TEBBUTT

Henry Tebbutt was born to Thomas and Jane Grace Tebbutt in 1817 and baptised 1 March 1817 at Saint Andrew, Holborn, Middlesex (UK)
Source: Middlesex Parish Registers, 1539-1988

Henry travelled to Australia with an older brother. On 24th August, 1834, their ship, the Edward Lombe, having first landed at Hobart, was wrecked on Sydney Heads and Henry's brother William, a member of the crew, was killed in the wreck leaving 17-year-old Henry to make his own way in the new country.

At age 20, Henry married Margaret Geake in Sydney (NSW BDM 293/1837 V1837293 75). She died in 1839, aged 30. (NSW BDM 206/1839 V1839206 23A). They had one child:

• Ellen J - born 1838 (NSW BDM 140/1838 V1838140 22)

Henry Tebbutt then married Elizabeth Burgoyne in St Andrew's Scots Church Sydney in 1840 (NSW BDM 661/1840 V1840661 75). Their children, born in Sydney, included:

• Anne G - born 1841 (NSW BDM 14/1841 V184114 57)
• Jane G - born 1843 (NSW BDM 84/1843 V184384 57)
• Hester G - born 1845 (NSW BDM 300/1845 V1845300 55)
• Amelia L H - born 1847 (NSW BDM 822/1847 V1847822 55)

Tebbutt was living with his family in Mudgee by 1857 and working as secretary and librarian for the Wesleyan Sunday School. He was later the editor of the local paper, the Mudgee Liberal, and also held the positions of Town Clerk, Mayor, and Justice of the Peace. He acted in many legal matters in Gulgong and was personally involved in cases of libel and corruption.

Henry Tebbutt died, aged 60, from enteric fever on 23 November 1877 (NSW BDM 4829/1877) and is buried in Coonamble Old Cemetery. His wife, Elizabeth, died 10 years later.

Source: Dictionary of Sydney, NSW BDM and Austcemindex

NEWS ITEMS

1857 - [MUDGEE]

TESTIMONIAL TO Mr. JOHN ORCHARD. In consequence of Mr. John Orchard removing from town to the Burrundulla Estate, and as he has been connected with the Wesleyan Sunday School for some years past, both in the capacity of teacher and superintendent, the officers and teachers of the school, desirous of exhibiting their esteem both for Mr. and Mrs. Orchard personally, and their appreciation of their valuable services, invited them to a social tea-party at the residence of Mr. H. Tebbutt, the secretary and librarian, when the Rev. J. Bowes, on behalf of the teachers, read [an] apppropriate address...

[Elizabeth, Annie and Jane Tebbutt all signed the Testimonial].

Source: Empire (Sydney, NSW : 1850 - 1875) Tue 12 May 1857 Page 2

1872 - Town Talk 

[This article struck a nerve with Henry Tebbutt and, assuming it was written about him, he later brought libel charges against the publishers of the Gulgong Guardian].

A radical change has occurred in the normal placid existence of Gulgong. Men who hitherto have been mutes have suddenly become loquacious.

Those to whom it was a question of Grub v Guardian have allowed their mental to overcome their physical appetite, and with a meritorious self-denial have invested their three penny bit in the purchase of the Guardian instead of a pound of rump steak at the Smithfield Butchery, just to see how things were going. The public mind is excited by the sudden and unusual opportunity offered to exercise the franchise for a goldfields member; and from the candidates offered there will be lively times for all hands during the next few weeks, especially for the bill stickers, who are busily covering dead walls, unoccupied stores, unused tanks etc. with frantic appeals to the miners to vote for ‘Belinfante, Bounce and Bunkum’. ‘Plunkett, Progress and Principle’. ‘Church and the Coming Event’

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 57, 2 March 1872

1872 - Police Court - Before the Police Magistrate and Henry Tebbutt Esq. JP.

Belinfante v Benjamin

Assault – Benjamin Benjamin was summoned for assaulting Simon Belinfante in Queen Street on

March 4, by horsewhipping him. 

Mr. Johnson appeared for the complainant, Mr Clarke for the defendant.

Mr. Johnson before opening the case took exception to Mr. Tebbutt sitting on the Bench to hear the case, as his [Mr. J’s.] client conceived, from the tone of several articles in a journal which Mr. Tebbutt was connected, that he would not have justice done, owing to the animus displayed in the journal mentioned. Mr. Tebbutt would certainly not leave the Bench. He had no animus against the complainant who would receive full justice. Such applications were improper to make to magistrates who were sworn to do their duty.

Mr. Johnson detailed the nature of the assault, characterising it as a most unprovoked outrage, and asked, in order that candidates seeking to represent the people in Parliament should be protected, that the defendant be committed for trail. He called - Simon Belinfante, who, being sworn, deposed, I am the prosecutor in this case, I am a barrister-at-law and doctor of medicine; I am a candidate for the Western Goldfields electorate [considerable smiling amongst the audience] the information read is correct; the defendant is the person I allude to in it; on Monday last about twilight, I was proceeding along Queen Street, in Gulgong, in the colony of NSW, when the defendant came rushing towards me from Selff’s verandah in an excited manner, he asked me ‘If I had been abusing him in the hustings at Sofala?’ I said I had done nothing of the sort, to my knowledge; he said, he had been told I had, and he believed it, and asked me to apologise; I said certainly not; I had no time to say anything more when he struck me with a whip across the legs and back; I returned the blow with a walking stick I had in my hand; he tried to wrench the stick from me, and in the struggle the stick was dropped; the defendant then went for me with his fists; he struck me on the lip and side of the face; I returned the blow; he then, with great determination tried to trip me up, but [witness laughing] I think I turned the tables upon him – I got him down; defendant seemed to have a mob with him, who applauded him on Selff’s verandah, after we were down, several of police separated us; one constable appeared to give all he could do to keep the defendant in check [witness laughing], he appeared anxious to continue; I wanted to go away; I had not time to state my reasons why I did not apologise; I declined to apologise because I had not, in my opinion, spoken disrespectfully of him; a number of gentleman under Selff’s verandah cheered him; I desire him to be committed for trail, as I have strong reasons to believe that a subscription has been set on foot to procure me a trashing as my candidature is feared.

To Mr. Clarke; I believe electioneering lies are always on one side; my authority for believing that a subscription of the kind I stated was on foot is that it was openly stated in the Bank of NSW that £20 would be subscribed to get me a thrashing; Mr. Allum, a young man there, without any hair on his face, said so; at the risk of damaging my case I must not violate the gentleman’s confidence who told me; the gentleman is in Court [here witness unconsciously looked at the Argus reporter] who told me. I do not believe defendant had anything to do with the subscription; I was at Sofala on March 1st; I mentioned the defendant being a sharebroker; Mr. Plunkett interrupted, and I in the course of my address did say ‘ It did not matter whether he was a sharebroker of an old cloths seller’; Mr Plunkett’s requisition was signed by business men and not miners; I did not couple the defendant’s name directly with the word old cloths seller. This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Clarke said from the evidence of the prosecutor it was, he presumed, clear to their worships that they had jurisdiction to deal with the case. The conduct of the prosecutor while under examination was sufficient to satisfy the Bench that his feeling were not outraged or hurt, however much his body might. The case of Lang v Macdonald was not a parallel one to this. In it the complainant was an old man and a clergyman, the defendant was a young man, and if, with such a difference, a Judge of the Supreme Court only inflicted a fine of £5, at most the cases could only be parallel in this respect. The prosecutor treated the affair as a joke, as if he could wind the defendant round his little finger. That a breach of the law had been committed by his client he would admit, and on his behalf begged to express [so far as the majesty of the law was concerned] that he should have committed a breach thereof. Any mitigating circumstances however are generally the guide by which judges usually fix the amount of punishment requisite to satisfy the ends of justice. In this case, although the prosecutor did not dare to deny that he had used the insulting language, he stated that it was not directly implied. He was instructed by his client to say abusive and insulting expressions were uttered. Even a full blown MP, much less a mere aspirant, although supported by the most sanguine expectations, has not the liberty outside the hall of wisdom to revile or insult unoffending citizens, and allowances should be made for the warmth and indignation of worthy and respected members of society, like the defendant, to resent language uttered by the complainant, who, as a distinguished lawyer, must have know that it was calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. In golden times if such language had been used, his worships may have been called up-on to adjudicate on a more serious charge, probably as a coroner [laughter]. Under these circumstances when the assault – according to the organ of the prosecutor – was such a trivial nature, he would leave the matter to their worships, believing that they would deal impartially between the parties.

The Bench considered the offence as being a common assault. They believed the defendant could have been provoked, but the law must be upheld. Fined £5.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 59, 9 March 1872

1872 - Libel Action

The publishers of this journal have received a summons to appear at the next District Court at Mudgee, to defend an action in which Mr. Henry Tebbutt, who declares that he is editor and part proprietor of that valuable and popular organ of information distributed free every Thursday to its hungry multitude of readers, claims the sum of £200 for libel on his good name and reputation contained in some issue of the Guardian. We confess to some degree of surprise at this peculiar proceeding. But as Mr. Henry Tebbutt has thought fit to apply certain words to himself, and, as it were, ‘fit the cap on’, we of course shall not prevent him gratifying his foolish propensity. Moreover, we here state that no libel actions will deter us from exposing judicial wrong doing, or from advocating [as we have never done] the right of the miner to have justice done to him. If we and the miners of this goldfield had taken notice of the libellous attacks that have from time to time appeared in the brilliantly written journal, the Gulgong Mercantile Advertiser, on us, we should keep a lawyer pretty well employed. We, like most journalists in election time, prefer the ‘give and take’ principle, and when the battle is over to assume our ordinary peaceful attitude. As Mr. Henry Tebbutt says, through his attorney, that we have libelled him, we leave it to the public to say whether we have done so or not, feeling assured that the verdict will be in our favour.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 60, 13 March 1872

1872 - Town Talk

With reference to the libel action brought by Mr. Henry Tebbutt against the proprietors of this journal, we have to state that a mutual explanation having taken place, we desire to apologise for publishing the words complained of in Town Talk on March 2nd [see above]. Of course there was no malice in publishing the words, we considering it a legitimate exercise of the ‘give and take’ principle in election times; but as Mr. Tebbutt feels that we have done him an injustice, we hereby apologise for it, as all sensible and honourable men should do when they are shown to we in the wrong.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 61, 16 March 1872

1872 - Police Court

Insulting Language – James Siddle charged, by Henry Tebbutt. Tebbutt was in Tuckerman’s Public House about 11pm. Prisoner said ‘You’re a disgrace to the b——y bench; you fill all the gaols and you're a scoundrel. The P.M. said it was an offence that could not be overlooked. Fined £2 or one month gaol.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 68, 10 April 1872

1872 - Police Court

Publican’s Licence – Mr. Clarke on behalf of Henry Paynter, may an application for a license for his house at the Home Rule. Mr. Tebbutt said he considered there was quite sufficient public houses there already. The more public houses the more crime and he would neither grant nor sit on the Bench for granting any more.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 99, 27 July 1872

1872 - [HOMILY]

It is not often that the frequenters of a Police Court, especially on a goldfield, are favoured with homilies on public morality from the Bench. But in this, as in many other matters in connection with the administration of the law, Gulgong is peculiarly favoured in such a way that we are reluctantly compelled to ask, is this anxiety for the elevation of the public morality real or only a grim outburst of humour, or an amusing eccen-tricity of the utterer. We confess to feeling a difficulty in answering this unique mental obliquity. On Tuesday last Mr Tebbutt, J.P. had what is beyond doubt to him the enjoyable pleasure of presiding alone in the Police Court. He had dealt severely with a few unfortunate devotees of Bacchus, and also committed for trial a male and female prisoner for the Post Office robbery, and inherited an indicted an outrageous punishment upon an ignorant, bush-bred youth, who had been charged by a tender hearted police officer with cruelty riding a horse. His worship must have been suffering from the effects of his outburst of virtuous indignation at the cruel propensities of their native youth, when in the cause of business he was somewhat irregularly called upon to deal with an application for a publican's licence at the Home Rule, which he used as a text for a homily on the many immoralities that are produced by freely licensing public houses. We have had occasion several times to point out to Mr Tebbutt the grave impropriety of allowing his crotchety views on the question of licensing public houses to warp his judgement when administering the Publican’s Act and we think we once told him that it was very improper for him to deal singularly with such applications when there was a police magistrate on the goldfield. He with his usual impulsiveness, forgot our good advise, and with a gushing earnestness delivered himself of one of his amusing tirades on the host of evils that arise from too many public houses. While we give Mr Tebbutt credit for sincerity in holding his curiously incorrect opinions on this matter we descent most emphatically from them. He says "that an increase of the number of public houses produces an increase of crime." The absurdity of such an assertion which is a hackneyed quotation on temperance. The very opposite to this assertion is the truth, for the simple reason that by licensing every house possessing reasonable accommodation, grog shanties almost cease to exist, in fact do not exist except in connection with a decadent and degraded calling. The police can lawfully demand moral responsibility by public houses in the discharge of their duties, and this with ordi-nary vigilance, keep the criminal population in check; but shanties are particularly beyond their control. With a restriction of public houses on a goldfield in the early period of its existence to a limited number, crime is increased and the public morality deteriorated. People will have strong drink at places where they congregate and if debarred from indulging in it publicly will do so privately. The back door will be used instead of the front. Deceit, lying, and hypocrisy are developed, and continually indulged in, until at last the whole fabric of social morality becomes polluted and incurable. As Mr Tebbutt stated as the result of this observation of a two hour visit to the Home Rule that there were too many public houses there, will be surprised to hear that it is utterly impossible for visitors to obtain a bed in any hotel there at present, by reason of the accommodation provided being constantly occupied. Such being the case, we fail to see the correctness of this assertion. There is little or no drunkenness to be wit-nessed; indeed it is a most orderly and temperate rush, more so than any we have seen in the Colony, and compiling this fact with the scarcity of accommoda-tion, we think that the Bench of magistrates would act wisely in granting publican's licenses to all approved applicants. No repressive legislation will ever lesson the love of strong drink; the experience of America proves this, and we hardly think that the over zealousness of a solitary Justice of the Peace on a new gold-field will be more successful. As a protection and convenience to the public we advocate free trade in the matter of publican's licenses.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 99, 27 July 1872

_________________

See De Courcy Browne for a number of articles about an 1872  libel case brought by Henry Tebbutt against the published of the Gulgong Guardian.

_________________

1872 - Town Talk [By Photo’s Ghost]

As my stay on Gulgong on this occasion is short. Alas! Poor editor, I deeply sympathize with you in your desperate efforts to find subjects for this week’s budget of bunkum. Town Talk is as dull as the sermons of an impromptu bush missionary or the leading articles of he ‘old lady’ of Hunter Street! There is nei-ther own talk, tall talk, long talk, short or any other talk.

I thought I would inspect the Court House improvements has enhanced its interior appearance. I am glad to find that the correct description you gave of the pre-sent monstrosity of a prisoner’s dock, when you com-pared it to a leviathan wild boar cage.

I notice that when a couple of defendants were brought before the Bench to answer for certain transmissions against the law of their country - or rather what passes for such, as the so-called laws are now so tortured and twisted and changed from their normal state that their own father would not know them, if they ever had one - the counsel employed decidedly objected to their clients being "caged" in this capacious but inelegant exhibition box. Mr Clarke, in the most hornied eloquence, drew the attention of the Bench to the hardship of placing a man, on a petty charge, in such an ignominious position. Dr Belinfante followed by stating that he considered it a most degrading and barbarous position to place a man in. If the Darwinian theory were correct, there might be some excuse; but as the connecting link between the man and the monkey has not yet been scientifically demonstrated, men should not be caged like animals. Mr Tebbutt, who presided on the Bench, ordered the defendants to stand in the body of the court - and rightly to, say we.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 117, 28 September 1872

HOME RULE RUSH

(From our Correspondent)

Many inquiries has been made of me as to how the ‘Guardian Defence Fund’ is progressing, and many a kindly hope expressed that it will ably cover all the expenses of this "gagging" suit, and at the same time assert the determination of the miners to have a really free and independent paper at any cost. With a code of regulations which, when interpreted, as they too often are by officers remarkable for nothing but incapability, and are fruitful source of irregularity, hindrance to work, and gross injustice - with an Appeal Court from which there is no appeal, and which, from its constitution, the procrastination that appears inseparable from almost every code, and its frequently unsatisfactory judgements has wholly lost the confidence of the miners - it is felt that the Guardian will not only come out of the pending ordeal with flying colours, but will be the cause of dragging into the light such examples of the working, or rather the pottering, inefficiency of the Appeal Court as shall ensure that tribunals utter condemnation without hope of mercy. For my part I believe that Mr. Tebbutt, J.P. is already in a bit of a funk about the upshot of this business, and wishes he had quietly gulped the Guardian’s pill and grinned a dignified grin. No doubt he and his mates will be able to show the world that they are a good deal whiter than snow, but there is something very queer about the part the free-gratis-for-nothing "Tiser" is playing. I never see the paper myself, for but few find their way out here, and I believe it is never read except for the fun of the thing. But after reading Saturday's article and "Photos" - or rather, Photos ghost - smart notes about the "Tiser’s" remarks on the ‘Defence Fund’, I can form a pretty good idea of the homily - at once tasteless and in bad taste - in which the sacred functionary of the Appeal Court exhorts free men not to give their own money to secure their own freedom. Of course Mr Tebbutt is at liberty to resort to this or any other dodge for bolstering up his shaky case, but then we are all at liberty to hold our own opinion of the bolstering.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 118, 2 October 1872

1872 - Home Rule Amusements

The irrepressible author of ‘Finality’ - Mr. Henry Tebbutt appeared in another new character at the Home Rule at the Royal Shamrock Theatre. He took the leading character in the laughable farce of the ‘Bailiff and the Beak’ or ‘Who Pays the Printer’ It seems that this popular J.P. holds an unsatisfied execution against Mr. Constable, ex-lessee of the Prince of Wales Opera House and proceeded to the Home Rule theatre along with the Sheriff to issue a summons. On arrival there he in true ‘Dogberry’ style, dared anyone to enter the theatre and light it up for the evenings performance. Somebody did dare, and the audience collected the usual. The affair got wind and the miners rallied to protect Miss Joey. Offers of money were made to get rid of the venerable amateur, but refused, as it was said none was really due. Old ‘Finality’ got roughly chaffed and at last sought protection in a coach outside but was quickly surrounded by the miners who on being informed that the coach was engaged by Miss Joey to convey her company back to Gulgong, compelled him to shift his quarters with the alternative of being tipped out. A gentleman present took pity on him and lent him a horse, outside of which he made tracks amid the laughter and ‘Joe’s’ of a large crowd of amused on lookers. The bailiff threw up his job in disgust, telling his employer to do it himself. We hope for the credit of Gulgong that country papers will not copy this local, as we do not feel proud of a magistrate; of course a gentleman gaining such a local reputation and a name. Poor Gulgong! We thought this cut would have been spared you.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 119, 5 October 1872

1872 - EDITORIAL

The mining case of Bardon v Sweeney, heard and decided in the Court of Appeal on last Thursday, furnished an instruction lesson on the frailty of human nature and proves that man’s greed for gold has lost none of its virility. The case was a very simple one. No difficult principle of law was involved nor yet was the evidence in its bearing on the question at issue – that of title – contradictory or obscure; nevertheless the ground in dispute had been in litigation for nearly ten months and the case has become well know that there is hardly any need to enter into any detail history of it. The question involved was that of priority of title and if at any time during the many hearings of the case the evidence for both sides had been heard, it would have disappeared months ago from the cause list of the Appeal Court. But the fates and the elastic mode of dealing with cases in the Appeal Court forbade so simple a solution of a trifling dispute.

[details not reproduced here]

The dispute was heard and Sweeney gained it. An appeal was lodged and heard before Messrs. Tebbutt and McDonnell JP’s and these brilliant ornaments of the magisterial bench decide in favour of Osborne and party thus affirming as law two absurd illegalities, first that Osborne’s title, created 23 days after Sweeney was in lawful possession, was superior; and secondly that parties in lawful possession of a block claim could be dispossessed of it by the swinging of the base line of a frontage lead. 

Now, when it is remembered that the irrepressible Tebbutt had repeatedly condemned the swinging of a base line as illegal and unjust in the brilliant organ of information of which he proudly acknowledges himself to be the editor, it is somewhat difficult to understand how. Mr. Tebbutt, the editor of the little ‘Tiser’ could preach what Mr. Tebbutt, Justice of the Peace, did not practice. We can only solve the problem by believing in the frailty of human nature but of the nature of that frailty there is some little difference of opinion. 

When this case of Bardon v Sweeney came on for hearing this bush Daniel laid down another startling legal principle from the judgement seat known now as ‘finality.’ He with an ignorance, we doubt the correct application of the word, only surpassed by the audacity of the assertion held that if A and B have a dispute about a claim and on appeal it is decided, say, in favour of A, that no person can question the title of A to that claim, though their title may be better than that of A. This Solon held that all other claimants to the ground should, to enforce their rights, lodge an appeal at the same time as B. 

The absurdity, injustice and fraudulent effect of such a monstrous outrage on law and common sense has happily not yet found a firm footing in the hearing of appeal cases, though one, if not more parties have been deprived of their claims by it. It is a matter of notoriety how Justices were imported from remote portions of the Mudgee police district to sit in this case of Sweeney’s. Some of them were summoned in due form by the Clerk of Petty Sessions at Gulgong. But others came without asking, who, amusing to say firm believers in the Tebbuttian principle of ‘finality.’ Why so large an array of magisterial intelligence was deemed necessary to hear this simple mining appeal is a mystery yet to be solved. It was flattering to find that the Police Magistrate at Mudgee and one or more obscure Justices from the wilds of Meroo should, unasked travel to Gulgong to aid the local Bench in this case by their judicial experience and knowledge of mining cases. It is strange this desire to enlighten never seized them before; indeed, it appears to have been a spasmodic effort confined to this case alone. Six magistrates were present at the first hearing of the case and extraordinary to state that after deciding to hear the case the question of ‘finality’ was raised after evidence was taken and the Bench being equally divided no order was made. At the second hearing three magistrates adjudicated and justice was triumphant, the case being at last decided in favour of Sweeney and party with ten guineas costs. 

And thus ended a case which more than any other ever heard on Gulgong proves the gross by unsatisfactory character of the Court of Mining Appeal. It is notorious fact and we challenge contradiction that magistrates have been asked to sit in this case, some to enforce particular views and other to checkmate them. We ask in the name of justice is this an administration of the law that the country should be proud of or this is calculated to obtain the respect and confidence of the miners. No wonder that respectable gentleman of high social standing, holding the Commissioner of the Peace, decline to sit in such a tribunal as the Gulgong Court of Appeal and it is monstrous that the miners should be compelled to submit to have cases involving property worth thousands of pounds decided by a couple of Justices such as Messrs. Tebbutt and McDonnell who do not possess their respect and confidence. 

As Parliament will open next month we shall endeavour to have an inquiry made into the administration of the law on Gulgong during the past two years when we feel convinced that the result will prove clearly beyond all doubt that a sweeping reform is necessary. The history of the colonies does not furnish a more humiliating chapter of mismanagement. The number of mining appeals proves the incompetence of the Commissioner and the decisions of the Appeal Court on them proves the incompetence of its members to sit and review the Commissioner’s decision. The muddle is complicated and the Government does not seem inclined to provide a remedy. For many months it has been tolerated in the hope of every week initiating a change for the better; but it is the old tale of hope deferred. The miners will be forced to make themselves heard in a way to be remembered simply to have justice meted out to them.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 120, 9 October 1872

1872 - HOME RULE RUSH 

From our Correspondent

...I hope it is not libelous to pity or laugh at an Appeal Court Magistrate when he makes a - well, an undignified exhibition of himself, for, if it is, then Mr Tebbutt, JP, is a standing danger to the whole district. This gentlemen, albeit not witty himself, is the cause of great fun to some and of commiseration in others, for there seems to be nothing he can do either in his public or private capacity that an exacting world chooses to consider en regle. The other day he managed, it is said, to swallow a quantity of tobacco water - the same stuff that is used as a sheep medicine - mistaking it for tea. I have not heard, but can pretty well imagine the effect, and that it could scarcely have been agreeable. But this is no business of mine, and I ought to feel ashamed for thus alluding to the private actions of any man. This is a free country, and Mr Tebbutt ought to be at perfect liberty to irregulate his internal arrangements just as he pleases, without eliciting a grin of satisfaction from a prying heartless public. Still one cannot help wondering whether the gentlemen frequently indulges in these little freaks, because if he does we may possibly arrive at a clue to his conduct on the Bench, which is wide open to "fair criticism." A Magistrate with a dram of nicotine engaged in active hostilities with his gastric-juice can hardly be supposed to possess the patience so essential to the clear comprehension of a case, and worshipful vagaries might thus be easily explained and should meet with some indulgence. Thus also it is that Mr Tebbutt's subsequent eccentricity may be charitably accounted for. The nicotine being still at work, this guardian of the peace contrives to stir up the queerest of rows at the Royal Shamrock Theatre, Home Rule, on Thursday evening last. The incident of the droll affair having been already published, it is unnecessary for me to be circumstantial. Mr Tebbutt’s nicotinised brain conceived the brilliant idea that he could seize the property of a party who owed him nothing at all in payment of a debt accrued by quite another party. Forthwith he procured the service of a Bailiff and some Constables, and proceeded to stop the evening's entertainment by ordering the bailiff to put out the lights. But the diggers, who formed a large audience, "couldn't see it that way," and therefore took up with the actors, astonishing the J.P. with the unexpected proof that he is about the most unpopular man in the whole district. Rather a heavy tumble this, seeing he had laid the flattering unction to his soul, that he was the idle of the Home Rule miner. The crowd had no wish to hurt a grey old man, and contented themselves with yells and left-handed blessings; but had he been younger, there is little doubt he would has been re-baptised in the seething sludge of Cooyal Creek. As it was, he was glad enough to beat an ignominious retreat into a public house, and find his way to Gulgong on horseback. Whether his ride was a la Johnny Gilpin or not has not transpired, but it is certain that after much botheration among the thousand and one roads that lead from the Home Rule to anywhere and nowhere, he found himself at the Canadian, as the small hours of the morning were waxing ere he reached his longed for home. Such is the amusing phase of this most ludicrous shindy, but there is a sad one, too. A grey beard, as full of years as he ought to be of honours, and set above his fellows as an administrator of the law, thus bringing upon himself the derision and contempt of those who (if they could) would gladly look up to him with respect, is as pitiable, humiliating a sight as the frailties of humanity can furnish.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 120, 9 October 1872

1872 - AN ERROR EXPLAINED

Sir, In your issue of the 9th instant you make it appear that Mr. McDonnell JP, decided in favour of Osborne’s title as against mine at the hearing of the appeal of Osborne v Sweeney. This being an error, I am sure you will permit me to correct it.

The magistrates who constituted the Bench when the case of Osborne v Sweeney was decide were Messrs. Tebbutt, McDonnell and Lawson, and it was then, for the first time on Gulgong or any other place I imagine that Messrs. Lawson and Tebbutt inaugurated the ‘finality’ theory by sustaining the appeal of Osborne, Tuckerman, Davidson and party, without even entertaining our case or knowing anything whatever of our title, at least so far as could be gathered from statements made in Court, thus I assert judicially robbing my party of a valuable piece of ground worth £3000; it is also strange Mr. Lawson, JP., neither before or since this case was heard, has put in an appearance at the appeal Court here.

Mr. McDonnell, JP., on that occasion distinctly expressed himself as ‘dissenting from the decision’ then given and would be no party to it.

Yours respectfully PATRICK SWEENEY.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 122, 16 October 1872

1872 - POLICE COURT

Owner v Agent – Worcester v Jones. Worcester had given scrip in the Golden Hill Company to his agent Jones, who disposed of the same to Mr. Henry Tebbutt. The plaintiff now sought to recover the scrip, he alleges he told Jones not to sell. Henry Tebbutt sworn that he had purchased forty Golden Hill scrip from Mr. Jones; after which Worcester called upon him and asked him if he had done so, he told Worcester he had, who replied ‘Don’t pay Jones, pay me.’ Case dismissed.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 124, 23 October 1872

1872 - HOME RULE RUSH 

From our Correspondent

The other day I chanced to get a sight of the hebdomadal copy of the "Tiser" that sometimes contrives to find its solitary way to the Home Rule. From it I was grieved to learn that Mr Tebbutt - baa-lamb and editor - has lost his musician, and is obliged to do his "harping" for himself. This, he accomplishes admirably on "one string" - like Paganini, or "any other pagan ninny."

He unashamedly asserts that he has "repeated proofs of his local paper, the "Tiser", exercising a marked influence in mining matters and treats with contempt the ridicule with which "a few senseless bipeds" be-spatter him (the said Tebbutt) for his untiring efforts to benefit the miners in general, and himself in particular. I am rather happy otherwise in considering myself one of those "bipeds," for in that case I fancy I must be in better company than if I were nobblerising nicotine with a quadruped baa-lamb - the great "we" of the little "Tiser".

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 124, 23 October 1872

1872 - THE HOME RULE RUSH

(From our Correspondent)

The Guardian defence fund and the causes that lead to its collection have been a good deal discussed at this place during the last few days, and everyone I have heard has spoken of the Guardian as worthy of support, being the only paper that has taken our part; and of Messrs Tebbutt and McDonnell in terms which were certainly emphatic and the reverse of complimentary. Regarding the first of these two magisterial "shining lights" there appears to exist amongst the miners a hope that his thin-skinned vanity has betrayed him into a trap of his own making, and that when this affair comes off we shall see the last of him as a public functionary. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished, and will be good fun to "boot" for. I think I could name half a dozen other Western District JPs who ought to hoist with "Tiser Tebby" of Gulgong.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 116, 25 September 1872

1872 - CORRESPONDENCE

Sir, In your notice in the case Hoskins v Isbester, tried at Gulgong last Wednesday week, before Messrs Tebbutt, McDonnell and Blackman, you very truly reported that ‘Mr. Johnson”, who appeared for the defendant wished to address the Bench, but was refused.

I imagine that in any community other than Gulgong so startling an announcement would have occasioned some little sensation but as such a proceeding is not a rare occurrence in that locality, I suppose the inhabitants have become familiar with incidents of this description in the administration of justice that they have ceased to notice them or perhaps from past experiences they think is useless to complain.

I should not have troubled myself to have noticed the matter but that I have on several other occasions been subjected to the same treatment at the hands of Mr. Tebbutt and I think it is now time that some notice should be taken of conduct of this character of the Bench. I am at a loss to understand how any gentleman having a proper regard of justice, to say nothing of the rules of law, could have refused to hear a party by his advocate before giving a verdict against him for the largest amount they had the power to mulct him. Mr. Tebbutt, no doubt, very politely, informed me in substance that the Bench had heard the evidence and had made up their minds; and that it was useless for me ‘to waste the time of the Court by addressing them, as nothing I could say would alter their opinion.’ 

Rather different this from the conduct of the wise and learned Judges who grace the seat of justice in the Superior Court. Their ‘invaria le practice’ is, however strong they may think the case against a party, to hear such party or his advocate patiently to an end and they never intimate that they are so much wiser that the rest of the world as to be incapable of being convinced by any argument that an impression formed by them upon the facts given in evidence may have been erroneous. Without claiming any but very moderate amount of ability, I think I could convince any reasonable men that upon the evidence the verdict in question, instead of being for the plaintiff, ought to have been returned for the defendant.

Your obedient servant, RICHARD JOHNSON

The Attorney for Isbester.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 127, 2 November 1872

1872 - Aux Francais de Gulgong

Mrs. Pringle tenders her sincere thanks to the polite Frenchman who so kindly PAID THE FINE inflicted on her by Mr. Tebbutt, thereby proving themselves not to be Dutchmen.

GEORGINA PRINGLE

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 136, 4 December 1872

1873 - THE HOME RULE RUSH

(From our Correspondent)

... It is satisfactory to know that the "Gulgong Mercantile Advertiser" is omnipotent with the present government, and that the philanthropic proprietor thereof exercises that influence for the benefit of society at large and the miners in particular. The last issue lets us into the secret that all the good points in Mr Innes' Mining Bill were suggested "at the request of those in authority" by the great "we" of the little 'Tiser'. Gulgong may pardonably indulge in some cock-a-doodle-doing now that it is conscious of numbering among its citizens ‘Tebbutt the Statesman.’ I wonder if this gentlemen knows how many professions he belongs to? I believe he lays claim to being a printer (a la Benjamin Franklin, his country's benefactor) A J.P., a finality man, a fancy goods merchant, an industrious editor, a descendant of the ancient Britons, an architect, and others "too numerous to mention." It would fail me before reaching the end of the list, if end there is at all. Now he turns out to be the best of the two or three statesmen the Colony can boast of, and has hung out his banner from the mainmast of the State ship as a mining authority. May kind heaven keep the Gulgongites humble, and grateful for the privilege of owning this "mountain peak of humility," and may they appreciate him as his true worth.

Our Davy wants nudging and to be told to be quiet. Zeal without prudence is like brandy neat - apt to topple a man over. It is as bad to do too much as too little, often worse. Ministers are quite right to push through the estimates before opening the campaign proper; besides, this delay is not lost time. The Hill End men have hardly done rubbing their eyes, and scarcely yet grasp the tendency of portions of the Bill. Hurry, either in passing or rejecting this measure, is the worst thing that could happen for the miners, and the more time there is given for analysing the plausible clauses, the more certain will be their condemnation.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 150, 22 January 1873

1873 - Hospital Annual Meeting - Medical Report

A statement of the various diseases form which those admitted during the past year have suffered is enclosed. From this list it will be seen that accidents are the most frequent cause of admission. Next is typhoid fever. During the past year thirty two cases of accident and surgical injuries have been under treatment and twenty two cases of typhoid. The average duration of each patient has been 33 days. In conclusion I wish to remark that the interior arrangements are in want of much improvement. The supply of drugs also is very meager and requires to be largely augmented and this in particular should receive immediate attention. Signed R. H. K. BENNETT.

The Balance Sheet Audited and found correct by JOHN B. STORMER & JOHN MACDONALD.

Mr. Browne moved, seconded by Mr. Plunkett.

Mr. Tebbutt moved an amendment – ‘That the report be sent back to the committee, being unsatisfactory.’ He said that the report was illegal – first, because the meeting was not held in January, as required by the Hospital Act and the rules; and secondly, because it did not include the whole expenditure for 1872. He indulged in sundry disparagements of the committee and the Secretary in particular, on whom he cast all the defects of management. Mr. S. S. Moses seconded the amendment. He objected to the report for somewhat the same reasons, and also objected to the balance sheet as not entering sufficiently into details. He questioned it correctness in a variety of ways.

Mr. Browne replied to both speakers and explained that the annual meeting was to be held in January and adjourned for want of a quorum [ten] of subscribers being present. The report, he considered, explicit. The balance sheet was compiled in the ordinary way and having been duly audited, he condemned these puny efforts to cast discredit on the committee who were deserving of thanks instead of censure. The same course of fault-finding was pursued last year by the mover and seconder and he challenged the closest scrutiny of the management of the committee. The report was after some further lively discussion, adopted by 51 to 3 votes.

Mr. Moses then moved – ‘that the balance sheet is unsatisfactory and that it be re-audited by Messrs. Allum and Stewart.’ After a lively and somewhat personal discussion , the amendment was lost 49 to 4. The discussion which we have very briefly dealt with, occupied nearly two hours.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 155, 8 February 1873

1873 - Mining Trespass

A case of mining trespass on one of the Tammany leases came up for hearing in the Police Court yesterday before Commissioner Browne, in which the defendants were a party holding a block claim. The hearing of the case was one of the most humiliating exhibitions we ever witnessed in a Court of Justice and furnished food for grave reflection as to whether the administration of the law on this goldfield is to be a farce or a solemn proceeding. The complaint proved he had a lease and the intelligent Commissioner refused to allow any evidence as to title to be given, beyond the production of the lease, evidently acting under instructions, certainly not from the Crown. The case ended too late for us to publish any lengthened remarks on it, or give evidence, of which we have full notice. As a sample of the manner in which the case was heard, the Commissioner, who was the presiding Justice, allowed himself to be sworn as a witness, and was therefore in the witness box, leaving no Justice on the Bench. A question was asked him, and objected to, and he therefore had to become adjudicating magistrate while yet a witness to decide whether he himself should answer the question.

Of course a muddle ensued and the two advocates were talking together with no magistrate on the bench. Mr. Tebbutt who declined to sit, but was nice and handy when wanted, took his seat on the bench and the farce was continued until we left the court disgusted. The novel law enunciated by the venerable justice was as profoundly absurd as his stipendiary colleagues, being a further illustration of the ‘finality’ principle. As the proceedings are really too good to be abridged, we hold over our full report. The trespass was ordered to be abated.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 170, 2 April 1873

1873 - [ADVERTISEMENT]

HENRY TEBBUTT - Auctioneer - MAYNE STREET, GULGONG

AT the request of several influential business people in Gulgong, Mr. Tebbutt has taken out an Auctioneer’s License. The public may rest assured that all sales entrusted to him will meet with every attention and the proceeds handed over within a few hours after the sale—–a system not generally adopted in this district.

Except for individuals of known character, no HORSES will be sold.

Mr. T. having carried on the above business in Sydney, Mudgee and Meroo is well acquainted with all its details.

Source: THE GULGONG MERCANTILE ADVERTISER, APRIL 17, 1873

1873 - [ADVERTISEMENT]

IN THE INSOLVENT ESTATE Of Thomas McDonagh - H. Tebbutt - Has been instructed by the Official Assignee to sell by Public Auction on SATURDAY 5th April at Smiths ROYAL HOTEL, Queen Street, at 11 o’clock. ALL the insolvent right, title and interest to One quarter Acre of Land, situate in Dubbo, with Cottage erected thereon.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 170, 2 April 1873

1873 - GUARDIAN LIBEL CASE - Before H. Tebbutt J.P.

Thomas Frederic DeCourcy Browne was charged that he did on the 29th March last maliciously publish a false, scandalous and defamatory libel of and concerning T. A. Browne, Gold Commissioner, in a letter signed ‘A Blocker.’

Mr. Belinfante, instructed by Mr. Clarke appeared for the complainant. Mr. Davidson for defendant.

Mr. Davidson took a preliminary objection to the information, it not being in writing – a long printed extract from some newspaper being attached to it, as part of it. Mr. Tebbutt overruled the objection.

Mr. Belinfante then in a long rambling statement opened the case, quoting Roscoe, Plunkett etc., and reading extracts from a number of issues of the ‘Guardian’ relating to the complainant’s incompetence and ignorance.

Mr. Davidson said he had an application to make. He wished for an adjournment for one week, as he had been misled by the summons, there being no words inserted. They had appeared to the summons. He did not object to the written matter but he did to the part of the newspaper being attached. They were taken by surprise and not prepared to go on. Mr. Tebbutt said the case must go on.

Mr. Davidson said he hoped the Bench would listen to him. He contended that every opportunity should

be allowed his client where his liberty was at stake. He was prepared to make affidavit that the defendant was not prepared. If this case was a police case and the police applied for a postponement it would be granted at once; but here his client, whose liberty was in danger, the Bench wished to go on with the case nolens volens. There could be no doubt if it was postponed that the defendant could be prepared; and he hoped the Bench would postpone it.

Mr. Tebbutt said he would not grant a postponement and would go on with the case, no matter what application was made.

Mr. Davidson said he wished a note to be made of his application on the depositions.

Mt. Tebbutt objected.

Mr. Davidson: will you allow the Clerk to do so?

Mr. Tebbutt: No.

The following evidence was then given.

Patrick Dwyer, sworn: I understand I am the agent for the ‘Guardian’ by seeing my name in the journal; I sell copies to people who come for them, I’ve been selling since the 8th March; I look at an advertisement in the ‘Guardian’ — [Mr. D. objected but the objection was overruled] I believe it refers to me; I never made any arrangements with Mr. Browne. 

George Best Kelly sworn: I know Dwyer, I bought the ‘Guardian’ [produced] from him at the Home Rule on 31st March; I initialled it and dated it. [Copy of paper put in as evidence.]

Mr. Davidson objected and it was overruled.

Henry Beal sworn: I am employed at the ‘Guardian’ Office; I am not certain whether defendant is proprietor of the ‘Gulgong Guardian’; I am in his employ; he pays me my salary regularly; no one is superior to Mr. Browne in the management of the paper; I saw Mr. Dwyer with reference to the agency of the paper; it was not Mr. Browne’s instructions that I made arrangements with Mr. Dwyer; I printed the outside of the issue of the 29th March and the greater portion of the inside.

Thomas Alexander Browne, sworn: I am the complainant; the information read is correct; the defendant before the Court is the party I complained of; I am the person referred to as Commissioner Browne; I am the Commissioner for the Gulgong Goldfield.

John MacDonald, sworn: I produce a file of the ‘Gulgong Guardian’ - I am Secretary and Librarian of the School of Arts; the paper left under the door of the School of Arts; when I receive them on the day of publication; I don’t know who leaves them of my own knowledge.

[Mr. Belinfante tendered a file of the ‘Guardian’]

Mr. Davidson objected that the file was not relevant to the issue.

Mr. Tebbutt overruled the objection.

Mr. Davidson applied for a postponement on account of witnesses for defence not being able to attend.

Mr. Tebbutt refused the application promptly.

Mr. Davidson reviewed the evidence for the prosecution. He said that the practice of the Crown in all these cases was to allow the aggrieved party to seek a remedy by civil action. It had been asserted that the calling of the Commissioner a fool or half-witted being, was a libel. He quoted Chief Justice Holt, who said that to call a magistrate a ‘block-head’ or an ‘ass’ was not libellous, as it was not his fault that he was a block-head, for he cannot be otherwise than as his Maker made him. He then received the alleged libel in detail and criticized it, ably contending that there was nothing libellous. Mr. Davidson’s address though short was warmly applauded by a crowed court until stopped by the police.

Mr. Tebbutt said he did not intend to say anything about the libel. He considered a prima facie case was made out and would commit.

The defendant was committed for trial at Mudgee on Thursday 27th April – bail in £80 and two sureties in £40 which was promptly tendered.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 172, 9 April 1873

1873 - HOME RULE RUSH

[From our Correspondent]

Strange as it may appear to the Sydney wiseacres, the miners now prefer paying twenty to thirty times the Government fee to landowners rather than to be half ruined by the litigation which seem to be inseparable from the administration of our ultra-silly regulations by Mr. Commissioner Browne. Confidence in the clear sightedness of this gentleman and of his judicial shadow, Mr. Tebbutt, is absolutely nil. As mining authorities their dictum is held by diggers of very moderate capacity as something wholly unworthy of respect. In saying this nothing whatever is intended against their position as private citizens or as magistrates ad-ministering criminal law.

It is simply said and believed, that as mining magistrates they are incapable and this is saying volumes. How gentlemen can continue to hold their positions in the face of this opinion of the mining population, can only be accounted for by their assuming that they belong to the order of genius, whatever that is, of the pachydermatous pre-eminently thick skinned animals. But then this supposition militates against their readiness to take offence without cause. In fact they are enigmas and God alone can help the unfortunate placed for some inexplicable reason under their sway. The people here have been bothering their brains to find out the casus belli – the new one – against the ‘Guardian’; but the issue that prints this letter will doubtless tell us the number and size of the eggs found in the mare’s nest.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 172, 9 April 1873

1873 - CORRESPONDENCE - TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘GUARDIAN’

Sir – In the ‘Gulgong Mercantile Advertiser’ of Thursday last appears a report of the case – Knowles v Isbester – in which a witness is shown to have stated certain things, being no other than myself, requests the favour of inquiring what were the ‘inconsistencies’ of his evidence. I gave my evidence in a clear and explicit manner and I challenge Mr. Tebbutt upon the Bench or Mr. Tebbutt in his editorial chair, to maintain the reverse.

I am, sir, yours truly, EDWARD HARMAN.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 175, 19 April 1873

1873 - At it Again

Mr. Henry Tebbutt J.P., of Mudgee was entrusted with the task of responding to the toast of the ‘Mining Interest’ at the dinner given to his Honour Sir Alfred Stephen in Mudgee on Tuesday evening last and as a sample of the outburst we give the following extract which will be productive of much amusement. He said:– But there was one great drawback and that was the manner in which the mining laws had been framed; the frontage system he maintained was the curse of the miner. He instanced one lease of 10 acres that realised £500,000 during the last ten years, also that on the Black Lead at Gulgong six men held under the frontage system 240 feet frontage by one mile depth this he considered a gross monopoly. He regretted that the Hon. The Solicitor General’s Bill had been thrown out by the Assembly and added that had Mr. Buchanan taken the other side of the question, things would have been on a better footing. He concluded his remarks by returning thanks on the part of ‘Our Miners’ for the honour that they had received. Oh, Tebby, how can you! When did the Assembly throw out the scissors and paste-pot bill of Mr. Innes? Mr. T., how about the administration of them? The miners should feel grateful to you and no doubt are in their own peculiar way.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 175, 19 April 1873

1873 - Appointment

Mr. Henry Tebbutt has been appointed Commissioner for taking affidavits for the Supreme Court, Sydney, for Gulgong.

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 188, 4 June 1873

1873 - No Fire

During the hearing cases on Wednesday and Thursday candles had to be lit for the accommodation of the Bench and the C.P.S. On Thursday, Mr. Henry Tebbutt asked Sgt. Keenan why it was there could not be a fire provided in the Court, when the Sgt. in his usual polite manner replied, ‘Your worship, we have no wood, nor is there any arrangement for the supply of same’. His Worship, ‘Oh!’

Source: Gulgong Guardian, Issue No 191, 14 June 1873

1874 - ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. COURT OF INQUIRY.
BEFORE Messrs. J. M. Marsh and E. Fosbery, Commissioners.

The Magistrates appointed as a commission to inquire into the administration of justice, at Gulgong, terminated their labours on Wednesday. The following evidence was taken on Tuesday and Wednesday, as published in the Gulgong Evening Argus:

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24.

Mr. Tebbutt said: I distinctly deny that I ever, either directly or indirectly, received the smallest coin of the realm, or the smallest particle of property, by way of bribe, in any case whatever, either from Mr. Clarke or from anybody else; I invariably go into Mudgee on Friday mornings, and return again on Monday evenings; I have sat on different cases when I have been objected to; my reply to the objection was - "I have no feeling in the case, and I shall not retire unless grounds should be shown for me to do so"; on the 12th of August last I was presented with and accepted a testimonial, consisting of a silver tea service; the presentation was publicly advertised in the Argus, and there was no hole and corner work about it; under all the circumstances, considering that I had been burned in effigy for supposed maladministration of justice, I did not think it at all improper to receive a testimonial from the public; I deny that I have ever touted for Justices residing a long distance from Gulgong to come here and sit on mining appeal cases; I deny that I have solicited advertisements from publicans about to apply for licenses, to appear in the paper just before the licensing; I deny each and every allegation contained in this petition against me. 

By the Commissioners: I am the editor of a paper; I have abused the clerk of Petty Sessions in that paper; he never refused to sit with me, or told me the reasons why he would not sit with me. 

By Dr. Belinfante: I consider Mr. Truman's character as good as your own; it is not true that I made any application to the Bench of magistrates at Mudgee to recommend me for the office of coroner, and it is not true that only two out of seventeen voted for me; there was a bribe offered to me once; it was done in ignorance by the offender, and I did not bring him to justice; I recollect the case of Harpur, whom I bound over to keep the peace for assaulting a man in a public place; I sometimes sell by auction under Green's verandah; I never went to Mudgee from Gulgong specially to sit on appeal cases; I do not think I ever said that I would follow up any appeal cases on which I had previously sat and adjudicated; I admit the pamphlets of the Tammany leases were not printed in my office; I do not think it wrong to falsify the imprint of a pamphlet; it is a common practice amongst printers; I object to say who offered me a bribe; the sum of £300 was offered me about two years ago; I told the person offering it that it was very improper for him to do this.

WEDNESDAY.

The Court opened punctually at ten o'clock, when Mr. Tebbutt read his written replies to the charges preferred against him and handed in the document. Mr. Tebbutt said he regretted the time allowed him for so doing was so very short, as he was not able to comment upon the evidence of several of the witnesses, and therefore the defence was not half prepared. He would now hand in the following letter of Mr. N. P. Bayly, of Havilah, as a magistrate of very long and high standing:

"Havilah, February 21, 1874. 

Dear Sir,—In reply to yours of this day I have much pleasure in expressing a very decided opinion, from what I have heard and my own observation, that your conduct as a magistrate has invariably been most praiseworthy and exemplary. You have certainly done the community great service in your magisterial capacity.—Sincerely yours, N. P. Bayly.

Mr. Henry Tebbutt, J.P.

Mr. Tebbutt then proceeded in his defence as under.

Gentlemen,—Previous to entering into my defence, permit me to thank you for your courteous conduct towards me during the whole of these long and tedious proceedings, and for the impartiality you have displayed. This conduct is more conspicuous when contrasted with that of the advocate for the petitioners, which has been characterised by the utmost vindictiveness; so much so, that I have on one or two occasions had to call your attention to it. 

As far as the result of this inquiry is concerned, it is to me a matter of the most perfect indifference, for conscious of my own integrity and impartiality it is immaterial. And even though the decrees of his Excellency and the Executive be adverse, I shall still have the approbation of my own conscience; for I have never accepted a bribe, or acted in a partial manner in any decision I have ever arrived at. Had I been guilty of corrupt practices, would it not have been perfectly easy for me to have resigned my commission, and refused to appear? But what has been my conduct?

I have not only attended the inquiry, but was most anxious an inquiry should be held. As far as the inquiry is concerned, it has been of the most unfair nature. This I do not attribute to the Commissioners, and must take blame to myself in not ascertaining whether the witnesses' evidence was to be taken on oath, and all the witnesses excluded from the Court prior to giving evidence before consenting to the inquiry being held with open doors. Upon the close of the first day's proceedings, so convinced was I of their unfairness, that after lasting only two hours I considered it my duty to enter a solemn protest against the mode of procedure, which appeared to me not only against law and justice, but against common sense. I certainly did expect that in such cases the inquiry would have been held either with closed doors, or with open doors and upon oath. Such was not the case. Witnesses have not been examined on oath. Witnesses have remained in Court while the examination was going on, and the barrister for the petitioners has actually put words in the witnesses' mouths, and the most intense desire has been evinced by him to blast my reputation. Dr. Belinfante stated to you that if the inquiry was to be held with closed doors the petitioners would withdraw from the case. I presume that gentleman must have been aware of a fact of which I was totally, at the time, ignorant—namely, that the inquiry could not be held on oath; therefore the conclusion naturally to be drawn from his statement is this—that, without the facility afforded of one witness hearing what the other said, he could not trump up a case—this is the only rational inference that can be drawn. If his witnesses were those of truth it would have been immaterial to him as to the mode of inquiry. And now, gentlemen, with all these facilities, has he been able to prove a single charge? He has, in a very weak manner, attempted to show public opinion, and public opinion only, accuses me of receiving bribes of Messrs. Clarke and Davidson, in order to frustrate justice. Has this serious charge been in any way sustained? Certainly not. It has been scattered to the winds by the direct evidence of the gentlemen implicated. And surely no Government under the British Constitution will condemn an individual at this period upon public opinion. But I deny that public opinion has ever pointed me out as the recipient of bribes. I now proceed to analyse the evidence, the first being:—

Samuel Blackman, J.P.—With regard to the evidence of this gentleman, I distinctly state I have never tried to influence him in any case. His being a recent appointment, I have always endeavoured to point out the law bearing upon the case, as also the authorities, before arriving at a conclusion.

Richard Johnson, solicitor: With regard to the case Jones v. Davis, it was heard before Mr. Browne as Gold Commissioner, and was laid under the Goldfields Act for trespass on Crown Lands, in which Mr. Browne made an order for the trespass to be abated, the defendant refused to obey the order, and he was summoned for such disobedience.

When the case came on Mr. Johnson put in as evidence the order made by Mr. Browne, which order was attached to the depositions. The solicitor on the other side objected to one portion of the depositions being tendered as evidence, and not the whole depositions, to which the order was attached. The Bench ruled the whole must be received. I then read them, and found the property was not Crown

lands but freehold, and therefore not coming under the provisions of the Goldfields Act, the Commissioner had no power to have made the order, and it was therefore illegal. Mr. Browne differed from me, so no order was made.

Hockings v. Isbester was heard before myself, McDonald, and Blackman. It was a case under the Impounding Act, and was very clearly proved. After all the evidence was tendered on both sides he claimed a right to speak for his clients. We asked him if he had any more witnesses to call, he said no, but claimed his rights. We then consulted together and came to the conclusion the case was so plain it would be useless to allow any speeches, as any remarks would not alter the facts of the case, and it would be a waste of time to do so. He still insisted on addressing the Bench on behalf of his clients, and we immediately gave our decision. I as senior magistrate making known our joint decision. 

After Mr. Johnson had left Gulgong, a Mr. Davoren, who stated he was clerk to Mr. Johnson, made an application to appear on his behalf. I refused the application, and admitted an irregularity had occurred in allowing Mr. Spring to appear, but should not perpetuate such irregularity. I may here state Mr. Johnson, while in Gulgong, was very anxious that no others but barristers or attorneys should appear, and yet he was highly indignant Davoren should be refused. With regard to putting money out of Johnson's pocket, the facts are very simple. Persons are in the habit of calling at my home to recommend them attorneys. I have at times recommended them to Clarke, Belinfante, and Johnson. The words I used were these: "I can put money out of his pocket," meaning, I could either send him clients or recommend them elsewhere.

L. S. Donaldson, C.P.S., states that public opinion is against me. He alludes to my regular attendance at the Appeal Court; he might also have added the regular attendance I gave to the general business of the Court. Mr. Donaldson never refused to sit with me. I would not sit with him, and my reason for such was that upon reading the report of his evidence in the libel case of Browne v. Browne, heard in Sydney, I was under the impression he tried to get Mr. Browne ousted from the office of Police Magistrate in order to obtain it for himself. This was the common talk at the time, and I looked upon Mr. Donaldson's conduct as utterly derogatory to a gentleman. I never afterwards would sit with him. I must do Mr. Donaldson the justice to say he has now in a public manner denied such intentions. I accept that statement in refutation of the newspaper report.

William Thompson.—This witness was for a number of years a resident in Mudgee, and his evidence is to the effect that l received £120 from him by way of bribe. This requires an explanation. In the month of November, 1871, a Mr. Constable was erecting a theatre in Gulgong. Being short of funds to complete the theatre, he applied to our firm, Shettle and Tebbutt, to procure him such. I said to him, "Mr. Davidson advertises money to lend; apply to him." He replied, "I do not know him." I then said, "I will see Russell about it." Russell said, when I saw him a few days afterwards, "I will see the party and let you know to-morrow." Russell called on me the next day and said, "It is Thompson who has money to lend; he will not lend to the other party; but he says he has known you and Shuttle so many years if you want a hundred or two for your paper you can have it at once." I then told Russell I would see about it. I related this conversation to Mr. Shettle, and he said, "We may as well accept Mr. Thompson's offer, and buy our plant, which we were previously hiring. I told this to Mr. Russell and offered to give him security. Mr. Russell, in a day or two afterwards said, "Thompson wants no security—your bill will do at twelve months." I then told Russell that Thompson had better take security, as no one knew what might happen in twelve months. The list of securities was then handed to Mr. Russell, and he prepared a bill of sale a few days afterwards, which I and Mr. Shettle executed; I now find erasures in the date of the bill of sale, and alterations as to the date. About four months after this transaction, Thompson came to the office and asked me whether the bill was not due; I said, "Certainly not; it was for twelve months". He said, "It was for four months." I again said, "It is for twelve months; but if you want the money, you can have it as soon as you bring the note and bill of sale." He said, "Never mind, I don't want it at present." When the bill became due it was paid, and I heard no more of the transaction until last week. I here solemnly assert I never told Thompson he got the case in the (Appeal) Court and should be satisfied, nor had I any idea at the time he had any case pending in the Appeal Court. Had such been the case, I should have recommended my partner to have nothing to do with it. We were not at that time in want of money, but we considered it better to borrow a sum and purchase our plant than pay rent for it, and the sum we borrowed we used for that purpose. We had known Thompson intimately for above thirteen years, and we looked upon the matter as a mere friendly business transaction. In June, 1873, Thompson subscribed to a testimonial to be presented to me, and we were on friendly terms, in fact he was one of the collectors for that testimonial. Subsequent to this he prosecuted a person for obtaining £100 for him under false pretences. The case came on before me, and as it was in my opinion a matter for a civil action and not for criminal prosecution, I dismissed it. This person has now commenced an action against Thompson, and the latter has the most rancorous animosity against me because I did not commit the individual for trial. Had such been the case, I have no moral doubt Thompson would never have made a charge against me.

Richard Rouse, J.P., Biraganbil: Upon one or two occasions we have differed upon the interpretation of points of law and therefore made no order. The case was afterwards disposed of by other magistrates, sometimes for and at other times against my view of the case. With those exceptions we have always acted in harmony and unison.

Capewell.—This witness was an unsuccessful suitor, but afterwards gained his case against my conviction. He believes public opinion is not in my favour. He cannot in stance one case of partiality or corruption. The case he refers to was one of the old cases in which miners were allowed to register their claims prior to blocking off. I acknowledge the justice of this witness's claim; but the law was against him, and I and other magistrates acted according to our opinion.

John Scully is a miner on the Black Lead. It is his opinion I am influenced by bribery, but he does not cite a single case.

John Scully.—This witness accuses me of receiving bribes directly by overcharging for printing. The case is as follows:—Mr. Truman came to our office and saw Mr. Shettle, my partner, and asked him what he would charge to print five hundred copies of David Buchanan's speech. Mr. Shettle named a price to him at the time which I did not know till afterwards. The pamphlets were printed and delivered. After they were delivered Mr. A. Brown called upon my partner for another 500, and agreed for a certain price. Whether the pamphlets were worth £50 or £5 I do not know, as I am entirely ignorant of their value. I do the writing portion, and have no knowledge of printing affairs. The witness says the opinion abroad is that I am corrupt, and he would be very sorry for me to sit on a case of his. He then states he subscribed £5 5s. to my testimonial, but would not do it now. I may here remark we were on terms of intimacy until very lately. Mr. Scully, at the late election, asked me to support him in our paper as member of Parliament for Mudgee. To this we consented. I then wrote out his election address, and my partner printed several thousands of these addresses for general circulation. I was appointed chairman to his committee, and made myself very active in endeavouring to secure his election; in fact, I asked several electors to vote for him, and did all I possibly could to secure his return—this I did for his own sake. But he professed to be in favour of the Ministry then in office, and I did all in my power to secure them a supporter, believing their notions were beneficial to the colony at large. I also acted as his scrutineer for Mudgee, at the earnest solicitation of his committee. The election came off, and I believe Mr. Scully received the fewest votes of any candidate. I cannot now say this positively, but such is my belief. After his defeat he found the expenses much more than he contemplated, believing, as it appeared to me, that he should have been returned at the head of the poll, almost free of charge. In addition to this he found our printing account exceeded his expectations. The committee, however, paid the account, after due examination, and Mr. Scully exhibited a coolness for some time after, doubtless, in my mind, owing to this defeat. This coolness wore away, and we were again on friendly terms. Very recently he had a dispute with Mr. Kelleher, a builder, as to some contracts. Mr. Scully told me he was not in Kelleher's debt, and asked my advice how he should act. I suggested he should refer the case to arbitration. He consented to do so, and asked me to act as his referee. To this I consented. Mr. Scully then appointed Louis Severen his arbitrator, and Kelleher appointed Job Edwards as his. After measuring and valuing the work, we came to the unanimous conclusion that somewhere about £80 or so was due to Kelleher, and signed a document to that effect. Upon our decision being made known, Scully abused the arbitrators and referee in no measured terms, and accused us of robbing him, his own arbitrator coming in for his share of the very general abuse. Since that period I have held no intercourse with him. I believe the above facts will explain his animus to me, and his willingness to tender evidence against me at this inquiry. He appears to me to be a very vindictive man. 

Courtis states that the opinion in Gulgong is that the administration of justice is partial, and that Mr. Clarke always wins his cases. He also states that I had a case against him for £13; that he told the Bench they had no jurisdiction, the case being over £10, but the Bench would not allow his objection, and gave the case against him. This statement he persisted in. The records of the Small Debts Court were then produced from the registrar, and it was then ascertained he had made a wilful false statement, for the amount he was sued for was £? 19s. This witness is a public bellman, bill-sticker, and night watchman; and, although these occupations do not reflect his general character, he is a man of very little repute. I submit that, after the evidence he has given respecting the £13 so persistently, he is not worthy of belief, and little or no reliance can be placed on his word.

Richard Rouse. J.P., Guntawang: This witness is a magistrate, and has sat with me on many occasions on the Mudgee and Gulgong benches. The evidence is to the effect that there is no antagonism on the Gulgong Bench, (?) anything to frustrate the ends of justice. He further remarks that he and I were burnt in effigy in consequence of an unpopular decision. He can see no cause to suppose I am corrupt; he thought at times I was severe, but not vindictive. He is perfectly satisfied with the administration of justice at Gulgong. He has heard persons express themselves unfavourable towards me(?). Mr. Rouse is a wealthy landowner residing about six miles from Gulgong, highly intelligent, and deservedly respected by all classes. E. J. Cory is a well-known aged attorney. His statement is to the effect that people say I am partial in my judgments and in this opinion he agrees. Upon being desired to furnish reasons, he states two cases of affiliation were heard. One before myself and Dr. Ewington, and the other before me and the Police Magistrate; and in one case the order was made for 10s. per week, and one for 5 s. per week. The cases were entirely different. In one case the female was a consenting party and in the other she was not so. The facts presented so disgusting and revolting an aspect rhat the Bench

ordered the man to be taken into custody for rape, for each offence he was committed for trial by the Police Magistrate. Upon the order for 10s. a week being made the attorney applied to the Supreme Court for a prohibition, and the rule was discharged with costs.

The Commissioners having decided I must bring in my defence to-morrow morning, it now being Tuesday evening, it is absolutely necessary I should be very brief in my remarks. Under these circumstances it will be impossible for me to comment on the whole of the evidence. I therefore am reluctantly compelled to conclude with the evidence of G. A. Davis, who now stands committed for trial for publishing a false and malicious libel against me. With regard to this libel, the case is sub judice, so I therefore shall not treat on it. In his evidence he states he was charged with receiving a horse, knowing it to be stolen. He then states the night before the case came on for hearing, somewhere about April, 1872, he gave me £7 10s. by way of bribe to decide the case in his favour; that notwithstanding such bribe I committed him for trial. He then states, had the bribe been £16 the case would have been far different. I may mention that Shettle and Tebbutt received from this man £7 10s. on the 28th November, 1871; his account at that time was £15 3s. 8d., of which this £7 10s. was part payment. Upon his examination I declined to ask Davis any questions, inasmuch as it would have been an insult to you to have imagined for one moment that you believed one tittle of his evidence. I trust that this and all other matters have been satisfactorily explained; and now for a few words in conclusion. 

On the 24th August, 1834, I landed in this colony, being shipwrecked in the Edward Lombe on Sydney Heads, a mere lad, at the same time losing an older brother—my only guide. By dint of honesty I have made myself a position in society. I have been an alderman as well as mayor in Mudgee, and have been several years in the Commission of the Peace, and I now fearlessly assert that not one act in my magisterial capacity has been performed through corrupt or mercenary motives. I have always endeavoured to do my duty honestly, faithfully, and fearlessly; without respect to persons; and it is this integrity that has made me many enemies, for I admit I have many.

I have been most active in my endeavours to keep this goldfield clear of the gangs of ruffians that formerly infested it, and many others of their brotherhood would be delighted at my removal. I understand the petition is purported to be signed by 1050 persons, and is known in Gulgong as the Davis cum Curtis petition, the promoters being Davis the auctioneer and Curtis the night-watchman; of the former character you have seen quite enough to convince you of his villainy and of the other I believe, had these proceedings been on oath, you would have committed him for perjury. Of those 1050 names I verily believe not more than one hundred knew what they were signing, although Davis states he read it over to the whole of them, or made them acquainted with it before signing; but, even supposing the whole of the signatures were genuine, what does it amount to? Merely this, that I have 1050 opponents. Now, it is a well-known fact that when a magisterial decision is given against an individual he becomes an enemy. It appears I have sat in Gulgong on 1369 cases, so I must have made that number of enemies, and in some of these cases there have been several complainants or defendants thus increasing the number. Now, gentlemen, who have been my accusers? Disappointed suitors, having a personal enmity towards me; and although Dr. Belinfante has carried on this persecution (for I can call it by no other name) with the utmost malignity and rancour, yet, having the choice of witnesses, and after being assisted by Plunkett, Moses, and others, he could not convict me in one single case of either bribery or corruption. It was a pitiful and humiliating sight to see a British barrister volunteer evidence, and deliver such with so much rancour, malice, and vindictiveness; but I am thankful, for the sake of my country, that Dr. Belinfante is not a British barrister, but a foreigner.

I will now conclude by solemnly and fearlessly asserting that, before God, to whom the secrets of all hearts are known, and before whom we must all appear, that I have never, either directly or indirectly, received a bribe from any person whatever, here or elsewhere, in order to prevent the ends of justice; and, I further assert that, in every decision I have arrived at, I have always endeavoured to act in an honest, impartial manner. I might have brought many witnesses to testify to my integrity, but after the testimony of Mr. S. A. Blackman, Mr. Medley, Messrs. Rouse, Keppie, Mulholland, and Mr. Browne, I did not think it all necessary, and I did not wish to encumber the proceedings with unnecessary evidence.

Gentlemen,—I now leave the matter in your hands, and in that of the Government, and in doing so, allow me to express to you my heartfelt and sincere thanks for your courtesy, patience, and impartiality during this tedious and important inquiry.

I am, Gentlemen, yours, respectfully.

HENRY TEBBUTT.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) Mon 2 Mar 1874 Page 3

1874 - The Municipal Enquiry

The P.M. has received instruction to enquire into the petition for a Municipality at Gulgong. Mr. Henry Tebbutt appeared for the petitioners and Edward Clarke for those against the Municipality. Mr. Clarke suggested that the Municipality was too large and unwieldy, Mr. Tebbutt replied that it was only about one-sixth the size of the Municipality of Cudgegong.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 24 March 1874

1874 - The Municipal Enquiry

The Police Magistrate having received instructions to inquire into the circumstances connected with the petition for a Municipality at Gulgong, as well as the counter petition, held in Court yesterday. Mr. Henry Tebbutt appeared for the petitioners and Edward Clarke for those against a Municipality. The names were gone over seriatim and it was determined that householders also were eligible to petition. Therefore those who only signed as miners were thrown out. It was also determined that those signed and were residents in Mr. Rouse’s and Mr. Lowe’s and other paddocks were not competent to petition because they occupied property for which the owners would be liable to be taxed. In several instances, where doubtful, it was left to the Commissioner to institute further inquiries. Mr. Browne stated that his instructions comprehended the subject of boundary was extent of the proposed Municipality, as well as the names and this would form a portion of the report he is to furnish the Government before the 10th. Mr. Clarke suggested the Municipality was too large and unwieldy. Mr. Tebbutt replied that it was only about six-sixth of the size of the Municipality of Cudgegong. Commissioner said he would hear further evidence if required and hold another meeting.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 2 April 1874

1874 - Donation 

Mr. Henry Tebbutt has kindly forwarded, through Mr. Con Driscoll to the secretary of the Hospital for the benefit of patients of that institution a donation of 50 volumes. This present is most generous on the one hand and most acceptable on the other and we hope the example thus set by Mr. Tebbutt may have many imitators.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 16 May 1874

1874 - [HOSPITAL MEETING]

A vote of thanks to Messrs. Henry Tebbutt, F. S. Osborne, Charles Bird and John B. Stormer for books and papers supplied to the hospital. Accounts were passed for payment, tenders of Driscoll and Redmond to supply the hospital with wines and spirits was accepted. All donations and subscriptions are to be published.

Source: The Home Rule Pilot, No 2, 13 June 1874

1874 - POLICE COURT

Assault — In the case of assault upon Mr. Tebbutt, Mr. Cory appeared for Dr. Zimmler and on behalf of his client expressed extreme regret that anything unpleasant should have occurred and was instructed to apologise for the affront and he believed that the matter had been arranged and the complaint would be withdrawn.

Mr. Tebbutt stated that he had consented to a nol. pros. Being entered, on condition of a public apology and a donation of one guinea to the hospital fund.

The Bench remarked that in a case like this it was very proper an ample apology should be made. Case dismissed.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 2 July 1874

1874 - Criminal Libel Action 

The whole of this morning was occupied at the Police Court, T A Browne, Presiding, in hearing a charge fro libel preferred by Mr E J Cory, solicitor, against Mr H Tebbutt, one of the proprietors of the Mercantile Advertiser. From the information it appeared that the defendants published in the Advertiser of December 9th a certain article commenting up on the doings of a ‘Lord Corkscrew’ and a challenge to fight a duel. Mr Brough appeared for the prosecution; Mr Tebbutt defended in person. Mr. Cory, in evidence, said he believed the article in question referred to him, and was untrue. Mr Tebbutt in defence, ridiculed the matter, saying it was simply a burlesque. During the examination some very angry remarks were made by both Mr Brough and Mr Tebbutt, who were each reprimanded by the Bench. The Bench considered the article in question referred to the plaintiff and was likely to injure him in his profession and committed the defendant for trial.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 22 December 1874

1875 - Criminal Libel 

Edwin J Shettle and Henry Tebbutt appeared charged with printing and publishing a libellous article in the Mercantile Advertiser, relative to Edward James Cory. Mr Brough appeared for the prosecution and wished to withdraw from the case. Mr Tebbutt on behalf of himself and partner objected. Mr Cory, though sitting in the Court, said he did not appear. The farce of his name being called three times at the door of the Police Court having been performed, case dismissed.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 21 January 1875

1875 - Meeting of the Progress Committee

... Mr Henry Tebbutt stated that 21-square miles of commonage for Gulgong had been proclaimed. He introduced the Government Gazette of March 31, containing the proclamation and also a chart of the district showing the limits and extent of this commonage. He proposed ‘That this meeting protests against the section of the Hon Minister of Lands in causing 21 square miles of the richest agriculture as a common around Gulgong being proclaimed as a common, thus preventing its used for agriculture purposes; and that Mr Buchanan, the member for the Western Goldfields, be requested to use his influence to procure a revocation of such proclamation.’

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 27 May 1875

1875 - POLICE COURT

L S Donaldson Esq. J P.,—Mr Tebbutt could not have had a spark of either manly or gentlemanly feeling when he penned the gross and libellous insinuations against Mr Donaldson in the advertising sheet issued on Wednesday by himself and Mr Shettle. The feeling in Gulgong is anything but favourable to the writer and although the article was intended to do Mr Donaldson harm, but has really had quite the contrary effect, for it has enlisted for him the sympathy of the whole town. Mr Shettle is very much respected in Gulgong and the general feeling is one of surprise that he allowed the paragraph to appear. It must certainly, in one opinion have been an over sight on Mr Shettle’s part, and we are really sorry that Mr Tebbutt should so far forget himself as to be guilty of such a want of propriety. We suggest as the best means of settling the matter, that Mr Tebbutt make a public apology to Mr Donaldson. If he is a gentleman he certainly will do so.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 3 June 1875

1875 - Progress Committee Meeting. 

Usual meeting in the usual place, Con Driscoll in the chair, S Samper, secretary; read the minutes and correspondence, confirmed Tebbutt/O’Neill, this included the letter from the Under Secretary of land stating the revocation of a great portion of the Commonage reserve.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 8 July 1875

1875 - Progress Committee Meeting.

... Mr Tebbutt then stated that he had an important matter to bring before the Committee by motion and would like someone else to take the chair. Mr Murphy took the chair on the motion of Messrs Harris and Arrowsmith.

Mr Tebbutt: He felt is duty to urge the committee to call attention of the Government to the fact that a malignant type of fever had made its appearance in Gulgong, baffling the skill of local surgeons and physicians and this had proved fatal to four children of our respected townsman, Mr J F Plunkett. He felt much delicacy in introducing the subject, but thought something should be done. His impression was that this disease is owing to some contagion introduced from distant countries and thought an investigation should be had. He said that he had conversed with Dr Cutting in Mudgee, upon the subject and from what he could learn, this enquiry should be asked for. Such things had to be done before in the interest of the public.

Several amendments were proposed to the effect that a general inquiry should be instituted into the sanitary conditions of the town, and it was pointed out that the case alluded to was not exceptional, as several families in the town and district had been visited by similar sorrowful calamities. It was decided by a small majority, that the motion should be passed.

Mr William Murphy called attention, in a few sensible remarks to the way in which the filth and sewerage was being turned from one premises to another, by lack of sufficient and systematic drainage and urged that something should be done to put an effectual stop to it. Mr C L Morris supported the proposition and the meeting concurred in the remarks made.

The secretary was instructed to write to Messrs Buchanan, Gould and Forster, urging them to press the reforms asked for, and draw them to the attention of the various heads of Government Departments. It was proposed to have the meeting at any place rather than a public house, this was deferred to the next meeting.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 12 August 1875

1875 - COURT OF REQUESTS

Henry Tebbutt v Dr Bennett for 4 pounds. This was for a revolver; Mr Tebbutt testified to selling the revolver to Dr Bennet 3 or 4 months ago. Dr Bennett in defence stated he bought the revolver, on the condition that it was in good working order, but soon found that it was not as represented and offered to return it and give 20/- as he had fired 12 shots. 

S Samper: deposed: he was acquainted with the value of such weapons; they were worth from 30 to 35 shillings each; I sold them for 50/- each, the one produced is not a good sound revolver. Verdict for amount claimed.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 26 August 1875

1875 - Progress Committee Meeting.

Mr Tebbutt said he had prepared a resolution which he would submit to the meeting. He felt deeply interested in the prosperity of Gulgong and it was impossible that it could be prosperous while the rich agricultural land around it was kept locked up. He quoted instances of the fertility of the soil and said that some of the farmers around the town averaged as high as one hundred bushels of wheat to the acre; and was it not preposterous that land so well adapted for the growth of cereals should be permitted to remain sterile, because of a cry raised by a few miners in a spirit of selfishness? He later proposed that: “A memorial signed Committee, be forwarded to Messrs Buchanan, Forster and Gould requesting them to urge the Minister for Lands to reconsider his decision. Seconded by C R Young. Carried.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 9 October 1875

1875 - THE COMMISSION OF THE PEACE.

(From the Government Gazette.)

It is hereby notified for general information that the names of the undermentioned gentlemen have been erased from the Commission of the Peace for the colony of New South Wales, in consequence of death or other causes, since the issue of the last General Commission.

• Tebbutt, Henry, Mudgee

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) Tue 14 Sep 1875 Page 5

1876 - Editorial 

The administration of justice, whether in superior or inferior courts, must always enlist profound solicitude and those who are commissioned to occupy the judgement seat should be alike worthy of the confidence and respect attaching to their high office and to themselves individually as distinguished beyond other in the same community. From some cause, either just or unjust the Gulgong Bench has undeniably gained an unenviable notoriety and some of the magistrates have passed through the ordeal of trials by Judge Lynch, public opinion and Government commission with such result as our readers are cognisant of.

If the public were dissatisfied, they at all events, held their peace. Not so, however, did Mr Tebbutt, a gentleman who once held Her Majesty’s commission and who may be considered qualified to judge of the duties pertaining to the office of a justice. We believe he has considered it his duty to prefer a charge against Mr Donaldson for something done in his magisterial capacity; and whether it is well founded or not, a Parliamentary enquiry has been ordered and the Police Magistrate, together with the CPS are about to proceed to Sydney on summons to give evidence. We are precluded from commenting upon the necessity of this procedure until such time as the enquiry is closed; but in the mean time it becomes our duty to animadvert on the inadequacy of magistrates in a thickly populated district such as Gulgong and the direct attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that during the absence of these gentlemen, a bench cannot be formed and the administration of justice will be at a standstill. The hearing of cases last Wednesday had to be adjourned till the PM has returned from Sydney.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 5 February 1876

1876 - Correspondence

Sir, the virtuous indignation of the ‘Ancient Briton’ having arrived at boiling point, he must needs let it bubble in the columns of the Tiser, regarding the appointment of a valuator for the Council. Why did he not publish the names of the tenders with the amounts each tendered to perform the work for? Answer: Because Henry Tebbutt—part proprietor and editor of the Tiser had put in the highest tender, viz 37 pounds 10 shillings, which was not accepted. In this case ‘intellect and superior intelligence’ as illustrated by non-payment of rates in Mudgee for some years—did not receive its meritorious reward. I say nothing of the bad taste which induced him to say publicly that he would obstruct the valuators all he could in the execution of their duty, would not pay any rates, defy the Council etc. etc. etc. Thos took place after the appointment. For myself, I think as an ex-JP, town clerk, councillor, and Mayor, should instead of boasting he could and would defy any municipal laws, uphold them in all his power—Verbum Sap. As I hear there will shortly be another amateur performance, I would suggest that the parties concerned therein leave out the ‘Virtuous Peasant’ who might play ‘Pistol’ in ‘Flagstaff’ in ‘The revival of Henry V.,’ and underline H.T. as the Immaculate Ratepayer.

Yours Etc. ANIT SHUFFLER.

Source: Gulgong Evening Argus, 26 August 1876

1877 - [DEATH]

TEBBUTT.—November 23, at Coonamble, Mr. Henry Tebbutt, of Mudgee, aged 61, deeply regretted by his family and friends; only surviving brother of Mr. J. L. Tebbutt, of Murrurundi.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) Wed 28 Nov 1877 Page 1

1877 - [DEATH]

TEBBUTT.—November 23, at Coonamble. of enteric fever, Henry Tebbutt, Esq., of Mudgee, aged 60 years.

Source: Evening News (Sydney, NSW : 1869 - 1931) Thu 29 Nov 1877 Page 4

1877 - [DEATH]

The sad intelligence was announced in town on Saturday morning last that Mr. Henry Tebbutt, one of the oldest residents of the district, had expired on the previous night, at his late residence, in Coonamble. Naturally enough, everyone to whom the news was communicated expressed surprise, as no one expected that his life was drawing to a close so soon. He had been ailing, it appears, for a short time past, and one of his daughters left on Wednesday last to lend him her comfort, and must have arrived in Coonamble in time to close her father's eyes. The funeral took place on Saturday evening last, when the deceased gentleman's friends paid worthy respects to his remains and his memory.

Source: Australian Town and Country Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1870 - 1919) Sat 1 Dec 1877 Page 38

1887 - [DEATH]

TEBBUTT. — April 28, at the Manse, Moss Vale, Elizabeth relict of the late Henry Tebbutt. Esq., of Mudgee.

Source: The Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1871 - 1912) Sat 7 May 1887 Page 985

A haunting advert for the ship that transported young Henry Tebbutt from London to Sydney via Hobart in 1834 and wrecked just before it reached Sydney.

Source: The True Colonist Van Diemen's Land Political Despatch, and Agricultural and Commercial... (Hobart Town, Tas. : 1834 - 1844) Tue 12 Aug 1834 Page 4