DEATH

LEPLAW.- On June 28th, at his residence, Manly Beach Police Station, John, the eldest and beloved son of David and Ann Maria Leplaw of Corunna, aged 29 years.

NEWS OF THE DAY.

Sydney, 4th August, 1883

His Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has been pleased to appoint the undermentioned members of the Police Force to be additional Sub-Inspectors under the Licensing Act of 1882, for the Metropolitan Licencing District.

H. E. COHEN.

Rank and Name*.

Manly …….. Senior-constable John Leplaw.

PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

The Widow of the late Senior-constable Leplaw desires to render her moat earnest and heartfelt thanks to the residents of Manly, also to the Officers and Members of the Police Force, who have aided her in her late bereavement, by so generously and liberally subscribing towards the relief of herself and little children.

August 14, 1884 (Signed) ELIZA LEPLAW.

WATER POLICE COURT.

A TROUBLESOME CUSTOMER

A stabbing affray between a Queensland black and a police-constable occurred in the bush, near Manly on Sunday morning (says the Herald).

Senior-constable Leplaw, who is stationed at Manly, received information on Saturday evening that two Queensland blacks were wandering about in the bush close by in a nude state, and on the following morning, accompanied by two civilians, he set out in pursuit of them, with a view of ascertaining how and in what condition they were living.

Having discovered their whereabouts he approached them, and by means of certain signs endeavoured to make them understand that he would give them some clothing and also food if they would accompany him. One of them wore a shirt only, whilst the other was going about perfectly naked. The former made some remark in his native tongue to the latter, who thereupon bolted off, but he was pursued and quickly overtaken by the two civilians who accompanied Senior-constable Leplaw.

The officer, thinking that the other would also attempt to run away, kept very closely to him, and immediately he drew a knife, which he had concealed about his shirt, and with it he rushed at the officer, making a blow. The latter, in endeavouring to ward it off, received a nasty gash on the back of the left hand, near the thumb.

A lively tussle ensued between Leplaw and the black, who fought most desperately, but the officer, notwithstanding that he lost a large quantity of blood, at length secured his assailant, handcuffed him, and brought him along with his mate to Manly.

Leplaw then escorted them by the s.s. Fairlight to Sydney, and had them locked up.

The wound on the officer’s hand was dressed at Manly. Although a very

ugly one, it is not likely that it will have any serious results.

BARNUM THE SHOWMAN AGAIN.

The two Queensland ‘blacks’ who were arrested by Senior-constable Leplaw, near Manly, on Sunday morning, and one of whom stabbed the officer in the hand; were brought before Mr. Marsh, S.M., at the Water Police Court Sydney, on Monday ( says the S. M. Herald ) and on the application of the police they were remanded for a week.

Mr. Cunningham, an agent for the well known Barnum show, appeared in court, and he informed Mr. Marsh that the prisoners formed part of a contingent of nine blacks which he had recently procured in Queensland for the purpose of forwarding to Mr. Barnum to add to his list of curiosities. He had been instructed by Mr. Barnum to obtain six or more Queensland blacks, and with a view of carrying out his directions Mr. Cunningham proceeded to a camp in Queensland some few weeks ago, and after making certain offers to the nine in question they were induced to accompany him.

He brought them to Sydney, and the two prisoners deserted, thus accounting for their presence in the bush near Manly.

Mr. Marsh replied that it appeared to him as if the case partook very much of the character of kidnapping, and legal proceedings might in consequence be the result at any moment. He added that the matter should be thoroughly inquired into by the police, and he was informed that it would be.

NEWS OF THE DAY

Row at Manly Beach

The recent disturbances at Manly Beach formed the subject of investigation again on Saturday, at the Water Police Court, before Mr. Buchanan, S.M.

Adam Fraser, who was brought up on three charges of assaulting senior constable Leplaw, resisting the police, and assaulting constable Minogue, was fined £5 or the alternative of one month in gaol.

John Lewis, who was also similarly prosecuted by the same officers, was discharged, the case against him not being substantiated.

This matter will come on again at the Court on Tuesday afternoon, there being still two cases to be dealt with by the bench.

Charge of Arson.

( From the Echo. )

The hearing of a charge of arson preferred against one Robert Burman was concluded at the Water Police Court on Saturday, before Mr. Buchanan, S.M.

The prisoner was charged with having on or about Monday, 5th instant, wilfully set fire to a dwelling house at Manly Beach, the property of Mr. T. Stonier.

Sergeant Higgins deposed that when he arrested the prisoner at 5 o’clock on the evening of Friday, 9th instant, and informed him of the nature of the charge, he said “I do not know how I did it ; there is no use blaming anyone else for it ; I must have been drunk when I did it ; I have no recollection of how it was done ;” witness had seen the prisoner on the 7th instant, when a conversation took place concerning a robbery, which, it was alleged, occurred at the prisoner’s place some time before the fire, and also with respect to a bullet which prisoner had previously stated had been fired at him ; prisoner on this occasion said that the robbery was genuine, but that he fired the shot himself; he also stated that on the morning of the fire he was sleeping at Mr. Littlejohn’s house, and that about 2 o’clock he was awakened by hearing an explosion of cartridges and the barking of dogs ; he found that his place was in flames, and that the two back rooms were burnt ; he had lost everything by the fire, and did not know who had done it ; on the 7th instant prisoner was in a house which was situate about 220 yards from that which had been destroyed by fire ; when witness inquired about the shot, prisoner showed him a window through which he said the shot had been fired ; witness asked him how it occurred, and whether he knew who did it, when he made a statement to the effect that about two o’clock in the morning he heard a voice saying, ” Are you asleep ?” that was the way in which his master used to call him – when he (prisoner) opened the door, and looked out, and saw a man standing about 10 yards off ; the man ( prisoner stated ) said to him ” I thought I roasted you the other night, take that,” at the same time firing a shot from a pistol ; he pursued the man over the rocks towards the Quarantine Ground, where he missed him ; the prisoner showed witness some tracks, which he said were made by the man ; prisoner also stated that he knew the man, whose name was Carl Endersen, and that he had previously known him in Victoria, where they quarrelled ; that Endersen threatened to have revenge, and that he believed it was he who had set fire to the house ; subsequently, in the course of conversation, the prisoner stated that it was he (prisoner) who had fired the shot, and that he had never known a man named Carl Endersen ; witness had made inquiries, but had not been able to find any such man.

Constable John Leplaw deposed that at about half-past five o’clock on the evening of the 5th instant prisoner came to him at Manly, and stated that his house was burned down by fire at ten minutes past two o’clock that morning ; in reply to enquiries, prisoner stated that he was sleeping at Mr. Littlejohn’s, about 200 yards from the house which had been destroyed, and that his wife and family were away at Marrickville, at Mr. Stonier’s place ; prisoner said he first saw the fire himself, having been awakened by crackers and barking of dogs, that he had 40 cartridges in the house, and that the place had been wilfully set on fire. This witness, having described other conversations which took place between him and the prisoner, said he made a search in the house occupied by the prisoner since the fire, and found a leaden bullet (produced), and on the bed in the bedroom occupied by prisoner, he ( witness ) found a loaded pistol ; prisoner then said, ” Don’t go any further in this case, I’m the man you’re looking for;” witness asked him what he meant, and he replied, ” I’m the man that’s done the whole of it, do what you like with me, I will make a full confession ;” prisoner also said, ” I fired the shot into the room on the morning of the 7th, and I don’t know there is such a man as Carl Endersen, for whom I got a warrant, alive ;” witness asked him why he had done it, and he replied, ” I was afraid that I would be blamed for the burning of the house, I was trying to make up a scheme to get out of it ;” witness asked him whether he knew anything about the burning of the house, and he paused for a moment and then said, “No, I do not;” witness then asked him how he accounted for the footprints, and …. could show him ( witness ) the ……..belong to another party; I put them on to lead you astray; you will find the boots in Littlejohn’s house, in the largo room;” in consequence of that conversation witness arrested prisoner, and afterwards went to Mr. Littlejohn’s house and found the boots which corresponded with the tracks which prisoner had pointed out ; the house which was destroyed seemed to be scantily furnished. Other witnesses were called, and their testimony tended to show that prisoner was the first person seen near the house when it was discovered by some neighbours to be in flames ; that the building consisted of four rooms, and was constructed of weatherboard ; that it was the property of Mr. Thomas Stonier, of Marrickville ; that prisoner had arranged to purchase it for £500, the purchase money to be paid in weekly instalments of £1 ; that he had made four payments ; and that the building was insured by Mr. Stonier in the London and Lancashire office for £100, and that Mr. Stonier had made a claim on that policy.

The prisoner, having been cautioned in the usual way, made a statement to the effect that he had been drinking on the Saturday and Sunday preceding the fire, and that he went home at 8 o’clock on Sunday night, and could not remember anything more than that the house was in flames when he awoke next morning.

The prisoner was committed for trial at the next Court- of Quarter Sessions. Bail was granted, the prisoner being required to enter into his own bond of £100, and to find two sureties in £50 each.

WATER POLICE COURT.

Yesterday, Messrs Brown, Greville, and Captain Edwards, Js P were on the bench in the Charge Court.

Matthew Regan, on remand, was convicted of resisting Constable Leplaw while in the execution of his duty, and ordered to pay a fine of 20s , or go to gaol for seven days.

WATER POLICE COURT.

Yesterday, the bench in the Charge Court was occupied by Messrs. Reading, Penfold, and Cock, and in the Summons Court by Messrs. Hunt and Jenkins.

POLICE.

At the Central Police Court, yesterday, the Police Magistrate was assisted in the Crime Court by Messrs. Jolly, Reading, Thomas, Skerratt, and Carpenter; and in trio Summons Court, by Messrs. Neale, Ridge, Barden, and Blair.

Obituary

Memorial to Sergeant Stone.

It will be remembered when the late Sergeant Stone was buried at the Dawson Cemetery, in May last, a movement was made in the police force to erect a memorial headstone and iron railing. This has now been accomplished — the railing being set on brick in cement. The stone is a white marble cross, standing on a brick and cement base, the lettering being in lead, as follows :— ‘ Erected by the N.S.W. Police to the memory of Sergeant Alfred Stone. Died 14th May, 1899 ; aged, 52 years.”

The expenses have been borne by the police in the north-eastern district— and their memento is a credit to their kindness of heart and forethought.

The work was executed by Mr. David Mudford, of Cundletown.

Constable Stein acted as Secretary and Treasurer to the movement, and very great credit is due to him for the successful manner in which he carried it out. Mr. Mudford, we understand, did not charge for his labor in erecting the memorial stone and railing, and the late sergeant’s comrades feel greatly indebted to him for his kindness.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/rendition/nla.news-article171624144.txt

Magisterial Inquiry.

THE LATE FATAL ACCIDENT.

On Wednesday morning last, at 11 o’clock, the District Coroner ( Mr. T. B. Boyce, J.P. ), held a, Magisterial inquiry at the residence of Mr. G. C. Hickson, Bullock Wharf, Wallamba River, touching the death of Alfred Francis Stone, Sergeant of Police. The inquiry lasted about two hours, and was then adjourned to Taree for the purpose of taking Dr. Gormley‘s evidence. Inspector Baker was present at the inquiry, and examined the witnesses.

The following was the evidence adduced : —

John Joseph Walsh deposed : I am an engineer in the employ of Mr. Hickson, at the Bullock Wharf Sawmills, Nabiac. I remember the afternoon of Wednesday, 10th instant. About 4 o’clock I saw Sergeant Stone ride up to the mill, which was then in full work — the engine and saws making the usual noise. I afterwards saw him in the mill, and bid him ” Good-day, ” and saw his horse tied up to a post of the mill. The Sergeant was in his uniform, and was thoroughly sober. About half-past 4 I saw the Sergeant come round to the front of the lathe-room, in which I was working. He was then leading his horse, and was about three or four yards from where the horse had been hanging up. He stopped the horse, and put the bridle over its head, put his foot in the stirrup, and mounted the horse, with his left foot in the stirrup, but before he was able to get his right foot in the stirrup, and become properly seated, the horse bolted at full gallop for about 10 yards, when he began to buck. The horse gave about two bucks, which took him. about twelve yards further, when the Sergeant was thrown off, falling sideways on to his head on a log. I heard the fall, and his head strike the log. I ran up to him, only being about fifteen yards from him when he fell, as I feared he would come off when I saw the horse bucking. He was lying on his back, with his eyes wide open. I picked him up— that is, lifted his head up and found a large cut on the left side of his head, at the back, about two and a half inches long, with blood pouring from it. I had deceased’s head on my knees. Several other of the mill hands came, and we bandaged his head up. He was unconscious. We then carried him to Mrs. Greenaway’s. Subsequently he spoke, but in a rambling manner. Before he was removed to Mrs.Greenaway’s a messenger was sent for Dr. Gormley, who arrived about nine o’clock in the evening. During the evening he muttered ” Oh, my head ” — but was quite delirious. I helped to lift him into a wagon the next afternoon, to be conveyed to Taree. Whilst doing so he said ” Don’t hurt me. ” He still seemed to be delirious.

Noel Eller Gorton deposed : I am a middle man at the Bullock Wharf Sawmills. I remember seeing Sergeant Stone ride up to the mill on the afternoon of Wednesday, 10th instant. He hung his horse up to the mill, walked in, and stood by the boards for a little time. He passed through then to the other end of the mill. When he was coming back we had just finished cutting the piece of timber we were at, and I met him and was speaking to him. I asked him if the affairs of the late Mr. Thomas Cocking, on whom an inquest had been held, were settled, as there was some money due to me in connection with the funeral. The Sergeant replied that he had been speaking to Mr. Flett about the matter, but it was not quite settled. The Sergeant was perfectly sober. I then went back to work, and deceased went to his horse. I saw him take the bridle off the post. The next I saw was the horse bucking over the skids, with the saddle and bridle on. Walsh, the previous witness, then called ” The man has got a fall,” and I went out to where he was. The Sergeant was laying on the ground unconscious, bleeding from a bad cut in the back of the head. He was bandaged up, and then removed to Mrs. Greenaway’s. I had known Sergeant Stone for about ten years.

Daniel Underwood Greenaway deposed : I am a bench hand at the Nabiac Sawmills at Bullock Wharf. I remember Wednesday afternoon, 10th instant. I saw Sergeant Stone leading his horse near the mill, and afterwards hang it up at the mill. The horse seemed to be fidgetty after being hung up, evidently from the noise of the mill. The sergeant after hanging his horse up walked through the mill. When coming back he talked to Mr. Gorton, the previous witness. He then went to his horse, and took it away, leading it from the mill. I saw no more of him, until I saw the horse in the air, and the Sergeant falling off. He came down on his head and shoulder on a log. I went to him shortly after, and saw Mr. Walsh holding his head up. There was a cut on the back of his head, which was bleeding freely, and he was unconscious. He was removed to my mother’s place, but did not appear to get any better — being about the same all through., Dr. Gormley arrived about half-past 8 o’clock, and attended to him, and saw him again early the next morning. He was removed the next afternoon — Thursday, the 11th instant— to Taree, never having regained consciousness. I did not consider the horse a dangerous one to ride. I saw the Sergeant riding it up towards the mill, and it was then going quietly. It was also ridden away after the accident, and after making a bit of a jump went quietly.

Frederick Ernest Stein deposed : I am a police constable stationed at Cundletown. I knew the police horse that Sergeant Stone was riding up to the time of his death. Its number was 801. The Sergeant had been riding the horse since the 20th February last, when it arrived at Taree from Maitland. I have seen him riding it, and ridden along side of him — being all day with him on the 7th April — and have seen him mount and dismount the horse without any trouble. I never saw the horse near any sawmill, or other going machinery. Sergeant Stone told me when we were riding together, that the horse was a bit too good for him, as he was inclined to buck. He also said “ I am getting old.” This was said casually, whilst talking about the horse, after I had remarked that it appeared to be a good one. Sergeant Stone was twenty-two years in the force, and had been stationed at Taree since the 22nd October, 1897, He was 52 years of age. He was a native of Canada, and has left a widow – his second wife – and a family of four sons and two daughters by his first wife. His life was insured — the total value of his policy now being £242, in the National Mutual Life Association. Bullock Wharf is 19 miles from Taree— and Sergeant Stone was in the habit of making frequent patrols here. I have seen the entry in the Duty Book at the Taree Police Station of Wednesday, the 10th May, instant, showing that Sergeant Stone left the station that morning at 10 o’clock ; on patrol to Nabiac. Deceased’s full name was Alfred Francis Stone.

The inquiry at this stage was adjourned to Taree, where it was resumed at 8 p.m., when

John William Gormley deposed ; I am a duly registered medical practitioner and Government Medical Officer, residing at Taree. On Wednesday evening, the 10th instant, I received a telegram asking me to go to Nabiac to attend Sergeant Stone, who had met with an accident. I went out and saw him at Mrs. Greenaway‘s house, close by the Bullock Wharf Sawmill. I found him in a semi-conscious condition, but unable to give any account of how his accident occurred. He was suffering from injury to the head, and had a scalp wound at the back of his head. I remained at Nabiac for the night, and in the morning he seemed if anything a little better. I then returned to Taree and had a conveyance sent to bring him in. He remained in the same condition until Friday morning, when he became more unconscious, in which state he remained until Sunday morning, dying about 11 ‘o’clock. The immediate cause of death was pressure on the base of the brain. A fall from a horse would cause such an injury — especially if he fall on his head. There was no evidence of the skull being fractured.

FINDING

The presiding magistrate recorded the following finding: — “ I am of opinion that the deceased, Alfred Francis Stone, came to his death at Taree, on Sunday, the 14th. May, 1899, through pressure on the base of the brain, caused by deceased having been thrown from his horse at Bullock Wharf, Wallamba River, whilst in the execution of of his duty as a police officer, on the afternoon of Wednesday, the 10th instant, and that the occurrence was purely accidental. ”

Death of Constable Gilholm.

MAGISTERIAL INQUIRY.

A Magisterial Inquiry was held at the Court House, Taree, on Saturday afternoon last, by the District Coroner, Mr. W. N. Dove, P.M., concerning the death, in the M. R. D. Hospital at 10.30 that morning, of Constable J. W. Gilholm, of Forster, who received injuries while returning from duty at the Taree races on the previous Saturday afternoon.

Sergeant Hogan deposed: I am a Sergeant of Police, stationed at Taree. I have seen the body of Joseph William Gilholm, now lying dead at the Taree Hospital this day. He was 36 years of age, and was a native of Rothbury, England. He has been a member of the N. S. W. police force for over 12 years, and was till the time of his death in charge of Forster police station.

On the evening of the 12th instant he arrived at Taree station, for special duty at the Taree Show. On the morning of the 15th. about 8 a.m., I gave him instructions to attend the Taree races that day, with other mounted men.

About 8 p.m. on the 18th I saw deceased in the Taree Hospital. He was then conscious, and lying in bed. He complained of great pain in his chest and body, pointing more particularly to his left side. I asked him how the accident occurred. He said he and Constable Stein were riding home to Taree after the races were over, and that as they were coming near Brown’s Creek a man named McInherney joined them. After crossing Brown’s bridge slowly, he and McInherney started off in a canter ; and after going a short distance, his horse shied off the road. He said a little further on something struck him on the bead and knocked him on to the back of the saddle; and that was the last he remembered. I said to him : ” Were you and McInherney racing ? ” He said ” No ; McInherney was on the road, and I was on the side..”

I have seen deceased from three to five times a day since, and was present when he died. He made no complaints against any person. He was quite conscious up to within half-an-hour of his death. The only complaints he made were of great pain, and he could not get his breath. I have known him about 10 years, and have always found him a sober man. He has left a wife and three children. He is possessed of no property, and no banking account. He owns one horse, and some furniture at the police station. His life was insured, but the premiums have not been paid for the last four years, in the Widows’ Fund.

John William Gormley deposed: I am a duly qualified medical practitioner, and am Government Medical Officer residing at Taree. I have seen the body of Constable Gilholm, and have held a post mortem examination thereon.

On Saturday, 15th. instant, on returning from the races, I found the constable doubled up upon the side of the road. I asked Constable Stein and McInherney, who were with him, to take him to the Hospital at once. This, was done. l saw him put into a sulky, and went on to the Hospital to get everything ready for, his reception.

I received him into the Hospital that evening and at once directed Dr. Curtayne to be sent for. We had a consultation then the next morning we had a farther consultation, with Dr. MacQueen. I was then in attendance on the man till to-day, when he died.

The post-mortem disclosed that five ribs on the right side were fractured, and had penetrated the lung. On the left side there was a rupture of the lower lobe of the lung. The right kidney was also lacerated as to be almost divided at the upper third. I consider that death was due to the resulting shook. During the time that deceased was in the Hospital he received every attention. The man was too ill from the first – to enable a diagnosis to he made. He could not be moved about. Deceased was a splendidly built man. The injuries disclosed by the post-mortem, were necessarily fatal. There was no sign of drink on the deceased, and I had seen him a few minutes before leaving the race-course, and he was then quite sober.

When approaching Brown’s’ Creek bridge on the evening of the 15th, I saw deceased’s horse shy off the road to, the left, and a moment after I saw deceased all doubled up on the ground. I did not see what he struck, but I hurried on, and when I got to where he was I saw it must have been the stay of the telegraph post. He seemed to duck to getaway from the obstruction. I am of opinion, from what I saw, that he was compressed between the stay and the saddle. The injuries I discovered at the post-mortem could have been thus brought about.

Frederick Ernest Stein deposed ; I am a constable, and reside at Cundletown. On the 15th inst. I was on duty at Taree races, with the deceased ( Constable Gilholm ) and other constables. Deceased and I left the course to return to Taree a little after 6 p.m. We were riding our troop horses. When near Brown’s Creek hill, John McInherney joined us. McInherney was talking to deceased, and we rode along at a walking pace to the bridge. It was then raining sharply, and when we got on to the bridge McInherney and deceased cantered on. Neither had waterproof coats. I stopped behind, keeping my horse at a walking pace, Soon after they left me, when they had gone 20 or 30 yards, deceased’s horse left the road, and swerved towards the fence on the left hand side, and dashed under the strut of the telegraph pole. Deceased struck the strut, and fell backwards over the horse’s rump. I was at that time about 70 yards behind them. McInherney kept on up the main road. I went to Gilholm‘s assistance, and found him unconscious on the ground ; He was lying on his face, with deep cut over the right eye. This was bleeding freely.

McInherney came back and at the same time Dr. Gormley drove up, and I asked him to see the deceased. Constables McKenna and Dowsett also rode up. Deceased was taken to the Hospital, and was admitted not more than 15 minutes after the accident, and was at once attended by Dr.Gormley. I saw Gilholm on the course often dining the day. I saw no sign of drink on him. I have known him about 10 years. The horse deceased was riding seemed to be quiet. He was in the procession with the Premier, and so far as I know was quietly, ”

John Joseph McInherney deposed : I am a farmer, and reside at the Lansdowne River. On Saturday, 15th inst., I was at the Taree races. I left the course about 6 p.m. and rode towards Taree. On my way in I overtook Constables Stein and Gilholm. I joined them, and rode with them to the foot of the hill at Brown’s bridge. When we crossed the bridge Gilholm and I started at a canter. He was on my left hand. We went about 60 yards, when his horse galloped past me riderless. I looked around and saw Gilholm lying on the ground ; I went back. Stein was with Gilholm, and Dr. Gormley arrived immediately afterwards.

We put Gilholm into a sulky, and took him to the Hospital. I have not seen Gilholm since. We were not racing. Nothing was said about our racing. It had just started to rain, and that is why we cantered. I was a bit ahead of Gilholm, and saw nothing of how be fell, Gilholm was perfectly sober. I did not in any way jostle Gilholm, or force him out off the road. The accident occurred close to the end of the bridge fence.

The Coroner found ” That the deceased, Joseph William Gilholm died at the Manning River District Hospital on Saturday, 22nd February, 1902, of shock arising from injuries to the lungs, ribs, and kidneys, caused by his being accidentally thrown from his horse while on duty. ”

The funeral took place at the Dawson Cemetery on Sunday afternoon, when the cortege was a very large and representative one, The Rev. R. H. Phillips conducted the service.

Death of Constable Shiell.

A Fatal Collision,

Constable George Shiell died in the Parramatta District Hospital early on Saturday morning. He had been a patient since the evening of November 27, on which day he was run down by a cyclist, and sustained severe concussion of the brain which proved fatal. The facts as narrated at the time in ‘The Argus’ were that Shiell was on duty on the Pennant Hills Road on the evening of the 27th, when Frank Mobbs, riding into Parramatta with all speed on a cycle, to obtain medication for his sister, ran into the constable with considerable force.

Shiell, who was a heavy man, fell back wards, his head striking the hard metal road very severely. He did not move after he. fell, and Mobbs went to his assistance. The constable was then unconscious, and was removed in a cab to the Parramatta Hospital. He never regained consciousness, and died ten days after the accident happened. The funeral was impressively carried out on Monday morning, Mr. E. L. Maitland, S.M., adjourning the Parramatta Police Court front 11.30 a.m. until 2 p.m., as a mark of respect. The arrangements were entrusted .to Mr. Ralph Metcalfe. The solemn procession was formed up in front of the police station, the coffin being brought to the hearse, from the Hospital morgue. Troopers Porter and Wilkinson, mounted, headed the cortege. which marched to the mournful strains of the Dead March in Saul and other appropriate music. This thrilling lament was exquisitely and most feelingly played by the fine police band, consisting of some 18 musicians, under the direction of Capt. Bentley and Sergeant Mankey. The drums were draped in black as a token of sorrow for the comrade departed. The band was followed by a body of police under the command of Inspector Trenchard, amongst whom were Sergeant MacMillan, Sergeant Hynes, Senior-Constables Gillies, Nelson, Robertson, Allison, McDonald, Trevillian, and Freeland, and some IS members of the force. Also present were notice ex Senior Constable May and West, and ex Constable Denman, Buchanan, Sergeant Cawood and others. The pall bearers were Constables Kelly, Sheddon, Bruce and Wilson, and the chief mourners were Mr. and Mrs. Shiell. jun., Miss Venables and Mr. Potts, near relatives of deceased. The procession marched via George and Church streets to the Western-road cemetery, where the mortal remains of the departed officer were reverently laid to rest in the Presbyterian portion of the burial ground. The funeral service was conducted by the Rev. John Paterson, and the police band played very movingly by the grave-side. Beautiful floral tributes were sent in, one wreath under a glass cover bearing a card stating that it was ‘a token of esteem and deepest sympathy from his brother comrades of the Parramatta police.” The other bore the word, ‘Asleep,’ and was addressed ” With deepest sympathy, from the employees of Yolhnann’s ?, Ltd.’

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/rendition/nla.news-article86140032.txt

MARRIAGE.

FISHBURN — SHIELL — January 25, 1919, at St. Paul’s, Castle Hill, by the Rev. W. J. Roberts, Frank Walter, only son of Mr. and Mrs. W. Fishburn, Castle Hill, to Florence Janet, only daughter of the late Constable George Shiell and Mrs. Shiell, Sorrell-street, Parramatta.

RUN DOWN BY A CYCLIST.

Constable George Shiell, of Parramatta, was run down by a cyclist, at the Pennant Hill road, about 9 o’clock last night. The cyclist was hurrying Into Parramatta for medical assistance for his sister, when the accident happened, and he went to the assistance of Shiell, who was unconscious, and had him conveyed to Parramatta Hospital. The constable was still unconscious this morning, suffering from concussion of the brain.

Department of the Attorney-General and of Justice,

Sydney, 7th February, 1906.

HIS Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has been pleased to appoint the undermentioned

Members of the Police Force to exercise, within the Licensing Districts preceding their respective names, the authority

conferred by section 19, subsection 1, of the ” Liquor (Amendment) Act, 1905,” viz.:—

District.     Penrith        Station:  Lawson

First Class Constable George Shiell

Police Department,

Inspector-General’s Office,

Sydney, 3rd February, 1906.

INSPECTORS OF SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.

BY virtue of an authority vested in me by an order of His Excellency the Governor-in-Council, I have appointed the undermentioned members of the Police Force as Inspectors of Slaughter-houses and of Cattle intended to to slaughtered :—

Department of Public Health, N.S.W.,

Sydney, 29th February, 1904.

IT is hereby notified, for public information, that the undermentioned Sanitary Inspectors have been appointed by the Local Authorities under the ” Public Health Act, 1902,” for the Police Districts named :—

Police District.     Lawson.

CIRCUIT COURT.

The Criminal Calendar.

The following is the list of criminal cases to be dealt with by Mr. Justice Foster at the Circuit Court, which

opens on Monday :
James Lees White and George Shiell, manslaughter.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/44127253

THE SOUTH TRAGEDY.

THE INQUEST.

CONSTABLE WHITE’S EVIDENCE.

THE inquest on the body of John Jeremiah Considine, who was killed at South Broken Hill on Sunday morning, was resumed at the Town Hall this afternoon before Mr. A. N. Barnett, district coroner.

Constables J. L. White and George Shiell were present in custody. Alderman John Souter was foreman of the jury.

Mr. A. J. Hall appeared for the relatives of the deceased.

The first witness was Constable James Lees White, who appeared with his head bandaged.

The Coroner said before administering the oath that the witness was not obliged to answer any questions which might bear on any future proceedings.

The witness said : – I was stationed in charge at South Broken Hill ; I am relieved from duty ; I have been in charge at South Broken Hill from the middle of October last ; I was on duty at South Broken Hill on the night of March 17 ; Constable George Shiell was also on duty ; I saw the deceased Considine on the morning of the 18th at about a quarter past 12 o’clock ; he was in the back yard of Hegarty’s Hotel; he came from the back of the hotel with two men named McLennon into South-street ; be came to the gate of the yard of the hotel ; the three men appeared to be the worse for liquor, the two McLennons more so than Considine ; as they came to the gate I said, “Good night, Considine ; don’t you think it is about time you were getting home?’ ; one of the McLennon’s said, ” Oh, yes, come on, Jack ” ( meaning Considine ) ” we’ll go;” Considine replied, ” No, I won’t – I’ll go home when I think fit ;” he then put his hand up to his ( witness’ ) face, and, spreading it out, said, ” Now, White, you appear to be watching me ;” he still kept putting his hand up, and said, ” Now, White, I warn you if Shiell or Shiner comes to arrest me you had better come well prepared or you’ll go down.” I replied, “There’s nobody talking about arresting you.” He replied, “Never mind, I’ve warned you ; take what meaning you like out of it ;” one of the McLennons got him by the arm then, and said, ” come on, Jack, never mind;” he replied, “you go away, Hughie, and mind your own business,” and pushing McLennon in the chest, knocked him down ; Constable Shiell then stepped over to the kerb side of the footpath and beckoned with his finger saying, ” Look here Jack, I want to speak to you ;” Considine passed me, and went over to Constable Shiell, putting his hands up in a threatening attitude, saying : ” You, Shiell, you’re only a ……… thing, a …… sneak, and a ….. crawler. Shiell replied, backing away from him towards the fence of the hotel, and Considine said, with his hands up in a fighting attitude, ” I’ll drop you.” He backed Shiell against the fence up to within about two feet or a yard from Hegarty’s Hotel; Shiell drew his baton and struck at him, and I also drew my baton, believing there would be a row ; I believe he struck Shiell; he rushed at Shiell, and I struck him with my baton over the forehead ; he sidled backwards and then started to run along South street and into Patton-lane ; he entered Hegarty’s Hotel by a small gate off Patton-lane, and ran through the yard into the passage of the hotel, followed by myself and Constable Shiell ; finding there was no light in the passage of the hotel, we didn’t enter ; called the landlord, Mr. Hegarty, who came out and gave me a candle ; at this time I heard a noise as if a door was being opened and shut ; lit the candle and proceeded along the passages of the hotel and searched them, but failed to find anybody ; found that the door of the hotel leading into South-street was closed, but unlocked ; remarked to Hegarty, ” He’s got away, we must let him go and take proceedings on Monday “; after speaking to Hegarty for about three minutes at the side door of the hotel, Hegarty either remarked, ” Here he’s coming ” or ” Here’s somebody coming,” could not say which ; Hegarty took the candle, and going inside closed the door ; it was Considine coming, and he appeared to increase his pace as he came towards us, saying, “Now, I’ll smash your ….. brains out;” the McLennons were at this time standing near the entrance gate of the hotel, 20 yards off; when Considine came within 10 paces of me I saw he had something in his hand which he was carrying low down, as if it were a rifle; he struck at Constable Shiell and then swung round at me ; I then saw that what he had was not a rifle, but a bar of iron or an octagon drill, about 4ft. or 4ft 6in. long ; he swung it round in both hands with terrific force at me ; I closed with him to try and avoid the full force of the blow, but the iron struck me over the left ear, and I fell on my back out on to the footpath ; I produce the cap I was wearing at the time showing, it cut through just where I got the blow over the ear ; I was partly dazed for a few seconds; I raised myself on my left elbow, and looking round saw Considine chasing Shiell down along the police station fence in Patton-street ; I got up, staggered across the street, and went into the.police station; I had previously tried to arrest Considine for riotous behavior ; I saw Shiell at the police station; we got our revolvers and went out into Patton-street with a view to effecting his arrest ; we saw him standing in South-street, against Krantz’s store, about 30 or 40 yards from us ; we went towards him and he started to move away towards the direction of his house or towards Hebbard-lane ; I called out, ” Considine stand, or I’ll shoot;” he then started to run ; the period between this time and when I got up off the path was about three minutes ; he ran, and I called out again, ” Considine stand or I’ll shoot”; he was 20 yards off ; he increased his pace and replied “Shoot away, I can do you,” or ” I can do for you,” I’m not sure which ; I then fired a shot from about 10 paces behind him into the ground before him to frighten him ; he still kept running and as he turned into Hebbard-lane I fired another shot at his feet ; it didn’t appear to take effect, as he still kept running, and as he turned into his own block, he partly looked back over his shoulder at the time to see if I was pursuing him ; after getting into his own block he turned round and faced me, and came towards me with his hands up in front of him about level with his face ; I ran into, him, striking him with my left shoulder, knocking him down ; he then said, “I give in,” and with the assistance of Constable Shiell I put the handcuffs on ; we picked him up between us and conveyed him some yards when his knees gave way, and he suddenly fell down, saying, ” I’m done ;” I fired three shots, the third one being fired as he turned out of Hebbard-lane into his own block ; I fired the third shot at his knees as he was running and looking back at me ; after I fired the first shot Shiell also fired, but without apparent effect ; after I fired the second shot Shiell responded, and this also didn’t appear to take any effect ; as I fired the third shot Shiell immediately fired also, Shiell being about a yard behind me ; Considine appears to be in the act of turning round and coming towards me ; cannot say in what direction Shiell fired when deceased fell down I ran for cab over in Hebbard-street, as he appeared to be badly wounded ; left Considine with Shiell ; told the cabman to come to Hebbard-lane, and when I came we put the deceased into the cab he was then alive, but breathing heavily ; before removing Considine to the cab Mr. Pound and a man named Reid came and assisted us to put the deceased in the cab ; the cab went down to the police station ; Constable Shiell came out and went in the inside with the deceased; I got on the box with the driver, and told him to drive as fast as he could into town ; we reached Dr. Thomson’s surgery in Argent-street at about 12.45 ; I called Dr. Thomson; he came out and examined Considine and said he thought life extinct; he bandaged my head, and we then drove to the hospital and put the body of the deceased in the morgue; the revolver produced is in the same condition as it was when I used it ; it is loaded in three chambers; three cartridge: were exploded.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/rendition/nla.news-article44127456.txt

Barrier Miner (Broken Hill, NSW : 1888 – 1954), Tuesday 24 April 1894, page 4

[The continuation of the evidence will appear in the Third Edition.]

THE SOUTH TRAGEDY.

His Honor’s Summing-up. The Functions of Police Constables.

The Legal Use of Firearms.

James Lees White and George Shiell, police constables, were charged, on remand from the previous day, that they did, on March 18, at South Town, feloniously slay John Jeremiah Considine.

The jury, which earlier in the morning had been driven to the scene of the tragedy under the charge of the Deputy-Sheriff ( Mr. G. A. Mills ), was brought into court at 10 o’clock.

His Honor said the jury would understand that the question they were now trying was one of manslaughter ; the Crown did not bring the prisoners up on the murder charge.

The question was whether on the whole of the evidence, subject to the law, the prisoners, or either of them, were guilty of the offence. Manslaughter was the unlawful slaying of a human being. The case was one of enormous importance both to the prisoners and the community, and also the police force of the colony. He was glad to find from the evidence of Sub-inspector Johnston that it had not been found necessary to cause the police here to habitually carry firearms. The unfortunate necessity becomes only justifiably resorted to in cases where there were men so degraded and villainously murderous as to be prepared to take the life of the police simply because they were police, and treated them in such a manner as to endanger life. The police were bound to protect our liberties at the risk of their lives, but were also given the power to protect their lives just the same as private individuals. They must be treated in the matter of self defence just as private individuals. The police had a perfect right to take the life of a person if necessary to do so in defence of their lives; but only in case of necessity. Here it was important to consider what “necessity” was. It was not merely a necessity appearing to the mind of an excitable man, but such a necessity as would appear to persons in the calm contemplation of the matter. A man was not excused because he had taken fright and thought he was going to have his life taken. Whether life was taken by a policeman or an ordinary civilian, the law invariably held a careful and jealous investigation as to how it was taken and whether the circumstances were such as to justify the taking of life in self-defence. Under the strict interpretation of the law; ” justification” was not a proper term. All the law did was to “excuse” a man who took the life of a fellow creature in self defence.- In this case he had no doubt that the jury would have full regard to the point he had drawn their attention to, i.e., that the only ground on which a man could be excused in taking life was that it was done from an absolute or clearly apparent necessity.

And that necessity must be this : It was not sufficient that the accused himself should think it was necessary, but he must think so reasonably and justifiably. The jury had a difficult task to determine whether the circumstances were such as to make it reasonably necessary for a man to take life in his own defence.

The law was not otherwise in regard to killing in the execution of duty by an officer of justice. Bearing that in mind, they would have to deal with this difficult case like others of a similar character. With regard to the matter of self defence, he did not think the question was really raised on the part of the prisoners.. He did not think it was set up that the killing was done by them in necessary self-defence of themselves. It appeared that the prisoners had from the first stated that .they did it in order to effect the arrest of a felon endeavoring to escape from them. As to the evidence of the witness Pound, he had to draw attention to the fact that what White stated to Pound was not evidence against anyone but White himself ; it was not evidence against Shiell. Nothing one prisoner said in the absence of the other was evidence against that other. It was necessary that the jury should also consider, although the excuse was set up of having taken life in endeavoring to apprehend a felon, whether in fact the object was to retaliate for injuries already received by the constables. If it was retaliation, the law made no excuse whatever. The law made this much allowance, that if a man was severely injured, and whilst still in hot blood seized a weapon and took the life of the person who attacked him, it would not hold him guilty of murder, but of manslaughter of a high character – of a very aggravated kind indeed. It was, therefore, a matter of the most serious importance to consider whether they were satisfied that Pound had given the proper statement of what took place, or whether White was doing so. Pound stated, if they recollected, that the prisoner said to him after the shooting took place, that he had shot Considine; and when Pound asked why he had done so, White replied, “If he had done to you what he did to me, you would have done the same.” Did the jury believe that Considine was shot because of the injuries which he caused to White? If they did so, he would be guilty of manslaughter of an aggravated kind. If he had taken firearms when cool and took life he would be guilty of murder, but if he did it in a time of excitement he would be guilty of aggravated manslaughter indeed. The law would admit self-defence, but not retaliation of any kind. Retaliation involved punishment, and.the law; insisted that punishment should be left to the proper courts of justice and should not be placed in the hands of private individuals or persons other than courts of justice. A good deal depended on what the jury thought of the evidence given by Pound as compared with that given by White. White alleged that he said, “If you had been placed in the same position as I was you might have done the same,” which bore no indication that he acted under feeling from injuries received. They must be very careful in regard to the recollection of witnesses, as witnesses very often differed as to the exact words used. The words were of very great importance in this case, and the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they were used. In approaching the consideration of this case he had no doubt that they would do so with a judicial mind, setting naught down in malice and extenuating nothing except by the evidence; that they would neither show favor to the prisoners because they were constables, nor entertain feeling of any kind against them. The well-being and liberty of members of the community required that constables and police officers in general should be supported in the proper discharge of their duty, and the well-being of the community also required that they should be restrained from the excesses of that duty. He had told them that manslaughter amounted, not to the killing by malice prepense, but to killing without lawful excuse. Every killing was presumed to be murder unless from the circumstances it was reduced either to manslaughter or excused as homicide. The fact that a man was killed raised the prima facie presumption that he had been murdered. The jury would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown case was proven ; they would be required to have that certainty which would influence them in their personal affairs. Here he would draw their attention to the rules which had been put in in evidence in this case : the rules given to the constables as regulating the performance of their duty. If these rules were contrary to law they would not justify a constable in acting under them ; but they were, when taken as a whole, a fair condensation of the general law with regard to the use of arms by the police. They were not like an act of Parliament, in which each clause might be taken by itself .and have the force of law. When taken as a whole and considered as the advice given to constables as to what the law was, they might be taken to be fairly correct ; but they were not to be taken clause by clause. One part of the rules must be taken with the other. He considered that very great caution should be given to officers with regard to acting under the regulations : they must have regard to the whole of them as a whole. One part might seem to justify the police in using firearms, and yet another part might restrain them ; and they must act under the part which would restrain them. In rule 90 it was very properly laid down:- ” If a constable endeavors to apprehend a person who has committed a felony, whom he is by a proper warrant authorised to apprehend for a felony, and such person flies knowing the intention to arrest for such felony and with a view to prevent such arrest; he may be lawfully killed provided he cannot be otherwise apprehended.” The duty of a constable was to apprehend but not also, as it would be made to appear, to apprehend the person the instant he saw him. He was not justified in shooting a man down because he was running away unless it appeared to him that the person would fully and wholly escape unless he did so. ” At what particular period of a struggle or pursuit the impossibility of overtaking the person son flying becomes manifest must depend upon the circumstances of each case.” That was perfectly correct, and should be most carefully borne in mind. It had a most important bearing on this case, and was perfectly correct law. ” If the constable is better mounted than the person he is endeavoring to arrest, or the place where the parties are is such that assistance is likely to be obtained before the escape can be fully accomplished, or if in any other way there is reasonable ground for supposing that the arrest can be accomplished in that particular pursuit, the officer ought not in any of these cases to take life.” It was not to be supposed that a constable could shoot a felon who refused to stop when called upon. He would draw attention to the words immediately following those quoted: ” He is not, however, bound to let a felon or person whom he is authorised by warrant to arrest for felony escape from him because he may have reason to think that he can find him easily at some other time.”. That did not mean that if the man tried to get out of his sight he was entitled to shoot him ; it meant that he was not authorised to let him escape altogether rather than shoot him. If there were reasonable grounds for supposing that the arrest could be accomplished in any other way the officer should not take life. That would be the most difficult part of the jury’s duty. Rule 90 said : ” It is his duty to arrest the person whom he is so authorised or commanded to arrest as soon as he sees him, and if he cannot overtake him he may kill him.” Taken by itself this paragraph was not true. It was not the duty of a constable to apprehend a person as soon as he saw him, or shoot him. It was certainly his duty not to allow the man to have an opportunity of getting away altogether, even if compelled to take life. A man charged with an offence was bound to give himself up to the officers of justice when called upon, whether guilty of the offence or not. He drew attention particularly to this clause because, although in certain cases, it should br understood by the police that it did not justify them in shooting a man as soon as they saw him if he did not surrender, although in certain cases that shooting might be justifiable. If a constable caught sight of a bushranger in the bush, and called upon him to surrender, and did not have sufficient means of preventing his escape, the officer would be justified in shooting him and killing if necessary. The man would in that case bring it on himself by not surrendering when called upon. Common sense showed us this : a man must not set the law at defiance ; he must submit when called on and allow the case to be investigated. The rule further stated :-” Constables ought in all cases to be extremely cautious in resorting to extreme steps, but when necessity occurs they must perform their duty, and the law will protect them. Should the officer be resisted and his own life placed in jeopardy he may then kill, not for the purpose of preventing an escape, but in self defence.” There was only one other part of the rules to which he would refer. In the 89th section it was stated that there must be an apparent necessity to which the constable is reduced in arresting or detaining a felon before using firearms. ” Apparent ” sometimes meant ” seeming ;” but the 95th section of the rules would show that was not what was meant here. The section in question stated that ” the importance or necessity of this proceeding must be dearly apparent.” Apparent had there its proper meaning : not ” seeming ” but ” clear.” The law which applied on this ground required a policeman to do his duty even if it was necessary to take life, and it held him harmless in such cases. He would now proceed to the matter of the case before him. Was Considine killed ? How was he killed ? and by whom ? Was he killed by the two prisoners or either of them, both of them acting for a joint purpose at the time ? The prisoners had set up the defence that they were acting together and killed to prevent escape. The Crown did: not seem to dispute that a felony had been committed by Considine. The question was, Were the prisoners endeavoring to apprehend Considine after he had committed a felony in order to bring him to justice ? Or did they endeavor to shoot him because he struck them and injured them, and they were smarting under the injuries ? If the latter they were not justified in law. As he said before, the contradictory evidence on the point affected the prisoner White alone, That depended on whether they believed the exact evidence of Pound, or whether they thought the statement by White, that that was not the exactly correct expression, was to be, preferred. They must be satisfied that Pound’s recollection was correct before the evidence could act in any way against White. Even if they were satisfied that the words used by Pound were the words used by the prisoner White then the evidence did not seem to be sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the killing was done while smarting from injuries, and not for the purposes of apprehension. A prisoner might give as faithful evidence as a man who was not a prisoner. Two stories had been set up in this case. In the first place it was alleged that there was a scuffle in the early part of the case, which scuffle was not directly material in arriving at a conclusion. At the same time the facts might throw light on the subsequent scuffle, which was material. It was not contended that the first scuffle constituted a felony. A felony was committed when actual bodily harm was inflicted ; and if bodily harm was inflicted by Considine in the first scuffle he was a felon, and the police were justified in apprehending him when he came back. When Considine came back on the second occasion he committed a felony and justified the constables in apprehending him and even in taking his life if necessary in order to prevent escape. If Considine had nothing in his hand when he struck the prisoners, as stated by witnesses, how came the mark which were on the coat and cap, and how were Shiell’s rib broken and White’s head injured ? He had no doubt they would believe the evidence of the doctors, and it was for them to say whether the prisoners’ evidence, which was consistent with the doctors, or that of Crown witnesses, which conflicted, was the more reliable. Unfortunately for the prisoners, it was not this question alone which had to be tried. It was not a question whether Considine had an iron bar in his hand or not ; that might be a question if the accused were charged with murder. That question did not arise here, where the accused were only indicted for manslaughter. Supposing every word told by the prisoners was true, had they reasonable grounds for believing that it was impossible to prevent the escape of Considine without shooting him ? The offence was a very serious one even in its mildest form. This case was a precedent ; a good law in this would be good law in others. It would never do to lay down the rule that members of the community might be shot down by the police merely because they thought they could escape. On the other hand they must not discourage officers in the discharge of their duty in preventing the escape of felons. .It was for the jury to decide whether the prisoners had acted honestly and under a proper view of the circumstances. His Honor then reviewed the evidence at length. The evidence of John McLennan, the first witness, detailing the preliminary scuffle with the police, was merely introductory. The witness Wake, who was aroused by the noise of the scuffle, was to the effect that Considine and his companions were under the influence of drink. The witness stated that Considine pushed one of his companions who asked him to go home, but would not swear that he had knocked him down. He, however, said he saw a man lying on the ground 9ft. from the window, and from the rest of the evidence it seemed that this man must have been McLennan’s brother. With regard to Hegarty’s evidence, there was an important matter testified to by him and other Crown witnesses which the jury would have to consider seriously. This evidence was that the constables, when they saw Considine had escaped after the first scuffle, said, “He’s gone now; well summons him.” That might lead the jury to suppose that the constables knew that Considine would not attempt to escape, but on the other hand, they must consider that Considine had not then committed the more serious offence of assault on the police. The remark might lead the jury to the implication that the police knew that Considine would not attempt to escape; and that might very seriously affect their consideration of the question whether the police believed that Considine would endeavor to escape after committing the more serious assault. The witness Carney had given very strong evidence, and it was for the jury to consider whether they would credit the whole of it. The general account given by him was similar to that given by the constables, but it differed materially in important details. Carney said he did not see Considine hold up his hands to Shiell in a threatening attitude, as deposed to by the accused ; and he said that Shiell struck the first blow with his baton. If the constables’ story were true, and Considine came at Shiell in a threatening manner, the latter would be quite justified in striking him first.. Then Carney’s evidence differed from the constables’ in that it stated that Shiell ran away after the assault. It was for the jury to say whether the constables’ story was not more consistent with the doctor’s evidence that Shiell’s rib was broken. A man with a broken rib would not be able to move quickly. If the jury believed that Carney had not told the truth on this point, and did not credit his evidence where opposed to that of the police, it might materially affect their verdict. Carney also differed from the police as to the distance the accused were from Considine when they fired at him ; but a mistake might easily be made as to distances. Carney also denied hearing Considine say, when the police called on him to stop, ” I’ll do you,” or ” I’ll do for you.” If they believed, the evidence of the constables on this point, it might be held to justify the police in shooting Considine, especially if they found that the accused believed Considine to be a powerful man, dangerous in drink, and that there was a probability of his escape. The evidence as to the firing of the shots, was immaterial. The question for the jury was, Did the constables fire at Considine with a common intent ; and if so, was that intent justifiable or not ? It was for the jury to say whether they believed Carney or Shiell as to Considine approaching the latter in a threatening attitude and as to the latter running away ; and if they believed the doctors’ evidence as to Shiell’s injury, the evidence of the constable on the latter point was the more reliable. The evidence of O’Leary and other companions of Considine was much the same as Carney’s and he need not go into it fully. The doctors’ evidence showed clearly that a felony had been committed by Considine, and believing that, the jury would probably consider the evidence of the constables on that point as matter of truth. If they found that a felony had been committed, the other most important point remained, Was it necessary to shoot Considine in order to effect his arrest ? Then they must consider the other important point whether the constables went with their revolvers for the purpose of apprehending Considine and bringing him to justice or, in the passion of the moment, to retaliate on him for the injuries.he had inflicted on them. With regard to that there was the most important evidence of the witness Pound, but it only told, against White.

Mr. Edgar : There is Ohlssoo’s evidence also.

His Honor said he would read the evidence, Ohlsson said that White remarked to him just after the affair, ” I have just shot Considine – the brute.” That was no doubt relied on by the Crown to show that White had acted in the heat of passion. But it was only human nature that a man – and a constable was, after all, only a man -should be angry under the circumstances. He could hardly have been otherwise after receiving such a blow as the evidence showed he had received. White had not denied using the remark.

Mr. Moriarty : He Bays he has no recollection of using it.

His Honor said White might have used the remark, not knowing that Considine was dead at the time.

Having gone through the whole of the evidence – as will be reported in length in the Second Edition – the jury retired precisely at 12 noon.