George Willey

Level 346

Maureen Withey on 26th January 2022

TO THE EDITOR OP THE LAUNCESTON EXAMINER Mr. EDITOR,-I observed in your paper of yesterdays issue a paragraph headed "a dangerous man," and it which you set forth the character of a man named James Smith who prosecuted one George Wiley, at the court-house in Launceston, on Monday last, for robbery with violence, and who is now lying under sentence of death for that offence. It so happens that I am acquainted with Smith's character and I am sorry that you I have not represented it in its true light. I therefore consider it my duty to inform you of the conduct of this man on a former occasion, so as to show that his word cannot be relied on, and that he really is " a dangerous man." The circumstances alluded to by you in your paper respecting two men having death recorded some time back on his testimony were as follows :--l' two men were two constables belonging to the Longford police, and were excellent characters, and were considered very efficient constables by their superior officers Their names, I believe, were John Hewitt and William Love. Hewitt was a very old constable, and, I believe, was high in the estimation of his superiors. These two man were on duty on the township of Longford one day in about the month of February, 1853, when they saw Smith staggering about the streets, apparently drunk and excited. They in consequence took him into custody, and while conveying him to the watch-house, he began to kick, and bit one of the constables hands, and was very outrageous; they therefore, in return, struck him across the head with their staves, when he most violently screeched out that he was being robbed. They at length succeeded in getting him to the watch house. The next morning he prefered a charge against the constables for robbing him. He being considered a poor simple honest man, his evidence was taken, and the two constables were committed for trial. The trial came on in Launceston, and Smith again maintained that they had robbed him, and, on this man's evidence, (for the other several witnesses only proved that they heard Smith screeching and hollowing out that he was being robbed, and also saw him being struck,) the constables were found guilty, and sentenced to death recorded, but afterwards commuted to fourteen years transportation which they are now undergoing. These are the facts of the case; the question therefore is,- did Smith swear the truth? If he did, the constables deserve the punishment they met with, but there is a great doubt on the matter, for is it likely that these two constables would, while taking a man to the watch-house, rob him in the open streets, especially such a poor miserable man like him, who hardly had a shilling to bless himself with ? How many injustices have occurred of men on the way, going to the watch-house crying out that they were being robbed, on purpose to blacken the character of the constable for taking them in custody, and also because they detest the detectors of justice ? These two men were good characters, and it does not stand feasible that they would do such a thing; but it is not on these considerations that I build my belief that these men were innocent of robbing him lint it is principally the following circumstance (which is something like that stated in your paper, where he " charges the constables with inflicting the wounds upon his head for which another man was sentenced to die") ; and I think by this we can judge his character. On the night he returned to Longford, after the trial of the two constables, he went to a lodging house (after getting drunk) and gave the lodging-house keeper some money to take care of for him. After he had been no a short time he commenced raving like a madman, and the lodging-house keeper called in the constables to take him out. The constables went in and persuaded him to be quiet, but he still persisted in his violence; so they took him away, and the lodging-house keeper gave one of the constables the money belonging to Smith before leaving. They then took Smith to the Chief District Constable who, after expostulating with him on his violent manner, told him to go and get lodgings and be quiet. The constable then tendered him his money, whereupon he charged him with having stolen some of it. I had it not Iave been for the excited character of Smith, I am sure the constable would have knocked him down, as there is not any doubt but that he would have persisted and swore that the constable had robbed him, although there were three or four constables present who saw how much money the lodging house keeper gave to the constable, and but for that circumstance the constable might have been deprived of his precious liberty : and is such a man as that to be believed ? Is he not capable of swearing falsely? Is he not as you state a dangerous man ? In fact, is he fit to be at large? I cannot sufficiently represent to you the depravity of this man Smith, nor should I have troubled myself with hint at all, only I am given to understand that the man Wiley is nowunder sentence of death for robbing and assaulting him. I am not acquainted with the circumstances of the case, but if the man's life hangs upon Smith's evidence, I beseech and implore you to use your exertions as a public journalist to represent to the executive the character of Smith ; for I feel confident they would take it into their serious consideration, and I hope and trust you will beg of them not to rely upon the evidence of Smith, nor to take a fellow-man's life on such a man's testimony as his.-- I have the honor to be, Mr. Editor, your obedient servant, A LOVER OF JUSTICE. Launceston Examiner, 19 October 1854.

Level 346

Maureen Withey on 26th January 2022

Kinnear Indent: https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON14-1-17$init=CON14-1-17P66 and https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON14-1-17$init=CON14-1-17P67 6833. George Willey, tried at Mayo, 30 March 1842, 7 years. Age 18, height 5ft 5 ¼, catholic, can read and write, single. Offence: Picking pockets of 7/6 p. Thos Joyce, of Mayo. ClareMorris. Surgeon’s report: Good. Trade, Tailor, impt. To James Sheridan. Native place, Co. Cavan. Remarks: F, Geo – a Doctor, N.P. M, Ann Parr, N.P. 1B James – 0 S. (no sisters) -------------------------------------------------- Conduct Record: https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON33-1-28$init=CON33-1-28p175 -------------------------------------------------- George Willey was executed at Launceston , the case is reported below. However, there appear to be circumstances which suggest this may have been a wrongful conviction, as the character of the "victim " of the attack, attracted letters to the press, charging him with a history of falsely reporting crimes against others: -------------------------------------------------- Supreme Court-House October 8. George Whily was charged with assaulting and robbing, on the 9th September, James Smith, of £8 1s., the property of Patrick Dingley. A second count charged him with striking, beating, and kicking James Smith. James Smith, on being sworn, stated, in September last he was in the service of a person named Quiglev, who is a tinman at Deloraine. Quigley engaged Smith to hawk his wares through the country, and while returning from so doing near Westley Dale, he met the prisoner, who stated to him, that as witness and him were going in the same direction, they might as well keep each other company on the road, which they did until they came to a public-house kept by a Mr. Bennett. Witness stated, that when they arrived at Mr. Bennett's, he gave the money he had in his possession to Mr. Bennett's barman in the presence of the prisoner. After wards prisoner and witness went into the kitchen, and were drinking together. Witness stated, that he was sober on the following morning, when he received the money spoken of from Mr. Bennett's man, and that the prisoner was present. Witness stated, that he placed the money in his breast. Subsequent to this, prisoner and witness had a glass to drink together, which witness payed for, and they then proceeded on the road. After a short time, prisoner asked witness to sit down, and count his money, to see if it was 'right.' Witness replied, that there was no occasion to do so. Prisoner then proposed to witness to sit down and have a smoke. Witness consented, and while he was lighting his pipe, prisoner struck him between the eyes, and knocked him backwards, tumbled on top of him, pulled the money from his breast, and beat him about the head until he was senseless. Witness remained in that condition for some time, and was afterwards taken to the house of a Mr. Mulroy, where he was bed-ridden for four days. Witness stated that he had been incapacitated from performing his daily labour since the time the assault took place. Henry Benton, a settler residing at Middle Plains, deposed to seeing the prisoner on the Deloraine road on the 9th September with two bundles in his hands. A couple or hundred yards from where witness first saw the prisoner, be observed the prosecutor with his head cut, and his head covered with blood. He appeared in a very weak state, and unable to stand. Witness afterwards gave information to the police at Westbury. William Styler, on being sworn, stated, that he resided at Bennett's public-house, and remembered seeing prisoner and Smith in company together drinking on the 8th September. Smith was unruly, was drunk, and fell down and cut his bead, but the wound was not larger, witness said, than a 'grain of wheat.' On the following morning prosecutor and prisoner left the public-house together, both sober, and seemingly well in every particular. The witness corroborated the other points in Smith's evidence. Thomas Bennett, the keeper of the public-house where the prisoner and Smith were drinking, said, that be saw the prisoner at a person's named Mulroys, and that he was bleeding freely from the head. He also stated, that he saw the prisoner in charge, and heard the ' tin man' (Smith) say he was the man that robbed him. James Kelly, a Westbury policeman, stated that on the 9th September, he heard of a robbery, and from information he received he apprehended the prisoner, and told him he charged him with highway robbery, and violently assaulting James Smith. The prisoner made no reply to the constable, who conveyed him to the Deloraine watch-house. On searching him they found on him £1, some threepenny bits, and some coppers. In answer to a question from the prisoner, the witness admitted that when he apprehended the prisoner, the prisoner said he knew nothing at all about the commission of the offence with which he was charged. C. D. C. Barber, of Westbury, was examined. His evidence merely went to prove that prisoner had a quantity of new clothing in his possession when he was apprehended. Patrick Quigley corroborated the evidence of the former witness, his Honor summed up, and the jury found the prisoner guilty. The Cornwall Chronicle, 11 Oct 1854. ------------------------------------------------- A DANGEROUS MAN.-James Smith, the prosecutor of George Wiley, who was condemned to death on Monday for highway robbery with violence, was taken into custody on Tuesday night. It appears that hi had been fighting at a lodging-house kept by a man named Rice, and having bitten a piece of flesh out of his antagonist's thigh, he was turned out into the street. He was conveyed to the watch house in a wheelbarrow, in charge of four constables. Upon tile chief district constable going into the cell, Smith complained of the treatment he had received from the constables by whom he had been taken into custody, and actually had the audacity to allege that they had inflicted upon his head the wounds for which another had already been sentenced to die. He further stated that he had been robbed at Rice's, but the character which he bears amongst the police is such as to make it almost certain that the charge was false. At Longford he is well known, and on a previous occasion we understand that death was recorded against two men on his testimony. Yesterday he was fined £2, and in default of payment was sent to gaol. 'These after-facts tend to bring out the character of Smith. and we trust that they will weigh with the executive, for the proof of the wanton barbarity of the assault, dwelt upon by the chief justice as rendering a mitigation of the sentence next to impossible, rests entirely on his testimony. Launceston Examiner, 12 Oct 1854. ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Execution. — George Whiley, convicted at the last sitting of the supreme court, of assaulting and robbing James Smith, under went the last penalty of the law at the usual place and hour on Friday morning last. The culprit ascended the scaffold with a firm step, denied his guilt of the offence with which he was charged, and professed to forgive his accuser. He was attended by the Rev. Mr. Butler. The assemblage to witness the awful sight was comparatively small, but as usual, many women mid children were among the number. Some of the spectators cried out ' murder !' when Whiley first appeared on the scaffold. Cornwall Chronicle, 4 Nov 1854.