[1] Information regarding the arrival and stay of William Francis and his family in Hobart was unearthed through the persistent research of Jack Chisholm and confirmed by my own research of the Tasmanian State Archives in Hobart. William paid 20 pounds which entitled himself and his family to a steerage passage to the colonies. The 'Eliza' sailed from Dublin on July 9th under the command of Captain J E Harris. It was a British registered and built vessel of 291 tons, had a crew of 15 and carried two guns! In addition to its passengers it carried a general cargo but no convicts. No address was given for William and his family in the census document and there was an entry to indicate that their were no assigned convicts as part of the household. The Trinity Church referred to is not the current one of that name in Warwick St, but an earlier building which was later incorporated into a gaol complex (which is still preserved) and which is now known as the Penitentiary Chapel.

[2] Information obtained through Eileen Cassidy, Jack Chisholm and Peter Cassidy. The name Caroline Evans was obtained from the death certificate of her daughter Caroline.

[3] Information supplied by Peter Cassidy via Jack Chisholm. The Governor's secretary apparently first quizzed the step-daughter and recorded the following:- "I gather from the statement of the bearer who is the step-daughter of George Wells the person in whose behalf this application is made that her mother does not pay proper attention to the unfortunate man - that she takes in washing and has no family by her present husband. The girl herself is in service." Further investigation must have followed as there is an additional note stating :- "I have visited George Wells and made enquiries in his neighbourhood. Wells is disabled by paralysis from earning his own living but states that he could assist his wife in mangling clothes. The wife is an excellent laundress but a very bad woman and is now in a state of stupor from drink . The house is like a pig sty and the man in a wretched state."

[4] Information supplied by Eileen Cassidy.

[5] All newspaper references were obtained via a search of the government website at http://trove.nla.gov.au/. Information about the Pultney street schools was obtained from the Wikipedia entry for Pulteney Grammar school.

[6] The report referred to is a rather extraordinary piece of journalism which appears to describe some kind of preliminary hearing which eventually committed William Francis for trial but allowed him bail of 100 pounds. The hearing took place on Thursday Oct 2nd - the day after the alleged incident. As has been indicated, the report is very garbled and completely incoherent in places. It is too long to reproduce in full but I will summarize what it appears to say.

According to Thompson's wife Ann, both she and her husband were in bed at about 10.30 pm. when she heard a noise in the garden. Upon investigation she found William Francis at the front of her house who promptly told her that he did not want her but (with an oath) demanded to see her husband. He also apparently called upon Thompson to come out and fight if he was a man and not a coward. In his evidence Thompson also claimed that Francis threatened to pull down the house over his head. It was also alleged that Francis broke a new fence at the front of the house and broke the lock on the gate.

This evidence was largely confirmed by a sergeant of police who apparently lived nearby. He claimed that he was in bed when disturbed by the noise of the fence breaking and Francis calling out in the manner described. After dressing hurriedly Thompson alleged he came to the door where before he could speak or move he was struck over the head with a club (produced as evidence). After staggering, stunned, against a wall Thompson alleged that he wrestled with Francis until the intervention of Sergeant Plunkett who escorted Francis to the police station. Thompson denied that he took Mrs Francis to his house for a drink although he claimed that she sometimes went there for protection. He also denied biting Francis' ear. According to the sergeant's evidence, when he arrived on the scene the two men were struggling on the ground. Much blood was said to be in evidence but the sergeant attributed it to the presence of many small pieces of palings that had been placed in the ground to protect small trees, and which would have resulted in many cuts as the two rolled around on the ground. Thompson's condition after the affair was described as very weak but the doctor who examined him said the wound was not dangerous.

In the course of his evidence Francis denied indignantly that he had ever struck a blow with a stick. He claimed that when he was going for his wife his son had warned him of the presence of savage dogs and that his sole reason for carrying the stick was to keep the dogs off. He claimed that Thompson had previously threatened him for giving evidence against him in an earlier fight that had taken place between Thompson and a certain Mr McCarron. Francis further stated that a few nights previously Thompson had spat in his face whilst he was on his way home from work, but that he (Francis) had let it pass because he recognized that Thompson was drunk. He went on to deny that he struck Thompson first but claimed that both struck together, and stated that he believed Thompson's injuries were sustained in falling to the ground.

It is interesting to note that William Thompson appeared in court shortly after on a completely different matter. According to the "Register" of Dec 1st 1856, he appeared in the Supreme Court charged with burglary. Thompson was accused of breaking and entering the dwelling of Walter Waite and stealing money to the value of 30 pounds, a gold ring worth 3 pounds and other articles. The offence allegedly taking place at Adelaide on May 21st. The jury took only a few minutes to find him guilty and Thompson was sentenced to 4 and 1/2 years penal servitude. It seems it wasn't a good year for him!

All details supplied by Eileen Cassidy. She was unable find any reference to the outcome of William's trial.

[7] All information regarding the prosecution of William Francis and the land sales of Thomas Cassidy were obtained from Eileen Cassidy or Jack Chisholm who had corresponded with the Supreme Court of South Australia and the South Australian Department of Lands.

[8] Details obtained from Eileen Cassidy.