Queensland Times, Ipswich Herald and General Advertiser (Qld.), Thursday 30 June 1864, page 3

IPSWICH POLICE COURT. Tuesday, June 27.
(Before the Police Magistrate and Mr. Hendren)

THE RIOT CASE.
Michael Purtell, Daniel Sullivan, James Kinane, John Quinlan, Stephen Ryan, Thomas Conroy, and John Sullivan were charged with being guilty of riotous conduct. 

Mr. Chubb and Mr. Sullivan appeared for the defence. 

It was stated by Mr. Sullivan that the information contained only the names of Michael Purtell, Daniel Sullivan, and John Sullivan; and warrants were only issued for these three. The other defendants were arrested without either an information or a warrant. 

The following evidence was adduced:-
Charles Clay, barman, remembered seeing Quinlan, Purtell, and Ryan at the Rosewood, on the 21st inst. They were in company with others. Between 4 and 6 o’clock in the evening, Quinlan had a row with a man there. They went outside and fought two rounds. He parted them. Quinlan went off, saying he would fetch a b——mob. He returned with Purtell, Ryan, and others at as near as he could recollect, about seven o’clock. They sat down in the dining-room and had something to drink. After they had had a few glasses each they commenced to kick up a row. He went to see what was the matter, and on going into the room Ryan threw down the light he had in his hand and struck him in the face. He got away from them and went into the coffee-room, and there the lot commenced to smash the glass doors. He recognised Quinlan, Ryan, and Purtell among them. He could not say how many panes of glass they broke. Purtell said he would pull down the house and kill every English man that was in it. [Mr. Faircloth, J.P., here took his seat on the bench with the other magistrates] They came off the street to get at the doors. There was a regular hubbub among them, and he could not distinguish what they said. He was in bodily fear of the defendants in consequence of their conduct. 

By Mr. Sullivan: When Quinlan came to the house he said he wanted to see Mr. O’Brien. He did not state what business he had with Mr. O’Brien. He did not ask me to go into Mr. O’Brien’s room to ask if he could see him. The men outside were a lot of English navvies. I did not hear them ask Quinlan to shout, nor did I see them follow him through the house. I swear positively that none of them challenged Quinlan to fight; but he said he would fight one of them for £5. The person he spoke to said he had no £5 to fight for. They fought the two rounds I have spoken of. They were then outside. I don’t know that Quinlan saw Mr. O’Brien after that. I did not see him after the scuffle until later in the evening between seven and eight o’clock. I don’t believe Quinlann had supper in the house that night. When the row was going on he was with the others. When they were smashing the windows, Quinlan endeavoured to prevent them from breaking any more. I did not hear it given as a reason for their conduct that young O’Brien had struck one of them with a loaded whip. Young O’Brien was in bed nearly all day, and stopped in the house until he was hunted away. He jumped out of bed and went away, without boots or hat. He was frightened of them. He was ill at the time. I had a glass with Quinlan that day. I did not see Mrs. O’Brien strike any of the defendant’s with a chair. I saw Purtell put the foot through the window. After having three glasses each they had a row among themselves. The room they were in was divided from the bar by a wall. 

By Mr. Chubb : Judge Lutwyche, when I gave evidence in Campbell’s case, did not say that I should be committed for perjury. The window which Purtell put his foot through was about two feet from the ground. I have been barman since Christmas. I have seen a good many rows there, but this was the first serious one that occurred. There were no Englishmen about except myself. 

By the Bench: I don’t know whether Quillan slept there that night or had breakfast there in the morning. 

George White, a labourer on the railway works, camped at the Rosewood, said he knew only one of this defendants-Quinlan. On the 21st, Quinlan and he had a row about a horse. He was drinking there all day, They had a fight, and he believed both struck each other. I (the witness continued) did not want to fight, and would not. Quinlan went away, saying he would fetch a b—— mob to leather’ “we Englishmen.” I was afterwards struck when in the house, but by whom I cannot say. I was taken away by my mates. I did not see Quinlan come back, but I saw a lot coming into the house between seven and eight o’clock. The fight took place about four o’clock. It was after the large mob arrived that I was knocked down. I was then taken out, and I went home. I was drunk, and don’t know what took place before I was struck. I saw Purtell there. He gave me a glass to drink. He was one of the mob. I believe the other defendants were there. 

By the Bench: Quinlan offered to fight me for £5. [This witness was pressed very hard to identify the defendant, but he plainly stated that he would not undertake to swear to any of them except Quinlan.] 

By Mr. Sullivan: When Quinlan came in there were fire or six navvies drinking. I don’t recollect asking him to shout. I did not see any row. I did not come to have a row and there was no agreement to have a fight. 

Michael O’Brien: I am a publican, and the proprietor of the Rising Sun, Rosewood Scrub. I remember Tuesday, the 21st instant. I saw all of the defendants at my home on that day. There were three others there but they left for Toowoomba next morning. About eight o’clock in the evening, while sitting in my parlour with Quinlan, I saw the party rush out of the dining room to the verandah asking if there were any Englishmen there. Purtell, who went out first, walked up to an old man who was sitting at the end of the verandah. He put his hands on him and, asking him if he was an Englishman or an Irish.man; he swore if he was not an Irishman he would slay him. They then went along to the coffee-room doors. One and all swore they would pull the house to pieces, and if they found any Englishman in it they would slay him. William Mehan and Thomas M’Innernay were present looking on. After this Daniel Sullivan broke two French lights, and Conroy helped to break the door in. They all helped to do do so. The last pane was broken by John Sullivan. Quinlan was in my company the whole time, and he tried to save my place. They broke several panes of glass and one of the sashes, and injured the frame of the door, and smashed six panes of glass. When they did this they were outside trying to get in. They swore they would never leave the place till they had massacred every Englishman in the house. Most undoubtedly I was put in bodily fear, and begged of Quinlan to go out and stop them. The Rev. Mr. Waraker and his daughter, and my family of nine children were in the house. My son came out of his room to see what was going on, when one of the prisoners said, Here is one, I’ll have him,” and he rushed towards him and the rest followed him. My son got outside and, mounting a horse rode away half naked, to McEwan’s. I believe it was the prisoner Kinane who used the above words. That is all I know, for I never went out of my room. 

By the Bench: Quinlan was with me, and when he heard them breaking the windows  he went out and prevented them doing any more damage. 

By Mr. Quinn: All the prisoners created great noise, riot and disturbance. I saw one man struck. 

By Mr. Sullivan: Quinlan had previously been in company with the prisoners. I saw him at Mr. O’Malley’s on the day before the row. I spoke about changing the superintendent of my station. After some conversation he said he would call on me so he went up the country and see if he could make an agreement. He did call, but while he was with me he never referred to the matter. I had a glass of wine with Quinlan. I did not see him take past in any row. He endeavoured to put down the disturbance and persuaded the other defendants to go away. He made no disturbance and broke no windows. He remained in my house that night and breakfasted there next morning. I did not hear that Purtell was struck by anyone, or that any of my family threw a chair at him.

Mr. Sullivan submitted that upon the evidence Quinlan should be discharged. 

The Police Magistrate: We are not going to do so now.

Examination continued (By Mr. Chubb): I am an Irishman. I was in fear they would kill me if they pulled the house down. There have been three rows in my house already, and some panes of glass were broke, but never such a disturbance as this one. 

Mr. Chubb: What was the value of the amount of damage done?

The Bench interposed and said the question to be tried was not the amount of damage done. Mr. Chubb said he knew how to conduct his case, and what it was necessary for him to ask. 

Mr. Faircloth: The Bench objects to the question, Mr. Chubb. 

Mr. Chubb: He says so much glass was broken and I have a right to know the extent of the damage. 

The Bench: It is not the amount that we have to go into at all. 

Mr. Clubb: You can only be governed in finding whether there was a riot or not, by the damage done. 

The Police Magistrate: We know by what we are to be guided. 

Mr. Faircloth: The case is not yet concluded, Mr. Chubb. 

Mr. Chubb said he would press his question, and if the Bench would not permit it to be put, he would have a note of the fact taken. He then repeated the question. The witness said he would give £5 to have the damage repaired. He did not know how much damage wan done.

Some persons at this period interrupted the orderly character of the proceedings by speaking, and the Police Magistrate said, There is someone speaking; turn him out. The first person who interferes with the business of the Court, the Bench will find it their duty to commit him. 

Mary Ann Ryan, after giving evidence as to the first row, stated that when Quinlan brought up the defendants to the house, he said they would see that no one did him any harm. ‘They had a row in the dining room among themselves. They then put out the light and went outside and she locked the door after them. They proceeded to break the glass in the windows and doors at the her end of the house. They broke eight or nine panes altogether. She then shut the front door, and went to the rear of the house. They said they would take possession of the place, pull down the house, and kill every Englishman in it. She was frightened in consequence of the defendants’ conduct. Those who began the disturbance were Daniel and John Sullivan and Stephen Ryan. 

By Mr. Quinn: Four lights (sperm candles) were put out. He did not hear that her brother had struck Purtell or that a chair was thrown at any of the defendants. She saw Quinlan at the door when she went to the back of the house. He was trying to keep the others back. 

By Mr. Quinn: She went round from the back verandah to the front, and saw them trying to get in to the coffee-room. She did not see any one take a more active part than another. Thomas M’Inernay on the above day saw the prisoners at the Rising Sun. There was a row between them and another lot of navies. When he came from the back of the house he was told by Purtell that young O’Brien had struck him with a loaded whip. He heard all the men asking young O’Brien to come out. They wanted to go it, but Quinlan stood at the door and kept them out. He spoke to Purtell, and advised him to take them way, and he did so. He saw John Sullivan kick the door. He did not see them break any glass, though he saw several broken panes next day. He heard them say if the other navvies came in they would have a fall out with them. He was there all the time and until after they had gone away. He was part of the time in the house. He never went near the windows. He saw Mr. O’Brien after they had gone away. He never heard anybody telling the prisoners to desist. 

By Mr. Sullivan: While he was sitting with the men he saw Mrs. O’Brien fling a chair across the table at Purtell. He did nothing to provoke her to do it. It was young O’Brien they wanted to get at, and they gave as their reason for asking for him, that he had struck one of them. 

By the Bench: Young O’Brien was drinking with the defendants in the room, and he was told he struck Purtell as he was going out. When he was in the verandah he was near the front door. He heard a noise of glass being broken, but did not see it done. 

By Mr. Quinn: He did not hear much noise they did not put him in bodily fear.

By the Bench: I had two or three glasses that night. 

William Mehan said he was a labouring man. He saw all the defendants. After he returned from supper, about ten or eleven o’clock, he saw them on the verandah, They were not doing any mischief. They were pulling and dragging each other about, and some of them were carrying others away. He heard glass falling, but he did not see any one breaking windows. He heard Purtell calling for O’Brien, who, he said, had struck him with a whip. They did not say they would pull the house down or anything about Englishmen. They were saying that it was not right for O’Brien to run away after striking a man. He was not present all the time, because he did not want to be summoned. 

By Mr. O’Sullivan: Clay was neither drunk nor sober. He had a dagger in his hand, and was standing at the door saying he would cut the heads off them. 

This was the case for the prosecution. 

Mr. Sullivan, in addressing the Bench for the defendants said he should only trouble them with a few words on the law of the case. In order to establish a charge of riot, it was necessary to show that there was a tumultuous assembling of three or more persons for the purpose of opposing some enterprise of a private nature. It had not been shown that the defendants were assembled for an unlawful purpose. The disturbance they caused must be such as to alarm persons of reasonable courage. He maintained that there was no such disturbance; that it was merely a drunken brawl between a lot of navvies. They had not any weapons; the only weapon there was that which the barman had. There was no such thing as a common intent among them- an essential element in a charge of riot. With respect to the alleged attempt to demolish the house, it was almost too idle to call for observation, but it was necessary to prove that the defendants when they commenced really did intend to pull the house down. 

Mr. Chubb said the case of the Redbank riot was one in point. In that matter the Attorney-General stated that there must be a conspiring of three or more persons together for the purpose of doing injury to some private object. He did not attempt to deny that the defendants had acted in a most indecorous manner, but there were ways and means of punishing them for their conduct. The proper proceeding would have been to prosecute them for wilful damage to property. This affray, like the Booval one, was a faction fight, which always occurred when there was a collision between two parties. The object of the defendants was not to pull down O’Brien’s house, but they wanted to find the English navvies. This was not a case in which the Bench would be justified in committing the defendants for trial on a charge of riot. 

The Sub Inspector said he did not so much want the defendants committed for trial as to insure against the repetition of such behaviour. It would be enough if the defendants were bound over to keep the peace. 

The Bench then retired, and on returning to Court, the Police Magistrate said,-This has been a very disgraceful occurrence but we are inclined to take rather a lenient view of the case, and we shall be content with binding the defendants over to keep the peace, themselves in £20 each of two sureties of £10 each. 

At a subsequent period,
The Police Magistrate again addressed the defendants. He said that as Irishmen they must understand that they had no exclusive right to work on the railway line.  It was open to all, no matter from what country they came. It was a most shameful proceeding, therefore, to attempt to keep the work exclusively to themselves. 

Mr Sullivan said it was proved by the evidence of Miss O’Brien that the Englishmen commenced the assault.

Thie Police Magistrate said the remark was made that they (the defendants) would kill every Englishman there.They belonged all to one nation, and ought, therefore, not to make any distinction. 

Mr. Sullivan remarked that none was so anxious as himself to put down every attempt to set one country against another.