Posts

Paluma History Stories: ‘Robbery Under Arms’ – Part Nineteen

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

A Local Mystery – We will never know who the bandit was

On January 8th 1932, Police Magistrate Geoffrey A. Cameron had committed Charles Henry Edmonds to stand trial in the first sittings of the Supreme Court for the year, scheduled to take place on 8th February. The case was handed to the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. T. P. Quinn, to prosecute in the Supreme Court. I have found only two small notices, one in the Townsville Daily Bulletin and the other in the Brisbane Courier, both published on Saturday 30th January 1932, that give us the ending to this tale.

Townsville Daily Bulletin, 30 Jan, 1932, p.15
Brisbane Courier, 30th January 1932, p. 15

So, what does this mean for Charlie Edmonds? A “No True Bill” is more properly known as nolle prosequi, the legal term for the Crown Prosecutor deciding not to proceed any further with the indictment. The decision not to proceed any further can be made by the prosecution at almost any stage of the trial, but particularly if the defence is successful on a voir dire (pre-trial application).

There are two possibilities here – either George Roberts was successful in convincing the Crown Prosecutor that the chances of securing a guilty verdict from a jury did not warrant proceeding further, or the Crown Prosecutor came to that conclusion himself upon review of the evidence.

For Charles Henry Edmonds, this meant the charges were dropped. Did he do it? Was there more than one bandit? We will probably never know.

Charges against Edmonds for the Mt. Spec hold-up apparently constituted his first ever brush with the law. Was it his last? Now, that’s another story………

Paluma History Stories: ‘Robbery Under Arms’ – Part Eighteen

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?

Paluma History Stories: ‘Robbery Under Arms’ – Part Seventeen

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.

On Friday 8th January 1932, evidence concluded with that of Thomas Murray and Arthur Ashman. Many regional newspaper reports provide no mention of their evidence e.g. Toowoomba Chronicle and Darling Downs Gazette, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 6; Telegraph, Brisbane, Friday 8th January 1932, p. 2 – article repeated in the Telegraph, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 2; Cairns Post, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 5.)

The Brisbane Truth provides a brief summary of their evidence for the defence. Murray was a labourer, resident in the district. Ashman was an employee of the Main Roads Board. Their evidence was given

“in detail, regarding Constable O’Brien’s request for assistance in tracking the bushranger.

The description of the bandit, which the constable supplied to them was that of a tall, thin man wearing a dirty white shirt over the outside of his trousers, with a dirty piece of cloth over his face, and no hat on.

Both stated that O’Brien never at any time mentioned that Edmonds was the man concerned in the hold-up.” (Truth, Brisbane, Sunday 10th January 1932, p. 9.)

Once again, the Bulletin satisfies local interest with a detailed coverage. Both Murray and Ashman had been in the party of MRC employees involved in the initial search on the afternoon of the hold-up. Thomas Murray was a labourer employed on the Mt. Spec Road. He had been a local resident “for a number of years.” The report of Murray’s evidence continues:

On December 9 he saw Constable O’Brien at the office at Mt Spec road, who told him that there had been a hold-up, and asked witness’ assistance. O’Brien gave a description of the man. Saying he was a tall thin man and was wearing a dirty white shirt pulled down over his trousers, and that he was not wearing a hat. Witness then left for the scene of the hold-up on his own. O’Brien asked him if he could get a horse, which he considered he could get at Tealby’s. They then left, witness riding across country to Tealby’s, arriving there about the same time as the lorry.

That afternoon at O’Brien’s request, he (Murray) and a man named Ashby went searching the locality, calling- at Edmonds’ place during the day. The latter offered his assistance, but he (Murray) did not communicate this to O’Brien. O’Brien never suggested to him that Edmonds was the man.

On Thursday morning he met a party of police at the scene of the hold-up, and they told htm to search for tracks. The trackers found the tracks of a horse, and they asked witness if he rode through this certain spot in the gully, and he replied in the affirmative. They requested him to ride his horse again through the gully, and he did so. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 7.)

Once again, we can only surmise the actual questions posed by Sub-Inspector Blackmore in his cross-examination of Murray. The Bulletin report continues:

O’Brien would be lying if he said he did not describe the bandit, nor did he ask witness to search round far any strangers in that locality. He (Murray) also went to Gill’s place, after calling at Edmonds and Tealby’s. Edmonds and Tear were the only persons at the former’s hut, where he told them they were looking for a bushranger. He remained at Edmonds about an hour, although he had only known defendant a few months. Gill was quite surprised when he heard of the hold-up.

He (Murray) rode a chestnut horse with medium size hoofs when he set out from Mt. Spec.

O’Brien did not tell witness not to go to Edmonds’ place, nor did he tell O’Brien on the following morning that he had not been to Edmonds’ hut. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 7.)

Rainforest Biodiversity: 5 easy species Part 4 – Fungi

By Jamie Oliver

Fungi are an amazingly diverse group that includes not only mushrooms, coral, bracket, stinkhorn, and jelly fungi (to mention but a few), but also yeasts, moulds, and an assortment of nasty parasitic organisms that prey on both plants and animals. There is also a range of fungi that specialise in symbiotic relationships with other organisms e.g., lichens (fungus + alga + other micro-organisms), and mycorrhizae that are an important symbiont with the roots of many Australian trees. There are about 13,000 species of fungi formally named and recorded in Australia, although estimates put the real number  closer to 250,000, including 5,000 species of mushrooms (of which only 5% have been named)1

Note: Many of us enjoy the edible mushroom which we usually purchase from the supermarket. There are other edible Australian wild fungi but we do not recommend that you try any of the fungi mentioned below or indeed any that you might find around Paluma – they are likely to be toxic and can cause serious harm!

Fungus identification often requires experience and technical skills, but there is a reasonable number that are so visually distinctive that almost no skills other than a good eye are needed to make an identification. The following 5 easy species are very distinctive, and at least during the wet season, they are fairly common along Paluma’s tracks.

1. Cyptotrama asprata (Golden Scruffy Collybia)

This distinctive and beautiful orange mushroom can be found along the H-track as well as other local tracks. The colour and prickly-looking surface of the cap are diagnostic. It grows in small groups on dead wood on the forest floor and is found worldwide in the tropics.

2.    Leucocoprinus fragilissimus (Fragile Dapperling)

This dainty (and fragile) mushroom starts off with a rounded bell-shaped cap that becomes flat then slightly convex with age. The cap is generally cream coloured with varying degrees of yellow in the centre. It is quite common on local forest tracks. Even a gentle touch is likely to damage the cap. It is found on all continents.

3.    Filoboletus manipularis – Soldier Pore Fungus

This common wet-season mushroom forms large clumps on both living tree trunks and old fallen logs. It has a pale brown central cap surrounded by pale cream to white, with a white speckled stem. It differs from other clumping fungi on trees in that it has distinctive reticulate pattern of pores under that cap instead of linear gills.  Some strains of this mushroom are bioluminescent; however, this does not seem to be true of the ones around Paluma.

4.    Stereum ostrea – Golden Curtain Crust

This fungus is commonly found on fallen logs. When still growing and the weather is damp, they form deep orange concave fans that grow out and up from a narrow base that remains attached to the log. The lower surface of the thin fan is smooth while the upper surface often displays concentric rings that vary in shade. In older specimens that are starting to dry the colours change to rings of grey, brown and green. Eventually they completely dry out and become papery crusts that crumble away. The fan can sometimes split radially as it grows. Individuals can occur singly or cover the length of large logs.

5.    Dacryopinax spathularia – Fan-shaped Jelly Fungus

This is a beautiful and common fungus that can be found as small yellow/orange blades poking out of cracks in dead wood or as larger convoluted fans. It has a rubbery texture and often grows in clusters following grooves in old lumber. It may even be found on the wooden exterior walls of local buildings.

Paluma History Stories: ‘Robbery Under Arms’ – Part Sixteen

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

Continuing evidence for the defence, Tuesday 5th January 1932

After lunch, Roberts called Edward/ Edwin Gill to the stand. Gill “gave evidence as to the defendant’s movements on the day of the hold-up, saying that he had seen him at breakfast, later at 10:15 a.m. when the defendant returned to the camp, and again at 10:30, when he gave him a message for Tear.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 9.)

Again, the local press gives us the most detailed report. Gill stated that

“on December 9 last he resided at Ollera Gorge, carrying on farming with William Searle. Since then they had dissolved partnership. His house was 100 yards from Edmonds’ hut. On December 9 he saw Edmonds early in the morning, about 7 o’clock. He was in company with tear, but he did not see him with Searle. Later on, he saw defendant riding back to his hut, and also saw him leave again in about a quarter of an hour’s time. Defendant left a message with witness to tell Tear not to leave till defendant arrived back. Witness (Gill) asked defendant the time and defendant told him 10:30 a.m. Witness returned to his camp 10 minutes later, where he noticed the time was 10:45 a.m.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p.7.)

(Author’s note: Remember that Gooch had informed Edmonds that the hold-up took place at 10:45 a.m.)

Gill was then cross-examined by Sub-Inspector Blackmore. As only Gill’s responses are reported, we can only guess what the questions were.

“He (Gill) had only known defendant (Edmonds) about two months. At 8 o’clock that morning witness (Gill) was out horse-hunting. Tear and defendant were the only men residing at the latter’s hut. That morning Searle visited a farmer’s place near Ollera Creek, where they make concrete pipes, and returned later on, about 11:30, although he was not certain of the hour. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p.7.)

(Author’s note: The concrete pipes made on Ollera Creek now form the culverts under Mt. Spec Road. Initially, there was some concern about the quality of the concrete achieved, samples of which were sent south each week by rail for slump testing. This might explain why some pipes have failed after 80 years.)

Gill continued, answering question apparently designed to establish the times of Edmonds movements on the day of the hold-up: Gill “was working on the front gate from about 9 a.m. till 10:45 a.m., when he went to his house to knead some bread which he had set the previous night, and in 12 hours the bread had not risen. As far as witness knew Tear was employed by the defendant. Tear returned on horseback, but he (Gill) did not know the time. It would be untrue if Tear said witness told him Edmonds had just left. Defendant did not tell witness to tell Tear it was 10:30 when defendant left. He did not know what defendant wanted Tear for.”

Blackmore must have asked Gill for his opinion on Edmonds’ sweating horse: “On December 9, Tear and defendant mustered cattle in the afternoon. The condition of defendant’s horse was nothing unusual when it came home, because it was a hot horse.”

Gill was also asked for the time it would have taken a rider to travel from the hold-up, the location of which Gill was not certain of, to Tealby’s the long way round, via the property boundary: “Defendant would not have been able to go right round the boundary in the morning….It would take approximately an hour to ride from the scene of the hold-up to defendant’s hut and from there to Tealby’s. It would be shorter to go direct from the scene of the ambush to Tealby’s”. Blackmore seems to have been trying to discount Edmonds’ alibi of coming to Tealby’s from the direction of his hut, not from the direction of the hold-up. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p.7.)

Roberts was granted an adjournment to Friday 8th January, to allow other witnesses to appear. Edmonds’ bail was further extended. (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 9.)

Rainforest Biodiversity: 5 easy species Part 3 – Bryophytes

By Andi Cairns

Bryophytes, the collective name for mosses, leafy and thalloid liverworts, and hornworts, are generally small, inconspicuous plants. They are often overlooked but are extraordinarily diverse. Most people will walk past a mossy log in the rainforest without giving it a second glance…but did you know that there could be 5 or more species of bryophytes there? And they aren’t all ‘moss’!

Diversity is particularly high in the rainforests of the Wet Tropics. Of the 950+ species of mosses listed for the Australian continent, over 414 species have been recorded for north-eastern Queensland – almost 45% of the total! They are uncommon on the forest floor as they are quickly covered by fallen leaves, so look for bryophytes on earth banks, rotting logs, rocks, in streams, on the bark of trees and vines and on tree fern trunks (epiphytes), and as tiny communities on the upper surface of leaves (epiphylls). 

Characters that separate bryophyte species are often difficult to identify without the aid of a microscope but there are several taxa that are easy to recognise with the naked eye – so for the Bryophytes section we’ll go with ‘5 easy genera’!

1.    Leucobryum – moss
A rotting log covered with Leucobryum , H-track, Paluma
Leucobryon leaves appear pale green or whitish

Many rotting logs in the Paluma rainforest provide substrate for Leucobryum. The genus takes its name from the Greek leukos = white and bryon = moss.  Six species of this white moss have been recorded from the Wet Tropics, of which four may be found at Paluma, growing on tree trunks and roots, dead wood, rocks, and occasionally on soil. Most mosses have leaves that are one cell thick but Leucobryum is an exception. Leaves are up to 3-, sometimes 4-cells thick with small cells containing chloroplasts sandwiched between large, hyaline (clear) cells – which is why Leucobryum looks pale green or whitish compared with other mosses

2. Lopidium – moss
Loppodium struthiopteris, Witt’s Lookout walk

Lopidium grows on saplings and tree trunks and could easily be mistaken for a miniature fern. Fronds can be up to 9 cm long but are often shorter. Unlike most mosses, which have leaves in a spiral arrangement around the stem, Lopidium has leaves that appear flattened in one plane. Australia has two species of Lopidium – L. concinnum and L. struthiopteris. Both are recorded from Paluma.



3.    Hampeella – moss

Two species of Hampeella are known from the Wet Tropics – H. pallens, also known from Malesia and Taiwan, and the endemic H. concavifolia. Both species occur in the Paluma rainforest, attached to saplings or twigs (epiphytic), and occasionally growing along leaf margins (epiphylls). Stems of this bright green moss are 3–7cm long, often shorter.

Hampeella pallens growing on a sapling at Paluma
4. Rosulabryum – moss

Rosulabryum is a genus of mosses recorded from most Australian States. Eleven species have been listed for the Wet Tropics but only five species occur in the vicinity of Paluma, growing on tree trunks or on the forest floor, often in large mats. Spirally arranged and usually clustered in a rosette, leaves are quite large (up to 6 mm long) – if you look closely you may see that each leaf has a central midrib (known as a ‘costa’).

Rosulabryum sp growing on a tree trunk at Rosulabryum sp leaf
McClellands Lookout the central midrib = costa
5. Bazzania – leafy liverwort

A closer look at the ‘mossy’ trunks of trees will reveal they are often not covered with moss at all!

The leafy liverwort Bazzania is common on tree trunks and branches or growing intermixed with mosses such as Leucobryum. Look closely at the log covered with Leucobryum along the H-track. At the lower edge of the log you’ll find a band of Bazzania adnexa.  Twenty-nine species of Bazzania have been recorded for the Wet Tropics, many of which occur in the Paluma rainforest. All Bazzania species have two rows of lateral leaves, a row of ventral leaves (underleaves), and fine branchlets with minute leaves arising from the axils of underleaves. The shape and size of the underleaves aid in identification of Bazzania species.

  • Bazzania sp. covering a tree trunk, Witts Lookout walking track
  • Bazzania adnexa showing underleaves and fine branchlets with reduced leaves
  • Bazzania adnexa, one of the many species of Bazzania recorded from Paluma

Found an interesting bryophyte in your garden?
Andi would be happy to identify it!
Contact Andi: andi.cairns@bigpond.com

Rainforest biodiversity: 5 easy species Part 2 – Ferns

By Jamie Oliver

Ferns are common plants found almost everywhere in the rainforest, from the forest floor, on logs, in tree canopies and on trunks, and growing as tall ‘tree ferns’. Ferns are a group of vascular plants that lack flowers and seeds. (The term ’vascular’ refers to specialised structures that conduct water, minerals, and nutrients around the plant.) The life cycle of a fern has two distinct stages – the larger plants that we are familiar with produce spores on their leaves, spores later germinate in damp areas into tiny plants that sexually reproduce – thereby completing the cycle to form new spore-producing plants.  Some ferns can be tricky to identify and require inspection of the placement of spores on the fronds, but there are quite a few that have distinctive features, readily distinguishable by a careful novice observer.

1.    Rebecca’s Tree Fern (Cyathea rebeccae)
Frond of Rebecca’s Tree Fern

Although many gardens around Paluma have tree ferns with robust trunks reaching up to 10 metres or more in height (Cyathea cooperi) the most common tree fern you will encounter along the shady walking tracks near the village is Rebecca’s Tree Fern. This species has a distinctive slender trunk and deep green glossy fronds that are ‘bipinnate’ (see leaf types below).  Rebecca’s Tree Fern is also commonly found along the sides of smaller roads (eg. back of Lennox Cr.) where its ability to produce suckers around the main stem (an unusual feature in a tree fern) allows it to form small clumps.  These young suckers can be mistaken for some other fern since the fronds don’t form secondary leaflets (they are pinnate rather than bipinnate).  Uncommon in the Paluma rainforest but more widespread in the north, Cyathea robertsiana is the only other species of tree fern that has a slender trunk . It can be distinguished from Rebecca’s tree fern by its more delicate fronds, with leaflets that are deeply lobed.

Types of fronds
Deeply lobed leaflets of the Lacy Tree Fern

2.    Bird’s nest fern (Asplenium australasicum)

The bird’s nest fern is a well-known feature of the Wet Tropics and easy to recognise by its elongate simple fronds arising from a central area that often accumulates leaf litter and the occasional seedling of other plants. This fern is generally epiphytic (growing on other plants) and along the walking tracks is usually found on tree limbs high up in the forest, although in well-lit areas (and gardens) it can be found on logs or tree trunks near the forest floor. Asplenium australasicum is by far the most common bird’s nest fern around Paluma and can be identified (if it is low enough) by checking the mid-rib of one of the larger fronds.  A. australasicum has a prominent triangular raised mid-rib on the lower surface of the frond, while the upper surface is much smoother.  Another species (A. nidus) which is less likely to occur has a prominent rounded mid-rib on the upper surface of its fronds while the lower surface is smooth.

3. King Fern (Angiopteris evecta)

While it is not a tree fern with a defined trunk, this fern has the largest fronds in the world (up to 9m long) and its base can be 3m across. Such giant specimens are more common around the Daintree, but smaller specimens (fronds up to 1.5m) can be found reliably along the banks of most creeks around the village.  It is most easily recognised by the large glossy pinnate fronds and by their bulbous base. There are examples of this fern on either side of the foot bridges halfway along the H-Track, and at the far end of the Rainforest Track.

4. Elkhorn Fern (Platycerium bifurcatum)

This is a common epiphytic fern around Paluma and can be found on trees from nearly ground level to the crown. It can grow to an enormous size and will occasionally overbalance a small tree and cause it to fall over. The primary erect fronds are flattened and divided into large fingers or lobes at the margin. The fronds are initially erect but then hang down to cover the base. The base is formed from flat guard leaves that turn brown. The elkhorn fern has multiple centres of frond growth, which distinguishes it from the staghorn fern (more likely found in open forests) which has only one centre.

5.    Gristle Fern (Blechnum cartilagineum)

The gristle fern is a glossy leaved fern of the forest floor that has beautiful pink new fronds. The fern can be distinguished from most others along the Paluma tracks by the shape of the leaf and the fact that the lobes or leaflets of each frond extend onto the central axis and merge with the adjacent leaflet. Most other ferns of this shape and habit have distinct leaflets arising from the bare central stem.

One other fairly common species of fern has this form of merged central leaflets along the stem but it also has small leaf-like lobes extending down the base, whereas in C. cartilageneum the base of the stem is bare. The patterns of veins on the leaflets are also quite distinctive – they occur in pairs that arise from a single point on the central stem.

Vein pattern on underside of leaflet Frond showing bare base

Paluma History Stories: ‘Robbery Under Arms’ – Part Fifteen

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

Continuing Edmonds’ evidence in his defence, Tuesday 5th January 1932

Following the first visit to the scene of the hold-up, Detective O’Driscoll had a conversation with Edmonds, saying that Edmonds “had not given sufficient explanation to clear himself and he would have to go to Rollingstone, which witness did, remaining there until the following afternoon before going to the scene a second time.” (Cairns Post, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p.3.)

Constable O’Brien had said: “’We’re a pretty lucky lot and we’ll take a ticket in Tatts.’ Witness (Edmonds) agreed and O’Brien said: ‘We’ll call it the Hit and Miss Syndicate’ and witness said: ‘Call it what you like.’’’ (Cairns Post, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p.3.)

Edmonds continued to assert his innocence and recounted the police conversation he had overheard “when they returned to the scene of the hold-up about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, he heard Gooch say: ‘We have nothing on this bird. The only thing to do is to identify him and stand by it. We’ll put a hat and coat on him and dress him up and let O’Brien identify him.’” Edmonds overheard the same “conversations among the police, who were taking shifts in watching witness. He heard them say they had ‘nothing on that bird’ and the only thing was for O’Brien to stick to his identification.”

(Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 9)

“Detective Gooch asked him to don the hat and coat found in the witness’s hut, and on doing so, Gooch asked of Constable O’Brien, ‘What do you think of it?’ and he replied, ‘No mistake, I think that’s the man, and coat, too’”. (Daily Standard, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p.2.)

The Brisbane Courier reported that Edmonds denied the hat was his. Also reported was Edmonds’ recounting of how “Gooch told him to walk in the direction the bushranger ran. The witness immediately retorted: ‘How do I know which way he ran?’ Witness walked 10 or 15 yards besides Gooch, who asked O’Brien: ‘What do you think of it?’” (Brisbane Courier, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 14)

Once again, significant local interest in the case meant that the Townsville Daily Bulletin gave the most detailed coverage. We pick up the Bulletin’s report of Edmonds’ evidence from the time of the second afternoon’s visit to the scene of the crime.

The police commenced talking amongst themselves in various groups, and he (Edmonds) heard Detective Gooch say to Constable O’Brien they had nothing on him and the only thing to do was for Constable O’Brien to identify him.

Sometime after he put the hat and coat on, and denied the hat belonged to him. The hat was too big for him, coming down over his ears.

They then asked him to stand behind the ambush, and also asked him to walk the way the bandit ran away, whereupon he stated he did not know in which direction the bandit went in.

As he walked back towards the road, Detective Gooch asked Constable O’Brien what he thought of it, and Constable O’Brien replied there was no mistake and considered it was the man and the coat. He told Constable O’Brien he was making a mistake, but he disagreed with defendant, and if he were, it was an honest mistake, and he would be the sorriest man in the world. He had a duty to perform. Defendant told him he could always come to his camp.

Detective Senior Sergeant O’Driscoll told defendant that he had not given him sufficient proof, and asked him to accompany him to Rollingstone, which he did, staying there until the following afternoon.

Before arriving at the scene of the hold-up on the second occasion, Constable O’Brien said they were a pretty lucky lot and they would take a ticket In Tatts’. To which he (Edmonds) agreed, Constable O’Brien saying they would call it the Hit and Miss syndicate. Defendant told Constable O’Brien he was a lucky man, and the bandit was either a bad shot, or else did not want to shoot him.

At Rollingstone, he overheard a conversation in which they (the police) said they had nothing on defendant, and the only thing would be for Constable O’Brien to keep to his identification. Neither Killoran or Stewart identified him at Rollingstone.

He (Edmonds) was subsequently brought to Townsville and arrested. He had nothing to do with the hold-up, neither was he in the vicinity at 10.45 that morning. He had not ridden the chestnut mare in that locality on the previous day.

It was a deliberate lie by Gooch that defendant stated in the train that he (Edmonds) was out mustering on the day of the hold-up with two girls. It was an untruth also he referred to two other girls. At the watchhouse, Detective Gooch told defendant he had interviewed some girls at Mutarnee who had denied being out mustering with defendant Detective Gooch added they were the only two girls at Mutarnee that rode about.

At the hotel at Rollingstone, Detective Gooch said that the fact alone that defendant said the bandit was a bad shot or did not want to shoot Constable O’Brien was sufficient proof.

The Court then adjourned for lunch.”

(Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 7)

Edmonds evidence took two hours to deliver. He “concluded saying he had nothing to do with the hold-up, nor was he in the vicinity at the time.” (Daily Standard, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p.2.)

Bud Jones – The man of flowers

Paluma’s very long – term resident, Bud Jones, was a lover of flowers .

Bud resided on HusseyRoad from the 1940s until his death about 20 years ago. He owned three leasehold blocks totalling 15 acres on which he and his wife Nancy lived in a succession of dwellings with their two children before partially building a brick house at no 7 where he started a flower farm business featuring Gladioli of many hues.

He also planted many native flowering trees which still stand today as well as a number of exotics of which the Tibouchina Astonville pictured ( above/ below ) is a luminous example. Indeed , this tree is believed to be the progenitor of the many Tibouchinas around the Village. Whilst the naming of the Village Green after Bud was repealed some years ago his “budding”  legacy can be seen in the numerous gladioli and rain lillies  popping up around the District.

Well done Bud!

Text & Photo by Michael Drew