maughan.ca
a collection of family histories

The King Against: Emanuel Tomlinson, Morrison Porteous, Eliakane Whitney (has absconded) Presecutors: Richard Sylverster, John Maughan. Note of Evidence on Petition and Complaint of: John Maughan, Merchant in the Village of Markham

Richd Sylvester: Can swear positively against the individuals charged, for having committed various serious crimes – he can bear satisfactory corroborative evidence, particularly as to them having broken his windows and destroyed his valuable apple trees.

Ann Leonard: Had her door and windows broken having entered her house they threatened her and her family’s lives with an axe – can testify other serious crimes committed by the accused.

Henry Wismer: Had his stable broken more than once – the tail of his mare shorn on one occasion she was stolen and before he got her returned he had to pay fifty dollars – He has been put to great expense & trouble otherwise and his family kept in bodily fear in consequence of the depredations committed by the accused and others.

Mrs Henry Wismer: Will corroborate the testimony of her husband and prove additional charges.

Chancy Crosby: Had his windows & doors broken and can testify that the accused acknowledge having done so.

Abraham Harrington, Roxy Harrington (his wife), Helen Harrington, Jefferson Harrington, Indson (Judson?) Harrington, Gomelian Harrington: Can testify many serious injuries they have sustained by the accused – and parties ( ) that a gun loaded with buckshot was fired by one ( ) into one of his family’s bedroom windows while they were in bed and that part of the shot entered one of the pillows on which one of the children was lying – that Emanuel Tomlinson (one of the accused) on one occasion attempted the life of Judson Harrison and when this crime was reported to the magistrates of the district, they refused redress.

Robert Burns (Mill Wright & Joiner): Had his door and windows broke by the accused – and having reported his case to the magistrate was refused redress.

Dr. McMann: Had his stable broken, his horse stolen and the mane and tail of it shorn and was informed by Christ. Reesor of the place where the horse was found.

Christopher Reesor: Is a very intimate acquaintance of the accused and must be very strictly examined as he is in the possession of the knowledge of a great many crimes committed in his neighbourhood, and if very closely pushed when under examination he must confess by whom Mr. Maughan’s stable was entered and his mare injured- likewise who attempted to set fire to his premises.

Willm. Ketchum: Can be proved an accomplice of the accused – he has been seen engaged with them in many of their depredations – that most of the ill disposed persons in the neighbourhood resort to his tavern and it is supposed that many depredations are concocted there.

John Robinson (tanner) or Robertson: Is very intimate acquaintance of the accused and if very closely examined must corroborate the testimony of the other evidence as to various crimes committed by them and others.

Thomas Robinson (or Robertson): Is a conclusive evidence as to Wismer’s mare.

William Osborn (shoemaker): Saw Mr Ketchum and the accused talking together at Mr Sylvestor’s fence and heard them threaten to destroy his apple trees and commit other depredations – He would require to be most minutely examined otherwise he will not speak out.

John Sharp (saddler): Was informed by the above ( ) (Osborn) that Wm Ketchum and the accused intended to destroy Mr. Sylvester’s apple trees – and that her (Sharp) told the circumstances to Mr. Wilson (Tailor) and Mr. Sinclair Holden and Wm Clendenning.

Wm Clendenning: Do Do Do.

M Wilson (tailor): Will corroborate the above.

Mr Sinclair Holden: Ditto – Ditto.

James Haacke: Had his horses tail shorn & can prove satisfactorily who the persons were who committed the act.

James Boyd: Is supposed to be an accomplice.

Saml Curtis: Do – Do.

Joseph Mapes Jr.: Was in company with the accused when they committed certain offences and endeavored in vain to prevent them.

Robert Milligan (tavern keeper): If closely examined, can prove many charges agt the accused.

Bartly Dehart, Eli Dehart: Are related to Tomlinson and can prove many charges against the accused.

Saml Wilson, Richd Norton, Fort Sanders, Edward Hartney: Can prove many crimes against the accused if very particularly examined.

Matilda Moore: Can prove that Emanuel Tomlinson (one of the accused), James Boyd and Curtis threatened in the month of May last to do injury to Wm Sylvester and made an attempt to brake (sic) into his house.

Samuel Gilbert: If closely examined would be a good corroborative witness.

John Pringle (tailor): Is a very intimate acquaintance of the accused and if very particularly examined can say a great deal in evidence against the accused.

Wm Workman (tailor): Do Do Do.

Andrew Corkland?: Is a very young boy and bears the ( ) character and knows a great deal about the crimes perpetrated in the Township.

William Peters, Thomas Peters: Know of many crimes committed by the accused.

Andrew Crosby: Do Do Do; Had part of his property injured by them.

James Crosby, Patrick Conley, Wm Todd (innkeeper), Elijah Bans?, Unit? Chester: Will be good corroborative evidence particularly if examined.

Abel Scully and his wife: Had their windows and doors broken by the accused.

Alex Brown, Johnston Brown, Samuel Dunsheath Sen, Samuel Dunsheath Jun, Wm Dunsheath, Wm Richardson (at Wm Todds Hall).

Thomas Kendale: Saw the accused break W Sylvesters window.

Adam Brake, Peter Brake: Had reason to suspect the accused having stolen their fruit.

James Parker, James Devine, Wm Armstrong, Robert Armstrong (saw Whitney with W Maughans mare), James McInnes (shoemaker), Wm Foster, Christr Sanderson, Peter Reesor J. P. (Has been often disturbed by the accused stealing fruit), Peter Ramer (Had one of his most valued fruit trees destroyed), Joseph Reesor (Had his fruit stolen), John Ramer, Christn Reesor (10th Concession), Jacob Wismer, George Wales (tavern keeper), Peter Steppes (shoemaker), Joseph Hartney, Frederick Green (miller), Wm Robb (at P Milroy), Wm Mundel, Davd Whaley.

John Devine.

George Hobert, Peter Goodman, Davd Alexander: Heard the accused threaten to commit many depredations.

Mark Grandy: Heard the accused say that they were sorry they did not do more when they destroyed Mr. Sylvesters apple trees.

Alfred Ronalds, James Ronalds, Junior Press, Henry Jarman (Blk Smith): Saw the accused committing many depredations.

John Hart (10th Concession), John Clinton, Peter Milne Jun, Martin Ramer

Peter Milne JP, Archd Barker JP: Are most careless in doing their duties as magistrates and the latter can be proved by several of the above witnesses to have connived at the perpetration of many crimes committed by the accused and others – particularly as to the warrants against the accused – he kept them in his possession three days before he put them in execution knowing they were in the village and giving them every facility to abscond – that Whitney (one of the accused and most notorious villain) absconded they day he knew the warrants were to be put in execution – he was in company with the constable and the others of the accused (Ketchum to the knowledge of Barker two days after the warrant for his apprehension was issued) to Barker – Had he been apprehended it being the general opinion that he would have offered to turn Kings evidence thereby proving the most diabolical crimes ever committed in the Upper Province and consequently must have saved much expense and trouble to the Crown in leading? evidence.

Complaint: In May 1932, Whitney (one of the accused) shore the tail and mane of Richard Sylversters horse – he acknowledged the crime and gave his notes (which have now been paid) for the damage – they are in W. Sylvesters possession.

In May 1833, Whitney, Emanuel Tomlinson, Porteous and Joseph Mapes broke W Harringtons windows - and in June following one of them fired a gun loaded with large shot into one of the bedroom windows and part of the shot lodged in one of the pillows whereon one of the family lay at the time – that Whitney acknowledged to James Devine that he was in company with Emanuel Tomlinson when the said shot was fired – Richard Sylvester, he and the particulars of the outrage and spoke to W. Tomlinson Senior (the father of the accused) on the subject and that his reply was that he had more trouble with that son than all his other children – that they broke Wm Leonards and Burns windows and door at the time the above outrage was committed.

On 20th April 1834 R Sylvester caught the accused breaking his windows and shutters and spoke to them about it and complained to W Tomlinson Senior – He checked his son and Porteous (another of the accused) for having done so – On the 25th of the same month Porteous offered to swear against the others of the accused provided he would be acquitted of the charge preferred agt him, Tomlinson and Whitney by W Sylvester and when reported to W Barker, JP he deferred hearing the complaint for five days and then W Sylvester applied to W Milne JP with the view of obtaining redress who likewise put it off till the next morning when it was too late as Porteous had been prevailed on by the others not to bear evidence against them and the matter was allowed to drop.

In May 1835 W Sylvesters house was attacked by the accused and they threatened breaking in the door and expressed in presence of Matilda Moore (one of the above witnesses) that they would do damage should it cost them fifty pounds – Three nights thereafter a large club was thrown through one of the windows at W Sylvesters house near where he was sitting at his supper, and broke six panes – how the said club hit the sash it would have entered the room and probably killed him on the spot.

On 14 June following P Milne’s brother-in-law had his horses tail and mane shorn by the accused – and Emanuel Tomlinson acknowledged having been engaged in the outrage to Christn Reesor (one of the above witnesses).

Chauncy Crosby put Sylvester on his guard against other depredations which were in contemplation – Accordingly he (Sylvester) watched and saw Emanuel Tomlinson.

Eliakum Whitney and William Ketchum on his premises early the next morning – about 2 o’clock – when they discovered him watching they ran behind one of the neighbours stables and made off.

On the 14 July following W Sylvester had his apple trees cut and his windows broken and he discovered Emanuel Tomlinson on horseback making off after breaking the windows – the following morning he discovered the destruction of his apple trees.

In August following Dr McManns horse was stolen and the mane and tail shorn – Christn Reesor is in possession of all the particulars of theis outrage.

About the same time W Maughans stable was entered and the mare stilen – he found her 2 ½ miles from the village after expense and trouble bleeding in three places – Eliakum Whitney (one of the accused who has absconded) was seen on her back by W Devine and Robert Armstrong the night that it was stolen.

On the 31st October following W Maughans premises were attempted to be burned – on 7th November following his stable was again forcibly opened and the tail and his mane shorn – on many previous nights stones were thrown against his house when the family were in bed and on when occasion when Mrs Maughan was in bed indisposed a stone was thrown at her bedroom window which broke it and terrified her so much so that her recovery was in consequence prolonged.

About this time Edwd Haakes horses tail was shsorn and sometime previous Henry Wismers horse was stolen and he had the tail and mane of another horse shorn – it cost him $50 before he got the stolen horse restored – He has suffered very much and put to great expense by the depredations committed by the accused – he and his wife will particularly describe when under examination.

Whitney (one of the accused who has absconded) can easily be found; but there is reason to believe that the magistrates of the district and the constable are uniting together to keep him secreted – W Maugham could get him arrested if another warrant was granted and a proper officer instructed to put it in execution - it would be of much importance to have him arrested as there is every reason to believe he would offer to turn Kings evidence thereby proving very heinous crimes and exposing others implicated who at present consider themselves secure for want of evidence against them Besides a great saving of expense and trouble would result in it to the crown, superseding the necessity of reading the most of the forgoing evidence.

Many thanks to Cameron Knight, Local History Librarian, Richmond Hill Library. Source: Upper Canada Sundries microfilm C-6895, pages 100205 to 100223.