James Farrell

341

Maureen Withey on 26th February 2021

The Tickets of Leave granted to the following Persons have been cancelled : - Three Bees, JAMES FARRELL. For harbouring a Prisoner of the Crown and keeping a disorderly House. By Command of His Excellency the Governor, ALEXANDER M'LEAY. Colonial Secretary’s Office, 18th April, 1829.

341

Maureen Withey on 9th August 2020

Irish Convict Database by Peter Mayberry. James Farrell, age on arrival, 19, Three Bees (1814), Tried Dublin City, 1812, Life. DOB, 1795, Native place, Drogheda Louth Co. Trade, Weaver. ------------------------------------------------------- NSW 1828 Census Index. James Farrell, age 28, T.L Three Bees, 1814, Life, catholic, Labourer, Gloucester St, Sydney. Jane Farrell, age 30, F.S. Catherine, 1814, 7 years, protestant. --------------------------------------------------- Colonial Secretary Index. FARRELL, James. Per "Three Bees", 1814. 1825 Nov - To be granted a conditional pardon (Fiche 3292; 4/6974.1 pp.48, 75) ---------------------------------------------------- Before his honor Mr. Justice Dickinson, and a jury of four. DOE DEM TUGWELL V. FARRELL. This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover five perches of land in the parish of St. Phillip, Sydney. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Mr. Michie appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Foster for the defendant. It appeared from the evidence that the lessor of the plaintiff bought of one Hanslow, who purchased of one Jane Farrell, the wife, as it was said, of the present defendant, who at the time she parted with the property, was a prisoner of the Crown for life. The grant from the Crown to the said Jane Farrell, the deed of conveyance from her to Hanslow, and Hanslow's deed to the present plaintiff, were then proved and read in evidence; and, lastly, the indent, to prove that the defendant, James Farrell, came out to the colony a prisoner for life in the year 1814, in the ship The Three Bees. The latter was also identified by a fellow-prisoner. Mr. Foster moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the conveyance from Mrs. Farrell was void for uncertainty, but after some argument his Honor over-ruled the objection. Mr. Foster then proceeded to address the jury, contending as before that the deed was void for uncertainty, being neither a bargain and sale nor a feoffment, and that the indent was not made out according to the terms of the statute which authorised its admission in evidence. A witness was then called, who proved the marriage of Mrs. Farrell to the present defendant, twenty-seven years ago. His Honor, in summing up, told the Jury that he considered the deed from Mrs. Farrell to Hanslow as a bargain and sale; and this being the case, the documentary part of the plaintiff's case had been clearly made out. Also; that the indent was sufficient in his opinion to prove that the defendant was a convict, though it did not state the offence for which he was transported : for it was the punishment and not the offence, that would show whether a man was a prisoner or not. And there being satisfactory evidence, therefore, that the defendant was a prisoner at the time of the grant being made to Mrs. Jane Farrell, and that she conveyed in her own name to Hanslow, in accordance with the late Sir Francis Forbe's judgment in the case of Doe Dem Smithers v. Clark (1831), Mrs. Jane Farrell was, in the eye of the law, a “feme sole”, and could therefore alone convey her property. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1s. Sydney Chronicle, 14 Aug 1847.