Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c07/h03/mnt/178353/domains/unfitforpublication.org.au/html/plugins/system/gantry/gantry.php on line 406
1900, Sunda Ram and Bassantha - Unfit For Publication
Text Size

 


Below also see: Delph Singh and Sunda Khan, 1900 – Perjury

 

Clarence and Richmond Examiner and New England Advertiser, Sat 25 Aug 1900 1

POLICE COURTS.
————

At Grafton, on Tuesday, before the PM.

    Sunda Ram and Bassantha were charged with an unnatural offence. Mr Dowling appeared for accused, who were remanded to yesterday; bail refused.

POLICE COURTS.
————

At Grafton, yesterday, before the PM.

    Sunda Ram and Bassantha, on remand, were charged with committing an unnatural offence on one Thelpe Sing. Mr Everingham for the prosecution; Mr Dowling for defendants.

    The parties in this case are Indians, and the alleged offence took place on Carr’s Creek. A considerable amount of evidence was taken, but the details are wholly unfit for publication.

    No evidence was called for the defence. Accused reserved their defence, and were committed to take their trial at the Circuit Court, to be held at Grafton on 16th October, bail allowed each accused in £200, and two sureties of £100 each. Substantial bail was forthcoming.

    This case occupied the Court all day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Grafton Argus and Clarence River General Advertiser, Mon 15 Oct 1900 2

————

THE CIRCUIT COURT opens at Grafton to-morrow, before his Honor Mr Acting-Justice Barton, with Mr Moriarty as Crown Prosecutor. The following criminal cases are set down for hearing:—
    Alexander Henderson, alleged pig stealing at Buccarumbi in June last.
    Matthew Battersby, alleged stealing from a person at Grafton on 31st of May.
    Clarence Haynes, alleged stealing from a person at Grafton on 31st May.
    Sunda Ram, alleged abominable offence, at Grafton.
    Bassantha, alleged abominable offence at Grafton.
    George Chapman, alleged larceny at Grafton.
    George Chapman alleged receiving stolen property at Grafton.
    Mary Jane Chapman, alleged receiving stolen property at Grafton.
    Edward A Noel, alleged carnally knowing a girl under 14 years of age at Lawrence.
    Edward A Noel, alleged breaking and entering the dwelling house of one Suprain at Lawrence.
    Alexander McPherson, jun, alleged stealing corn and chaff at Coutt’s Crossing on the 9th ultimo.
    Edward Meskill, alleged stealing corn and chaff at Coutt’s Crossing on the 9th ultimo.
    Alexander McPherson, sen, alleged pig stealing in company at the Orara on the 14th ultimo.
    Dugald McPherson, alleged pig stealing in company on the 14th ultimo.
    James Lyons, alleged carnally knowing a girl under the age of 14 years, at Maclean.

———

Only two civil cases are set down for hearing, viz:—
    William Everson v James McMillan, claim of £2000 damages for alleged malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment.
    John Ellis v Railway Commissioners, claim of £1000 for injuries sustained in railway accident on the Richmond.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Clarion, Wed 17 Oct 1900 3

GRAFTON CIRCUIT COURT.
———◦———

  The sittings of the Circuit Court opened yesterday before His Honor Mr Acting-Justice Barton.

    Mr EM Stephen acted as Associate, and the PM (Mr MH Fitzhardinge) occupied a seat on the Bench as Deputy Sheriff.

    The legal profession was represented as follows:—Barristers: Messrs Moriarty (Crown Prosecutor), Sheridan, Ackland and Scholes. Solicitors: Messrs Donaldson, McGuren, Everingham, Bawden, T Lobban, Clarke, and Parkinson (Crown Law Office).

    Prior to commencing the business of the Court, Mr Moriarty, on behalf of the members of the bar, tendered a welcome to His Honor on his appointment to the Supreme Court Bench, and hoped his stay in Grafton would be a pleasant one.

    Mr Donaldson, on behalf of the solicitors present, added his congratulations to His Honor on his appointment.

    His Honor said the welcome was quite unexpected. It was a pleasure for him to preside at the Court in Grafton, and he would do his best to administer justice according to the judicial oath.

————
ALLEGED ABOMINABLE AFFENCE.

    Sunda Ram and Bassanthu [aka Bassantha], two Hindoos, were charged with having, on the 18th August, at Grafton, committed an unnatural offence, [sodomy], on Delep Singh,[aka Delip Sing].

    Both accused pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr Dowling.

    Mr CAG Lillingstone was sworn in as interpreter.

    Jury: W Boorman, RH White, T McIntosh, N McLeod, T Gardiner, H Short, J McPherson, S Short, JJ Shea, C Duggan, J Collett, WC Thorrell.

    The evidence in this case was of a revolting nature, and unfit for publication. It appears that Delep Singh came to Grafton on August 18 in search of employment, and met Sandy Khan near the Hospital. Sandy Khan asked him for the loan of his horse to go down the town, telling him to wait at the Hospital until his return. He waited for several hours, and as Sandy Khan did not return he went looking for his camp, and whilst doing so he met the two accused, who gave him a drink of brandy. They then asked him where he was going, and he replied, “To Sandy Khan’s camp.” The accused offered to show him a short road, and he consented, and they took him down a lane, and whilst passing some lantana bushes, committed the offence. They threatened to kill him if he told anyone what happened, and afterwards offered him some money not to say anything about the matter. He refused to take the money, and came to town and gave information to the police.

    Evidence for the Crown was given by Delep SinghIndra (the latter, under cross-examination, absolutely denied that Bassanthu was at the camp on the night of the alleged assault, and also stated that on the following morning accused, Sunda Ram, and Delep Singh were laughing together, and appeared to be the best of friends), Poona, and Sandy Khan. Poona, during cross-examination, stated he heard Sandy Khan say that he would “fix” Delep Singh up for the doctor.

    Dr Smith also gave evidence, and at 6.30 pm the Court adjourned till 8 o’clock.

    On resuming, evidence was given by Sergeant Dean, Senior-constable Wells, and Constable Colman.

    This closed the Crown case, and Mr Dowling stated that he had several witness to call, but would at this stage ask His Honor to take the case from the jury. The prosecution had failed badly, and it would be dangerous to convict on the evidence adduced.
His Honor said it was not for him to tell the jury whether the case was a strong one or not—that was a matter for the jury to decide. Mr Dowling should form his own opinion, and if he thought the Crown case had broken down he should not call any witnesses, but address the jury.

    Mr Dowling acted upon His Honor’s suggestion, and commenced his address. He contended that it was a conspiracy—prompted by jealousy—on the part of Sandy Khan and the other Indians to deprive his clients of their liberty.

    The Crown Prosecutor replied, and His Honor summed up, remarking that there were some peculiar circumstances connected with the case, and he could not help asking the jury if they thought it safe to convict. The statement of Delep Singh was conclusive that the accused committed the offence, but how far was his evidence corroborated? It was really only borne out in the main by Sandy Khan, who seemed to be an extremely unsatisfactory witness. If Sandy Khan was not believed, then there was no corroboration.. The other Indian witness (Poona) prevaricated to a great extent, and he asked the jury not to place too much reliance on his statement. It was not for the jury to say whether there was a conspiracy; it was their duty to find a true verdict, and he would leave the matter in their hands.

    The jury retired at 9.40 and returned at 9.55, with a verdict of not guilty, and accused were discharged.
    The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock this (Wednesday) morning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Northern Star, Wed 17 Oct 1900 4

LATE TELEGRAMS.
————

Grafton, Tuesday.

    The Circuit Court opened to-day, His Honor Acting-Judge Barton Presiding. His Honor was congratulated by the legal profession on being appointed to preside.

    Sunda Ram and Bassantha, two Indians, are charged with an indecent offence on a countryman. The case is proceeding and it is unlikely to conclude to-night.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Grip, Thu 18 Oct 1900 5

GRAFTON CIRCUIT COURT.
FIRST DAY—Tuesday.
————

THIS COURT opened on Tuesday, before Mr Acting-Justice Barton, Mr Moriarty being Crown Prosecutor, instructed by Mr CE Parkinson from the Crown Solicitor’s office. The following members of the legal profession were present:— Messrs EM Stephen (Judge’s Associate), E Scholes, HD Ackland, RJ Browning, JP Sheridan, barristers; and Messrs McGuren, Dowling, Donaldson, Everingham, A Lubban, Bawden, of Grafton, PP Jones (Lismore), and Mr CJ Clarke and T Lobban, of Maclean.

    Mr MH Fitzhardinge, acting Deputy Sheriff, occupied a seat on the Bench.

ALLEGED UNNATURAL OFFENCE.

    Sunda Ram and Bassantha, two Hindoos, were charged with having committed an unnatural offence on one Delph Singh, and pleaded not guilty. Mr SW Dowling defended both accused.

    Jury — Walter Boorman, RH White, Thomas McIntosh, Norman McLeod, Thomas Gardiner, Henry Short, John McPherson, Samuel Short, Cornelius Duggan, sen, JJ Shea, James Collett, and WC Thorold.

    The Crown Prosecutor having addressed the jury, called a number of witnesses, Mr CAG Lillingstone acting as interpreter. The evidence is totally unfit for publication.

    When the case for the prosecution had closed, Mr Dowling asked his Honor if he would direct the jury that the Crown case had entirely broken down, and that they should therefore acquit the accused.

    His Honor said he could not withdraw the case from the jury, or direct them that in law the Crown had failed to make out a case, because there was the evidence of Delph Singh that one of the accused had assaulted him as charged, the other meanwhile looking on and assisting. The jury, however, were at liberty to intervene at any stage of the case and acquit if they thought fit to do so. He could say this to Mr Dowling—it was open to him, if he chose, not to call evidence, but to simply address the jury, and he (His Honor) thought Mr Dowling’s own common sense should easily guide him as to the course he should adopt.

    Mr Dowling: Very well, your Honor, I’ll adopt your suggestion.

    His Honor: I made no suggestion, but simply intimated the course that was open to you.

    Mr Dowling then without having called any evidence, immediately addressed the jury, asking for an acquittal on the ground that the Crown had entirely failed to prove the case against the accused.

    The Crown Prosecutor also addressed the jury at considerable length, and His Honor then summed up. He said there were certainly some peculiar circumstances about this case, and he could not help asking the jury if it might not be unsafe to convict in a case of the kind. In these Asiatic cases it was extremely difficult to get positive clear evidence from the witnesses. He did not for one moment say that these people should not, if a crime were committed against them, seek redress in our courts of law, yet they had only themselves to blame if the unsatisfactory evidence brought forward caused their story to be regarded with grave doubt. In this case the evidence, to a great extent, was certainly of a most unsatisfactory nature. For instance, one witness, who through giving his evidence in a prevaricating kind of way, was threatened that if he did not be careful he would be “dealt with,” thereupon admitted that he heard Sunda Khan say he had “prepared” the prosecutor for the doctor to examine. He would not express an opinion, but having pointed out these facts, would leave them to consider their verdict.

    His Honor concluded his summing up at 9.40 and the jury retired, and after an absence of 15 minutes returned into the Court with a verdict of not guilty. There being no other charge against them they were discharged.

    The Court adjourned at 10 pm till 10 o’clock yesterday.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Clarence River Advocate, Fri 19 Oct 1900 6

ALLEGED HORRIBLE OFFENCE.

    Sunda Ran and Bassantha were arraigned for having, at Grafton, on 18th August last, committed an unnatural offence on one Delph Sing.

    Accused pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr SW Dowling.

    Jury: W Boorman, H White, T McIntosh, N McLeod, T Gardiner, H Short, J McPherson, S Short, C Duggan, J Shea, J Collett, WC Thorold.

    Mr Lillingstone acted as interpreter.

    The evidence in this case was unfit for publication. Evidence for the Crown was given by Delph Sing, Poonah, Sandy Khan and Indra. The latter under cross-examination, absolutely denied that Bassantha was at the camp on the night of the alleged assault, and also stated that on the following morning accused, Sunda Ram, and Delph Sing were laughing together, and appeared to be the best of friends.

    Dr Smith, Sergeant Dean, and Constables Coleman and Wells also gave evidence.

    No witnesses were called for the defence, and after addresses from accused’s solicitor and the Crown Prosecutor, his Honor summed up, commenting on the weakness of the evidence. The jury, after 15 minutes’ consideration, returned a verdict of not guilty.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Grafton Argus and Clarence River General Advertiser, Fri 19 Oct 1900 7

————
FIRST DAY—Tuesday.

THE Circuit Court opened at Grafton on Tuesday morning last before his Honor, Mr Acting-Justice Barton. Mr J Moriarty acted as Crown Prosecutor, and was instructed by Mr CE Parkinson, of the Crown Solicitor’s office. The following barristers were in attendance:—Messrs EM Stephen (judge’s associate), E Scholes, RJ Browning, HD Acland, JP Sheridan. Mr PP Jones, solicitor, of Lismore, was also present, and Mr JC Thom, solicitor for the Railway Commissioners, arrived on Thursday. The local solicitors were also in attendance.

    All the jurors answered to the call of their names save one, who was excused on the ground of illness.

    Thomas C Davis, of Brushgrove, was sworn in as a Justice of the Peace.

ALLEGED HORRIBLE OFFENCE.

    Sunda Ram and Bassantha, two Hindoos, on bail, were charged with having, at Grafton, on the 18th August last, committed an unnatural offence on one Delep Singh.

    Accused pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr SW Dowling.

    Jury: Walter Boorman, RH White, T McIntosh, N McLeod, T Gardiner, Henry Short, J McPherson, S Short, C Duggan, JJ Shea, J Collett, WC Thorold.

    No jurors were challenged.

    His Honor, on receiving an assurance that the case would last the rest of the day, discharged the remainder of the jurymen till 10 o’clock on the following morning.

    Mr CG Lillingstone acted as interpreter, and was assisted by a Mr Phillips, a native of India.

    The evidence in this case was too revolting for publication. According to the tale told by the prosecutor, he was a stranger to Grafton in August last, and on the day in question was looking for the camp of one Sandy Khan. The two accused offered to show him the way, and whilst taking him along past some lantana bushes committed the offence complained of. Sandy Khan gave evidence in support of the charge, and was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, in which it was suggested that the witness was at the head of a conspiracy to foist a horrible crime on to the heads of two men entirely innocent of the charge. Indra, a Crown witness, denied that Bassantha was in the vicinity of the camp at the time of the alleged offence, and also deposed that on the morning of the 19th of August accused Sunda Ram and prosecutor were laughing and joking together. Poma, another Crown witness, deposed to hearing Sandy Khan boast at the camp that he had “fixed up” Delep Singh for the medical sahib. The trend of the cross-examination was to endeavour to show that a feud had existed between two gangs for months past, and that the bad feeling engendered had culminated in a conspiracy to convict two innocent men of a crime which was probably never committed.

    At the conclusion of the Crown case Mr Dowling intimated that he had over 20 witnesses to call for the defence, but in view of the fact that the Crown case had broken down he asked for an acquittal.

    His Honor summed up in favor of accused, and after a brief retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

    This case occupied the attention of the Court from 2 o’clock in the afternoon to 10 pm.

(Continued on another page.)
[No more details found for this case.]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Clarence and Richmond Examiner and New England Advertiser, Sat 20 Oct 1900 8

GRAFTON CIRCUIT COURT.
————

The Assizes opened on Tuesday at 10 am, before his Honor Acting Judge Barton. Mr Moriarty acted as Crown Prosecutor.

    Mr TC David was sworn in as a magistrate.

UNNATURAL OFFENCE.

    Sunda Ram and Bassantha, two Indians, were arraigned for having, at Grafton, on 18th August, committed an unnatural offence on Delph [sic] Singh, a countryman. Accused pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr Dowling.

    Jury: Walter Boorman, Robt H White, Thos McIntosh, Norman McLeod, Thos Gardner, Henry Short, John McPherson, Samuel Short, Cornelius Duggan, Jas J Shea, Jas Collett, Wm C Thorold.

    Mr Lillingstone, of Yulgilbar, was sworn as interpreter.

    The details of the case are unfit for publication. The evidence was lengthy, and his Honor having received an assurance that the case would last the remainder of the day, discharged the disengaged jury till next morning.

    On the evidence for the Crown having closed, Mr Dowling asked his Honor if he could direct the jury to take a certain course and acquit accused, as the Crown case had utterly failed.

    His Honor said he could not take this course. The evidence of prosecutor was very clear, in stating that one of accused committed the offence while the other assisted. That being so he could not direct the jury, who could, however, at any time, intervene if they thought fit. Mr Dowling could, however, address the jury without calling evidence if he considered it a wise course. His own common sense would guide him in this matter.

    After Mr Dowling and the Crown Prosecutor had addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, and said whether or not it would be unsafe to convict when the evidence in the case was so unsatisfactory. He referred to one of the witnesses who had been taken to task for the very unsatisfactory manner in which he had given his evidence, and who, on being threatened, reluctantly admitted that he heard Sunda Kahn say that he had fixed the prosecutor for the doctor to examine. It was difficult, said his Honor, in these Asiatic cases to arrive at the truth of a matter. These people are British subjects, and could not be denied legal privileges, still they had only themselves to blame for the unsatisfactory evidence they brought into court.

    The jury, after a retirement of a quarter of an hour, returned a verdict of not guilty. The court adjourned at 9.55 pm to 10 am next day.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Northern Star, Wed 24 Oct 1900 9

GRAFTON.
————

October 20.

THE Circuit Court has engrossed attention during the week, and has been proceeding very drearily, much to the annoyance of jury-in waiting, witnesses, and the usual Court attendants. Complaints are made of the present system of selecting juries, which is different to that practised some years ago, when they were taken in turn in alphabetical order. Now the lot are shaken up together, or supposed to be in any rate, and the consequences is that some jurors are compelled to attend several Courts in succession, which constitutes a grievance.

 


 

Delph Singh and Sunda Khan, 1900


The Clarence River Advocate, Fri 26 Oct 1900
10

OUR GRAFTON LETTER.
————

POLICE COURT.—On Tuesday, before the PM, Delph Singh was charged with perjury with intent to procure the conviction of Sunda Ram and Bassantha for an offence punishable by penal servitude.—Accused was remanded for eight days for the production of evidence.—Sandi Khan, charged with having wilfully made an oath certain false statements, knowing the same to be false, was also remanded for eight days.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Clarence River Advocate, Sat 27 Oct 1900 11

GRAFTON POLICE COURT.
————

On Tuesday before the PM.

    Deep Singh [sic] was charged with perjury, with the intent to procure the conviction of Sunda Ram and Bassantha on an offence punishable with penal servitude. Accused was remanded for eight days for the production of evidence.

    Sandi [sic] Khan, charged with having wilfully made on oath certain false statements, knowing the same to be false, was also remanded for eight days.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Clarence River Advocate, Fri 2 Nov 1900 12

OUR GRAFTON LETTER.
————


A SERIOUS CHARGE.—At the Grafton Police Court on Wednesday last, before the PM and Mr Jacobs, JP. Delph Sing 13 and Sunda Khan 14 were charged with perjury and false swearing. Mr Dowling prosecuted and Mr McGuren defended. This case arose out of the prosecution of Sunda Ram and Bassantha at the last Circuit Court on a charge of an alleged unmentionable offence. In that case Singh and Khan were the principal witnesses for the Crown and gave positive evidence which tended to incriminate Ram and Bassantha, who, however, were acquitted. After the case, certain affidavits were filed by reputable residents of the district and on perusal of these His Honor Mr Acting-Justice Barton directed that leave be given Sunda Ram and Bassantha to institute proceedings for perjury. Accused were then arrested on a warrant and at the Court on Wednesday, after voluminous evidence had been taken, both were committed to stand their trial at the Sessions in January next.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Clarence and Richmond Examiner, Tue 12 Feb 1901 15

GRAFTON QUARTER SESSIONS.
————

AS we went to press on Friday evening, the jury were considering their verdict in the case of Sundy Khan. No agreement having been arrived at 12.30 o’clock on Saturday they were locked up till 9.30 am, at which hour the foreman announced that it was desired to ask the witness Adrian some questions. This having been done, a determination was then come to within a few minutes, the jury returning a verdict of guilty.

    His Honor concurred with the verdict, and said that had the prisoner been allowed to go unpunished it would have been a public misfortune. In sentencing accused to three years penal servitude in Darlinghurst gaol, his Honor said he was satisfied that accused had been the chief conspirator in the attempt to fix a false charge on the shoulders of Sunda Ram and Bassantha. The accused must also have known all about injuring the lad Dhuleep Singh’s body to make false evidence, and as he was evidently the instigator he must be prepared to bear the heavier sentence, although in the eyes of the Law, the offence he was convicted of was not as serious as that of Dhuleep Singh. In sentencing Dhuleep Singh, convicted of perjury, his Honor said he could order 14 years penal servitude; but taking into consideration the fact that prisoner had only been a tool in the hands of his “boss,” he would impose the very light sentence of 12 months hard labour in Darlinghurst gaol.

    Counsel for the defence gave notice of appeal to the Full Court in both cases.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Clarence River Advocate, Tue 12 Feb 1901 16

GRAFTON QUARTER SESSIONS.
————
FOURTH DAY—Friday

ALLEGED PERJURY.

DHULEEP SINGH, on bail, was arraigned for having committed perjury before Mr Acting-Justice Barton at the Grafton Assizes on the 16th October last. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Sheridan, instructed by Mr McGuren.

    On Mr CAG Lillingston, of Yulgilbar, being sworn in as interpreter, Mr Sheridan objected to him on the ground that he did not understand the dialect of accused, and that he had interrogated accused with reference to the case his committal. After reply by Mr Browning his Honor overruled the objection.

    Jury: Messrs FG Blanch, James Mulligan, W Stevenson, B Paine, John Ensby, John McPherson, Alex Matheson, Geo Clarke, Chas Ellis, James Carlton, P Shea, G Zietsch. Accused challenged four jurors.

    The above case arose out of the trial of Sunda Ram and Bassantha at last Circuit Court on a charge of committing an abominable offence on Singh, the present accused. On that occasion Singh swore that the two persons above named had taken part in the alleged offence, while it was shown by other reliable evidence that they were miles away at the time.

    Evidence was given by 15 witnesses. The jury found accused guilty.

————
ALLEGED FALSE SWEARING.

    Sunda Khan was charged with false swearing in connection with the case against Sunda Ram and Bassantha. Accused was defended by Mr Sheridan, instructed by Mr McGuren.

    The evidence in this case was somewhat similar to that in the previous one. The jury were locked up all night, and on Saturday morning returned with a verdict of guilty. His Honor concurred with the verdicts in each case, and with regard of Sunda Khan, said it would have been a public misfortune had he been allowed to escape. Sunda Khan was sentenced to three years and Dhuleep Singh to 12 months in Darlinghurst gaol. The parties in the case were Asiatics, and have been mixed up in several lawsuits.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Sat 2 Mar 1901 17

AN APPEAL DISMISSED.
————

    The case of the King against Sunda Khan was before the Full Court on Friday, on appeal. Khan was tried before Judge Heydon at the Grafton Quarter Sessions on the 8th and 9th ultimo, on a charge of having, before Mr Acting Justice Barton, wilfully made on oath a false statement. The statement was that Khan did not see one Delef Singh and another Indian at Duncan McFarlane’s farm, at Carr’s Creek at about half-past 9 o’clock or at any time in the morning of August 28, 1900, and that he saw them for the first time about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day. Mr Chas AG Lillingston, an ex-Indian official, had acted as interpreter at the trial, and was called to prove the giving of the evidence alleged to be false. He was only able to remember a part of it. He was then asked whether he had interpreted all questions and answers correctly, and swore that he had. Mr Septimus Dowling, who had been in the court, acting for the defence during the trial, was then put into the box to prove the evidence given by accused. The accused had given his evidence in Hindustani. Mr Dowling proved the questions which had been put to Mr Lillingston for translation to the accused, as given by the accused, but admitted that he could not understand the Hindustani which was spoken between the interpreter and the witness. Mr Sheridan, who appeared for the accused, submitted that this evidence was inadmissible, but that the point should be reserved. After the verdict, he asked the judge to reserve it in the following form: (1) That his Honor was in error in allowing Mr Dowling to state the evidence given by the accused on the trial of Sunda Ram and Bassantha, being the evidence alleged in the indictment to be falsely sworn. Mr Dowling having sworn that such evidence was given in a language which he did not understand, and that he understood was what the interpreter said; and (2) that his Honor was in error in admitting evidence of what the interpreter was alleged to have stated in court on the occasion of the alleged false swearing. The question for the consideration of their Honors was whether, under the circumstances, the judge was right in admitting Mr Dowling’s evidence. After hearing argument the court dismissed the appeal.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Sat 18 May 1901 18

A PERJURY CONVICTION
SUSTAINED.
————

    The case of the Crown against Delep [sic] Singh was before the second Full Court on Friday on appeal. It appeared that Singh was tried before Judge Heydon at the Grafton Quarter Sessions in February last, on a charge of perjury. The perjury complained of was that he had sworn at the trial of two men named Bassantha and Sunda Ram, before Mr Acting Justice Barton, of Grafton, for an alleged [indecent] assault upon him, that Bassantha had held him while the other had committed the offence. The Crown called evidence to show that at the very time at which the accused swore the offence had been committed the two men were on different farms, on different sides of the Clarence Riven, and nine miles apart. After the jury delivered their verdict his Honor was asked to reserve the following points: (1) That there was no evidence that the offence charged had been committed; (2) that there was no evidence that the accused was properly sworn; (3) that there was no evidence that the oath had been properly administered to the accused; (4) that there was no evidence of proof of the whole of the accused’s testimony; (5) that there was no proof that of the whole of the accused’s testimony on the matter on which perjury was assigned; and (6) that there was no proof that the accused had said nothing to qualify what he was charged with saying. At the close of the case for the defence counsel for the accused asked his Honor, on certain evidence that had been given, to direct an acquittal. This his Honor declined to do, and the questions for the decision of the court were whether he was wrong in holding that there was evidence to go to the jury, that the accused had given evidence assigned as perjury. The court answered the questions in the negative, and sustained the conviction.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Northern Star, Wed 22 May 1901 19

     A PERJURY CONVICTION SUSTAINED.—The case of the Crown against Delep Singh was before the second Full Court on Friday on appeal. It appeared that Singh was tried before Judge Heydon at the Grafton Quarter Sessions in February last, on a charge of perjury. The perjury complained of was that he had sworn at the trial of two men named Bassantha and Sunda Ram, before Mr Acting Justice Barton, at Grafton, for an alleged assault upon him that Bassantha had held him while the other had committed the offence. The Crown called evidence to show that at the very time at which the accused swore the offence had been committed the two men were on different farms, on different parts of the Clarence River, and nine miles apart. After the jury delivered their verdict his Honor was asked to reserve the following points: (1) That there was no evidence that the offence charged had been committed; (2) that there was no evidence that the accused was properly sworn; (3) that there was no evidence that the oath had been properly administered to the accused; (4) that there was no evidence of proof of the whole of the accused’s testimony; (5) that there was no proof of the whole of the accused’s testimony on the matter on which perjury was assigned; and (6) that there was no proof that the accused had said nothing to qualify what he was charged with saying. At the close of the case for the defence counsel for the accused asked his Honor, on certain evidence that had been given, to direct an acquittal. This his Honor declined to do, and the questions for the decision of the court were whether he was wrong in holding that there was evidence to go to the jury, that the accused had given evidence on oath, and that he had given the evidence assigned as perjury. The Court answered the questions in the negative, and sustained the conviction.

————

Sander & Sons’ Eucalypti Extract is the only product of Eucalyptus honored by Royal patronage and patronised by the entire Medical profession. Its virtues achieved this. Do not forget it.

 


1     Clarence and Richmond Examiner and New England Advertiser, Sat 25 Aug 1900, pp. 2, 8.

2     The Grafton Argus and Clarence River General Advertiser, Mon 15 Oct 1900, p. 3. Emphasis added.

3     The Clarion, Wed 17 Oct 1900, p. 2. Emphasis added.

4     Northern Star, Wed 17 Oct 1900, p. 5.

5     The Grip, Thu 18 Oct 1900, p. 4.

6     The Clarence River Advocate, (NSW), Fri 19 Oct 1900, p. 4. Emphasis added.

7     The Grafton Argus and Clarence River General Advertiser, Fri 19 Oct 1900, p. 4.

8     Clarence and Richmond Examiner and New England Advertiser, Sat 20 Oct 1900, p. 2.

9     Northern Star, Wed 24 Oct 1900, p. 5.

10   The Clarence River Advocate, (NSW), Fri 26 Oct 1900, p. 5.

11   The Clarence River Advocate, (NSW), Sat 27 Oct 1900, p. 2.

12   The Clarence River Advocate, (NSW), Fri 2 Nov 1900, p. 4.

13   SRNSW holds a Grafton gaol photo for: Delep Singh, born: 1881, date of photo: 13/02/1901, photo no.: 49, page: 50, series: NRS2258, item: 3/5993, reel: 5125.

14   SRNSW holds a Grafton gaol photo for: Sandi Khaw, born: 1855, date of photo: 13/02/1901, photo no.: 52, page: 53, series: NRS2258, item: 3/5993, reel: 5125.

15   Clarence and Richmond Examiner, (Grafton, NSW), Tue 12 Feb 1901, p. 8.

16   The Clarence River Advocate, (NSW), Tue 12 Feb 1901, p. 3.

17   Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Sat 2 Mar 1901, p. 3.

18   Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Sat 18 May 1901, p. 3.

19   Northern Star (Lismore, NSW), Wed 22 May 1901, p. 4.