Laurence Butler- Ch. 15: Butler's Court Cases

During the period 1813 to 1820 Laurence Butler was summoned to appear in Court on at least five occasions, mostly business related, but one involved a case of assault.

The Court of Civil Jurisdiction Index 1799-1814 held by NSW State Records names Laurence as defendant in two civil cases in 1813 and 1814, both business related:

Plaintiff -Walter Laing- 21 October 1813 [1]

Plaintiff -Absalom West (one of his co-members of the Commercial Society of Sydney- a builder, brewer and publisher of the first Australian engraved views.)- 24 January 1814  [2]

Both of these cases are of particular interest as they indicate that Laurence had established himself as a trader by 1812. The case brought by Walter Laing is particularly noteworthy, as it outlines the prices Laurence was charging his customers at that time, for individual pieces of furniture- important information from an historic point of view.

Case 1- Laing vs. Butler      (see full transcript below)

The Old Registers contain a “Bond of Arbitration” document between Lawrence Butler and a Walter Lang:

Bond of Arbitration dated 20^th April 1813 Between Lawrence Butler of Sydney Carpenter of the one part and Walter Lang of Parramatta Esquire of the other part- Touching(?) and concerning certain goods wares and merchandizes and sundry articles of house furniture and effects in regard to the value or estimation thereof which were some time since sold and delivered to and received by the Parties, And in order and with a view to settle determine and decide the same in a fair just and impartial manner, __ David Bevan appointed arbitrator for L Butler and Francis Williams the Arbitrator of Mr Lang and in case of the decision not giving satisfaction then the two arbitrators to appoint an umpire whose decree shall be final. The Condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden (?) L Butler Do & shake on his hand in all things such and truly perform (?) abide by and submit to such order decision or decree touching the matters in dispute between the said Parties as they the said F Williams and D Bevan shall make subscribe and declare in writing under their hands and seals within 14 days from the dates thereof or in case the said Umpire shall be chosen as aforesaid, Then to the Order Decree or final Umpirage of such persons as appointed- in like manner to be made Subscribed and Delivered in writing by the said Umpire under his hand add seal within 8 days after he the said Umpire shall be so chosen as aforesaid then the above obligation be void and of no effect or else to remain in full force and the Parties moreover mutually agree that this their submission shall be made a Rule of the Court of Civil Jurisdiction in this __ according to such made in Cases of Arbitration as is usual, and pursuant to the Statute.

The said L Butler binds himself in the Penal Sum of ₤200.11.9 to the said W. Lang his Attorney  Extors (Executors?) Admors (Administrators?) or Assigns for which payment well and truly to be made. He binds himself his Heirs Extors & Admors & every of them by these presents- Executed in the presence of M Robinson & Charles Gray [3]

The two parties obviously could not come to an agreement, as the case proceeded to the Court of Civil Jurisdiction:

Walter Laing, a free settler who arrived from England in 1812 and settled in Van Diemen’s Land in 1813, sued Laurence for £100 sterling “ for goods sold and delivered to the said Laurence at his request”. This case came to Court in October 1813. Laing was represented in Court by Simeon Lord, his agent. Laurence represented himself and pleaded “General Issue” (ie he required Laing to prove his claim), and a Set Off (ie. he wanted to reduce his liability to Laing by the amount Laing owed him for furniture). The prices charged by Laurence for the various pieces of furniture were also in dispute, as Laing insisted they were priced in “currency” value, whereas Laurence insisted they were in “sterling” prices.

Laing had sold Laurence three casks containing 349 gallons of elephant seal oil in May 1812, for which Laurence had signed a receipt. Laurence claimed that he had had the casks gauged and that one of the casks was sixty-one gallons deficient. However, as he had signed the receipt, this evidence was disallowed. One of Laurence’s employees, cabinet maker Thomas Beaumont/Bowman [4], was produced as a witness, and stated that Laing at one time agreed to make up to Butler the deficiency in oil, either in oil or in other goods to the value. A second witness stated that he had gauged the casks and one was ten gallons deficient.

Laurence then produced several defense witnesses, (Andrew McDougall, Joseph Smith and James Ansell) all in the cabinet making trade who gave their opinions about the prices charged by Laurence for the furniture he had sold to Laing. They each supported Laurence’s price structure. McDougall stated that he had seen the different articles of furniture in question and that “the work that I saw was very well made.” He concluded that the prices were fair and that he would have charged sterling money for those articles.

Smith, an upholsterer had not seen the articles, but concluded that the prices charged were fair and reasonable, as he had furnished Laing with a valuation for several pieces, produced as evidence. His partner Ansell, a shipwright, concurred with Smith’s statement and stated that Laing had come to their house and desired a quote for various pieces of furniture, and that he had desired them to furnish the lowest prices they could make them for and said they should be paid in sterling money.

Prices were quoted in sterling:

6 cedar chairs without bottoms- £9

elbow chairs- 50 p. extra

two tables -£10

four post bed without ironwork- £12

camp bedstead (ie. one that can be folded), without iron work- £4

large mattress bolster (ie a large cylindrical pillow or rest, also used at the ends of couches) and pillows for a bedstead 7 ft long and 6 ft wide- £5

sopha/sofa- £12

two kitchen tables were also mentioned, but the only comment was that they were “charged very cheap”.

The Court, under Judge Advocate Ellis Bent gave Judgement for the Plaintiff damages  £13.5.0 and Costs £2.16.4. 6^th November 1813.

Although this would appear to be a victory for Laing, in effect, it was also a considerable victory for Laurence. The original writ for £100 was reduced to only £13, and therefore suggests that the Court believed Laurence’s defense, and agreed with his request for a Set-off, which it took into consideration when calculating the amount of ‘damages’ awarded to Laing. Laurence had not disputed the delivery of the oil- he had refused to pay Laing the stated amount on the account for oil he had found deficient in quantity.

The prices for the various pieces of furniture in dispute will be discussed in the chapter on Laurence’s cabinet-making.

Case 2- West vs  Butler   (see full transcript below)

The second civil Court case only three months later, in January 1814. Absalom West a Sydney dealer sued Laurence “for £87.3.0 for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant at his request”.

Once again, Laurence pleaded “general issue” as to part (ie. he required plaintiff to prove his claim), and tender as to the remainder.

In this case, Laurence did not conduct his own defence but engaged the services of attorney Edward Eagar. In Macquarie’s time there were no lawyers in Australia that had come free to the Colony, and as this was now a bitterly litigious society, Ellis Bent, the Judge Advocate, allowed three ex-convict lawyers to bring civil cases- Edward Eagar, George Crossley and George Chartres. He was tired of litigants pleading their own cases and wasting valuable court time. Eagar (1787-1866) was a Dublin attorney under life sentence for forgery, and after getting his conditional pardon in 1813, he was allowed to practice law in the Colony for the next two years, building up a flourishing practice. However, at the creation of the new Supreme Court of Civil Judicature, the judge, Jeffrey Bent, younger brother of Ellis, refused to hear any cases brought by ex-convict lawyers and in May 1815 it was ruled that no lawyer disbarred in England or Ireland could plead in Australia, thus destroying Eagar’s practice.

The Plaintiff’s witnesses claimed that six months before, in August 1813, a large keg of tobacco was delivered to Laurence, for which he received a bill: 1 keg of tobacco, weight 166, at 10s per pound; £87.3.0. at currency rates. When cross examined, it was stated that West had sold other kegs at seven shillings a pound sterling. As currency rates constantly differed in relation to sterling rates, another witness, John William Lewin, the coroner for Sydney, claimed he had an account with Butler who was lately claiming 25% discount for sterling, but that he was up until recently allowing payment in currency at 50% and that it had even been 75%, some time back. Lewin would be remembered in history as the famous naturalist and painter who published his famous work: Birds of New Holland with their Natural History, London, 1808. He came to New South Wales on a free passage on the ‘Minerva’ in 1800.  [5]

Once again, Laurence’s employee, Thomas Beaumont/Bowman was called as a witness. He stated that Laurence and he had gone to tender West the amount of the bill in sterling money, at 7s. per pound, however, West would not take sterling money and that he said he would have his 10s. a pound currency.

Judgement was given to the Plaintiff: Damages £58.2.0; Costs £6.8.4

Again, this would appear to be a victory for the plaintiff, Absalom West. However, the writ was for £87 and damages awarded was only £58, which is about 33% less then claimed. The fact that Laurence had offered to pay the account for the standard fee of 7s. per pound in sterling was obviously taken into account when the judgement was made.

The most interesting aspect of this case was the timing of the Court case. The dispute had arisen in August 1813, but not heard until January 1814. In the meantime, Laurence and Absalom West were two of the traders that had met in October 1813 to form the Commercial Society of Sydney to overcome the problems inherent with the’ currency discount against sterling’ system of payments, and the variable rates of discount charged. One wonders if the friction caused by the dispute carried over into the meetings.

The witness used for Laurence’s defense at both trials was named Thomas Beaumont. No records have been found of a Thomas Beaumont. However, a Thomas Bowman who was a chair maker, was working for Laurence from 1810 to at least 1814, and it would seem likely that they are the same person.  Bowman was one of Laurence’s witnesses in another court case in May 1814.  (see Case 3)

Case 3: Gill  vs.  Butler  (re employment of John Booth)

In May 1814 Laurence faced the Magistrates court on a charge of: “Unlawfully employing John Booth in the service of the Crown during hours he should have been working for Government, well  knowing the said John Booth to be a prisoner.”  [6] The charge was brought by Captain J. Gill of the 46^th Regiment, Acting Engineer. On the Bench sat the Judge Advocate, Ellis Bent, William Broughton Esq., Alexander Riley Esq., and Simeon Lord Esq.

Date: 7/5/1814

(Reel 1259; item identifier SZ774; COD 235)

Saturday the 7^th day of May 1814

Bench of Magistrates

Present

The Judge Advocate, Ellis Bent

Wm Broughton Esq

Alexr Riley Esq

Simeon Lord Esq

Laurence Butler, a free man is charged by Captn J. Gill, of the 46^th Regt Acting Engineer, with unlawfully employing one John Booth a prisoner in the service of the Crown during the hours he should have been working for Government, well knowing the said John Booth to have been a prisoner.

Laurence produced two defence witnesses, both employees of his:

William Temple sworn:

 I am a prisoner and a cabinet maker by trade. I have been in the employ of Laurence Butler. I know John Booth. I have seen him do some light work there. I used to go to Butlers immediately after I had done my government work. At those times I saw Booth at work there. I cannot say whether he was constantly employed by Butler. I came out in the General Hewitt. I have been in the habit of working for Butler during my after hours ever since my arrival. Booth told me that he was on the Surgeons Exempt List.

Thomas Bowman sworn:

I have been employed by Laurence Butler nearly four years. I have seen John Booth about the place doing small trifling things, just to get him a little nourishment- for the last two months. He did not do any heavy work. Butler must have known he was a government man, as he came to him when he first arrived in the country. Booth was considered sick and unfit for work. We considered Booth as an object of charity. There was a subscription for him by the apprentices at Butlers. I subscribed half a crown a week and some tea and sugar. I did not continue the subscription to the time Booth was taken by Captain Gill.

 It is about a month since I gave up my subscription. Booth used to sleep at Butler’s. I cannot tell what he has earned at Butlers. Latterly he has not done much work at Butlers. I have seen Booth at work at Butlers at all hours within the last two months or six weeks- or a month-.

It is between nine and twelve months since he has been at work for Butler- but during this time he has been twice at the hospital.

After hearing the defendant, the Court’s opinion that this charge is not fully proved.

The first witness, William Temple  [7], from Lincolnshire, given a life sentence, arrived in 1814. He was employed in the Government lumber yard, and for Laurence in his free time. In 1817 he was sent to Newcastle for the theft of a boat with intent of escaping. In his Memorial for a pardon in 1821, he stated he had been employed, along with carver and gilder John Webster, for the previous 18 months making furniture for Government House at Parramatta, including the famous Macquarie chairs (two Gothic style armchairs decorated with a carving of the Macquarie arms.

In 1828 WilliamTemple was a carpenter residing at Parramatta and appears to have died there in 1839.

The second witness Thomas Bowman  [8], arrived on the Calcutta in May 1803. He was convicted in the Old Bailey Court in 1801, with three others of breaking and entering with intent to steal, and with stealing 104 blankets value£40. A witness said that Bowman and two others were covered with wool as though carrying it over their shoulders.  A witness also stated, on searching Bowman's rooms he found a dark lantern, 2 centre bits, a small crow, several keys, 2 latch keys, a spike gimblet, a spring saw, and a key that is partly manufactured into a skeleton key. The Cross Examiner asked "Do you not know that he is a carpenter or chair maker? Witness: I saw some chairs in the room. Q: Are not these instruments necessary in the business of a carpenter or chair-maker. A: I cannot say.

Bowman's final defence was: "I went to the main suspect's house to fetch a table to mend and while I was there, the officers came and took me."

Verdict: Guilty; Sentence: Death!

Bowman then had his sentence commuted to transportation for life. He got a Ticket of Leave No.366.

As he stated he had been working for Laurence since 1810, and was a carpenter and chair- maker, as was Temple.

The case against Laurence, for employing the sick convict Booth, gives us an insight into Laurence Butler’s character. From the evidence given by two of Butler’s employees, it appeared that Booth was an ill man and on the Surgeon’s Exempt List. Butler employed him to do very light work “just to get him a little nourishment.” He also slept at Butler’s and during the few months he was there, Booth was admitted to hospital two times. The apprentices at Butlers made a subscription for Booth. It is unknown what happened to Booth after this case. The Colonial Secretary’s Correspondence names four convicts of this name, arriving in 1791, 1813, and two in 1818. The John Booth who arrived on the “Fortune” in 1813 seems the most likely candidate, as he had worked for Butler since his arrival. On 14 May 1823, a Booth was on a list of prisoners transported to Port Macquarie per the “Sally”. On 8 September 1821, a John Booth, carpenter, was on the list of persons victualled from H.M. Magazines. On 19 July 1823, a John Booth sought permission to procure cedar with Mr Batman. (Probably the John Batman who established the first settlement at Melbourne.) These records may be relevant. The Old Bailey trial records have a John Booth on trial in July 1812 for pick pocketing a watch, found guilty and transported for 14 years. [9]

Case 4: Wentworth  vs  Butler  (see full transcript below)

In 1817, D’Arcy Wentworth sued Laurence. Wentworth was involved in a number of suits during the year 1817 for the recovery of various sums of money. H.P. Barker  [10] wrote: “Some of these cases did not reach court so it seems that they were settled to the mutual satisfaction of the respective parties before the scheduled date of hearing”, including suits lodged against Daniel Cubitt, filed 31 July 1817, and against Lawrence Butler 2 October 1817.

Laurence was summonsed by Wentworth to appear in Court in November, on the charge that on 23^rd April 1816 he made a Promissory note and promised to pay to D’Arcy Wentworth two months after the date thereof, the sum of 125 pounds sterling ‘per value received’. “Yet the said Laurence Butler not regarding his said promise and undertaking so by him in manner and form aforesaid made but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtilly (sic) to deceive and defraud the said D’Arcy Wentworth in this respect hath not yet paid the said D’Arcy Wentworth the said sum of money in the said note specified according to the tenor and effect of the said note or in any other manner whatever although the said Laurence Butler is well at the end of the time appointed in the said Note for payment of the said sum of money therein specified as oftentimes since at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid was requested by the said D’Arcy Wentworth then and still being the lawful holder of the said Note as aforesaid to pay him the same but the said Laurence Butler to pay the same or any part thereof to the said D’Arcy Wentworth hath hitherto wholly neglected and refused and still doth refuse. And whereas also the said Laurence Butler afterwards to wit in the first day of September in the Year of Our Lord 1817 at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid was indebted to the said D’Arcy Wentworth in the further sum of one hundred pounds of lawful money of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland current in England for so much money by the said D’Arcy Wentworth before that time but and advanced to the said Laurence Butler at his special instance and request. And being so indebted he the said Laurence Butler…. undertook and then and there faithfully promised to pay to him the said sum of money.”

The affidavit continued in this vein for several pages.

As the case did not come to court, it must have been settled satisfactorily between the two parties. For some reason, Wentworth was only suing him for £100, whereas the affidavit indicates there were two sums owing that were outstanding- £120 in April 1816 and £100 in September 1817.  [11]

Wentworth sued a number of people in 1817, besides Laurence : [12]

-  Daniel Cubitt: arrived on the Neptune in 1790; appointed head Gaoler 1810-1816; 1817, a Publican of Cat & Fiddle; 1820 appointed Master of the newly established Row Guard. He was also paid from the Police Fund by Wentworth in 1816 and 1817, for work done on the Gaol of Sydney- plaistering and whitewashing the debtors new rooms at the gaol £18. 3s. 8d., and for stonemasons and carpenters work erecting at the rear of the gaol

£133. 15s. currency. Sued by Wentworth for £200, settled out of court.

-  William Broughton: arrived free 1788; several positions of Acting Deputy Commissary and Acting Commissary General and Acting Assistant Commissary General at Norfolk, Sydney and then Hobart over period 1800 to 1818; Acting Assistant Commissary General Hobart 1816-1818, when faced Court Martial- in 1819 legality of judgement passed by Court Martial left to higher authorities; Director of Bank of NSW; Land at Appin.

-  Patrick Hogan: arrived Sydney 1813; 1813-1816 Deputy Assistant Commissary General VDL; Court Martial 1817- relieved by William Broughton; 1821 grant land at NW Bay. A successful claim was made against Hogan- ref- Supreme Court, S.B. Map Drawer I, Wentworth against Patrick Hogan, 1817.

-  Edward Smith Hall: arrived free on “Friendship” 1811; grant 700 acres; 1819 appointed Coroner; member of Governor’s Court 1813,1814,1816; 1821 dispute with Surveyor General Oxley and magistrate Charles Throsby arising from passage of Hall’s cattle through Oxley’s property.

1828 began the “Monitor” newspaper, criticizing Governor Darling’s oppressive governorship, and championing convict rights. Employed Lawrence Butler Junior as an apprentice printer. Jailed for libel in 1830 and released. A successful claim was made against Edward Hall- ref -Supreme Court, S.B. Map Drawer I, Wentworth against Edward Hall, 23 September 1817.

- William Gore and Patrick McMahon- another successful claim by Wentworth. “ It was a common practice for cases to be followed immediately by an injunction forestalling payment. This was necessarily followed by a term in the Equity Court where the proceedings could be very lengthy and costly.” (Barker p185)  This case did proceed to the Equity Court- (ref. Equity, S.B. Map Cabinets, Wentworth against Gore and McMahon, 13 August 1817). William Gore was appointed Provost Marshal of NSW in 1805 and arrived in the colony in 1806 with Governor Bligh, whom he actively  supported during the Rum Rebellion, and was with Bligh when arrested. In 1808, Gore was charged with perjury by the rebel court, and sentenced to transportation to Coal River. He was restored to office by Macquarie in 1810 and spent 1810-12 in England as a witness at the trial of Major Johnston. In 1818 he was imprisoned for debt and suspended from his office. This was probably due to his costly court case against Wentworth, which may have had something to do with the recall of Justice Jeffrey Bent, as indicated by the entries in the Colonial Secretary’s Correspondence at this time. In 1824 Gore was transported for life to Newcastle for the murder of Andrew Beatie (by shooting). However, he was pardoned the following year.

Patrick McMahon was chief clerk to William Gore. Although co-defendant with Gore, McMahon had actually died in February 1816. Laurence Butler was a juror at his inquest.

So, Laurence was one of group of rather auspicious Colonists sued by Wentworth that year.

Wentworth himself, in 1817, was in a vicious dispute with Lt. Governor George Molle, who unsuccessfully tried to have Wentworth court-martialled after his son William Wentworth was accused of writing a “scurrilous pipe about Molle’s ‘shortcomings’ ”. [13]

Notably, Molle left for India shortly afterwards.

Case 5: Laurence Butler’s Assault Charge- on Eliza Palmer  (see full transcript below)

The one blot on Laurence’s reputation  as a respectable citizen occurred in June 1819, when Laurence was charged with assault on a Mrs Eliza Palmer and was fined £10. 10s.- the case: “The King v. Lawrence Butler”. The following year, in June 1820, he paid a fee of 10s. for “recognizance for the peace”, which appears to have ended his 12 months recognizance. [14]

The Judge Advocate’s statement at the Committal Proceedings [15] : 12^th June 1819: Judge Advocate John Wylde Esq. presiding: Charges and gives the said Court to be informed That Lawrence Butler late of Sydney in the Territory of NSW cabinet-maker, on the 9^th day of April in the year of our Lord 1819 with force and arms at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid in and upon one Eliza Palmer in the peace of God and our said Lord the King there and there being did make an assault on her the said Eliza Palmer then and there did beat, bruise, wound and ill-treat so that her life was greatly despaired of and that he the said Lawrence Butler with his Fist in and upon the Head, Shoulders, Arms, Back, Hips and other parts of the Body of her the said Eliza Palmer then and there unlawfully violently and maliciously did strike by ____(?) whereof the said Eliza Palmer was in great Danger of losing her life and other wrongs to the said Eliza Palmer then and there did to the great Damage of the said Eliza Palmer and against the peace of our said Lord the King his Crown and Dignity. 24^th June 1819 The Information was read to the Deponent and he pleaded Not Guilty

J. Wylde.

Witness statements:

Before D’Arcy Wentworth Esq-

1. Eliza Palmer of Pitt Street sworn saith. On Thurs last__  a week An Altercation took place in my  house between Mr Butler of Pitt St and myself. On the following Day Good Friday, he came over to my gate and there without any provocation on my part he said to me You thieving Bitch Come outside your gate and I will kick you. I half opened my gate when he came up and struck me two violent blows on the Head and then kicked me in the Hip. I said nothing but went into my house immediately

Signed Eliza Palmer

Sworn before me this 19^th April 1819 D’Arcy Wentworth

2. Joseph Chetham of Pitt St sworn saith:

On the day mentioned in the preceding deposition I saw Mr Butler ___ over from his own house to Mr Palmers. I heard him say to the __- Deponent You Bitch if you will come out I will kick you. She came out. He struck her on the side of the Head and kicked her. She made no reply walked in immediately and I saw no provocation whatever! given by her to Mr Butler

Signed by X

 Sworn before me this 19^th April, D. Wentworth

3. Robert Leach servant to Mr Palmer Pitt St, sworn saith:

I have heard the preceding Depositions read, and I confirm the same in every particular.

Signed R. Leach  (hesitantly written)

Sworn before same day

D. Wentworth

Fully committed for Trial.

Lawrence Butler of Pitt St Sydney £50

Thomas Shaughnessy, Hunter St £25

Joseph Larkin, Castlereagh St £25

The above named persons acknowledge themselves bound…. In the penal Sums expressed against each of their respective names, conditioned that if the above named Lawrence Butler shall personally be and appear at the next Court of Criminal Jurisdiction which may be held in Sydney there to Answer to the Charge of Assault and Battery now in prosecution against him by Eliza Palmer, then this Recognizance to be Null and Void, otherwise to remain in full force and Virtue in Law.

L. Butler

Thos Shaughnessy

Joseph Larkin

Taken before me 19^th Day April 1819

D. Wentworth

NB. Thomas Shaughnessy was a cabinet maker from Dublin, who arrived in 1806 on the “Tellicherry” (with Michael Dwyer). He was given a life sentence at his trial in 1803, aged 33 and given an Absolute Pardon in 1813. He would be remembered as one of Australia’s well known cabinet-makers. [16]

Joseph Larkin, a carpenter (1828 Census), given a life sentence at his trial in 1798 in Lancaster, arriving in 1800 on the “Royal Admiral” aged 23, receiving his Absolute Pardon in 1814. [17]

No defence statement by Laurence or trial transcript remains, however:

On the 24^th June 1819, tried and found Guilty; Sentence Fined £10 and to find Sureties for the Peace for 12 months.

Lawrence Butler of Pitt Street Sydney cabinet maker, Robert Lathrop Murray of Macquarie Street Sydney  aforesaid Gentleman, and George Crossley of Pitt Street aforesaid Gentleman acknowledge themselves bound… in the penal sums expressed against each of their respective names, conditioned that if the above named Lawrence Butler do and shall well and truly keep the Kings peace towards all his Majesty’s liege subjects and in particular towards Eliza Palmer from henceforth for the Term of twelve Calendar Months, then this Recognizance to be Null and Void, otherwise to remain in full Force and Virtue in Law.

Signed L. Butler £100

Rob Laythrop Murray £50

Geo Crossley £50

The two men who paid sureties on behalf of Lawrence are worth noting:

Robert Lathrop Murray was Principal Clerk in the Police Office, promoted to assistant Superintendant of Police under Wentworth. He was a former Captain in H.M. Royal regiment and Deputy Assistant Quarter Master General. He arrived in 1816 on the “Fanny” for an ‘offence’ of bigamy which took place 20 years previously, (having married an Irish woman in 1797, a marriage he considered illegal, and a second marriage in 1801). He claimed descent from a Scottish baronet. His ‘Appeal to the British Nation’ was returned unopened. Murray was granted a pardon soon after arrival. In 1817 he submitted plans for the supply of water to Sydney and for developing telegraphic communications. In 1823 he settled in Van Diemen’s Land., where he took up journalism, for some time employed as editor for Laurence Butler’s future son-in-law John C. Macdougall’s newspaper “The Tasmanian & Austral-Asiatic Review” until it ceased publication in 1845. Notably a son born in Tasmania to his third wife, was named D’Arcy Wentworth Lathrop Murray, who became a JP and MP for Tasmania.)

George Crossley, an experienced and eminent attorney, was convicted of fraud in England and arrived on the notorious fever ship “Hillsborough” in 1799. His residence and practice was in Pitt Street, almost opposite Laurence’s property. He was one of three emancipist lawyers who were allowed to practice in litigation cases, by Justice Ellis Bent. This privilege was withdrawn by Bent’s brother Justice Jeffrey Bent, resulting in a bitter dispute between Bent and Macquarie. During the ‘Rum Rebellion’, Crossley was the lawyer who was the close advisor of the Judge Advocate Richard Atkins. Bligh begrudgingly relied on Crossley for legal advice as Atkins, a known drunkard, was out of his depth, and Crossley had considerable legal knowledge. Crossley made many enemies during his time in the Colony, and appears to have had a dubious reputation. Mrs Reid, in her Journal (on the “Friendship”) noted that her “husband had taken bills to the amount of two thousand pounds from Crossley, who by false vouchers made it appear that he was possessed of considerable property in England. This was a fiction: the bills were dishonoured, and none of the property ever recovered. Our chief mate, Mr Muirhead, lost about ₤400 by the same individual.”   [18]  Whether this was a deliberate fraud or a genuine misunderstanding is unknown.

It is difficult to determine the comparative seriousness of this assault in comparison with other cases at that time. Looking at the records of others fined at the same session in the Criminal Court, a Captain Sanderson was fined £5 for an assault on the famous government architect Francis Greenway (The King v. Sanderson); Jn Anderson fined £10 for manslaughter; Wm McDonald £5 for assault on John Foster; Archibald Wood £20 for assault on two constables in execution of their duty; D. Mathews £50 for assaulting a sentry on his post; George Reibey was fined £100 for assault on Henry Brooks, His Excellency remitting the said fine £50; several others £5 for assault; and Thomas Jamison and his sons were fined £20 and £5 each for assault and “with rescuing sheep and cattle distrained for trespass” Notably, none of these men were sentenced to jail time or transportation, and therefore can’t have been viewed as serious assaults and the victims must have been relatively unharmed. The charges laid were probably the result of minor arguments that became physical. The variance in the fines imposed is notable, and one wonders if the amount imposed was relative to the guilty party’s ability to pay. All of the above were free citizens, as convicts charged with the above crimes would have been lashed and transported to a remote penal colony such as Coal River.

Despite being on “recognizance to keep the peace” in June 1820, Laurence was called up for jury duty in August of that year, so he was still classed as one of the twelve “good and lawful men of Sydney”, the description given to the twelve selected jurymen on these cases.

The Sanderson case was written up in the “Sydney Gazette” 5 July 1817 and gives an insight into the Judge’s judgment, which may have also applied in Laurence’s case:

Supreme Court- Justice Field- 30 June 1817- Greenway v. Sanderson [19]:

“In an action for assault and battery which was tried last Monday, and damages laid at £200, His Honor the Judge expatiated at much length on the necessity which the Court was ever under the actions of this nature to ascertain the quantum of damage actually sustained by the complaining party, and also at the provocation from which the assault had itself originated. It did appear that the provocation was great, this consideration would of course go in mitigation of damages, if not in some instances almost to a justification of the act, for it was very easy to be conceived possible that a gross insult, which was of itself tending to a breach of peace in the first instance, might provoke the actual breach; and as that appeared to be a good deal the complexion of the present action, the Court considered £20 to be a sound?? sufficient to give as damages.”

Notably this article stated the fine for damages was £20, yet the list of fines for the case in the same Court Session was £5. So whether, following Sanderson’s conviction of assault by the Court in the case “The King v. Sanderson”, Francis Greenway then sued Sanderson, in the same Court Session, for personal damages is uncertain.

As in the above case, it is possible that Laurence’s assault on Eliza Palmer was provoked, which was taken into consideration by the judge when sentencing. Palmer herself stated that she and Butler had had another altercation the day before, and that Butler had called her a “thieving bitch”, so it would appear that provocation was an issue that would have been used in his defense. It is a pity that the trial record does not contain Laurence’s defense argument, which may have explained his reasons for such an attack, however, the Judge obviously considered that the assault was unjustified and found him Guilty.

Eliza/Elizabeth Palmer would appear to have been the wife of Richard Palmer. There are several BDM Registry and Col. Sec. Corresp. Records for an Elizabeth Palmer, that correspond with the information given in the case. Richard Palmer, an emancipated convict who had arrived on the ‘Minorca/Canada’ in 1801 (aged 35) after his trial in Middlesex in 1798 and given a 7 year sentence, was granted land in 1806 and issued with a publican’s license in 1810, which was renewed until his death on 29 November 1819, aged 52. In 1816 he was at Brickfield Hill and in 1817 was a publican at the Black Swan in Sydney. Palmer had married Elizabeth Titley in 1810, but they had co-habited from at least 1803 when their first child was born, and she was listed in the 1806 Muster as living with Palmer with 3 ‘natural children’ and described as “Concubine” (viz. unmarried) in Samuel Marsden’s Muster. She was an emancipated convict, given a 7 year sentence at her trial in Shropshire in 1800, arriving on the ‘Nile’ in 1801 aged 18. In all they had eight children, the last born in 1818. A daughter named Elizabeth was born in 1811. Mrs Elizabeth Palmer died the following year, 1820 aged 42.

A few months after Laurence’s assault on Eliza Palmer, on December 15^th  1819, Elizabeth Palmer was charged with the assault of Robert Brown “on the King’s Highway”. His statement said that, without the slightest provocation, Elizabeth Palmer had hit him with a large stick, severely wounding him in the arm. She was committed for trial, however, the case did not come to Court in 1821, as she had died.  On 15^th Dec 1819, her committal record shows that this Elizabeth Palmer was living in George Street and had to pay sureties of £25 and a Mr W. Hutchinson a further £25 to appear in Court. Her victim, Robert Brown, was illiterate as he signed with his mark, as did his witness  J. Wright. 
The Colonial Secretary’s Correspondence Index SRNSW, has  records of petitions for admission of Eliza/Elizabeth Palmer and Jane Palmer to the Female Orphan Institution, the youngest daughters of Mrs Elizabeth Palmer, and for William Palmer (the youngest, b.1818) admitted to the Male Orphan Institution in 1823, by his guardian John Cullen.

This attack on Robert Brown occurred only a month after her husband’s death, and she had moved from Pitt St to George Street. She was probably in dire straits financially.

However, this second assault case would therefore indicate that Elizabeth/Eliza Palmer had a volatile nature and a dishonest disposition, which may have contributed to her dispute with Laurence.

Jury Duty

Laurence was a juror on four occasions: in 1816, 1817 and in August 1820; at the inquests of Patrick McMahon (clerk to the Provost Marshall, William Gore); Hugh Wood; a young child Charles Thomas[20] who had been run over by a horse and cart; and the still born child of William and Jane Gibson. [21] (N.B. James Bean was the foreman of the jury at McMahon’s inquest. Bean, a free settler who arrived in 1799, was the grandfather of Margaret Dunn who would later marry Laurence’s son Walter.) 
Only free citizens, including emancipists, who were considered to be “honest and lawful men”, were allowed to be chosen as jurors.

Macquarie’s judgment that honest and law abiding emancipists could act as jurors and even as magistrates would be challenged by Commissioner Bigge and subsequent governors. Notably, Laurence’s last appearance as a juror occurred within weeks of the expiration of his ‘recognizance to keep the peace’ following his conviction for assault on Eliza Palmer.

Governor’s Court Cases 1815-1824

Several cases were heard in the Governor’s Court for payments of debt due on Promissory Notes. The records only show the writ not the outcome.

Case 53- John Dorney v. Laurence Butler  1 October 1819

Butler summoned to appear before the Governor’s Court to answer complaint of John Dorney of Sydney against Laurence Butler of Sydney for £30 due on a Promissory Note dated 14 November 1815, drawn by Laurence Butler payable to John Dorney or Bearer on 1^st January 1816 for £20 for value received which is still due and unpaid.

Case 154- Frances Wood v. Laurence Butler, 10 March 1820

Complaint of Frances Wood for £2 for goods sold and delivered.

Case 348- Ann Butler Exec. of Laurence Butler deceased v. Hugh Byrne, 7 September 1821, extended to 5 Oct 1821

Defendant in custody of Prov. Marshal in gaol.

Complainant for £15 due on a Promissory Note dated 22 July 1818 drawn by Defendant payable to Laurence Butler 9 months after date for sum of £10 which is due and unpaid.

Oath for £10 upwards

Bail for £20

Plus costs- Bill of Attorney’s Costs £5.6.7

Case 414- Ann Butler Exec. v. Thomas Eather, 1 February 1822

Complaint against Thomas Eather for £10 due on a Promissory Note drawn by Thomas Eather of Windsor on 10 January 1819 payable 2 months after date to Laurence Butler or Bearer for £6.7.8 now due and unpaid. Affidavit of Eather- wishing to subpoena James Magrath of Windsor to be examined in said case for which I have not time unless case be deferred. Further swear that Magrath is a Material Witness in the case and I cannot safely proceed to trial without him.

(SRNSW: Governor’s Court Case Papers 1815-1824: [4/7862] Case No. 53 Series No: NRS 4563; [4/7880] Case No. 154 Series No. NRS 4565; [4/7863] Case No. 348 Series No. NRS 4563; [4/7864] Case No: 414 NRS 4563)

Full Transcripts of cases above:

1. Court of Civil Jurisdiction Index-  Walter Laing vs. Laurence Butler

NSW SR Series NRS2659 Item 5/1109 Case No. 382 

Thursday the 21^st day of October 1813

The Court met pursuant to adjournment

Present: The Judge Advocate (Ellis Bent)

          Charles Hook Esquire and

          Richard Jones Esquire

Walter Laing of Sydney Esquire, Plaintiff

Laurence Butler of Sydney, Defendant

Writ for £100.0.0 sterling for goods sold and delivered by the said Walter to the said Laurence at his request-

The defendant appears in person and pleads this General Issue and a Set off

(NB ‘General issue’ means he required Laing to prove his claim. A ‘Set-off’ means he wanted to reduce his liability to Laing by the amount Laing owed him for furniture.)

The Plaintiff appears by Simeon Lord Esq, his agent.

(NB. Laing was in Hobart by this time)

SIMEON LORD sworn and Examinant for the Plaintiff says:

Yesterday the defendant in my presence, admitted the words “Law Butler” signed to the paper writing now shewn me, to be his handwriting.

No.1- The said Paper writing dated Sydney 23^rd May 1812 is read for the Plaintiff- The witness further says/ Apeably (?) to that paper the defendant has furnished goods to the Plaintiff but not to the amount of the Plaintiff’s demand. I have an account of the goods furnished by the defendant.

No2.- The Account in my hand is the one sent in by the defendant. The Plaintiff admits having received the several articles pursuant to that account, but objects to the Prices- I believe the Paper now shewn me is

No3. the handwriting of Mr Laing. I believe the other No 4. paper now shewn me is also the Plaintiff’s handwriting.

The Plaintiff here closes his case.-

In answer, the defendant says the goods received from Plaintiff by the defendant were overcharged- and that in one of the articles, namely the oil, there was a deficiency of sixty-one Gallons-

The defendant offers evidence to prove this statement.

The Plaintiff objects to the Court receiving evidence of these facts, the defendant being estopped (NB means ‘prevented from challenging’) by the receipt signed by him read in evidence for the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff requests leave to call a witness to depose to facts which took place at the time of signing this receipt.

The Court grants this request.

THOMAS BEAUMONT ( viz. Thomas Bowman, employed journeyman of Butler's) 

sworn says:

I was present when Mr Laing brought a receipt to Butler’s for his signature. I cannot exactly say when it was. I saw Butler sign it. The receipt produced is the receipt. The account now shewn me is the one for which the receipt was given. This account was furnished to Butler sometime before the receipt was signed. Butler was in possession of the goods at the time he gave this receipt. I saw part of the goods delivered. The oil was gauged before the signing of the receipt. I believe the oil was not delivered on the same day of signing the receipt.

After the receipt was signed, but before Mr Laing had left the place, Butler made some objections. He pointed out the deficiency in the oil. He also made objections to the prices charged for the other articles. He objected to the piece(?) goods. Mr Laing told Butler that if he could point out any other person that he had sold goods to of the same quality that he would reduce his bill to the prices he had charged them. Butler then told Mr Laing that he had sold goods to Joseph Inch for a deal less: likewise to Mr Lord; he told him that if he could make that clearly appear that Butler should have the things at the same: Mr Butler then presented Mr Laing a Bill which he had furnished to Mr Lord. Mr Laing with that flew in a rage and went out. That part of the conversation which related to the bill furnished by Mr Laing to Mr Lord took place a considerable time after the signature of this receipt. I did once or twice render an account to Mr Laing of the articles of furniture furnished by Butler to him. The conversation relative to Mr Lord’s Bill took place at one of those times. At the time of signing this receipt and before Mr Laing left the place he agreed to make up to Butler the deficiency in the oil, either in oil or in other goods to the value. I am a cabinet maker and work for Mr Butler- the prices which Butler had charged Mr Laing for the different articles of furniture furnished him, I believe to be the usual charges, and reasonable charges. Sterling money charges I cannot say.

QUESTIONED for the Plaintiff says:

When Butler gave Mr Laing Mr Lord’s Bill he went away very angry. In any account furnished by one for Butler to Mr Laing.

I did not charge Mr Laing with any deficiency or over charge in the goods furnished by him to Butler. I cannot take upon my oath to say that Butler had not received the goods from Mr Laing a week before the receipt was signed.

MARTIN BRYANT sworn says:

By order of Captain Higgins sometime in May or June 1812, I went to Butler’s house and gauged three casks of oil. The three casks contained 349 gallons- one of the casks wanted ten gallons. Captain Higgins was with me. Allowing the casks to be full they would not hold above 356 gallons. No more than three were delivered to Butler at that time. It was elephant oil- I believe Mr Blaxcell at that time charged 4/ a gallon for that oil. I think £4.10- the value of the three casks. (ie. 10 gallons at 4/)

MR ANDREW McDOUGALL sworn says:

I have been for some years in the cabinet-making line. I was singularly bred to it. I saw the different articles of furniture furnished by Butler to the Plaintiff- I signed the paper now shewn me. It contains a fair valuation of the cabinet work. But several articles of upholstery work mentioned in that valuation are out of my line. The work that I saw was very well made. Butler charged no more for the chairs with the bottoms than I should have charged for them as that (?)., but my chairs would be made with mahogany which is not so easily worked as cedar but it is a cheaper wood. I saw the two large tables mentioned in the account. I think that £10 was a fair charge in sterling money. Mr Laing told me that he was to pay in sterling for the furniture- at the time of that valuation I had no idea of the difference in sterling money and currency. I think £9 a fair price for the 6 chairs without bottoms. I think

50p and more aught to be charged for the elbow chairs. I saw a part only of the four-post bedstead. Mr Laing described the bedstead to me. I should have charged £12 for it without the iron work. I think the two kitchen tables are charged very cheap. Mr Laing could not tell whether there were castors (?) or not. I saw the camp bedstead. I should have charged for that £4 exclusive of the iron work. I did not value for __- the fact was I was only asked what I would make such things for- I charge sterling money for those articles.

JOSEPH SMITH sworn says:

I am an upholsterer. I did not see any of the goods which Butler furnished to Mr Laing. The valuation in my hand was done at my house and by my directions. I did ___ any of the goods. Mr Laing came to me with Mr Lowe and asked me what I would make such goods for and I told him and Mr Lowe put it down. I do not think £5 sterling too high a price for a large mattress bolster (ie. a large cylindrical pillow or rest, also used at the ends of couches) and pillows for a bedstead 7 feet long and six feet wide. I could not make it for that price. I do not think £12 too high a price for a good sopha.

JAMES ANSELL sworn says:

I am a shipwright by trade, but I can make furniture as well as they can. I am partner with the last witness. Mr Laing came to our house and said he wanted some furniture made. He desired us to furnish the lowest prices we could make such and such articles for and said we should be paid in sterling money. We then furnished him with this account which Smith has mentioned.

No further witnesses are called.

The Court upon consideration gives Judgement for the Plaintiff damages £13.5.0; Costs £2.16.4

The Court is adjourned until the Morrow at 10 c’clock in the forenoon.

By the Court

Ellis Bent

Judge Advocate

6^th November 1813.

2. Court of Civil Jurisdiction Index-  Absalom West vs. Laurence Butler

NSW SR Series NRS2659 Item 5/1110 Case No. 121

Monday the 24^th day of January 1814

Absalom West of Sydney, dealer, Plaintiff

And
Laurence Butler of Sydney, Carpenter, Defendant

Writ for £87.3.0 for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant at his request and which__(?)

EAGAR appears for the defendant and pleads the general issue as to part, and tender as to the remainder.

(NB. “general issue’ means he required plaintiff to prove his claim.)

WILLIAM BRUCE sworn for the plaintiff says:

About 6 months ago I was in West’s service. I recollect taking a keg of tobacco to the defendant’s by West’s desire. I delivered it to defendant and his wife was in the room. I cannot say the weight of the tobacco. It was one of the large kegs.

JAMES HARDWICK sworn says:

I furnished defendant with his bill for this keg of tobacco at West’s desire. I booked the keg of tobacco in West’s book- as follows- 1813, August 11, Mr Butler, I keg of tobacco, weight 166 @ 10/s (?)£87.3.0- it was sold for currency. I presented Butler with his bill, it was exactly the same as that entry- he did not make any objection. I called two or three times for payment. Butler did not object to the price of any one of those times.

CROSS EXAMINED says:

At the same time West sold some of his kegs of tobacco at seven shillings a pound stg. It was the same tobacco- on the 8 –(?) he sold three kegs of tobacco at seven shillings a pound sterling. He sold according to the agreements made in – either in currency or sterling. At that time to those that preferred paying in currency, he sold in currency at 10/ lb- and to those who preferred paying in sterling he sold in sterling at 7 s/lb.

JOHN MULLETT sworn says:

I furnished Butler with a Bill for a keg of tobacco sold him by West @ 10/ s currency per pound. It was in November last I think. Butler did not make any objection, he said he had not the money but he would call on West in a few days- he did to I believe.

I did not see him read the bill. I took away the bill. I mentioned the amount- he did not say anything about the nature (?) of the money. The value of currency has altered since August.

MR JOHN WILLIAM LEWIN sworn for the plaintiff says:

Mr Butler has had a current account against me for some time- in currency- I paid him lately in sterling money- he allowed me 25 per cent- some of the goods were furnished to me when currency was at 75 percent- I have paid him currency some time at 50 percent.

The Plaintiff does not call further witnesses.

THOMAS BEAUMONT sworn for Plaintiff (?) says:

This day week I went to tender West the amount of his Bill to West- in sterling money- Butler was with me- West would not take sterling money- he said he would have his 10/s a pound currency.

JUDGEMENT for the Plaintiff

Damages £58.2.0  Costs £6.8.4  

3. TRIAL  FOR  ASSAULT  AGAINST  ELIZA  PALMER

Cover of Document:

To be exhibited Signed John Wylde

2^nd June 1819

The King

Against

Butler

Fully Committed for Trial

19^th April 1819

Page 70:

POLICE OFFICE SYDNEY

Lawrence Butler charged with assaulting Eliza Palmer of Pitt-street Sydney

Fully Committed for Trial 19 April 1819

Territory of New South Wales, County of Cumberland

                               Lawrence Butler, Pitt St Sydney   £ 50

                               Thomas Shaughnessy, Hunter St            £25

                               Joseph Larkin,  Castlereagh St               £25

The above named Persons acknowledge themselves bound to Our Sovereign Lord the King, his Heirs and Successors, in the penal Sums expressed against each of their respective Names, Conditional that if the above-named Lawrence Butler shall personally be and appear at the next Court of Criminal Jurisdiction which may be held in Sydney, there to answer to a Charge of Assault and Battery (made?) in prosecution against him by Eliza Palmer, then this recognizance to be Null and Void, otherwise to remain in full force and Virtue in Law.

Signed: L. Butler

          Thos Shaughnessy ( a cabinet maker- arrived “Tellicherry” 1806- from Ireland)

          Joseph Larkin  (Arrived “Royal Admiral” 1800- member of Loyal Sydney Volunteer Association)

Taken and acknowledged before me this

19^th Day of April 1819

D’Arcy Wentworth

Page 72- Depositions:

New South Wales

Before D’Arcy Wentworth Esq.

Magistrate of the ___

Eliza Palmer of Pitt St sworn saith.

On Thursday last ___ a week, an altercation took place in my House between Mr Butler of Pitt St and myself. On the following Day Good Friday he came over to my gate and there without any provocation on my part he said to me You Thieving Bitch come outside your gate and I will kick you- I half opened my gate when he came up and struck me two violent blows on my Head and then kicked me on the Hip- I said nothing but went into my House immediately.

Signed Eliza Palmer (in running writing)

Sworn before me this

19^th April 1819

D’Darcy Wentworth

Page 73 Depositions:

Joseph Chatham of Pitt Street sworn saith

On the Day mentioned in the preceding Deposition I saw Mr Butler __- over from his own House to Mr Palmers. I heard him say to the last Deponent You Bitch, If you will come out I will kick you. She came out. He struck her on the side of the Head and kicked her. She made no reply and walked in immediately and I saw no provocation whatever! given by her to Mr Butler

Signed X Mark of Joseph Chatham

Sworn before me the

19^th April 1819

D’Arcy Wentworth

Robert Leach servant to Mr Palmer Pitt Street sworn saith

I have heard the preceding Depositions read, and I confirm the same in every particular.

Signed R. Leach (hesitantly)

Sworn before me same day

D’Arcy Wentworth

Fully Committed for Trial

Statement of the Judge Advocate:

New South Wales to wit:

Be it remembered that John Wylde Esquire the Judge Advocate of our Sovereign Lord the King for the Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies who for our said Lord the King exhibits the Charge in His behalf_ comes into the Court of Criminal Jurisdiction convened at Sydney in the said Territory by Precept ___ under the hand and seal of His Excellency Governor Macquarie dated the twelfth day of June in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen and having power to enquire of, hear and determine and punish all Treasons Murders Felonies Trespasses and other Crimes whatever committed within the said Territory or its Dependencies and for our said Lord the King charges and gives the said Court to be informed That-

Lawrence Butler late of Sydney in the Territory of New South Wales Cabinet-maker, on the ninth day of April in the year of our Lord 1819, with force and arms at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid in and upon one Eliza Palmer in the Peace of God and our said Lord the King then and there being did make an assault and her the said Eliza Palmer then and there did beat bruise wound and illtreat so that her Life was greatly despaired of and that he the said Lawrence Butler with his Fist in and upon the Head, Shoulders, Arms, Back, Hips, and other parts of the Body of her the said Eliza Palmer then and there unlawfully violently and maliciously did strike by ___ whereof the said Eliza Palmer was in great Danger of losing her life and other wrongs to the said Eliza Palmer then and there did, To the great Damage of the said Eliza Palmer and against the peace of our said Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity. And the said Judge Advocate further gives the said Court to understand and be informed That the said Lawrence Butler on the said Ninth day of April in the year aforesaid with force and arms at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid in and upon the said Eliza Palmer in the peace of God and our said Lord the King then and there being did make an assault and her the said Eliza Palmer then and there did beat, bruise, wound, and ill-treat so that her life was greatly despaired of and other wrongs to the said Eliza Palmer then and there did To the great Damage of the said Eliza Palmer and against the peace of our said Lord the King his Crown and Dignity

24^th June 1819 The information was read over to the Defendant and he pleaded Not Guilty

J. Wylde.

COVER of DOCUMENT

The King against Laurence Butler

Information

Witnesses

Eliza Palmer

Joseph Chatham

Robert Leach

24^th June 1819

Defendant Tried and found Guilty

Sentence fined £10

And___ to find sureties for the Peace for 12 months

Defendant (?) £100 Two sureties of £50 each

J.W.

Page 75:

Territory of New South Wales

Lawrence Butler of Pitt Street Sydney cabinetmaker, Robert Laythrop Murray of Macquarie Street Sydney aforesaid Gentleman, and George Crosley of Pitt Street aforesaid Gentleman

Lawrence Butler £ 100

Robert Laythrop Murray £50

George Crosley £50

The above-named Persons acknowledge themselves bound to Our Sovereign Lord the King, his Heirs and Successors, in the penal Sums expressed against each of their respective names, conditioned that if the above-named Laurence Butler do and shall well and truly keep the King’s Peace towards all his Majesty’s liege Subjects and in particular towards Eliza Palmer from hence forth for the Term of the twelve Calendar Months, then this recognizance to be Null and Void, otherwise to remain in full Force and Virtue in Law

Signed l. Butler

Robert Laythrop Murray

Geo Crosley

Taken and acknowledge before me this 24^th Day of June 1819

4. WENTWORTH v. LAWRENCE BUTLER

NRS 13719, Process Papers, 1817, Wentworth v. Lawerence Butler, No. 173 (9/2252)

COVER

Supreme Court

3^rd Term 1817

173

Wentworth v Butler

Sum for ₤100 Set 1^st Nov.

Recd unto the Provost Marshall’s

Office the 8^th October 1817__

At 4 o’clock

Signed ___

Pursuant to the within sums

to me directed(?) I only caused

 a true copy to be served(?) on

the __ the 8^th day of Oct 1817 ___

Signed Wm Gore  P M

Filed 1^st Nov 1817

In the Supreme Court

Third Term in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventeen.

New South Wales, to wit, D’Arcy Wentworth of Sydney in the Territory of NSW Esquire, complains of Laurence Butler of the same place Cabinet maker For that whereas the said Laurence Butler heretofore to wit on the twenty third day of April in the Year of our Lord 1816 at Sydney in the Territory aforesaid made and drew  his certain note in writing commonly called a promissory note his own proper hand being thereunto subscribed bearing date the same day and Year aforesaid by which said note he the said Laurence promised to pay the said D’Arcy Wentworth by the name and description of “D’Arcy Wentworth Esq. or order” two months after the date thereof the Sum of One Hundred and Twenty Five Pounds Sterling Per value received and then and there delivered the aid Note to the said D’Arcy Wentworth By reason whereof and by force of the Statute in such care made and provided he the said Laurence Butler then and there became liable to pay to the said D’Arcy Wentworth in the said Sum of Money in the said Note specified according to the tenor and effect of the said Note and being liable he the said Laurence Butler in consideration thereof afterwards to wit on the same day and year aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid undertook and then and there faithfully promised the said D’Arcy Wentworth to pay to him the said Sum of Money on the said Note specified according to the tenor and affect of the aid Note. Yet the said Laurence Butler not regarding his said promise and undertaking so by him in manner and form aforesaid made but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtilly (sic) to deceive and defraud the said D’Arcy Wentworth in the respect hath not yet paid the said D’Arcy Wentworth the said Sum of Money in the said Note specified according to the tenor and effect of the said Note or in any other manner whatsoever although the said Laurence Butler as well as the end of the time appointed in the said Note for payment of the said Sum of Money therein specified as oftentimes since at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid was requested by the said D’Arcy Wentworth then and still being the lawful holder of the said Note as aforesaid to pay him the same but the said Laurence Butler to pay the same or any part thereof to the said D’Arcy Wentworth hath hereto wholly neglected and refused and still doth refuse And whereas also the said Laurence Butler afterwards to wit on the first day of September in the Year of Our Lord 1817 at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid was indebted to the aid D’Arcy Wentworth in the further Sum of ₤100 of lawful money of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland current in England for so much money by the said D’Arcy Wentworth before that time but and advanced to the said Laurence Butler at his special instance and request, And being so indebted he the said Laurence Butler in consideration thereof

Page 2

afterward to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid undertook and then and there faithfully promised the said D’Arcy Wentworth to pay to him the said Sum of Money last mentioned whenever afterward he the said Laurence Butler should be thereunto requested And whereas also the said Laurence Butler afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid was indebted to the said D’Arcy Wentworth in the further Sum of ₤100 of like lawful money for so much money by the said D’Arcy Wentworth before that time paid laid out and expected(?) to and for the use of the said Laurence Butler at his like special instance and request And being so indebted he the said Laurence Butler in consideration thereof afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid undertook and then and there faithfully promised the said D’Arcy Wentworth to pay to him the said Sum of Money last mentioned whenever afterwards he the said Laurence Butler should be thereunto requested and whereas also the said Laurence Butler afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid was indebted to the said D’Arcy Wentworth in the further Sum of₤100 of like lawful money for so much money by the said Laurence Butler before that time had and received to and for the use of the said D’Arcy Wentworth and being so indebted he the said Laurence Butler in consideration thereof afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid undertook and then and there faithfully promised the said D’Arcy Wentworth to pay to him the said sum of money last mentioned whenever afterwards he the said Laurence Butler should be thereunto requested And whereas also the said Laurence Butler afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid accounted with the said D’Arcy Wentworth of and concerning divers other Sums of Money from the said Laurence Butler to the said D’Arcy Wentworth before that time due and owing and then in arrear and unpaid and upon that account the said Laurence Butler was then and there found to be in arrear and indebted to the aid D’Arcy Wentworth in the further Sum of ₤100  of like lawful money and being so found in arrear and indebted he the said Laurence Butler in consideration thereof afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid undertook and then and there faithfully promised the said D’Arcy Wentworth to pay to him the said Sum of Money last mentioned whenever afterwards he the said Laurence Butler should be thereunto requested And whereas also the said Laurence Butler afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid was indebted to the said D’Arcy Wentworth in the further sum of ₤100 of like lawful money for so much money by the said Laurence Butler before that time due owing and payable to the said D’Arcy Wentworth for lawful Interest upon and for the forbearance and giving day of payment to the said Laurence Butler of divers large Sums of Money before that time then and there due owing and payable from the said Laurence Butler to the said D’Arcy Wentworth and by him the said D’Arcy Wentworth for borne(?) for divers long spaces of time before then elapsed and at the like special instance

Page 3

And request of him the said Laurence Butler And being so indebted he the said Laurence Butler in consideration thereof afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid undertook and then and there faithfully promised the said D’Arcy Wentworth to pay to him the said Sum of Money last mentioned whenever afterwards he the said Laurence Butler should be thereunto requested yet the said Laurence Butler not regarding his said several promises ad undertakings so by him in manner and form aforesaid made but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtilly (sic) to deceived and defraud the said D’Arcy Wentworth in this respect hath not yet paid the said several Sums of Money o any or either of them to the said D’Arcy Wentworth although the said Laurence Butler afterwards to wit in the same day and year last aforesaid and __ afterwards at Sydney aforesaid in the Territory aforesaid was requested by the said D’Arcy Wentworth to pay him the same but the said Laurence Butler to pay the same or any part thereof to the said D’Arcy Wentworth hath hereto altogether refused and shall doth refuse to the Damage of the same D’Arcy Wentworth of ₤100 and therefore he brings his Suit _-

(Signed)William Henry Moore Attorney for the Plaintiff

SUPREME COURT

Third Term 1817

NSW (to wit) Summons for D’Arcy Wentworth Esquire against Laurence Butler of Sydney Cabinet maker

Trespass on the Case on Promises Damages ₤100

Returnable on the first Day of November next

W.H. Moore

Applicants Attorney

October 1817

SUPREME COURT New South Wales

Third Term 1817

Wentworth v Butler

Plaintiff’s___

Filed 7^th October 1817

Moore Plaintiff’s Attorney

Plaint _ Counts  ___.10.__

Summons     ___ 20. __

__  __                     ₤1-0-0

Filed return   ___ 2-6

© B.A. Butler

Contact email address:  butler1802   @hotmail.com  (NB. no spaces)

Link back to Introduction:
http://butlerfamilyhistoryaustralia.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/laurence-butler-intro.html

---

[1] SRNSW: Court of Civil Jurisdiction; NRS2659; [5/1109, no. 382]; Laing, Walter vs Butler, Lawrence, 21 October 1813.

[2] SRNSW: Court of Civil Jurisdiction; NRS2659; [5/1110, no. 121]; West, Absalom vs Butler, Lawrence, 24 January 1814.

[3] SRNSW: Old Registers One to Nine, Book 5 page 217 No. 973, op.cit

[4] Thomas Beaumont would have been Thomas Bowman, a convict chair maker known to have worked for Butler for 4 years

[5]  ADB, Vol 2, Melb Uni Press, 1967: Phyllis Mander-Jones- Lewin, John William (1770-1819), pp111-112

[6] SRNSW: Bench of Magistrates; COD235; [SZ774]; Unlawfully employing John Booth; 7 May 1814; Reel 1259

[7] Macquarie University, William Temple (1779-1839), www.lib.mq.edu.au/lmr/temple.html

[8] Old Bailey Proceedings Online www.oldbaileyonline.org  (Date accessed 31/3/09), 20 May 1801, trial of John Margetts, Richard Hall, Thomas Bowman, Rebecca Margetts- Theft and Receiving, (t18010520-20)

[9]  Old Bailey Proceedings Online www.oldbaileyonline.org  (Date accessed 29/3/09), 1 July 1812, trial of John Booth (t18120701-64)

[10]  H.P. Barker, MA Thesis 1971, University of New England- “D’Arcy Wentworth” p185

[11] SRNSW: NRS 13719; [9/2252, No. 173]; Process Papers, 1817, Wentworth v Lawrence Butler. (Supreme Court, S.B. 12, Wentworth against Daniel Cubitt, filed 31 July 1817, and Ibid., against Lawrence Butler, 2 October 1817)

[12] John Ritchie, The Wentworths: Father and Son, Melbourne University Press, 1997, p158; and, SRNSW: Colonial Secretary’s Correspondence Index 1788-1825 (online) for information on the citizens he sued.

[13] ADB, Vol 2, MUP, 1967, pp579-582, J. J. Auchmity, Wentworth, D’Arcy (1762-1827)

[14]  SRNSW: Colonial Secretary; [4/1758, pp.66a, 67a]; on lists of fees & fines paid to Clerk of Peace; June 1819- Reel 6054

[15]  SRNSW: Court of Criminal Jurisdiction; COD 447; 2703 [SZ787]; 7, p70; Assault on Eliza Palmer, 1819

[16] Probably the same Thos Shaughnessy, convicted of having instrument for forging banknotes, and in possession of forged notes in January 1798, possibly gaoled in New Geneva awaiting transportation for life, which was postponed following a successful petition for extra time to gather evidence, embarking from Cork on the Tellicherry in 1806. Forgery reported in London newspaper, Oracle & Public Advertiser Wed Jan 3, 1798 Issue 19821.

[17] SRNSW, Colonial Secretary 1788-1825 Index- Shaughnessy, Larkin.

[18]  C. Graham, P. McIntyre, AM Whitaker, The Voyage of the Friendship, op.cit, p43

[19] Sydney Gazette, 5 July 1817

[20] HRA, Series 1, Vol IX, p737- 15 December 1817, inquest into death of Charles Thomas

[21] SRNSW: Colonial Secretary; [4/1819, p.409]; McMahon, 23 Feb 1816, Reel 6021. [4/1819, p.7333]; Wood, 3 Feb 1817, Reel 6021. [4/1819, p.317-8]; Gibson, 1-2 Aug 1820, Reel 6021.