Page:ChroniclesofEarlyMelbournevol.1.pdf/118

The Chairman congratulated the public upon having obtained a "Home Tribunal," which would afford protection to person and property, at but little inconvenience and expense. T h e judicial functions of the Court would be performed by the magistrates of the district, w h o possessed both local experience, and a knowledge of the people. Matters of fact would be decided by the juries, w h o would, he felt assured, act independently and honestly. T h e particulars of a General Sessions of the present day would be far from interesting; but as the first criminal trials ever held in the colony took place at this ancient tribunal, a certain novelty attaches to some of them ; and for this reason I enter into some details which, in 1888, can hardly be read without a curious interest. There were twenty cases on the calendar, and thefirstprisoner placed on trial was John Robert Pritchard for robbing his master, a Mr. Snowdon, of is. and a pair of trousers. O f the prisoner's guilt, no doubt could be entertained, but on his behalf evidence was adduced which, while it left no uncertainty of his previous good character, rendered his sanity very doubtful, so he benefited so far by the doubts as to be acquitted. T h e first person convicted was George Reynolds, for stealing some wearing apparel from Thomas Nicholson, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. T h e first person sentenced to transportation (for 14 years) was Joseph Hudson, for robbing Mr. Pittman's store of a quantity of silk and other articles. Though a " free " m a n , he had served two previous sentences of transportation. T h efirstw o m a n tried was Henrietta Neil, as a receiver of the property stolen by Hudson. She was found guilty, and sent for two years' imprisonment in the 3rd class of the "factory." T h e first perjury prosecution was heard on the 14th M a y against a sly-grog seller n a m e d Moore. T w o constables swore point blank to the offence, and a David T h o m a s point blank the other way. The magistrates preferred the "two to one," fined Moore, and remanded T h o m a s , w h o was n o w tried for the false swearing, and transported for seven years. T h e 15th May, 1839, was a somewhat remarkable day on account of two trials which created quite a storm of sensation in the public mind. There were two well-known residents, both sporting m e n and favourites of the people, viz., Dr. Barry Cotter and Mr. John W o o d . There was also (a not unusual occurrence) a lady in the case, from w h o m the medico considered himself justified in warning all trespassers, which so annoyed W o o d , that one day meeting Cotter in street, he not only gave him a sample of his tongue, but wrung the professional nose, and even resorted to rougher treatment. Doctors don't like to be "nosed" in this way, though some of them often deserve it, and "Barry" prescribed for his assailant by pulling of another kind, viz., bringing him before the Police Court, where he was sent for trial to the Sessions. Here he was convicted, fined £ i o o , and imprisoned for a month. Mr. W o o d was also prosecuted the same day for libelling Lieutenant D e Vignolles, by writing a defamatory epistle to him. T h e proof of the hand-writing broke down, so in this case the defendant scored a victory, as a partial set-off to the other. T h e first conviction in the colony for libel was obtained on the 16th M a y . Mr. George Arden rented premises as his Port Phillip Gazette office from a person for w h o m Mr. W . F. Rucker acted under power of attorney. Arden called one day at the agent's office to settle a rent-account, and in the course of conversation took it into his head to ask Rucker to produce his authority for acting as receiver. This threw Rucker into what is vulgarly known as " a scot," and he ordered Arden to clear out, or "he'd precious soon make him." T h e offended editor withdrew in great dudgeon, and in the next issue of his newspaper gave Rucker such a peppering as caused him to apply to the law for protection. Arden was subjected to a criminal prosecution, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. T h e Chairman passed a sentence of twentyfour hours' imprisonment and ,£50 fine. The August sittings commenced on the 5 th, during which some noteworthy charges were investigated. Mrs. Catherine Reardon was indicted for keeping a disorderly house in Collins Street, and loudly protested her innocence, saying she had no objection to place herself in the hands of a civil jury. T o her surprise she was convicted, fined ,£50, and in default six months' incarceration. James Morris was called to account for feloniously assaulting a young w o m a n n a m e d Dobey, a domestic servant of Lieutenant Addis, at Geelong. T h e chief witness for the prosecution was a Master