[coining]

R. v. Peck

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 7 January 1840

Source: Cornwall Chronicle, 11 January 1840[1]

            John Peck was indicted for coining twenty four pieces of base money, purporting to be the coin of the realm, and known by the denomination of shillings.

            John Byrne, Chief Constable of Launceston, deposed to apprehending the prisoner on the 24th of October last, in a house in Wellington-street. Deponent stated that on searching the prisoner’s house he found the coins produced, together with a mould for the same, as also an old metal tea-pot, out of which witness said coiners were accustomed to manufacture their spurious imitations.

            “Then I suppose, Mr. Byron,” said His Honor, “that you have witnessed the whole proceedings yourself?” (A laugh.)

The witness explained, that he had on several occasions apprehended coiners at their work, with all their implements of industry about them, and had invariably found such metal as that produced in their possession. He then proceeded to state, that after finding the mould, prisoner told him that he need not trouble himself any further - he had found all; the shillings had been thrown by the prisoner’s wife behind the fire, from which they were afterwards taken. Deponent had carefully compared them with the mould, and found them to correspond exactly; deponent had long suspected the prisoner, but on searching him, found nothing upon his person.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. - I only suspected you from report.

By the Attorney General. - After finding the base money and moulds, I do not remember that the prisoner said anything more than that he hoped I would not take his wife in custody, as it was not her fault, or words to that effect; the house belongs to the prisoner.

His Honor. – “How do you know that, Mr. Byron?”

Byron. – “I know it only by report.”

His Honor. - “I want none of your hearsay evidence; you are so anxious to convict the prisoner, that you suffer your zeal to outrun your discretion - be more cautious, if you please.” His Honor then observed, that as the prisoner employed no counsel, he was bound in justice to be counsel for him, which otherwise he ought not to be.

The witness then continued. - The prisoner certainly told him that he had occupied that house but a few days.

There were no other witnesses examined.

Prisoner in his defence said that the things now produced must have been left in the house by the former proprietor - he knew nothing of them.

Verdict - Guilty.