Robert Eyre

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd February 2022

The following from FindAGrave: Name Robert Henry Eyre Gender Male Birth Date 1835 Birth Place Tipperary, County Tipperary, Ireland Death Date 27 Nov 1898 Death Place York Shire, Western Australia, Australia Cemetery York Cemetery Burial or Cremation Place York, York Shire, Western Australia, Australia Has Bio? N Spouse Charlotte Eyre Children Etta Eyre; Elizabeth Fleay; Alice Cooke; Henry Mansell Eyre; Thomas William Eyre; Molly Heal

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd February 2022

The Australia Death Index also has the following entry for Robert Henry EYRE: Name Robert Henry Eyre Death Age 62 Birth Date 1836 Death Date Abt 1898 Death Place Western Australia Registration Date 1898 Registration Place Australia Father Henry Mother Eliza Vass Registration Number 2870 --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd February 2022

FOOTNOTE 2: WA BDM records show Robert Henry Eyre died on 27 November, 1898 [at York], aged 62. There is no record in the database for Henry Eyre's death, and it seems likely the brothers were confused when Robert Henry's death was entered incorrectly as Henry's on the latter's record from Fremantle jail. --0--

218

Dianne Jones on 22nd February 2022

FOOTNOTE: Henry Eyre, Robert’s younger brother, was also transported to WA and arrived seven months before him, on 1 January, 1858, per the Nile. See his bio at https://convictrecords.com.au/convicts/eyre/henry/58873

218

Dianne Jones on 22nd February 2022

ANOTHER TRIAL: 10 October, 1876: From the Western Australian Times, p2: Perth Supreme Court—Criminal Sittings. Another Horse - Stealing Case. Robert Henry Eyre, an intelligent-looking man, described as a stock-hunter, was indicted on a charge of stealing a horse, the property of Mr. S. H. Parker, at York, on the 31st December last. On a second count, the prisoner was charged with receiving the same, knowing that it had been stolen. The prisoner defended himself with considerable skill, and his fate was the exception which proves the truth of the old adage which says that those who are their own lawyers have fools for their clients. The following evidence was adduced:- Mr. James Parker the prosecutor's brother, said he had charge of his brother's horses, and that the horse which was the subject of the present trial was one of them. It was running with the others up to December last, when it was missed. It subsequently was traced to the prisoner's possession, and information of the robbery was given to the police. The prisoner had no claim or right whatever to the horse; he lived in a hut on one of the runs belonging to the Messrs. Parker. The horse was branded F.P. conjoined, and there could be no doubt as to its identity. To the prisoner:- I can only identify the horse by the brand. Mr. Edward Parker gave evidence to the same effect as his brother, the previous witness, adding that he believed the prisoner was himself the possessor of horses, but that there could be no doubt that the colt which was the subject of the present investigation was not his property, but the property of the prosecutor, Mr Stephen Henry Parker, who purchased it from his late brother, Mr. Frederick Parker. The prisoner never claimed it as his own. In November last witness was riding about the bush with the prisoner, and they happened to come across the colt in question, when the prisoner made the remark, "There goes your horse." It was missed from its accustomed haunts in the following month. Cross-examined by the prisoner : I recognise the colt by its general appearance and the brand; but I would not swear to its identity except for the brand. I am aware that you are the owner of horses in the same district; in fact, I have bought one or two from you. It is not unusual for persons to be possessed of horses bearing other people's brands. There is no distinctive mark on the colt in question which would enable me to swear to its identity, with the exception of the brand. It was the only horse on the run bearing that brand. To the Crown Solicitor:- The prisoner's brand is R.E.; but there is no such brand on the colt alleged to have been stolen. Mr. George Boyle, a farmer, residing near York, said he saw the prisoner in December last with a horse-the subject of the present trial-in his possession. Witness was bringing a team to Perth at the time, and the prisoner asked him to bring the horse with him and sell it for him. At his request, it was put in the team, and brought to Perth, and sold for £5. To the prisoner:- You never led me to think that there was anything 'wrong' about the horse. I was to sell it openly, by public auction. It was an unbroken colt, and the price you told me to ask for it, namely £5 - failing which I was to bring it back - was a fair price. I have known you to possess mares and foals of your own, some of which were running on Mr. Parker's run. Mr. Edward Parker, recalled, said he had given permission for the prisoner to run his horses on one of his (Mr. Parker's) runs. This was the case for the prosecution. For the defence the prisoner, called Charles Holland, a shepherd in Mr. Massingham's employ, who said, in reply to the prisoners questions, that he knew Mr. Parker's runs and also Mr. Chance's runs; he was shepherding on the latter for several months, and knew the horses running there-on. Among them was a bay horse, bearing the late Mr. F. Parker's brand; it was not the same horse as that which was the subject of the present trial. There was no doubt about that. Cross-examined by the Crown Solicitor: I have known the prisoner as the owner and breeder of horses for the past eight years. I have seen the horse alleged to be stolen, at the police stables; it is not the same horse as I saw on Mr. Chance's run, marked F.P. They are both branded alike. The prisoner told me a few days since that the horse which he is charged with stealing was his own; it does not bear his brand, but that of Mr. Parker. He told me he got in the mare and foal, and that he had the permission of one of the Messrs. Parker - either Mr. Edward or the late Mr. Frederick - to brand it with the latter's brand.' The prisoner, in his defence; maintained that the horse in question was his own property, and had been confounded by the prosecution with another horse, in the belief that there was only one horse bearing the brand F.P., whereas it was clear, on the evidence of the witness Holland, that there had been two horses so branded - both of the same color. He also pointed out the improbability of his sending a horse, bearing a well-known brand, down to Perth, to be openly sold by public auction. The whole case hinged on the question of the identity of the horse, and he contended that the evidence for the prosecution on this point was by no means conclusive or satisfactory. The Crown Solicitor having reviewed and critically analysed the whole of the evidence in its bearing upon the prisoner's guilt. His Honor charged the jury, in a very lucid address, and in conclusion said the case was reduced to this simple enquiry - Had the prisoner accounted satisfactorily for being in possession of the horse alleged to have been stolen? If he had, then he was entitled to an acquittal. If his narrative gave rise to any reasonable doubt in their minds as to his guilt, he was entitled to the benefit of that doubt. On the contrary, if they were satisfied that the prosecution had proved the identity of the horse, beyond a doubt, then their verdict should be a conviction. The jury, before retiring, asked to be allowed to inspect the horse, which was in the police stables, and their request was acceded to. After an absence of a quarter of an hour, they returned into court and returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was thereupon discharged." --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 22nd February 2022

IN WA: From his Fremantle jail record: EYRE, Robert; inmate #4896, arrived 1 Jun 1858 per Lord Raglan Date of Birth: 1836 Marital Status: Unmarried Occupation: Clerk Literacy: Literate Sentence Date: 1856 Sentence Place: Liverpool, Lancashire, England Crime: Attempted assault & robbery Sentence Period: Life Ticket of Leave Date: 10 Mar 1860 Conditional Pardon Date: 23 Jan 1875 Comments: Labourer, general servant, sawyer, carpenter, servant, self-employed as painter 1865, clerk, tutor, self-employed, 1860, 1862 (https://fremantleprison.com.au/). --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 22nd February 2022

TRIAL: 22 March, 1856: At the Liverpool Assizes, Henry and Robert Eyre were each sentenced to transportation for life for "assault with another with intent to rob while armed with an offensive weapon" (England & Wales, Criminal Registers, 1791-1892; England; Lancashire; 1856). --0--

218

Dianne Jones on 22nd February 2022

NEWSPAPER reports of the committal: From the Manchester Guardian, February 1, 1856: "The Murderous Assault at Mr. Durandu’s Bullion Office COMMITTAL OF THE PRISONERS The brothers Robert and Henry Eyre, who yesterday week attempted to rob the bullion office of Mr. Durandu, in South Castle Street, and committed a murderous assault upon Mr. Hughes, the cashier, when he was entering the office with the cashbox (containing about £1,500) under his arm - were again brought before the magistrates yesterday. Mr. Hughes was present as a witness. The boy Stoddart having described the entrance of the prisoners into the shop, and the attack upon himself. (It will be remembered he was thrust into a private office and detained there). Mr. William Hughes, clerk to Mr. Durandu, was examined. He said:'About twenty minutes before ten on Thursday morning, I went out of the office to Mr. Hornby’s for the cash box. On my return, the taller prisoner stood against the wall inside the shop. When I entered I thought he might be there to transact some business. I put the cash box on the counter, and had hardly done so when he stepped before me and hit me with some instrument. A mist came before my eyes, and he struck me several times with this instrument until he knocked me down. When he knocked me down he jumped upon me and, and got hold of my throat, and the younger prisoner came forward with the poker and struck me on the head, laying on for two or three minutes. I am quite clear that it was the younger prisoner who struck me with the poker. The elder prisoner tried to throttle me. When I was down I kicked at the younger prisoner and caught the poker with my right hand once or twice. While he was striking at me Mr. Levy came in. The cash box during the whole of the struggle lay on the counter where I had placed it. [Mr Hughes, who appeared very ill and feeble, sat during his evidence. His head was bandaged with cloths.] Mr Levy, one of those who came from the next door to the rescue, next gave evidence. He thought at first the noise in the shop was occasioned by the boy, and Hughes, playing, and several persons outside told him when he was going in that they were 'skylarking'. The elder prisoner rushed out when Mr. Levy came in, but he detained the younger one. The elder prisoner was afterwards caught by Robert Duggan, a labouring man, who was passing on the other side of the street. Duggan having also given his evidence, the life preserver (heavily loaded with lead) and the poker were produced. Both were broken from the force with which the blows had been dealt. Mr. Wall, surgeon at the Northern Hospital, said that Mr. Hughes had sustained an extensive scalp wound on the right side of the head, 2½ inches in length, and down to the bone. There were other severe contusions about the head. Though the wounds were not decidedly dangerous in themselves, Mr. Hughes was weak from loss of blood and erysipelas and other serious consequences might have ensued. The 'Life Preserver; is a formidable weapon having a flexible shaft, 8" long, possibly of whale-bone, and a lead weighted end, bound with cord. In use it was intended to be aimed at the arms or legs in order to disable the assailant. A blow to the head could easily result in fatal injuries. The prisoners on being asked what they had to say, Robert Eyre said that, when he went into the shop, he struck the boy with a life preserver, but not heavily. He did strike Mr. Hughes, the cashier, with a poker, but so lightly that he did not knock him down. If he had struck as hard as he could he, doubtless, might have killed the cashier. The poker (the prisoner declared) was not broken by the violence of the blows, but by getting twisted during the struggle in his (Eyre’s) arm. It broke at a part where it was very thin and much worn. He and Mr. Hughes fell in their struggle several times against the grate. The prisoner then read the following statement, which he had drawn up himself. He manifested a good deal of emotion as he read, and before he had proceeded far, he was so agitated that one of the clerks took the document from him and finished reading it - I am undefended by any legal man. I take this as the only method left to me to communicate the particulars, and to point out the several circumstances under which I committed the offence of which I am charged. I do not mean to say that any circumstance could have justified me in committing such a crime; but from the state of extreme want, the state of actual starvation, I was in at the time, I scarcely knew what I did. I had no redress. I could get nothing to do. I tried the docks for work, but in vain. I applied to the authorities for relief. I was told to go to the parish. I went to the parish. I was told I’d be sent to my own country. I applied to my friends and relations, but the friendship that existed in prosperity, had disappeared when adversity came on, and, on the morning when this occurrence took place, I was returning from the docks without the slightest hope of obtaining any assistance for a helpless family of small children who had eaten nothing for 36 hours. No wonder, then, that I should be tempted to commit an offence which I knew it was madness to attempt; but when I beheld the pale faces and emaciated forms of five small brothers and a mother, suffering under the circumstances I have already named, my mind became agitated, I cared not what became of me, and I felt I was hurried on to destruction by some irresistible influence. The purport of this is to beg the magistrate to deal with me summarily, and, as an act of mercy, not commit me for trial, and thus give me an opportunity of reforming my character, which I heretofore always endeavoured to preserve unsullied from the slightest improper conduct. With regard to my brother being concerned, in the case, I must say that he was directed and influenced entirely by the instructions I gave him. He did not know the consequences of such a proceeding. He can produce a three years’ character from constant and trustworthy situations, up to the day on which the sad occurrence took place. If I could now get an opportunity to join one of the regiments of dragoons, I would willingly do so, and such is my intention when it pleases God to restore me to liberty. I would have done so long since, but I never could bring myself to leave a young and helpless family unprovided for. I will now say no more upon the subject, but beg that the mercy of the court may be extended to me. I never before injured any person, in either word or deed; neither do I ever intend to do so again. It is true my conduct may seem atrocious in this case, and the uninterested observer may deem it criminal in every sense of the word; but, if they were acquainted with the dreadful privations (the foregoing details of which are but an outline) which led me to the commission of the deed, they would not censure me so much. If any person would go and see my family, they would immediately admit that this statement is not in any way exaggerated. In conclusion, I most sincerely hope and beg that, no matter what the magistrates may do with me, that they will acquit my poor brother as it was all my fault. ROBERT H. EYRE. The Statement was composed, by and in the handwriting of the elder prisoner. It was a clear mercantile hand. Mr. Samuel Holme (to the prisoners): I shall not add to the poignancy with which you must feel your position by any remarks, but I should be guilty of a great dereliction of duty if I did not allow this case to go before a jury. This letter, well expressed and grammatical in its construction, shows that you have had some education. The circumstance of your having taken such a dangerous instrument as that life preserver with you shows forethought in the case, and as your brother, notwithstanding all you have said, was one of the parties who committed this grievous and most atrocious assault in open day, I cannot do less than commit you both to take your trial at the assizes. The prisoners were then removed. Both are young, the eldest being only about 20 years of age. The dress of both prisoners was ragged, but their countenances did not indicate the extreme want which the elder prisoner stated they had suffered." --0--

218

Dianne Jones on 22nd February 2022

31 January, 1856: Committed at Liverpool to stand trial. --0--