of age; witness lent her a pair of leather shoes that day; witness was returning from Allanvale about dusk the same day, when she met a man named Saunders and his wife, the deceased, and the prisoner, about half a mile on the New Norfolk side of the Woolpack; Jessie Ives and Mrs. Saunders were dancing together, both drunk, Mr. Saunders was very drunk; Manning was a-head, Saunders behind; Mrs. Saunders had a child about six months old with her, which witness took a few yards from her, and wanted to carry it as far as Mr. Terry’s, but Manning would not let her, as she did not belong to their party; Manning then took the child away from witness, and Saunders and his wife were sitting on the ground; Jessie Ives was in liquor, but was well enough to walk home, although not to take care of the child; witness left them, and had got some way on the road, when she met a gentleman on horseback; she then went on to Terry’s hut, and told the men what she had seen, asking them at the same time to go and take the baby; witness then went home;’ on the following day witness went to Manning’s hut and found him in bed; it was between breakfast and dinner time; Manning was then dressed in worsted cord trowsers and a blue shirt: on the Sunday he had on cotton cord trowsers, a white shirt, a red plush waistcoat with black sleeves and back, and a black handkerchief; witness asked him where Jessie was? He said, “he did not know, as he had lain down in the bush, and fallen asleep, and when he woke, she was gone.” Witness asked him, where she could find Jessie to get her shoes? Manning again said he did not know. Witness then went to Saunders’s, where she saw a tippet, a collar, and a shawl of Jessie Ives’, with a hat of the prisoner: witness did not find her shoes, nor did she see Jessie. Witness then returned to Manning’s hut, and found him there at dinner.

Mr. Ross, who defended the prisoner, here interposed, and objected to the manner in which the Crown prosecutor put his questions:- nearly every one was a leading question.

Manning said, on the Tuesday morning, in answer to some question from Mrs. Weaver, that he would again go in search of Jessie Ives: the prisoner left the hut, for that purpose, and was absent for some days: had frequently seen the prisoner drunk, before that time, - when he was always very wicked and barbarous to every one.

This witness here testified, most clearly, to a perfect knowledge of the dress, which the deceased wore, when she was last seen by her: and described the pattern very minutely.

On her cross-examination by Mr. Ross, Mrs. Waver stated, that the deceased had told her, her name was Caroline Jessie Ives, but that she was generally known as Jessie Ives. Upon this, Mr. Ross submitted, that there was no case to go to the Jury, and the prisoner must be acquitted.

A conversation here occurred, between His Honor, the Solicitor General, and Mr. Ross, which occupied the attention of the Court for a considerable time. Sundry books, and many cases were referred to, and quoted - the result of which was, that His Honor ruled that the case was to proceed. Before the last witness was re-examined, His Honor, the Chief Justice, called Mr. Hone to the Bench and consulted him as to the propriety of his decision. Mr. Hone concurred entirely with His Honor, in every particular; and, as the deceased was commonly known as Jessie Ives, she was properly mentioned, in the indictment, under that name.

On Mrs. Weaver’s examination before continued, she stated, that Manning, although not quite sober, was more steady than any of the others: he had no bottle with him, but Jessie had, which seemed to contain about a gill of rum: witness did not partake in any of this rum.

Mr. John McNall deposed to the following effect:- In May, 1836, he was a clerk in a solicitor’s office in this Colony, namely, Mr. Haldane’s in Macquarie-street: on Whit Sunday, the 22nd of May, he was riding towards New Norfolk from the Woolpack: just about dusk he perceived, from the rise of a hill in the road, a man beating or ill-using a woman: the woman had a child in her arms: witness was from about sixty or one hundred yards from the spot, when he saw the transaction: when witness first saw the party, the man was striking the woman with his fists, on the side of he[r] head; she fell down, screaming out: the blow was a violent one, and quite sufficient to throw the woman down: after she fell down, the man repeated the blow, more than once, about the head: witness immediately rode up to them, when he heard the woman screaming, and saw her lying on her back. Witness said to the man: “What are you doing with the woman?” or something to that effect. He (prisoner) said, “I will soon shew you that, “when lifting a stick, he made a violent blow at him, which nearly struck him on the head. The prisoner’s manner was so violent, that he (witness) because alarmed for his own safety. [Mr McNall here, in corroboration of the former evidence, described the dress of the prisoner at the time, which corresponded with the description deposed to by other witnesses.] Witness rode away towards the Woolpack, but as he did so, he took no observation as to the condition of the woman; a short distance beyond the Woolpack, he procured the aid of a constable, stationed at a road party in that neighbourhood; with him the witness returned, and the first persons they met, were the man and woman, whom witness had left on the road; the constable knew the four people, and endeavoured to take them into custody, witness giving them in charge; witness finding Manning refractory and abusive, attempted to ride over him, when the prisoner seized the bridle; the constable now came up, and said, he knew Manning, and could get him at any time; witness attempted to go up to the two women, but was prevented by Manning and Saunders; the reason that the constable did not apprehend Manning was, because he (Manning) threatened to shoot him, having seized his musket for that avowed purpose. Mr. McNall here identified the prisoner as the person who had beaten and ill-used Jessie Ives, stating that he had seen Manning strike her with his right hand, on the left side of the face.

In answer to some questions by His Honor, Mr. McNall stated, that the sun was just setting when he rode up to the party, and that he was quite close to them.

At the conclusion of Mr. McNall’s evidence, His Honor the Chief Justice observed, in reference to his humane interference, that the Court felt under great obligation to him, his conduct was indeed, most praiseworthy, and most meritorious.

William Lilly, now assigned to Mr. Bilton, but in 1836 a constable stationed near the Woolpack, deposed to the effect, that, on the day named in the indictment, he was a constable in the Hamilton district, and was stationed about half a mile from the Woolpack. On the Whit Sunday of that year he went to the Woolpack, about two o’clock, where he found several persons drinking, amongst whom were Saunders (a fellow constable) and his wife, Richard Manning, and Jessie Ives. Witness then returned to his station, and Mr. McNall came there about seven in the evening for a constable. This witness corroborated, in all its principal features, the evidence of Mr. McNall, and stated, at the conclusion of his examination, that he was dismissed from the Police for neglect of duty on this occasion.

Joseph Smith, assigned to Mr. Barker, in addition to the facts already stated, proved, that on the day in question, about half a mile from the Woolpack, he came up to Manning and the deceased: Manning was sitting down, and Jessie was lying with her arms stretched out across his thighs, his hands upon her breast, and he looking at her face. Witness called upon Manning, for God’s sake to get up: he said he would be d---d first: witness then pulled him away forcibly. After some farther altercation, witness took hold of Jessie Ives’ arm, which, when he loosed, fell down like a stone: she neither spoke, moved, or breathed, as far as witness could perceive. After this, Manning took her by the two heels, drew her towards him, and put her over his shoulder, with her back against her breast, and her head hanging down towards the ground: the arms of the deceased hung down in quite a helpless manner, she had no bonnet on, and her head hung back: her eyes were shut, but witness saw no blood. This testimony was corroborated, in every point, by three other persons, who were with the last witness at the time mentioned.

Niel Macfarlane, a lad of fifteen years of age, on being placed in the box, was closely examined by His Honor, as to his idea of the nature of an oath: although, we presume, of Scotch extraction, this lad could neither read nor write, and was most lamentably ignorant of religion. He evinced, however, sufficient intelligence to be sworn, and deposed to the following effect:- That, on Whit Sunday, 18936, Manning, Jessie Ives, and Mr. and Mrs. Saunders, all went to the Woolpack, after dinner, after which the witness never saw Jessie Ives; but remained in the hut all that day and the night, but no one came there, till between seven and eight o’clock the next morning, when Manning returned by himself. Manning was dressed in the same clothes, except the hat, in which he went out on Sunday: there was some blood on his waistcoat and shirt: he asked for some water to wash himself, and took off his clothes: he asked witness for a drink of water, and while witness went to Weaver’s for it, Manning told him he had drank the water he had before brought: he put the clothes, which he took off under his head on the bed, saying he was very sleepy: witness never saw those clothes again. The remainder of the lad’s evidence, the whole of which was given in a very correct and straightforward manner, went merely to corroborate what we have already detailed.

James Weaver, husband to the first witness, was examined at some length, but the only novelty in his evidence is, that, after Manning had been absent till the ensuing Saturday, he met him on that day, and told him that Mr. Brooks had a warrant out against him, on suspicion of his murdering Jessie, when Manning gave himself up to the witness, who took him to New Norfolk. On his cross-examination, Weaver said, that Manning’s conduct towards the deceased was generally kind, when sober, but, when in liquor, they generally had a word or two.

Some witnesses were now examined, respecting the discovery of the remains of the unfortunate deceased, from whose conjoined testimony the following facts were substantiated: - A man named Watkins, servant to Weaver, (Manning’s former partner) stated, that one of his dogs buried a piece of bullock’s flesh, which he had given him; about a fortnight after, Watkins observed the dog scratch up a piece of flesh, and eat it; after the dog had done scratching, the witness thrust a stick into the ground, and turned up a blade bone; a day or two afterwards he dug at the same place, and found a human skull, which he replaced, and covered over; in about a month after this, the witness mentioned the circumstance to Mr. James Triffitt, Division Constable, at the Back River, whom he met on the road; he was too lame to go down to Mr. Triffitt’s to tell him, and he would not mention it to any one about the house, for fear it should get rumoured about before the Magistrates could know it. A search now took place, in the presence of Mr. Brooks and several other persons, when a human skeleton was discovered, buried in the ground; there were also parts of a dress, a shift, and a stay-busk; when the skeleton was dug out, the small joints dropped off; it was buried about 12 or 13 inches in the ground, except the skull, which was not so deep; one of the jaw bones was broken; witness thought it was on the left side.

Dr. Officer being called upon. His Honor objected to his testimony, as no Inquest having been held on the skeleton, its identity was not proved, this was a point for the decision of the Jury.

The prisoner being called upon for his defence, Mr. Hugh Ross made (late as the hour was) a most animated and eloquent speech in his favour, pointing out, with great perspicuity, every fact of an alleviating tendency.

His Honor followed, by summing up, most minutely, the whole of the evidence, and the Jury having consulted for about an hour and a-half, returned, at nearly half-past one on Thursday morning, a verdict of Manslaughter.

The case Richard Manning, who had been convicted of manslaughter, was argued with much ability by Mr. Ross, who contended that inasmuch as the name of the deceased, as laid in the information, was different from that proved by one of the witnesses on the trial, no sentence should be passed upon him. The Court, however, overruled the objection, and the prisoner was sentenced by His Honor the Chief Justice to be transported for life.

[1] See also Hobart Town Advertiser, 14 February 1840; Hobart Town Courier, 21 February 1840. According to AOT SC 41/5, p. 47 Manning was sent to Norfolk Island.