David Kelly

343

Maureen Withey on 2nd April 2022

https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON13-1-1$init=CON13-1-1p78 Names of 70 male convicts forwarded per Brig Jupiter to Hobart, details taken from the Indents. Dated Sydney, 9 August 1817. David Kelly, (1823/20), Tried at Dublin City, Tried 13 Feb 1816, 7 years. --------------------------------------------------

218

Dianne Jones on 16th January 2021

CRIME: Felony of a watch and wearing apparel (see NSW Convict Ship Muster Rolls and Related Records, 1790-1849; 1817 Chapman). AGE: David Kelly is listed as 16 years old on the Chapman's muster roll in 1816. He was 17 years old on arrival in NSW, as per the 1817 Convict Indents record for the Chapman which describes him as 5’1¾” tall, with a fair pale complexion, brown hair and eyes. CRIME: He was found guilty of felony of a watch and wearing apparel when tried in Dublin City on December 19, 1916. He was sent to Newgate prison prior to being transported (see NSW, Australia, Convict Indents, 1788-1842; Bound Indentures 1814-1818).

343

Maureen Withey on 25th January 2020

Irish Convict Database. David Kelly, age 18, ship, Chapman (1) 1817, Tried at Dublin City 1816, sentence 7 years. Native of Dublin, trade - Shoemaker apprentice. Tasmanian Conduct Record: https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON31-1-23$init=CON31-1-23p179 7. David Kelly. Chapsman & Jupiter. Tried Feby. 1816, 7 years. March 18 1822. T.L. Drunk & Disy. Fied 5/- July 8 1822. T.L. Absent from muster & church. Repd. Aug 6 1822. T.L. Absent from muster & church. Repd. Oct 8 1829. Selling rum without a licence- fined £50 with costs. Oct 10 1833. F.S. Drunk, fined 5/-. The following letter from David Kelly, in respect to the last charge on his record, appeared in the Hobart Town Courier, 7 Nov 1829. To the Editor of the Courier : SIR.- I beg to communicate to the Public, through the medium of your Journal, the following particulars of a circumstance which has led to my being convicted of retailing Rum, which charge, I call my Maker to witness my total innocence of. The following is a true and correct account of all the particulars relative to the case. On the 17th of August last, Samuel May, attached to the Field Police, called at my house, leading a horse, having a girth in his hand which he requested I would repair; I complied, and when finished he seemed inclined to prolong his stay, asserting that he was waiting for a young man, who as well as himself was in quest of a young horse which had left the establishment of his master, Mr. Hobbs, whose overseer he represented himself to be ; during which lime, my dinner being ready, I invited him to partake, which he did. We conversed on many different subjects, and I solemnly declare that spirits of any kind or wine was never mentioned. Before we finished dinner the other person had arrived, who I immediately recognized to be Benjamin Allinson, of the Oatland Police ; having alighted he very abruptly entered the house, and wished to force his way to the fire but perceiving he had no very welcome reception he retired to a seat, apparently much confused ; he was asked to eat, which he refused, he remained in my house the remainder of the dinner time, which was about ten minutes, they then both departed. I here again solemnly declare that during the stay of Benjamin Allinson no conversation door place respecting spirits or wine of any kind. It may be proper to remark that from the time that Samuel May entered my house to the time of his leaving, with Benjamin Allinson, there was no other person in but myself and my wife. I heard no more of them until the 2nd September, when, to my surprise, I received a summons to appear at Campbell town on the 5th September, charged with having retailed one quart of wine on the 17th August last. Knowing my innocence of the charge. I was almost petrified with astonishment and surprise, and tracing back to the date, could remember of no other person having entered my house on that day but Samuel May and Benjamin Allinson, I therefore concluded that they must be the authors of this information. Having no other person in the house during their stay, I was completely at a loss how to act. There was no other resource but to request the attendance of my neighbours, who were all willing to give such evidence, as to character and conduct, that they considered me entitled to. At length the appointed day arrived for my appearance at Campbell town. I accordingly went, accompanied by several respectable persons, to answer to this charge, and was informed that the parties who were against me had not yet arrived, but was requested to wait in attendance a short time. I complied, and the parties not appearing, was told by the Magistrate that should they have to summons me again they would give me timely notice. On the 23rd Sept. I received another summons, similar to the first, to appear on the 8th Oct. I procured a summons for each of my witnesses. I accordingly appeared again at Campbell town, when, to my astonishment, I was furnished by the Police Clerk with a third summons - differing materially from the two former - charged with having retailed half a pint of Rum on the 7th August, the Clerk alleged that it was a mistake-a very singular mistake indeed, a mistake both in quantity and quality but I trust ere long I shall be enabled to ascertain whether or no such mistakes are legal. Observe how the affair began, to shew itself even before the investigation took place. Having appeared before the Magistrate, I found the informer was Dudfield, of the Oatland Police, with Samuel May and Benjamin Allinson. May being sworn, declared upon oath that, on the 17th August last. I sold him half a pint of rum, and Allinson also declared upon oath that he drank part of the said half pint of rum, and saw me receive the money from May for the same. Reader, whoever thou art, picture to yourself the indescribable state of my feelings at hearing two men declare upon oath that they had bought and drank Rum in my house, while I call my God to witness that I have never had any rum in my house since I have occupied it, a period of 13 months. I called upon my witnesses who all spoke much in my favour, the substance of their evidence was, that they considered me a very sober and industrious man and so far from being a grog seller that they never knew or heard of any thing of the kind, in fact it was their general opinion that the information was founded in falsehood. The result of the trial was, that I was fined in the full penalty of £50 by Richard Willis and James Simpson, Esqs, but, however, I have secured an appeal, when, I trust, the affair will wear a very different aspect. The same two characters, Samuel May and Benjamin Allinson, had given an information against another person, which was tried on the same day as mine, but dismissed, their evidence being contradicted. DAVID KELLY. Macquarie River, Oct. 9,1829.