Trainspotters
are great customers. As a general rule, they wander into the shop, look at what
you have to offer and buy it – or not – as their situation dictates. They
rarely argue about price or availability because, when it comes to the sort of
material which piques their interest, they take what they can get and it’s usually
very rare and thus, price-y. Best of all, when they die, or their partners
issue ultimatums about the invasive tendencies of their hobby, they (or their
relatives) bring it all back to us so that we can sell it again. All part of
the great publishing Circle of Life.
I
was cataloguing an item from one such collection when I noticed the following
article. It was from the Queensland-based Charleville Historical Society’s centenary
publication commemorating 100 years of the Charleville branch line and its
impact upon their community. ‘Sounded pretty dry to me but there was this
nugget:
To
be honest I had no idea where “Dulbydilla” was, so I looked it up and, after clicking
around for a bit, got re-directed to Trove (bless you, National Library!) and
found the sordid details surrounding The Dulbydilla Murder of 1886, which I’ve
cleaned up and reproduce here for you below:
*****
THE DULBYDILLA MURDER.
(Abridged from the “Roma Star” of 13th March, 1886.)
On Tuesday, 9th instant, before his
Honour Mr. Justice Mein, Tim Tee was charged with the murder of Jimmy Ah Fook,
at Dulbydilla, on Friday, 26th February.
The Attorney-General
(Hon. A. Rutledge) prosecuted, instructed by Mr. Gill, Crown Solicitor.
Constable Michael
Sullivan, stationed at Dulbydilla, deposed: On the night of Friday, 26th
February, I went to the house of a Chinaman baker named Jimmy Ah Fook; saw him lying
at the door of his shop, and saw a gunshot wound in his stomach; he was alive,
and groaning as if in pain; it was about half-past 9 o'clock at night; I asked
him a question, and he made a complaint to me, mentioning the name of some
person; there were several people present at the time, including L.B. Johnson, a
storekeeper, Charles Chapman, a publican, a man named Lester, a butcher, and
others; these people could have heard the nature of the complaint the deceased
made to me; I went away to the boring camp which was about a quarter of a mile from
the shop; first saw a man named Park, and soon afterwards saw the prisoner; it
must then have been nearly 10 o'clock; I asked the prisoner if his name was Tim
Tee, and he replied that it was; I asked him "Where is your gun?" and
he replied "I have got none”. I then told the prisoner to come with me,
and I took him to the house of the deceased; when we got there I lifted up
Jimmy Ah Fook into a sitting position and asked him "Do you know that man
?" pointing at the same time to the prisoner; Jimmy Ah Fook said
"Yes", and I then said "What is his name?" The deceased replied,
"His name is Tim Tee"; I then said, "Is that the man who shot
you?" [After some argument, his Honour said he would reserve for the
Full Court the point whether deceased's reply to that question could be admitted
in evidence.] Jimmy Ah Fook replied in presence of the prisoner, "Yes,
he shoot me"; prisoner then said to Jimmy Ah Fook "Did you see me
here to-night?" Jimmy made no reply but lay back, apparently exhausted. When
I asked Jimmy Ah Fook if he knew the prisoner, he was sitting up with his head
hanging down and the prisoner was stooping down, looking at him about a yard off;
when I asked the question the prisoner stood up so that Jimmy Ah Fook could not
then see his face and I had to ask the prisoner to stoop down so that Jimmy Ah
Fook could see him; the prisoner did so after some hesitation, and after he had
done so, Jimmy Ah Fook answered my question in the manner already stated. Brought
the prisoner away from the house after Jimmy Ah Fook had laid back on the
ground and, about ten yards from the house, I said "I arrest you now for
shooting Jimmy”. Prisoner replied, "Me no shoot"; brought him to the
lockup, and between 2 and 3 o'clock the next morning I escorted the prisoner and
Jimmy Ah Fook to the train for Roma. Jimmy Ah Fook died just as the train was moving
away. While I was searching prisoner he said, "If me knew you were after
me, I would have cleared out when I done it." I found on the prisoner, a
gun cap and one grain of shot, which were in his waistcoat pocket; I produce
them; there was a post-mortem examination held on the body of Jimmy Ah Fook by
Dr. Comyn at the Roma police station; I received four grains of shot from Dr.
Comyn which I saw him remove from the body; I produce them; I know Francis
Harley Davis; on the 2nd March he gave me the tin of shot I now produce; he got
it out of a small bag which was hanging outside his tent at Dulbydilla. Wednesday,
March 10., Mr. Fowles mentioned that the Crown had a few moments ago employed
his assistance for the prisoner.
Constable
Sullivan, cross-examined by Mr. Fowles: I am sure the prisoner never said to me
in the lockup, "Supposing I done that, I clear out."
Dr. Comyn stated:
On the 27th February last I made a post-mortem examination on a body produced
to me by Senior-constable Hilton: I found on the left arm one shot hole, on the
left forearm three shot holes, two shot holes over the heart, and a large
number over the liver and stomach; there were about forty shot holes
altogether; there was very little external bleeding; I found that seven shots had
penetrated the liver, six had penetrated the stomach, one had gone into the
pericardium; two had entered the spleen; the seven shots in the liver had
caused a large extravasation of blood - over a pint; I consider the blood
poured out from the liver was the immediate cause of death; I consider some of the
other wounds would have proved mortal, but would have taken longer to cause the
death of deceased; I took out three other shots besides that from the
pericardium, and I gave them to Constable Sullivan; one of these three came
from a little below the liver, one was at the back of the liver, and the other was
in the cavity of the stomach.
Cross-examined by
Mr. Fowles: The act of raising a man wounded like the deceased into a sitting
position would increase the internal hemorrhage. The removal of the deceased to
and by the train would hasten death.
Louis Berliner
Johnson, storekeeper, Dulbydilla, stated: I remember the evening of 26th
February last; the deceased, Jimmy Ah Fook, was a baker, and lived about two
chains away from my store; a little after 9 o'clock on the evening mentioned, I
heard the report of a gun and soon afterwards I heard groans, as if made by a
man in great agony; the groans came from the direction of Jimmy Ah Fook's; it
was a dark night, so I lighted a lamp and proceeded to the spot where the
sounds came from and, on getting there, I found Jimmy Ah Fook stretched out in
the store in front of his premises. I put the light to Jimmy's face when I got
there, and he said, "me die, me die," several times; he told me how
he got the injuries; afterwards he said "me die, me die," several
times. I asked him who shot him; I had previously examined him, and found he
was riddled with gunshot about the stomach; from what I saw, I considered Jimmy
Ah Fook to be in a dying condition. Jimmy Ah Fook was calm and collected, and
spoke every word intelligibly to me; I always was a friend of the deceased, and
he seemed relieved when he saw me and clasped my hand in his; after I examined
deceased, I moved him from the centre of the door and, while I was so moving
him, he said "Let me alone, me die; let me die"; the deceased told me
who inflicted the injuries before I moved him. When Constable Sullivan brought
the prisoner I lifted Jimmy Ah Fook into a sitting posture and told him to look
at the prisoner; the prisoner would not look Jimmy in the face but threw
himself back and the constable put his hand on the back of prisoner's neck and
made him stoop down; I asked the deceased, "Was that the man who shot
you?" and he replied "Yes", very distinctly. I said, "What
for?" and he replied, "He want him money." Prisoner said,
"Did you see me here to-night?" and deceased replied, "Yes, you
come and speak to me tonight."
Cross-examined by
Mr. Fowles: The night was dark, and I could not have recognized Jimmy without
my lamp.
Edwin Maynard,
cordial manufacturer, Dulbydilla, stated : On the night of the 26th February
I went to the baker's shop of Jimmy Ah Fook, about half-past 10: I saw the deceased
lying down just inside his door when I got there; the deceased made a statement
which indicated the state of mind he was in; he said, "Me die tonight; me
die soon”, two or three times. I heard him say that he was sitting in one of
the buildings at the back of the baker's shop, about 9 o'clock, and Tim Tee came
to the side door with a gun in his hand and said to Jimmy Ah Fook, "You
give me money; suppose you no give me money me shoot you”; Jimmy Ah Fook said
to the prisoner, "Me got no money; me won't give you any”; Tim Tee then
said, "All right, me shoot 'um you," and then shot Jimmy Ah Fook and ran
away.
James Need, water
carrier, Dulbydilla, gave evidence corroborative of that of the previous witness
having seen and heard the deceased identify prisoner. Cross-examined by Mr. Fowles,
witness said it was a very dark night.
Jimmy Ah Gee
confirmed the evidence of previous witnesses in some unimportant particulars.
Louis Berliner
Johnson, recalled, in answer to the jury: I was at the house of the deceased for
nearly an hour; I stopped until I saw there was no chance of the deceased
living. When I left, he was still lying beside the counter where I put him. By
the Attorney-General: I believe when I came up with a lamp there was a light on
the back premises, because I afterwards saw a light fetched into the front premises
from the bakehouse.
Francis Harley
Davies, well-borer, Dulbydilla, deposed: The prisoner has been cooking at the
boring camp for about a fortnight. We were in the habit of having our meals at
a table about five yards from the back of my tent; there was a smaller table in
front of my tent where Mr. Falconer used to have his meals when he was present.
For two or three days previous to the 26th February, there was a gun kept upon
the table - a double-barrelled muzzle loader. The gun belonged to Timothy
O'Sullivan who was employed at our works; the gun produced in court is the same
one. To the best of my belief, there were also powder and shot on the table;
the tin produced is the same that was on the table, and the shot appears to be
of the same size. I am almost positive that I put the powder and shot in a bag
in my tent on the 27th February and they remained there until I gave them to
Constable Sullivan. I believe there was a box of caps in front of the tent, but
I am not quite certain about that; I gave the box of caps to Senior constable
Nagle just before I started for Roma. On the night of the 26th February, I had
been up in the township and sometime between half-past 8 and half-past 9
o'clock I heard a loud report, which seemed to come from the direction of Ah
Fook's shop. I was at the large table at the back of my tent at this time; this
was about a quarter of a mile distant. I had been away from the camp since
tea-time and I heard the report immediately on my return. I did not see the
prisoner in the camp when I came back, though he might have been there; he was
in the habit of sleeping about five yards from the back of my tent but, if he was
in his bed, I could not have seen him as I entered by the front. I went to
sleep when I came home and, soon afterwards, I woke up and saw someone passing
in front of the tent; that person was near to the little table and I heard the
rattle of teapots; the person then struck a match, and I saw it was the
prisoner; any person coming from town to Tim Tee's camp would have passed that
way. On the morning of the 27th, the gun was in its usual place on
the table.
Cross-examined by
Mr. Fowles: I never missed the gun at all; it might have been on the table from
the 25th to 27th. I never missed anything from the table.
James Benjamin
Park, labourer, Dulbydilla, deposed: I live in the railway station yard, at the
boring camp; the prisoner's bed was about fifteen yards from where I worked. I
went to work at 7 o'clock and, about twenty minutes past 9, I saw the prisoner
coming from his galley to where I was at work; about twenty or twenty-five
minutes before this I heard the loud report of a gun. I had told the prisoner when
I saw him first that we required no supper that night; when he returned, I
asked him where he had been and what he had been doing and told him the
constables had been looking after him. He said, "What for constable want
me?" I fancied the prisoner was a little excited and flurried in his voice
when I mentioned the word “constable” to him.
Cross-examined by
Mr. Fowles: I will not swear prisoner was not present at the camp all night.
Timothy John
O'Sullivan, well-borer, Dulbydilla, deposed: The gun produced in court is my
gun, and I was in the habit of keeping it on a table in front of Mr. Davies's
tent at the camp. On 26th February, about midday, I snapped two caps on the gun
and found that it was unloaded; I laid it back on the table then. Constable
Nagle came and examined the gun early on the 27th February and I put it back in
my tent; he came again after breakfast and examined it. I took the gun down to Mitchell
at 9 o'clock the same day; I kept it until Sunday, 28th. On the
latter date, I drew a charge from it; I put the charge into a piece of canvas
and gave it to Sergeant Wright. (Sergeant Wright called and produced gun and charge
given him by the witness.) I think the shots in the charge are the same size as
those in the canister. The other barrel of the gun was empty. I did not put the
charge in the gun myself and I do not know who did. The gun kicks a little at
times, if you put too much powder in it.
Lionel Lawes,
well-borer, Dulbydilla, deposed: I went to bed about 8 o'clock on the night of
26th February. I fired out of Sullivan's gun on the Tuesday or Wednesday
previous; the second shot I fired kicked a good deal. The shot in the canister
produced was not all of one size; I bought it for No.1 shot. The gun was kept
in front of the tent occupied by myself and Mr. Davis.
Cross-examined by
Mr. Fowles: I am sure the gun was not loaded after I returned it to the table
on Wednesday.
Sergeant Wright,
stationed at Mitchell, deposed: I received the gun and charge of shot produced
from Mr. O'Sullivan; I examined the gun, and found the right barrel had been
recently discharged and that there was something in the left barrel which was still
there. (Witness here tried to fit a cap on the nipple.) The caps produced are
too small, but they can be put on by pressure - by splitting them. The cap now
given to me (the one that was found on the prisoner) is also too small but is
the same size as those in the box. I examined prisoner on 3rd of this month and
found his right collar bone slightly swollen.
Senior-constable
Nagle stationed at Dulbydilla, deposed: About 4 o'clock on the morning of 28th
February last, I went to the well-borer's camp and was shown a gun by Mr.
O'Sullivan; later on, about 8 o'clock, I saw the gun again. Mr. Davies pointed
out the place where the prisoner slept and I found some shot and one cap there,
of which I took possession; I produce them. Some shot were scattered about the
bed and some were in pieces of newspaper. The cap shown me is the same size as
those in the box produced; the shot in the canister are of different sizes and those
I found on the bed are also different sizes. They appear to be alike; the shots
taken out of the deceased's stomach appear to be the same as the large shot.
Thomas Meyers, in
charge of a store at Dulbydilla for Mr. Kreibke, of Mitchell, deposed: On the
25th February last, the prisoner was in the store; I had a conversation with
him. I said, "I heard you had a row last night, Tim"; he replied,
"Yes, I had a row with my missis; I told her I was not coming up to the
tent that night, I did not feel tired, and took a walk up, and when I went to
the tent I struck a match and said, are you in Kate?" I saw a man sitting
in the tent pulling on his socks. I (witness) asked Tim Tee whether he hit the
man, and he said, "No, I no hit him; I kick up a row and throw all the
rations out. I no buy rations to keep another man." The prisoner further
said, "Chinaman baker been there too, all the same, dead now." I
said, "Dead, where?" The prisoner said, "To-night."
Cross-examined by
Mr. Fowles: The prisoner did not refer to the man in the tent. I am certain he
referred to Jimmy, the baker, when he said, "all the same, dead now."
Yung Gee was
interpreted through Georgie Chong and stated: I am a storekeeper at Dulbydilla;
I recollect the night when Jimmy Ah Fook was shot. The prisoner was in my shop two
or three days before the 26th February; there were only the prisoner and Jimmy
Ah Fook there besides myself. The prisoner asked Jimmy for money and Jimmy
replied, "No, I don't owe him money at all." I said, "Go
outside, I don't want any row in my shop.” The prisoner was very cross when he
asked for the money.
Constable
Johnson, watchhouse keeper, Roma, deposed: The prisoner was brought to the
watchhouse on the 27th February last. Assisted Constable Sullivan to search him
and found a gun cap and some grains of shot. The prisoner, turning towards
Constable Sullivan, said, while he was being searched, "If me had known
you were after me, I'd have cleared out when I done it.” Prisoner also said,
"He didn't see me do it; you'll have to prove it."
This closed the case
for the Crown, and Mr. Fowles addressed the jury for the defence.
His Honour, in
summing up to the jury, said there was no direct evidence against the prisoner
except the statements of the deceased as to the actual occurrence of the
shooting, or as to what took place which resulted in the death of Jimmy Ah
Fook. The evidence that had been tendered by the Crown was of a threefold
character:
They had before
them the confessions of the prisoner, the statements of the deceased when he
was in a dying condition, and also the indirect and presumptive testimony known
as circumstantial evidence. It was in favour of the prisoner that, when he was
met first by Constable Sullivan, he voluntarily went away with him and
accompanied the constable to the house of the deceased before he was arrested.
The prisoner, when asked the question as to where his gun was, had
unhesitatingly replied that he had none. It was further to be considered in his
favour that, immediately after his arrest, the prisoner, straight away and
without any hesitation, said "Me no shoot," and, furthermore, when
brought into the presence of the deceased, Jimmy Ah Fook, the prisoner distinctly
stated that he had not been at the house that night. The jury had before them,
however, the evidence of both Constable Sullivan and Constable Johnson as to
the prisoner's statement in the watchhouse.
He (his Honour)
now came to the second class of evidence produced - the dying declarations of
the deceased man. The jury must look at the surrounding circumstances before
they accept these declarations as evidence against the prisoner. They must be
satisfied that Jimmy Ah Fook was in thorough belief that he would die before
they accepted his statements inculpating the prisoner.
His Honour then
addressed the jury on the fact that the shooting took place on a dark night and
said they must consider that, two or three days previously, an angry
conversation had occurred between the prisoner and the deceased about money and
it was probable that a wounded person might at once think that the man with
whom he had a quarrel was the most likely one to commit the outrage. In regard
to the circumstantial evidence, his Honour pointed out that none of the
witnesses had been able to testify to the presence of the prisoner in the
neighbourhood of the deceased's house on the day of the alleged murder. Three
witnesses had been called who were unable to affirm that the prisoner had not
been in the camp on the 26th February between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. and the
evidence pointed to the fact that the murder had been committed about 9 p.m.
With regard to
the gun with which the alleged murder was committed, his Honour said that the
conduct of Senior-constable Nagle had been injudicious, to say the least of it.
Instead of at once impounding the weapon, he seemed to have made a cursory
examination only; he had no right to have handed the gun back again to its
owner. It was left for the jury to consider: Do the facts point to a
corroboration of the deceased man's statement? If so, they must weigh greatly
with you in coming to the conclusion that the prisoner is guilty. By themselves
they are not sufficient to convict, but with the confessions of the prisoner
they deserve your consideration. If the testimony brought appears to be
corroborative of these facts you must find the prisoner guilty; but if the
facts are consistent with a state of affairs such as to lead you to believe
that the prisoner is innocent, you will give him the benefit of the doubt. His
Honour, having read the evidence over, asked the jury to consider only two
questions: Was Jimmy Ah Fook killed by a gunshot wound? Does the evidence point
to the prisoner as being the person who inflicted that wound?
At 7.50 p.m. the
jury retired, and at 8 p.m. returned into court with a verdict of “Guilty.”
The prisoner was
asked if he had anything to say [as to] why the sentence of death should not be
passed upon him but he made no reply.
His Honour: “Prisoner
at the bar, you have been found guilty of an offence which the law compels me
to follow with the sentence of death. I do not think the jury could have fairly
arrived at any other conclusion. I will not add to the state of your feelings,
if you understand what I am now saying to you.”
Sentence of death
was then passed in the usual form.
*****
The
Chinese population of Australia was not well-liked or sympathetically treated
in these early days and such things as their names were poorly understood or remembered.
In most writings of the time, Chinese characters have names starting with ‘Ah-’
and were not true Chinese monikers. Even crime photos of the period show
Chinese prisoners with these made-up names. It’s not surprising then that “Jimmy
Ah Fook” had a name such as this, or that it changed from this, in one source,
to “Hing Kee” in another. You’ll also note that there’s a “Jimmy Ah Gee” who
adds “unimportant particulars” to the proceedings. Tim Tee, the villain of the
piece, has had his name securely recorded for posterity, however. If that is
his real name…
This
being said, you’ll notice that there’s quite a bit of disparity between the two
sources – including the name of the presiding judge – which indicates how
sketchy the record-keeping of the time must have been, and how local
recollection of the events might have been coloured by time and distance.
You’ll
notice also that no mention of self-extinguishing kerosene lamps, or “Chinese Devils”,
made it as far as the courtroom. I was quite delighted by the reference to Constable Sullivan locking away the lamps for later examination – a budding
Investigator, that one!
All-in-all,
it’s a spooky little event in an out-of-the-way part of the world, but one that
could make for a nice little diversion for your party of adventurers during a
period of travel. Forced to stop in order to receive the wounded man aboard
their train, do they see the strange events take place? Do they disclose the perfectly
rational explanation behind the events, or do they reveal the supernatural entity
at work and safely eliminate it? From a little scrap such as this, you can see
a world of gaming possibilities opening up…
No comments:
Post a Comment