[convict evidence – assault – Launceston]

R. v. Richards

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Montagu J., 15 April 1840

Source: Cornwall Chronicle, 18 April 1840[1]

            John Richards was next put to the bar, charged with maliciously cutting and wounding George Parkinson on the 8th of January last.

George Parkinson examined. - I know the prisoner at the bar; on the 8th of January last I was working with him in the harvest field of Mr. Archer; about half-past seven in the morning we went to the hut to get breakfast; there was but one fork in the hut, which the prisoner was then using to get some meat out of the pot; I desired him, as soon as he had done with it, to lend it to me; upon my again asking him for it, he said he had just given it to another man; I replied, that, if so, he had acted very wrong. I had scarcely uttered these words, when I felt something cut me across the nose and lip; at the moment I received the blow I heard the prisoner say, “Take that.” He was standing about a yard from me at the time, and remember seeing a shovel lying on the floor close to him. Dr. Seccombe dressed the wound in Launceston. Mordecai Taylor was present when the prisoner struck me.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. - I did nothing to provoke you; I did not shove you upon the floor nor knock the meat out of your hand.

By the Court. - I did not so much as put my hand upon him; the cuts which Dr. Seccombe dressed were those which I received upon the occasion.

Mordecai Taylor sworn. - Is acquainted with both the prisoner and the prosecutor, and was living in the same hut with them in the month of January; on the morning of the 8th they were in the field together, and continued grumbling at one another until breakfast time; whilst getting my breakfast I heard the prisoner say, “I want none of your jaw;” a shovel was then in his hand, and I saw him put it down.

Dr. Seccombe deposed that he dressed a wound which Parkinson said he had received from a man named Richards, it had been inflicted with some instrument not over sharp; the lower portion of the nose was severed and hanging by a piece of skin, the upper lip was also cut through to the gum; deponent stitched up the wound; it could under no circumstances have proved dangerous.

Mr. Archer deposed that the prisoner is a servant of Mr. Rook, and deponent had always believed him to be a kind well disposed man; deponent heard the day before the affair happened that the prosecutor had been beating him; Parkinson is a man of violent and quarrelsome disposition.

Parkinson being recalled, denied having beaten Richards at any time, and the witness Taylor was in consequence again ordered into Court by His Honor and stated that he saw the prisoner hold up the shovel to Parkinson, but did not see any blow given on either side, Parkinson’s back was towards the witness at the time.

The prisoner in his defence stated, that on the morning in question, whilst he was getting some meat out of the pot, Parkinson desired to have the fork; that deponent told him another man had bespoken it before him; upon which Parkinson pushed him down and struck his breakfast out of his hand; that deponent on rising and observing Parkinson again coming towards him, seized the shovel, and held it up for the purpose of keeping him off; that Parkinson endeavouring to get at deponent fell against the shovel and cut his nose and lip; deponent’s good feeling was such that he had on more than one occasion divided his wine with Parkinson, when the latter had forfeited his by some misdemeanour. The latter part of the evidence was very reluctantly admitted by the prosecutor; and this closing the case, the learned Judge summed up. He said he regretted that in this case, as in almost all the cases which come before a Criminal Court in this Colony, the evidence of prisoners must necessarily be admitted; whereas in England their testimony would be wholly disregarded, unless indeed corroborated in almost every particular by that of persons more deserving of credit. During the many years which he passed in his present judicial capacity, as well as those which had elapsed during his Attorney Generalship, he scarcely remembered a single instance wherein he could conscientiously place any reliance upon the testimony of a convict. Such is their moral turpitude, and so many incentives have they to deviate from the truth, being generally either in the hope of reward or the fear of punishment, as to render it extremely difficult to believe one word they utter, even upon oath. His Honor then went over the evidence, explaining the law, and dwelling upon every circumstance which appeared to favor the accused, and the Jury without retiring, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner was then, after a suitable admonition to guard against the first impulses of a revengeful spirit, discharged, and the Judge re-ordered him to the Prisoner’s Barracks. The prosecutor also begged to be removed from his present service on account of the prejudice excited against him in the minds of his fellow servants by his present appearance against Richards. His Honor refused his request, and told him that if he wished for the respect of his companions he must first leave off beating them.