Prisoner Thomas JEFFRIES, aka five-fingered Tom

INTERGENERATIONAL OFFENDERS
OLD HANDS, DIFFERENT HANDS



Prisoner Thomas Jeffries (wrongly labelled as Henry Jeffries in 1915)
Photographed by T. J. Nevin at the Hobart Gaol 15 October 1873
Photos taken at the NLA on 16 December 2016
Copyright © KLW NFC 2016 ARR



Verso: Prisoner Thomas Jeffries (wrongly labelled as Henry Jeffries in 1915)
Photographed by T. J. Nevin at the Hobart gaol 15 October 1873
Photos taken at the NLA on 16 December 2016
Copyright © KLW NFC 2016 ARR



NLA Catalogue (incorrect information)
Part of collection: Convict portraits, Port Arthur, 1874.; Gunson Collection file 203/7/54.; Title from inscription on verso.; Inscription: "299 ; Henry {incorrect - Thomas} Jeffries, native, taken at Port Arthur, 1874"--In ink on verso.

Two outlaws called Thomas Jeffries
The 1870s police identification photograph (above) of locally-born offender Thomas Jeffries may have been wrongly transcribed verso in the early 1900s with the name "Henry Jeffries" when sent from John Watt Beattie's "Port Arthur Museum" located at 51 Murray St. Hobart to Sydney for travelling exhibitions associated with the fake convict hulk Success. This cdv of a Tasmanian prisoner, together with dozens of others transcribed verso with "Taken at Port Arthur 1874" are estrays from early 1900s exhibitions on the theme of penal heritage which were intended to lure the intercolonial tourist to visit the ruins of the former prison at Port Arthur, 60 kms south of Hobart.

The photograph does not appear on the NLA's list of "Convict Portraits, Port Arthur 1874" published in 1985 under Thomas J. Nevin's name as the photographer, so it was either discovered or acquired by the NLA at a later date. Nor does the name "Thomas Jeffries" or the name "Henry Jeffries" appear on the list of prisoners sent to Port Arthur from the Hobart Gaol in the 1870s and returned again in 1873-1874 to the Hobart Gaol at Parliament's request. No other prisoner appears in the police gazette notices by the name of "Henry Jeffries" for the decades 1860s-1880s, so the name "Henry" is incorrect. This prisoner is not to be confused with Mark Jeffrey who was photographed by Nevin in 1877 at the Hobart Gaol.

However, there was another prisoner, a well-known bushranger by the name of Thomas Jeffries who stood trial for the murder of an infant and was hanged in 1826, and whose sketch by Thomas Bock "taken in the dock" (Dunbar, QVMAG catalogue 1991:25) is held at the State Library of NSW. The physical similarities between the 1826 sketch of Thomas Jeffries and the 1870s photograph of Thomas Jeffries suggest that the latter might have been the former's grandson, especially as the prisoner photographed in the 1870s was a local, i.e. born in Tasmania ca. 1845, (1873-28=1845) if he was considered by police to be 28 years old in 1873 and 32 years old in 1878, and not an offender transported prior to 1853, the year in which transportation to the colony ceased.



State Library of NSW
Image no: a933021h
f.18 Thomas Jeffries: on Trial for the Murder of / Mr Tibbs' Infant. 20.9 x 15.2 cm.
Thomas Bock - Sketches of Tasmanian Bushrangers, ca. 1823 - 1843
DL PX 5 Sir William Dixson bequest, 1952

Police Registers and Gazettes
The Tasmanian Police Gazettes, published weekly, which began to document in detail all crimes, warrants, arraignments, convictions, returns of inmate numbers, and discharges from the mid 1860s, are clearly the most comprehensive source of an offender's criminal career. Tasmanian Prison Registers in bound form of criminal record sheets to which the prisoner's mugshot was pasted have not survived in public archives from the decade of the 1870s (it would appear, up to this point, at least), but those bound registers extant from the late 1880s onwards with photographs included which are held at the Archives Office Tasmania (TAHO) have indeed survived and give a clear idea of the meticulous systematic documentation undertaken by the Colonial government's administration.

Smaller registers from 1870s, however, do survive, which document prisoners' sentences in the Hobart and Launceston Sessional and Supreme Courts, particularly those which record men sent to the Port Arthur prison after the processing of their warrant and photograph at the Hobart Gaol and Police Office. Those photographs were reproduced in duplicate (four or more) with at least one pasted to the prisoner's criminal record sheet. Most of these 1870s extant photographs are now loose; they were either removed in the 1900s from the sheets for archiving, and the sheets destroyed, or they are duplicates produced by the original photographer Thomas J. Nevin in the 1870s or by a later copyist such as J. W. Beattie ca.1900 .

Online at TAHO is one such register, the CONDUCT Register - Port Arthur (CON94-1-2) for the years 1873-1876. This register not only lists many of the names of prisoners as those whose photographs have survived from the 1870s, it also documents in detail the daily earnings of the prisoner while incarcerated at Port Arthur. Most important are the Hobart Police Office's annotations from warrants with the prisoner's dates of arrival and departure from Port Arthur, plus further sentences dealt out in the Hobart courts for crimes committed into the 1880s and concommitant sentences at the Hobart Gaol. Several of these men were sent to Port Arthur at the end of 1874, a year after the departure of the non-photographer Commandant A. H. Boyd (Dec. 1873), whom some would wish to believe photographed them there (eg the corruptible Marg Burn at the NLA for their collection 2007). This is a clear indication that this register was maintained conjointly by the police administration in Hobart and clerks at Port Arthur from 1873 and beyond the date of closure of Port Arthur in 1877. The red ink on these records, according to journalist Marcus Clarke, author of For the Term of His Natural Life (1874) was added at the Hobart Police Office where he viewed them on request:
When at Hobart Town I had asked an official of position to allow me to see the records, and - in consideration of the Peacock - he was obliging enough to do so. There I found set down, in various handwritings, the history of some strange lives... and glancing down the list, spotted with red ink for floggings, like a well printed prayer-book ...



Source: Marcus Clarke, THE SKETCHER. (1873, August 2). The Australasian (Melbourne, Vic. : 1864 - 1946), p. 5. Retrieved September 21, 2014, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article137581230

The photographs of many of these prisoners on the list are held at the National Library of Australia as loose items. When first accessioned by the NLA, the photographs were housed in a large leather-bound album, similar to a conventional 19th century family album (1962/1985 and personally witnessed for this weblog in 2000). None were pasted to criminal record sheets, and no accompanying register was recorded. Donated as estrays from exhibitions, sourced originally from a defunct government department (by Dr Neil Gunson in 1964), and viewed already as aesthetic rather than vernacular artefacts, these mugshots in their original context would have accompanied this particular register, (CON94-1-2)



Jeffries, Thomas - Native - Folio 11
Entered on second page of Index of -
Item: CON94-1-2
Title: TASMAN'S PENINSULA - CONDUCT REGISTERS, PORT ARTHUR.



Archives Office of Tasmania – digitised record
Item: CON94-1-2
Series Number: CON94
Title: TASMAN'S PENINSULA - CONDUCT REGISTERS, PORT ARTHUR.
Start Date: 01 Jan 1868
End Date: 30 Sep 1876

Thomas Jeffries' brief stint at Port Arthur
Sentenced to 8 years in Launceston on September 1, 1873 for horse stealing, Thomas Jeffries was received at the Hobart Gaol on 15 October 1873 where government contractor T. J. Nevin photographed him in prison clothing. Two months later he was sent to the Port Arthur prison 60kms south of Hobart, arriving on Christmas Day, 25 December 1873. Transcribed from a memo from Det. Sergeant A. Jones at the Municipal Police Office in Hobart was this warning:
Vide this man's warrant:
Memo:Thos Jeffries has expressed the intention of absconding the first favorable opportunity.
Det. A. Jones 15.9.73
Mr C.D.C Propsting
Thomas Jeffries stayed eight months at Port Arthur. He was returned to the Hobart Gaol on 12 October 1874. The Civil Commandant (Dr Coverdale) noted this in the register:
Removed to Gaol for Males Hobart Town per schooner Harriet this day to complete his sentence.
Civil Commandant 12 October 1874





Second page: Vide this man's warrant:
Memo:Thos Jeffries has expressed the intention of absconding the first favorable opportunity.
Det. A. Jones 15.9.73
Mr C.D.C Propsting

Folio 11, Port Arthur Conduct Record of Thomas Jeffries, (CON94-1-2 at TAHO)

POLICE GAZETTE RECORDS
The mugshot of Thomas Jeffries appears to fit the police description stated in the warrant for Thomas Jeffries, in terms of age at least, if not for the beard and whiskers, so this is not a booking shot taken on arraignment in Launceston, but rather taken by the government contractor, commercial photographer T. J. Nevin, on being received at the Hobart Gaol where prisoners were routinely shaved, bathed and dressed in prison clothing on arrival. This photograph was NOT taken at Port Arthur, despite the title devised by the cataloguist at the NLA from the cdv's verso inscription, nor was it taken by the reviled commandant A. H. Boyd. These ahistoric furphies continue to be promulgated by "interpretationists" at the Port Arthur Historic Site theme park who would wish to inveigle their visitors in the same way that Beattie et al deceived visitors to his museum in the 1900s in the name of tourism.

After sentencing at Launceston in September 1873, Thomas Jeffries was held at the Hobart Gaol for nearly two months, from mid October 1873 to Christmas Day 1873. He would have been photographed again on discharge, per police requirements and regulations, in 1878.



"Known as five-fingered Tom, having a sixth finger on the side of right hand"

Warrant for Thomas Jeffries issued on 23 May 1873, per police gazette.



Thomas Jeffries, aged 28 yrs, was arraigned at the Recorder's Court, Launceston, on 1 September 1873, for horse stealing, sentenced to 8 years, and transferred to the Hobart Goal in mid October. He spent 8 months at Port Arthur only, from Christmas Day 1873 and was returned to the gaol in Hobart in October 1874 where he remained until the residue of his sentence was remitted on 23 September 1878. On discharge, he was 32 yrs old, and "free".



One of Thomas Jeffries' distinguishing physical features was the fifth finger or sixth digit on his right hand which earned him the moniker of "five-fingered Tom". Mugshots showing hands was a feature of police photographs of prisoners in some jurisdictions such as New Zealand around this date, but not until the late 1880s in single mugshots of Tasmanian prisoners, when the frontal gaze had also become the standard pose, thought not consistent until the 1890s where the two-shot system of full frontal and profile photographs was introduced (after Bertillon). For example, in these two photographs of Francis Shearan taken by Nevin at the Hobart Gaol, the 1877 booking shot shows the hands and the full frontal gaze, but the shot taken on sentencing and incarceration betrays the classic 1870s studio portraiture technique typical of Nevin's commercial practice.





Two prison photographs of the same man, Francis Shearan (or Shearin, police records show spelling variations and aliases): left is the booking photograph 1877, right is the sentencing shot, 8 years for murder, taken in July 1878. The photographs of Francis Shearan are documented verso with the inscriptions:
Booking shot; "Francis Sheran 'North Briton' Murderer of Lawrence Fallon 1877"
Sentencing shot: " Francis Shearan Murder 8 years 23-7-78".



State Library of NSW
Nevin, T. J.
Photos of convicts
PX6274

All photography copyright © KLW NFC 2009 - 2013 ARR.

RELATED POSTS main weblog

First published on
Categories and tags:: , , ,

Prisoner Mark JEFFREY, a Port Arthur flagellator

Mark Jeffrey (1825-1894) was called a "Port Arthur flagellator" by James Hunt, the man he was arraigned for wilfully murdering in February 1872 at the Supreme Court, Hobart. The verdict returned by the jury at the trial was manslaughter and the sentence was life. Mark Jeffrey may have been photographed at the Hobart Gaol while awaiting his sentence at this trial. Many of these "Supreme Court men" were photographed there by Thomas J. Nevin as early as February 1872.

However, the only known or extant prisoner identification photograph of Mark Jeffrey was taken five years later by Thomas J. Nevin in the first few days of Jeffrey's relocation to the Hobart Gaol from the Port Arthur prison site in 1877. It was taken in the usual circumstances of gaol admission - a booking shot of the prisoner in street clothing - and reproduced from the negative in carte-de-visite format for pasting to the prisoner's criminal record sheet. Duplicates were retained for the central Municipal Police Office registers at the Hobart Town Hall, and others were circulated to regional police stations.

The booking shot (below) of Mark Jeffrey, dated to 1877, has survived as a print from Nevin's glass negative. It was salvaged from the photographer's room and Sheriff's Office at the Hobart Gaol by John Watt Beattie ca. 1900 and reproduced for display in Beattie's convictaria museum in Hobart. Dozens of these negative prints of notorious criminals were reprised by Beattie, plus two hundred or more in standard cdv format, which have survived from the donation of his collection to the QVMAG Launceston in 1930. This copy is held at the State Library of Tasmania.



Title: Mark Jeffrey
Publisher: [18--]
Description: 1 photograph : sepia toned ; 11 X 8 cm
ADRI: AUTAS001125882597
Source: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts

The Ghost Writer in the Autobiography
A year before Mark Jeffrey's death in 1894, a book about his life, ostensibly his autobiography, was published as A burglar's life, or, The stirring adventures of the great English burglar, Mark Jeffrey : a thrilling history of the dark days of convictism in Australia (1893) by the Launceston Examiner and Tasmanian Office. It was reprinted in various formats well into the 20th century, but the most popular edition which appeared in 1900 from Melbourne publishers Alexander McCubbin, has since raised questions of authorship when republished in 1968 by W. and J. E. Hiener for Angus & Robertson, Sydney. The probable author according to these editors was not Mark Jeffrey but James Lester Burke who produced a similar volume on the life of bushranger Martin Cash. Burke's role can be termed variously as 'editor', 'biographer', 'amanuensis', 'co-author' 'scribe' or 'author' or simply 'co-author' (Emby 2011).

Transported convict and petty criminal James Lester Burke (1820-1879) made Mark Jeffrey's acquaintance when Burke was discharged to Port Arthur as a signalman from the Brickfields Depot in Hobart on 3rd December 1876. His crimes included forgery (15 October 1875)and cutting electric telegraph wires. He died in 1879, but Jeffrey died 15 years later, in 1894 (see obituary below), not 1903.



James Lester Burke, arrest for damaging insulators and telegraph wires, 21 July 1869



James Lester Burke, missing, wanted at the Colonial Secretary's Office, 23 February 1870



James Lester Burke, forgery 15 October 1875



Webshot from Trove NLA's 6 editions



Cover of the 1900 edition: read this edition here:

Prisoner Mark Jeffrey's so-called autobiographical account has become somewhat of a benchmark for those who assume that the Port Arthur prison on the Tasman Peninsula was still fully functional up to its closure in 1877. Perhaps it is still widely studied in schools and colleges, and proposed as an accurate witness account of the penal system. But Mark Jeffrey remained as one of a few dozen paupers and invalids unable to work up to that date. The criminal classes, on the other hand, were all transferred back to the Hobart Gaol in Campbell Street at the request of Parliament in July 1873, where they were photographed by Thomas J. Nevin on arrival. The Port Arthur prison was in ruins and semi-deserted, according to Marcus Clark's account of his visit to the site and his meeting with the gouty and largely indisposed Commandant A. H. Boyd in mid 1873 (Argus, July 3, 12 and 26 July 1873).

Pages 108 -109 of A Burglar's Life

Mention is made in the last paragraph on page 109 of the Port Arthur Commandant "Mr. H. Boyd" [sic] in 1872. Notice the missing initial "A" from the full name, Mr Adolarious Humphrey Boyd. Conveniently confused with Thomas H. Boyd the Sydney Photographer of the 1870s-1880s who did not photograph Tasmanian prisoners, late 20th century commentators have used this simple omission of an initial to hype the inglorious A. H. Boyd as THE photographer of "Port Arthur convicts" at Port Arthur (Reeder, Long, Ennis, Crombie, Clark). A. H. Boyd was not a photographer by any definition of the word, nor had he given or was given any mandate to provide the police with mugshots. Just as Mark Jeffrey's date of death was deliberately falsified from 1894 to 1903 to give the impression that he was alive in 1900 to give a first-hand testimony to his Melbourne publishers, the same motivation lies behind those who have wanted A. H. Boyd to be credited as a photographer of prisoners at Port Arthur, citing the "H. Boyd" mentioned on page 109 of this hugely popular book.



A Burglar's Life, 1900 edition, pp 108-109

Pages 118-119 of A Burglar's Life

As soon as Mark Jeffrey arrived from Port Arthur at the Hobart Gaol on 17th April 1877, he was locked up in the model prison in "H" division of the Hobart Gaol, although, as he says, he "had committed no breach of the regulations to warrant such treatment" (p.119). He was subjected to standard procedures for all arrivals: every prisoner awaiting trial was photographed, bathed, shaved, and dressed in prison issue clothing. Jeffrey knew as soon as Nevin photographed him in that week of April 1877 that he could protest at being treated unfairly because he was not under warrant.



A Burglar's Life, 1900 edition, pp 108-109

The standard procedure was this: Thomas J. Nevin photographed prisoners on committal for trial at the Supreme Court adjoining the Hobart Gaol where they were isolated in silence for a month after sentencing. If sentenced for a longer term than three months at the Supreme Court Launceston, they were photographed, bathed, shaved and dressed on being received in Hobart. Prisoners transferred from Port Arthur were subjected to the same routine. These procedures, past and present, were reported at length by a visitor to the Hobart Gaol and Supreme Court in The Mercury, 8th July 1882:

At the Bathurst-street end of the block are about 30 cells, built in three decker style. They are dark, ill ventilated, and stuffy, were originally intended for the use of convicts awaiting shipment to Port Arthur and do not appear to be fitted for other than temporary quarters ... Opening into this yard [Yard 3] are a number of cells, kept as much as possible for Supreme Court first timers, in order to remove them, to some extent at least, from the contaminating influences of the old hands in crime ... The next yard and block of cells are also set apart for the use of first timers , and the cells and yard in the next division are appropriated to the use of prisoners under examination or fully committed for trial. At the back of the block is a model prison, in which the silent system is carried out. The cells here are only used for "Supreme Court men," who are confined in them for one month after sentence, which time they pass in solitary confinement day and night, with the exception of one hour during which they take exercise in the narrow enclosure outside the cells, pacing up and down five yards apart, and in strict silence. There can be no doubt this is, to some at least, a much-dreaded punishment.

Thomas Nevin photographed prisoners William Smith and Mullens at the Hobart Gaol wearing the standard prison issue of a grey uniform and black leathern cap. The journalist visiting the Hobart Gaol in 1882 noted this uniform with the cap in his report to the The Mercury, (as above), on 8th July 1882:



In their dark-grey uniform and black leathern caps, with their criminal visages, shaven of the covering Nature had given to aid them in the concealment of their vicious propensities and villainous characters, they were, in truth, a forbidding, repulsive lot. Yet very far from unintelligent, at least, in some marked instances. A villainous shrewdness and a perverse cleverness writ in many a cunning, gleamy eye and heavy brow ; and a dogged determination to be read in the set of the jaw, and the style of the gait, were as the translated speech of artfully calculated, daring crime.



Recto and Verso of photograph of William Smith per Gilmore 3.
Photo by Thomas Nevin, July 1875
Stamped verso with Nevin's studio stamp and Royal Arms
Mitchell Library NSW PXB 274
Photography © KLW NFC Private Collections 2008-2010 ARR



Full frontal pose
Tasmanian prisoners William Henry Butler and Michael Parker
Photos by T. J. Nevin , 1875-1878
SLNSW PXB 274

Related posts dealing with mugshots poses, printed formats and prisoner uniforms:

Police Records and Newspaper Reports



The Separate or Model Prison records of the Port Arthur penitentiary are held at the Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW. These records are from the weekly Tasmanian police gazettes. They document Mark Jeffrey's various misdemeanours and petty crimes from 1866 up to the manslaughter sentence of 1872.



Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 1 month for obscene language, and 2 months for assaulting a constable, per this notice of 21 March 1866



Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 4 months for resisting a constable, per this notice of 14 August 1867.



Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 2 months for assault, per this notice of 13 November 1867.



Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 3 months, 7 days and 14 days for insubordination etc, per this notice of 18 March 1868



Mark Jeffrey was discharged from the Hobart Gaol after serving 3 months and 3 days for damaging property, assaulting a constable, disorderly conduct, per this notice of 14 May 1869. He was discharged from the Hobart Gaol, sent to Port Arthur, and discharged from Port Arthur again to Hobart Gaol as a pauper on 19 November 1870



Mark Jeffrey discharged to Hobart Town gaol as a pauper per this police gazette notice of 19 November 1870.



The verdict of manslaughter delivered against Mark Jeffrey at the inquest on the body of his victim, James Hunt, per this police gazette notice of 5 January 1871.



Mark Jeffrey was sentenced to life for manslaughter at the Supreme Court Hobart, per this notice of 13 February 1872

Newspaper Report, The Mercury, 2 January 1872



TRANSCRIPT (unedited from OCR)
THE death of JAMES HUNT, at the General Hospital, on the 26th December, formed the subject of a Coroner's inquiry on the 28th and 30th ult. Twelve witnesses were examined, and their evidence was conclusive in showing that the unfortunate man's death waa caused by violence inflicted by a man named MARK JEFFREY. The two men met at the Butchers' Arms public-house, at the corner of Argyle and Patrick-streets, on the 20th ult., and after drinking together for some time a dispute arose between them, in the course of which HUNT called JEFFREY "a Port Arthur flagellator." The latter becoming in-censed at this, is said to have struck the deceased, HUNT, in the face with his fist, knocking him down, and stamping on him as he was lying on the floor. HUNT shortly afterwards complained of pain in the stomach where JEFFREY had trodden on him, and he made his way to the stable at the rear of the public house, where he remained all night in great pain. On the following morning the poor fellow, with the assistance of a constable, succeeded in reaching the General Hospital, where he lingered till the 20th December, when he died, having in the meantime, however, made a declaration to the effect that, when in the Butchers' Arms, being partly under the influence of liquor, he called JEFFREY a " flogger," when the latter beat him about the head with his fist, knocked him down, and "jumped" on him. A post mortem examination was made on the body, when it was found that death had been occasioned by violence and was not the result of disease. This was the gist of the evidence laid before the Coroner's jury on Thursday and Saturday last, although there were various minor details adduced, calculated to assist them in arriving at a decision as to the manner in which the deceased, HUNT, came to his death. The Coroner also gave them material assistance in his summing up. He reviewed the salient points in the evidence, which he was of opinion conclusively proved that death was occasioned by violence inflicted by MARK JEFFREY. The jury would, he said, require to consider the circumstances under which JEFFREY inflicted these injuries, so as to enable them to arrive at a conclusion as to the crime of which he was guilty. The Coroner expressed his belief that justifiable homicide was completely out of the question, as the mere fact of the deceased's calling him a " Port Arthur flagellator" was not sufficient to justify JEFFREY in knocking him down and kicking or jumping on him ; it would, therefore, either amount to manslaughter or murder. He explained the distinction which the law drew between the two, and quoted a case bearing a strong analogy to that under consideration, in which a schoolmaster, after knocking a boy down, stamped on his stomach, causing injuries which eventually resulted in the boy's death, and the crime in that instance was held to be murder. The Coroner expressed his conviction that, under the whole circumstances, there was no course open to the jury but to bring in a verdict of wilful murder against the man JEFFREY. The jury, however, appeared to think differently, and after some deliberation announced their verdict as being one of manslaughter.

Whether they regarded this as the conclusion to which the evidence undoubtedly led them, or were influenced by feelings of sympathy for the accused, or looked upon it as a matter of little moment what their decision was, considering that the dealing with the person most deeply interested in the matter did not rest with them, it would be difficult to say. It is possible they may have attached smaller importance to the evidence than others did. They may have accepted the statements of two of the witnesses, that JEFFREY " kicked" the man in the stomach, and of another that he "jumped" on him, a statement also made by HUNT himself in his dying declaration ; and yet have failed to see that the fatal results which the treatment occasioned involved JEFFREY in any more serious crime than manslaughter. It may have occurred to them that as the deceased lay prostrate at JEFFREY'S feet the latter must have known that a jump or a kick from a man of his proportions, especially when applied to the stomach of another occupying the position which HUNT was in, would most probably lead to serious results ; and they may still have thought that they were not justified in finding JEFFREY guilty of the murder of the unfortunate deceased. If the jury entertained such opinions after carefully considering tho evidence, they undoubtedly discharged their duties conscientiously in bringing in a verdict of manslaughter. It is the duty of men sitting on juries to banish all feelings of vindictiveness or sympathy, and to deal with the questions before them dispassionately and impartially; and unless they do so they will find themselves wanting in the discharge of their duty to society, or to individuals influenced by their decisions. Persons sitting on Coroner's juries must feel that they have nothing whatever to do with the consequences which another may have to suffer from their decision, and sympathy for an accused individual should accordingly find no place in their consideration; but having the evidence before them, they should return what to the best of their belief would be a true verdict, according to the facts adduced. It is well known that sympathy has in numerous instances been allowed to override justice, but it is difficult to believe that such feelings influenced to a very great extent the jury in this case. They may, however, have underrated the importance of the position in which they were placed. Knowing that it was in the power of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, as the grand jury of the colony, to arraign a man for murder, even though their decision might be in favour of the lesser crime, manslaughter, they may have regarded their verdict as being nothing more nor less than a matter of form ; but if such were the case they sadly misapprehended their functions. Sworn to return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence before them, it was their duty to have considered it as thoughtfully and carefully as though the final disposition of the matter rested with them, and their verdict should have been entirely based on the evidence on which alone they were asked to give a decision, apart altogether from any action which might be taken by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, or the jury at the Supreme Court sittings.

Very probably the jury who sat on this inquiry on Saturday considered they had fulfilled their duty in bringing in a verdict of manslaughter against MARK JEFFREY, but there are persons who question the justice of the decision The Coroner, immediately on being made acquainted with the determination at which the jury had arrived, informed them that he was bound to accept their verdict, but said he did not scruple to toll them he differed from it, and expressed his belief that the ATTORNEY-GENERAL would put the man on his trial for murder in spite of their finding. This decidedly plain and unmistakable expression of opinion on the part of the Coroner, on the results of the half hour which the jury occupied in considering their verdict, appeared to have taken them about as much by surprise as their decision took the Coroner. However, JEFFREY was committed to take his trial at the next criminal sitting of the Supreme Court, and it remains to be seen on which crime he will be arraigned by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
Source: THE MERCURY. (1872, January 2). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), p. 2. https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8925409




Obituary 1894
The square parentheses enclosing the second paragraph do not belong to the printed original article.



TRANSCRIPT

DEATH OF MARK JEFFREY. HOBART, WEDNESDAY. Mark Jeffrey, who was well known as one of the most fractious of the Imperial prisoners, died in the Invalid Depot yester- day. He had reached the advanced age of 68 years. [Mark Jeffrey was born at Wood Ditton, near Newmarket, Cambridgeshire, on August 31, 1825. When a young man he was transported for fifteen years for burglary and attempted murder, and spent many years at Norfolk Island and Port Arthur. Recently he published a history of his experiences, which were of a remarkable character, Mark having brought upon himself every kind of punishment inflicted upon refractory prisoners. His great enemy was his temper, which was of the most violent character, and when aroused he was ex-ceedingly dangerous. He was essentially an egotist-physically and mentally strong -but without balance, his animal nature dominating all that was good in him. He desired death, for his life had been a failure, and his sufferings during the past two years were very acute. Before he left England he was injured in the chest by a kick during a fight. Some time ago a swelling appeared in his chest, and the growth increased day by day until his death. He regarded the swelling as his "death warrant," and his favourite ex pression was, "I have given my life ; read it and see how I have suffered."]

Source: DEATH OF MARK JEFFREY. (1894, July 19). Launceston Examiner (Tas. : 1842 - 1899), p. 6. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article39586455



Source: Wikipedia (?)

This photograph, ostensibly of Mark Jeffrey aged 68 yrs old, was taken at Percy Whitelaw's studio in Launceston Tasmania in 1893 just months before his death in 1894.
First published on
Categories and tags:: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)