The Argus
21/ 2/1874
... part of the KellyGang story
Full text of article
A number of the selections on the Taminick run referred to were in one block, and close to the pre-emptive section. He left Spicer with the distinct understanding that the Larkins' selections would not be completed. Spicer asked him whether the money already paid on these selections would be lost, and he said he thought not. The matter remained so until February, when, finding the selections were being pressed on, he wrote to Mr Cowell, stating that, on the ground of neighbourly and gentlemanly feeling, he thought it right to bring these two selections under his notice. He received no reply, and he then wrote to the Lands department on the subject. In May last he wrote to Messrs Cowell and Spicer, warning them that he intended to appeal to the Minister of Lands and seek redress. He received no answer, but he afterwards saw Mr Cowell at Kirk's bazaar, and he admitted receiving the letter from witness, and said he would look into the matter.
Mr Purves submitted that any illegal acts of the Larkins could not effect the pastoral tenants of the Taminick run.
Mr Holmes, PM, thought that the evidence ought to be taken if it tended to show that the pastoral tenants were interested in the selections.
Mr Graves stated that he had visited these selections, and seen a hut in course of erection there which he believed was built with slabs from a building on a reserve on the Taminick run, under the 110th section.
To Mr. Purves.-He had received a letter from Spicer, which unfortunately he had lost with other papers through his buggy over-turning in the Goulburn. Had written a letter to Spicer, dated November, 1872, thanking him for befriending him in reference to these selections. The letter was written while he was under the impression that the selections were withdrawn.
Mr Purves read a letter purporting to be from Mr Spicer to Mr Graves, in which the former stated that his partner know nothing of the circumstances. Whatever blame attached to him (Spicer) for pointing out the land was attributable to him alone, but he repudiated now, as he did at the time of the interview, the statement that he had any, connexion with the Larkins. He had offered his services to Mr Graves as mediator with, them, on the understanding that some recompense should be made to them for their outlay on the land, but things had now been allowed to go so far that he feared it was too late. He denied that he had told Mr Graves, as the latter had stated in writing to the land office, that these men were in his employment. The men were not in his employment except for temporary work and at shearing.
The honourable and gentlemanly feeling which Mr Graves had talked of might, he thought, have prevented him from making such insinuations behind his back. He did not think that he (Spicer) ought to go out of his way to hound down men like the Larkins when Mr Graves kept in his employ a brute like M'Dougall, who, by his virulent mischief-making propensities, was constantly endeavouring to annoy them. He and Mr Cowell had no personal interest whatever in Larkins' selections, and any statements to the contrary were untrue.
Mr Graves stated that he had never got that letter, and he was certain it had never carne to his place. It confirmed, however, his previous impressions. He could not understand why the selections had been continued, except under a feeling of annoyance to M'Dougall. He had received one letter from Spicer, the purport of which was that if he would pay the amount already expended on the land, nothing more would be done on the selection. M'Dougall was in the employ of witness, and resided about 40 yards from his selection.
Arthur J Smith, manager of the Bank of New South Wales, Wangaratta, was required to produce certain cheques signed by Spicer and Cowell.
privacy policy
24-aug-11
This document gives you the text of the report about the KellyGang for this day. The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original. We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged. We also apologise for any typographical errors.