Summary
Personal Information
Crime
Voyage
Transportation
Guy Westcott was transported on the Triton, departing 4th Aug 1842 and arriving 19th Dec 1842 with 257 passengers.
Triton (generic)References
| Primary Source | Australian Joint Copying Project. Microfilm Roll 91, Class and Piece Number HO11/13, Page Number 162 |
| 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 Pro |
| Original Source | Great Britain. Home Office |
| Compiled By | State Library of Queensland |
| Database Source | British convict transportation registers 1787-1867 database |
Claims
"4th Great Grand Father"


Photos
No photos have been added for Guy Westcott.
Convict Notes




The notorious Guy Westcott, the owner of the depot for stolen property lately discovered at Bath, was captured on Sunday last in a lane between Kingsdown and Bradford. Bristol Mercury, 21 May 1842. Bath Quarter Sessions. Guy Wescott was arraigned on seven indictments, most of them charging him with feloniously receiving different descriptions of property, from some persons unknown, knowing them to have been stolen. The first indictment on which he was tried charged him with stealing, on the first of May, a work-box and tea-caddy, value 20s., the property of Martha Griffiths. Mr. Stone conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. Mrs. Griffiths was called to prove the fact of her house having been burglariously entered on the night mentioned, and the articles produced stolen. Mr. Hall gave evidence to apprehending the prisoner, and finding the property, the particulars of which have already been given in the account of the prisoner's examination before the Magistrates. Mary Noah, about the time Mr. Hall and the Mayor's officers were searching the house of the prisoner, in Chelsea court, went into the house of a neighbour, named Vezey, where she saw the prisoner sitting down. She asked Vezey what the Mayor's officers were searching in the neighbourhood for ?—when the prisoner said— Be 'em by ——-, and immediately ran out of the house, without hat or coat. The Prisoner, in answer to the charge, denied knowing where Mrs. Griffiths lived ; and said he bought the boxes at public-house. He said he was not aware he was committed for stealing them, but only for buying lliem. The Recorder asked the gaoler as to this fact, who handed over the warrant, in which he was only charged with receiving. The Recorder, in directing the Jury, said the prisoner was not charged with breaking the house open ; but he did not see why he should not have been so charged, as well with stealing the property. He was committed for receiving, and seemed to look more like a case of receiving than that of stealing. Under these circumstances it would be better, on general principles, to acquit the prisoner this charge, even though on merely technical grounds . The Jury accordingly returned a verdict of acquittal on this indictment. The prisoner was then tried on another indictment, charging him with having feloniously received, the 7th February, a quantity of cotton, value £6, the property of Thomas Perrett. The goods were sent in a chest from the firm of Messrs. Shurmer, Bristol, by the waggon the prosecutor, directed to Mr. Pearson, Bond-street. After the waggon arrived at the warehouse in Bath the gates of the yard were broken open, and the chest stolen. The property was afterwards found, with other goods, at the house of the prisoner. They were identified Mr. White, a person connected with the firm. The prisoner, in answer to this charge, said he bought the cotton in Gloucester. The prisoner was asked by the Recorder if he could call any witness to speak his character. He handed over paper with a list of names, to which, on being called in Court, no one answered. The Recorder, in directing the jury, said there was a difficulty in the case, there were always in cases of the same kind. The length of time that had elapsed, after being lost, before the goods were found in his possession, gave doubtful feature to the evidence. The only circumstances showing anything like proof of guilt were his running away, and when taken crying out about bis wife and children, and fainting; on which they would draw their own conclusions, with proper distinctions as to their value as presumptive evidence only. There was certainly the fact before them of the prisoner's living in place of very low obscurity.—The jury consulted for a few minutes, and returned a verdict . Not Guilty. The prisoner was next tried on an indictment charging him with feloniously receiving, in the month …. .... Bath Chronicle, 16 June 1842.




http://linctas.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_AU/names/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fNAME_INDEXES$002f0$002fNAME_INDEXES:1444881/one?qu=NI_NAME="Wescott,+Guy"