by Linda Venn
Click here for a list of key characters in this story
Introduction
The construction of the Mount Spec Road as a Great Depression unemployment relief project is well-known and is one of several reasons that the Road was given State heritage listing on 10th November 2008. Surveying of the road began in 1928-1929 and was completed in early 1931 as construction commenced. During the five years it took to build a trafficable track to within a kilometre of the newly gazetted township of Paluma (possibly ‘Windy Corner’), unemployed men worked on short-term rotations under the supervision of a small permanent staff from the Main Roads Board (later Commission). As far as I can ascertain, there were four main camps along the length of the road, with many smaller camps in between, adjacent to specific parts of the project like an arched culvert. While construction obviously started at the bottom of the range near the railway station at Moongabulla, it leap-frogged these smaller, time-consuming projects. The masonry arch bridge at Little Crystal Creek, for example, took months to complete, with access to works above the gorge via a temporary timber bridge.
When I had the pleasure several times of meeting and interviewing Linda McClelland, she detailed some memories of each of the four major camps. By the time the road reached Cloudy Clearing (Paluma), Wilfred and Linda McClelland had five children living in tents or later, a ‘tent house’ located where 31 Lennox Crescent is today. If you ever visit Mount Isa, one such tent house is preserved there as a heritage building.
Linda McClelland remembered each main camp for the significant events that took place there. Camp No. 1 was roughly near the old ‘quarry’ at the very bottom of the range itself. Camp No 1 had a payroll hold-up!
1. The Hold-up
On Wednesday 9 December 1931, Pay Clerk Michael Killoran and driver Harry Stewart drove the Model T Ford utility from the camp to Moongabulla railway siding, where they collected the payroll and its police escort Constable Len O’Brien. As the men working on the road were about to be stood down for the Christmas season, the payroll was almost four hundred pounds (£391 19s 5d). In the Great Depression, this was a considerable sum of money, and all in cash.
On their journey back towards Camp No. 1 at the base of the range, they found the track blocked by a felled tree. This was in an area of ti-tree swamp that Linda called ‘Boggy Hollow’. Without knowing exactly where ‘Boggy Hollow’ was, I lean towards it being the patch of ti-trees opposite the Ponderosa Road intersection. I shall let the Townsville Daily Bulletin, 10 December 1931 tell the beginning of the story.
The party got out…to remove the obstacle and just as they were about to do so, a voice called on them, “Put up your hands.” The party then looked around to see where the strange voice had come from, and observed a man partly concealed behind some rocks and bushes, with a shot gun pointed at them. As they demurred in complying with his peremptory demand, he fired two shots at them in their direction. One of the pellets struck Mr. Killoran just above the temple, but no injury resulted. The offender then made off into the bush, but Constable O’Brien fired some shots at the retreating figure without effect.
2. Charles Edmonds is charged
Charles Henry Edmonds was a well-known horseman, stockman and drover aged 34. He currently lived at Ollera Gorge. Charles was a widower with one child who lived in Aitkenvale, Townsville, where Charles was well-known, having been in Townsville for about ten years. He had never been in trouble with the Police before. Despite this, Charles was detained on Thursday night, 36 hours after the attempted robbery. He was brought to Townsville on Friday afternoon, presumably by rail, as the highway did not exist at that time. Charles’ mare was also brought to Townsville Friday night, as evidence. In Townsville, Charles was formally arrested on two charges.
Charles’ first court appearance was on Saturday morning, 12th December 1931. All the newspaper reports (often reprinted verbatim across Brisbane, regional Queensland and in other states) mention that Charles’ “appearance in the Police Court this morning drew a big crowd”. (Sunday Mail, 13 December 1931, p. 4) The Brisbane Truth of the same day carried the headline “BANDITRY CHARGE” above a photograph of Detective Senior-Sergeant O’Driscoll, who was wearing a very spivvy hat. (Truth, 13 December 1931, p. 15). The Brisbane Daily Standard of the following day carried the headline “THE BOOTY WAS BIG”. Not talking about anyone’s derriere here, but the amount the ‘bandit’ had attempted to get away with – £391 19s 5d!
The first charge was settled that day and related to Charles being in possession of an unlicensed Colt revolver. Sub-Inspector Blackmore gave evidence that when questioned at his house near Rollingstone, the defendant had handed the revolver to Detective O’Driscoll. It was in his pack saddlebag and was fully loaded in all six chambers. Charles pleaded guilty to possession of the unlicensed revolver. He had enquired of a Constable Crunkhorn regarding a licence but had left on a droving job before actually applying for one. Charles’ defence counsel, Mr. T. M. Barry, noted that a droving job warranted the carrying of a firearm. Barry also said that the defendant “was a man of high reputation, having been employed as a cattle buyer and drover by prominent firms”. (Sunday Mail, 13 December 1931, p. 4) Acting Police Magistrate W. E. McKenzie imposed the minimum fine of £10 in default three months imprisonment.
On the more serious charge, of attempting to steal while armed with a shotgun the sum of £391 19s 5d from the Main Roads Commission (previously Main Roads Board) Paymaster, Michael Killoran, Charles Henry Edmonds was remanded for a week on a self surety of £100 and another of £100 (or two of £50). Police Prosecutor Sub-Inspector Blackmore did not oppose bail. Reports of Charles’ next court appearance on Saturday 19th December on the attempted robbery charge were eagerly awaited.
3. Events immediately following the hold-up
By 2:31pm on the afternoon of 9th December 1931, Main Roads Brisbane office was in receipt of the following telegram, sent from Main Roads Townsville:
ATTEMPTED HOLDUP MOUNT SPEC THIS MORNING BETWEEN MOONGOBULLA AND JOB FULLSTOP KILLORAN VERY CLIGHTLY WOUNDED HEAD FULLSTOP PAY INTACT FULLSTOP POLICE HAS MATTER IN HAND
The Police responded in force, joining “a number of civilians….mostly walking about with guns”. (Brisbane Courier, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 9) Main Roads Commission Overseer, Wilfred Hector McClelland, had called for volunteers. In fact, Constable O’Brien noted in his March 1932 report to the Townsville Police District (West End Station) that “about 30 men from Mt. Spec relief works…joined in the search, which commenced at about 12:30pm and terminated at dusk on the 9th Dec. and a further search was made the next day”. (Copy of Police correspondence No. 162/32, dated 22nd March 1932, held in Main Roads Archives, Brisbane) The large party of volunteers was joined by ten Police employees. Sergeant McDonald, Constable Rynne and “A Tracker” came down from Ingham. The police contingent from Townsville was led by Detective Senior Sergeant O’Driscoll and consisted of Detective Gooch, Plain Clothes Constable Raetz, Acting Sergeant Miners, Constable Howard, and “A Tracker”. Constable O’Brien provided local knowledge of “the country in the vicinity of the hold-up…[as it]…was thickly timbered and fairly soft.” (Brisbane Courier, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 9)
Edmonds was remanded to appear before Mr. Geo. A Cameron, Police Magistrate, on Friday morning 18th December. Sub-Inspector Blackmore applied for a further remand. Mr. G. V. Roberts, of Roberts, Leu and North, appeared for the accused, offering no objection to the request for more time on behalf of the Police. Roberts did request “that the time be made convenient for the defendant, who resided on the Ingham line”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Saturday, 19th December 1931, p.6). The magistrate extended bail to noon on Thursday 24th December. Obviously, time got away in court on Christmas Eve, for Edmonds’ next appearance was remanded again to Monday 28th December.
Detective Constable Gooch was first to give evidence. Gooch had “proceeded to Mount Spec and viewed the site of the hold-up…[where]…he saw an uprooted tree about 14 feet long and about six inches thick, also a number of freshly cut bushes, about 14 yards from the road, built up in the shape of a barricade.” The following morning, Gooch and other police went to Edmonds’ residence at Ollera Gorge, where they found him in company of Edward Gill, James Tier, and William Searle. When asked if he had any guns, Edmonds laughed and replied, “Sure, I have got rifles and ammunition here”, handing over rifles, a single-barrelled shotgun belonging “to a lady friend in Townsville” and the Colt revolver. Gooch took possession of a dirty white coat and a shirt, which Edmonds claimed belonged to his father, and pair of blue dungaree trousers and another shirt which Edmonds said he was wearing the previous day. Gooch saw other police searching a car parked in the shed, from where they retrieved a dirty white handkerchief that Edmonds admitted was his. The police party then proceeded to Tealby’s farm and saw the mare which Edmonds said he’d been riding. From Tealby’s, they went back to the scene of the hold-up, where Gooch told Edmonds that the trackers had followed the tracks of a horse in a gully for about 130 yards, then on to the gate at Tealby’s. (Telegraph, Brisbane, Monday 28th December 1931, p. 1.)
The Sydney Sun newspaper of the same date detailed some “sensational evidence” under the banner “MOVIE METHODS Prisoner Dressed Up at Crime Scene”. Constable O’Brien recounted how he’d exclaimed “That’s Charlie Edmonds” on the day of the hold-up. Edmonds had told O’Brien on the day of the hold-up that O’Brien was mistaken. Despite protests from the defendant’s counsel, Edmonds had agreed “without hesitation” to a “dress rehearsal” and “donned a suit found in his hut and walked from the spot where the shots had been fired”. Evidence was also given that “hoof-marks near the scene were, after measurement, provided identical with those of Edmond’s mare.” (Sun, Sydney, Monday 28th December 1931, p. 9)
No other potential suspects were identified or paraded in the manner detailed above. Neither the driver Harry Stewart nor the paymaster Michael Killoran were asked to identify Edmonds as the “bandit”. Identification rested on the word of Constable O’Brien alone. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 29th December 1931, p. 5) The case was adjourned to the following day.
4. The first day of the court case
It should be noted here that I have not accessed court documents but have reconstructed the arguments as best I can from the lengthy and detailed newspaper reports of the day. Accessing the court records is another project altogether.
This instalment focuses on the first day of the court case against Charles Henry Edmonds, “charged with having attempted to steal £391 19s. 5d, and with having at the time being armed with a dangerous weapon – a shot gun”. (Daily Standard, Brisbane, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 15) Plain Clothes Detective, William John Gooch, was first to give evidence on Day One of the hearing (Monday 28th December), followed by Patrick James Rynne, a police Constable stationed at Ingham. We will come back to their evidence later. First, let us hear some of the testimony of Constable Leonard Edward O’Brien, who gave evidence on Day 2 (Tuesday 29th December).
O’Brien was based at West End Police Station. He had been the armed escort to Mt Spec once before and had known Edmonds for seven years. On 9th December, O’Brien had met the Main Roads Paymaster, Michael Killoran, at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Townsville, presumably in Flinders Street. At 8:30am, they left for Mt Spec via rail motor. O’Brien was armed with a Police service revolver and rifle, both loaded. Killoran was also loaded with a revolver. When they arrived at Moongabulla Railway Station (Ollera Creek) at 10:30am, they were met by a Main Roads driver, Harry Stewart in a utility truck. The bag containing the money was placed in the bottom of the truck. The three men sat in the seat of the ute, Stewart as driver, Killoran in the middle and O’Brien on the passenger side. They called first at the pipeworks on Ollera Creek, where Killoran paid two employees.
Continuing along Mt. Spec Road, they passed through Tealby’s yard, then on for a further mile and a half where a log lay across the road at a bend. The log was later measured at thirteen feet. The tree looked as if it fallen over in recent wet weather. Stewart drove up close to the log and O’Brien jumped out to inspect it. They had not seen anyone up until then. O’Brien had holstered his revolver, but the rifle was still in the truck. He didn’t have time to move the log, being distracted by “a voice in the distance”, which called out “Put them up!” O’Brien then noticed a man hiding “in some bushes about 15 yards off the road, and slightly to the rear.” Much of the prosecuation’s case relied on O’Brien’s description and identification of the perpetrator. This man was wearing “an old brown coloured hat” and his face was covered “with a piece of material similar to a handkerchief”. He was also wearing “a dirty jacket, similar to a shirt coat or pyjama coat, which was hanging outside his trousers. There appeared to be a bulk in the breast of his coat”. Immediately after calling out for the armed party to surrender, the bandit fired a shot. Stewart got out on the driver’s side, while Killoran fell out of the other side, slightly wounded to the head. O’Brien could not see what kind of gun it was. O’Brien “took cover from behind the right hand mud guard and fired at the man with his revolver, at which the man returned fire, the shot hitting the car.” O’Brien then fired two more shots in quick succession, after which the bandit left the cover of the bushes and headed for the hills. Grabbing his rifle from the ute, O’Brien fired three more shots at the man, none of which appeared to have any effect, and followed him for about 20 yards before Stewart called him back. The bandit was running away from the Mt Spec Road, through thick undergrowth, and was making for a gully that ran between the crime scene and the mountain. A total of eight shots had been fired, two by the bandit and six by Constable O’Brien. Returning to the truck, he found Killoran wounded, “a fresh wound on his head which was bleeding and also found a hole in his hat which corresponded with the wound in his head. The wound appeared to have been made by a pellet.” O’Brien did not examine the utility truck for any damage. After he removed the log from the track, they proceeded to the Main Roads camp at the bottom of the range. Camp No. 1 had telephone communications, so contact was quickly made with Main Roads and Police Inspector Loch in Townsville. Having handed over the payroll, O’Brien organised a search party and travelled back to the scene of the crime in another Main Roads vehicle, “arriving there shortly after mid-day and remaining there till dark.” Following the course taken by the bandit, he found an old brown hat which he later gave to Detective Gooch. O’Brien also found some wads from shot gun cartridges. He was able to track where the bandit had run through the undergrowth and stated that he had had “a clear view of the defendant when he was running away for a couple of yards” and again when he left his barricade, “in full view for at least 22 yards.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11)
Later in the afternoon, Police reinforcements arrived. Detective Senior-Sergeant O’Driscoll, Detective Gooch and Plain Clothes Constable Raetz arrived from Townsville; Constable Rynne and Acting-Sergeant McDonald arrived from Ingham. Two Aboriginal trackers came too. Before continuing with O’Brien’s testimony, we will look next at the evidence given by Gooch and Rynne. (See Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 29th December 1931, p. 5)
5. The evidence given by Detective Gooch, Monday 28th December (before lunch)
Gooch, O’Driscoll and Raetz left Townsville at 1:30pm on 9th December and travelled to Moongabulla Railway Station, where they were met by a Main Roads employee with a vehicle. They were driven to the scene of the crime, where they met O’Brien. Gooch and O’Brien had a conversation. “Shortly after their arrival there was a heavy downpour of rain”. Before leaving for Rollingstone, Gooch “made an inspection of the locality”. O’Brien showed Gooch the uprooted tree and the barricade made of “a number of green freshly-cut bough bushes”.
The next day, Gooch, O’Driscoll, Raetz and O’Brien proceeded to Ollera Gorge, where Edmonds lived. There they met Edmonds, Edward Gill, James Tier (“a half-caste”) and William Searle. Gooch told them all he was making inquiries about the hold-up. When he told Edmonds “they had reason to believe he knew something about it”, Edmonds laughed. When asked if he had any guns, Edmonds answered in the affirmative, and produced a rifle, a revolver, and a single barrel shot gun “which he stated belonged to a lady friend of his in Townsville.” Gooch took possession of the firearms and 13 cartridges. Gooch also “took possession of a pair of dungaree trousers, a white shirt, and a big-brimmed cowboy hat, which defendant admitted he had been wearing on December 9. He also took possession of the coat shirt which was damp.” [Author’s note: If there were two hats, was more than one person involved in the hold-up? If only one bandit, wearing the brown hat, did it fit Edmonds?] The clothes were tendered in court as Exhibit One. Gooch had walked over to O’Driscoll and Raetz, who were “examining a motor car”. Raetz picked up “a dirty white handkerchief in the back seat” with blood on it. Edmonds admitted the handkerchief was his. He had hurt his finger and used the handkerchief to bind it.
From Edmonds’ residence, they left to go to Tealby’s, where Edmonds said he had left the horse he was riding on December 9th. He had left home at 9:30am that morning, ridden the boundary fence and “put a couple of mobs of horses across the creek”, changing horses at Tealby’s on the way home. As they left for Tealby’s, Edmonds asked Tier “Is that mare of mine shod?”, but Tier didn’t reply. At Tealby’s Edmonds identified his “baldy chestnut mare” as the horse he’d been riding on the morning of December 9th. Edmonds “led the mare around the yard, and also in the [addock, after which he showed her tracks to Constable Rynne and the tracker”. From Tealby’s, Gooch, Raetz, O’Driscoll, McDonald, Rynne, O’Brien, Miners, Edmonds and Sergeant Howard (who was leading the mare) all proceeded to the scene of the crime on Mt. Spec Road.
Gooch told Edmonds that tracks had been found in the gully and that Rynne and one the trackers had followed them to Tealby’s gate. A broken twig showed where a horse had been led up the gully. Tracks led out of the gully. The mare was walked alongside the tracks. “Defendant wanted to have a look at the tracks, saying he was a better tracker than any nigger. Defendant broke off a small twig and measured both tracks.” Gooch lifted the mare’s hind foot and compared both sets of tracks, coming to the conclusion that they were both made by the mare. Here defence counsel Roberts challenged Gooch’s expertise in tracking. Gooch’s response is not recorded in the Bulletin’s report.
Gooch continued his testimony, stating that he had followed the tracks intermittently to Tealby’s house and then on to Edmonds’ house. Returning to the scene of the ambush, Gooch informed Edmonds that the hold-up had taken place at 10:45am on December 9th. O’Brien then informed Edmonds that he had identified him as the person involved, which Edmonds denied. Gooch reminded Edmonds that O’Brien had called out that it was “Charlie Edmonds” as he was running away. Gooch told O’Brien Edmonds said he was making a mistake about the identity of the perpetrator, but Constable O’Brien did not agree. Gooch told Edmonds that the offender had been wearing a coat shirt. Gooch asked Edmonds “to put it on and let Constable O’Brien have a look at him. Defendant agreed to do so [Author’s note: under duress?], and with witness [Gooch], walked into the bush, O’Brien staying on the road. Constable O’Brien then came over and said there was no mistake and he was the man all right”. Edmonds was escorted to Rollingstone, where the party stayed overnight, arriving in Townsville on 11th December where Edmonds was formally charged.
On the train south, Edmonds told Gooch he could prove where he was on Wednesday morning. “He had been rounding up horses with two girls”, but “he refused to disclose the identity of the girls”. Gooch had asked Edmonds who had ridden the horse to Mutarnee, to which Edmonds replied that one of the girls did “and he later took her home in his car”. Gooch had seen a girl called Pearl Davies riding past the crime scene on the afternoon of 9th December, so returned to Mutarnee on the 16th to interview both Pearl and Grace Davies. Gooch told Edmonds that if he had in fact been out mustering horses at the time of the hold-up, he should not have been arrested. However, the two Misses Davies denied mustering with Edmonds, but Pearl did indeed ride Edmonds horse home. Edmonds had stated “there were two other young women whom witness [Gooch] could interview, but he would not disclose their names.”
At this point, Roberts stressed that “The identification of the defendant is a very material thing. There were three men in the car. Why didn’t you take Stewart out to this dress rehearsal?” Gooch denied it was “a dress rehearsal”, adding that he had not involved the other two men because they had said they could not identify him. Gooch took offence at the suggestion there was any “underhand work in the case”, to which Roberts replied, “I don’t say there was, but I am going to criticise your methods. At Rollingstone on December 11, wasn’t Stewart asked to identify him?” Gooch was unaware if this had happened and it was not in his presence. Roberts then proceeded to challenge the necessity for identification to be made by a police constable. Roberts noted that “The night they arrived at Mt Spec it rained about one and a half to two inches. No plaster casts were taken of the horses’ [Author’s note: plural?] as he did not think it was advisable.” Gooch admitted that Edmonds was the first “suspect” he spoke to, and that Constable O’Brien had given him a description of the man involved, “but definitely told witness [Gooch] it was Charlie Edmonds.” Gooch was unaware that when O’Brien was first making enquiries, he had “described the man as being of short build and wearing a long khaki coat.”
Roberts continued his cross-examination of Gooch. Edmonds “offered no resistance in searching his hut” on the Thursday morning. The hut was half unroofed, a consequence of the storm the night before, leaving everything wet inside. The hat found at the crime scene was not tried on Edmonds. Edmonds did not give Gooch the revolver. Presumably Gooch was also talking of Edmonds when the report continues “He did not suggest the gun in his possession was the one that fired the shot and would not be tendered as an exhibit”? Gooch did state that no cartridges of a shot gun were picked up [Author’s note: Where and when? And by whom? Cartridges as compared to wads?]
Regarding the clothes in Exhibit One, O’Brien had asked Edmonds how long it was since Edmonds had worn them, as they were wet, but Gooch did not hear Edmonds’ reply. The trousers were hanging on a line. Regarding the handkerchief, Gooch stated that Edmonds said it had been used to wipe the windscreen of his car. When they arrived on scene on December 10th, Gooch “did not see any foot tracks up to where the horse was tied.” Gooch had indicated to Edmonds the direction in which the man had fled – from the barricade to the gully. Gooch claimed that Edmonds “did not tell him there were no indications of a horse being tied to a tree in the gully.” Edmonds had asked the tracker if two horses had gone up the gully, to which the tracker replied in the negative. Gooch “did not have an argument with defendant regarding the horse tracks.” Furthermore, “he [defendant, Edmonds] did not tell witness [Gooch] there were two sets of tracks down the gully, and that neither corresponded”. The court then adjourned for lunch.
6. The evidence given by Detective Gooch, Monday 28th December (after lunch)
Roberts continued his cross-examination of Detective Gooch after lunch. Robert’s probing questioning and frustration sets the tone of the newspaper report. Gooch stated that the distance between the log across the road and the bush barricade was 15 yards. The vehicle would have driven past the offender, “and any of the occupants in the car would have had to turn around to see defendant.” Given the slight fall of the land between the bushes and the gully, Gooch was not suggesting that the occupants of the utility would have been able to see the offender at 150 yards distance, but they would have been able to at 45 yards.
Gooch agreed that Edmonds had pointed out “two or three tracks to the tracker. He [Gooch] understood Edmonds was an expert bushman, but he (witness) had sense enough to know an old track from a new one….Edmonds drew attention to a lot of other tracks which he said were fresh, but he (witness) did not agree with him. He understood there were horses running on that country.” These tracks were not traced to Edmonds’ hut. Edmonds had suggested they should look at the tracks where he had been moving the horses over the creek, “but they did not go because there was no reason to go.” Gooch did not remember the tracker saying the tracks went along the foot of the hill, nor did he hear discussion between the tracker and Constable Rynne “as to whether the track they followed on the previous night was the one they were following on December 10.” Gooch knew the track was only followed for about 200 yards on the day of the hold-up, but they “continued to pick it up after the heavy rain of the night before.” The tracks were picked up again near Tealby’s and Rynne “was quite confident they were the tracks they had followed the previous day.”
Roberts now turned his attention to “the dress rehearsal”. Edmonds was not within hearing distance of the conversation between Gooch, Detective Senior Sergeant O’Driscoll and Constable O’Brien at the crime scene. Gooch did not suggest to O’Brien that Edmonds put on the coat and hat in an attempt to clear himself. Apparently, “the defendant did it willingly himself”. This was the first time Edmonds had been asked to try the hat on. Edmonds denied it was his, as it was too big for him. Gooch did not suggest to O’Brien that they dress Edmonds up and “stand him where the hold-up occurred”. Gooch certainly “did not say to Constable O’Brien that they had nothing on this ‘bird’”. On the truck bringing Edmonds and some of the volunteers back to Rollingstone, one of the men commented that “the bandit was a bad shot, with which Edmonds said the bandit might have known the constable.” Gooch was certain “that no one said that they had nothing on defendant; neither did he say that the fact of Edmonds saying that the man did not want to shoot O’Brien was alone sufficient proof that Edmonds did it.” Gooch had not suggested to Edmonds that more than one man was involved in the hold-up. He had however, spoken to both Gill and Searle about Edmonds’ movements. While they waited overnight at Rollingstone, Gooch did not discuss the case with anyone, and Edmonds was closely watched. Gooch did admit that, although both Stewart and Killoran were at Rollingstone on the following morning, “he never confronted Stewart and Killoran with the defendant”.
7. The evidence given by Constable Rynne, Monday 28th December
Constable Rynne was now called to give evidence. He had arrived at Mt Spec Road about 4pm on the day of the hold-up, meeting up with “a number of men, and they made an investigation of the surroundings.” Rynne saw the log (about 15 feet long) and the pile of bushes on the left hand side going up the road. He “also found on two trees marks made by pellets from a gun, and found a pellet embedded in a tree on the right hand side looking at Mt Spec, and about three feet from the road and about 18 yards from the clump of bushes.” With Acting Sergeant McDonald and a tracker, Rynne conducted a search of the area for footprints. The tracker showed him hoof marks and also “barely distinct footprints of a size 7 or 8 boot” in a gully about 130 yards away. There were “a number of hoof marks there but rain which had come down the gully and partly obliterated them”. Rynne believed the tracks to be new. As with Gooch, Roberts challenged Rynne on his competency to conclude this; “he was not an expert to say so”, and besides, “the rain had covered them.”
Rynne continued. He stated that there were “two distinct tracks going out of the gully which he followed along the side of the mountain to Tealby’s fence and up the side of the mountain for about a chain.” Rynne estimated the length of tracks followed to be approximately half a mile. The tracks “appeared to have been freshly made, and made by a horse travelling at a fairly fast gallop.” The rain fell after these tracks had been made. Rynne then went back to the crime scene, where he met up with the police from Townsville.
The next day, the police again looked for the tracks, but now found that sections were under water. Rynne found some tracks similar to those he had found the previous afternoon, and these were also followed for about a quarter of a mile in the direction of Tealby’s yard. Rynne later went to Tealby’s yard, where Gooch showed him the chestnut mare. The mare was led through the yard, and Rynne thought “the tracks appeared similar to those he had followed from the gully. He formed the conclusions that the tracks found on the previous day were those of the chestnut mare.” However, when a comparison was made with the tracks in the gully, Edmonds had said they were not of the mare’s. Edmonds picked up the tracks about a chain from Tealby’s gate and followed them to within six feet of the gate. At the gate, “Detective Gooch told defendant that the tracker considered the tracks were made by the chestnut mare, and that he must have come down the track, but defendant stated he had come down the track from the direction of his hut”, adding “he would not pull a gun on a man for a few pounds.” Edmonds lived about a mile and a quarter from Tealby’s, but Tealby’s was admittedly closer to the scene of the hold-up. At this point, Roberts requested that Rynne prepare “a plan of the country he traversed from the scene of the hold-up”, in readiness for Tuesday morning’s session. The court then adjourned until 11 o’clock the next day.
Rynne continued giving evidence on Tuesday morning (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11). He stated that O’Brien was not the first person he met at the scene of the hold-up. “There were a number of civilians there, the majority of whom had guns. He did not know there were other men searching the district. The country was rather thickly timbered.” Rynne first met Edmonds the next day [Thursday] at Tealby’s yard, then at Edmonds’ hut on the Friday, and again on Sunday. On Sunday, in company with O’Brien and the tracker, they obtained a statement from Tier. Rynne confirmed that Edmonds referred “to other tracks, alleging they were not the tracks of his mare.” Rynne stated he was not equipped to take plaster casts of the tracks or any sample of them “owing to the nature of the ground.” Rynne agreed “it would have been very material for the prosecution if he had been able to take the tracks in the soil.” However, Rynne did not hear Gooch point out to Edmonds “another place where a horse had been tied up.” Rynne recalled only one gap in the tracks, of about 150 yards, and did not know what Gooch meant when he said they “followed the tracks intermittently.” Rynne had not told Edmonds he had followed the tracks all around the yard the previous afternoon and “had lost them.” Rynne did not agree with Edmonds’ suggestion “that horses had been galloping all over the country.” Rynne was “quite satisfied that the tracks they followed on December 10, with defendant were the tracks witness [Rynne] had followed the previous day.” Where the tracks were lost, they were leading to Edmonds’ hut, so they had searched in a circle of between 150 and 300 yards. Edmonds denied the tracks were of his horse. At Edmonds’ request, Rynne had measured some tracks near Tealby’s. He had not told Edmonds these tracks were not those of the mare.
Rynne was present at the dress rehearsal, “but he did not hear Detective Gooch say to Constable O’Brien that they would dress defendant up.” Rynne saw Edmonds shake hands with O’Brien and heard him tell O’Brien “he was making a mistake, as he would not hold a cobber up for the pay.” O’Brien has replied “he would be the sorriest man in the world if he were making a mistake.” Rynne saw no more of Edmonds, as he had then gone on to the Main Roads camp.
Rynne was questioned about the tracks by both Roberts and the police prosecutor, Sub-Inspector Blackmore. Rynne confirmed that the tracks from the scene of the hold-up did not go directly to Tealby’s, but took about a mile to cover. Blackmore endeavoured to establish that only one horse, not two, and therefore only one man, not two, had been involved in the hold-up. Rynne had seen “nothing to indicate that more than one horse had been tied up in the gully, or that one horse had been tied up in two places, nor did he find indications that more than one horse had been ridden out of the gully, or that a horse had been ridden down into the gully.”
8. Continuing the evidence given by Constable O’Brien, Tuesday 29th December
After Rynne came Constable Leonard Edward O’Brien, whose evidence regarding the actual hold-up we have already heard in Part Four. We pick up O’Brien’s testimony from the arrival of police reinforcements late on Wednesday afternoon, 9th December. Following a conversation with Gooch, O’Brien searched the surroundings, including the horse tracks in the gully “pointed out to him by Senior Detective Sergeant O’Driscoll.” O’Brien then returned to Mt Spec, where he overnighted.
Thursday morning, O’Brien went to Rollingstone and had a conversation with the three detectives, O’Driscoll, Gooch and Raetz. O’Brien then guided the police party to Edmonds’ hut at Ollera Gorge. When they arrived at Edmonds’, Edmonds shook hands with O’Brien and said, “Well, Len, you had a bit of bad luck yesterday, but you came out of it alright.” O’Brien replied, “Yes, but I was lucky.” Edmonds asked O’Brien “if they wanted any assistance or horses.” Edmonds had given Murray, one of the local volunteers, a message for O’Brien the afternoon before offering these, but O’Brien never received any such message.
Leaving Edmonds’ hut, the party proceeded to the scene of the hold-up, taking Edmonds with them. There followed a bit of “he said/ she said” kind of argument. Gooch informed Edmonds that O’Brien had identified him as the bandit; Edmonds replied that O’Brien was making a mistake; O’Brien said he had recognised Edmonds as he was running away. Edmonds “again said witness [O’Brien] was making a mistake, adding that he would not shoot a cobber.” [Author’s note: What was the existing relationship between O’Brien and Edmonds? O’Brien had known Edmonds for many years, but in what capacity. Why was he being called a ‘cobber’?] Then came “the dress rehearsal” so disparaged by Roberts. Edmonds put on the hat and coat while O’Brien and Gooch stood where O’Brien had been when he saw the bandit running away. O’Brien then “walked over to the defendant and told him he was making no mistake and the defendant was the man, and the latter replied he would not come at it for a few paltry pounds.” As they were leaving, Edmonds said, “Here goes the bushranger” and claimed “he would get out of it”. Edmonds even tried to get O’Brien to take a bet on his acquittal, offering to buy them both “a ticket in Tattersalls”, but O’Brien declined. Gooch then took Edmonds to Rollingstone and O’Brien returned to Mt. Spec to examine the utility truck.
On examining the ute, O’Brien could see where shot had hit both the hood and the mudguard. Mr. McClelland [Main Roads Overseer], handed O’Brien “some pellets and a tube of the car…the latter had a hole in it.” O’Brien “recognised a handkerchief produced as similar to that worn by defendant.” When O’Brien saw Edmonds the next day, Edmonds asked O’Brien to deliver a message to Gill, “to the effect that when Gill got to Townsville to go and see his father, and tell him he had been taken in on suspicion of holding-up the Mt. Spec pay, and that he had not been arrested.” Gill, Searle and “a half-caste” named Jimmy Tier had all been at Edmonds’ hut when the police arrived there. O’Brien had further conversations with Edmonds at Rollingstone, “during which defendant [Edmonds] told witness [O’Brien] he did not bear him any malice, and was satisfied he [O’Brien] was making an honest mistake,” to which O’Brien again disagreed. Edmonds “stated he had nothing to tell him [O’Brien] to prove his innocence.”
Roberts then began a vigorous cross-examination of O’Brien, upon whose identification of Edmonds the prosecution case rested. As only O’Brien’s responses are recorded in the Bulletin report, we can only surmise the text of Roberts’ questions, but there were many, and Roberts was persistent in putting his question to O’Brien. Rather than trying to summarise the line of questioning, I have included extracts below from the court report from the Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, page 11. The level of detail included in the court report confirms the level of public interest in this case. This report will be analysed in the next instalment. Police Prosecutor Blackmore either had little to ask of O’Brien, or the reporter neglected to include much of his cross-examination, for the column-inches given to Blackmore were miniscule in comparison. Blackmore merely established that “it was in consequence of what he [O’Brien] had told Detective Gooch that the police party went to defendant’s hut.” Once again, public holidays intervened. Edmonds’ bail was further extended and the case was adjourned to “Monday next, January 4th, at 11:30 a.m.”
9. An Analysis of Constable O’Brien’s evidence, given after lunch on Tuesday 29th December 1931
Roberts appears to have hammered O’Brien about his identification of Edmonds. If O’Brien was so confident Edmonds was the bandit, why had he suggested to Edmonds he would personally investigate anything Edmonds could tell him that would prove his innocence? Why had O’Brien not requested that men at the Main Roads camp accompany him back to the scene of the crime to pick up the dead bandit, as Stewart suggested they would find, but only to look for evidence. O’Brien had not asked Stewart then if he could identify the bandit. At Rollingstone on the Friday, while Killoran and Stewart were both there, O’Brien had not asked either to identify Edmonds as the offender. O’Brien also denied that either Killoran or Stewart had told him the bandit’s face was covered, not by a handkerchief, but by something that “came down to his chest”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien also denied hearing Killoran say “he had never seen Edmonds in his life”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11)
O’Brien had not given the search party a description of the offender, instead, he had told them it was Edmonds they were looking for. Roberts suggested that O’Brien arrested Edmonds on instructions from his superiors in Townsville, which O’Brien denied. When asked why he had not followed the bandit farther, O’Brien claimed that his first responsibility was to secure the payroll. He had only been an escort once before, about seven months previous. The desire to see the payroll safely delivered was the reason why O’Brien had not made any further investigations at the crime scene immediately after the hold-up. O’Brien was reprimanded for this by his superior officers. However, as O’Brien already knew who the culprit was, he did not consider it necessary to investigate further any details of his identification. He informed his superiors who the bandit was in a phone call from Main Roads Camp No. 1, within half an hour of the hold-up. (Daily Standard, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 15.)
Under pressure, O’Brien admitted that “if he had followed…[the]…defendant 100 yards or so, he may have been able to again recognise him, or he may have been able to shoot him”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien was not sure that the bandit had run directly to the gully, where the tracks were found. In the Brisbane Courier published on Wednesday 30th December 1931, O’Brien is reported as having called out during the hold-up, “That’s Charlie Edmonds, the __________.” (Author’s note: bastard?) Furthermore, O’Brien categorically denied telling a Main Roads Commission employee, a Mr. English, that the person responsible for the hold-up was a tall man, nor that he’d suggested to English they should go to the railway station to detain a tall man.
On the afternoon of the hold-up, O’Brien had asked searchers Murray and Ashley for assistance, but only to find the firearms or items of clothing. O’Brien had not given them a description of the bandit. Roberts queried whether O’Brien told Murray and Ashley that the bandit wore “a long khaki coat, like a motor driver’s coat, or that the bandit was wearing a mask and a slouch hat”, but this O’Brien denied. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien claimed a Mr. Murray did not tell him he was with Edmonds on the Wednesday morning. O’Brien appears to have interviewed a second Mr. Murray at Tealby’s, who said he’d ridden with Edmonds from Tealby’s to Mutarnee on the Wednesday morning, passing by the scene of the crime at about 11:50am. While this timing might have allowed Edmonds to be the bandit and get away, it did cast doubt on whether he would revisit the scene so soon afterwards.
When at Edmonds’ hut, O’Brien claimed he did not inform Edmonds that he was under suspicion, nor that he (O’Brien) was convinced Edmonds was the bandit. At Edmonds’ hut, O’Brien “had a conversation with Edmonds about the coat, but did not tell him it was the coat he was wearing the day before, although he was positive he had”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien denied telling Edmonds he could not identify the bandit.
O’Brien denied being involved in setting up the“dress rehearsal” but did admit that it was during this dress-up that he had identified Edmonds to Detective Gooch, in Edmonds’ presence. Later in the cross-examination, O’Brien denied telling Gooch that Edmonds was the man. O’Brien confirmed that he’d told Edmonds “he would be long sorry if he got…[the]…defendant into trouble or any one else”, when Edmonds insisted O’Brien’s identification of him was mistaken. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11) At the “dress rehearsal”, O’Brien did hear Sergeant O’Driscoll “tell Edmonds they did not want to put anything over him and that they were giving him every chance to clear himself, even though witness (O’Brien) had positively identified him for two days”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien also confirmed that Edmonds consistently denied any connection to the hold-up.
O’Brien acknowledged the inquiries made by other police around the district, “but he did not know why they did so, only because it was to give Edmonds a fair go”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien denied that members of the police party had expressed the opinion “that they could not prove it was Edmonds, unless…[the]…witness (O’Brien) identified him, and they never told (O’Brien) he was the sole person who could identify him”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11)
In answer to Sub-Inspector Blackmore’s apparently brief summing up, O’Brien confirmed that the police party went to Edmonds’ hut “in consequence of what he (O’Brien) had told Detective Gooch”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30th December 1931, p. 11)
The Police case seemed to rest on O’Brien’s identification of Charlie Edmonds.
10. The hearing resumes on Monday 4th January 1932
Six witnesses gave evidence on Monday’s resumption of the hearing in the Police Court, Police Magistrate George Cameron presiding. First to give evidence was Michael Killoran, the Main Roads Commission paymaster and storekeeper, who had commenced work at Mt Spec on 9th September 1931. Killoran travelled to Townsville every fortnight to bring the payroll back to Mt Spec the next day by rail motor. The total payroll on the day in question exceeded £400. Killoran’s evidence corroborated O’Brien’s up to the time of the hold-up, adding further detail to O’Brien’s description.
Killoran stated that the bandit when he fired the shots “appeared to be in a kneeling position, and was well disguised.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3.) Killoran confirmed his injury from one of the pellets from the first shot, which hit him just above his right eye. Asked to identify the clothing, Killoran considered that “the coat worn by the bandit was a little longer than that produced in Court.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3.) Killoran did not identify Edmonds as the bandit. “He would not say that defendant was similar to the man who staged the hold-up. He considered the bandit was about 5ft. 10in. in height, and was pretty active. There was too much undergrowth to be able to recognise the man.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3.) Cross-examined by Roberts, Killoran did admit that O’Brien “was in a more direct line and would have a better view of the man. At Rollingstone he (Killoran) was quite unable to identify defendant as the man.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3.)
Killoran had not used his revolver but corroborated the total number of shots fired as eight. After the first shot from the bandit, O’Brien had fired one shot from his revolver and the bandit returned fire, hitting the bonnet and mudguard of the truck. At this point, both Killoran and Stewart hastily exited the vehicle on opposite sides, Killoran tearing the sole off his boot in the process. Killoran took cover behind the bonnet of the vehicle. (Telegraph, Brisbane, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 1.) O’Brien had fired two more shots from his revolver, then “while the bandit, whom witness (Killoran) saw running up the hill, was getting away, the constable got a rifle from the back of the truck and fired three shots at the running figure, which was then some 60 yards distant.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 1.) The payroll party then proceeded to the Main Roads camp.
Next to give evidence was Edward George Howard, a labourer employed by Mr. Vivian Tealby. Howard stated that he knew Edmonds. On December 9th, at about 10:30 a.m., Howard “was gathering pineapples in front of Tealby’s house, when the pay lorry passed through the yards towards Mt. Spec.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3.) (Author’s note: Here we need to remember that the hold-up took place at 10:45 a.m., and that Tealby’s was between Edmonds’ hut and the scene of the hold-up.) Howard is reported as continuing, “about an hour later he saw defendant riding a chestnut horse in the direction of Tealby’s yard, coming from the direction of his hut. The horse was sweating freely, but he did not take particular notice of the defendant. He noticed defendant leaving Tealby’s, riding one horse and leading another, but neither of the horses was the chestnut.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3.) Cross-examined by Roberts, Howard agreed it had been a very hot day when Edmonds rode up to Tealby’s. (Author’s note: Perhaps this explained the sweating horse?) Howard had been close enough to identify Edmonds at Tealby’s, from 15 to 20 yards away. Howard knew that Edmonds had several horses at Tealby’s. (Author’s note: Of what significance is the fact that Edmonds changed horses?) Asked later by the Magistrate, Howard said he believed Edmonds had been wearing a blue shirt. (Author’s note: How does this compare to O’Brien’s description?)
On Wednesday 10th December, Howard was present when Edmonds, “in company with a party of police, brought the mare into the yard. He did not recognise the horse which he examined outside the Court as the one defendant rode that morning.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3.) (Author’s note: Which morning? The day of the hold-up, or the day the police arrived with Edmonds at Tealby’s?)
Howard next saw Edmonds a day or two later, when Edmonds had asked him “the general opinion of people in the district as regarded his case”, but Howard had said he did not know. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3.)
11. 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.
12. Concluding the evidence for the prosecution on Monday 4th January 1932
The timekeeper, Francis John Herbertson, was next to give evidence. Herbertson knew Edmonds only “slightly, in all seeing him on three occasions”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) On December 8th, he had been in his office at Mt. Spec when Edmonds and a man named Davies had arrived in a Ford car. Davies at the time was a Main Roads employee. He came into the office to ask permission to use the telephone, with Edmonds waiting until he’d finished. Edmonds came into Herbertson’s office where they had a general conversation, mostly about Edmonds starting a butchering business locally. The overseer, McClelland, had come into the office while Edmonds was there and Edmonds had asked McClelland to sell him four gallons of benzine, but McClelland refused. Roberts’ cross-examination elicited the information that Main Roads had previously had a policy of selling fuel to employees at cost price. Edmonds had made a casual remark about the number of employees on the Mt. Spec Road project, and that tomorrow’s pay would be a big one. Davies returned and both men left towards Moongabulla. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3)
Last to take the stand for the prosecution was James Murray, a labourer residing at Mutarnee. James Murray had known Edmonds for about 12 months. On the morning of the hold-up, he had gone to Tealby’s to get a horse, arriving between 7 and 8 a.m. Edmonds had arrived at about 11:30 a.m., “on a little chestnut mare which had a bit of a sweat up”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) Edmonds asked Murray where he was going. Murray was going home, but waited until Edmonds changed horses, turning the mare into Tealby’s paddock. Murray wanted to towards Rollingstone, but Edmonds wanted to go towards Mt. Spec, which Murray agreed to. They left together about 11:40 a.m. Edmonds was only at Tealby’s for about ten minutes. A couple of miles later, Edmonds had remarked “that someone had had a puncture.” This was near the scene of the crime. The tree lying across the road Murray recognised as one he had personally cut down “some two years ago.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3)
At this point, “His Worship called the witness to order on his behaviour in Court, and ordered him to restrain his language.” Unfortunately, we don’t know what Murray said or did to earn Cameron’s rebuke.
Continuing, Murray stated that they arrived home about 12:30 p.m. Edmonds had been wearing “a blue shirt and dungaree trousers, with a cowboy hat.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) Murray had recognised the mare as the one ridden by Edmonds, but said “the mare did not appear distressed.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3) Murray could not account for Edmonds changing horses to go to Mutarnee. Under cross-examination by Roberts, Murray stated that Edmonds said he was going to meet the train, but did not mention anything about the Mt Spec pay having arrived on time.
This concluded the case for the prosecution. Roberts contended that the only evidence was that of O’Brien, therefore no prima facie case existed. His Worship disagreed. Roberts then entered a plea of not guilty and pointed out he would call Edmonds and a witness for the defence on Tuesday and then ask for an adjournment until Friday, “to get further witnesses from the country.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5th January 1932, p. 3)
The Court then adjourned until 10:30 a.m. Tuesday 5th January.