Clifford Gordon Bradley and Victor Joseph MacDuff, 1904
Below also see: Victor Joseph MacDuff, 1921 – Bestiality
Singleton Argus, Thu 1 Dec 1904 1
SINGLETON POLICE COURT.
———◦———
Tuesday, November 29th.
————
(Before Mr EAL Sharpe, PM.)
CHARGE OF STEALING.
Clifford Gordon Bradley was charged with stealing a sulky, horse, and harness, the property of Alfred Francis Doney.
Mr Shaw appeared for the defence.
Alfred Francis Doney deposed that he resided in Sydney, and was in business as manages [sic] of the Sun Portrait Company, and that he knew the accused personally, whom he had taken into his employ on 21st June last as traveller. Accused entered into an agreement with witness, and signed the agreement on which he was engaged. The agreement (produced) was the one entered into. Witness also engaged a man at the same time he engaged accused. This man accused brought with him was named McDuff. Witness gave the horse, sulky, and harness into the custody of accused and McDuff to use in the employ of witness. The sulky, horse, and harness outside the Court were those given to accused to look after.
In reply to the Sergeant, who conducted the prosecution, witness further deposed that from something he afterwards heard, he gave information to the police. Witness had received letters from the accused, who wrote from Newcastle and Queensland, later on. Witness had everything to do with the engagement of accused and McDuff as canvassers. They had no authority at all from witness to dispose of the sulky, horse, and harness. The value of the sulky, horse, and harness was £16 in witness’ opinion, and it was the property of the Sun Portrait Company, to which witness belonged; the brother of witness, FS Doney, connected with the firm, had no dealings with the accused, and could not have given them authority to dispose of the goods in question.
In cross-examination by Mr Shaw, witness said that McDuff was the older man of the two accused. There was a little memorandum signed respecting the engagement of accused, but witness had not it with him. Both accused signed the memorandum. Witness may have said something to McDuff about the horse and trap, when both accused were together. Witness may have said that he held McDuff responsible for the horse and sulky.
Frank Andrew Bennett, auctioneer, Singleton, called by Sergeant Whitfield, deposed that he knew the accused before the Court, and saw him on Monday, 4th July, this year. Accused came to witness’s office with another man. Both men wanted to know if witness could buy a turn out, or sell one for them. The men said that they had been offered £3 for the whole turn-out. Witness advised them to bring the trap down next day for witness to see, which accused and the other man did. Witness told them there would be no difficulty in getting considerably more for the horse and sulky than they were offered, and advised them to put it up to auction, which they did. The sulky was put in the name of GC Bradley or CG Bradley, witness was not sure which. The accused jointly led witness to believe that the trap, horse, and harness was their property. The trap, horse, etc, was brought to witness at the auction mart to sell on the 5th July. The horse was in pretty poor condition and had long hair. Witness was not sure that the horse outside the Court was the same as the one sold, though he recognised the vehicle. The turn-out was put up for auction, and sold for £8. The accused both came to witness after the sale and asked for the money, as they wanted to get away promptly. Witness said that he would like to see the brand of the horse and see the receipt. The accused pulled out some papers, and said he must have left the receipt at the hotel. A person who made the entry in the books of the firm in which witness was employed had since left Singleton. Did not see the accused after the sale. The purchaser of the horse and sulky was James Swift, to whom it was handed over.
In cross-examination by Mr Shaw, witness said he was generally busy as a business man, and Monday was a busy day, as a rule, in town. The accused did not drive up in the trap when witness first saw them. McDuff appeared the older man of the two, but both men took part in the conversation. McDuff and the accused before the court were about the saleyards for a time. There was no reserve placed on the horse and trap, when witness sold them on the Tuesday. The accused and the other man were very anxious to get away after the sale was effected.
James Swift, a farmer, residing at Kelso, gave evidence to the effect that he attended the union sales on July 5th, and purchased a horse, sulky, and harness for £8. The horse, sulky, and harness, now outside the court, were the same. Afterwards, witness disposed of the sulky and harness to George Isaacs, at Booral. Some two days after this, witness handed the horse over to the possession of the Singleton police. Witness did not know the accused before the court, and was not sure whether he was at the union sales.
In cross-examination by Mr Shaw, witness said that at the sale he saw a stout tall clean-shaven man, acting as if he were the owner of the trap and horse. A short man came to witness, after the sale was over, with the tall man. Both men appeared quite sober.
By Sergeant Whitfield: The two men referred to first drove up to the union in a trap, and they were the two witness spoke to. Witness thought the tall man was the owner of the horse.
George Andrew Isaacs, a farmer, residing at Booral, gave evidence to the effect that in July last he purchased a sulky and harness at the Union sale yards from James Swift. Afterwards handed the trap and harness over to Sergeant Mayo, of Stroud.
There was no evidence called for the defence, and accused, after being cautioned, reserved his defence, and was formally committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions to be held in Singleton, or wherever it should be appointed.
Bail was allowed—accused in £80 and two in £40 each. Bail was not forthcoming, and accused was removed in custody.
The witnesses were formally bound over to appear at the trial of accused.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Singleton Argus, Sat 7 Jan 1905 2
SINGLETON POLICE COURT.
———◦———
Tuesday, January 3rd.
————
(Before Mr EAL Sharpe, PM.)
…
Friday, January 6th.
————
(Before Messrs R Faulkner and CW Doyle, JsP.)
CHARGE OF STEALING.
Victor Joseph McDuff was charged with stealing a horse, sulky, and harness, valued at £12, in company with one, Clifford Gordon Bradley, at Singleton on July 5th 1904. The property stolen was claimed by Francis Septimus Doney, acting on behalf of the Sun Portrait Company.
Accused pleaded not guilty and was undefended.
Francis Septimus Doney, Manager of the Sun Portrait Company deposed that he knew the accused before the court, and he was in witness’s employ on 5th July last year. Witness engaged accused and an agreement was entered into, and this agreement witness now produced by which accused engaged to work for plaintiff at a certain sum in connection with portrait enlargements. Accused had to drive a horse and trap for the purpose of carrying on the business of the firm. The date of the engagement of accused was mentioned on the agreement. Did not hear from the accused till some time after this, in Singleton, but received no orders from him. The agreement with accused was to the effect that he should look after the horse and trap and use it in the business of witness’ firm. Last July witness came to Singleton and identified the horse and sulky in question, when Bradley was before the Court. Valued the property altogether at £16. No other member of the company or firm, except witness, had any dealings with the accused. Had seen the horse and harness in the backyard at the Court. They were the property of the firm.
Frank Andrew Bennett, auctioneer, etc, residing in Singleton, deposed that he remembered the 5th July last, when he saw the accused, personally, at the Union Sales, and also prior to this. Accused was then in company with another man named Bradley in the street. Had a conversation with accused and Bradley as to the value of a turn-out they were driving. The two men with the vehicle mentioned a sum of money they wanted for the turn out. Witness said he was sure he could get more money than they named. The accused brought the turn-out to the auction sale. Witness submitted it to auction, and the trap, harness, and horse outside the court were apparently the same, though witness could not swear positively to the horse, as it was very poor at the time of sale. Witness sold the trap, horse, and harness for £8, and they were purchased by James Swift. The money received for the sale was paid to one or the other of the accused, and when witness asked for the receipt and brands for the horse, accused said they had left it at the hotel, but they wanted an immediate settlement as they wished to get away by the train. Witness did not pay the accused personally from the proceeds of the sale, but noted by an entry in the book produced that the accused were paid £7 12s being the amount of sale, less commission.
In reply to the accused, witness said he considered £8 or £9 was a fair value for the horse and trap at the time. Could not swear that accused said he had the brands of the horse. Could not say whether you (McDuff) or the other accused (Bradley) on a former occasion received the money for the sale as witness did not pay personally.
James Swift, a farmer at Kelso, gave evidence to the effect that he recognised the accused as a man he had seen at the union sales on July 5th last. Accused was then sitting in a sulky with another man, who had been committed for trial since then. The sulky and horse outside the Court were the same as witness saw sold by auction on July 5th, and witness bought the sulky and horse for £8. Accused and his late companion Bradley were present at the time witness made the purchase. Afterwards witness handed the horse and trap over to the Singleton police.
Accused had no questions to ask this witness.
Francis Septimus Doney, recalled by the Bench, replied that both McDuff and Bradley were accountable for the care of the trap and horse.
In reply to the accused, witness said that Bradley had been longer in his employ, but he considered accused was also responsible.
Accused, after having been formally cautioned, decided to reserve his defence, and was committed to take his trial at the Singleton Quarter Sessions to be held on February 24.
Bail was allowed, self in £80, and two sureties in £40 or one in £80 and accused was removed in custody.
The witnesses were bound over as usual to appear at the trial of accused.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Singleton Argus, Sat 25 Feb 1905 3
SINGLETON QUARTER SESSIONS
———◦———
Friday, February 24th, 1905.
————
(Before his Honor Judge Gibson).
The Quarter Sessions opened yesterday.
Mr A Grainger, JP, sat on the Bench as Deputy Sheriff.
The Bar was represented by Mr Walter Bevan, acting as Crown Prosecutor, Messrs AR Watt and E Warren.
The solicitors present were Messrs WJ Cragg and AB Shaw (Singleton), WJ Enright (Maitland), and JJ McDonald (Sydney).
The names of the jury for the criminal cases were called.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Singleton Argus, Tue 28 Feb 1905 4
SINGLETON QUARTER SESSIONS
———◦———
Saturday, February 25, 1905.
————
(Before his Honor Judge Gibson).
The sittings of the Singleton Quarter Sessions were continued on Saturday morning, at 9 o’clock, before his Honor Judge Gibson.
…
STEALING A HORSE AND SULKY.
Clifford Gordon Bradley and Victor Joseph McDuff were charged with stealing on the 5th July, 1904, one horse and sulky, the property of Francis Alfred Doney, representing the Sunlight Portrait Company.
Accused pleaded not guilty, and were undefended.
McDuff challenged one juryman and the Crown one.
(The particulars of this case have already been given at the Police Court proceedings, when each of the accused were committed for trial.)
The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, stated that the accused had been engaged by Mr Doney, manager of the Sunlight Portrait Company, and were entrusted with a horse and sulky, which they sold, and cleared out with the proceeds.
Francis Albert Doney deposed that he was manager for his brother in the Sunlight Portrait Company and gave evidence to the effect that Bradley and McDuff had been engaged by him to canvass for the company, and he gave accused an-order for a horse and trap, and also some money. The accused were to hold the horse and sulky as bailees for witness, while taking orders for portraits. The agreements produced were those entered into with accused. After the accused had left, witness only received two letters from them; heard something, and came up to Singleton. Neither of the accused had any right to dispose of the horse, sulky, and harness.
In reply to the accused Bradley, witness denied that McDuff had signed any agreement with the witness except what was now produced. Could not say to which of the two accused witness had given an order, so that a horse and trap could be got by McDuff. It might have been given to McDuff. Dealt with both of the accused together in making arrangements, and not separately.
His Honor here remarked to Bradley that if he took part in the disposal of the sulky he was equally criminal with McDuff.
In reply to McDuff witness said that he should have held him responsible if anything happened to the horse and trap. No other agreement was signed by McDuff. Had received letters from McDuff, and produced one. Had never agreed to pay money, except on receipt of orders.
In reply to the Crown Prosecutor, witness said there was no other agreement made with the accused in any shape or form.
Frank Andrew Bennett, an auctioneer, residing in Singleton, gave evidence to the effect that on July 5th last the accused both came to witness and asked him to sell a horse, sulky, and harness, for which they had been offered £3. Witness advised them to put the trap, &c, up for auction. On the following Tuesday, witness saw the turnout, and said he thought some £8 to £10 could be got for it. Afterwards the accused brought the turnout to the saleyards, and accused sold by auction the turnout for £8 to James Swift. Both of the accused then came to witness for a settlement, after the sale, as they were going by train. Witness said he would like to see a receipt for the horse, and also what brands were noted in the receipt, and McDuff said that he would get the receipt. The accused were paid for the proceeds of the sale. The sulky and harness outside the court were the same, but witness could not swear to the horse.
In reply to Bradley, witness said that the two accused were together when the brands of the horse were asked for.
The witness also answered some questions from McDuff, as to the receipt of the money.
James Doohan, living at Casino, deposed that in July last he was in the employ of Messrs Moore and Co, Singleton. Last July received certain instructions from Mr Bennett, and paid over money to the two accused. The amount was £8. The amount was made payable to Bradley.
In reply to Bradley, witness said he could swear to both of the accused being present at the sale of the horse and trap.
In reply to McDuff, the witness Doney said that he had never met him till he met with Bradley. In reply to the Crown Prosecutor, FA Bennett said that Bradley never said the sulky was not his.
James Swift, a farmer near South Singleton, deposed that he purchased the horse and sulky, and remembered the accused McDuff being present, with another man. The horse and sulky were those outside the court.
Constable Rowe, stationed at Broke, gave evidence to the effect that on the 5th July last the accused Bradley was sitting in the sulky when it was being sold, with a horse and harness. To the best of witness’s belief the horse, sulky, and harness were those outside the court.
Bradley here addressed the jury, principally upon his not being identified, and then called John William Teddiman. This witness deposed that he was landlord of the Agricultural Hotel, and remember the accused Bradley offering the horse and trap to witness for sale.
In reply to McDuff, witness said he and Bradley had stayed at the hotel, but he could not remember Bradley going away first.
Bradley in addressing the jury said the loss of an agreement affected his case, and it was not feasible he would take over the whole control of the horse and trap. This agreement had been purposely withheld.
His Honor here summed up, and asked the jury to consider the evidence as to the accused having sold the sulky, horse, and harness without any authority, and the circumstances of Bradley sitting in the sulky when it was sold and then taking the proceeds of that sale. What the defence of the accused was his Honour said he did not know. The jury would also consider whether the accused were not acting in concert in the matter.
The jury after retiring returned with a verdict of guilty of horse-stealing and larceny against both accused.
In reply as to whether they had anything to say, accused Bradley said that he had been in gaol for some months. Bradley also asked his Honor to read certificates as to former character and family letters, which he now produced, and his Honor proceeded to do so.
McDuff asked his Honor to take into consideration that he had also been in gaol for some time. He asked for leniency.
In reply to his Honor, Bradley said he was 20, and McDuff 25 years old.
His Honor said he was not satisfied with the characters produced concerning either of the accused. He further said that as it appeared McDuff had given his age as 25 and Bradley was also a young man, he should pass a sentence upon each of the accused of twelve months’ imprisonment in Maitland Gaol.
The prisoners were then removed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Clifford Gordon Bradley, Gaol photo sheet 5
![SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6070], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1904-1905, No. 9625, p. 74, R5111.](../../images/trials/1904-MacDuff-6070-gaol-photo-9625-Clifford-Bradley.jpg "SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6070], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1904-1905, No. 9625, p. 74, R5111.") |
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
No. 9625
EB 05-1119
Date when Portrait was taken: 1-3-1905
Name: Clifford Gordon Bradley
|
Native place: South Australia Year of birth: 24 Aug 1884 Arrived Ship: Trade or occupation Religion: C of E Education, degree of: R & W Height: 5' 5¾" Weight On committal: 151 Colour of hair: Dark brown Colour of eyes: Brown |
Marks or special features: Scar on right side of chin. Chest hairy. |
|
(No. of previous Portrait ... ) CONVICTIONS |
|||||
| Where and When | Offence. | Sentence | |||
|
Singleton Q.S |
25 |
2 |
1905 |
Horse stealing & Larceny |
12 months HL |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Victor Joseph MacDuff, Gaol photo sheet 6
![SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6070], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1904-1905, No. 9627, p. 76, R5111.](../../images/trials/1904-MacDuff-6070-gaol-photo-9627-Victor-MacDuff.jpg "SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6070], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1904-1905, No. 9627, p. 76, R5111.") |
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
No. 9627
EB 05-1120
Date when Portrait was taken: 1-3-1905
Name: Victor Joseph MacDuff
|
Native place: Victoria Year of birth: 25 May 1878 Arrived Ship: Trade or occupation Religion: C of E Education, degree of: R & WW Height: 5' 9½" Weight On committal: 152 Colour of hair: Dark brown Colour of eyes: Dark brown |
Marks or special features: Jewish appearance. Three vaccination marks on left upper arm. Small scar on second joint left forefinger. Tattoo “V.J.M.” on right arm. Scar on knuckle of right forefinger. Several teeth missing top jaw. Chest hairy. Small scar on left knee. |
|
(No. of previous Portrait ... ) CONVICTIONS |
|||||
| Where and When | Offence. | Sentence | |||
|
New Zealand Wanganni PC Wellington PC NSW Singleton Q.S |
11
25 |
2
2 |
1904
1905 |
False pretences
Horse stealing & larceny |
2 months imprisonment
12 months HL |
Victor Joseph MacDuff, 1921
The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 1 Jun 1921 7
LAW NOTICES.
———
Wednesday, June 1.
———
…
QUARTER SESSIONS.
Carl Carlson, larceny; Victor MacDuff, indecency; Arthur Johnson, larceny; William Francis Merrivan, breaking and entering and stealing.
Note.—Only the witnesses in the above-mentioned cases will be required to attend the Court to-day.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Daily Telegraph, Thu 2 Jun 1921 8
CRIMINAL.
———
(Before Judge White.)
…
Victor [or Victor Joseph] McDuff [aka MacDuff] was found guilty of an attempt to commit a serious offence, [bestiality with a donkey ], in Hyde Park on May 23, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor in Grafton Gaol.
Mr Norman Rowland prosecuted for the Crown.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 2 Jun 1921 9
QUARTER SESSIONS.
(Before Judge White.)
Mr N de H Rowland, Crown Prosecutor.
…
SENT TO GAOL.
Victor McDuff pleaded not guilty to a serious charge. The jury found him guilty of an attempt. McDuff was sentenced to imprisonment in Grafton Gaol with hard labour for a period of six months.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Victor McDuff, Gaol photo sheet 10
![SRNSW: NRS2467, [3/6106], State Penitentiary photographic description book, 14 May 1921-7 Feb 1922, No. 17948, p. 42.](../../images/trials/1904-MacDuff-6106-gaol-photo-17948-Victor-Joseph-MacDuff.jpg "SRNSW: NRS2467, [3/6106], State Penitentiary photographic description book, 14 May 1921-7 Feb 1922, No. 17948, p. 42.") |
Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details
No. 17948
Date when Portrait was taken: 2-6-1921
Name: Victor McDuff
(aka James Victor McDuff, Victor Joseph McDuff)
|
Native place: Victoria Year of birth: 25-5-1876 Arrived Ship: Trade or occupation Religion: C of E Education, degree of: R&W Height: 5' 9¾" Weight On committal: 179 Colour of hair: Brown Colour of eyes: Brown |
Marks or special features: “V. J. M.” outside right left wrist. Bald on top of head. Small scar on second joint of left forefinger & on right forefinger & on right knee |
|
(No. of previous Portrait .. 9627) CONVICTIONS |
|||||
| Where and When | Offence. | Sentence | |||
|
New Zealand Wanganni PC ditto NSW Singleton Q.S Water PC Central PC Sydney Q.S |
11
25 27 24 1 |
2
2 8 8 6 |
1904
1905 1917 1920 1921 |
False pretences
Horse stealing & larceny Stealing from a vessel Indecent behaviour Attempt to commit beastiality [sic] |
2 months H.L.
12 months H.L. 21 days H.L. £1 or 7 days HL. Paid fine at court. 6 months H.L. |
|
And 3 previous convictions to 27-8-1917 for which see Photo No. as above |
|||||
1 Singleton Argus, Thu 1 Dec 1904, p. 2. Emphasis added.
2 Singleton Argus, Sat 7 Jan 1905, p. 5.
3 Singleton Argus, Sat 25 Feb 1905, p. 4.
4 Singleton Argus, Tue 28 Feb 1905, p. 2.
5 SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6070], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1904-1905, No. 9625, p. 74, R5111.
6 SRNSW: NRS2138, [3/6070], Darlinghurst Gaol photographic description book, 1904-1905, No. 9627, p. 76, R5111.
7 The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 1 Jun 1921, p. 8. Emphasis added.
8 The Daily Telegraph, Thu 2 Jun 1921, p. 7.
9 The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 2 Jun 1921, p. 4.
10 SRNSW: NRS2467, [3/6106], State Penitentiary photographic description book, 14 May 1921-7 Feb 1922, No. 17948, p. 42.