Hi Guest!
Contribute to this record

Samuel Proctor

Samuel Proctor, one of 280 convicts transported on the Recovery, 26 October 1835

Name, Aliases & Gender

Name: Samuel Proctor
Aliases: none
Gender: -

Birth, Occupation & Death

Date of Birth: 1809
Occupation: -
Date of Death: 1885
Age: 76 years

Life Span

Life span

Median life span was 61 years*

* Median life span based on contributions

Conviction & Transportation

Sentence Severity

Sentence Severity

Sentenced to Life

Crime: -
Convicted at: Suffolk, Quarter Session
Sentence term: Life
Ship: Recovery
Departure date: 26th October, 1835
Arrival date: 25th February, 1836
Place of arrival New South Wales
Passenger manifest Travelled with 280 other convicts


Primary source: Australian Joint Copying Project. Microfilm Roll 90, Class and Piece Number HO11/10, Page Number 193 (99)
Source description: This record is one of the entries in the British convict transportation registers 1787-1867 database compiled by State Library of Queensland from British Home Office (HO) records which are available on microfilm as part of the Australian Joint Copying Project.

Did you find the person you were looking for?

If Samuel Proctor was the person you were looking for, you may be able to discover more about them by looking at our resources page.

If you have more hunting to do, try a new search or browse the convict records.

Know more about Samuel Proctor?

Contribute to this record

Community Contributions

Phil Hands on 28th June, 2017 wrote:

Tried and convicted at the Suffolk, Quarter Session for a term of life on 14th April 1835, sent to the Prison Hulk ‘Leviathan’ which was moored off Portsmouth in May 1835.
Left England on 30th October 1835.
Ship:- the ‘Recovery’ sailed with 284 male convicts on board of which 4 died during the voyage.
Arrived on 25th February 1836.

Married free settler Elizabeth Masters in 1849 at South Creek, they had 8 children between 1850-1869.

Morning Post Friday 27th March 1835 p. 4
Samuel Proctor and Daniel Andrews were charged with assaulting, with intent to murder, Henry Juby, at Hitcham, on the night of the 6th of January.
It appeared on the evidence of the prosecutor that on the above night he had been assaulted and dreadfully beaten by two men; but the jury were not satisfied that the prisoners were identified as the persons who had committed the crime and found them not guilty.

Bury and Norwich Post Wednesday 1st April 1835 p. 2
Samuel Proctor and Daniel Andrews were charged with having violently assaulted Henry Juby, farmer, in his dwelling-house, at Hitcham, with intent to murder him, or to do him some grievous bodily harm. The prosecutor stated that he was disturbed about 2 o’clock in the morning of the 10th of October, by someone calling under his window; on opening his window, the person told him he had a parcel for him, and that it came to a shilling; the prosecutor struck a light, and went down; as soon as he had opened the door, some one rushed into the passage, and gave him a violent blow with a cudgel on the back of his head; another person followed, and also “knocked on to him”; witness tried to thrust them out; while he was doing so they again struck him; he however succeeded in getting the men outside the door, by shoving one before him, and pulling the other after him; he went out with them a little way, and then returned, and fastened the door; the men then went away; it was sufficiently light for him to see who the men were; he had seen them before many times, and knew them again; was quite sure the prisoners were the men; both had fustian frocks; Proctor had a black hat, Andrews an old straw hat. After they were gone, witness found a straw hat in the passage. Andrews was the first person who struck him; he knew him on account of his mouth. (The prisoner had a short upper lip and projecting teeth). His wife dressed his wounds; he was severely bruised, and bled copiously; in the morning a surgeon attended him. Did not see the prisoners again until the 20th of October, when he was them before the Magistrates; was not well enough to go before the Magistrates till the 20th; swore positively to the men before the Magistrates. He had known Proctor three or four years; Andrews not more than half a year. The wounds were “good tidy wounds”, both at the back and side of his head; he bled so much that his shirt was covered with blood. (The prisoner told the witness that before the Magistrates he was not so confident they were the persons as he appeared in Court.) Witness admitted he had said for a moment that he did not know them, but immediately their hats were on he could identify them. Peter Baker a constable, searched Andrew’s house, and found a frock coat and shirt with blood on them. They were produced, and the sister-in-law of the prisoner identified them as his property; the straw hat she also knew to be her brother-in-law’s. She swore that the prisoner went to bed on the night Mr Juby was beaten, at nine o’clock, and she saw him in bed next morning when she passed through his room; he might pass out and in without her knowing it. Mr Baker exhibited the shirt with the marks of blood on the inside, which his Lordship thought could not have happened in the affray. A waistcoat was also produced which was found in Proctor’s house, having slight marks of blood, this the prisoner accounted for by his having cut his finger with a scythe, the marks of which were on his finger when he was before the Magistrate. A young man, an assistant to Mr Grouse, surgeon, of Bildeston, said the wounds of the prosecutor required his attendance for eight or nine days; they were inflicted by a blunt instrument. His Lordship pointed out to the jury the difficulty of deciding whether the intention was to do bodily harm, or to give a blow without intending serious injury, for the purpose of robbing. The jury gave a verdict of not guilty in favour of the prisoners, which his Lordship said he was very sorry for: he warned the prisoners that in all probability the law would soon overtake them, although they had escaped through the mercy of the jury this time, in consequence of their not being willing to convict on the capital charge. The prisoners were detained on a charge of assault with intent to rob.

Bury and Norwich Post Wednesday—April 1835 p. 2
Samuel Proctor and Daniel Andrews, who were acquitted at our Assizes of the capital charge of breaking into the dwelling-house of Henry Juby, farmer, of Hitcham, but remanded to be tried for violently assaulting the said H. Juby, with intent to rob him, were found guilty, and sentenced to transportation for life.

Bury and Norwich Post Wednesday 13th May 1835 p. 2
Nine male convicts have been removed from our Gaol, and put on board the Leviathan hulk, lying at Portsmouth, viz.:-...Samuel Proctor and Daniel Andrews, to be transported for life…

Convict Changes History

Phil Hands on 28th June, 2017 made the following changes:

date of birth: 1809 (prev. 0000), date of death: 1885 (prev. 0000)

This record was discovered and printed on ConvictRecords.com.au