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
BARTLETT, Sarah Ann (1843-1934) &
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
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
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
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
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
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