Stephen SPURLING, charged with false pretences
Patrick LAMB, charged with wounding
John NOWLAN as Dowling, charged with rape
Eliza Ann McKENZIE and Honora TRACEY, charged with perjury
Supreme Court building extreme foreground with horses and carriages waiting outside in Murray Street
"Murray Street, Hobart, looking towards waterfront and New Wharf; shows Treasury and Supreme Court buildings"
Format: photograph, unattributed, no date [1880s?]
Creating Agency: Bayly Family (NG364); Archives Office Tasmania
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/NS87-1-3/NS87-1-3
Five arraignments
Professional photographer Thomas J. Nevin was more than a little interested in proceedings at the Supreme Court, Hobart on
Thursday 10th February and Friday 11th February 1876. As assistant bailiff and government contractor his duties were to provide mugshots of prisoners who faced incarceration at the Hobart Gaol. Of the five who were arraigned, two were women, Honora Tracey alias Borland and Eliza Ann McKenzie. Neither would require a sitting with Nevin since women imprisoned in Tasmania were not formally photographed until the 1890s. Of the three men, Nevin had already photographed the first, John Nowlan alias Dowling on discharge from the Hobart Gaol in December 1874 and reconviction in February 1875, so he would not need another sitting; his existing mugshot would simply need reprinting. The second male, Patrick Lamb was a first offender, so he would be photographed within the next week. The third man in the dock was a fellow photographer, Stephen Spurling senior, the first in a dynasty of photographers named Stephen Spurling (I, II and III - see Burgess, C. 2010 below). His financial difficulties had led him to court.
Two of these five prisoners - Honora Tracey, charged with perjury and Stephen Spurling snr, charged with fraud, were both
released on remand and bail respectively. Patrick Lamb received the lightest sentence of
three years for stabbing a man over some "peas"; John Nowlan as Dowling was sentenced to
death for rape of a 10yr old girl; and Eliza Ann McKenzie was sentenced to
seven years for perjury. She claimed she was raped by two men - the Captain and the Chief Officer - on board the
Bella May resulting in the birth of her son 9 months later. In court were the reporters for the Hobart
Mercury and
Tasmanian Tribune; their accounts of proceedings on those two days - 11th and 12th February 1876 - would bring some of their readers to tears, and others to mirth.
POLICE GAZETTE NOTICE, 10-12 Feb 1976
Source: Tasmania Reports of Crime for Police (weekly police gazette) Gov's printer J. Barnard
Arraigned in the Supreme Court, Hobart Town 10-12 February 1876 were the five prisoners with these details:
Patrick Lamb, 35 years old, transported to VDL on the ship
Siam, FC = free with conditions, sentenced to 3 years for the offence of wounding with intent.
Eliza Ann McKenzie, 20 years old, native = born in Tasmania (not transported), free, sentenced to 7 years for the offence of perjury.
John Nowlan alias Dowling, 45 years old, arrived at Hobart on the ship
Bangalore, FC = free with conditions, sentenced to death for the offence of rape.
Stephen Spurling, 55 years old, ship unknown, i.e. how he arrived at Hobart is not recorded here (see Burgess below), FC = free with conditions, on bail for the offence of obtaining credit by false pretences.
Honora Tracey, transported as Boland, 46 years old, arrived at Hobart on the
Midlothian, FS =free in service, remanded for the offence of perjury.
Press Reports, 11-12 February 1876
THE CHARGES
TRANSCRIPT
SUPREME COURT.
Thursday, Feb. 10th.
(His Honor Sir Francis Smith, Chief Justice, presided in the First Court, and Mr Justice Dobson in the Second Court.)
Stephen Spurling was charged with obtaining goods by means of false pretences.
The jury retired, and as they had not agreed on a verdict at 7.15 p.m., the Court was adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The other cases on the calendar are — John Nowlan, Bellerive, rape. Patrick Lamb, Franklin, wounding. Robert Hopper, Oatlands, robbery and wounding. Patrick Powell, Oatlands, housebreaking. Honora Tracey, Hobart Town, perjury. Eliza Ann McKenzie, Hobart Town, perjury. Patrick Walsh, Oatlands, breaking into a store and larceny. William Sainsbury and Harriet Sainsbury, Oatlands, housebreaking. Ellen Waller, Franklin, perjury.
Source: Cornwall Chronicle (Launceston, Tas. : 1835 - 1880), Friday 11 February 1876, page 2
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article72522140
THE DECISIONS
TRANSCRIPT
Criminal Sessions.-The sessions were continued yesterday. ln the First Court, before the Chief Justice, the jury, in the case of Stephen Spurling, sen., being unable to agree, were discharged. Patrick Lamb was found guilty of wounding with intent one Patrick Roach, at Franklin, and was remanded for sentence. In the case of Honora Tracey, charged with perjury, the jury were unable to agree, and were discharged. The Second court presided over by Mr. Justice Dobson, was occupied during the whole of the day in investigating a charge of perjury preferred against a young woman named Eliza Ann Mackenzie. The case arose out of a police court trial in which the defendant charged the captain and mate of the barque Bella Mary with committing a rape upon her during a voyage to and from Auckland in 1874. Her evidence at the trial was proved to have been entirely false, and Mackenzie was found guilty, and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Mr. Moriarty defended the prisoner. One more case remains for trial this morning.
A LIVELY JURY.-It was rumoured on Thursday night that the jury in the case of Stephen Spurling, senr., had been playing up high jinks in the retiring room, and as it was well-known that that was the reason why the Chief Justice ordered them to be locked up for the night, there was considerable speculation as to how the jury had been spending their time during the alleged disturbance. When they were brought up yesterday morning, His Honour, before discharging them, as they had been unable to agree, asked them whether they had any explanation to make of their conduct in the jury room. The foreman, Mr. J. W. Palmer, of Bagdad, said the jury sincerely regretted that any disturbance should have taken place, and tendered an explanation. It was to the effect that the jury were divided on the smoking question. The smokers naturally indulged in their favourite pastime, and the non-smokers, not being at all partial to the weed, suffered severe qualms. The result was that, after submitting to be enveloped in smoke for some time, the non-smokers determined to open the window. They were prevented from doing so, and a little scuffling ensued ; but eventually the window was forced open, and one of the shutters broken. The mysterious part of the affair however is that somebody threw one of the chairs out of the window, a feat respecting which nothing was said by the foreman, and we are left to infer that at one time matters had risen to a high pitch of excitement. At all events, His Honor accepted the apology, and was kind enough to say that, on consideration, no one could be guilty of bringing deliberate discredit upon an institution which was the pride of Englishmen all over the world.
THE DISAGREEMENT of JURIES.-The frequency of juries not being able to agree is becoming a serious matter. Yesterday, the Chief Justice was compelled to discharge two juries who were unable to come to a unanimous decision. In the case of Honora Tracey, tried for perjury, the jury were locked up until 10 o'clock last night, and when brought in were so positive as to there being no chance of any unanimity, that it was evident they were afraid of being confined for the night. His Honor noticed this, and told them that it was his duty to see that the facilities of discharge were not such as to make them an impediment to justice. In olden times, he added, juries were locked up till they did agree, and that without anything to eat and without fire - a piece of information which caused the jury men to look as if they expected to be treated in a similar manner. His Honor, however, was lenient, for, after expressing an opinion that if this difficulty continued, it would be necessary to consider whether juries should be allowed to separate at all before coming to some decision, he discharged the jury.
The Convict Nowlan.-In reporting that the Chief Justice had "passed" sentence of death on Nowlan, for criminal assault on a child, an error was made. It should have been that sentence of death was "recorded," a very different thing, in so far as the convict is concerned.
Prisoners Patrick Lamb and Eliza McKenzie sentenced, Stephen Spurling and Honora Tracey as Borland discharged, John Nowlan as Dowling, sentence of death recorded.
Source: THE MERCURY. (1876, February 12). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8943037
Other key documents
COURT RECORDS with names of jurors
Stephen Spurling, John Nolan, Patrick Lamb, Eliza Ann McKenzie
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/SC32-1-9/SC32-1-9P235
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/SC32-1-9/SC32-1-9P236
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/SC32-1-9/SC32-1-9P237
GAOL RAP sheet
McKenzie gaol record and discharge 1 Feb 1880
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/CON42-1-1/CON42-1-1P146
PRESS account
Honora Tracy - press report of her perjury
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8943031
Source: Henry Dobson (1841–1918) ADB- https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/dobson-henry-5986
In: Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania - no. 236 / photographed by J.W. Beattie.
Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts, State Library of Tasmania.
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Record/Library/SD_ILS-621674
Stereograph - New Post Office and Supreme Court, Hobart.
Photographer: Samuel Clifford, 1860s
Source: Archives Office Tasmania
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/LPIC147-3-170/LPIC147-3-170
CASE 1: ship's passenger Eliza Ann McKenzieEliza Ann McKenzie was born at Hobart (VDL) Tasmania in 1855 to parents Elizabeth Wood (19 yrs) and John McKenzie (23 yrs), general goods dealer, who were married on 29 March 1854 at the Chalmers Free Church, Hobart, witnessed by Elizabeth Wood's sister Eliza Wood (her aunt whose name she was given) and John McKenzie's brother Duncan McKenzie.*
(*Source: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/RGD37-1-13/RGD37-1-13P232).
It was not made clear in both press reports of the hearing and the trial of Eliza Ann McKenzie in 1875 and 1876 why she embarked on a voyage to Auckland, New Zealand on the trader barque
Bella Mary from Hobart in 1874. In all likelihood she responded to an advertisement in the Hobart
Mercury of 23 June 1874 placed by the ship's captain George McArthur. The advertisement sounded too good to be true: Captain George McArthur was offering three young women a free return passage to Auckland, New Zealand on the
Bella Mary; they would have jobs as barmaids; and they would receive good wages. Excited at the prospect of adventure on a working holiday, Eliza would have stepped onto the
Bella Mary before noon that Tuesday morning and found herself thoroughly charmed by the captain promising her a wonderful time at his expense. :
TRANSCRIPTS
WANTED THREE RESPECTABLE YOUNG WOMEN as BARMAIDS to proceed, per "Bella Mary" for Auckland. Good wages will be given, and a free return, passage
Apply to CAPTAIN McARTHUR, (between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock this morning) on board "Bella Mary".
Source: Advertising (1874, June 23). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), p. 1.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8930703
Two weeks' later Eliza Ann McKenzie departed Hobart on the
Bella Mary as a cabin passenger in the company of Mr and Mrs Hinton and Jane Hammond who would later contradict Eliza's evidence in court that she too was raped by the Captain on the voyage to Auckland. It may have been evident to Jane Hammond that the captain wanted sexual services in exchange for his promises, but not to Eliza, who was so devastated by the experience she was prepared to make very public the criminal aspect of his sexual behaviour.
CLEARED OUT.-July 4.
Bella Mary, barque, 270 tons, G. McArthur, for Auckland, N.Z. Passengers - Cabin : Mr Frederick Hinton, Mrs. Hinton, Miss Annie Thera Jane Hammond, Miss Eliza Mckenzie . Agents - Bayley and McGregor.
Source: SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. (1874, July 6).The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8930948
Birth of son 24 May 1875
The
Bella Mary departed Hobart for Auckland on 4 July 1874 and returned to Hobart on 21 August 1874. Eliza Ann McKenzie alleged the captain George McArthur raped her on the voyage to Auckland and held her down while the chief officer John Fuge also raped her on the return voyage. She found she was pregnant as a consequence. She gave birth to a son at Hobart whom she named
Richard McArthur McKenzie nine months later, on 24 May 1875. The name of child's father was not registered but she made sure he would be remembered forever after by registering his surname "McArthur" as her son's middle name. The birth was registered on 3 July 1875 by (the child's?) grandfather Greg McKenzie, of Bathurst St. Hobart.
McKenzie, Richard McArthur
Record Type: Births
Gender: Male
Father: McKenzie, Name Not Recorded
Mother: McKenzie, Eliza Ann
Date of birth: 24 May 1875
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Record/NamesIndex/976867
McKenzie v. McArthur 21 August 1875
In the Police Court of Hobart Town on 20th August 1875, Eliza Ann McKenzie made three allegations: that George McArthur, the captain of the barque
Bella Mary committed a series of rapes on her on the voyages to and from Auckland in July and August 1874; that the captain held her down while chief officer John Fuge also raped her on 21st August: and that the captain had raped another young woman on the voyage to Auckland, Jane Hammond, in July 1874. Her three allegations made in this first hearing, were reported by the press in these terms (21 August 1875): -
TRANSCRIPT
AFFILIATION. McKenzie v. McArthur.— When this case was called on for hearing the complainant handed to the Police Magistrate a written statement as she had directed her counsel to do. A lengthy discussion then ensued between the Police Magistrate and Mr. Moriarty as to the proper course to pursue in laying the information, the Magistrate still contending that the criminal case should take precedence. Mr. Jackson said that his client, Mr. McArthur, was not only willing, but anxious to proceed with the matter in any form. The complainant ultimately intimated her intention on proceeding with the criminal case first, and the affiliation case was accordingly ordered to stand over. FELONY. McKenzie v. McArthur.—The defendant Geo. McArthur, was charged with the commission of a criminal offence on Eliza Ann McKenzie, on the 21st of August of last year [1874]. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Moriarty appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Jackson for the defence. The Police Magistrate ordered the Court to be cleared. The complainant, Eliza McKenzie, was then called, and stated the particulars of the alleged offence, but they were of a nature unfit for publication. The cross-examination of this witness was not proceeded with by Mr. Jackson, and the case was adjourned at half-past one till the next morning.
Source: LAW. (1875, August 21). The Tasmanian Tribune (Hobart Town, Tas.), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article201487160
The Port Officer's Log recorded the names of two cabin passengers on the
Bella Mary on arrival back at Hobart on 21 August 1874: Miss McKenzie and Mr. Laurence. Whoever Mr Laurence may have been, he was not called into the court for his opinion.
Cabin passengers on the Bella Mary, Ms McKenzie and Mr Laurence
Reports of ships arrivals with lists of passengers
Archives Office Tasmania
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/MB2-39-1-34/MB2-39-1-34P086
Why was this young woman not believed?
Eliza Ann McKenzie was charged with making false allegations to the Police Court in 1875 of having been raped by both George McArthur and John Fuge on board the
Bella Mary at sea on voyages to Auckland from Hobart and from Auckland to Hobart in July and August1874. The jury at the criminal trial in February 1876 took little more than 35 minutes to return a verdict of guilty of perjury. Eliza Ann McKenzie was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Her defence attorney Mr Moriarty argued that
on the basis of probabilities - without directly referring to the nine-months of her pregnancy from when the series of rapes occurred to May 1875 when her son was born - her claim was probably truthful. Justice Dobson agreed that "
someone had certainly wronged her" but he was not going to send good men to the gallows on the basis of her evidence. Even so, the court was cleared to allow full description of the events by Eliza Ann McKenzie and her counsel, the details of which were so shocking they were deemed unfit for publication.
The accused rapist Captain George McArthur, married in 1868 to Isabella Emma Lovell* who sometimes accompanied him as a passenger on his Hobart- Auckland voyages (on 6 February 1874, for example), was supported by a crowd of reputable witnesses who testified to his impeccable character. His co-accused chief mate John Fuge deposed that Eliza Ann McKenzie seemed happy when she disembarked at Hobart. The other alleged victim of their assault,
Jane Hammond, was brought from Auckland to testify that she was not raped by either of these men.
(*Source: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/RGD37-1-27/RGD37-1-27P167)
TRANSCRIPT
SECOND COURT
Before His Honor Mr Justice Dobson
The Attorney-General prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.
PERJURY
Eliza Ann McKenzie pleaded not guilty to a charge of having committed perjury in the Police Court of Hobart Town on the 20th August last
Mr MORIARTY defended the prisoner,
Jury : Messrs. W. C. Sharland (foreman), R. Winter, A. Flexmore, C. Colvin, R. Goldsmith. N. Ray, T. Gase, H. Gage, T. Stump, G. Watt, H. J. James, and E. Lipscombe.
The Attorney-General, in opening the case, said the defendant was charged with having committed perjury, on an information containing three counts, first, by swearing that George McArthur, captain of the barque Bella Mary, committed a series of rapes upon her on the voyage of that vessel to Auckland in August, 1874, and, also, on the return voyage ; second, by swearing that Captain McArthur forcibly held her down while the chief officer, John Fuge, outraged her ; and third, by swearing that Captain McArthur, during the same voyage, committed rape upon another girl, a fellow passenger, named Jane Hammond. The case, the Attorney-General said, was one of the most remarkable, and, in some respects, one of the most painful that he had ever met with since he had any knowledge of criminal proceedings. He then detailed the circumstances of the case, with the main facts of which the public are already familiar, and dwelt at length on the enormity of the offence of perjury, especially when, as in this case, the life and liberty of two men had been placed in jeopardy.
The evidence was not such as will bear publication. The following witnesses were called for the prosecution :- Capt. McArthur, John Fuge, Samuel Weir, Jane Hammond, and Thomas Large. The depositions of Milford McArthur and Walter Williams, seamen, on board the Bella Mary were put in. The only fresh evidence was that of Jane Hammond, who had been brought from Auckland for the purpose. She denied that any outrage had been committed upon her by Captain McArthur, as stated by the defendant, and stated that during the voyage she never heard or saw anything that would support the allegations of the defendant with respect to the captain and chief officer of the vessel.
Mr. Moriarty addressed the jury for the defence, his main point being that the jury should look not so much to the evidence given as to the probabilities, and the probabilities, he urged, were entirely in favour of the truth of the defendant's story.
For the defence, he called the mother of the defendant, Mr. Superintendent Propsting, Mr. A. McGregor, Dr. E. L. Crowther, Mr. James Robinson, and Mr. George Crisp. The last two were called on witnesses to the character of Captain McArthur and the defendant respectively.
His Honor summed up with great minuteness, and from his remarks it appeared that the tenor of the evidence was decidedly adverse to the defendant's case.
The jury then retired, and after an absence of 35 minutes, returned into Court with a verdict of guilty on all three counts.
The prisoner, in reply to the usual question, said she had nothing to say why sentence should not be passed upon her.
Mr. Sargent (for Mr. Moriarty, who had been called away to Launceston) asked the Judge to pass as light a sentence on the prisoner as possible on account of her youth and inexperience.
His Honor, addressing prisoner, said he was afraid she did not understand the position in which she had placed herself. [Prisoner : I do not.] He thought not. Had she known it, she would have known that had her evidence at the police court been believed, Capt. McArthur and his mate might both (and a few years ago inevitably would) have suffered death upon the gallows. A man who stabbed another, or took his life by violent means, was much more merciful than one who coolly and deliberately swore away his life in a court of justice. The defendant was young, some one had certainly wronged her, and he felt the position in which she was placed. At the same time it was a duty he owed to society, whatever his own feelings might be, to mark an offence of this kind very severely. He had the power to send her to gaol for 21 years, but that would be a barbarous punishment, and he would pass upon her the full sentence of only one of the three counts upon which she had been found guilty. It was a heavy penalty, but it was necessary to inflict a heavy penalty upon a woman who, having arrived at years of discretion, had deliberately, by a wilfully false statement, jeopardised the life of a fellow-creature. The sentence of the Court would, therefore, be that the defendant be imprisoned for seven years.
The prisoner did not seem to feel her position very acutely.
Source: CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (1876, February 12). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8943031
The only allegation which was upheld and examined after the testimonies by both John Fuge and Jane Hammond were dismissed was Eliza Ann McKenzie's claim of rape by George McArthur, the penalty for which was death by hanging (Act 1863, Section 45, Offences against the Person):
Rape, Abduction, and Defilement of Women.
45 Whosoever shall be convicted of the crime of Rape shall be guilty of Felony, and being convicted thereof shall suffer Death as as Felon.
READ the FULL ACT here {pdf}
An Act To Consolidate And Amend The Legislative Enactments Relating To Offences Against The Person (27 Vic, No 5) Austlii Database
Despite a solid defence and witnesses of premier social status for Eliza Ann McKenzie (apart from her mother) including her legal counsel Sylverius Moriarty; the Superintendent of Police, Richard Propsting; the shipowner Andrew McGregor with Charles Bayley of the
Bella Mary; and medical practitioner Dr E. L. Crowther, she was sentenced to
seven years' imprisonment at the Supreme Court, Hobart on 10 February 1876 on one count of perjury. Eliza Ann McKenzie's prison records state only that she was well behaved during incarceration at the Cascades Factory. She was discharged after serving 4 years of a 7 year sentence in 1880, her date of death yet to be determined.
Source: Archives Office Tasmania
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/CON42-1-1/CON42-1-1P146
CASE 2: "no peas" Patrick Lamb
Patrick Lamb's Hobart Gaol record shows only that he arrived free to the colony (Tasmania) on the ship
Siam (no date given, but possibly as a former soldier of H. M. 70th Regiment of Foot). He married Jane McKinsie on 13 May 1869 at Chalmer's Church, Hobart (see Addenda 2 below) , his occupation listed as "soldier". His occupation was listed as "splitter" (a timber worker) when she gave birth to a son, unnamed at registration, in January 1871 at Franklin, Tasmania. Two years later, she gave birth to a daughter, Susan Lamb, on 9 April 1873 also at Franklin. She died from incessant vomiting after a difficult parturition in September 1876. Exactly nine months earlier, in January 1876, her husband Patrick Lamb confronted Patrick Roach with the accusation that "
he had no peas for him" before stabbing him for the fourth time (according to Roach). Patrick Lamb was tried at the Supreme Court Hobart on 10th February 1876 for "
wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm" to Patrick Roach and sentenced to three years' imprisonment at the House of Corrections (Hobart Gaol). He was discharged on 11 May 1878.
Tasmanian prisoner Patrick Lamb per Siam, taken at the Hobart Gaol
Verso inscription: Patrick Lamb "Siam"
Photographer: T. J. Nevin , 1876-1878
Mitchell Library SLNSW (PXB 274) - not online
Link: https://collection.sl.nsw.gov.au/record/YzOgQ689
Photo copyright © KLW NFC Imprint 2009
TRANSCRIPT
WOUNDING
Patrick Lamb was charged with having, on the 15th January, at Franklin, wounded Patrick Roach, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. BROMBY.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL prosecuted.
Jury : Geo. Inge (foreman), Jos Pedder, Jas. Johnstone, C.E. Knight, Thos. Jenkins, Jno. Thomas, R.C. Read, S. Large, F.N. Spong, W. Davis, H.P. Bailey, W. Cowburn.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL briefly stated the case, and called -
Patrick Roach a labourer, residing at Franklin, deposed that on the night of the 15th January he was drinking at Brown's public-house. The prisoner came in a little after witness, and without saying a word he kicked witness. They had a few words, and then prisoner was removed. In about a quarter of an hour he returned, and having pulled witness down to a half- stoop, he stabbed him four times in and near the thigh. This was about 9 o'clock. Witness could not have been drunk, because he had not been there long enough. When the prisoner returned he stood at the end of the counter and said to witness that he had no *peas for him. Witness asked him what his peas or himself had to do with him (witness). Thereupon the prisoner without another word, stabbed him. There was a number of persons present and none of them tried to stop the prisoner. Witness saw the prisoner stab him the fourth time.
Ellen Roach the wife of the last witness, corroborated the most of her husband's statement. She added that only herself and Mr Brown went to her husband's assistance when he was being stabbed.
James Daly deposed to being in the public-house on the night in question. Roach and prisoner began to fight, and two quart pots were being used against the prisoner by Mrs. Roach and some one else. After the fight, Roach said to the prisoner, "If you touch me again I will stab you." The prisoner stood quiet for about a minute, and then rushed upon Roach and struck him three or four blows.
Esther Brown, the landlady of the public house; Elijah Brown, the landlord; Acting Chief District Constable Wheeldon, and Dr. W. Smith also gave evidence. A knife, which it was stated the prisoner had acknowledged to be his, was also produced. The medical testimony was conclusive as to the prosecutor having been stabbed.
Mr BROMBY addressed the jury, and called Sergeant Mitchell, who, however, did not appear.
HIS HONOR summed up, and the jury, after a short absence, returned with a verdict of "guilty." The prisoner was remanded for sentence.
Source: CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (1876, February 12). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8943031
*
HE HAD NO PEAS FOR HIM: not readily understood nowadays, it could be 19th century British rhyming slang, as in "bees and honey" meaning money, but from which region or register?
Or, taking it literally, he was referring to peas that grow in the garden, as the victim Patrick Roach appears to have taken Lamb's accusation about peas - i.e. as ownership of some garden or vegetable variety of pea - in this criminal session, February 10-12, 1876, in reference to the incident of 15th January the previous month when Patrick Lamb stabbed him. The fact that Lamb stabbed him in the thigh (and groin area) might signify cuckoldry involving his wife and Roach, a common type of assault enacted by an aggrieved husband seeking revenge.
Patrick Lamb's wife Jane Lamb had experienced "
a difficult parturition" (pregnancy-labor-childbirth) and died of "
incessant vomiting" in September 1876, exactly nine months after the date of her husband's stabbing of Patrick Roach in January 1876. As no one appears to have registered the birth, in all likelihood the child was either not born or had not survived past childbirth. Her husband's suspicions about Patrick Roach's role in her pregnancy, his grief at the loss of the child, and her subsequent incessant vomiting leading to an agonising death may well have been linked in his mind. Was he accusing Patrick Roach of poisoning his wife by feeding her with "peas" which had caused his sudden rage? On the other hand, perhaps he was saying "no peace" and his pronunciation was misinterpreted by the
Mercury journalist. Probabilities could and should have been raised in this case as well.
TIMELINE
1869: MARRIAGE
On the 13 May 1869, Patrick Lamb married Jane McKinsie in the Manse of Chalmers' Free Church in the District of Hobart according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Presbyterian Free Church. He was 28, a soldier and she was 21, registered as a "spinster" to indicate she had not previously married. Neither signed with their names; both marked the registration form with an "x".
Name: Lamb, Patrick
Record Type: Marriages
Gender: Male
Age: 28
Spouse: Mckenzie, Jane
Gender: Female
Age: 21
Date of marriage: 13 May 1869
Registered: Hobart
Source: Archives Office Tasmania
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Record/NamesIndex/871393
1876: PARTURITION and DEATH of WIFE
The death of Patrick Lamb's wife Jane Lamb nee McKinsie was registered in the district of Franklin (Tasmania) on the 11 September 1876. She was 27 years old. Cause of death: "
Incessant vomiting after difficult parturition".... So, in the months leading up to labor and in the days following, was she poisoned with eating Roach's "peas"? What sort of peas could do that? Possibly one of these varieties:
Lathyrus odoratus ‘Mammoth Navy Blue’
SWEET PEA
Beautifully scented and particularly large Sweet Pea flowers of stunning deep navy blue. Long stems of very large flowers on 1.8m. climber. Tolerates hot weather better than most Sweet Peas. Continues producing over a long period. Great cut flowers. Sear cut end of stem with flame to prolong vase life. Good perfume. Prefers Full Sun. Grow in good, well worked garden soil on a frame, tripod or fence.
CAUTION – NOT EDIBLE – POISONOUS IF EATEN
Source: https://www.seedscape.net.au/product/lathyrus-odoratus-mammoth-navy-blue-sweet-pea/?v=b870c45f9584
TOXIC: Lathyrus sativus - sweet pea; Lathyrus odoratus - ditto; Abrus precatorius - Rosary pea - 3rd most poisonous plant, also called jequirity beans, these seeds contain Abrin, a protein. Rosary peas are native to tropical areas. The poison is stored inside the seeds so they are not poisonous if intact, but can be lethal if they are scratched, broken, or chewed. Like Ricin, Abrin prevents protein synthesis within cells and can cause organ failure within a few days; and Gastrolobium poison pea.
Adults exposed to sweet pea toxins may experience neurological symptoms such as paralysis or convulsions due to the presence of lathyrogens. Breathing difficulties and labored breaths are also telltale signs of poisoning. In severe cases, ingestion can lead to a condition known as lathyrism, characterized by paralysis below the knees.
Source:https://greg.app/sweet-pea-toxic-to-humans/
Toxicity
Unlike the edible pea, there is evidence that seeds of members of the genus Lathyrus are toxic if ingested in quantity. A related species, Lathyrus sativus, is grown for human consumption but when it forms a major part of the diet it causes symptoms of toxicity called lathyrism.[8]
In studies of rats, animals fed a diet of 50% sweet pea seeds developed enlarged adrenals relative to control animals fed on edible peas.[9] The main effect is thought to be on the formation of collagen. Symptoms are similar to those of scurvy and copper deficiency, which share the common feature of inhibiting proper formation of collagen fibrils. Seeds of the sweet pea contain beta-aminopropionitrile that prevents the cross-linking of collagen by inhibiting lysyl oxidase and thus the formation of allysine, leading to loose skin. Recent experiments have attempted to develop this chemical as a treatment to avoid disfiguring skin contractions after skin grafting.[10]
Source: Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_pea
Death of Jane Lamb, 27 yrs old, on 11 Sept 1876 from incessant vomiting after difficult parturition
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/RGD35-1-45/RGD35-1-45P77
1876-1878: THE CRIME, IMPRISONMENT and DISCHARGE
Patrick Lamb was 35 years old when he was tried at the Supreme Court Hobart, sentenced to three years at the Hobart Gaol on 10 February 1876 for "
Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm".
Noted in remarks: "per
Siam, Free to Colony, Governor in Confidence 4/3/78 ... To be discharged 10 May 1878 - Discharged 11.5.78."
Patrick Lamb per Siam, free to colony.
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/CON37-1-10/CON37-1-10P612
SUPREME COURT HOBART ROUGH CALENDAR
Trial: Lamb, Patrick
Record Type: Court
Status: Free
Trial date: 11 Feb 1876
Place of trial: Hobart
Offense: Feloniously wounding Patrick Roach with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Verdict: Guilty
Link: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Record/NamesIndex/1521178
POLICE GAZETTE NOTICES
Patrick Lamb, discharged 15 May 1878, F.C. free with conditions, residue of sentence remitted
Source: Tasmania Reports of Crime for Police (Police gazette) J. Barnard Gov. printer
1878: Patrick Lamb remarries
Patrick Lamb was photographed by police photographer Thomas J. Nevin at the Hobart Supreme Court on Lamb's arraignment and sentencing to 3 years' imprisonment, 10th February 1876. Nevin would have been more than a little interested in proceedings since fellow photographer Stephen Spurling I (1821–1892) was also arraigned in the same session, on trial for obtaining credit under false pretences (see Case 4 below). Patrick Lamb was discharged at the Hobart Gaol in the week ending 15 May 1878.
Soon after his release from prison, Patrick Lamb, widower, married 21 year old Mary McGinley* on 31 August 1878 at Hobart. (*Source: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/RGD37-1-37/RGD37-1-37P149).
CASE 3: John Nowlan as Dowling
This prisoner stated that he arrived free to the colony of Tasmania as a sailor on the
Bangalore with the name
John Dowling, but he might have arrived as a convict with the name
John Nowlan on the transport
London in March 1851. Shipping documents testifying to his arrival on the
Bangalore at any port and under any circumstance unfortunately, if true, are not extant. He was previously sentenced for indecent assault on a girl under 12 years to five years' incarceration in
March 1870 as John Dowling.
The Legislation
Under the ACT of 1863 - AN ACT to consolidate and amend the Legislative Enactments relating to Offences against the Person. [31 July, 1863.] - John Nowlan alias Dowling was sentenced to five years in 1870 for the indecent assault of
Deloranie Boss, a girl under 12 years of age. The first count - intent to commit a rape - would have incurred a sentence of ten years, but he was sentenced instead on the second count of indecent assault which should have incurred the full sentence of seven years instead of five:
see Clauses 48, 49, and 50 of the Act.
Six years later, when found guilty of having committed a rape on
Caroline Agnes Welch, 10 years of age in 1876, the full force of the law - Clause 45, the death sentence - was applied, yet a reprieve followed. The sentence of death on John Nowlan alias Dowling was commuted to life in prison. There were increasingly urgent protests from the public and the press to cease sentencing prisoners to death, but that in itself was not the reason for his reprieve, the details of which were kept from the public.
THE CONVICT NOWLAN.- In reporting that the Chief justice had "passed" sentence of death on Nowlan, for criminal assault on a child, an error was made. It should have been that the sentence of death was "recorded", a very different thing, in so far as the convict is concerned.
Source: THE MERCURY. (1876, February 12). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8943037
Prisoner DOWLING, John, also recorded as John NOWLAN
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Collection Ref: Q15586
Photographer: Thomas J. Nevin, December 1874
Verso: Prisoner DOWLING, John, also recorded as John NOWLAN
Not "Taken at Port Arthur"; taken at the Mayor's Court, December 1874
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Collection Ref: Q15586
Photographer: Thomas J. Nevin
Details:
"Supreme Court, Hobart Town. List of prisoners arraigned at the above-named Court on the 10th, 11th and 12th of February, 1876. Names, Nowlan John, as Dowling; Age 45; Ship Bangalore; Conditions F.C.; Offences Rape; How Disposed of; Death recorded."
Source: Tasmanian Reports of Crime for Police (police gazette), J. Barnard, Gov't printer
This prisoner was photographed as John Dowling by T. J. Nevin on release from the House of Corrections, Hobart Town in December 1874. Dowling was convicted again in February 1875 for larceny. A year later, in February 1876 he was convicted at the Supreme Court, Hobart, for rape of a girl between 10-11 yrs old, this time as John Nowlan, alias John Dowling. The sentence for rape was death, commuted to life imprisonment. John Nowlan alias John Dowling was sent to the Port Arthur prison 60 kms south of Hobart on 25th February 1876 and transferred back to the House of Corrections, Hobart Gaol, Campbell St. on 17th April 1877. A prisoner who called himself John Dowling died at the New Town Charitable Institution, Hobart in 1906 of senilis
The Mugshot
Thomas J. Nevin's photograph of John Dowling was taken at the Mayor's Court, December 1874 on Dowling receiving a certificate of freedom. Just one photograph of the prisoner appears to have survived, suggesting Nevin used the 1874 negative to produce reprints for Dowling's sentencing in 1875 and again in 1876. This photograph by Nevin of John Dowling is now held in the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Collection (Ref: Q15586). It was originally acquired by convictarian and landscape photographer John Watt Beattie from government estrays in the early 1900s for display in his "Port Arthur Museum" located in Hobart and for inclusion in travelling exhibitions associated with the fake convict hulk "Success" to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Hobart.
J. W. Beattie's collection of more that 300 Tasmanian prisoner mugshots, taken originally by T. J. Nevin in the 1870s, including this one of John Nowlan as Dowling, was acquired by the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston, Tasmania (QVMAG) in the 1930s. The capture by Nevin on glass in the one and only sitting with Dowling in 1874 was reprinted as a sepia cdv in a buff mount to be pasted to the prisoner's charge sheet in the first instance, its principal use. When Beattie organised exhibitions of these mugshots in the early 1900s, the versos of at least two hundred mugshots were duly inscribed with this fake information - "
Taken at Port Arthur 1874" - purely to whet the appetite of tourists taking penal heritage tours to Port Arthur. As artefacts associated with Marcus Clarke's novel,
For The Term of His Natural Life, published in 1874, two silent versions of which were filmed on location at the Port Arthur prison in 1907 and 1927, these mugshots were re-invented with false information to heighten the tourist's experience - a commercial imperative which has certainly waxed rather than waned in recent decades. Read more about
John Nowlan alias Dowling here in this post
CASE 4: photographer Stephen Spurling snr
The reporter for the
Tasmanian Tribune (12 Feb 1876) quietly stated a disturbance had taken place in the jury room during the trial of photographer Stephen Spurling. It was much more than a disturbance, according to the
Mercury's report of 12 February, 1876. It was "high jinks" and scuffles rising "to a high pitch of excitement". It was the non-smokers forcing a window open, of broken shutters and a chair thrown out onto the street in a desperate attempt to escape the stench of the smokers' "weed".
TRANSCRIPT
CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
Friday,11th February, 1876.
FIRST COURT.
Before His Honor, Sir Francis Smith, Chief Justice.
OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES.
The jury in the case of Stephen Spurling, sen. having been locked up for the night, were brought in, and in reply to the usual question, the foreman (Mr T W Palmer ) stated that they had not agreed, nor was there any prospect of them doing so.
His Honour said he supposed he might take it that the jury had given the case that consultation which the law required. He did not feel justified in discharging them on the previous night in consequence of the reported disturbance in the jury room making it quite clear that some part of the time had not been passed in deliberation,
The jury was then discharged.
In reply His Honor the Attorney-General said he did not propose this session to proceed further with the charge, but he should have time to consider the case.
The defendant was accordingly released on bail, himself in £30, and his two sons in £25 each.
Source: LAW. (1876, February 12). The Tasmanian Tribune (Hobart Town, Tas. : 1872 - 1876), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article200369705
THE MERCURY REPORT
A LIVELY JURY.-It was rumoured on Thursday night that the jury in the case of Stephen Spurling, senr., had been playing up high jinks in the retiring room, and as it was well-known that that was the reason why the Chief Justice ordered them to be locked up for the night, there was considerable speculation as to how the jury had been spending their time during the alleged disturbance. When they were brought up yesterday morning, His Honour, before discharging them, as they had been unable to agree, asked them whether they had any explanation to make of their conduct in the jury room. The foreman, Mr. J. W. Palmer, of Bagdad, said the jury sincerely regretted that any disturbance should have taken place, and tendered an explanation. It was to the effect that the jury were divided on the smoking question. The smokers naturally indulged in their favourite pastime, and the non-smokers, not being at all partial to the weed, suffered severe qualms. The result was that, after submitting to be enveloped in smoke for some time, the non-smokers determined to open the window. They were prevented from doing so, and a little scuffling ensued ; but eventually the window was forced open, and one of the shutters broken. The mysterious part of the affair however is that somebody threw one of the chairs out of the window, a feat respecting which nothing was said by the foreman, and we are left to infer that at one time matters had risen to a high pitch of excitement. At all events, His Honor accepted the apology, and was kind enough to say that, on consideration, no one could be guilty of bringing deliberate discredit upon an institution which was the pride of Englishmen all over the world.
Source: THE MERCURY.(1876, February 12). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8943037
THE CHARGES
OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES.—Stephen Spurling, senior, was charged by Thomas Edgar Creswell, solicitor, with having on the 27th February, 1875, unlawfully, and knowingly, falsely pretend that Stephen Spurling, his son, was indebted to him in a large amount, to wit, over £100, by means of which false pretence, he obtained from Messrs. P. O. Fysh and Co. certain goods on credit, whereas, in truth, the said Stephen Spurling, junior, was not in any way indebted to the said Stephen Spurling, senior. The prosecution was under the 13th section of the Debtors Act.
Mr. Crisp appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bromby for the defence.
Philip Samuel Seager, clerk to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, produced the order of adjudication of Stephen Spurling the elder, which was taken on the 12th August last. He was adjudicated a bankrupt upon the petition of Stephen Spurling the younger. Witness produced the affidavit of debt of Stephen Spurling, junior, and one of Messrs. P. O. Fysh and Co.
Thomas Edgar Creswell, solicitor of the Supreme Court, deposed that he was trustee in the proceedings against the defendant. He produced the order of adjudication.
By Mr. Bromby: Messrs. Burgess and Fysh were the two creditors who were anxious to prosecute the defendant. The majority of the creditors did not wish to take proceedings.
Robert Walker deposed that he was confidential clerk to Messrs. P. O. Fysh and Co. He was present at several interviews between the defendant and Mr. Fysh, relative to the purchase of goods by defendant. On the 27th February, 1875, the defendant incurred debt for goods to the amount of £90. The defendant was then already indebted to the firm in the amount of £38 10s. When a debtor wanted further accommodation it was usual for him to make a statement as to his position and prospects of payment. Witness heard defendant tell Mr. Fysh that his son in Launceston had to send him a large sum of money, which he received at the rate of £30 per month. Defendant did not say what the amount was which his son owed him. He certainly led witness and Mr. Fysh to believe that his son owed him money. On previous occasions the defendant had stated that his son's removal to Launceston had been a great expense to him. It was on the strength of these statements that the goods were delivered to the defendant.
By Mr. Bromby: I have been in Mr. Fysh's employ for sixteen years, for nine years of which the defendant has had transactions with the firm. The goods in the last order were ordered about nine months before they were delivered. It is generally the custom to forward the invoice of the goods ordered to the customer on its arrived by the mail. On the arrival of the goods a further account, with charges added, is rendered to the purchaser. It is also a custom to send an invoice after the delivery of the goods. Witness could not say whether notice was given to the defendant of the arrival of the goods. The bill for £38 10s. had been several times renewed, and was due on the 4th January, so that the defendant had called between that day and the 27th February about the renewal of this bill. The bill for £38 10s. was renewed for the 4th of April. For the goods arranged for on the 27th February, it was agreed that one-half should be covered by a bill at four months, and the other half at six months.
Re-examined: By the defendant's statements we knew that he was getting money from his son, and up to the 27th February he stated that his son had to send him money.
By the Bench: The bills at four and six months were not signed until the goods had been delivered.
Mr. Spurling became a debtor of the firm from the time of the delivery of the goods and not before.
Stephen Spurling jun., deposed that he was a son of the defendant. Witness removed to Launceston in 1873. At that time, the defendant was responsible for witness's bills which he (the defendant) afterwards paid. During the period witness had been in business in Launceston witness had become the defendant's creditor for cash and goods to the amount of £200. Accounts were never balanced between witness and the defendant when witness left Hobart Town. Defendant was then indebted to witness for wages whilst defendant was responsible for witness's debts. Witness sent his father during two years about £300. The bills which the defendant paid for witness amounted to £50. Witness was not aware that these bills were not mentioned in his father's books. Witness did not owe his father £200 during February, 1875, or for nine months before that time, but he could not say whether he owed the defendant anything then. The defendant had been witness's debtor in some amount for 18 months.
By Mr. Bromby: My father partly set me up in business in Launceston, and has acted well to me. It was always understood that I should assist him in every way. I sent him sums of money from the beginning of 1875 till the time he was bankrupt and would have sent him more had he asked for it, and I had had it.
The case was adjourned until Friday next.
Source: CITY POLICE COURT. (1876, January 13). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.), p. 3.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8942378
SUPREME COURT RECORD
Source: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Digital/SC32-1-9/SC32-1-9P235 Image 214
TRANSCRIPT
No. 1 Crt
Stephen Spurling = plea not guilty
Jury - [12 names listed]
[Annotation illegible next to] 27 Feb 1875 - unlawfully obtg goods by false pretences from R. V. Fysh (representing his son Stephen Spurling owed him £200) and Ct obtg goods by false pretences
Verdict -[ blank - but Nolle prosequi recorded]
[No. 1 - commuted to imprsmt for life - John Nolan - sentence death recorded.]
Dept Sheriff reported the misconduct of the jury
At 10 o'clock the jury not being agreed they were ordered to be kept together until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning- they were given in charge of John Lewis Thos Cook Fred Thornhill & Richd Walker
The prisoner was discharged on bail till 10 o'clock tomorrow himself in £50.. .Stephen Spurling & Fred Spurling in £25 each [two sons of Stephen Spurling]
Crt adjourned till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning
Friday 11th February 1876
The Court met this morning at 10 o'clock
No. 1 Crt
Re Spurling The jurors answered to their names & the defendant placed in the dock - The jury not being agreed they were discharged & the prisoner admitted to Bail till next session himself in £50 & his two sons in for £25 each.
Biography: Stephen Spurling 1 (1821–1892)
... By 1875 Stephen 1st was once again facing bankruptcy. During the subsequent sale of his assets, fellow photographer Alfred Winter purchased his negative collection. For the next decade, Winter advertised Spurling portrait and landscape prints and enlargements for sale.
From 1875 onwards, Stephen 1st’s career was in decline. In 1881, he attempted to re-establish his studio, but this venture proved unsuccessful. By 1886, the deterioration in his mental health, combined with his impending paralysis, led to his admission to the asylum at New Norfolk. It is possible he was suffering from the long term effects of chemicals, such as mercury, which he had used during his early photographic experiments. He remained incarcerated until his death, from congestion of the kidneys, at the age of seventy, on 13 April 1892.
Source: Christine Burgess, 'Spurling, Stephen (1821–1892)', Obituaries Australia,
National Centre of Biography, Australian National University,
Link: https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/spurling-stephen--1578
Additional Resources
1. C. H. Burgess,
The Spurling Legacy and the Emergence of Wilderness Photography in Tasmania, PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, 2010. Link: https://doi.org/10.25959/23211710.v1
2. 'Insolvent Court',
Mercury (Hobart), 3 October 1861, p 2
3. 'Supreme Court: Bankruptcy Jurisdiction',
Mercury (Hobart), 16 October 1875, p 2.
4. 'City Police Court: Obtaining Goods by False Pretences',
Mercury (Hobart), 13 January 1876, p 3
Burgess, Christine (2024) Photographs by Spurling's: A Treasure Trove of Tasmanian Images
(Forty South Publishing Pty Ltd. fortysouth.com)
Page 1: cdv of Stephen Spurling 1
Photo copyright © KLW NFC Imprint 2024
(Many thanks for your acknowledgement, Christine).
CASE 4: Honora Tracey alias Borland
The jury was dismissed since no unanimity was reached among them as to Honora Tracey's guilt in the charge of perjury. As noted by the press, they were locked up until 10 o'clock on the night of the case, presumably to retire to their respective homes and when they returned the next day -
- they were so positive as to there being no chance of any unanimity, that it was evident they were afraid of being confined for the night. His Honor noticed this, and told them that it was his duty to see that the facilities of discharge were not such as to make them an impediment to justice. In olden times, he added, juries were locked up till they did agree, and that without anything to eat and without fire - a piece of information which caused the jury men to look as if they expected to be treated in a similar manner. His Honor, however, was lenient, for, after expressing an opinion that if this difficulty continued, it would be necessary to consider whether juries should be allowed to separate at all before coming to some decision, he discharged the jury
Source: THE MERCURY. (1876, February 12). The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), p. 2.Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8943037
TRANSCRIPT
PERJURY
Quodling v. Tracey.— This was an information charging Honora Tracey with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in her evidence in a case heard before the Police Bench on the 11th inst., wherein James Tracey was, charged with having wounded one Emma Bridges on the head by fracturing her skull with a stone. The case was partially heard on the previous day, and Mr Bromby appeared for the accused. After hearing a large amount of evidence, for and against, the Bench committed the woman Tracey to take her trial at the next Criminal Sessions.
Source: LAW. (1875, December 18). The Tasmanian Tribune (Hobart Town, Tas.), p. 2.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article200367243
Addenda
1. The ship "Bella Mary"
Source: Maritime Museum of Tasmania
Link: https://ehive.com/collections/3906/objects/207119/clock-from-the-bella-mary-captain-copping
Name/Title Clock from the Bella Mary, Captain Copping
Bella Mary was named after Bella Mary Copping, niece of Captain R. Copping.
Measurements 250mm Object number A_1984-377
Bella Mary, a barque built 1862 at Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia, tonnage 266, was registered to Edward Lucas and others, Hobart Town and traded regularly to New Zealand under command of Captain Richard Copping until Captain George McArthur took over in 1871.
In August 1873, a year before skipper George McArthur was tried and acquitted of raping Eliza Ann McKenzie, a shipment of salmon trout ova sent from Tasmania on the
Clematis, was accompanied by Stephen Budden on behalf of the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society, departing 29th August, and a second shipment of 500 brown trout ova destined for the Auckland Climatisation Society left on the
Bella Mary on the 23rd August 1873. This advertisement from the
Auckland Star, September 1874 among many others in the same issue indicates that the usual freight from Tasmania to New Zealand was varieties of apples, tins of jams from Peacock's and Creswell's, hops, almonds, bark, palings etc etc.
On a voyage to Auckland in 1875, the
Bella Mary took a Tasmanian devil to show New Zealanders a native animal, but it jumped ship at anchor and disappeared into the bush. The
Bella Mary was wrecked at Fiji in 1886: (SMH 18 March 1886; Harry O'May 1978:110-111).
TRANSCRIPT
WRECK OF THE BARQUE BELLA MARY.
By the A. S. N. Company's steamship Gunga, which arrived in port last night from Fiji, news has come to hand of the wreck of the barque Bella Mary, belonging to Mr. G. J. Waterhouse, of this city. The Gunga also brings the commander and crew of the Bella Mary, which, it appears, struck on a reef about 16 miles from Suva, on the 2nd instant, at 8.30 p.m., and became a total wreck. At the time of the accident she was on a voyage from Suva to Levuka, having left the former port at 2 p.m. on the 2nd instant. The Bella Mary was a wooden vessel of 243 tons register, and was built in Nova Scotia in 1862. The wreck of the ship was sold for £7 10s,, and the cargo for £30.
Source: WRECK OF TUE BARQUE BELLA MARY. (1886, March 18). The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW), p. 10.
Link: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article13614498
Source: National Gallery of Australia
Title: Samuel Clifford, Tasmanian bush 'devil'
Stereograph, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 1870s acquired by Nigel Lendon by 1983 -
- who sold it to the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, 1983
Link: https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object/6407
2. Chalmers Free Church, Hobart, Tasmania
Patrick Lamb married Jane McKinsie on 13 May 1869 at Chalmer's Church, Hobart, his occupation listed as "soldier".
Chalmers Free Church, Hobart, ca. 1890 [frame cropped]
Source: https://libraries.tas.gov.au/Record/Archives/NS3503-1-14
A BRIEF HISTORY
A split in the Church of Scotland in 1843, the so-called “Great Disruption”, played out across the Empire. In Tasmania not one of the Church of Scotland ministers supported the Free Church which led to a number of individuals at Hobart applying to the Free Church of Scotland to send a minister to the colony.
Supporters of the Free Church of Scotland erected the Chalmers churches in Hobart and Launceston, named after their Scottish leader, Thomas Chalmers. Chalmers Church at Hobart opened in 1852 followed by Chalmers Launceston in 1860.
In April 1851 Reverend W. Nicolson arrived at Hobart and commenced preaching at the Mechanic’s Institute Hall, where he drew a significant following. This led to an appeal to build Hobart’s first Free Church of Scotland. The foundation stone for a church was laid in October 1851.
The opening of Hobart Chalmers Church was reported by the Hobarton Guardian:
“The work is in the modern Gothic style, and according to a very chaste and tasteful design. The building is most creditable both to the architect and contractor, and will be a great improvement to the city where it stands. It accommodates about 750 persons, and, we understand, a great portion of the sittings were let in the course of a few hours, on the first day appointed for that purpose. The cost will be about £2000, the greater part of which has been already raised—having been entirely accomplished by voluntary subscription. Mr. Nicolson is also supported by the voluntary liberality of his hearers, and receives no pay from the Government. The foundation stone of this handsome church was laid on the 3rd October last, on which occasion Mr. Nicolson gave an exposition of the principles of the Free Church. The Church stands at the corner of Harrington and Bathurst-streets, in an elevated situation, and commanding a view of most beautiful scenery…”
“The interior is fitted up in a style of tasteful elegance—the pulpit is ornamental Gothic, and has a remarkably chaste and beautiful appearance: it, as well as the galleries, was hung with crimson drapery. During the evening service, the church was illuminated by several elegant chandeliers…. The congregations, both in the morning and afternoon, were very numerous, but in the evening, a dense crowd filled the sacred edifice. It was indeed a goodly sight to witness so many congregated together to offer adoration to the Most High—young and old, rich and poor, learned and illiterate, all joining in praising Him to whom all praise alone is due; and what enhanced the pleasure was to know that many were not of the Free Church of Scotland—this is as it ought to be…”
Born out of division, Chalmers' end came out of union. Over the course of the 19th century efforts were made to promote union between the two Presbyteries in Tasmania. This was finally accomplished in 1896, with the Presbyterian Church of Tasmania uniting all congregations of an undivided Church. In 1935 Chalmers’ congregation united with St Andrew’s Church to form Hobart’s Scots Church. Initially services alternated between the two churches but in 1949 services were limited to the Scots (St Andrew's) Church.
With the end of services at Chalmers, the building was put up for sale in 1952 and purchased by the Neptune Oil Company. The church was demolished in 1955 and the site was used to build a service station. Several stained glass windows were taken from the Chalmers church before its demolition and were later installed in the gallery of the Scots Church. The Scots Church pulpit sits on stone taken from Chalmers church while the stone font is also from Chalmers Church.
Source: https://www.churchesoftasmania.com/2019/04/no-399-chalmers-free-church-hobart-born.html
RELATED POSTS main weblog
