The Pearling expedition- part 2

On February 2 1869, the ‘Pilot’ returned to Port Walcott. Allan Hughan reported that the pearling had been unsuccessful, and they sailed eastward along the Kimberley Coast on February 5. While the Pilot was at Port Walcott, Robert Sholl reported that he had received a note from " Mr Hughan, the owner, who complains that 'Anthony' (also known as 'Coppido'), having stolen black women, places the lives of innocent white men in jeopardy. He has been unsuccessful pearling and goes Eastward."
The Pilot appears to have voyaged along the Kimberly Coast as far as Camden Harbour.
On April 17 1869, the ‘Pilot’ returned from King George Sound. A few days later a drunken row was reported by police as having broken out aboard the ‘Pilot’.
On April 24 1869, it was reported in the paper that the ‘Pilot’ sailed from Port Walcott for Fremantle.
By May 8 1869, the ‘Pilot’ was back again in Fremantle with 15 bags of pearl shells. The Perth Gazette and Western Australia Times reported: " May 8: Pilot, 83 tons, Harris master. From Port Walcott. Passengers Mr and Mrs Hughan, Miss Hughan and Master Hughan and G.McCullum. Cargo: 15 bags pearl shells." The reference to 'Miss' and 'Master' Hughan is an obvious mistake-it should have read the 'Misses Hughan'. In the same edition was an article headed "Nichol Bay". It read "We have later intelligence from the North Settlement by the 'Pilot', the vessel belonging to Mr Hughan , who fitted her up with diving apparatus, but we regret to hear that in consequence of the strength of the tides, it proved of little use."
Allan Hughan and Charles Broadhurst went their separate ways after the failure of their diving experiment, and on May 29 1869, the ‘Pilot’ sailed for Melbourne, carrying six crew, 5 cabin passengers and two mails.
Almost a month later, on June 28 1869, the ‘Pilot’ arrived back in Melbourne after stopping at Victor Harbour, S.A., en route.No extra passengers were on board, but cargo included 1 case of plants for Dr. Mueller; 10 tons pearl shells; 20 bales of wool; 20 tons raspberry wood.
Of interest is the case of plants for Melbourne botanist Dr.Ferdinand Von Mueller. Allan collected plants for the Doctor wherever he travelled throughout Australia, and his trip to W.A was no exception. He even had a plant named after him by Von Mueller after bringing it back from Western Australia-Verticordia hughanii, or Hughan's Feather Flower. It is a red-flowering shrubby bush, grown only in Western Australia and very endangered.

On Wednesday, July 7,1869, a report in the Port Phillip Herald read as follows:

"DISCOVERY OF PEARLS- It would appear that diamonds, emeralds and rubies are not the only gems to be found in Australia.Mr. Hughan, who has just arrived from Nicol Bay, Western Australia, has brought with him several of the finest pearls that we ever recollect to have seen. One of them, which is about the size of a pea, is valued at between two and three hundred pounds, and several are nearly as large. The pearls will, we understand, be left with Mr. Crisp and with Mr Walsh for the inspection of those interested in such matters."

The next trace of Allan and the 'Pilot' came on September 6 1869, when the Port Phillip Herald reported that the Pilot sailed from Melbourne bound for Levuka, Fiji. On board were Allan Hughan, Mr Beaver, Mr. Minute, Mr J Reed, Mr Scott, Mr Stewart and Mr Wecker. It is not known what the actual purpose was of this trip, and as Phoebe Hughan and the girls were not named on the passenger list it can be assumed that they remained home in Melbourne for the remainder of 1869.
The Argus newspaper of Tuesday, September 7, 1869, records the following in their shipping intelligence:
"Cleared Out- September 6
Pilot, 84 tons, E. Flinn, for Levuka(Fiji). Passengers- cabin- Mr. John Reid.Piggot Brothers & Co, agents.
EXPORTS:Pilot for Levuka(Fiji). 5 packages tobacco;97 casks 21 half barrels ale;68 casks stout; 2 bales woolpacks; 35 cases old tom; 33 cases geneva; 17 cases whiskey; 2 quarter-casks 52 cases brandy; 2 quarter-casks wine; 10 cases champagne; 20 cases claret; 44 cases preserved provisions; 6 casks vinegar; 5 cases bitters; 1 case show cards; 33 cases drugs; 5,000 bricks; 1 case ploughs."

The Victorian Index of Outward passengers to Interstate & Foreign Ports has the following list of passengers for the Pilot sailing from Melbourne to Levuka, Fiji, in September 1869:

Mr Beaver, aged 20
Mr Houghton aged 30 (sic; this is Allan Hughan)
Mr. Minute aged 45
Mr. J. Reed aged 35
Mr Scott aged 24
Mr Stewart aged 29
Mr Wecker aged 30.


Further investigation has revealed that the Mr Scott who was on board the Pilot was in fact Andrew George Scott, who would in later years become better known as bushranger Captain Moonlite. On May 8, 1869, Scott had disguised himself and robbed the Mount Egerton bank of about 500 pounds worth of gold. He managed to turn the blame away from himself by implicating the local schoolmaster and the bank agent he had robbed, and left the colony of Victoria, via an excursion to Fiji and Noumea on board the Pilot with Allan Hughan, before setting himself up in Sydney as a "gentleman". More about Mr A.G Scott later.....

By October 28, the Pilot was in Noumea. The newspaper Le Monituer, from Noumea, reports that the English schooner-brig, 'Pilot', 90 tons, captained by E. Flinn, had arrived in Noumea from Levuka, Fiji, in a trip taking eight days. Mentioned at the head of six passengers of the Pilot was Allan Hughan.

It appears that the Pilot made several local trips to islands around New Caledonia, including Lifou, the largest island of the Loyalty group, northeast of the island of New Caledonia. Allan's pearling days were not quite over, as the Pilot returned from one of these excursions to Lifou with a load of 60 tons of mother-of-pearl shells, the value of which was estimated to have been about 15,000 Francs.

Allan Hughan's pearling expedition of 1868-69-part 1.

The voayage undertaken by Allan Hughan in the schooner 'Pilot' in the period 1868-69 was essentially a pearling expedition along the north-west coast of Western Australia, although general cargo was carried between ports as well to generate extra income.
Shipping records reveal that on October 13, 1868, the Pilot had been "in the river" at Melbourne, loading cargo for Fremantle. She cleared out the next day, passing Port Phillip Heads on October 17. Passengers on board included Allan, Phoebe and their two small daughters, 7 year old Ruth and 20 month old Minnie. Also accompanying them was Gilbert McCallum, the son of Jessie Hughan McCallum, Allan's deceased sister.
Gilbert McCallum, aged 14 1/2 years, wrote to his little sister Ivy McCallum from Fremantle when they arrived. The letter, which exists in part, reads as follows:

"Fremantle,
November 23, 1868.

My Dear Ivy,
I was very delighted to receive your nice long letter but very sorry you and Roland have been so ill and I trust you both will get strong again. I need not say that I hope Roland is a good boy for I never knew him to be otherwise and such a contrast between his size and little Marion’s but I wish you could hear her sing nearly any tune if you once commence it and she will beat time with her hands. I am very glad to hear that Roland talks so nicely.

I suppose you will not have Miss Hodgkinson with you anymore. I expect she was very angry with me when she heard that her woolwork accompanied us to Western Australia. I expect that you will have a large flock of pigeon before I return and also plenty of fowls.

The ship we have is only a small one but it is a splendid sea boat that is it rides upon the large waves just like a cork and very seldom a wave washes the deck. We have such a nice cabin though it is only a small one with small beds let in at the sides and curtains to draw close. On opposite side of the stairs is a good sized cabin which Uncle and Aunt use for a bedroom.

The ship looked very bad at first for she had not been painted for a long time but we have painted her white inside and the bottom rail of the bulwarks and every place near the deck is blue and the hull is black so that she is quite nice. We are building a storeroom to put the ship’s stores into. Some of the sailors proved very dishonest for they stole a lot of the spirits.

We were very unfortunate for having such bad weather to King George’s Sound but very fortunate to have such fine weather from there to here as Cape Leuwin is a very bad place to pass in stormy weather, but we have passed the bad coast and will have fine weather though it will be in one of the hottest places which are called the tropics.

I am really very sorry that old Ivey is so near death but more so to hear he carries on such bad ways when so near the grave.

But I forgot to tell you what Fremantle was like. It appears to be a very poor place all covered with sand. The glare of the sun in Summer must affect the eyes of the inhabitants very much. I cannot walk down the street without putting something over my eyes for the glare of the white road with the sun shining on it.
King George’s Sound is but a small township but has one of the finest harbours you could wish for. In the scrub surrounding the township grow some of the most beautiful flowers. Some are like scarlet bottle brush and other sorts of which are really lovely.
The pier here is not very large and vessels anchor at some little distance off. There are large sailing boats called lighters that carry about 30 tons which come close to the ship and carry their cargo to shore.
We are going to take several passengers and some cargo to Nichol Bay but I only know the name of two gentlemen- Dr. Mayhue and his wife and Mr. Broadhurst,( rest missing)”.
Dr Mayhue and his wife were being delivered to Roebourne where he was to take up the job of medical officer for the district. Mr. Broadhurst was Charles Edward Broadhurst (1826-1905), who with his wife Eliza (1839-1899) arrived in Fremantle in 1865 bound for the North-West. He became involved in the pastoral industry, pearling, fish canning (at Mandurah), and had guano interests in the Abrolhos Islands. Charles Edward Broadhurst was also later a member of the Western Australian Parliament, and is considered by many to be one of Australia’s first true entrepreneurs. Charles Broadhurst and Allan Hughan were partners in the pearling expedition, and their main mission was to test the first diving suit to be used on the north west coast of Western Australia.

Upon their arrival in Perth, the Pilot was boarded at 2:30 p.m. by Mr. Jackson of the Water Police. It was noted that the vessell's 'draft' was 7' 9", and that her Captain was Isaac Harris. A microfilmed shipping report also states that the Pilot had a crew of seven and four cabin passengers, two mails and 15 consignees' letters. On November 27, 1868, the Pilot left Perth and set sail for Port Walcott.
The newspaper Perth Gazette and Western Australian Times for Friday, November 27, 1868, carried the following advertisement:
"For Nichol Bay- the schooner 'Pilot' will sail for the above port on Saturday ( tomorrow) morning. For freight or passage, apply immediately to T & H Carter & Co, Fremantle, or on board."
The following day Shipping Intelligence reported " Departures: 'Pilot', 73 tons. J. Harris, master, for Port Walcott. Passengers: Mr & Mrs Hughan and the Misses (two) Hughan, Dr & Mrs Mayhew, ans Messrs Anderson, Broadhurst & McCrae. Cargo: 16 cases bottled beer, 42 sacks flour, 14 bags sugar, 5 bags rice, 5 1/2 chests tea, 106 cases and packages merchandise."
Robert Scholl was the Government Resident at Roebourne, near Port Walcott, and his "Journals and Occurence Books" record the arrival of the Pilot at Port Walcott. It reached the port on December 11, and on December 15, Robert Scholl visited the Hughans on board.
He wrote:
" ...we were introduced to Mrs. Hughan, a thin, pale low-voiced woman who with her dumpling two fine children were on board. Mr. Hughan showed me portions of his diving apparatus- French manufactured- and tried to explain it. We had but poor fare on board, having arrived just after dinner. They gave us rum and water and spiced mutton...invited Mrs H and family to our place, but she would not leave."
Later, Scholl reported that he was "engaged in the morning attempting to translate Hughan's French instructions for use of diving apparatus."
Previously during the month of November 1868, Allan’s friend and partner Charles Broadhurst wrote to the Colonial Secretary to request the loan of native aboriginal prisoners from Rottnest Island to accompany him on his pearling expedition. This request is granted on the ‘clear understanding that they are to be well treated while in your hands and returned to Fremantle at or prior to the expiration of the trip you are about to make to test the Pearl Shell Fishery on the North West Coast of this colony.”
On December 23 1868, the ‘Pilot’ sailed out of Port Walcott to go pearling westward among the islands of the Dampier Archipeligo. On December 29-30 1868, two aboriginal prisoners named Johnny and Jimmy, who were loaned by the Government to the ‘Pilot’, were recaptured by police after escaping ashore.
Things did not go smoothly for Allan and the 'Pilot' on this trip...apart from the escaping Aboriginals and inclement weather, they also had to cope with what could have been a dangerous situation at Enderby Island.
On January 23, 1869, Charles Broadhurst reported to Robert Sholl that Hughan’s party had been threatened by the natives of Enderby Island. These aboriginals were infuriated that previous white pearlers had stolen their women, particularly a man named ‘Anthony’ ( also known as ‘Coppido’). The Pilot managed to ecscape the situation, but it would have been a very worrying time, particularly for Phoebe Hughan and her two small girls.

The saga of the Rams

The above advertisement featured in several editions of the Perth Gazette and W.A Times in January and February of 1868 to alert the local pastoralists to Allan Hughan's shipment of sheep which he had imported from Victoria on board the schooner 'Stanley'. Surely it should have been a reasonably simple task to sell the livestock and return to Melbourne with his pockets lined, but as with many of Allan Hughan's undertakings, things did not go quite to plan.

The initial part of the scheme went well, with Allan's sheep selling for a high price. It was several months after he returned home to Victoria that a war of words erupted between Allan and one particular detractor in the Perth Gazette- Allan swore by the quality of his animals, while another declared them to be of inferior stock.

The initial letter was from a settler named Major Logue,an Irish-born settler who had purchased a property named 'Ellendale' in Greenough, W.A. His letter was published in the Perth Gazette & W.A Times on Friday, September 11, 1868, and read in part:'

" I happened to be in Perth when Mr. Hughan arrived last December, and he wrote to me immediately on his landing at Fremantle, wishing me to come and see his sheep, which I did...

.....My opinion of Mr Hughan's rams is: that about ten were really superior animals, the generality "ordinary" and some decidedly bad; they were most wanting in closeness of fleece."

Mr. Logue ended with " P.S. Most of the lambs were small and light in carcase."

On September 25, Mr S.E. Burges, of 'Tipperary', York. W.A., wrote in support of the Hughan rams, some of which he had purchased and was delighted with when shorn. Mr Logue replied on November 13, and then on November 13 Allan Hughan arrived back in Western Australia, this time accompanied by his wife, daughters and nephew Gilbert McCallum.

Of course the correspondence re. his rams was brought to his attention, and Allan was in his element as he put pen to paper and waded into the frey. His first letter carried a definite air of superiority, as typified by his 'Victorian rams are better' attitude from the very start of his venture. I think that this attitude is what prompted Mr Logue to criticize the Hughan rams in the first instance...the competition between colonies in all things was fierce in the mid to late 19th century, and the West Australian pastoralists would have very much resented Allan Hughan's almost smug attitude towards their sheep as compared to Victorian animals.

In Allan's first letter he wrote in part:

" I would not presume to offer advice in the face of such noble letters as appear in the periodicals of the other colonies, but with the Messrs Hughes and the generality of the Western Australian settlers themselves I would say improve the wool of your sheep- the frames are very good already, and in order to produce this desirable result, obtain rams from the neighbouring colonies, strong, sound, well-bred animals, in preference to the delicate pets, though indisputably fine sheep imported from Europe, which if placed in the same position regarding feeding and exposure to all weathers would be eclipsed by their far less favoured Australian brothers, as has long since been discovered in Victoria."

On December 4th Allan Hughan and his family departed on board his schooner 'Pilot' for Port Walcott, but Mr Logue had one final parting shot published on January 8, 1869, in which he used the words "impertinence" and "irrelevance" when referring to Allan Hughan's letter. He stated "Mr Hughan in conclusion expresses his diffidence about giving advice, but gives it never the less, but like his facts it is not altogether sound."

By this time the storm had blown over on Allan Hughan's part....he was many miles away up the Western Australian coast, dedicating himself to his latest money making venture....pearling!

The Hughan vs Gibson case

Basically, the story behind the court case went as follows:
Allan Hughan chartered the schooner 'Stanley' for his sole use, with the intention of shipping top quality sheep to Western Australia. He paid the master John Gibson two hundred pounds for this service, as well as twenty pounds extra for deck space. In addition to the 135 head of sheep, Allan Hughan asked Captain Gibson if he would object to him taking on board his dog, a large Newfoundland hound of the type which were often used for sheep work in that period. The captain gave full permission for Allan to bring the dog on the voyage.
In order for the sheep to be transported, special fittings had to be made to the schooner, and these would be dismantled once the cargo reached its destination at Fremantle.
It seems as though Allan Hughan and Captain Gibson locked horns from the very beginning of the voyage. Allan wrote the following in a letter to the editor on January 10, 1868:
"The voyage had been rendered a most unpleasant one by the conduct of the captain. Day after day I submitted to treatment against which I perhaps had no legal redress, though none the less galling to the feelings of a gentleman. At last even the law is broken, an unprovoked assault is committed, and threats of a most serious character are made use of towards me. Feeling powerless I had to submit and await my arrival in port for redress.
Arrived in port I , accordingly, summoned the captain and his mate; the latter for assaulting me, the former for directing him to assault me, and for using threatening language, to the effect "that he would send me on deck in pieces if he began with me."
Later in the letter Allan writes : " In the first instance an unprovoked assault- which though at the time no more serious than the twisting of a person's wrists by a man twice his size, led through the agitation caused by the indignity to much subsequent suffering, which continued seriously to affect me for upwards of a week, during which time I had to warn the captain by letter that unless he left me in absolute quiet the consequences might be very serious, as a dangerous attack was threatening me- is proved. I had four witnesses to prove the wantonness of the assault."
Allan Hughan's treatment at the hands of Captain Gibson was the least of his worries. When he sought to press charges against Gibson upon arrival in Fremantle, the captain retaliated by continuing to make things difficult for his employer. First he dismantled the sheep fittings before the agreed time as stated in the charter agreement. Then he charged Allan Hughan an excessive price for doing so, as well as an additional cost of five pounds for passage of the dog, stating that Allan had taken it on the voyage against his express wishes. The latter of course refused to pay the additional costs, and so on December 30, 1868 the Fremantle resident magistrate C. Symmons, Esq, heard the case of GIBSON v HUGHAN, with the plaintiff sueing the defendant for eight pounds and twelve shillings for the passage of a Newfoundland dog from Melbourne to Fremantle and the removal of sheep fittings, employing six men for two days at six shillings each per day!
Captain Gibson didn't bother appearing in court himself, but appointed an agent called Mr Bateman, who produced a letter written by the captain stating that Allan Hughan had taken his dog on board against his express wishes. Mr Bateman also stated that five pounds was a reasonable amount to charge for passage for the dog, as a small dog's passage on board a steamer ship was the same amount.
Allan Hughan must have thought things were going his way when the magistrate argued that his case was very different due to Allan having chartered the whole ship, and was not merely a paying passenger.
Allan produced his own written statement from a carpenter who had quoted what it would have cost him to remove the sheep fittings from the 'Stanley'. C. Ware, carpenter, had inspected the fittings on December 17 with a view of purchasing them, and stated that he would have removed them for the sum of eight shillings, including his expenses to and from the ship.
It was at this point that the eccentricities of the magistrate became obvious. When questioning the carpenter who had been sworn in to give evidence, Mr. Symmonds said "Do you mean to say that you would have contracted to remove those fittings without the view of ultimately purchasing them, for the sum of eight shillings?" When Mr Ware answered in the affirmative, the magistrate scoffed "Tut,tut,tut, be off Sir, I won't listen to you and your foreswearing yourself. The idea of you doing for eight shillings what a man here charges three pounds twelve shillings for!"
Allan weighed in to the discussion with :" Pardon me, your Worship. You labour under a great error. If you hear the witness out you will be fully convinced. I am also prepared to state that, from my own knowledge, eight shillings would be ample payment for the work done, and for expenses to and from the vessel".
Magistrate Symmons gave the verdict for the plaintiff at two pounds ten shillings for the dog, and eight shillings for the removal of the fittings.
Surprisingly, Allan Hughan was very dissatisfied with this verdict, and immediately enquired if he had the power of an appeal. The magistrate was very taken aback, exclaiming: " Yes Sir, but after the pains I have taken with the case I am astonished to hear you ask the question. You show very bad taste."
Allan responded with " With all due respect to your worship, I submit that this case is decided against me in the absence of any evidence by the plaintiff, and in direct opposition to my sworn evidence. You have received as evidence a mere statement of a letter, which I deny on oath; further I can produce other evidence to support our own if requisite, and all presumptive proof is in my favour. I feel that I am now harshly dealt with and desire to appeal if I have the power."
Magistrate Symmons said"Really, Mr. Hughan, had I anticipated these frivolous objections I should have dealt differently with the case. I am surprised that you should take such a stand after all I have done for you, here is a man prefers a claim against you for eight pounds twelve shillings, and I only give him two pounds ten shillings or three pounds, and yet you are not satisfied."
Allan ended the thread of the conversation by declaring" Were I to persue your worship for one hundred pounds when you did not owe me two pence, would the fact of a verdict in my favour of ONLY twenty pounds be an arguement in favour or proof of the justness of the verdict?" There was no reply from magistrate Symmonds to this.
The clerk of the court stated that Allan Hughan had no right of appeal except upon a point of law, and Allan responded by asking " May I enquire if there is a point of law here? I am without counsel." When asked by Mr Symmons why he had no counsel, Allan had to chose his words wisely..." Because you objected yourself, sir, and morever having applied to counsel they expressed a strong disinclination to enter this court."
Of course, the magistrate asked why, and Allan carefully replied "It is perhaps better not to state them here, your worship. By a combination of circumstances I stand here without counsel and therefore appear as my own, and as a stranger to your forms I would appeal to the Bench for direction as to the course I am to pursue."
Mr Symmons was thoroughly sick of Allan Hughan by now, and stated "Mr Hughan, I am no lawyer, you have no appeal here unless upon a point of law. Will you pay the money and refrain from taking up the time of the court."
He wasn't to get rid of the tenacious Englishman that easily...." May I ask for my evidence to be again taken, as no depositions are yet taken down, and a copy given me as a guide to counsel, or may I ask for a copy of your judgement?" REFUSED. "Then in what way am I to state a case to my solicitor? Am I to rely on memory alone?"
Finally, Mr. Symmons put an end to the proceedings with "You are talking like an old woman. I really shall have to ask you to leave the court. Will you pay the amount now, or when will it be convenient?"
The last word was Allan's..."I will pay the money at once, I see it is better to submit to circumstances and again be at a loss, but I leave this court with a feeling of being most unjustly treated. I wish to appeal against what I feel is wrong, as a stranger I apply to the bench for direction in the cause of justice and cannot obtain any aid, but the contrary. I must say that the way I have seen justice administered in this court differs widely from all my experiences in any part of the world."
Allan Hughan does in fact appeal to a higher court, and in the interim period between the first and second hearings the Perth Gazette discusses the infamous Fremantle magistrate, Mr Symmons:
" JUSTICE AT FREMANTLE. From all accounts the Magistrate's Court at Fremantle must be above all other places where an hour's amusement can most certainly be obtained, and it owes that distinction to the eccentricities of the presiding Magistrate, who is in a fair way of gaining an unenviable notoriety for adjudicating upon cases bought before him not according to law, but according to his caprice, and it is alleged that should any respectable person be connected with any case before him that caprice is very apt to break forth rather unpleasantly.....
....We are not unnecessarily harsh in our comments, but it is a fact that Mr Symmons was removed from Champion Bay at the request of the settlers, who would not tolerate his vagaries, and we should not be much surprised if he were to leave Fremantle under much the same influences." - "The Perth Gazette & West Australian Times", Friday, January 24, 1868.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia in Perth had the last say on the entire matter. The paper reported the Appeal as follows:
"In this case it is quite unnecessary to say more than this- the letter in question was improperly received as evidence. The magistrate was wrong. He pronounced a judgement without a tittle of legal evidence to justify it, and the judgement of this court is that the appeal be affirmed with costs."
Another legal victory for Allan Hughan!!!

Allan's court case against John Gibson of the schooner 'Stanley'.

Taken from the Perth Gazette & western Australia Times, Friday, January 3, 1868

Allan Ramsay Cunningham Hughan

Allan Ramsey Hughan (see above in 1877) was born on Friday, March 3, 1837, in Colchester, Essex, the eighth child and fourth son born to Robert Alexander Hughan and his wife Hannah Oakley.
Aged only one year when his family moved to London, Allan would never have shared the idyllic country life experienced by his older siblings growing up in rural Suffolk and Essex. His father was a tea dealer, described in 1844 as “unfortunate in business but always honest”, and by the time of Allan’s birth in 1837 Robert Hughan had quite a series of failed business ventures behind him. The family had moved from Ipswich to Colchester, and then finally London in search of work in 1838.
Money must have been an issue, particularly with the Hughan family expanding to nine children, but Robert and Hannah did an exceptional job of raising a well-educated, articulate family. The family was Scots Presbyterian, and the Hughan family was long established in the Creetown district of Kirkcudbright in Scotland. Whilst other Hughans back in Scotland stuck to the traditional naming patterns of the Scots, Robert Hughan and his wife in England were more fanciful in the naming of their children- Malvina , Laura, Marion, Jessie and Bertha for their daughters, and Oscar, Robert, Fergus McIvor and Allan Ramsey Cunningham for their sons. Family was catered to by the use of several middle names...Marion ‘Agnes’ (her paternal grandmother was Agnes Herris Hughan), Jessie Hannah( after her mother and maternal grandmother, both of whom were Hannah Oakley) and Robert Alexander named fully after his father.
The names Oscar and Malvina for their eldest son and daughter were taken from a Scottish legend that must have been a favourite within the Hughan family...
“In Scotland, long, long ago, the famous Celtic poet, Ossian, had a daughter called Malvina. She was beautiful and sweet natured. She won the heart of Oscar, a handsome warrior. They agreed to marry and became betrothed, but Oscar left in search of fame and fortune. Malvina pined for him and sought solace by telling her father how much she loved her brave warrior, Oscar. On a beautiful autumn day, Ossian and his daughter, Malvina were sitting on a Highland hillside when a ragged messenger staggered towards them. He brought the terrible news that Oscar had been killed in a mighty battle. The messenger held out a spray of purple heather to Malvina - a last gift from Oscar - and told her that he had died whispering her name and pledging his love. In her grief, Malvina ran over the hillside, weeping bitterly. Where her tears fell, the purple heather turned pure white. When she saw this, she said "May this white heather, symbol of my sorrow, forever bring good fortune to all those who find it". And so, in Scotland, to this very day, white heather continues to be a token of good luck.”
The name ‘Fergus McIvor’ also came from the pages of literature- in this case a famous novel by Sir Walter Scott called ‘Waverley’in which Fergus McIvor was a dashing – but doomed- Jacobite chieftain.
Allan, it seems, was also named after a character in famous poem by Byron, entitled "Oscar of Alva-A Tale" which was written in 1807. It involves two Scottish brothers, the elder named Oscar and the younger Allan:

"Dark was the flow of Oscar's hair;
Wildly it streamed along the gale;
But Allan's locks were bright and fair,
And pensive seem'd his cheek, and pale.

But Oscar own'd a hero's soul,
His dark eye shone through beams of truth;
Allan had early learn'd controul
And smooth his words had been from youth.

Both, both were brave, the Saxon spear
Was shiver'd oft beneath their steel;
And Oscar's bosom scorn'd to fear,
But Oscar's bosom knew to feel.

While Allan's soul belied his form,
Unworthy with such charms to dwell-
Keen as the lightning of the storm,
On foes his deadly vengeance fell."

Things turn nasty when Allan, jealous of Oscar's love for a beautiful maiden, kills him on his wedding day. The body is not found, and their father is heartbroken over the mystery of his beloved Oscar's disappearance. After two years Allan becomes engaged to Oscar's proposed bride, and on their wedding day Allan's treachery is exposed by a mysterious stranger who attends the feast, and by Oscar's ghost who materializes.

The 1841 census saw Robert and most of his family living in Blacklands Street, Chelsea. Robert’s occupation was given as ‘traveller’, and his age as 40 (ages were rounded down to the nearest five years...he was definitely older than 40). His second eldest daughter Laura was misspelled as ‘Sarah’, aged 18, but the other children in the home were correct- Marion 16, Robert 12, Jessy (sic)8, Allan 4 and Bertha 2. Daughter Malvina was living in Bethnal Green and working as a teacher, Oscar was employed as a male servant for Mary Louisa Edwards in Circus Road, St.Marylebone and 11 year old Fergus was living at the Caledonian Asylum School in London.
The Caledonian Asylum was a school instigated from 1815 for the maintenance and education of two distinct groups :-the children of soldiers, sailors and marines, natives of Scotland, who had died or been disabled in the service of their country, and the children of indigent Scottish parents resident in London and not entitled to parochial relief. The Hughan family came under the latter banner, and two of their sons were admitted to the respectable school.
Children were admitted from the ages of seven till ten years, and were maintained as live-in students until they were 14. At this age they were placed into apprenticeships, and exchanged their distinctive Highland dress uniforms for a plain suit of clothes. It was a boys-only school until the mid-1840s, after which time girls were also admitted.
After finding Fergus McIver Hughan resident at the school in 1841, I contacted the Caledonian School archivist for his details, and she found that Robert Hughan had also applied for entry to the school in 1844 for his youngest son Allan. The documents concerning both enrolments were rich in genealogical details, and the information produced from Allan’s is as follows:
“ The humble petition of Robert Hughan of 26 Westbourne Street, Pimlico, London, in behalf of Allan Ramsey Hughan, the child of Robert and Hannah Hughan.
SHOWETH that the said Allan Ramsey Hughan is the lawful child of said Robert and Hannah Hughan as by the annexed certificates will appear:
That Robert Hughan was born at Burns Park, parish of Kirkmabreck, Kirkcudbrightshire, is about 48 years of age, has lived in London since 1838, has had no settled employment but has subsisted chiefly by the needlework of Mrs Hughan and daughters.
That Hannah Hughan was born in the parish of St. Boltoph, Borough of Colchester, Essex, is about 41 years of age, is the mother of nine children, as under:-
Malvina Hughan born February 2nd, 1822
Laura Hughan born July 27, 1823
Marion Hughan born November 5, 1824
Oscar Hughan born November 29, 1826
Robert Hughan born May 17, 1828
Fergus Hughan born March 13, 1829
Jessey Hughan born December 18, 1833
Allan Ramsey Hughan born March 3, 1837
Bertha Hughan born January 19, 1839.
Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that the said Allan Ramsey Hughan may be admitted into the Caledonian Asylum, and that he may continue therein as long as the directors thereof shall think fit; and be disposed of, when of a proper age, as an Apprentice or Servant, according to the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
Signed: Robert Hughan
I do hereby recommend the said Allan Ramsey Hughan as a fit and proper Object to be admitted into the Caledonian Asylum.
(To be signed by a subscriber, who is requested to state, whether from his own personal knowledge of the case, or from his reliance on the certificates to be annexed)
Signed: James Kemp.
I have known the said Robert Hughan for upwards of twenty years. I had large dealings with him. Although unfortunate in business, I always found him honest.
I, Robert Hughan, do hereby solemnly declare that the circumstances stated in the foregoing Petition are true, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the said Allan Ramsey Hughan is free from Scrophula, of a sound, good constitution, and in the enjoyment of perfect health of intellects. So help me God.
Declared at the Police Court Bow Street, on this 14th day of March, 1844, before me, D. Jardine. Robert Hughan.”

The front of Allan’s file is marked “Postponed for want of certificates.” It was not known until recently whether seven year old Allan started at the Caledonian School, as just six months later his father was dead. He passed way at the family home at Westbourne Street, Pimlico, of complications arising from meningitis on September 22, 1844.
  A chance finding of an article published in the London Morning Post on Saturday 06 December 1845 proved that Allan was in fact a student at the school:-

" CALEDONIAN ASYLUM. A quarterly General Court of the Corporation was held at the Scottish Hospital on Thursday last for the transaction of business, and election of eight boys and five girls into the Asylum, when the following were declared to be duly elected:-
Boys (with votes) Christopher Shanks 2,302
James Mearns 2,096
Allan Ramsay Hughan 1,484
James Grieve Douglas 1,466
William Smart Bruce 1,416
John C Alexander 1,144
Lockhart McLaren 569
George Macartney 487

Girls (with votes)
Annie Wattie 1,542
Elizabeth Miller 1,541
Eliza Robertson 687
Eliza Gellan 617
Henrietta Robertson 474

John Burnie, Secretary, December 5, 1845."

The change to the family’s financial status after the death of their husband and father would probably have been minimal, as Robert had not been a breadwinner for some years. Hannah Hughan and her daughters maintained the family with earnings from needlework, and this situation must have continued after Robert’s death as mother and younger children continued living at the Westbourne Street address for several years.
Eldest child Malvina was, by all accounts, an excellent scholar and brilliant linguist. She became involved with one of the popular Missionary Societies in the1840s, and travelled extensively overseas on their behalf. She married John Octavus Lord , a fellow missionary, in late 1845, but had died of typhoid fever by 1850.Their two children also died in their infancy.
Eldest son Oscar immigrated to Canada in the late 1840s (c. 1848), moving down to Boston where he remained for some eight years. He had poems and short stories published in various publications, and considered himself a good friend of well known literary personalities Nathaniel Hawthorne and Longfellow.
  Allan's education at the Asylum school must have been excellent, and as an adult he possessed a fine, enquiring mind. He was musical, particularly on the flute, and was an eloquent writer, embracing his role as New Caledonian correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald in the 1870s.
In 1847, an event occurred which would shape the destiny of the Hughan family and their descendants for years to come. On Saturday, June 19, 1847, middle child Robert Alexander Hughan was convicted of stealing from his master, Noah Stanford, and was transported to Australia for his crime.
Transportation of convicts to Australia was thoroughly out of favour by this time, so England had come up with the ‘exiles’ scheme, by which sentenced men would be sent first to one of the new penitentiaries (Millbank, Pentonville or Parkhurst) for the initial part of their sentencing, and then off to Australia as an ‘exile’. This was the case with 18 year old Robert Hughan-although sentenced in June 1847, he did not set sail for Queensland until June of 1849.This time delay meant that the Hughan family could take stock of the situation and make decisions that were monumental in their effect.
In 1848 Hannah Hughan made the brave decision to take up the position of Matron in charge of a group of 38 women and girls who were being sent to Victoria as the first party of female emigrants dispatched by Sidney Herbert’s Female Emigration Fund. This group were responsible for gathering together needlewomen who were classified as being “the most helpless of their sex-the working women of this country.” The colonies were badly in need of respectable young women to balance their male dominant society, and England- London in particular-had an over-abundance of this class of female. Over four years from 1849, the Female Emigration Fund were responsible for assisting over one thousand women to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, British North America and the Cape of Good Hope.
It was Hannah Hughan and her charges who were the very first contingent to set off for new lands, arriving on the ship ‘Culloden’ in July of 1849. With Hannah were three of her daughters-24 year old Marion, 18 year old Jessie and Bertha, who was only 11. Where sons Allan and Fergus remained has not yet been determined...Allan would have been twelve years old, and Fergus 20.
Daughter Laura obtained passage in 1849 on board the ship ‘Tasman’ to take her to Melbourne as a nursery maid. However on June 11, 1849, just seven days prior to her departure, she married Arthur Paton. Laura sailed on the ‘Tasman’ as planned, but her husband Arthur did not sail until the following year. He sailed to Melbourne on the ‘Culloden’ as a paying passenger with Hannah Hughan and Laura’s younger sisters.
It is amazing that the first Hughans to arrive on Australian soil did so within days of each other, although hundreds of miles apart. The ‘Tasman’ with Laura on board arrived in Geelong on October 28, 1849, and her brother Robert arrived as an exile on the ship ‘Mount Stewart Elphinstone’ in Moreton Bay on October 31.
Allan Hughan was ten years old when his brother Robert was convicted and sent to prison, and12 or 13 when his mother and sisters immigrated to Australia. The only thing that may have prevented him from sailing at the same time would have been his attendance at the Royal Caledonian School- if he had started his schooling there in 1844, he would not have been due to finish until about 1850-51. His parents placed such importance on their children’s education that Hannah may have convinced her youngest son to remain in London to finish his schooling and join his family in Victoria when he finished. Allan was not in England by the time the 1851 census was taken.
After many years of researching, the ship and date of arrival in Australia for Allan and his brothers Fergus and Oscar have not been found.
Allan’s sister Jessie Hannah Hughan married in 1851, and her new husband was the owner of a huge sheep station called ‘Youngera’ situated on the Lower Murray River near Swan Hill. Allan and his youngest sister Bertha spent a great deal of time at ‘Youngera’ with Jessie and her husband Alexander McCallum, and Allan later served as manager of the property when Alexander returned to England for health reasons and never came back.
Spending time with Jessie McCallum on ‘Youngera’ must have fostered a love of the land for young Allan, as when he was old enough to seek employment it was as a manager or superintendent of large rural holdings.
In 1858, the Victorian Government Gazette records Allan Hughan as superintendent of ‘Glenloth Station’, Avoca.
At the time of his marriage as a 22 year old, Allan Hughan stated that his occupation was “superintendent of a squatting station”, and his next occupation was also in the capacity of a station manager.
On August 8, 1859, Allan Hughan married 30 year old Phoebe Berry Hall, a Professor of Music from Cambridge in England. Phoebe was the daughter of William Hall and Charlotte Prior. At the age of 5 months in 1829 she had been baptised at St. Giles, Cambridge. Other siblings included :
Catherine Prior Hall baptised 1822, Magdalen Street, Cambridge, aged 2 months , St. Giles
Thomas Prior hall baptised 1823, Magdalen Street, Cambridge, aged 1 month, St. Giles
Alfred Hall baptised 1826, Magdalen Street, Cambridge, aged 5 months, St. Giles
Edward Hall baptised 1828, Magdalen Street, Cambridge, aged 1 month, St. Giles
Frederick Hall baptised 1832, Magdalen Street, Cambridge, aged 1 month, St. Giles (died in 1832)
In November 1859, Allan started work as superintendent of another station owned by one of the Chirnside brothers. This proved to be an ill-fated choice of employment, as the Port Phillip Herald Newspaper from early 1860 provides coverage of a dispute between Allan Hughan and Mr. Chirnside regarding unpaid wages. The newspaper article told the following story:
" SUPREME COURT: OLD COURT. Tuesday 1st May( before Mr. Justice Pohlman) HUGHAN V CHIRNSIDE
For the plaintiff, Dr. Sewell and Mr. Brewer; and for the defendant, Mr Dawson and Mr Fellows.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 200 pounds salary for service as overseer of a sheep station.
In November 1859, the plaintiff entered the service of the defendant, obtaining authority to draw in his own name on the bank of Victoria for expenses connected with the station, to the amount of 400 pounds.
A considerable amount of correspondence passed between the plaintiff and the defendant, in respect to business matters, and in December the defendant wrote to the plaintiff informing him of his intention to visit the station for the purpose of examining accounts etc.
On the 2nd of January last, the plaintiff left the station to visit his wife, who, as he was informed by a letter he received on the previous day, was dangerously ill.
He instructed a person named Smith to attend to the affairs of the station during his absence, and left him a cheque for fifty pounds to meet any necessary expenses. He also drew a cheque for thirty two pounds, six shillings and six pence, the amount of two months salary due to himself, on the previous day to meet his own travelling expenses.
Mr. Chirnside arrived at the station on the evening of the 2nd of January, and received a letter which had been left for him by the plaintiff stating the cause of his absence, and giving his address.
Next day he wrote to the plaintiff intimating that as he had left the station without anyone in charge, and as he had overdrawn his account at the bank by two hundred pounds he should be superseded, and that this overdraft would be placed to the account of the station, but the cheque for 32 pounds 6 shillings and 6 pence would not be met.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had deserted his post, and that he had unnecessarily expended moneys.
The jury returned the verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, two hundred pounds, with leave to the defendant to move for a new trial, or reduction of the verdict."
- Wednesday, May 2, 1860, Port Phillip Herald.
Immediately below this court report was another: Newbourne Vrs Chirnside. This case also concerned Allan Hughan...
" For the plaintiff Mr. Brewer, and for the defendant Mr. Dawson. This was an action brought to recover 60 pounds, wages for 12 months for the services of the plaintiff and his wife, who were engaged by Mr. Hughan, overseer for his station, but were dismissed by Mr Chirnside previous to the expiration of the term for which they were engaged.
It appeared that when Mr. Chirnside arrived at the station on the 2nd of January he asked the plaintiff for the key of Mr Hughan's room. Mrs Newbourne had the key, and the plaintiff, when asked for it by Mr Chirnside, denied having it; and also stated that there was nothing in the room but what was the private property of Mr Hughan. Mr Chirnside regarding the plaintiff as Mr Hughan's servant repudiated the contract with them.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages 60 pounds."
The Chirnsides were a very wealthy pastoralist family, and it is cheering to think of the "little men" standing up to the bullying employer in court and winning.
In 1858 Allan's sisters, Jessie McCallum and Bertha Hughan, had sailed to England for a 2 1/2 year visit, with Jessie's husband and children also accompanying them. Allan had kept an eye on things during their absence, and the 1861 Victorian Gazette records him as being the superintendent of ‘Youngera Station’, Swan Hill.
In 1861( or perhaps 1860) Allan and Phoebe's first child, a daughter named Ruth Madeline Hughan, was born. There has not been found a birth certificate for her, so her birth date and place are unknown. Later documents referred to her birthplace as "Goulburn, Victoria".
Allan remained on 'Youngera' for several years, even after his sisters returned. His importance would have been compounded by the fact that Jessie's husband Alexander McCallum had not sailed back with his family... Jessie had not only the responsibility of raising her children alone, but also that of running a huge sheep station without the guidance of her husband. Allan filled the position of overseer for her, assisted at times by his brother Fergus Hughan.
No children were born to Phoebe and Allan Hughan during the period 1861-1864, which backs up the belief that Phoebe did not spend much time on the Swan Hill property. She was a teacher of music, and most likely resided in Melbourne with their young daughter Ruth, being visited by Allan Hughan when time and farm business permitted.
The ‘Pitman’s Journal of Commercial Education by Isaac Pitman, July 16, 1864’ reported on the 4th Annual meeting of the members and friends of the Victorian Phonetic Society, held at the Victorian Grammar School, Collins St East, Melbourne, on February 10, 1864. The report states “Special mention was made of a gentleman who carried off two of the prizes, Mr Allan Hughan, who by close attention to the study had, in the course of three months, attained a degree of excellence generally only the result of 12 or 15 month’s steady practice.”
These classes had been held at the Melbourne Mechanics Institution, and upwards of 30 pupils had attended.

Evidence points to Allan Hughan spending a period of time during 1865 in Queensland, engaged in the huge task of moving a mob of nine thousand sheep through Queensland.
Two letters written by Allan Hughan to the Rockhampton Bulletin newspaper in 1865 provided an amazing first person narration of his participation in the capture, and subsequent escape, of infamous Queensland horse-thief Edward Hartigan, better known as “The Snob”. Allan’s words tell the story better than my interpretation of the tale, so following are the two letters which were published on August 12 and September 21, 1865:

“ Rockhampton Bulletin, Saturday, August 12, 1865.

By yesterday’s mail, we received the following particulars of the capture of a notorious horse stealer from Mr Allan Hughan, who writes under date 4th August, 1865, Belcombe Creek, Gordon Downs Station.
“ Sir,- It is with pleasure that I am able to inform you- and through you, the residents in this part of Queensland- by whom the intelligence will, in many instances, be received with gratification- of the capture in my camp, with the aid of my men, of a notorious horse stealer, known as “The Snob”, lately escaped for the third time from the police.
My cook, Charles Trim, recognised him, and gave me information of my unbidden guest’s character. For this he deserves much commendation.
On expressing my determination to secure him, Trim stated that at Springsure he had told him that if he escaped he would never be re-taken to serve 14 or 20 years, but would blow any man’s brains out who made the attempt to secure him, “So you had better look out, sir”, he added.
Consulting with two of my friends and my men, I arranged to seize him. Walking up to the camp, and sitting down beside him, I entered into conversation with those around, and himself, respecting the road, water, etc, for I had observed, as I thought, a knife in his hand, which I knew would be far more dangerous in a close struggle than a pistol. For fear of exciting his suspicions, I could not make a close examination, but sat still, hoping to see him put it down or to be off his guard.
At a sign, my friend- Mr. Donald Laird- made a dash on his side; I on mine; Mr. North threw himself upon him, and Mr. Richard Jones held his feet. He struggled to reach his revolver, which, loaded and capped, was in his belt, with much desperation, but he had no chance, poor fellow, and in a few minutes I had him securely bound.
Too much praise cannot be bestowed upon the parts taken in his capture by Messrs, laird, Jones and North; for his desperate character was well known to the two first, as we had frequently heard settlers state that he would do an immense amount of mischief before being re-taken.
The case was urgent, so I at once wrote a letter to the police at Clermont- 50 miles distant- and this morning dispatched one of my shepherds with it, though at great inconvenience, for I am travelling in a strange country with 9,000 sheep.
I trust that the police will act with energy in coming to my relief. I have fully appraised them of my position, having to drive two carts and take charge of the prisoner myself, being so short of men.
Since his arrival in our camp, “The Snob”, alias Edward Kain or Cain- an ominous name- has confessed to stealing several horses, the manner of his escape from the police, and expressed his firm conviction that before three weeks he will again be at liberty, and may then do me a “good turn”.
His confidence in ultimate escape is well-grounded. I could not help being a little amused, last evening, by hearing one of my men say, when he was struggling during his capture, “Oh, it’s no use, my fine fellow, you are in the hands of Victorians now!”
A short time after being secured, he quite gloried in his past deeds, and said he would so if on his way to be hung.
Twas as I told him, a lamentable sight to see a human being so lost to all sense of right, however, I have been glad to observe several traits of better feeling in his character. Connected with his capture, I may relate a circumstance which seems to partake largely of the mysterious.
On coming to my waggonet, in which I was writing, he asked me, in a very civil tone, where the water was. I directed him. He turned out his horse to stay for the night. Twas about an hour later when I looked in his face for the first time. I at once went to my wagon, about 300 yards distant, and concealed my revolver in my waistband at the same time- though I had never seen him, and for weeks had not thought of him- “the Snob” came into my head. After supper the cook came up and informed me that this was the veritable man.
With these facts, communicated to you whilst watching my captive, the wind playing most perseveringly with my writing materials, I will close my already long letter, and remain, obediently Yours, Allan Hughan.”

Most amusingly, a short article appeared in the Rockhampton Bulletin & Central Queensland Advertiser on Saturday, September 2, 1865:

“ Our readers may recollect that, a short time ago, a letter from Mr Allan Hughan of Belcombe Creek, Gordon Downs Station, announcing the capture by him of the notorious horse stealer “The Snob” alias Edward Kain or Cain. Mr Hughan, we since understand by the Peak Downs Telegram, was unable to hold the rascal in his custody until the arrival of the police, and he is still at large.”

On Thursday, 21 September, 1865, the Rockhampton Bulletin published a second letter written by a contrite Allan Hughan, explaining the circumstances by which the crafty horse thief had vanished into the night:

“ To the Editor of The Bulletin.
Dear Sir- By last mail I forwarded you intelligence of the capture of a horse stealer. Whatever merit was due to that capture let it be retained by my men, and on me be the disgrace attached to his escape- for escaped he has- and, unfortunately, but three hours before the arrival of the police, who had started to my assistance with most commendable alacrity. Having reported his capture, I am bound to relate his escape, though, in doing so, I feel most thoroughly ashamed; a feeling in no way lessened by the consolation offered by others when remarking “that even the police, with all their appliances, could not prevent his escape three times running.” I look upon the argument as an additional reason for not having watched him better.
On the 3rd instant we captured him; the following morning I sent one of my men to Clermont, distant fifty miles, for the police. Being obliged to travel on with stock, however, shorthanded. Unaided I drove both my vehicles, and took charge of the prisoner for one day’s stage: thanks to the change produced in the latter by a few acts of kindness, his appreciation of which, he provided by running with as much spirit as myself, at a time when, having left my waggonet and spring cart and gone a distance of 300 or 400 yards in search of water- taking the prisoner with me, the first was placed in great danger by the moving of the horses.
That evening a Chinaman rode up to the camp, and from all we could gather, preferred a capital charge against the prisoner, in consequence of which, I remarked to Cain, “I must now tie you even more securely, if possible, for the night”, and accordingly I did so, as I imagined.
Making my arrangements for the night, and giving directions to be called if the man wished to be moved at any time, I laid down for a little much-needed rest, keeping on my clothes and boots, so as to be ready at a moment’s call. Wearied with the previous night’s watchings, and the unwonted duties of the day, I slept deeply instead of waking every half hour as usual.
At half past 3 a.m., I was startled from my unfortunate sleep, by a voice shouting “The man has gone, Mr Hughan.” “When?” “This moment!” “All hands up and to the horses- take your dogs with you- five pounds to whoever sees or hears the man!” and as quickly as I can describe it, we were all away (but one who I left on guard), spreading in various directions. By ill-luck, our two bell horses were separated from the others, and it took half an hour to find the rest, which to our relief were right in number. Mounting two of them, we continued the search, but the night and thick scrub favoured the escaped, no trace of whom we could discover.
Fearing he would go to the adjoining station and assist himself to a horse, saddle and bridle, we rode there at once and put them on the alert. ‘Twas now near daybreak, by which time we started back to camp, accompanied by Mr Macalister, his son and a blackboy, - hoping, with the aid of the last, to pick up the fellow’s track. On our way back, as the sun was rising, we were met by Mr North and two of the police force- Mr North having ridden over 100 miles within the 24 hours on the one horse. All united in the search.
We followed the man’s tracks for half a mile, and then our darkie ( a poor tracker) was hopelessly at fault. All that day, till 3 p.m., we were scouring the country. At this time, we learnt from a passing horseman, that Kain had been seen by him, in company with several carriers and their teams, about ten miles back. I at once went in search of the Sub-Inspector of Police, and gave him the information, upon which he immediately acted, starting in pursuit- I, much regretting that my horse was too wearied to accompany him.
That evening, I was informed by the carriers alluded to, that Kain had arranged to join their camp that night. Similar information they had given to the policeman. I determined to watch their camp all night. So, returning to my own, I changed my clothes, got a fresh horse, tried to get a little sleep, of course unsuccessfully; and fully armed, returned to the vicinity of the carriers’ camp. Tying up my horse about half a mile away, I tried to reach a tree near the camp, but the difficulty was to do so, unobserved by the men, or detected by some of the numerous dogs. The moon was nearly at its full, and the camp was on open country, almost a plain.
On hands and knees I succeeded after an hour’s toil, on reaching a tree distant about 120 yards from the fires and in its shadow I sat until I thought I should be frozen, for I dare not stir. Ten, eleven, twelve o’clock passed; nothing stirred, save a man now and then to replenish the fires. When just passed midnight, I saw a man walk up to and join those at the fire. Now I began to warm. ‘Twas impossible to distinguish at the distance I was, so I had recourse once more to the hand and knee method of progress, and reached a tree thirty yards distant from the men, who, by this time, were sitting round the fire, it and the tree by which it was made being between us. Not a tree or shrub was between; there was nothing for it but to try and reach the very tree itself. So on I went once more, with a revolver in each hand, very watchful for fear of being seen, in which case I felt I should be mistaken for a black-fellow trying to steal upon the camp, and an abrupt end be put to my voyage of discovery.
Now an inequality in the ground helped. Again I was able to use the smoke of their fire as a screen, slowly but surely nearing the tree. An old newspaper in my way puzzled me for a time how to pass it without noise. I managed, and at last got to the root of the tree, behind which within two yards of me were the three men, one of whom I felt pretty sure was my missing bird.
Rising to my feet, and getting ready, I stepped aside, to the great astonishment of the men, and equally intense disappointment of myself. The man I had seen join the camp was one of the carriers, who had been watching his horses. Till after daylight I continued the watch, but no Kain put in an appearance, and as the sub-inspector had not returned, I was in hopes he was upon his trail.
On taxing the carriers with cowardice, for not joining the traveller who gave us the information of seeing Kain, on his proposing to recapture the man, who was in sight, on foot and unarmed, they excused themselves by saying that they were not going to incur the revenge of the man and his clique.
If these men, through fear or more culpable motives- for one of them claimed the horse, saddle, bridle and revolver I had taken from the man(yet he returns boldly to them, obtains food, and arranges to return to their shelter that night)- if these men, taking them as a fair sample of their numerous class, thus cowardly submit to such men, or tacitly shield them, possessing as they do, in an eminent degree, the means of bringing them to justice, and thus protecting themselves, or of aiding them to set justice at defiance, no wonder that crime should stalk through a large portion of this colony boldly, triumphant, defiant, as by too many it is known to be the case.
There is one and but one consolation left against the prisoner’s escape. It is in the fact that he got away in a crippled condition, minus firearms, minus horse, saddle, bridle or food, with the police on his track, instead of being ignorant of whether he was in this or a neighbouring colony.
The manner of his escape will ever be involved in doubt in my mind. My friend, who had aided in his capture in a chief degree, was on the watch at the time; the sheep were most troublesome on the young grass and herbage; he left the man tied as he had been all night, to walk around the sheep just as the moon set, and on his return, in a few minutes, the unbuckled straps only were there. Had I but the one more man I could have set a separate watch over the prisoner, I should have tried to do it myself, but I was so very particular in tying him in consequence of the fresh charge being brought against him, taking additional precautions to those of the previous night, that I felt convinced he was secure to all intents and purposes, but the captain slept and the ship ran aground. None can blame him more than does
Allan Hughan, Gordon Downs, August 17, 1865.”

I am glad to report that “The Snob” did not end up at the end of a hangman’s noose, but he did spend the majority of the rest of his days languishing for periods in gaol, mainly as the result of successful convictions for forgery.
Edward Hartigan had been born in Ireland in c. 1835 and came to Australia in 1856 by the ship, Peter Maxwell. He ended up in Rockhampton employed by Patrick O’Reilly as a shoemaker, but before long was operating for himself on the wrong side of the law.
Hartigan was described as being “slippery and cunning, walking with a “flash” strut, was under middle height, possessed a muscular frame, and had a face like a bird of prey. He was remarkable for the smallness of his hands and feet and could easily free himself from ordinary handcuffs or leg-irons.”

He was an excellent bushman and his forgery skills were recognised, and by the time he made the acquaintance of Allan Hughan he had been captured by the police and escaped them three times. The Chinaman referred to in Allan’s second letter may very well have been the Chinese man from Rockhampton whose wife had been convinced to run off with Hartigan to the Peak Downs just before his Hughan encounter.
The police did finally track “The Snob” down after he escaped from Allan Hughan, and took him back to Clermont. He had apparently read Allan Hughan’s letters as published in The Bulletin, and had found them most amusing. Not so amusing was the result of his trial in Rockhampton, where he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. For good behaviour he was released from St. Helena, Moreton Bay, in 1875, but was in and out of prison for the rest of his life. He was considered very lucky to have escaped a charge of murder in 1898, but was periodically gaoled for forgery, larceny and horse stealing.

Shipping records show that Allan Hughan had arrived in Sydney in March of 1865, but after his Queensland stint he was back in Melbourne by late November to register the birth of his second daughter. Named Marion after Allan's sister, the baby was born in the Hughan's High Street, St. Kilda, home on October 30, 1865. When her father registered her birth some four weeks later, he recorded his occupation as 'Gentleman'.
The reason for the delay in registering Marion's birth was most likely the very sad death of Allan's sister, Jessie McCallum. On the day of Marion's birth, Jessie was on her death bed at 'Youngera', suffering from pneumonia. She passed away the following day, on October 31st, and if Allan wasn’t already at ‘Youngera’, he would have had to make his way to Swan Hill immediately to assist in whatever way he could.
Youngest Hughan sibling Bertha had married Henry Bishop only seven months before Jessie's death, and at the age of 26 she was made responsible for her McCallum nephew and nieces; Gilbert aged 11, Margaret aged 13 and Ivy aged 7.

In 1866 Allan was mentioned in a report on Victoria’s Aboriginal populations as still being at ‘Youngera’. On March 26 1866, Allan penned a letter to Ferdinand Von Mueller regarding a poisonous plant he had found at ‘Youngera’, and gave his address as ‘Youngera’, Swan Hill.
The Queensland Government Gazette in their Unclaimed Letters list mentions three unclaimed letters for Allan Hughan- on January 6, 1866, two letters addressed to him at Dalby had not been claimed, and on September 8, 1866, an unclaimed letter had been sent to him at Lilly Vale. These unclaimed letters may very well have been sent to Allan in 1865 when he was droving sheep in Queensland.

Allan’s movements for 1866 are difficult to track, perhaps because he did not stray far from home. (“home” being either ‘Youngera’ or the Melbourne residence where his wife and daughter were settled) His daughter Minnie was conceived in May of 1866, (requiring his presence in Melbourne!)


In 1867, Allan Hughan is named in the NSW Official Post Office Directory as being a settler at ‘Yoiragra’, Euston, NSW. Euston is on the Murray River between Swan Hill and Mildura, on the NSW side of the river. I have no idea if he owned or leased this land- it doesn’t seem as though he would have been present to manage the property as for most of 1867 he was travelling and his family was based in Melbourne. He most likely was present at Euston from the later part of 1866, and made his travels into Queensland from ‘Yoiragra’.
He continued to have a hand in the running of the McCallum property 'Youngera' until his interests took a totally different turn in 1867.

Early in 1867, tragedy and joy struck the Hughan home on the same day. On February 11, at Inkerman Street, St. Kilda, Phoebe gave birth to daughter Marion Ellen ( known as ‘Minnie’), named in honour of her sister who died the very same day aged only 16 months, of ‘dentition and congestion of the brain’. On Marion’s death certificate Allan is described as ‘settler’, and on Minnie’s birth certificate he is again ‘gentleman’.
One can hardly imagine the agony of a labouring mother, struggling to give birth to her third daughter while at the same time elsewhere in the house the family physician Dr Arnold is fighting to save the life of her second child.
The grief of Allan as Marion's father also cannot be underestimated, and perhaps it was a means of dealing with his emotions that caused him to chose to leave his wife and two daughters just two week's after Marion's death to sail to Western Australia.

On February 27 1867, Allan Hughan departed Melbourne for Western Australia per ship ‘Bombay’. On March 20 , Allan left Perth after writing to the Col. Secretary applying for an appointment as “Inspector of Sheep”. His application letter read in part:-“ My qualifications for filling such office consists of a thoroughly practical acquaintance with sheep, during a course of 14 years in Victoria and NSW”. His Address was given as c/of Messrs William Sloane and Co, Collins Street, Melbourne.
On March 29, 1867, Allan Hughan wrote a letter to Ferdinand Von Mueller in Melbourne. Allan’s address was given as ‘Staunton Springs, near Beverly, Western Australia”. Beverley is 132 km east of Perth. Staunton Springs is a property Lat 32 degrees 34’ south, Long 116 degrees 55 ‘ East. I have no idea what Allan Hughan was doing this far inland...perhaps he was on one of his plant collecting expeditions for Dr. Mueller.
On April 19, 1867, Allan Hughan arrived back in Melbourne from W.A per ‘Alexandra’. The Alexandra was a South Australian mail steamer, captained by J.W Brown. It had arrived at King George Sound, Western Australia, on April 2, and sailed again for Adelaide on April 8, with Allan Hughan as one of the passengers on board for the 109 hour trip to Adelaide.
Upon returning to his Melbourne home, Allan made the decision to try his hand at taking top quality sheep to Western Australia by sea. This venture proved to be fraught with trouble, both on the journey there and in the months following the landing of his stock.

On December 11 1867, Allan Hughan arrived in Perth from Melbourne per the schooner ‘Stanley’ with a consignment of 135 sheep, amongst other cargo. Allan had commissioned the schooner for his use alone, and it was not too long before bad blood surfaced between him and the ship's master, Gibson.

More on our convict, Robert Alexander Hughan...

A chance finding in an old newspaper helped to shed a little more light on Robert Hughan’s story. The ‘Moreton Bay Courier’ from Saturday, January 16, 1858 carried the story of a murder trial in which Robert found himself a key witness, just over eight years after his arrival in Moreton Bay:-
“ MURDER.
William Marns was indicted for that he, on the 26th September, 1857, at Maryborough did feloniously kill one Jacob Entermann. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Milford and Mr Roberts were instructed by the Judge to act as counsel and solicitor for the prisoner.
Mr. Pring opened the case by briefly laying before the jury the difference between the crime of murder, and manslaughter. Murder was the crime of wilfully depriving a fellow creature of life, without justifiable cause or reason. He was sure they would give their undivided attention whilst he opened the case, the facts of which were not difficult if they believed the evidence which would be adduced. If they gave credit to that testimony it would show as coldblooded a murder as ever was committed. He could not see any grades in murder the characteristic of which was that it was done with malice prepense. If the killing was without malice, it was reduced to manslaughter. It was in their power if they saw it fit to give a verdict of manslaughter, but they must be satisfied, it was so reduced. In manslaughter the prisoner was supposed to take the life of another, from some well-grounded provocation. The facts of this case, he conceived, would not enable them to reduce the crime. If, however, they were not satisfied that the facts constituted the crime of murder, they would return a verdict of manslaughter. ( Mr. Pring then stated the facts).
Evan Griffith Williams deposed: I am a second lieutenant in the Native Police. I have seen the prisoner once before. I was riding out of Maryborough on the 26th of October or September, and I met a man named Williamson at the Nine-Mile Creek. I rode on as hard as I could to the Twelve-Mile Creek, where I found five drays camped.
I saw a man lying dead on the ground with a sheet or blanket over him. I examined the body. I did not know his name. He was lying with his face in a pool of blood on the ground; there was a hole in his forehead. I should think it was made with a ball. His face was downwards; he was lying on his stomach.
I waited a few minutes, when my trooper came up. I sent him to the right hand of a ridge a little way off, and I went to the left. After riding a short time I heard a black boy belonging to the drays call out. I immediately cantered back, and the black boy and I came up to the prisoner. It was about 300 or 400 yards from the drays. He was lying on his stomach. He had a white hat, which he had laid under him. The grass was very long, and he had broken down a young sapling and got it over his back.
I told him I wanted him, and he looked up and asked me “What for?” I told him for shooting the German. He said nothing at that time. He told me as I was taking him back to the drays “he did not know the gun was loaded.”. Afterwards he said “he was very sorry for having done it.” He was not drunk; but he had been drinking. He was perfectly sensible. He might have had two or three glasses. He at one time walked well, and at another appeared the worse for liquor. He would walk 100 yards quite well, and for another 100 yards he would appear to be a great deal the worse for liquor.
When I first went to the drays there were present Robert Hughan, George Smith and Cane. I met Williamson on the road about three miles from the dray. There were two black boys with the drays.
I searched the deceased’s pockets and found in the left hand pocket 6s. And a ring, and in the right 3s., a knife, tobacco, and watch box. The men at the drays were quite sober. The body was not very cold when I saw it. He might have been dead a quarter of an hour. The body was stiff. No medical man saw the body in my presence.
By a juror: The prisoner was telling me how he came to the colony when I was taking him to the drays.
By Mr. Milford: One of the first things he said was that he was sorry for it and that he did not know it was loaded. I examined the gun I saw lying. It was percussion. It was a common fowling piece. I might have said it was a good lock and easily pulled. It was an easy lock but not particularly so. The ground where I found the corpse did not slope; it was perfectly level.
The prisoner was not the least agitated the whole way, but he said he was very sorry. He might have said the gun went off accidentally. I gathered that he meant no malice aforethought. I think he said he had no ill feeling and had never met the man before. He jumped up on his legs but I told him not to move.He was out of sight of the drays. He afterwards resisted. I think he has got the mark on his ear.
By Mr. Pring: I was armed with a brace of pistols.
By the Judge: I saw no other guns.
By Mr. Milford: I think the gun was leaning against the trees.
By the Judge: I observed that the gun had been fired off.

ROBERT WILLIAMSON: I know the prisoner. He was employed by my brother-in-law as a bullock-driver. In September last I was on the road between Maryborough and Gayndah. Prisoner was driving one of the drays with me. There was no one in company with me.
We were camped at the Twelve-Mile Creek, about that distance from Maryborough. It was the 26th of September, or thereabout. There were two drays there in the afternoon, 3 left in the morning. I knew a German; he came to the Twelve Mile Creek on that day. He was travelling with the drays that were coming down the country. I think he was going to Maryborough. There was a man shot that day at the ground.
About 3 o’clock William Marns called to me from under his dray. There had been drinking going on but not to excess. There had been a gallon of rum in 3 or 4 days among several parties. The prisoner when he called out was the worse for liquor. I was sober.
He said he had sold a dog. We had two dogs with the drays. He said he had sold the dog. He did not say what for. I told him he would do no such thing. I would not allow the dog to go from the dray. He said that he had sold it to a German. The German was underneath the prisoner’s dray with him. It was about 3 or afterwards.
The German took the dog. I rose up and took the dog from him and tied it up. The German went up to the prisoner again. The prisoner had never come out from under the dray. The German sat down underneath it. I did not hear what conversation they had. I did not listen to it. It did not seem to be in high language. It appeared to be a sort of argument. It went on an hour or more. It was off and on, perhaps; they were not arguing all the time.
They both came out from under the dray. I was sitting at some distance. Three other men were with me: Hughan, Smith and Cane. The prisoner counted out some money to the German. When they came out from the dray he gave it to him. The German came and shook hands with almost all the men there. They might be about 20 feet or better from my party when the money was counted out, and about 45 or 50 yards from my dray.
The prisoner after that walked off towards my dray. I could not see whether he went towards my dray. I saw him return in a very short time. He had a gun in his hand. He came up to the tail of his own dray. The German was at this time walking away from the dray to go to the other side of the creek to get his blankets. He did not go to the other side of the creek. He saw the prisoner with the gun. He turned round and walked up to him. The prisoner said “ Give me my 6s. Or give me my money”. He instantly raised the gun and fired. The German lifted his hands before the prisoner fired. The German was about six feet from the prisoner when the latter fired.
I went up in about a couple of seconds after. I examined the German. I found him bleeding from the forehead and dead. I saw a small round mark on his forehead. The prisoner made off. He said “What have I done?” He might have stopped one minute or so. That is all he said. He threw the gun down. It was my gun. I put my gun on my dray when I started from Maryborough. The gun was loaded then. I loaded it with powder and ball. The prisoner and several other parties were present. The prisoner procured me the ramrod. I couldn’t say whether he saw what I put into the gun. It was the morning previous to the discharge of the gun. I told the prisoner afterwards that the gun was loaded.
I was distant about 18 or 20 feet from the prisoner and the German when the gun was fired. The prisoner was not sober when he fired the gun. He was the worse of drink; he could walk. I don’t know how much liquor he had that day.
After this I instantly went after the horses. I got one and rode towards Wide bay as hard as I could. I met Lieutenant Williams on the road. He instantly made along the road. I went right in to Maryborough.
The bore of the gun was large; a cap lock. I have worked the lock, it was in good order. There were no other guns in the dray. I saw the body afterwards. I saw Dr. Palmer examnine it. The German did not say anything when he lifted his hands. I believe it was a friendly way he had of putting them on people’s shoulders when he went to speak to anyone. The German was not sober. He was a good deal the worse for liquor.
I know Robert Hughan; he was present and sober. I know George Smith, he was present. He was sober enough to know what took place. I have known the prisoner since the beginning of September.
By Mr. Milford: The prisoner was a quiet, orderly, sober man. From all I have seen and heard he was a quiet good-natured man. The prisoner was in the act of raising the gun when it went off. The gun was not to his shoulder. The muzzle was upwards.( Witness described the position of the gun). I could not say whether he was in the act of raising the gun when it went off. It went off instantly. The German to all appearances was coming back to give him a friendly shake of the hand. There was no other conversation to my knowledge. I told the prisoner before I left Maryborough that the gun was loaded. I am quite sure he said give me back my money, or my 6s.
The German was in a direct line between the prisoner and me. He might as well have shot me. The shot might have struck me if it had missed the German, but it would have escaped the others. When he said “What have I done” it was in a crying, troubled sort of manner.
I slept under my dray. I had the gun with me at night for protection. From the time we left Maryborough to the time the man was killed would be about 30 hours. The gun might have been fired off without the prisoner knowing it. I did not hear the prisoner use any threat. They appeared to be friendly. By argument, I mean that one spoke and the other replied. When the prisoner said “I’ve sold the dog”, the German heard him. The German went by the name of John the German. The words could not have been “good day John”. The ground had a slight rise there. I did not notice that the prisoner stumbled. We were all too much confused to stop the prisoner. We all thought it was an accident.
By Mr. Pring: We thought it was a lark.

ROBERT HUGHAN:
I know Williamson and the prisoner. I met them at the 12 Mile Creek, that distance from Maryborough, in September last. It might be 4 in the afternoon. I was riding. My dray was at the camp, and I stopped there. There were 4 or 5 men under Marn’s dray. There was a German. We generally called him Jacob. They were talking. I don’t know what about.
I went to where Williamson was having his dinner, and got some dinner too. I remained there an hour or more. The prisoner sang out to me that he had sold a dog for 6s. To a German. Williamson said he should not sell the dog, that he had it in his charge. Williamson took the dog from the German and tied it up. The German was sitting with the men under the dray. The prisoner was not sober. He was not very tipsy. There was no drinking going on at that time. The German was neither drunk nor sober. The German and Marns went under the prisoner’s dray, and the others came to us under the tree. I heard nothing between them. They were conversing together. I could see and hear them laughing. They might have been an hour under the dray.
After that I saw the German and Marns on their feet. I heard the German ask Marns for the 6s., or 6s.,as he wanted to go into Maryborough. I saw Marns put his hand in his pocket, and I heard a jingle. I supposed he gave him money. The German came and shook hands with us, and wished us all good bye, saying he was going to fetch his blankets. He was going that night into Wide Bay.
The German walked about two or three paces from the dray towards the other side of the creek. The prisoner had not got the gun when he gave the 6s. Nearly instantly after he got the gun. The prisoner came round when he had the gun from the end of his own dray. He might be more than 20 yards from the German then. He sang out to the German “You give me that 6s or my 6s.” I don’t know which it was. The German was walking back to him quick. The German neither said or did anything. I saw the German fall and heard the report of the piece. It was in Marns’ hand. The gun was against Marns’ body below the hip, the muzzle towards the German. I did not see where the prisoner’s hand was. I think he was five paces from the German.
I did not think the man was shot. I went up to him. I saw some blood coming from his forehead. I examined the body afterwards. One ball went through the forehead and another below the eye. He was quite dead. I did not see what the prisoner did with the gun. I said “You have shot the man. You are a murderer.” I went for a horse and did not see him again.
By Mr. Milford: I do not recollect the prisoner crying out. It was level ground. The German was in a direct line between where the men were sitting. Williamson and Marns’ drays might have been 10 or 15 yards apart. I did not see where the prisoner got the gun. I saw the gun lying opposite the prisoner’s dray afterwards.
I have known Marn 9 or 10 months. He had always borne the character of a quiet inoffensive fellow. They were jesting and laughing under the dray. The German always held up his hands when he was talking to anyone. He was about to put them on Marn’s shoulders. I did not think the man was shot until I heard the blackfellow crying. I had no idea that Marns had any intentions of shooting him. I don’t remember hearing him say “My God, what have I done.”
GEORGE SMITH:
I am a bullock driver. I know the prisoner, and Hughan and Williamson. I was in the prisoner’s company in September last at Twelve Mile Creek. Williamson and Hughan were there. I think it was the 26th September. I was going into Maryborough. The prisoner was not travelling in my company. The prisoner was there with his dray before I came there and Williamson. I got to the camp about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. I saw the prisoner, he came across the creek to me. There was a German with me. He was called Jacob and I have heard him called John. I cannot recollect his surname. I think Jacob Entermann was the name. I believe I have heard it. The deceased was with me. I went over the creek with the prisoner to his dray. The German went with me. I had a glass of rum when I went over. The German took some rum, I don’t know whether the prisoner did. The German was not drunk; he had been drinking before, he had either one or two glasses. Marns had been drinking, he appeared to know what he was talking about.
We sat down outside the dray after we had the rum. Williamson and Hughan were away.We might have been there about half an hour. Marns had a dog tied up under the dray. He sold it to the German for 6s. I saw him give the prisoner some silver. We all three went over to the fire. We staid(sic) some time. Marns and the German went to the prisoners dray and lay under it. I sat a few paces from the fire. They were conversing under the dray. When they got up the German put his hands upon Marns’ shoulder. I did not hear Williamson’s voice. The dog was tied up to the dray. The German was taking the dog away to my dray. Williamson asked him where he was going to take him. The German said he had bought the dog. Williamson said he should not take him away, he was left in his charge to take to a man of the name of McQuayne. Williamson got the dog. The German walked back to Marns’ dray. The German came back to the fire. He remained at the dray a few seconds after the dog was taken. He did not leave Marns until they both got up together.
I saw Williamson and Hughan sitting at a tree. I saw the German go up to them after he came from under the dray. The prisoner Marns was somewhere handy the dray. The German when he left them was going to cross the creek. He went to Marns and put his hands on his shoulders, and said “Give me my 6s.” The prisoner said nothing with him then. The prisoner pulled out some silver and gave it to the German, who came over to where we were sitting, and shook hands with me. He stood there. While he was shaking hands with us, Marns went away 40 yards to the far dray. He came back from the dray with a gun. The German was standing between us and the prisoner. The prisoner, when he came up, said “Give me the 6s.” The German held up his hands, and was walking towards him. The next thing I heard the report of the gun, and saw the German drop. The prisoner had the gun below his hip. I can’t say how it was sloping. I can’t say on what part of the gun the prisoner’s hands were, one was by the stock. The prisoner did not say anything, but walked away a few paces and threw the gun down. The German was dead. I next saw the prisoner when Lieutenant Williams brought him back.
By Mr. Milford: I have seen the prisoner for three or four months. He was always a very quiet man. I did not hear what they were talking about, or whether they were laughing under the dray. The prisoner was off before I could apprehend him.I did not say “You had better stop”. I did not attempt to seize him. I don’t know that any of the others did. The German was holding up his hands in a friendly way. I heard no quarrelling. There was no row about the dog after it was tied up.
By Mr. Pring: We all ran up when the German fell. We thought it was only sham.
EDWARD FIELDING PALMER:
I am a duly qualified medical practitioner. I was requested to proceed to the Twelve Mile Creek to examine a body in September. It appeared to be the body of a German. Williamson was there. The first thing I noticed was a large round hole about the middle of the forehead, large enough to admit the finger. It appeared to be a gunshot wound. I traced it to the back of the head. It went right through, having an orifice to the back corresponding with the one in front. There was another orifice also, a gunshot wound in the corner of the left eye. Either wound would cause instant death.
Mr. Pring applied to amend the information by adding after John Enterman the words alias John the German alias Jack the German.
Mr. Milford addressed the jury for the defence, remarking that he had a most solemn and onerous duty to perform, and a most fearful responsibility resting upon him, for by the slightest mistake in conducting the defence the worldly hopes and prospects of the man at the bar would be greatly periled.
He begged their most earnest attention to the case. He had nothing to complain of on the part of the crown. The prisoner by his folly had pursued such a course that the Crown had no alternative but to put him upon his trial. He thanked his learned friend for the temperate manner in which he had opened the case. There was no malice shown on the part of the prisoner. When a man killed another the law pre-supposed malice. But the prisoner had no motive to kill. What man would destroy God’s image without a motive, would take away the life of a fellowman
“Cut off even in blosssoms of his sin
Unhoused, un____, Un____,
No reckoning made, but sent to his account
With all his imperfections on his head.”
They were asked to believe that the prisoner took the life of a friend, an innocent person, without any conceivable motive. Unless they came to that conclusion it was not murder. He was afraid that in this case, as in so many others, the fiend alcohol had something to do with it. But although the rum bottle had nothing to do with the crime in this instance, it might have brought on some negligence.. There was no evidence to show actual malice. They might dismiss from their minds the matter of the dog as that appeared to be, after all, only a joke. If there had been any real sale of the dog, he would not have shouted out to Williamson “ I’ve sold the dog.” The money was instantly given back when it was asked for. What was there in the transaction to create any ill feeling?
The case was this- one man comes up in a friendly way to another and then the other without apparent motive does an act unparalleled in atrocity. The character of the prisoner showed he would be the last in the world to commit such an act. The gun might have been half-cocked. The gun was not held in such a position as any man would have held it had he intended to shoot another. It was as natural to bring the gun to the shoulder as it was to walk. Would he fire in such a position that the slightest divergence would have sent the ball among his own mates, and shot some of them dead? It was not necessary for him to go through the evidence, but they would remember that two of the witnesses were sure that the prisoner said in a voice of agitation, “My God, what have I done?”
He afterwards went to a place 300 yards off. The opinion of the witnesses must have been that it was altogether an accident, as no attempt was made to seize the man. If a man were to be tried for the result of an accident, there were many cases in which men, in a much higher position in life than the prisoner, would have to take their trial. The prisoner being most probably unaccustomed to the use of fire-arms, it was likely it was a simple accident. Although the law implied malice, there had been no malice, either express or implied, shown in the case. It was no murder, but a mere accident.
Mr. Pring, in reply, observed that the defence was one which he never anticipated would have been set up, and it could not in this case be adopted by them. With regard to the assertion that this was an accident by the incautious use of fire arms, he submitted that the facts proved it to be very different. In looking through the testimony to ascertain whether the prisoner was guilty of the intention to kill, although the law presumed malice, it was better if they could see some moving power. He submitted there was an apparent motive. The jury must say whether the case showed actual as well as implied malice. He did not wish to be hard upon the man, but justice was stern, and when justice demanded it his duty must be preferred.
Although the prisoner stood in that position, an unfortunate man had by his act been brought, without a moment’s warning, to a violent and untimely end. The evidence was of a most clear character. The witnesses were not drunk. Although their evidence differed in an immaterial variance as to the expressions used, there was no substantial variance. Drunkeness was no excuse for crime, nor did the evidence show the parties were in such a state as to not know what they were doing.
(The learned counsel then went into the evidence of the dog).
Whether the German and the prisoner were on good terms under the dray did not appear. The money was then given back to the German. The latter and the prisoner shook hands, and the German was going for his blanket.
Now mark the conduct of the prisoner; he went 50 yards to his dray, brought back his gun, which he had seen loaded; said to the German “give me my six shillings”, fired the gun, and the man fell. Was that the result of accident? The motive was apparent from the man’s words. Although spoken of as a man of quiet character, the quietest men were often the greatest fiends when in drink. Where did he get the gun? Not lying close by him. He got it for a purpose, and for what purpose , was apparent from his acts. These actions drew upon him this conclusion, that he meant what he did. If they thought he had not sufficient mastery over himself they would, under his Honor’s direction, find him guilty of manslaughter. The witnesses did not speak of any provocation. No doubt he cried out “Oh my God” as a man might well do under such circumstances. What was his conduct? Did he run up to the man and assist him? No, he ran away like a coward and hid himself among the long grass.. What was his acting but that of a man who was conscience stricken?
His Honor in summing up said there were three points of view under which they might regard this case:-
1st. Was it a case of murder? If so, the evidence should show that he actually intended to kill him in consequence of some feeling that had been called out previously. Intoxication had nothing to do with it, but there was no evidence to show that the prisoner did not know what he was about. If they conceived there was no express malice, the next question would be
2nd. Whether it was a case of manslaughter? It would be manslaughter if the prisoner went to the dray for the gun with the intention of frightening the deceased and that through a negligent accident the gun went off. There would in that case be no express malice, but the prisoner would be doing an improper action when an accident occurred, by which the man was killed.
3rd. Was it accidental altogether? The question could hardly arise. If so, why did the prisoner go for the gun? If they thought it was a case of accident, they must acquit the prisoner. If they thought there was an attempt to point the gun to frighten him only, it would, perhaps, justify them in thinking the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter; but if they thought he went for the gun, for the purpose of shooting the deceased, it would be murder.
(His Honor then read Hughan’s evidence and concluded his summing with some observations on it).
The jury retired for a short time and on their return gave a verdict of manslaughter.
The Judge then sentenced the prisoner to three years hard labour on the roads or public works of the colony.