Family History
2013 Copyright Ruzsicska
KENAVAN, William (1838-1880)

Extract from Thomas McGeorge's letter to his grandmother,
28 Dec 1876 regarding his stepfather
Kenavan has gone out to the Nelson River which I think is a good riddance as I should have been compelled to have sue (sic) him for illegally branding my cattle and disposing of them, had he not gone out and I would do so now if it was not for my poor old mother for I know that it would hurt her feelings greatly but however the old adage says (give a fool long enough rope and he will hang himself) so it is with him.

The Queenslander, 20 Sept 1879
LOWER BARCOO - Aug 24.
At the Police Court, isisford, on the 20th instant, before Mr. W.C. Cardew, P.M., William Kenevan (sic) of Maroo station, was charged on the information of James Hammond, of Tenham station, both of Riebed creek, with having on the 4th July last, at Maroo, wilfully branded two heifers, of which he was not the rightful owner, with his registered brand T2K. Mr J. Ahern, inspector of brands for the district, while on a tour of inspection, turned up at Isisford on the evening of the 19th, and undertook the conduct of the prosecution. The evidence of James Hammond, Martin Hammond, and Charles Haylock (the latter a servant in the employ of the defendant) clearly proved that the heifers were the property of complainant, and fully identified them, it was also proved that they were branded by Kenevan (sic), and that they were found branded in his possession. Haylock swore that one of the two heifers, the subject of the prosecution, was kept by the defendant in his yard with otheres for five days and four nights without grass or water, except one drink. James Eastman, a stockman in the employment of Ward and Parker, of Retreat station, was called for the defence, but his evidence was not of much value; after which the defendant was convicted in a penalty of
£20, and £22 10s. costs of court and witnesses' expenses; in default the usual alternative. the fine was paid. This is the first case of its kind at Isisford; and it is to be hoped that it will have a good effect, and act as a warning to others.

The Brisbane Courier, 27 Aug 1879
Mr. Inspector Ahern, of Blackall, has long been a terror to cattle duffers in the Mitchell district. We learn from a correspondent that at his instance, William Kenavan was fined by the Isisford bench, on the 23rd instant, £42 10s, including costs, for branding calves belonging to Mr Hammond, a cattle-owner in the neighborhood.


BARTLETT, Sarah Ann (1843-1934) &
Edmund (1848-1927)

Shoalhaven Telegraph, 7 Nov 1888
The Shoalhaven Bench of Magistrates were yesterday wearied with the hearing fo two very trivial cases brought before them as the outcome of a neighbourly disagreement. In the one case Mrs Nancy Thicknesse summoned Mrs Sarah Ann Bartlett for using insulting language towards her on the 25th September last, and in the other (which came before the Bench in its capacity of a Court of Requests) Edward [should read Edmund] Bartlett sued Mrs Thicknesse for slander, claiming damages amounting to £10. Mr T. Marriott appeared for Mrs Thicknesses, and Mr W.P. Blackmore for the Bartletts. Before either case was proceeded with, the Police Magistrate strongly advised the litigants to amicably adjust their differences if it were possible for them to do so, pointing out that a quarrel of this sort would only lead to further unpleasantness if ventilated in Court. The legal gentlemen concerned both deprecated either case proceeding further, but after retiring with their clients announced as the result of their joint conference that the parties were quite unable to come to terms, and evidence was therefore called on either side in both cases, which occupied the Court till 2 p.m. The Bench were unanimous in dismissing both cases, remarking at the same time on the very unsatisfactory nature of the evidence which was most contradictory, one set of witnesses flatly denying the testimony of the others and vice versa.


McGEORGE, Thomas Llewellyn (1882-1968)

The Northern Miner, 11 Feb 1919
One of the most sensational cases known in the history of police annals in Charleville has just transpired.
About November last year a grazier named T.L. McGeorge was arrested on a charge of having stolen 180 odd sheep off Thylungra Station. The accused was tried at the Adavale Police Court and committed to the criminal sittings of the District Court to be held on March 20th. The sheep were brought here, where they have been watched in the police paddock, three miles from town, two constables doing duty by shepherding them by night. During the last two days or nights a most daring feat was performed, when the sheep were again stolen from the police, had their throats cut, and were burned.
The police are much handicapped, as they are short handed through so many men being away patrolling the borders. All the available police and black trackers are now out searching.
Police Inspector Harlan declines to furnish any information at this state remarking it is a departmental matter, but says there is ample evidence yet left for the police, as the malcontents did not get all the sheep. They missed a few strong ones in the paddock. Several skins with the earmarks destroyed are now at the police station. It is believed that several arrests are likely to be made tonight or tomorrow in connection with the case.


The Northern Miner, 22 Mar 1919
THE THYLUNGRA CASE
CHARLEVILLE, March 20.
Thomas Llewellyn McGeorge was before the District Court today, Mr Acting Judge Drake presiding. Mr W. Salkeld was Crown Prosecutor, and Mr J.W. Blair appeared for accused. The case lasted all day.
Constable Dunke gave evidence of having arrested McGeorge on a charge of having stolen 188 sheep from Thylungra Station, the property of Forsyth, Philp and Munro, in September last.
T.J. Toohey, overseer of Kyabra; Buckley, a boundary rider; David Williams, an aboriginal, and E.J. Pegler also gave evidence.
It was stated that a total of 177 of these sheep had been stolen from the police after the accused had been committed for trial at Charleville. Only 11 sheep were produced, and none of the witnesses could swear to these being the same sheep or portion of them.
Mr. Blair asked His Honor to state there was no case to go to a jury, as the stolen property had not been produced, but His Honor declined to do so.
No evidence was called for the defence, and after the Crown Prosecutor had addressed the jury, the case was adjourned till tomorrow, when Mr. Blair will address the jury.

CHARLEVILLE, March 21.
The case in which Thomas McGeorge, grazier, owner of Lynwood selection, Eromanga, was charged with stealing 188 sheep from Thylungra station was concluded today.
After Mr Blair had addressed the jury, the Judge summed up and the jury after 40 minutes retirement brought in a verdict of not guilty.


HORSINGTON, Edward Matthew (1879-1947)

The Longreach Leader, 18 Oct 1929
DISGRACEFUL SCENE IN N.S.W. PARLIAMENT, SYDNEY
One of the most disgraceful scenes for years occurred in the N.S.W. Parliament last night during an attack on the Government because of the proposal to abolish compensation to miners at Broken Hill suffering from Silicosis. Mr Horsington, Member for Sturt, in a violent outburst shook his fists and shouted at the Premier "You _____ murderer." Mr Bavin called out, "You are drunk. Sit down." Mr Horsington was ejected, but expressed a desire to apoligise, and was allowed to return to the house.
Also See Obituaries H


Rantings re alleged bad behaviour
GEAKE, Llewelyn T Hockridge (1829-1866)

The Pastoral Times, 31 January 1863
A POLITE LETTER ABOUT THE WENTWORTH IMPOUNDINGS
with a few notes added.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE 'PASTORAL TIMES'
Sir- In conning over your issue of the 10th inst. my attention was drawn to a very pretty little paragrah headed "Impounding Notices in the
Gazette".

Do, in future, my dear Sir, before you attempt to pass strictures on my business conduct, endeavor to possess yourself of the facts. Had you even read the advertisement correctly you would have seen that no bullocks were or ever have been advertised by me as having been impounded from Wilberturra.

As to the very dangerous ground on which according to your theory, I am treading, viz - the time fixed for the sale of impounded cattle if not recovered by the owners, permit me for for a moment.

Really, Mr. Editor, I thought you knew better than to commit such an egregious blunder as you have done. Is not a written notice of any cattle or horses having been impounded, affixed to the walls of our conspicuous Court house a sufficiently public notice of such impounding?

Is not a written notice of such cattle or horses having been impounded, placed on a conspicuous part of the pound fence, a public notice of such impounding?

Are you aware (but I know that you must be) that before I can sell a beast out of the Pound I must have a written order in my Pound-book from the Bench of Magistrates authorising me to do so; and that the date on which they shall be sold if not released, is and always has been subject to their decision?

But I know well where you, my dear Sir, are at fault. Allow me to set you right. Take, if you please, into your kind consideration the time that must of necessity elapse between the date of my act of impounding, and that on which with my utmost exertion I am able to get the same into print, and you will see that if I were stupid enough to wait until I saw the advertisement of the said horses or cattle having been impounded and then had to wait another twenty-four hours before I sold them, I should be open to a still more serious charge than that which you have been graciously pleased to bring against me, viz - an illegal detention of such cattle or horses.
I am Sir,
Yours most thankfully,
L.T.H. GEAKE., Wentworth Jan 19th

Our extremely courteous correspondent will observe that we have refrained from matching him in the expense of an advertisement for inserting his "registered" letter, thinking that publishing it in our "Open Column" was really punishment enough. But perhaps we are wrong in censuring Mr. Geake - the letter is only signed by him, and is evidently the production of another but inconsiderate writer. That "two heads are better than one" receives no illustration in this case, for if we mistake not, they have simply befooled each another. Anyhow however, the letter is not without interest as it places before us, the views entertained by a Poundkeeper or his friend of some important provisions of the law which the former has to administer. But to the point - what were the facts on which we commented on the 10th inst. That - on the 6th Dec, Mr. Geake received sundry horses and cattle at the Wentworth pound; it is immaterial where they came from. They were advertised as impounded in the
Gazette of the 23rd and notified to be sold on the 30th December, that is seven days after publication, and that is seven days before the Gazette could reach the locality for the information of the public. Mr. Geake appears to think that proceeding corrects our reason for thinking differently is drawn from the 21st clause of the 19 Vict. No. 36 which is as follows:
All sales of cattle impounded and by virtue of this Act shall take place on the tenth day after the same, shall have been impounded in all cases where notices of impounding shall have been given to the owner, or his agent or overseer by delivering the same to him personally, or by leaving the same on his usual place of abode, and in all other cases on the twenty-fourth day after such notices have been dispatched through the general post or inserted in the
Government Gazette unless the said tenth day or twenty-fourth day as the case may be, shall happen to be Sunday &c. Thus the day of sale should have been the 16th of January, not the 30th December. Mr Geake thinks it would have been very stupid of him to have waited until he had seen the advertisement, perhaps so. Seeing was not necessary. But waiting until the provisions of the Act were fulfilled was. As a sensible man, Mr. Geake should know something of the ordinary course of post between his Pound and Sydney, and allow sufficient margin for due publicity. If that be not assured, what is the object of sending to the Gazette at all. If our correspondents will peruse their Gazettes they will find that Poundkeepers in fixing their days of sale for cattle take into account their respective distances from the metropolis, so that what we refer to, is attained. And where no date is given, we have the words "twenty-four days from the date of publication." In doing as Mr. Geake did, we said he was treading on dangerous ground - we think so still. In 1860, Mr. Palmer, of the Mulwala Pound was find £50 for similar conduct.
In what way does the fact of the horses coming from Wilberturra and the cattle from Tarcoola affect the issue?
These, as our correspondent must know, are generally formal proceedings. A check is provided against blundering, but a Poundkeeper should not depend too much on the Bench - he is, of course, expected to have met the requirements of the law at affecting his own business.

The Pastoral Times, date unknown
We have received another letter from Mr. Geake on this matter; he professes still be unconvinced, but we can't help that. Our space is too valuable to be devoted to an interminable controversy about such a very simple matter. If our correspondent has "really" a conviction that he is right, we should recommend him to apply to some professional gentleman to whose opinion he could repose confidence.