by Linda Venn
Click here for a list of key characters in this story
More evidence from the hearing on Monday 4th January 1932
Next to take the stand was Julia Martha Elizabeth Tealby, wife of Mr. Vivian Tealby. Julia Tealby stated that she resided at Moongabulla and that she knew Edmonds. James Murray, a labourer from Mutarnee, had come to her house at 7:30 a.m. on December 9th and stayed there. Edmonds had ridden up about 11:30 a.m. Julia Tealby was ironing at the time, but she saw Edmonds go up to the cow-yard where Murray was. She confirmed that Edmonds “had several horses running at her place”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) She had not noticed the condition of the horse, but Edmonds was wearing a blue shirt. At 11:45 a.m., Edmonds left “riding a horse and leading another, and Murray left with him.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3)
The following day, Edmonds had asked her what time it was that he had arrived at her house Wednesday morning and she had told him 11:30. Magistrate Cameron asked Mrs. Tealby “whether the mare he (Edmonds) rode on December 9 was the one the police took away”, but she had not taken any notice. Questioning by defence counsel George Roberts confirmed that Edmonds came to Tealby’s on a daily basis, “and there was nothing whatever to arouse her attention on that morning”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3)
Henry Harrington (‘Harry’) Stewart, the Main Roads Commission driver on the day of the hold-up, was next to give evidence. Stewart stated that he knew Edmonds. It was Stewart’s duty to meet the rail motor at Moongabulla every second Wednesday and drive the paymaster to Mt. Spec. Stewart’s evidence regarding the details of the hold-up corroborated that of Killoran and O’Brien. Stewart was also unable to identify Edmonds as the bandit: “As the man ran away witness’ (Stewart’s) view was obscured by the undergrowth, but he noticed the man was wearing a long coat as he knelt behind the ambush. He would not say the defendant was the man he noticed behind the ambush, although he considered the man would be about 5ft. 9in. or 5ft. 10in. and would weigh in the vicinity of 12st. 10lbs.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) “The bandit…was wearing a slouch hat, and his face was partly covered by a dirty coloured handkerchief, similar to the handkerchief produced in court.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 1)
Stewart had seen Edmonds at the Main Roads Mt. Spec office on the Tuesday before the payroll hold-up. Edmonds was speaking to Herbertson, the Main Roads timekeeper. “It was a general conversation, during which he (Edmonds) remarked on the amount of pay that would be coming out.” Edmonds had also asked McClelland, the overseer, “for four gallons of benzine as he (defendant) was proceeding to Townsville the next day”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) Stewart had never seen Edmonds at the office before. Edmonds’ request for fuel was denied.
The cross-examination by Roberts, focused on the identification of Edmonds as the culprit. Stewart stated that “he had known Edmonds for 10 years, but had only seen him on and off since his employment at Mt. Spec. He was never asked to identify defendant as the man who held them up,” even though Edmonds was on the hotel verandah while Stewart was also at Rollingstone. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) He had been asked by police if he could identify the bandit when he was running away, but he could not. Stewart had gone back to the scene of the crime “with the intention of searching for defendant’s body” as he thought that “when O’Brien fired his third shot…the bullet had found its mark”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) O’Brien searched for tracks but found only boot tracks. Stewart was of the opinion that everyone in the district would know that the pay car ran every alternate Wednesday. Although the shots did not come from different angles, and Stewart “could not say the general opinion was there were two men in the hold-up, but he personally thought so.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) Sub-Inspector’s cross-examination focused on whether Stewart would notice that the vehicle had a front flat tyre, which we know it eventually did, and that the tyre with bullet hole was seized as evidence.