AUSTRALIAN NEWS.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1962, 19 August 1869, Page 2

AUSTRALIAN NEWS.

The promising career of Mr Allen legal manager of the Park gold mining

Company, Ballarat, who acquired some notoriety and much credit for the stand he made some time ago in defence of the interests of the shareholders, has come to a speedy and unfortunate termination. He has been convicted of stealing the company’s gold. The particulars of the case appear to be as follow :—From some cause, not yet transpired it was suspected that Mr Allen was carrying on a petty system of pilfering from the daily yields of the company, and it had been noticed that the manner in which he delivered his gold to the bank which it seems singular how he was permitted to continue—was different from that of any other person, the usual practice being for the managers to hand their bags of gold over to the assayer, who turned them outside in, and shook and brushed them well whereas Mr Allen simply emptied his bag into the dish, apparently shaking it well, but it is now alleged to hav« retained a small quantity in each corner between his finger and thumb. To-day he went to the bank with yesterday’s yield, and emptied the bag as usual. He was followed by a detective, taken to the George Hotel, and loz. 2dwt. of gold was found in the alleged empty bag. Mr Allen at once requested that a person might be sent to his wife to say that ho was arrested. This appears to have created a suspicion that he might have a quantity of gold at home, mid some of the directors and the detective proceeded to his quarters, rnd there found upwards of CO oz. of gold—some in its natural state, some in a state of amalgam, and some retorted. It had been the opinion of the Company’s solicitor that it would not be proper to detain Mr Allen in custody for the gold found on his person, as it might be alleged to be a mere accident or oversight; but os soon as the large quantity was found at his house, the directors ordered his detention.”

James Ritson, convicted of the mm*: tier of the Rev. W. Hill, was banged for it in Melbourne, on Tuesday, the 4th inst. When he committed the murder, he was in gaol under a commuted sentence of death, to imprisonment for life, for firing at Mr Kinsclla, a market inspector. He was by many supposed to be insane, but this was not the opinion of the Rev. Mr M‘Lean, and other clergymen, who made statements inspecting the prisoner’s conduct previous to his execution. They were all decidedly of opinion that Ritson was a perfectly sane man after his sentence. He was communicative about his past

life. He had, he said, shot at Kinsella from what he described as “ vindictiveness,” caused by the ins]lector’s bullying, abusing, and worrying him concerning his market dues, which—as Ritson said —“ he had no right to do.” His reason for murdering the Rev. W. Hill was that the deceased clergyman was always reproaching him on account of the crime he had already committed, and for which he was then suffering his hopeless imprisonment. Mr Hill, be said, entered his cell, and when the door was shut he put his foot on a stool, and, taking out a pocket-book, began to write down his (Ritson’s) name. It ■was then that he (Ritson) rushed forward with the bit of iron ho had taken off his bed, and struck the rev. gentleman over the left eye. The latter said not a word, but fell down, and the other then repeated his blows till he was pulled away by the warders. The alleged reason given by Ritson for murdering Mr Hill has drawn from the Rev, E. J, Watkin, a Wesleyan minister, the following letter addressed to the Editor of the Argus, “In your report of the execution of James Ritson a statement is made which is unjust to the memory of the late Mr Hill. You state that Ritson committed the murder ‘ because Mr Hill was always reproaching him for his crime.” Mr Hill had only visited Ritson twice, and it was on the second occasion that he alluded to his shooting Kinsella, and from nothing that Ritson stated to me can I conclude that Mr Hill ever reproached him for his crime. Ritson s Statement to me was to this effect : I murdered Mr Hill because he alluded to my having shot Kinsella, and as I was suffering imprisonment for life for that crime I thought no man had any right to allude to it.”