Convict John Shea - Convict Records

In the 1828 Census, at Cooke, NSW, in the household of John Dickson, is listed : John Shea, age 45, T.L.,Life sentence, arrived in Australia on Dromedary, 1809. He is a stockman, and his religion is catholic. Dromedary was not a convict ship in 1809, but was transporting Governor Macquarie to take up his post as Governor of New South Wales, accompanied by half of the contingent of soldiers from the 73rd Regiment, the other half travelling in the Hindostan, which sailed from London, in company with the Dromedary,arriving at Port Jackson on the 28 December 1809, and finally disembarked in Sydney Bay 1st January 1810. JOhn Shea was a soldier of the 73rd Regiment. The Colonial Secretary Index has the following information about John Shea: SHEA, John 1811 - Convicted of murder (Reel 6070; 4/1265 pp.150-2) 1811 Jun 4 - Commutation warrant (Reel 6070; 4/7020 p.12) 1811 Jun 13 -Convicted of murder of Maher but owing to some particular circumstances in the case was conditionally pardoned (Reel 6003; 4/3492 p.18) 1811 Jun 29 - On list of prisoners to be sent to Newcastle per "Estramina" (Reel 6003; 4/3492 p.29) 1813 Jul 10 - Prisoner at Newcastle allowed to proceed to Sydney on a pass (Reel 6066; 4/1805 p.130) 1814 Mar 11 - Prisoner at Newcastle allowed to proceed to Sydney on a pass (Reel 6004; 4/3493 p.86) John Shea was convicted of Murder in 1811, and the trial was reported in the Sydney Gazette, on the 1st June 1811: TRIAL FOR MURDER. On Monday morning a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction assemble, before whom John Shea, private soldier, was indicted for the wilful murder of William Maher, a prisoner, at Norfolk Island, on the 31st of December last. The indictment being gone through, William Paterson, a private in the 73rd Regiment, was sworn, and gave evidence, that at half past four in the morning of the above day, as he, the deponent, was standing at the barrack guardhouse at Sydney, in Norfolk Island, he saw the deceased standing in front of the gaol at a small distance from it, the chief constable of the town standing near him; that his eye was at the same time attracted by the appearance of a musket pointed at the deceased out of an entry immediately contiguous to the prison, of which he could perceive only the barrel; that the piece was discharged, and the deceased, who was but a few yards, from the muzzle, fell instantly. That the prisoner then came out of the entry with the musket in his hand, and walking towards the guard-house was met on the way by the deponent about mid-way, who asked him for his firelock, which he refused to surrender, saying he would give it up to no one but the corporal of the guard. That another soldier also demanded the fire-lock, but it was refused to him also, whereupon the deponent went behind him, and suddenly seizing it, wrested it out of his hands, when upon examining it he found it had been recently discharged. He then assisted to lodge him in the guard-house; and being asked if he had known of any previous quarrel between the parties, replied that the prisoner had been frequently known to avow a suspicion of the deceased maintaining a criminal correspendence with his wife, in which he conceived the unfortunate event to have originated. James Ferguson, the next witness called, deposed that he was on the spot when the unhappy circum stance took place, and was in conversation with the deceased at the very moment; that he saw the prisoner at the bar advance towards him with his musket on the charge, and levelling directly at him when within a few yards, he fired, and the other fell, and never uttered a word, but almost instantly expired; that the ball had entered at the left breast, and made its passage out at the right shoulder. He heard the prisoner had challenged the deceased with a criminal correspondence with his wife, for which cause he attributed the dreadful catastrophe, and being asked on the side of the prisoner what state of mind he appeared in at the time, the deponent replied that he looked wildly, and appeared to be much agitated; and had some time previously declared that he had detected the deceased under his wife's bed, when he happened once to go unexpectedly home. James Morris, constable at Norfolk Island, being sworn, deposed, that he was on duty at the gaol when the affair happened; that he saw the flash, and heard the report from the musket; that he went immediately to the place and saw the deceased upon the ground, bleeding at the mouth; that he went to procure assistance for him, but he had expired before he could return, at which time the wife of the prisoner was sitting by the dead body, weeping bitterly, and was ordered to leave the place. The prisoner had gone towards the guard-house when the deponent first came out to witness the sad spectacle; and that jealousy had occasioned the disaster he also was persuaded. The Evidence for the Prosecution here closed; and the prisoner being put on his defence produced a paper which the Court permitted to be read. It went in substance to declare that what he had done was in a moment when his mind was irritated by the strongest of all human provocations; that the deceased had by intrigue and artifice deprived him of the affections of a wife who had been the mother of his children; that he had even detected him in the situation already referred to in the evidence; and was then prevented by his wife from punishing the aggression; she forcibly restraining his violence until the intruder had escaped; that a separation had taken place; but the force of his affection had been such as even to surmount so grievous a deviation from her original rectitude, under an assurance of contrition; but that, unhappily, the deceased had still obtained access to her, when his, the prisoner's duty required his absence; and in a state of phrenzy he had ultimately deprived the aggressor of his existence. To substantiate his case he called several witnesses, who spoke generally to the fact of his complaining frequently of the correspondence that had subsisted; in evidence of which it was stated that after the decease of Maher, the certificate of the prisoner's marriage with his wife was found among his, Maher's, wearing apparel. It was also sworn that the prisoner at the bar laboured under an imbecility of mind, sometimes bordering upon idocy. With respect to his moral character an appeal was made to many Officers of Rank, all of whom, without a single exception, spoke of him in the highest terms of commendation, as an honest and quiet man. The Court cleared, and after an hour's deliberation re-opened. The Judge Advocate then addressed the Prisoner, and adverted to the various points of evidence that appeared the most material to his cuse; from the clear and positive nature of which, he observed, that as no possibe doubt could be entertained of the death of the deceased person having been immediately consequent to a mortal wound by him inflicted, the great question had become, whether, under all the circumstances minutely and impartially considered, it were possible to reduce the offence to manslaughter, instead of the horrible crime of murder, it appeared that he had had strong grounds of jealousy against the deceased, and from what had been stated, he had once detected him in a situation that went to confirm every previous suspicion, and such as was of all others the most certain of exciting indignation in the mind of man: - and, had death been the immediate result of the detection, a fair allowance would have been made for an act perpetrated in the impulse of a moment when the ebullition of rage had overcome reflexion, and the mind might naturally be considered to have been agitated by excessive passion: But it did not appear that when the crime was actually committed the deceased was in any act that could stimulate him to deprive a fellow creature of existence, and with all his sins upon his head to hurry him into the presence of his Maker! but on the contrary it had been proved that several months had elapsed from the time of the stated provocations to that of the death of William Mahar, which appeared to have been perpetrated with a degree of deliberation that left no doubt of its being a wilful and premeditated murder, an offence most heinous and abominable both to God and Man; and in the present case the more especially requiring the constraint of those Laws by which Society is governed, lest the rash and ignorant should be led into the fatal notion that a bare suspicion was to constitute a plea of provocation, and shield the perpetrator of so foul a crime from the punishment which in every age, in every State has been decreed to it. The case admitted not the slightest doubt; and the Court therefore had adjudged him Guilty of the offence charged against him in the indictment. The Judge Advocate proceeded lastly, to the painful duty of pronouncing the awful Sentence of the Law; which after an admonition feelingly adapted to the solemnity of the occasion, was to the following effect:- That the prisoner should be taken back to the place of confinement from whence he last came, and from thence be removed to any part of this Territory or its dependent Settlements HIS EXCELLENCY the GOVERNOR should be pleased to order, there to be executed, and his body afterwards dissected and anatomised. This being the only trial, the Session closed the same day. Informal pardons granted by Macquarie. I am much Concerned to be under the Necessity of reporting to Your Lordship that I have lately, thro' Inadvertency, fallen into an Error by the Extension of His Majesty's Royal Mercy to two Culprits who were tried some time ago by the Criminal Court here and Convicted of Murder, in each of which Cases, certain favorable Circumstances having appeared in be-half of the Culprits, I was induced to grant them Conditional Pardons, or, in other Words, to remit the' Infliction of the Sentence of Death on the Express Condition that they should remain Convicts for Life in this Territory, and be kept during their Lives at hard labour. On a Reference lately had to my Commission as Governor-in-Chief of this territory, I found that the power of extending Pardons to persons convicted of Murder had not been delegated to me, and that I only had the Power to respite until His Majesty's Pleasure should be known. Having thus overstepped the Bounds of My Authority, and trenched on Royal Prerogative, I must now solicit your Lordship to have the goodness to state this awkward occurrence to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, and to intreat that His Royal Highness will be graciously pleased to confirm and renew the Conditional Pardons which I have thus granted to the two Culprits, John Shea and Thomas Clough. I transmit herewith for Your Lord-ship's Consideration the Counterparts of the Conditional Pardons themselves, and trust that Your Lordship will be kindly pleased to express My Sorrow to His Royal Highness for having fallen into so great a Mistake. Source: Historical Records of Australia

John Shea

Summary

Personal Information

Crime

Voyage

References

Claims

Photos

Convict Notes