by Linda Venn
Click here for a list of key characters in this story
Evidence concluded; Edmonds committed for trial in the Supreme Court, Friday 8th January 1932
William Ashman was the last witness to take the stand. He was also a Main Roads Commission employee at Mt. Spec. Ashman
stated he had known defendant (Edmonds) about six months. On December 9 he was instructed by his employers to help in the search for a. bandit. He asked O’Brien for a description of the man, and was told a tall thin man, with a shirt hanging over his trousers and was also wearing a dirty cloth over his face, and wore no hat.
At the scene of the hold-up. They searched the locality in which the bandit was said to have escaped. It was suggested that they might recover the bandit’s body, as it was thought the bandit may have been hit. When he and Murray set out on horses from Tealby’s they were instructed to search for tracks.
On the following morning they went with the police party to continue following the tracks that had been found the previous afternoon. During the search the trackers had an argument as to the Identity of the track.
O’Brien never told him that Edmonds was the man.
Sub-Inspector Blackmore made his final cross-examination. Ashman’s responses were:
He (Ashman) did not know that O’Brien returned to the scene of the hold-up before he returned again to organise a search party, and O’Brien did not show him a hat before the party left for the scene of the hold-up, although O’Brien showed It to them next day.
They only searched for about 200 yards before they left for Tealby’s. When they rode up to Edmonds’ carrying a .303 rifle the latter asked them if he defendant (Edmonds) could not shoot all the wallabies around the country, whereupon they told him they were looking for a bushranger.
As far as he knew, Murray took the old road to Tealby’s and Murray pointed out to him next day where he had ridden. He (Ashman) did not assist the police In following the tracks up to Tealby’s gate. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 7.)
This concluded the case.
Mr. Roberts:
“contended there was not a prima facie case made out. His Worship was entitled to make a conviction, but if he were convicted would a Jury find him guilty. He considered they would not.
The only evidence against the defendant was the evidence of Constable O’Brien, which was given in a very unsatisfactory manner, and which should be disregarded, because O’Brien said he immediately identified the man, but his actions did not warrant this. His was the only evidence that Edmonds was the bandit, and yet It took three days for the police to arrest defendant, and O’Brien never at any time suggested to Edmonds that he was the man. He considered that Edmonds was entitled to be discharged.
Police Magistrate Mr. Geoffrey A. Cameron disagreed.
His Worship stated that there was conflicting evidence between theparties, but he thought there was a very strong prima facie case made out.
They had to take the evidence of Gill, who stated that it took an of Gill, who stated that it took an hour for a horse to go two miles. If all his evidence was like that, then it was not worth the paper it was written on. No one would own a horse- that could not even walk two miles in an hour. (Author’s emphasis)
He thereupon committed defendant to stand his trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court at Townsville on February 8.
Ball of £100, and one surety of £100 was allowed. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 7.)
The point His Worship made about the slow-walking horse was valid if Gill had been talking about the distance between the scene of the hold-up and Edmonds’ hut, riding the quickest way past Tealby’s. However, it is more likely that Gill was referring to the time taken to ride from the scene of the hold-up back to Edmonds’ hut following the boundary. The difference between the two routes was considerable and would affect the times Gill gave to the Court of when he had seen Edmonds, thus also affecting Edmonds’ alibi. (Author’s emphasis)
The Cairns Post of the same date expands on the exchange between George Roberts and Geoffrey Cameron, P.M. Roberts lodged a plea of Not Guilty. He
“again submitted that a prima facie case had not been made out, expressing the opinion that no jury could or would find him guilty. The only evidence to convict defendant was that of Constable O’Brien and that was unsatisfactory. With Constable O’Brien recognising him, it took three days to arrest him, and it was not even suggested that it was the man until they had a partial dress rehearsal – partial, because they did not put, a handkerchief on.
The Magistrate said that he had the evidence of the constable and other facts and defendant’s arrival on a sweating horse. There was a conflict of evidence between the parties, but a strong prima facie case had been made out. Gill said it would take a horse an hour to canter four miles, and if all his evidence was like that it was not worth the paper it was written on. (Author’s emphasis)
Then the bullocky Murray, came along and in his evidence…….
‘Well, I need not discuss it,’ said the P.M. ‘A prima facie case has been made out, and defendant is committed to stand trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, Townsville, on February 8.’” (Cairns Post, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 5.)
So, had Gill been referring to the shorter route (two miles, as reported in the Bulletin), or the longer route (four miles, as reported in the Cairns Post). Was the Magistrate confused, and did it make any difference to the validity of the rest of Gill’s evidence?