Prisoner John TOOMEY 1875

Serial forger John Toomey, photographed on discharge at the Hobart Gaol 1875 by government contractor T. J. Nevin.



NLA Catalogue (incorrect information)
Title John Toomey, per Ratcliffe, taken at Port Arthur, 1874
Date 1874
Extent 1 photograph on carte-de-visite mount : albumen ; 9.4 x 5.6 cm.

This copy of the prisoner's mugshot was displayed on the National Library catalogue in 2005 with correct photographer attribution to Thomas J. Nevin:



POLICE RECORDS
John Toomey per Ratcliffe 2 was tried at the Launceston Supreme Court on 16 October 1867, sentenced to 10 yrs for uttering a forged cheque. He was discharged at Hobart in May 1875, no physical characteristics or age were documented.



John Toomey per Ratcliffe 2 was convicted at the Supreme Court Launceston on 10 October 1867, sentenced to 10 years.



Source: Tasmania Reports of Crime for Police, J. Barnard, Gov't printer

John Toomey per Ratcliffe 2 was received from Port Arthur, photographed by government contractor T. J. Nevin on discharge at the Hobart Municipal Police Office, Town Hall on 1st May 1875. Also discharged and photographed by Nevin in the same week were prisoners John Moran and Bewley Tuck.

PRESS REPORTS
Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Monday 21 October 1867, page 2

LAW.
LAUNCESTON SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17TH, 1867.
BEFORE His Honor Sir Francis Smith, Knight, Puisne Judge.
FORGERY.
Alfred Henry Moore and John Toomey, sepa-rately charged with this offence, pleaded guilty.
Source: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8848553

Cornwall Chronicle (Launceston, Tas. : 1835 - 1880), Wednesday 23 October 1867, page 5
John Toomey, convicted on his own confession of uttering a forgery, having ben twice previously convicted of a similar offence, was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.
Wm. Parker, convicted of uttering a forgery, was sentenced to four years' im-prisonment. Henry Moore, convicted upon his own confession of forgery, handed in a written appeal to his Honor, stating that he had previously borne a good character, and appealed to his Honor's consideration. His Honor said he would, and regretted to see so young a man in the prisoner's position. He hoped the prisoner would not abuse his leniency, as he would sentence him to only two years' imprisonment.
Source: https://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article72185355

RELATED POSTS main weblog