Thomas CHESHIRE

   Cause of his death was Murdered, shot by burglar.

   Another name for Thomas was Thomas CHESHER.

  General Notes:

Thomas Cheshire, a shoemaker aged 23, and Joseph Parry (or Perry), a 19 year old tailor, were sentenced to death at the Kingston ( Surrey Assizes of 22nd March 1786 for highway robbery. They had threatened a man at Worplesdon, near Guilford, and taken a canvas bag,a knife and a sum of money totaling more than £5 and were arrested at an inn with the stolen money. Both were reprieved shortly afterwards to transport­ation for life. Parry petitioned for a mitigation of sentence and the trial judge reported favourably on his case,writing that Cheshire was married to Parry's sister and had influenced the younger man who was a first offender and had behaved well, Cheshire remained in jail until 8 Febr­uary 1787 when he was sent to the Thames Hall Censor, on 12 November 1789 he was delivered to the Neptune transport. . On 6 October 1790 Cheshire married Ann Teasdale who had been transported- •*£>- ported on the Lady Juliana as Hannah Gee alias Teasdale (tried Old Bailey, aged about 21 in 1790, qv) Her son James fathered by James Blake (a seaman on the Lady Juliana,qv) was baptised on 28 November ^ 1790 but died .in January 1792. Ann's daughter by Cheshire was born on 1 August 1792 and baptised Maria on 11 September. At St. Phillips, Sydney on 5 October 1807, aged 15, Maria married the 37 year old second fleeter Thomas Markwell (qv). In February 1793 Cheshire enlisted in the New South Wales Corps on the promise of a conditional pardon which was issued to him in October On 5 September 1795 he received a 25 acre grant at Sackville Reach on the Hawkesbury River which was sold only three days later, along with a number of other recently granted soldier's farms to Commisary John Palmer. Cheshire appears to have been stationed in the Hawkesbury District around 1795-1797. He may well have farmed the land as a tenant under Palmer in the time he could spare from his military duties. He was certainly allowed to farm land when he was sent to Norfolk Island, some time after late 1796. In December 1798 he signed his name Thomas Chesher to a receipt for £7.10s paid to him for 30 bushels of maize he had supplied to the Government store. By about 1800 he had returned to Sydney and took his discharge from the Corps in March 1803. In June he was granted 140 acres on the Nepean River at Evan (Castlereagh). In 1806 he had 8 acres sown in wheat, 6 in maize and 2 in barley, owned a horse,and 6 hogs and held 4 bushels of grain. The farm proved to be subject to flooding and he was in financ­ial difficulties by September 1806 when he assigned 70 acres to Edward Wills, to secure a loan of £50 to be repaid eighteen months later.- He was later compelled to sell the entire grant through failure of crops and other misfortunes. In 1820 Cheshire petitioned Governor Macquarie for a further land grant. The Rev. Henry Fulton recommended him as an honest, industrious and sober man and he was granted 50 acres -at Kelso near Bathurst in 1823. More children were added to the family: George 1794 Sophia 1797 and William (born 1798, died from snakebite October 1809). In 1806 Thos. employed a William Cheshire (Hillsborough 1799, tried Hertford, born c!768) who was perhaps a relation. In 1815 he received an absolute pardon. His wife was buried at St. Peters Church of England, Richmond in July 1821. On the night of 25 January 1824 Cheshire was sleeping at his home near the Yarramundi Lagoon outside Richmond when he was shot dead by one of seven burglars with blackened faces who burst into the house demanding money.His daughter and son-in-law were sleeping in the house at the time and were probably living there as well. Cheshire was buried at St. Peters, Richmond, age given as 63. noted: judge's report H047/7; memorial in AONSW colsec;LTO old reg nol p 141; the PRO CO210 document listing 1798 payments for grain on Norfolk Island is a copy of the original which bears signature and marks; Cheshire's name is copied in a way which suggests that he may have signed Chesher, some details contributed by Helen Reichenbach.

___________________________________________________________
The following is an extract from
Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899
Published by the Division of Law Macquarie University
R. v. Dwyer, Kinnear, Madden and Blewit
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Forbes C.J., 30 March 1825
Source: Sydney Gazette, 7 April 1825
Matthew Dwyer, Patrick Kinnear, Thomas Madden, and Robert Blewit, were indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Cheshire, at Yellamundi's lagoon, in the district of Richmond, on the 25th of Jan. 1824. Upon the prisoners pleading Not Guilty to the information,
The Attorney General[1] opened the case in nearly the following terms: 'The prisoners at the bar are charged with the crime of murder; two other persons are named in the indictment one of them has died in gaol the other has not yet been found so that you will take the case with reference only to the four prisoners now before you. There is nothing in the case to warrant supposition that the murder was premeditated; but, if death occurs, in doing an illegal act,
tis murder. The prisoners at the bar set out together, with some other persons, with an intent to rob the house of Mr Cheshire; some opposition was made to their purpose; and one of them fired a shot, of which Mr Cheshire, on the instant died. It is immaterial by whose hand the shot was fired; if it can be proved that they were all engaged in the robbery, they are all equally guilty. The evidence, free from taint, against the prisoners, is very slight. The son in law and daughter of Mr. Cheshire were in the house on the night of the robbery, but cannot identify any of the prisoners; they only remember that they spoke with the Irish accent. The principal evidence against the prisoners rests upon the testimony of an approver an accomplice one who represents himself as having been one of the party. He can give direct evidence; whether he is entitled to belief remains with the Court to say; but it is my duty to observe, that he was capitally convicted some months since; he has been since pardoned; and I submit that he is a proper evid[e]nce, although great doubt may fairly be held on the subject. Independent of this man's testimony, the case against the prisoners is very slight. The Magistrates have used every exertion, since t[h]ey first received information of the murder, and n[o]thing new can be hoped for in the case. It is now brought forward, with the evidence which I have described."
Thomas Markwell deposed, that he is the son-in-law of the late Mr Cheshire; was in the house on the night of the robbery, which occurred on the night of the 25th of Jan 1824; that he was awakened by the breaking open of the door, upon which he issued forth from his room, when he stumbled against a man, whom he caught and held in his arms, until assistance came to the robber's aid from without, when he was knocked down, and beat severely. Mr. Cheshire was in the act of advancing from his room, calling out
What's the matter?" when a shot was fired, and he fell dead! The ruffians then called for a light; there was no fire in the house; they went into the kitchen, and shortly after one man returned with a light. He exclaimed

Men what did we come here for why don't you come on?" The others had left the bloody scene, upon which he also fled, throwing away the light. Witness thinks they were Irish by the accent; he only saw the man that had the candle; and heard several voices.
Maria Markwell, wife of the last witness, deposed, that she heard the shot fired; and that the robbers remained in the house about 20 minutes; but is unable to identify any of the prisoners.
Sophia Markwell corroborated the testimony of her parents, adding that the man who procured the light, had his face blackened, and was habited with dark clothes.
Edward Power was now placed in the box, and about to be sworn, when Mr. Solicitor Rowe, on the part of the prisoners, arose:

Under the same circumstances as on a former day I resisted the testimony of this man, I now deny his competency he being capital convict, and under sentence of death."
Mr. Gurner, clerk of the Court, was then sworn. This gentleman proved the conviction of Power on the 30th June, 1824, and sentence of death passed on him on the 3d July, 1824.
Power here produced his pardon, which rehearsed that His Excellency the Governor had pardoned him of various crimes, &c. on condition of remaining in the custody of the Sheriff of New South Wales, till sent to one of the penal Settlements, there to remain during the pleasure of the Governor for the time-being."
Mr. Rowe called for the Governor's Commission, empowering him to grant pardons. The Commission was produced, and the clause read, empowering the Governor to grant pardons as he shall think fit of all offences, murder and treason only excepted, and in those cases authorising him to suspend the execution of the sentence till His Majesty's pleasure be known.
Mr. Rowe

By the statute of the 27th Henry VIII. it is provided that the power to pardon is solely vested in the King, and I deny that the King has any right to delegate to another, what the Constitution has vested solely in himself; and supposing, for argument sake, that the King has the power to delegate, I would contend that the words of the Commission relate only to offences committed at home, to those who have been sent to this country under the sentence of the law. Surely, if the Commission had any other meaning, would it not be set forth in the Act of the 4th Geo IV? The 34th and 35th sections of that Act relate solely to persons sent out as prisoners from the mother country, authorising the Governor to remit their sentences, if he shall see cause; and even then, his pardon must have the sanction of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. I submit that the Commission only applies to offences committed at home; I object also to the pardon on another ground it is only conditional; the witness comes to the Court in vinculis.[2] The condition of the pardon is, that he shall when ordered, go to one of the penal settlements without resistance, and in the mean time remain in the custody of the Sheriff. Suppose he does resist? Suppose, when he goes there, he refuses to remain what then? His pardon is revoked; the condition is not fulfilled. A conditional pardon cannot entitle the possessor to its benefits, till the condition is shewn to be fulfilled. If the condition be transportation, I submit that the witness is not competent, till the term is expired, as then only is the condition fulfilled. Where the pardon is conditional, the performance of the condition must be shewn."
The Attorney General was called upon to answer the last objection, and relied on the distinction between the effect of conditions precedent and subsequent. This was a subsequent condition and therefore pardon was good until forfeited.
Chief Justice
With respect to the objections taken to the pardon, my opinion is, that the last only is valid. As to the provisions of the Act of Henry VIII. I am not quite clear; but from practice I know that the custom has been, from time immemorial, for the King to delegate the power to pardon to the Governors of his Colonies abroad; and the great Crown Lawyers in England all agree that the King can delegate many of his prerogatives; this is still the King's pardon, though flowing through another channel. As to the last objection, I am of opinion it is fatal; the pardon is conditional and to entitle the witness to the benefit of that pardon, the condition must be shewn to be performed. I am quite clear that the Governor has the power to pardon, but it does not stand before me free from conditions sufficient for me to allow its competency."
No evidence sufficient to go to the Jury being against the prisoners, independent of the testimony of the approver Power, the learned Attorney General relinquished the prosecution.[3]
Notes
[1] Saxe Bannister.
[2] In bonds, chains or fetters.
[3] There was conflicting authority over the ability of attainted convicts to give evidence in the courts of New South Wales. In R. v. Farrell, Dingle and Woodward (1831) 1 Legge 5, the Supreme Court decided by majority (Forbes C.J. dissenting) that the common law rule against the admission of evidence by attainted felons was not applicable in New South Wales. However Lord Bathurst told Governor Darling on 24 August 1825 that the

Laws of the Colony must coincide with the Law of England" and that attaint rendered the felon incapable of giving evidence; a pardon either under the Great Seal of England or under the colony's public seal, restored the capacity to give evidence, except in some cases of perjury: Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, vol. 11, pp 495-496. He relied on the advice of James Stephen: see Historical Records of Australia, Series 4, vol. 1, p. 615. See B. Kercher, An Unruly Child: a History of Law in Australia, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1995, p. 38, and see chap. 2 on the development of the law of attaint in the colony. For other attaint cases in 1825, see Hart v. Rowley <../html/hart_v_rowley__1825.htm>, October 1825; Polack v. Josephson <../html/polack_v_josephson__1825.htm>, August 1825. See also Campbell v. Hart, 2 August 1825 (Sydney Gazette, 4 August 1825) in which leave was granted to proceed in action at law against a prisoner of the crown convicted of felony.
On 18 March 1825, Lord Bathurst gave instructions to Governor Brisbane on the methods to be used in granting pardons, but this, of course, had not arrived by the time of this trial. See Historical Records of Australia, Series 1, vol. 11, p. 545; and see Brisbane to Bathurst in reply, 30 September 1825, p. 862. See also Stephen to Horton, 27 March 1825, Historical Records of Australia, Series 4, vol. 1, pp 603-604.
____________________________
The following is an extract from State Records New South Wales.

CHESHIRE, Thomas. Arrived c.1790; former soldier
1795 Sep 5; 1803 Jun 30
On list of all grants and leases of land registered in the Colonial Secretary's Office (Fiche 3267; 9/2731 pp.56, 132)
1810 Dec 1,5
Signatory to address from the settlers of the Hawkesbury to Governor Macquarie; and Macquarie's reply (Reel 6038; SZ758 pp.128-30)
1820 Jul 1
Memorial (Fiche 3016; 4/1823 No.131)
1822 Mar 1
Of Nepean. Convict from the Establishment, Emu Plains, assigned to (Reel 6028; 2/8283 p.113)

  Research Notes:

http://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/history/landgrantees.htm

Possible christening
30 Apr 1761 at Church of Christ Independent, Abbess Roding, Essex, England
Parents Thomas CHESHER and (?)

  Medical Notes:

On the night of 25 January l824 Cheshire was sleeping at his home near the Yarramundi Lagoon outside Richmond when he was shot dead by one of seven burglars with blackened faces who burst into the house demanding money. His daughter and son-in-law were sleeping in the house at the time and were probably living there as well.

  Noted events in his life were:

• Immigration: aboard the convict ship "Neptune", 1790, Sydney, Nsw, Australia.

• Occupation: Shoemaker: Kingston, Surrey, England.

• Court: Charged - Highway robbery, 22 Mar 1786, Kingston, Surrey, England. According to court records was given death sentence but changed to "Life" on transportation to Australia.

• Occupation: NSW Corps, 1795-1797, Hawkesbury District, , New South Wales, Australia.

• Occupation: NSW Corps, 1797-1800, Kingston, , , Norfolk Island. He was certainly allowed to farm land when he was sent to Norfolk Island. In December 1798 he signed his name Thomas Chesher to a receipt for £7.10s paid to him for 30 bushells of maize he had supplied to the Norfolk Island Government store.

• Occupation: NSW Corps, 1800-1803, Sydney, , New South Wales, Australia. took his discharge from the Corps in March 1803

Thomas married Ann TEASDALE, daughter of Thomas TEASDEL and Ann GEE, on 6 Oct 1790 in Sydney, Nsw, Australia.⁹⁹ (Ann TEASDALE was born on 5 May 1774 in Holborn, Middlesex, England, christened on 5 May 1775 in Endall Street, Holborn, London, England,¹⁰⁰ died on 16 Jul 1821 in Jukly, Nsw ¹⁰¹ and was buried on 18 Jul 1821 in St Peter's Cemetry, Richmond, , New South Wales, Australia.)

  Marriage Notes:

NSW BDM V179098 3A/1790
NSW BDM V1790101 4/1790