Rectangle
uni-arms

Decisions of the Nineteenth Century Tasmanian Superior Courts

Published by the Division of Law, Macquarie University and the School of History and Classics, University of Tasmania

mulaw small

[manslaughter – convicts, mistreatment of]

R. v. Gerard

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Pedder C.J., 18 July 1843

Source: Hobart Town Advertiser, 21 July 1843[1]

            Charge of Manslaughter. - William Gerard was indicted for having, on the 25th March, feloniously assaulted, beaten, and kicked Henry White, of which injuries he languished and died.

            The Attorney General was for the prosecution; after the trial had been proceeded in some time, Mr. McDowell acceded to a request that he would undertake the defence.

            The deceased, a ticket of leave man, on the 25th March, was in the employ of Mr. Woodward, landlord of the Turk’s Head, as a ferry-boat man, at Risdon. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased was a man of a quarrelsome, riotous, and violent disposition, frequently engaged in pugilistic combats. On the day stated in the indictment, after having been “fighting all the morning,” in the words of one of the witnesses, he repaired to the Turk’s Head tap-room, where the prisoner Gerard, and others were drinking. White sat down on a chest; he was very “wranglesome,” drank some liquor, and in more wantonness, knocked over two full pots of beer. He swore he would have an Irish row, and taking up the leg of a broken chair, said he would break the head of the first man who came in. The prisoner rose from his seat and grasped the deceased’s arm, asking him if he was going to fight with every body. White then made two or three blows at the prisoner with the chair leg, fetching blood from his head. The parties “wrestled” together; White was thrown, and the prisoner as his antagonist lay on his side, gave him a most violent kick in the breast with his heavy boot, saying “that’s what you want,” and White faintly articulated “you’ve killed me.” White was then removed to his bed, and was attended the same evening by Dr. Collyer. He complained of pain in his chest; and Dr. Collyer (as well as Dr. Henderson subsequently) examined the breast externally, pressing heavily upon it, to ascertain whether the bone was fractured. This was on the Saturday evening; and on the Tuesday deceased returned to his usual labour of pulling an oar, and lifting heavy weights. He remained at work for nearly a fortnight, occasionally complaining of pain when making great exertion. On Wednesday, the 12th April, he again took to his bed, and died on Good Friday, the 14th. On a post-mortem examination by Drs. Collyer and Coverdale, it was discovered that the breast bone was broken. There was also extensive inflammation of the bowels and lungs, the right lobe of the latter being gorged with blood, and the pleura was adhering extensively to the cavity of the chest and ribs. Both these gentlemen gave it as their opinion that the inflammation might have been caused by a portion of the fractured bone coming in contact with the lungs in respiration; that the injury might have existed and not been discovered by external pressure, and that the man might have followed his work, although suffering great pain, with the breast bone broken. Neither of the medical gentlemen ventured upon a positive opinion on these subjects.

            On the other hand it was in evidence that, when the deceased returned to his work, he was in very high spirits, looked in very good health, and gave Mr. Woodward notice to leave, as he had engaged to join Dr. Imley’s whaling party at Two-fold Bay. When Dr. Collyer was first called in the man’s body was covered with bruises, received in fighting with several persons - a desperate conflict with “Tom Jones” in particular, before his rencontre with Gerard.

            The jury, after a short consultation, acquitted the prisoner.

Notes

[1]             See also Hobart Town Courier, 21 July 1843; Murray’s Review, 28 July 1843.  The report in Murray’s Review stated that “The Attorney-General briefly explained the case to the Jury, observing that he had not placed the prisoner on his trial for his life, because it did not appear that there existed any preconcerted malice on the part of the prisoner towards the deceased: … It was due to the prisoner to state, that the deceased was an extremely irritable man, and that in fact he originated the quarrel, which, it is alleged, led to his death, the prisoner in the first instance merely interfering to quell the quarrel, yet, if he followed up that interference by unnecessary violence, so as to occasion the death of the antagonist, he would be guilty of manslaughter.”