George Smeddles

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd December 2023

FOOTNOTE: John Treanor was also transported to WA on the Hougoumont. See his bio at https://convictrecords.com.au/convicts/treanor/john/61225. --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd December 2023

IN WA -- FREMANTLE JAIL: SMEDDLES, George; inmate #9878, arrived 10 Jan 1868 per Hougoumont Date of Birth: 1834 Marital Status: Unmarried Occupation: Leather dresser Literacy: Literate Sentence Place: Chester Crime: Arson Sentence Period: 10 years Ticket of Leave Date: 17 Sep 1871 Certificate of Freedom Date: 29 May 1877 Comments: Carrier, general servant, labourer, clerk, butcher (https://fremantleprison.com.au/history-heritage/research/convict-database/). --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd December 2023

Trial / 3 Now the prosecution contended that this was a preconcerted plan for setting the premises on fire. During these transactions, there would be shown a little difference between Smeddles and Treanor, which would be explained; but it would be found that Treanor was acting in concert with Smeddles, and he knew about these shutters being made. On the 14th July last both prisoners left the premises together. They made some purchases in Birkenhead and then went to Liverpool. Twenty minntes after they had left the premises at Egremont they were fully ablaze. The fire, it was ascertained, had originated at a partition. He should tell the jury that there was but one fireplace in the whole house, and it was not touched by the fire at all; and the partition was made of wood and paper, and there were many combustibles about. Among those combustibles was a quantity of resin, which it had been said before the magistrates, was in the shop before Smeddles took it. That was a very possible fact, because resin was used in making cobbler's wax. But it was an extraordinary fact that one of these lumps of resin was wrapped in a ‘Times’ of the 10th July, and a Liverpool paper called the ‘Porcupine’. Now if the resin was part of the old stock, certainly these articles were in a most suspicions position. Upon Smeddles, when taken into custody, was found a county court warrant, from which it appears that his goods had been seized for debt; and a document, showing that Smeddles would be accountable for Treanor. Three days after the affair took place, Smeddles sent in a claim for £300 from one company, and £700 on another. Smeddles said in his claim that the books had been destroyed, but himself and a foreman having taken stock on the 25th June, 1866, he found the stock was worth £1007. It would be shown that the stock could not possibly be worth the amount stated. At first it was thought by the insurance companies that this was a fraudulent claim, but they had no idea of incendiarism. They, however, found that there were no remains of a stock or property that might be valued at £1007, and their suspicions were aroused, and the consequence was that the charge was brought against the prisoners which the jury had now to try. Evidence in support of the learned counsel's opening statement was then given, after which Mr. Brandt summed up the evidence. Mr. Mclntyre addressed the court behalf of Smeddles. This case occupied the Court nearly the whole the day. At half-past five o'clock the jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of quarter of hour, returned into Court with a verdict of guilty against both parties. Each sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude.” (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000342/18661201/049/0008) --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd December 2023

Trial / 2 Some year or so before the fire took place, both prisoners were in difficulties. In October, Smeddles became the occupier of a shop in Tobin-street, Egremont. This shop he opened as a boot and shoe warehouse, and placed a man in to manage it. This man resided on the premises in the upper rooms, and had some furniture there, and Smeddles, who had his business to attend to in Liverpool, used to come backwards and forwards across the water to superintend a boot and shoe warehouse at Egremont. It was in the latter house at Egremont that the fire took place. This went on until the spring of this year, when the man who lived on the premises went away to see some friends. When he returned Smeddles told him that he need no longer live upon the premises, and that Treanor would manage the business, and that his room would be required for Treanor, and he must therefore remove his furniture. A short time after the house was vacated by the man Woolrich, but as a matter of fact Treanor never did go to live there, although Woolrich's furniture was removed. Treanor did not live there, but assisted Smeddles in the business, and Woolrich acted as out-door porter. In March a proposal was made by Smeddles to the Royal Insurance Company to effect au insurance upon his stock at Egremont. He wanted to insure for £550 upon the stock and £50 for furniture, although there was no furniture there, that belonging to Woolrich having been removed. The Royal Insurance Company sent their inspector, who was of opinion that the stock was not worth the money, and they refused to grant the policy. Subsequently, on May 22nd he sent another proposal to the very same company, and then lowered his terms to £300, namely £250 on the stock and £50 on the furniture. The inspector had seen this property before, and taking for granted that the same amount of stock was there on the 25th of May, a policy was granted on this stock. On the 22nd May he had proposed to another company—the London and Liverpool Globe—to insure the stock and furniture for £700. Thus, it would appear, he had two proposals in agitation at one time. The Globe Insurance Company very recklessly, he (Mr. Brandt) thought, at once granted him a policy for £700. Therefore, it would appear, that he had two policies for total of £1000 upon the stock for which the Royal Office refused to grant policy for £600. Now, here was the motive supposing him to be guilty. He ought to tell the jury that the only apertures from whicb light could be seen after the shop was closed were a fan-light over the shop door and a window immediately above the shop. Smeddles employed a man named Jordan to make a shutter for the fan-light, and this shutter was made. Very shortly before the fire took place another shutter was ordered for the window, being made not by Jordan, but by a man at a distance. Now when this second shutter was put up, and the premises closed, one outside could not see a light inside the premises. Contd/3...

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd December 2023

NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL: From the Chester Chronicle, 1 December, 1866, p8: “CHESHIRE WINTER ASSIZES. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30. ARSON WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD INSURANCE COMPANIES. George Smeddles, 30, boot manufacturer, Liverpool, and John Treanor, 22, boot maker, Liverpool, were charged, the former with setting fire to a certain shop of his own occupation at Liverpool, on the 14th July, 1866, with intent to injure the property of Mr. Ruston Colbome, to whom the said shop belonged, and to defraud the Liverpool, London and Globe, and Royal Insurance Companies; and the latter with being present, aiding and abetting the said George Smeddles to set fire to the said shoe shop. Mr. Brandt and Mr. Swetenham appeared for the prosecutor; Mr. McIntyre defended Smeddles, and Mr. Horatio Lloyd appeared for Treanor. Mr. Brandt, opening the case for the prosecution, said they were about to embark on an anxious inquiry; one that would take some time and one that was of much importance, both to the prosecutors in this case and the public at large. These two men were charged with having set fire to certain premises of which one of them, at all events, was the occupier, with intent to defraud two insurance companies. It was not his duty to enlarge upon the heinousness of such an offence; it was simply his duty to put before the jury such facts as would enable the jury to form an opinion of the innocence or guilt of the prisoners. In cases of this kind when they found the premises had been set on fire—as undoubtedly the premises in this case had been—they had to consider whether anybody set them on fire, and if set on fire by anybody, what motive there was for setting fire to the premises. Sometimes they were at a loss to know what motive persons had for such acts as these. He should show the motives which these men had to commit the crime, for they were apparently respectable men. The prisoners had been in large way of business as shoemakers and dealers in leather at Liverpool. Smeddles had a shop in Byrom-street, and Treanor had been connected with him. Treanor seemed to have acted as Smeddles's foreman, or at all events, had some share in the business, and in carrying on the business he seems to have taken an active part. Contd/2...

218

Dianne Jones on 23rd December 2023

BACK IN ENGLAND: TRIAL: 1866, 28 November: George Smeddles and John Treanor were convicted at the Chester Winter Sessions and sentenced to 10 years’ penal servitude for arson (England & Wales, Criminal Registers, 1791-1892 for John Treanor; England; Cheshire; 1866). --0--

4

norman smeddles on 16th October 2012

after release from Fremantle Prison in 1871 George founded the Metroplolitan Bootmart. He bought land and property and became very wealthy, there was a street in Perth called Smeddles Terrace. He returned to England in 1999.