Riverine Advertiser, Wed 21 Apr 1880 1
DENILIQUIN ASSIZES.
————
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21st.
(Before His Honour Mr Justice Windeyer.)
…
BEASTIALITY. [sic]
George King was placed in the dock in answer to the charge of having committed beastiality [with a mare ] at Pooncarie.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr McDermott, instructed by Mr Edwards.
Jury– A Rosenfeld, R Irving, T Irving, W Heriot, H Mathewson, F Patey, HW Phillips, J Devlin, J Cust, Samuel Nixon, WM Nixon, J Stewart, R Orr.
The case, which related entirely on the evidence of Constable Stone, was unfit for publication.
Mr McDermott addressed the jury for the defence in an able manner, suggesting that the jury should hesitate before committing any man of a capital charge on the unsupported evidence of one witness.
The jury found prisoner guilty of an attempt (a misdemeanour), and he was remanded till Thursday morning for sentence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Pastoral Times, Sat 24 Apr 1880 2
DENILIQUIN ASSIZES.
————
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21st.
(Before His Honour Mr Justice Windeyer.)
…
BEASTIALITY.
George King was placed in the dock in answer (to ?) (a ?) charge of having committed beastiality at Pooncarie.
(The ?) prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr McDermott, instructed by Mr (?).
Jury:— A Rosenfeld, R Irving, T Irving, W Heriot, H Mathewson, F Patey, HW Phillips, J Devlin, J Cust, Samuel Nixon, WM Nixon, J Stewart, R Orr.
(The ?) case, which rested entirely on the evidence (of ?) Constable Stone, was unfit for publication.
(Mr ?) McDermott address the jury for the (defence ?) in able manner, suggesting that the (jury ?) should hesitate before committing any man (on ?) (a ?) capital charge on the unsupported evidence (of ?) (one ?) witness.
(The ?) jury found prisoner guilty of an attempt (a misdemeanour), and he was remanded till Thursday morning for sentence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Riverine Advertiser, Wed 28 Apr 1880 3
DENILIQUIN ASSIZES.
————
THURSDAY, APRIL 22.
SENTENCES.
…
George King, found guilty of an attempt to commit beastiality. Testimonials as to character were handed to His Honour by Mr McDermott. The prisoner was sentenced to six months’ in Deniliquin gaol with hard labour.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Pastoral Times, Sat 1 May 1880 4
JUDGE WINDEYER'S DECISIONS.
———
HIS HONOUR, Mr Justice Windeyer, has earned for himself by his decisions at the various Circuit Courts over which he has presided, the character of a hard, stern judge. Whatever may be the opinions entertained elsewhere regarding the unsympathetic conduct of His Honour, we most unhesitatingly admit that the reputation which Judge Windeyer has gained is not likely to loose [sic] any of its notoriety after his recent decisions at the Deniliquin Circuit Court. It would be manifestly unfair if public attention was not directed to the conduct of gentlemen invested with the great responsibilities that devolve on Judges of the Supreme Court. All that we desire, is that thoroughly capable lawyers and honestly impartial men shall be made judges. Fortunately the New South Wales Bench has generally possessed highly trained men, who have lent a lustre to the Supreme Court decisions. We know that young judges find a difficulty in divesting their minds from taking a personal interest in the cases before them, so that like Mr Justice Windeyer, their summing up is more that of a Crown Prosecutor addressing a jury, than the dignified, calm, impartial, legal oration of a judge. The ordinary barrister is allowed to argue from facts, but the Judge is the expounder of the law, and it is to him that the public look with implicit faith, believing that while maintaining the majesty of justice, yet that mercy may not be forgotten entirely. Regarding the decisions and actions of Mr Justice Windeyer, there is not any difference of opinion, and that is the reverse of what they should inspire. It is felt that the judgments lack legal weight and that they are strangely inconsistent. That the prisoner is placed in front of a judge who carefully sums up against the offender without indicating those, if any, saving points which might be of benefit to the accused when the jury are considering their verdict. This doubtless arises from the fact that recent associations have not had time to wear off the belief that exists with all public prosecutors, that prisoners in the dock ought to be found guilty. We are in the front ranks of those who uphold the dignity of the law and the Bench, as the exponent thereof. There is no doubt that criminals should be made to feel that their punishment is for the purpose of preventing the commission of additional crime; but it must also be remembered that although a man may be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, our gaol system is not sufficiently repressive, and that short sentences and greater severity in gaol discipline would do more good than inflicting a lengthy term of confinement, which totally unfits the individual for future honest employment.
In the first instance we must refer to Judge Windeyer’s unprecedented action in committing William Williams, late manager for Messrs McCulloch and Co, Limited, to take his trial for embezzling the sum of £164 3s 11d, because there were certain facts arising out of the charge of arson, which to the Judge warranted this exercise of his authority. His Honour considered that the Hay Bench should have committed the prisoner Williams, and in order that he might not escape by any technical flaw, Mr Justice Windeyer with all the zeal of a Crown Prosecutor, availed himself of his position and added another charge to a man already weighted with two serious indictments. Surely there was no danger of the law not being vindicated under the circumstances, especially as the Crown was represented by its duly appointed officials in the persons of Mr Frazer, Crown Solicitor, and Mr George Milner Stephen, the Crown Prosecutor. But, does the action of Mr Justice Windeyer reflect credit on the Bench? There can be but one opinion and that is in the negative. If it was desirable that William Williams should be indicted for embezzling the sum of £164, the Crown had plenty of opportunities without the Judge expressing his personal opinion in such a manner that the effect must have been undoubtedly prejudicial to the interests of the prisoner. This is not the conduct we have a right to expect from a judge of the Supreme Court, when it is remembered that Williams was at the time awaiting his trial for embezzling the sum of £30. In addition to which we learn that there are good reasons for believing that Messrs W McCulloch and Co, Limited, cannot proceed with the charge so unexpectedly laid by His Honour, Mr Justice Windeyer. How will he look then? The public mind cannot fail to be struck with the remarkable disparity of the offences and the punishment awarded. For example, John Hogan was sentenced to two years hard labour for beating a Chinaman. The prisoner urged that he had been wantonly excited by the women living at the Chinese Camp, and when brought into the gaol was found to be severely bruised, showing that whatever the Chinaman might have suffered, it was little more than an ordinary street brawl. It was Hogan’s first offence and he was unknown to the police. The punishment was altogether too severe. We find the Judge sentencing William Williams and John Adams both to two years also; whereas, if the statement of His Honour is to be believed, Adams’s offence was of a much graver character, because the prisoner, a publican, had been convicted of robbing a drunken man. It is a well-known axiom that a man is not guilty until convicted. This is the fundamental principle that underlies British law. What does Judge Windeyer, however? This upright and intelligent lawyer first finds from the police that there has been no previous conviction against the prisoner, and then permits the further statement—“But we have heard of several persons losing money coming from Adams’s hotel.” In common justice His Honour should not have permitted the latter statement for one moment; but as a matter of fact he did, and furthermore made use of the information when passing sentence on the prisoner. A more glaring mistake has seldom, if ever, been committed by a Supreme Court Judge. The evidence in the case was not altogether so clear as was desirable, inasmuch as the whole of the case rested on the statement of a drunken man and that of a constable, who has so misconducted himself that he has had to leave the force. The same constable also gave evidence in a case of burglary, and three men were sentenced to extraordinary terms of imprisonment. George Taylor and William Oliver had each three years’ hard labour awarded them, and Henry Bedgood was sentenced to seven years on the roads.
The popular expression regarding Judge Windeyer is that he is a perfect terror to evil doers. We think so likewise, because His Honour most unhesitatingly saddles the country with a number of long-sentenced men, and so increases our gaol expenses, without there being anything to prove that crime will be lessened in the future. If the Judge is desirous of showing a record of the number of his sentences as proof of his fitness for permanent appointment to the Bench, then, and only then, can the conduct of his Honour Mr Justice Windeyer be understood.
1 Riverine Advertiser, Wed 21 Apr 1880, p. 3. Emphasis added.
2 The Pastoral Times, Sat 24 Apr 1880, p. 3. Emphasis added. The marginal text of the newspaper was not microfilmed, hence some words could not be transcribed.
3 Riverine Advertiser, Wed 28 Apr 1880, p. 2.
4 The Pastoral Times, Sat 1 May 1880, p. 2.