Person Sheet


Name Michael O'FARRELL
Birth 1836, County Clare, Ireland3
Death 2 Aug 1878, Ballarat, Vic Age: 42
Occupation Farmer/ Labourer
Education Nil
Religion Catholic
Father John O'FARRELL
Mother Bridget O'NEIL
Spouses
1 Mary RYAN
Birth ~1834, County Tipperary, Ireland
Death 21 Mar 1911 Age: 77
Father Matthew RYAN
Mother Mary PURCELL
Marriage 20 Apr 1861, Church of St. Alipius, Ballarat4
Children John (1863-)
  Mary (1864-1878)
  Thomas (1864-)
  Margaret (1867-)
  Mathew (1872-1889)
  Catherine (1873-)
  Annie
Notes for Michael O'FARRELL
"NEWS AND NOTES." The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864) 9 Aug 1862 : 2
For two hours was the police magistrate engaged at the Eastern Police Court on Friday, in investigating a charge of aggravated assault, brought by a man named McInerney against one Michael Farrell. The litigants are residents of Warrenheip and it appeared that the prosecutor, under the Govenment regulations, had brought out his father, sisters, brothers, and a host of cousins from Ireland. When on the way to Warrenheip the defendant and a person named Murphy met them with two lanterns to guide them home. Some disparaging remarks were made by the defendant respecting McInerney, where- upon he ran after his traducer with a whip, when Farrell turned on his assailant and struck him with the bottle which served as a lantern, about the head and face, and wounded him in such a manner as (according to the medical testimony) to endanger his life. Several witnesses were examined on both sides, and the antiquated appearance of the father of the prosecutor, as he appeared in the witness box, dressed in knee-breeches and hose, combined with the manner in which he gave his evidence, created some amusement in Court. The accused was committed for trial.  
 Web. 6 Jan 2014 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66326217>.


C. Baker v Michael Farrell,
£20, assault. Mr Lynn for the plaintiff, Mr McDermott for the defendant. Witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr Lynn described the assault as most ferocious, unwarrantable, and brutal, and said the damages laid were not a penny too much. Margaret Baker deposed that her husband was a splitter, and lived near Warrenheip. She was at Mrs Murphy's on Sunday, the 5th, and a bottle of whiskey was there, of which she took two nobblers. Several people were there, and also partook of the whiskey. Farrell was there and quarreled with her, and taking up the bottle, struck her, loosened some of her teeth, and said “I'll massacrey you, you wretch." She fell down across the corner of the sofa. When' down he tried to strike and kick her, and trample upon her, and she had not recovered from the injuries since. Her husband, when drunk, had given her a black eye a few days before, but she was not suffering from any injury at the time of the assault by the defendant. She was a nurse, and was incapacitated from doing anything  since the assault. Cross examined- I told the same story at the Eastern Police Court, where the defendant was brought up upon a warrant. No, thank God, I'm not Irish. I never drank whiskey before in my house. I drank two small glasses at Murphy's, but it had no effect on me whatever. I never tried how many I could stand. I did not use any filthy or insulting observation towards defendant or his wife. There were 8 persons there at first. I was scrooged down in the corner, and the defendant squeezed the bottle under Mrs Roche's arm, and knocked out my tooth. My husband allows weeks, and months, and years to pass by without beating me. Mr McDermott - How often does that miserable man now beat you? Plaintiff- Oh, only for about five minutes for five months. Mary Roche, a middle aged Irishwoman called by plaintiff, demanded her expenses, and her expenses were promised. She stated that she remembered the Sunday, and that the plaintiff was there, and the wife, and the two Murphys, and Farrell, and others, and a bottle of some sort of liquor. She got a kick from the defendant, who also threatened to break Mrs Baker's bones if she did not keep away from his place. Defendant said some nasty word, which the witness would not repeat. She did not know how many kicks Mrs Baker got, but she got one, and Farrell kept flourishing the bottle. Cross-examined -That's the size glass (a small tumbler exhibited by counsel). Mrs Baker used bad language too. When she fell against the sofa Farrell was standing in the middle of the room and not near her. I did not see him strike her at all. Michael Roche, husband to the last witness, said-Farrell made at Mr Baker, and she took a hold of my old woman, and they both fell down in the corner, and he took hold of Mrs Baker hy the hair of the head, and raised his foot at them, but I can't say if he kicked either of them, and I told him to leave them alone. Mr McDermott - I believe Baker is a quiet respectable well-conducted man, who sometimes gets drunk and beats his wife. (Laughter.) Witness-Yes. Dr Glendinning deposed that he was called on the 6th to examine Mrs Baker, and he found her complaining of excessive pain across the loins, and he found two severe braises on her thigh, and another with abrased skin on the knee. The bruise on the thigh was as large as the hand. The bruised were quite recent. The injuries complained of would cause such pain. He had been paid for his attendance. Another witness of demonstrative gesticulating manner, protested very energetically that Mrs Baker was not drunk nor he a sly- grog seller. Mr McDermott said the truth was that the woman was suffering from the brutal treatment of her ruffianly husband, and now he had the audacity to try and get the defendant made to pay the doctor's bill and other charges. The woman was not the plaintiff, but the husband, and the law gave no damages in the case to the wife but to the husband, and was the bench to allow that scoundrel to trade upon his own brutality? He was sure that however the magistrate might sympathise with the poor woman he would not be a party to putting money into the husband's pocket. The scoundrel had forgotten the ordinary instincts of the brute, and he now bad the effrontery to come into court and trade upon bis un fortunate victim's wrongs, and that, too, without ever joining his wife with him in the plaint. Counsel called a man named Ryan, who, however, failed to say much in the defendant's favor, and used some brutal expression about the woman. Mr McDermott pronounced the witness to be a ruffian and a miscreant, whom he would not have called if he had known who be was. Such a great miscreant he never saw come into a court of justice, and he was sorry he had called him into the box. (Mr Baker here joined the Bench.) His Worship made an order for £1 and £2 2s 6d cost5The Court then adjourned.

ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF A CONSTABLE.-Patrick Gannon, constable of police, stationed at Warrenheip, appeared before the court to answer a charge of misconduct preferred against him by a resident at Warrenheip named Michael Farrell, also known as " Mickey Free." Mr Lewis appeared to watch the case on behalf of the constable. Mr Ryall conducted the case for the prosecution. Farrell told in his own roundabout original way, a long tale of the wrongs he said he had suffered at the hands of the constable, and his story involved some rather curious and amusing statements. The gist of his evidence was as follows:-He had seen the constable at Day’s Warrenheip hotel on the evening of the 6th inst Saturday evening-when the constable, who was much the worse of liquor, offered him some beer if he would tell who had caused the fire on the Mount. The constable, although he got no information from him afterwards gave him some beer, and then although witness was quarreling with no one, ordered him out of the place in a very abusive way. Not being very quick in his movements, the constable caught hold of him by the arm which had been shortly before broken and roughly pushed him out on to the road. The constable continued pushing him along the road and abusing him until they came to a log in the vicinity of which he succeeded in getting away. The constable was so stupidly drunk that he shortly afterwards caught hold of a limb of the fallen log and thinking the limb was Farrell's leg shouted out "Now, Farrell, I've got you." (Farrell's statement here became very obscure.) After numerous hair breath escapes on his part from the violence, as witness alleged, of the constable, he said they reached the railway fence, when the constable threatened to blow him through it, the said fence being composed of three rails and as many wires. Witness said that the constable further threatened to shoot him, but his wife coming out, most fortunately at the time, he escaped the effects of the imaginary gun, and was enabled to scamper oil to avoid the constable's vengeance. Such was the substance of Farrell's statement, and he called a Mrs Marr to support what he had said, but on the contrary, she contradicted him in every particular. This witness, who gave her evidence in a most straightforward manner, deposed that Farrell behaved more like a madman than a person in his senses. She said he was evidently drunk, greatly excited, and almost mad, whereas the constable was perfectly sober and quiet. Farrell, she deposed, had evidently been creating a disturbance at the hotel, and the constable was trying to coax him away, and, far from illusing him, never used the slightest violence against him. This witness deposed positively that the constable was perfectly sober. Mr Day, landlord of the Warrenheip hotel, deposed that the constable was perfectly sober at his house on the evening of the 6th inst. Farrell, on the contrary, was very abusive to several persons in the bar. He was bragging about how he had treated Jones and Dyte when these gentlemen were in Warrenheip on their electioneering campaign, and made use of various grossly abusive expressions against Protestants and Orangemen, in consequence of which the constable took him away from the place. Mr Clayton, keeper of a beer-house at Warrenheip (which Farrell had visited ou the evening of the 6th inst- before going to Day's public-house), was called, when he deposed that Farrell was very abusive in his house, and he was glad when he left it. He was wild about the election and other matters, and frequently vowed ho would kill every damned Orangeman who voted for Jones, and would wash his arms in Protestants' and Orange men's blood. Mr Clayton said this was a sample of the language that Farrell used in his house, and it seemed from Mr Day's evidence that the language he used in his house was fully as bad. An elderly man named Bouchier was called. He was in Day's hotel at the time, and he deposed that Farrell addressed very gross language in reference to an Orangeman who was passing. This witness deposed that the constable was perfectly sober at the time, and as Farrell continued his abuse he told him to leave the bar, and afterwards coaxed him away This witness further deposed that he had never seen the constable in the slightest degree the worse or liquor since he had been in charge of the Warrenheip station. Farrell's wife was called by himself, but she did not throw much light on the case. Two other females were also called, one of whom stated that she saw the constable fall three or four times at the railway fence, also that she saw him tug away in the dark at the limb of the dead tree, saying, "Farrell, I have you now." This witness was cross-examined for tho purpose of showing that she was not well disposed towards the con stable, and it appeared that he had had occasion, in the course of his duty some time since, to make inquiry in reference to the stabbing of a cow, in which, it seems, it was supposed that she was implicated. The hearing of the case occupicd a consider able time, and, as the evidence shows, the allegations altogether broke down. Farrell, it seems, was well known as a rowdy character, and had on several occasions been before the court for assault. At the conclusion of the case, Mr Clissold stated that he had no doubt but Farrell had committed Perjury,as the whole of the trustworthy evidence adduced went to prove that the constable had not in any degree exceeded his duty. As far as he knew the constable, he believed him to be a well behaved peaceable man Mr Lewis suggested that an information might be laid against Farrell for perjury. He also stated he had been informed that Farrell had tried to intimidate several of the witnesses. One of the witness was then recalled, but it appeared that the threat' he had heard Farrell use were against those who intended to vote for Jones at the ensuing election and did not apply to the witnesses particularly. Mr Clissold dismissed the case, and intimated that the police, if it was thought advisable, could take proceedings against Farrell for perjury.  
The court then adjourned.
"POLICE." The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1870) 27 Jan 1866: 2. Web. 10 Dec 2013 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article112866841>



Victorian Police of the 1860's


INDECENT ASSAULT.- Michael Farrell, otherwise known as " Mickey Free," a man about 35 or 40 years of age was charged with having on 8th August assaulted Elicia Nolan, with intent to commit a rape. The court was cleared for the hearing of this case. The prosecutrix, a married woman about the prisoner's age, deposed that she lived at Warrenheip, and the prisoner was her next door neighbor' a paddock separating them. She had six children, and her husband had been fifteen months away at Warrnambool. On the day in question she came to Ballarat in the prisoner's dray, they being alone. She had sold him a cow that morning for £5 10s and had received the money from him in Ballarat that day of which she sent £5 by post-office order to her husband reserving the balance for herself save 2s 61 she owed to the prisoner. She paid for two pints of ale at the Eglinton hotel. They left Ballarat in the afternoon, and " of course we wer'nt drunk at all," though the prisoner had some punch on the way home. When near home the prisoner drew in off the road " among the boughs, twenty or thirty yards. She expostulated him for leaving the road, and he then committed the assault alleged. She screamed, and her daughter ran up and said, “ Farrell, you vagabond, what are you doing to my mother?" There were marks of violence on the woman's face, and she said they had been caused by the prisoner. Her sister also ran up to the dray, and then the prisoner sung out to his own wife, " Mary, Mary catch them for me." The prisoner then jumped out of the dray, threw her daughter down, and then caught the Prosecutrix by the neck and said, “You’ll not come into Ballarat with me again " He also threw her sister (a widow) down, kicked her. leaped upon her, and called her by opprobrious terms He then made another assault upon the prosecutrix, and then upon a Mrs Doyle, whom with her baby he tumbled down and kicked." Then after she got into her house a big stone came through the window, and she saw Farrell kneeling at the door. Mr Vining appeared for the prisoner, and cross examined the prosecutrix, who denied that she had taken any of the pruner’s groceries from the dray,  or that the prisoner had searched her. Mr Ryall Oh, she’s an honest respectable woman. The defence was a denial of the charge, and an allegation that there was a general "scrimmage." the prosecutrix having taken some of the groceries belonging to the prisoner. The prosecutrix's evidence as to the assaults out of the dray was corroborated by the persons named, and the prosecutrix's daughter, an intelligent girl of about fourteen years of age, deposed that she saw her mother exposed in the dray, and ' the prisoner assaulting her as described by her mother. Constable Mansfield deposed to the prisoner’s arrest; and the defence in form being reserved  the prisoner was committed for trial at the General Sessions, bail being refused.
The court then adjourned.
"POLICE." The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1870) 11 Aug 1866: 2. Web. 6 Jan 2014 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article112864230>.

He received 6 months imprisonment, "BALLARAT." The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) 1 Sep 1866: 6. Web. 6 Jan 2014 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5772174>.

THE MURDER AT WARRENHEIP;
(From tht Ballarat Star, September 8, 1868.)
J.HB persons now in custody on the charge of having committed the murder are Michael Farrell, more generally known by the sobriguet of "Mickey Free," and one John
Lechleiteur, a German. Farrell is a married man, and resided with his wife and seven children in a wretched hut composed of wooden slabs, a little beyond Mount Warrenheip, and but a short distance from the Woodman's Arms Hotel, on the road to Bungaree. Farrell has been for a considerable time regarded as a somewhat eccentric character, and has more than once come under the cognizance of the police. The German was only a fortnight in the locality, and had been taken by Farrell as a sort of mate, for the purpose of assisting him in cutting timber, for which tho foreigner stated he was satisfied to get his “ tucker and lodging " According to the statement of Farrell's wife, it appears that Farrell and his mate were sitting At home on Sunday afternoon, when about 5 o'clock she asked her husband to go and look after the cows which her eldest son, a boy 13 years of ago, had been sent to fetch home, but who delayed considerably beyond his usual time in returning. Farrell agreed to do so, and asked the German to accompany him. He consented, and having obtained half-a-crown from Mrs. Farrell, they left the house. The boy, driving the cows, shortly afterwards returned, and on being questioned, stated he had seen his father and the “ Swedener," as they called him, going in the direction of Day's public-house, which bears the title of the Victorian Hotel, and which is situated about a quarter of a mile from Farrell's house. They remained there, it appears, from Mr. Day's statement, about an hour  and a half, having some drinks, when, between 6 and 7 o'clock, Michael Roach, entered tho house, and knowing both Farrell and his companion, he shouted for them, and they had several drinks together, Roach in addition buying a quart of gin, a lemonade bottle of the same liquor, and a bottle of porter. About half-past 7 o’clock they left Day’s public-house and went to Farrell's place, which they reached a little before 8 o'clock. Having sat down in Farrell's hut, they had four or five rounds of gin punch. They then called for supper. This, consisting of corned beef and potatoes, with tea and bread and butter, Mrs. Farrell supplied them with liberally, and all having partaken very heartily of the repast, they cleared the table and set about finishing the gin. They had several rounds after supper, and as the quart of gin  was being nearly consumed they became a little quarrelsome. Farrell twitted Roach with having done something to him which he said he was not equal to, and a row immediately arose. Roach, who was a strong powerful young man of unusually muscular frame, rose from his seat -all the parties at the time, it is said, being quite drunk and according to the statement of Mrs. Farrell, struck her husband, and knocked him down on the floor. The foreigner said this was unfair, and came forward to render Farrell assistance. A general melee ensued, when Mrs. Farrell protested against their making the house a scene of  disturbance, and endeavoured to bundle them all out of the place. Farrell and his mate dragged Roach then outside the door, when a frightful scuffle ensued, the shrieks and, struggling being so fearful that Mrs. Farrell and her eldest boy rushed off to the outhouse of a friend's premises some two hundred yards distant, and remained there listening to the shouts and cries of Roach and the other men while the row lasted. After a while the sounds subsided, and she heard her husband tell the other to put the "murdering thief" on the dray, and drive him home to his father. The sounds of getting the dray ready, and placing the man in it, were distinctly heard, and finally the cart was driven off in the direction of the house occupied by Roach's father. Mrs. Farrell then returned to her house, and found the children, as may be well imagined, dreadfully scared by the noise of the row, and keeping up a well-sustained howl until the arrival of their mother. She then gave them some supper, and, having put them to bed, awaited the return of Farrell and his mate. Between 2 and 3 o'clock they arrived with the dray, Farrell evidently excited, and disposed to quarrel. He questioned his wife why she did not answer him when he had called her, and as she had had evidently sorrowful experience of his violence, she endeavoured to pacify him, and prevent him from beating her. They all then went to bed. So for the woman's narrative. From the indications presented adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the hut, it would seem that, having got outside, Farrell and his mate made a most brutal onslaught upon their victim. Outside the doorway was found a large pool of blood, and a  quantity of human hair adhering to the stones. Roach, being a strong man, must have offered great resistance. The marks of feet and struggling were observable from the pool of blood to a distance of about twenty yards, where there is a post and rail fence. This was partly broken down, and the traces of the footprints noticeable to some distance beyond. Here also several pieces of silver were discovered, as though they had been dropped by some one in the struggle, and upon inquiry were found to correspond with the change received the previous evening at Day's public-house. Having apparently rendered  their victim insensible, they then drew him into the way-right, and placing him in a dray, drove off in the direction of the house of Roach the elder. Instead of going there, however, they stopped at the hut of a farmer named John McInerney, and having raised young Roach and deposited him in the outhouse, they were about to decamp, when old McInerney rushed out, and, thinking it was his own son  who had been killed, asked the German who he was “after murdering". In reply to this, Lechlacter said,  "Was he your son?" and called out, Farrell's name. Farrell did not reply, but made away on foot. McInerney had some further words with the German, but finally let him go, and went to the stable where young Roach had been thrown. He found him laid in a corner quito insensible, and presenting the marks of the most  brutal treatment. His face and head had been kicked and beaten in, while under the left eye a stream of blood issued  from a wound apparently inflicted by a knife or a sharp, instrument. Blood also flowed from the left ear, while the  body presented many other marks of violence. McInerney  and some members of his family raised the unfortunate man and carried him into the house, and having made him as comfortable as their limited means admitted, the old man started, in company with a neighbour named Murphy, for  Ballarat, for the purpose of giving information to the police.   They reached the camp about 7 o'clock on Monday morning,' and, having related the circumstances of the affair, sergeant   McCulloch and sergeant Sutherland, accompanied by Dr. Bunce, Immediately left town for Warrenheip. Sergeant  McCulloch not aware at the time of the serious nature of the case, and believing it would be necessary to bring the wounded man to the hospital, started in a springcart. They arrived about 9 o’clock at Farrell's hut. The German  was found sitting at the fire but Farrell himself was in bed. Outside the door was a large pool of blood, and one of Farrell's young children pointed out where he had seem  the foreigner hide a knife. This was found by the sergeant, but presented no appearance of having been used in the scuffle. Mrs Farrell was questioned, and she stated the particulars of the disturbance that occurred on the previous  night, adding that that morning, on going to milk the cows, she had found Roach's hat and muffler. Those were taken possession of, and, with Farrell and Lechleiteur, brought into town. It would seem that when arrested the prisoners were not aware of Roach's death, but the latter seemed to have some recollection of the matter, as he stated he was about starting for Melbourne when the police entered. On being conveyed to the watch house, Farrell and the German were divested of their clothes. 'These were found more or less saturated with blood, particularly those of the former. The sleeves of Farrell's shirt were torn and blood-stained, his waistcoat and trousers also bore evident marks of a severe struggle, but only the trousers of Lechlacter bore any signs of the sanguinary deed. Both when arrested appeared dogged and reticent, but subsequently Farrell evinced a disposition to be more communicative. On Monday, inspector Beaver, accompanied by sergeant Larner, proceeded  to Farrell's house, the scene of the murder. As already stated, it is situated a short distance from the half-way house to Bungaree, to the right, and consists of a miserable hut, composed of old timbers and planks thrown together almost promiscuously,  and made to assume the appearance of an Irish cabin, but not nearly so respectable-looking. Here Mrs. Farrell was found, surrounded by her children, five of them by Farrell, and two by her former husband. She seemed little concerned by "the transaction, and told her story with a glibness that demonstrated considerable indifference as to the result of the charge against her husband. According to all accounts, Mrs. Farrell's happiest moments have been those passed while her husband was confined in gaol.   Having heard her statement, and examined , the traces of the struggle as shown by the footprints, the inspector proceeded to Mclnerney's house, where the body lay. The place was found as wretched in appearance as that of Farrell. On a stretcher, covered with coarse bags and a linen sheet, lay the body, with the members of the house- hold and some neighbours seated round, while a tremendous fire blazed upon the earth, immediately beside the corpse. The face of the deceased looked swollen and disfigured, as though it had been subjected to great violence, a thin stream of blood still continuing to flow from a sharp and apparently somewhat deep incised wound under and towards the corner of the left eye. The left ear was dreadfully bruised and lacerated ; and from the cursory examination made by Dr. Bunce, it seems that the back of the skull was also fractured. The immediate cause of death was not apparent, but seemingly it was  from the wound under the eye. There does not appear to  have been any bad feeling between the persons previously ; but having regard to the fact that Mrs, Farrell’s evidence cannot be legally accepted as proof, it will yet be difficult for the accused to escape being arraigned on a capital charge. Sergeant Sutherland was placed in charge of the body by inspector Beaver in the first instance, but was subsequently relieved by a constable, and the body removed to the Woodman’s Arms Hotel. An inquest was held, and the jury returned a verdict that "death had been caused by a fracture of the skull, wilfully inflicted by Michael Farrell and John Lechleiteur." The coroner drew up a warrant of committal against the prisoners, who, on being driven away from Warrenheip, were hooted by a number of people collected at the hotel.

 

Irish Shanty style housing



Location map the night of the homicide


The Warrenheip Homicide.—Michael Farrcll (38) and John Lechleiteur (25) were charged with having on 6th September murdered Michael Roach. Mr McDermott, in the absence of Mr Aspinall, who had been retained for the prisoners, undertook their defence. The Crown Prosecutor opened the case to the jury, and in detail explained the locality where the priso- ners and the deceased had their drinking bouts, and where the tragedy itself took place, a plan of the locality having been pre pared to facilitate the explanation of the case. Thos. Day, publican at Warrenheip, deposed that the deceased and the prisoners had been drinking at his house up till about 8.30 p.m., when they left to go home, witness lending them a light in a bottle. They appeared to be all good friends then, and they took some gin in a bottle with them. Heard their voices in conversation as they were going towards Farrell's house, but never saw Roach again alive. Roach had four pints and a glass of ale. He was "a fine strong young fellow, about 22 years or so old, and he introduced the prisoner Lechleiteur as his friend. Patrick Walsh, a boy 9 or 10 years old, and stepson to the prisoner Farrell, deposed that the prisoners and deceased came home on the night in ques tion, and sat down and had drink, and then supper, when all the gin was finished. Farrell had a quarrel with his wife, and hit her as she was going into her bed-room. Roach then interfered and knocked Farrell down. Mrs Farrell and witness ran out, and Charley (Lechleiteur) took hold of Farrell as if to lift him up. Witness ran to the shed and hid, his mother going away somewhere else. In a minute or two he heard Farrell and Roach quarrelling, and then heard Farrell call out "Mary I've got the robber killed," or, "I've killed the robber," but before that he heard a moaning for some time. Never heard Roach speak after that, the next thing being Farrell's voice to Charley, telling him to "tack the horse." The horse was put in the dray and he heard them putting a man in the dray, the man still moaning, and the dray then went off in the direction of Roach's house. After that the prisoners returned with the dray, put the horse in the stable and went themselves into the house. Witness was still in the shed, where he stopped all night till seven in the morning, and then he went in doors and found Farrell in bed, and the other prisoner sitting up. A scarf and a hat were found by his mother near the stable. Both were Roach's. The police soon after that came and took Lechleiteur out to the stable to search him, when Lechleiteur took the knife produced out of its sheath, threw it down and tried to cover it with his foot. Farrell was very drunk that evening. Michael Doyle deposed that he lived about 280 yards from Farrell's house, and on the night in question he was awoke by a noise, and got up and looked out and heard Farrell say, "Mary, Mary, hold the robber, I've got the robber; the robber's' cooked and'll rob no more." In cross-examination, the witness denied that he had come out to Van Dieman's Land as a prisoner of the Crown for shooting at a man in Tipperary, or that Farrell had ever given him into custody on the Melbourne road. He had, a difference with Farrell two years ago, and since then had not been in Farrell's house. They had had a fight at that time. In re-examination, the witness said Farrell had two months for assaulting witness' wife, and witness told Farrell it served him right, and so they had a row over that. Michael Roach, father of the deceased deposed that his house was about a quarter of a mile from Farrell's, and he was awoke by Farrell on the night of the homicide. Farrell said “I’ve got a robber in my paddock stealing my cows. I don't know him, but come out and see if it’s young Mick. If it is, I'll give him to you, out of compliment to yourself, and if not, I'll give him in charge to Sergeant Larner." Witness told them to go on as he did not want him or young Mick There were two men with the dray, and thev then went off in the direction of McInerny's house Next day he heard of his son's death. Farrell spoke high as if he was drunk. Cross-examined—My son did not live with me. He was violent in temper to me and  gave me his fist in my own house once, and I got a warrant out for him. Pat McInerny deposed that he lived about two hundred yards distant from Roach and Farrell’s places. On the night in question, just   after midnight, he heard a horse and dray at his place and he got up and went outside and saw the younger prisoner leading the horse and heard a moaning in the stable. Witness thought it might be his own son brought home, and asked the Prisoner, who said he didn t know. Witness caught hold of him by the throat and said "you should know any how now'' and the prisoner then called out to Farrell. They went off with the dray then and witness went to Murphy s place, and Murphy, his wife, and witness' daughter came and got a light and they found the deceased lying m the stable moaning and so much disfigured that at first they could not recognise him. Witness, after that, went into Ballarat to the police, and on his return homo found Roach dead. Lechleiteur did not appear to be drunk. Mounted-sergeant L. Sullivan proved the finding" the deceased dead in last witness' house, and coin"' thence to Farrell's, where he found the two prisoner" whom he arrested on a charge of murder, Farrell explaining some blood spots on his arm by saying he got them in carrying a boy that had fallen down the cutting There were no marks on Farrell, but Roach was so disfigured he hardly looked like a human being Lechleiteur had no marks on him but he had blood on his clothes. He said he knew nothing about the murder, and that only Farrell and Roach had been fighting. There was a pool of blood outside the house near the stable, a hat, and he picked up several silver coins that lay scattered over broken ground as if there had been a great scuffle, a shirt button and a trousers button being with the money. Mounted constable Lanigan followed in corroboration, as also Sergeant W. McCullogh, who said the prisoners told him Roach had fallen the down railway cutting, and they had to carry him to Farrell's house from there, and then they put him into a dray and took him to   his father, but as his father refused to take him in they took him to McInerny's, whose daughter Roach was supposed to be courting. When it the lockup Farrell told a new story, and said Roach attacked him in his own house and he would not allow that. _ William Johnson, Government analytical chemist, deposed that he had tested the prisoners’ clothes sent to him, and found blood spots on them, some like human blood and some like sheep's blood There was blood on the knife, but it did not correspond with human blood. Richard Bunce, surgeon, deposed that he made a post  mortem examination of the deceased. The body was warm, limbs cold, face covered with blood, shirt neck covered with blood, blood issuing from the left ear face very much swollen, eyelids bruised, left eyeball much bruised and swollen, lips also swollen. On each cheek-bone there was a wound, and a wound on the scalp, which was detached for the space of a square inch. Next day (8th September) he made a further   examination with Dr Bullen, and found a wound on the inside of the upper hp, the pupils were much dilated, features distorted, scalp wound straight, and be hind left ear. The cheek wound was like a knife-cut. There were contusions in several places on the head and a severe one over the left eyebrow. There were contusions over and around the left shoulder-blade, outer side of left arm, over left hip, and outer side of left thigh, also over right hip, some of the bruises being as large as the palm of the  hand. He did not think a fist could cause such wounds. A stick might have caused the large wounds, but not kicks, in all probability. The scalp wounds might have been caused by a tomahawk or a piece of quartering. The internal examination showed marks corresponding to the external injuries, and con- gested tissues, with blood pressing on the brain, the blood having escaped from the meningeal artery, which had been fractured by a blow on the scalp! Death was caused by the pressure of blood on the brain, resulting from arterial rupture. He examined the prisoners, and found no marks on them. Francis   Dennis Bullen corroborated the previous medical witness. This was the case for the Crown. Mr McDermott in addressing the jury for the defence said, he would have thought no Crown Prosecutor, unless possibly the Crown Prosecutor of the late Emperor Theodore of Abyssinia if such a functionary existed—would have put this case to a jury as one of murder. Counsel, hoped to show that at the worst the case was only one of mildest manslaughter as against Farrell while the other prisoner should be acquitted altogether To indict men for murder under such circumstances' was a waste of power and was putting the prisoners and their friends to unnecessary torture. Counsel proceeded to dilate upon the evidence, contending that if either prisoner was guilty he was guilty only of manslaughter caused in a row without felonious ' malice, a row the result of a miserable drunken bout, for the sad consequences of which counsel was sure no men were more sorry than the prisoners themselves. But for the evidence was not conclusive, and the was simply one of suspicion even against Farrell, while there was nothing to connect  the other prisoner with the assault. His Honor in charging the jury defined the difference between murder and manslaughter, and intimated that no case for the capital charge had been made out, while the evidence against Lechleiteur was very slight. The jury after a brief deliberation found Farrell guilty of manslaughter and acquitted the other prisoner. Farrell was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment morning adjourned till nine o'clock this

"BALLARAT CIRCUIT COURT." The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1870) 8 Oct 1868: 2. Web. 10 Dec 2013 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article113847975>.

The Warrenheip Murder.—At the Ballarat

Circuit Court on Wednesday the principal business was the disposal of the charges against the prisoners Michael Farrrel and John Leihlateur for the murder of Michael Roach, at Warrenheip, on the 6th ult. In summing up his Honor intimated that the charge of murder had not been made out against either of the prisoners, and pointed out that it was for the jury to decide how far the evidence sustained a charge of man slaughter. Probably owing to the manner in which the case was thus presented, the jury acquitted Leihlateur. and convicted Farrell of manslaughter only. The prisoner Farrell, when called up for sentence, appeared much frightened at the prospect of a long term of imprisonment, and he doubtless shared in the general surprise when his Honor, after dwelling much apon the enormity of the crime of which he had been convicted, informed the prisoner that his sojourn in her Majesty's gaol was to be for a period of twelve calender months.

"SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A SHIP CAPTAIN." Bendigo Advertiser (Vic. : 1855 - 1918) 9 Oct 1868: 3. Web. 6 Jan 2014 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article87899083>.


Michael O'Farrell, of Warrenheip, better known as Mickey Free, a drinker of great talent, was running (drunk) after his daughter the other day to beat her, when he fell down, knocked his head against some harder substance, and died shortly afterwards.
"BALLARAT." Bendigo Advertiser (Vic. : 1855 - 1918) 10 Aug 1878: 3. Web. 9 Dec 2013 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article88203642>.

Michael Farrell, a farmer, living at Warrenheip, was running after his little daughter on Friday night to punish her for some fault, when he stumbled and fell with crushing force upon his head. Farrell died on Friday night. Medical examination showed that the man had broken his skull.
"THE ELECTION OF MAYOR." Bendigo Advertiser (Vic. : 1855 - 1918) 6 Aug 1878: 2. Web. 9 Dec 2013 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article88203523>.


IN the SUPREME COURT of the COLONY of VICTORIA In the Probate Jurisdiction - ln the Estate of MICHAEL FARRELL late of the Parish of Warrenheip in the Colony of Victoria, Farmer, Deceased - Notice is hereby given, that after the expiratlon of fourteen days from the publication hereof application will be made to this honourable Court in its Probate jurisdiction, that LETTERS of ADMINISTRATON of the estate of the above named Michael  Farrell deceased, intestate, may be granted to Mary Farrell of the parish of Warrenheip in the colony of Victoria, the widow of the said deceased
Dated this 24th day of August, 1878  
RANDALL MITCHELL, and NEVETT, Lydiard
street. Ballarat, proctors for the said Mary

"Advertising." The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) 26 Aug 1878: 8. Web. 9 Dec 2013 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5945853>.
Last Modified 10 Dec 2013 Created 30 Dec 2013 using Reunion for Macintosh

Return to  Web Family Card