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?