From Western Post & Mudgee Newspaper 9 October 1861 - QUARTER SESSIONS Friday, October 4th Before Justice CARY The Queen v. PEGG Samuel PEGG was charged with having committed willful and corrupt perjury, for that in April last at the trial of one Thomas BLACKMAN, for cattle stealing, before the Court of Quarter Sessions, then held in Mudgee, he (PEGG) stated and swore amongst other things, "that he was present on the 7th of March at Cooyal, at the killing of the calf in question, and saw BLACKMAN knock it down;" the fact being that he (PEGG) was not there on that day, and did not see BLACKMAN kill the calf, &c. The Crown Prosecutor conducted the prosecution. Mr. HOLROYD, instructed by Mr. JAMES, defended the prisoner. At the opening of the case his Honor asked Mr. HOLROYD whether he was prepared to admit that the statement of the prisoner as alleged in the information was material to the issue then (that is in April last) before the court. The learned gentleman declined to make this admission, as it might in part turn out that the words actually spoken were not material to the issue, and this might, and probably would, be a ground of defence. Mr CHAMBERS having then addressed the jury, dwelling upon the enormity of the crime as affecting the very bonds of society, called Mr. T C GORE, clerk of the peace, who was proceeding to prove that a trial had taken place in April last, when Mr. HOLROYD took the objection that this could not be done so as to bind the prisoner, without production of the record of the proceedings, properly drawn up, and addressed the Court at some length, citing authorities on the point. Mr. CHAMBERS spoke in answer to the objection, urging that the manuscript under the hands of the clerk of the peace, endorsed on the information, was a sufficient record of the trial and the material facts attending it. His Honor held that this manuscript or endorsement was not the record or proper evidence of it, and as no other evidence of the proceedings was offered on the part of the Crown, his Honor directed the jury, who found a verdict of "not guilty" and the prisoner was discharged. The Queen v. Captain BLACKMAN The defendant in this case was a half-caste, well-known at Cooyal by his military title. He was charged with perjury, committed on the same day in April, and in reference to the same matter as that described in the case of PEGG. The Crown Prosecutor, before addressing the jury, said that he was unable to proceed for the same cause which had arrested the last case. He would, therefore, consent that the prisoner be discharged from custody upon his entering into recognizance, in the sum of £50, conditioned that he appear at the next Quarter Sessions, at Mudgee. Prisoner discharged accordingly. Mr. HOLROYD, instructed by Mr. JAMES, appeared to defend. It was understood that if it should be determined to put this man upon his trial, at least a month's notice of such intention should be given to Mr. JAMES, as the prisoner's attorney. Frederick WARD was brought up to receive sentence. Mr. BRODRIBB addressed the court at some length in favour of mitigation of punishment. He considered that it would suffice the ends of justice if the prisoner's ticket-of-leave was cancelled. His Honor said the fact of the prisoner being a ticket-of-leave man was rather a reason why he should be more severely punished; he had not only shown himself ungrateful to his country, but had done an injury to his fellow prisoners, for the more crime there was committed by ticket-of-leave men, the less inclined were the Government to grant future tickets. The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner, at the expiration of his former sentence, he further employed on the public works for a period of three years. W BURNES and J GIBSON, charged with robbing the mail at Cherry Tree Hill. Mr. HOLROYD defended the prisoners. The Crown Prosecutor said that he had only received the depositions on the previous day and was quite unprepared to go on with the case, as he had to send to Sydney for witnesses; he, therefore, requested that the prisoners might be remanded until next Sessions. Mr. HOLROYD strongly objected to any such delay, not only on account of the circumstances he had a few minutes before alluded to (unsuitability of Mudgee lock-up for long period prisoners), but because of the evident laxity on the part of the Crown in not being fully prepared. It was only a case of suspicion; he was prepared with their defence, and therefore hoped that the case would be proceeded with, especially as both prisoners were strangers, and would be unable to procure bail. His Honor said they were charged with a most serious offence, and as it was evident the Crown had not had time to prepare the case, he should remand the prisoners till next sessions, and suggested that the Colonial Secretary should be written to, requesting that they might be sent to Bathurst. The Crown Prosecutor said that there was a second charge against a prisoner (C RIDGEWAY) for stealing a letter containing money; as the prisoner was already sentenced to three years' hard labour he did not intend to file a second information. ***END*** N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW