[attempted murder]

R. v. Pritchard

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Montagu J., 16 July 1840

Source: Tasmanian, 24 July 1840[1]

Before Mr. Justice Montagu, and a Military Jury

            Price Pritchard, a grey headed old man, was indicted for feloniously shooting at John Jay, with intent to murder him. A second count charged him with intent to do the said John Jay some grievous bodily harm.

            John Jay, am a labourer, and was in the service of Mr. Pritchard, at the Black Brush, in June last. On Monday morning, the 2nd June, I went out to work about 6 o’clock; I remained out till about half-past eight. When I came back, I sings out, shall I yoke the cattle? got no answer, and I lights my pipe, and goes out again. I returned about one. Saw Mrs. Pritchard sitting outside the house; after a little I saw Mr. Pritchard at the window, and he sings out to me “Ha hoy! Jack.” Well, I takes the cattle out again, and returns about a quarter of an hour before sunset - puts the cattle into the yard and goes into the hut. I was cutting up some tobacco, when Master Pritchard sings out some words; I says, “Master, I think it’s a most time I had something to eat.” Well, he tells me, that I had eat enough the evening before to last me a week. Then I told him it was time for he and I to part. With that I turns myself round, when he puts the p[iece] through the window, where a pane of glass had been took out, and let’s fly, slap at me. I had the pipe and baccow in my hand all the time, and I sees him pull the piece back again.

[From the singular way in which the witness gave his evidence, his Honor wished to know, whether the Jury was satisfied the witness was sober. The Foreman said the Jury were of opinion that it was only a mannerism, and the case proceeded.]

Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. - I had been living with the prisoner about four months; I have known him three or four years; we were on good terms. On the Sunday evening I had two glasses of wine with Pritchard; I know where the wine came from; I was sent for it on the morning. I brought a gallon and a quart of wine by direction of Mr. and Mrs. Pritchard; there was no one in the house but Mr. and Mrs. Pritchard and myself. They say down to drink the wine, and I had some with them; I left them with the wine directly after dinner, and returned about sun-set. They were drinking when I returned. There might be the value of a pint and a half or two pints left; they asked me to have a glass with them; I had a couple of glasses and went to bed. I did not ask for anything to eat when I returned in the middle of the day, because I thought he was intoxicated, seeing the wife outside. I had seen him kick the wife out when he was in liquor. When he fired I will swear I was not thirty or forty yards from the hut.

Dr. Thomas deposed to having examined the last witness at Pontville. He had received about thirty shots in the back and arm - the majority in the back. The wound was in a state of suppuration, and I thought it best to leave it to nature rather than irritate the wound. It was not a dangerous wound; I removed one of the shot; I examined his clothes; his shirt and jacket were full of holes, his braces had prevented some of the shot from penetrating. I consider the shot must have been fired from a considerable distance as they had scattered so much.

Mr. Ross for the prisoner, addressed the Jury, and repudiated the idea of the act being committed with either of the intents charged in the information. The case depended on the unsupported testimony of one man, whose evidence might be altogether erroneous. It was evident from the mouth of the witness that there never had been any quarrel or disagreement; and with the exception of the mere assertion of Jay, that Pritchard called after him that he wished he had another, there is nothing to prove the whole matter might not have been altogether accident. The prisoner is habitually a sober man, but when he gets liquor, from the effects of an old wound received while in the Marines he is deranged. The learned gentleman would shew that the prisoner’s general character was peaceable - but that he had, when under the influence of his malady, twice attempted his own life.

Mr. James Murdoch, and Mr. Alfred Luttrell, gave the prisoner an excellent character, but that when in liquor he was almost a madman.

His Honor summed up very carefully, pointing out to the Jury even feature in the case, which had a favourable tendency.

Verdict - “Not Guilty on the first count - Guilty on the second; but under the circumstances of the case, we beg strongly to recommend him to the merciful consideration of His Excellency.”

Pedder C.J., 18 July 1840

Source: Hobart Town Advertiser, 24 July 1840[2]

            Pryce Pritchard was placed in the dock to receive sentence, for shooting at John Jay with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. His Honor observed, that it was a sad thing to see a man so advanced in years brought up to receive sentence of death for a crime of this nature. That he had committed the act was clear from two circumstances; but with what motive it was impossible to say. The Jury had recommended him to mercy - but what were the peculiar circumstances which induced them to do so His Honor did not know - of himself he had no power to mitigate the sentence which the law pronounced against the crime of which he had been convicted. He could only be the bearer of the recommendation of the Jury to the Government. This he would do, and would also say that the sentence of death which would be recorded against him would not be carried into execution, but what the Government might think proper to do with him His Honor could not say. Sentence of Death Recorded was then pronounced, and the prisoner was removed apparently overwhelmed in the apathy of despair.