Bentley, Dewes, & Lalor
Sadly for Bentley, his family, all the people who later died, and, of course, their families, he was released. The miners, unlike us, were certain he had bought his way out. Who knows? The whole joint was going to hell on the back of a racing emu.
So, back to the events of October, 1854, on the Ballarat goldfields. On 12 October, the magistrates' court, sitting as a coronial court, considered the Scobie affair. Again. Some sources, mostly the extreme leftist conspiracy theorists, claim this was contrary to the principle of no double indemnity.
This principle says, in effect, that you can't be tried for the same crime twice. It's a principle various jurisdictions have moved to revoke in the new millennium. But it clearly doesn't apply to this situation, because these were coronial inquests, not court trials.
Okay, back to the inquest. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the same decision was made that there was no evidence to bring charges against anyone, even Bentley. One wonders if Bentley had to pay double for this. If he did, he might have been better to keep his money in his pocket, or his undies, or wherever he kept it.
Or drawers, as undies were often called in those days, among other things, probably, if he wore them, which the great majority of men, or women for that matter, don't appear to have done. And why on earth do we care? Well, we don't, really, just blathering. Although, maybe some bright spark should write a doctoral thesis on the wearing of underwear in early Australia. Perhaps they already have.
So, time to move on before things here get really weird.
The magistrate overseeing Scobie's second inquest was Dewes again. Some sources say his decision was influenced by the "fact" Dewes had played some sort of role in closing a sly grog shop Lalor had been running in Melbourne, presumably the grocery he owned with his brother and another bloke.
But, we've not yet been able to find independent confirmation of this story, and, frankly, if Lalor ran a sly grog shop, Ballarat seems a more likely location, considering the booze he took with him from Melbourne.
But, again, there's no evidence extant indicating this. In fact, we would be very interested to know what happened to all that booze. But this whole sly grog shop story comes from the very extreme left, which holds a great deal of resentment against Lalor because he didn't turn out to be quite what they want him to be. As we shall see.
As far as Lalor is concerned, and his responsibility for Dewes's decision, we don't know if Lalor was at the inquest, although it would perhaps be a bit surprising if he wasn't. Nor do we know of the extent of Lalor's responsibility for Rede's decision to reopen the inquest.
We only know Lalor visited Rede, and that allegedly reopening the inquest was the reason for the meeting. Nor do know with any certainty whether Dewes and Lalor knew one another at all. And surely, if Dewes closed Lalor's sly grog shop it would be Lalor who would be seeking revenge of some sort, not Dewes.
So, back to the events of October, 1854, on the Ballarat goldfields. On 12 October, the magistrates' court, sitting as a coronial court, considered the Scobie affair. Again. Some sources, mostly the extreme leftist conspiracy theorists, claim this was contrary to the principle of no double indemnity.
This principle says, in effect, that you can't be tried for the same crime twice. It's a principle various jurisdictions have moved to revoke in the new millennium. But it clearly doesn't apply to this situation, because these were coronial inquests, not court trials.
Okay, back to the inquest. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the same decision was made that there was no evidence to bring charges against anyone, even Bentley. One wonders if Bentley had to pay double for this. If he did, he might have been better to keep his money in his pocket, or his undies, or wherever he kept it.
Or drawers, as undies were often called in those days, among other things, probably, if he wore them, which the great majority of men, or women for that matter, don't appear to have done. And why on earth do we care? Well, we don't, really, just blathering. Although, maybe some bright spark should write a doctoral thesis on the wearing of underwear in early Australia. Perhaps they already have.
So, time to move on before things here get really weird.
The magistrate overseeing Scobie's second inquest was Dewes again. Some sources say his decision was influenced by the "fact" Dewes had played some sort of role in closing a sly grog shop Lalor had been running in Melbourne, presumably the grocery he owned with his brother and another bloke.
But, we've not yet been able to find independent confirmation of this story, and, frankly, if Lalor ran a sly grog shop, Ballarat seems a more likely location, considering the booze he took with him from Melbourne.
But, again, there's no evidence extant indicating this. In fact, we would be very interested to know what happened to all that booze. But this whole sly grog shop story comes from the very extreme left, which holds a great deal of resentment against Lalor because he didn't turn out to be quite what they want him to be. As we shall see.
As far as Lalor is concerned, and his responsibility for Dewes's decision, we don't know if Lalor was at the inquest, although it would perhaps be a bit surprising if he wasn't. Nor do we know of the extent of Lalor's responsibility for Rede's decision to reopen the inquest.
We only know Lalor visited Rede, and that allegedly reopening the inquest was the reason for the meeting. Nor do know with any certainty whether Dewes and Lalor knew one another at all. And surely, if Dewes closed Lalor's sly grog shop it would be Lalor who would be seeking revenge of some sort, not Dewes.