The Goulburn Herald and Chronicle, Wed 27 Mar 1872 1
THE CIRCUITS.—
…
At the Deniliquin circuit court, which will be holden the 22nd April before Mr Justice Faucett, there is but one criminal case, that of Jemmy, a Chinese, for bestiality. Some of the arrangements as to the judge may be changed. A barrister will have to commissioned as an acting-judge at one of the assizes, probably at Bathurst. The prosecutions will be conducted by
…
It is probable, but not quite certain, that the solicitor-general will prosecute at Wagga Wagga, Albury, and Deniliquin.—SM Herald.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Deniliquin Chronicle and Riverine Gazette, Thu 25 Apr 1872 2
THE DENILIQUIN CIRCUIT COURT.
————
MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1872.
(Before Mr Justice Fawcett.)
This Court was opened at 10 o’clock by the reading of the usual proclamation. Mr Windeyer, late (Solicitor-General), prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr C Lett of the Crown Solicitor’s Office, was in attendance.
…
Jemmy, a Chinaman employed at Moama, was indicted for an unnatural offence at the place with a sow, on the afternoon of the 12th December last. Accused said he knew nothing about it, and pleaded not guilty. Mr Robertson defended.
The evidence for the prosecution is of course unfit for publication, but it was clear and explicit as to the attempt, and given by four boys, aged from twelve to fourteen years, named Hunt, Barue, Hinchley, and Waltham, who were playing with others in the neighbourhood where the crime was alleged to have been committed.
Mr Robertson addressed the jury for prisoner, briefly urging that, accepting the evidence as reliable, and it was accused’s statement that the boys had conspired against him—it only strictly proved an attempt.
Mr Windeyer withdrew the capital offence;
And his Honor said he need say very little—if the jury believed the evidence they would pronounce him guilty—if not, they would acquit.
After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict of guilty of the attempt.
His Honor was about to pass sentence when a letter was handed to him. After perusing it, and addressing the jury, he said he quite concurred in the verdict, on the evidence presented, and if the writer of that letter had contradictory evidence to give, he should have been there to-day. His Honor then read the letter to the jury. It stated that the writer saw no chance of getting to the court, but if the boys swore the offence was committed about coach time (they had sworn between 2 and 3 o’clock, which is coach time we believe at Moama) he knew it to be an untruth, as prisoner was with him till 4.30. The letter spoke disparagingly of two of the witnesses, and alleged they had made mistakes as to the distance they were from accused. The writer’s name was not given by his Honor, but he said the writer ought to have been there in the interest of public justice, and not have written a letter instead. His Honor then sentenced prisoner to two years’ hard labour in Goulburn Gaol.
Neither of the other two cases being ready, the jurymen about noon were discharged until Wednesday.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Pastoral Times, Sat 27 Apr 1872 3
DENILIQUIN CIRCUIT COURT.
MONDAY, APRIL 22.
(Before His Honour Mr Justice Fawcett.)
Mr Jeffery applied for an adjournment of the case of Jones, charged with murder, as it was desired to procure counsel, and it was expected that Mr Butler QC, would attend at the Court on Wednesday. The application was granted.
UNNATURAL OFFENCE.
Jimmy, a Chinese, was charged with committing an unnatural offence on a sow, at Moama, on the 12th of December.
The Crown Prosecutor, Mr Windeyer, in his address, said he would not disgust the jury by recounting the particulars to be given in evidence, but if they believed the evidence of the witnesses they must find the prisoner guilty of the charge. If they were not satisfied that prisoner absolutely committed the offence with which he is charged, and which is a capital offence, they could find him guilty of the lesser offence of attempt.
Joseph Henry Hunt, aged fourteen; Thos Barnham, twelve years of age; Robert Hinchcliffe, a boy of fourteen; and William Waltham, somewhat younger, gave evidence in the case. Their evidence was to the effect that they were playing in an old hut at Dorwood’s ten acre paddock at Moama, when prisoner entered the paddock for the purpose of driving the cows out, after doing which he was observed (according to the evidence of the boys) to seize a sow, and to all appearance commit the offence for which he was indicted. The distance of prisoner from the boys at this time was stated by the boy Hunt to be 100 yards, and by Hinchcliffe 30 to 40 yards. The time occupied in committing the offence was about a quarter of an hour. According to the evidence of William Waltham, the boys then separated, some going nearer to the prisoner, who (it was stated by Barnham and Waltham) washed himself at a waterhole, and repeated the offence. The two boys named spoke to prisoner, who made a reply that (if the evidence of the boys is to be believed) would leave no doubt of his guilt. In cross-examination the boys stated that it was raining at the time, and that prisoner wore an oilskin coat, which covered both himself and the sow.
Mr Robertson addressed the jury for the defence, explaining in the opening of his address that he had done all he could to endeavour to obtain counsel for the defence—having endeavoured to impress the necessity of so doing on the Chinese who waited on him to arrange for the defence of the prisoner. He made this explanation, as attorneys in circuit towns were sometimes charged with throwing obstacles in the way of securing counsel. He thought no attorney in a case involving a question of life and death should not take upon himself the responsibility of defending a prisoner. With respect to the charge, the boys and the prisoner had carried on a sort of warfare. The prisoner was bound to protect his master’s property, and the boys had exhibited a fondness for fruit, which they seemed to think was sweeter, if stolen. The prisoner had several times threatened to inform the police if their stealing fruit from his master’s garden, and there arose a feeling of enmity between them. This was the prisoner’s defence, and as the prisoner’s mouthpiece he (Mr Robertson) gave it for what it was worth. Under the strongest view, the Crown had proved no more than that an attempt was made—to bring home the capital charge it would be necessary for the Crown to show there had been actual penetration. He submitted that the capital offence had not been brought home to the prisoner. With these remarks he left the case in the hands of the jury.
The Crown prosecutor at this stage withdrew the capital charge against the prisoner.
His Honour briefly summed up, and the jury after a short deliberation found prisoner guilty.
As his Honour was about to sentence the prisoner, a letter was handed to him, which Mr Robertson stated had only been placed in his hands that morning. After perusing the letter, his Honour said if the contents were correct, the writer, in the interest of justice, should have made it a point to have been present. As it was, he could take no notice of the letter. The contents of the letter (the writer of which is Mr Dorwood, of Moama) are to the effect that the boys having sworn in their evidence that the prisoner committed the offence about coach time—this he (Mr Dorwood) knew to be an untruth; the prisoner did not leave the house to fetch the cows until half-past four pm. The distance of the boys from the prisoner was 140 yards. Mr Dorwood also stated that the paddock was a quarter of a mile from the house, and he could not have had time while away for the cows to have committed the offence twice as stated. Mr Dorwood, concluded his letter by stating that the boys are noted young scamps, and their words not to be depended upon.
His Honour said that he could take no notice of the letter—the statements made therein might either be true or untrue. He could not allow it to influence him in any way. He then sentenced the prisoner to two years’ imprisonment in Goulburn Gaol, with hard labour.
The Court then adjourned to Wednesday next, there being no other cases ready to proceed with.
1 The Goulburn Herald and Chronicle, Wed 27 Mar 1872, p. 4.
2 Deniliquin Chronicle and Riverine Gazette, Thu 25 Apr 1872 p. 2.
3 The Pastoral Times, Sat 27 Apr 1872, p. 4. Emphasis added.