William James Beecroft
Sex: M
Individual Information
Birth: 7 Jun 1846 - Tasmania, Australia 1
Christening:
Death: 5 Jul 1901 - Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Burial: in Cornelian Bay Cemetery, , Tasmania, Australia
Cause of Death:
AFN :
Events
Event, The Mercury, 13 Aug 1873
PRACTICAL SHOEING SMITH AND Event, The Mecury, 13 Dec 1873
FARRIER.
MR. Wm. BEECROFT
Notifies to the public of Hobart Town that he has COMMENCED BUSINESS in the above line, in Mr. Smith's yard, Collins-street, oppo- site Mr. Morell's hairdressing establishment.
Mr. Beecroft's aim will be to supply his customers with a superior make of horseshoe, adapted to every form of hoof, giving the best wear with the greatest possible amount of ease and comfort to the animal.
Prices moderate, and every description of shoe made.
All diseases of the hoof attended to and cured.
_5390
Re Joseph Goodman. Event, The Mercury, 27 Nov 1874
In tbis case the Solicitor-General explained that the deceased had not died intestate, except so far as related to his real estate. The personal estate was willed, and a claim to the real estate had been set up, by a person named William Beecroft, who alleged 'that the property, which consisted of blacksmith's shop, and other premises, had been purchased by the deceased Goodman, with the intention of handing the same over to him. It might turn out that Beecroft had a moral claim to the property, but there could be no doubt that he had no legal claim, and the jury would therefore have to leave that as a matter of arrangement with the Government.
Thomas Murphy was then examined and said : I am district constable at Launceston. I know the property in Brisbane-street occupied by James Beecroft, and formerly the property of Joseph Good- man, the deceased. I served a copy of tbe notice produced on Beecroft on the 10th of November. I should think the property is worth £300.
The certificate of the deceased's death was then put in, and the Registrar of Titles produced the register of the conveyance of the property to the de ceased, from one Charles Field. The purchase money paid was £210, and the conveyance was made in August, 1848.
Henry John Buckland, registrar of the Supreme Court, produced the will of the deceased, Joseph Goodman, which showed that probate was sealed in October 1852. [The will was read, but it referred only to the personal property of the deceased, making no reference to the real estate.]
William Beecroft said : I am a blacksmith, and formerly carried on business in Launceston I know the property in Brisbane-street, formerly belonging
to the deceased Goodman. I remember him dying in 1862. I was only five years old at that time. I lay claim to the property on the promise of the
deceased. My father, mother, and I, occupied the property before his death. I believe he bought it with the view of giving it to me. I am not aware that my mother has a claim to tho property. [A memorial from the witness's mother preferring her claim was here read, but it did not set forth the grounds upon which it was based.] The deceased was not related to my family. He was not married.
Mr. Tarleton briefly summed up the evidence, pointing out that there could be no doubt that deceased died intestate, so far as this properly was concerned ; nor could there be a doubt that no one possessed a legal right to it. It would be for the Crown to consider whether Beecroft had any claim to the property, and if they thought so, no doubt that which was considered just and equitable would be done. Either the property would be conveyed to him by a grant from the Crown on his paying the expenses
of these proceedings, or such an amount would be paid over to him as might be thought justly he was entitled to. There could be no doubt, however, that the deceased died intestate, and in that case the jury would say that the property be escheated to the Crown.
The jury found a verdict for the Crown.
ESCHEATED PROPERTY. Event, The Mercury, 1 Dec 1874
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MERCURY.
Sir,-In the issue of The Mercury of the 24th Instant (Tuesday last) there appears a leader as to the right of the Crown with reference to escheat. There is also a letter in the same issue headed " A Hard Case," bearing upon the subject ; and having an interest in the matter, I would respectfully ask you to give me space for the following facts :
Some two years ago I presented a petition to His Excellency-in-Council, praying that the property referred to be convoyed to me, or that a money equivalent be made me in consequence of my late father, and after his demise, myself, having ex- pended considerable sums of money in building upon such property-about £600 in all-and which had materially enhanced its value to the Crown, and also in consequence of the intent of the deceased Goodwin to bequeath the land to me in gratitude for monetary favours received from my father, which enabled him (Goodwin) to establish himself in the world, I then being only a child ; and I also stated in such petition that such will or codicil was made in my favour, and that it was either detained or destroyed from malicious or interested motives. The said petition being accompanied by certificates of Goodwin's intention from several of the leading gentlemen of Launceston.
I waited for months for a reply to my petition, and after several enquiries as to its receipt or fate from several officials of the Government, I had an inter- view with Mr. Adams, Solicitor-General, who in- formed me that he had no knowledge whatever of such petition, and subsequently I handed him a copy. I Some months later, not having received a reply, I waited upon His Excellency at Government House, through his private secretary, Mr. Chichester, and made him acquainted with the foregoing facts, together with the loss of petition and copy, when he stated they should be enquired into at once, and in a few days I received a reply that the copy of my petition had been found, and had been forwarded to Mr. Gunn, of Launceston.
After again waiting a considerable time, my agent had an interview with Mr. Tarleton, the Commis- sioner of the Court of Escheats, who informed him that he could not be recognised in the matter, in con- sequence of which I, in a few minutes after, saw Mr. Tarleton, when he informed me " that he had received a letter from Mr. Gunn, which materially altered the question with reference to the property," and some weeks after I addressed a respectful letter to Mr. Tarleton upon the subject, to which I have not had the honour of a reply or acknowledgment.
Lastly, on the 16th inst., I again waited upon His Excellency, at Government House, with letter addressed to him, respectfully urging the considera- tion or re-consideration of my claim, (such claim being based upon the fact that, in addition to paying my father's debts, amounting to some £108 or there- abouts, vouchers to the, amount of £83 being enclosed in the said letter, I have helped to support, for a period of six years, subsequent to my father's death, my mother, and several members of the family) and praying that the Crown having so largely benefited by my father's and my labour, would not stop me from what I consider my just rights as a subject of the Crown.
The matter, I think, ought to be left to conscientious arbitration, and not to law, which is, of course, sup- posed to be founded upon justice.
Your obliged Servant,
WILLIAM BEECROFT.
Bathurst-street.
ESCHEAT. Event, The Mercury, 5 Mar 1875
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MERCURY.
Sir-The system of Escheats is beginning to work gross injustice, and Parliament should be asked to take the subject up with a view to remedy some of the glaring defects of the Escheats Act.
For instance, a man suddenly dies, worth some considerable real estate, leaving a widow unprovided for by will, and as a necessary consequence of "The Grab-all Act "-so called by the late Mr. Gregson - the Commissioner and his jury step in, and escheat the same to the Government. Now look at the position of the unfortunate widow; the personality ‘s trifling and only a part and parcel of that position of comfort in which her thoughtless husband (thoughtless in not having made his will) main- tained her during his life ; income there is none save what was derived from the farm, the sheep station, or the city property as the case might be ; that of course Government has appropriated, leaving the widow " in the street " The husband might have been a strong political opponent of the men in power for the moment, or have been on bad terms with some one or more of them, yet she must humbly petition these men for a pittance, and after sickening delay, is awarded one-fifth of whatever the " lot " may be sacrificed for at public auction. But the case does not rest there, the money even, small as it may have become after all costs, charges, etc., have been taken, off, is not handed to her, but after more delay she is informed she can have six, five, or four percent, paid to her half-yearly, perhaps a miserable pittance of £30, £26, or £20, a your, a nice position for the widow to be placed in, instead, of having her £100 a year.
Now I insist that the widow should be the rightful heir of her husband, if there be no children, and even then she should have her thirds ; and the law should be altered so as to do her justice. Why
should that property which very often she has helped to accumulate-for the wife is sometimes " the bee that made the honey " go to strangers. A woman is a useful and faithful assistant to her husband in his avocation in life, and lives on with him in comfort and happiness towards the evening of their days, and then, in place of being able to continue on in the same comfortable circumstances after his removal by death, to that bereavement-quite a sufficient blow in itself-is to be added the gross injustice and positive wrong of seizing her property, because when her hus- band married her, he said at the altar, " with all my worldly goods I thee endow," which must mean that they twain should together enjoy whatever property they might then have, or afterwards acquire ; with benefits of survivorship, excepting provision for children. And this natural and proper disposition of property is prevented by "The Grab-all Act" Of
course I know the answer to all this is, "Peeple should make their wills," but some people won't do this, and why should the widows be damniflnd by their per
vesseness? Others again " put it off" until it is too late, and why should the widows suffer for this Under any circumstance it is easy to provide for all this by amending the Escheat Act.
Government has no equitable claim to one farthing of a man's property, if a widow or childrun or grand- children and-so on, survive him.
Take as an instance again Beocroft's case ; here a man (Goodman), inducts another (Beecroft's father)
to believe a piece of ground he has purchased
is for him. Beecroft at once assists him, and builds upon, and occupies the city allotment in Launceston, and does so during Goodman's lifetime, end also his own ; there is a slight fall out between the men, and Goodman adds a codicil to his will, leaving it to young Boecroft. This is done just before death ; but it is not executed. After his father's (death, in the full belief that he is to have the property, young Beecroft pays all debts (near £100), though he is a married man with a family of his own to look to, and allow his mother and father's family to occupy as tenants on sufferance. Eventually he puts in an applica- tion for a certificate of title and official free-masonry works the case into the Escheat's Court. The widow, misconstruing her son's application, opposes it, and then, like the lion in the fable, Government steps in and swallows the lot ! Professional men are called in, and they adjust the matter between widow and son, each agreeing that the title shall go to a trustee for sale, the widow to have £200, and the son
the balance.
Of course the matter cannot rest where it is, and this and other cases should be inquired into, with a view to doing justice. I exonerate those who have to work the Act ; but the upshot is nothing more nor less than, figuratively speaking, a cold blooded rob- bery by Act of Parliament, to wit " the Grab-all Act."
See how they do these things in England ; a water-logged ship is found drifting at sea, valuable property is recovered, and what do the English Government do, " Grab F" No, they " go halves " with the salvors. Let that be done in Beecroft's case; and then there will be some show of justice. Let the Government and the Beecrofts halve the
windfall.
I have yet to learn that the Statute of James, which makes 20 years' possession, with color of right, good as against the Crown, is in any way controlled by the Tasmanian Escheats Act. Beeorofts occupied for 25
years.
Your's truly,
LEX
P.S.-The affidavits of the law-writer who drew the codicil, and of the man who attended the death bed of Goodman, in favour of young Beecroft, were forwarded to the Executive.
Legal Inquisitivness -During the cross-ex- amination, yesterday, in the Police Court, of a farrier, by Mr. Charles Ball, that legal gentleman gave evident proof of his belief that the law should Event, The Mercury, 7 Aug 1875
be as nearly omniscient as possible. In alluding to certain veterinary medicine, Mr. C. Ball very frankly asked what was in the medicine referred to, whereupon Mr. Beecroft, the farrier, replied that he would not tell him. M. J. R. Ball, counsel for the other side, said it was hardly likely that the witness would answer such a question, as Mr. C. Ball might take to curing horses himself on the strength of such a receipt. In proceeding with the cross-examination, Beecroft stated that he had been 14 years engaged in the farrier business, though he was only 29 years old. Mr. Charles Ball said it was rather young to commence curing horses. Beecroft, transposing a well-worn adage, replied promptly " It is never to young to learn." Further
on in this case the court was somewhat amused by the evidence of a witness named Sampson, who it appeared' had gone to the defendant
three times in reference to the horse. Mr. C. Ball asked "When did you go up the first time?" whereupon the witness replied "I went up the second time." The question again being put the witness again replied rather indignantly "I went the second time, I did not go the first time at all." He evidently was some relation to the cute Hibernian, who determined to commence a course of music lessons in the third quarter, as the terms were the cheapest. Judging by the statement of the two farmers who practised as veterinary surgeons, it would appear that an authority on such matters would he a desirable acquisition, for like homeopathy and allopathy, the two doctors so entirely disagreed that it was pretty certain that if either one effected a cure in any case, the treatment of tho other under similar circumstances would be as certainly fatal as the former was efficacious. This, however, is merely a happy condition in which human patients are but too often placed, so the equine race need not grumble.
PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA. Event, The Mercury, 13 Aug 1875
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Friday, 6th August, 1875
The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock.
PETITION.
Mr. REIBEY presented a petition from a Mr.
W. Beecroft, blacksmith, Hobart Town, which was read, but pronounced to be unintelligible by the Speaker. After some discussion, in which Messrs. Reibey, Jackson, and Douglas took part, the Speaker ruled that the petition oould not be re- ceived. The petition prayed for redress in refer- ence to the estate of Joseph Goodman, which had been escheatedin consequence of his dying intes- tate, and in connection with which certain law proceedings had taken place, The full particulars of all the circumstances have already been pub- lished. The petition was withdrawn.
PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA. Event, The Mercury, 20 Aug 1875
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
THURSDAY, 12TH AUGUST, 1875.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
...
Mr. REIBEY to ask tho hon. the Attorney General if he will lay upon the table of the House all the papers connected with the claim under the Escheat Act of Mr. Wm. Beecroft of Launceston. (Friday, 13th inst.)
THE CLAIM OF. SIR, WILLIAM BEECROFT. Event, The Mercury, 3 Sep 1875
Mr. REIBEY asked the hon. the Attorney General if he would lay upon the table of the House all the papers connected with the claim under the Escheat Act of Mr. Wm. Beecroft of Launceston.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I have no objection to laying the papers on the table of the House as desired by the hon. member.
THE CLAIM OF WILLIAM BEECROFT. Event, The Mercury, 6 Sep 1875
Mr. REIBEY moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the claim of William Beecroft, under the Escheat Act ; the said committee to consist of Messrs. Gilmore, Scott, Balfe, Henry, and the mover.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there would be no opposition to the appointment of a Select Committee, though not perhaps the one nominated. The case had already been dealt with by the Government. In any case, there were two sides to the question ; and the outline of the case given by
the mover was not strictly in accordance with, the facts.
Mr. JACKSON thought it was unconstitutional to appoint a committee to inquire into a case which had already been finally dealt with by the Govern-
ment under an Act of Parliament.
The COLONIAL TREASURER said that cases might arise when it was desirable to inquire into the action of the Exeoutive, even when they were acting under an Act of Parliament, No opposition would be offered by the Government to the appoint- ment of this committee, although he objected personally to the committee being composed entirely, of local men. In this case, no member of the pro- posed committee was a Southern member, and all were therefore liable to be swayed by local opinion.
Mr. BALFE coincided with the opinion expressed by the Colonial Treasurer with regard to the necessity of appointing a committee which would be looked upon by the House as above suspicion.
After some discussion, the motion was carried, the committee being altered to the following gentle- men :-Messrs. Gellibrand, Jackson, Young, Brown,
and the mover.
THE OBNOXIOUS ESCHEATS ACT. Event, The Mercury, 2 Nov 1875
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MERCURY.
SIR,-I am glad to see that some one is at last moving in the matter of "The 'Cheats Act," as it might be very appropriately named ; although its character ‘s popularly sufficiently well-known by the name that sterling Englishman the late Mr. Gregson fixed upon it, viz., " The Grab-all Act."
This is a species of mock benevolent legislation, than which nothing can be more vicious in principle, and positively pernicious in practice : where after a Peckaniffian fashion, under colour and pretence of being a protector to the widow and a friend to the fatherless, the State-(Parens patrie !)-steps in, and by virtue of law, devours the estate of the negligent intestate ; neglectful in not drawing up a few lines in proper form and thereby saving the deserving partner of his life long toil,-"oft times the bee that made the honey,"-from poverty and possible degradation.
I hope yet to see that inequitable and un-British Act rendered innocuous, so far at least as to allow to the lone and helpless widow one-third of the estate of the improvident fool, who leaves his pro- perty and family to the mercy of a necessitous Government ! with the control of the interest de- rivable from the residue during the minority of his children, if any, and if none, then the whole to the widow absolutely. In a just and equitable sense, and according to moral and religious teaching it is hers, as much as ever it was his, and no powerful third party or State robber has any ethical pretence of right-except where might is right, or as Mr. Giblin would say, where "men legislate for women !"-to interfere in their private affairs at all ; certainly not in such a way as to give a shell here or a shell there, and pop the oyster into the hungry and rapacious maw of some bankrupt Treasurer, at his wits' end for expedients, to help meet his Treasury bills.
I have no doubt William the Conqueror, who introduced in England the Feuds with their useful adjunct the doctrine of escheats, was a good judge of human nature, and under tho mask of benevo- lently and prudently preventing confusion and injustice in cases of persons dying without heirs, deduced from the tenures the convenient regal fiction that where there is no heir then the king is heir. Our modern Shylocks have improved upon this, in such cases enabling tho treasury to
" grab " the lot. Tasmanian financiers-as Tas- manian finance goes-always pedlars and tinkers, and shufflers of the purest and most honest Peck sniffian type, with very prim ideas about principles and very loose notions of meum and tuum, also well knowing that there always will be numberless instances where men will die intestate, because they will not, or cannot, make their wills, or because they put it off until it is too late, have still further appropriated this prolific doctrine, and now our treasury " grabs " where there is neither heir nor will, and hence the notorious " Grab-all Act."
Beecroft's case for instance-one of many-is one where this law (rather than its administrators) has operated to work a gross wrong ; it is not so very clear indeed that, as a matter of law, Beecroft's views are not correct, the only mistake perhaps he made being in not fighting it out in the Escheat Court, the fact being, I believe, that he did not
at that time understand his position. The man applied for a certificate of title, and the matter somehow got into the Escheats Court, Beecroft was subpoenaed there, and gave his evidence, having been assured that all would come right, when at last he woke up to find his property escheated. A committee should be granted if only to take his evidence. Beecroft then wrote to the Commissioner and petitioned the Government for his rights, as a matter of justice, as he had not waived his rights, but merely misunderstood his position. The Government eventually allowed the
amity £100 to be divided between Beecroft and his mother, requiring him to sign a paper relinquishing all further claim upon the Government ; this he very properly declined to do, and he also generously refused to interfere in the preferred distri- bution, thus enabling his mother to receive the whole less her costs, he having determined to go to Pailiament for that justice which he could not obtain from a grasping and needy Government, whoso notion in doling out this pit- tance is not so very clear, in view of the second section of the Act, which empowers "the Governor in Council to make such grants as he sees fit, of es- cheated property, to any person for the purpose of carrying into effect, any intended grant or devise of the person to whom such property had belonged."
His claim as proved in evidence by declara- tions, in brief, is this. One Goodall, a family friend of the Beecroft family, purchased a lot in Launceston for young Beecroft, then a mere child ; he sub- sequently died, devising his other real estate for the benefit of another young person,-, ap- parently not devising Beecroft's lot, because he looked upon it as given to young Beecroft, whose father was, and for a long time had been in posses- sion ; he, however, subsequently added a codicil, giving legal validity to the gift, just before his death,
but died before signing it. He never disturbed the gift, but held out to others up to very shortly before death, that he had made it. The Beecroft's built upon this land and lived there, under colour of right for over twenty years, the father occupying as quasi trustee for the son up to his death, the mother remaining as tenant at will, under her son when ho came of age. This surely should bring the case within the statute of James, which is unaffected by the Escheats Act. One incident not in evidence, but not the less a fact, exhibits very plainly the views of the elder Beecroft's contemporaries, to wit his creditors, a very keen, clear-sighted, and cold- blooded class as a rule. He failed, but the creditors did not press for the property, as they looked upon it as the son's. Now the son,-, who, I must say, though a vary humble individual, appears all through these proceedings as a man of honourable! intentions, in agreeable contrast with the shabby, Government he is battling with, came forward like a man and paid these creditors £108 ; looking upon it that, as he had the benefit of their money in improving his lot, as a man of honour he was bound to pay his father's debts, and he did pay them. But the Government not having the refinement necessary to appreciate and emulate the example, wolf-like seize the whole, and will not even pay Beecroft for the improvements, or recoup him his payment of the debts ; and now the poor fellow is minus his property, and £108 into the bargain, beside the coats of law in lighting his claim against those who have no costs to pay. It is therefore not so very clear after all that young Beecroft-who has gained my esteem because of the manliness he has exhibited in degenerate times-has not both law and equity on his side.
Depend upon it it's a bad law that thus brings the State into oppressive and unequal conflict with the poor subject However, I prefer to accept the act as powerful and effectual to work these evils - Beecroft's not being the only case by many. The cases of Staples, Dann, and others of that sort widow robberies-being more apropos to my chief objection to the Act, with a view of impressing upon the Legislature the necessity for the partial amendment of a statute so obnoxious to every sense of justice, and so capable of crushing the weakest member of society, tho widow-scarce excepting even lunatics and idiots, for they are cared for by the State, but who cares for the widow ?
Here then we have the State ignobly made use of, and dragged through the mire by needy financiers, who ingeniously build up a measure upon the crumbling foundation of the exploded feuds, with the noble object of widow robbery ! Lot it be amended as speedily as possible, and a foul blot be thus removed from our Tasmanian Statute Book.
Yours truly,
LEX
Hobart Town,
2nd September, 1875.
EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7 o'clock. Event, The Mercury, 22 Sep 1876
THE BEECROFT CASE.
Mr. REIBEY brought up the report of the select committee on this case, under the Escheats Act, which was read and ordered to be printed, and to be taken into consideration by the House.
MR. BEECROFT, Event, The Mercury, 20 Oct 1876
Mr. BALFE moved that all papers and corres- pondence relating to the claims of Mr. Beecroft against the Government, and which were reported upon favour- ably last session by a Select Committee of this House, be laid upon the table. The hon. member recalled to the memory of the House the favourable report made on this case of escheated monies last session. Agreed to.
MR. BEECROFT'S CASE. Event, The Mercury, 25 Jul 1877
Mr. BALFE moved that the report of the select committee of last session in Mr. Beecroft's case be considered by the House. The hon. member explained that on 28th October, 1875, a select committee was appointed, which made the following report :-1. Your committee have the honour to report that they
inquired into the matter referred to them in the case of William Beecroft's claim, and have taken all the evidence they could command, which evidence is appended. 2. That as the Beecroft family held pos- session of the property claimed by William Beecroft for 25 years, and expended money in the erection of buildings upon the same, it is strong evidence of his belief that he had a valid claim to the estate. 3. That your committee are unanimously of opinion that it was the intention of Joseph Good- man to leave the property to William Beecroft ; and, therefore, earnestly recommended that the balance of the purchase money be given to the said William Beecroft, in accordance with the spirit of section 2 of 33 Vic, No. 13."
Upon the SPEAKER pointing out that if this were a money question, the House could not entertain it unless they went into a committee upon it.
Mr. BALFE moved that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole.
The motion was agreed to, and the House went into committee.
Mr. BALFE gave the particulars of the case, and moved that an address be presented to His Excellency
praying that the sum of £205 19s. 7d. be repaid to
William Beecroft.
The COLONIAL TREASURER supported the
motion.
Mr. MURRAY expressed a wish to see the rest of the family have a share in the money.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY said that the son had entered into an agreement to divide the money between his mother and sisters.
Mr. DOUGLAS said that, as the whole family had an ιquitable claim to the money, he would like to see the money divided between them.
After some discussion, the motion was amended as follows:-"That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor praying His Excellency to appropriate the sum of £205 19s. 7d. in accordance with the report of the select committee appointed by this House in 1875, to the widow and children of William Beecroft the elder."
Mr. BALFE to move for a nominal return of the number of persons on the electoral rolls of Hobart Town entitled to vote in two electoral districts for members for the House of Assembly; the number entitled to vote in three; the number in four; and the number in five, specifying the name of the electoral district in which such persons are entitled to vote (Thursday.) Also to move that an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor praying that the sum of £265 19s. 4d. be appropriated in accordance with the report of the Select Committee appointed in 1875 to investigate the claims of William Beecroft (Thursday). Event, The Mercury, 29 Nov 1877
Beecroft's Case. Event, The Mercury, 29 Nov 1877
The address adopted by the Assembly praying His Excellency to recommend the appropriation of a sum of £265 19s 7d to William Beecroft was negatived.
ORDERS OF THE DAY. Mr Beecroft's Claim. The House went into Committee upon the question "of Mr Beecroft's claim, partly discussed on the 25th October. Mr BALFE explained the action which had bken taken in regard to this matter in 1875, the delays through prorogation of Parliament and change of Ministry, and how when last year a resolution authoris- ing the payment of compensation to the Beecroft family had been passed by this House it had been rejected by the Coun- cil. He reviewed the circumstances of the claim made by Mr Beecroft, which have already been placed before the public on more than one occasion. A Mr Goodman, residing at Launceston, had often expressed his intention to makes Mr Beecroft, then a child, his heir, but died without signing his will. Mr Beecroft, sen., occupied the property for twenty-five years, but at his death, it being ascertained the son had no legal right to it, the Government seized upon the property, and he now asked for compensation, as the property had been verbally given to his father and him by Goodman. Mr REIBEY supported the resolution. The COL. TREASURER said he had always voted against this claim, and would do so now. The Government had given £100 as compensation when the property was escheated, which sum seemed to have been taken by one member of the family only. The point that seemed to him con- clusive against the claim was the evidence of Mr Stepney, one of the executors under the will, who said that Goodman intended to make the property over to young Beecroft, but detecting Beecroft, sen.,in defrauding him of eight loads of stone, Goodman purposely refrained from signing his will. That fact he thought showed that young Beecroft could not have any claim on the property. Mr. BALFE and Mr REIBEY combated this view of the question, contending that Mr. Stepney's evidence was counter-balanced by other witnesses. Event, The Mercury, 2 Aug 1878
The PREMIER, though he would not vote against the claim, had convinced himself the family had no legal claim on the Government.
Mr DOOLEY supported the resolution.
The resolution was then agreed to.
THE BEECROFT FAMILY. Event, The Mercury, 6 Aug 1878
Mr. REIBEY, pursuant to notice, moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider Mrs. Beccroft's claim to certain escheated property, with power to make use of evidence taken by a Select Com- mittee of tho first Session of 1875. The hon. member remarked that this case had been twice before the House, when the reports of the committees bad been assented to by that House, but the resolutions wero rejected in another place, and in consequence a large amount of sympathy for the widow prevailed in Launceston. He (Mr. Reibey) had
been induced to take this step, that the matter might be considered by the House, and if possible, justice done. A petition had been signod in favour of the claim, by almost every influential gentleman in Launceston. The Committee were unanimous in their recommendation, and he trusted that the House
having passed the claim on two occasions, would not object to again take the case into consideration.
The COLONIAL TREASURER did not rise to oppose the motion ; but he was under the impression that Mrs. Beecroft's claim had been settled. He knew that £100 had been paid to Mrs. Beecroft, and he had been rather under the impression that it was the son William Beecroft who put in a claim. The real point which gave rise to the claim was this : A person named Goodman many years ago was understood to have intended to leave his property to the Beocrofts, but he died without signing the will, or carrying his object into effect, and it was given in evidence before the committee in 1875 that he purposely abstained, because he had discovered something that created a prejudice against Beecroft. After the death of the intestate, Beecroft took posses- sion, and enjoyed the property several years; when that was ascertained, the property escheated to the Crown, but a portion had been given to Mrs. Beecroft, and the hon. member for Westbury, who had taken an interest in the question, had brought it forward with a view to obtain further concessions. He (the Colonial Treasurer) was not there to oppose the com-
mittee.
Mr. DOUGLAS thought the money should go to the family and not Mrs. Beecroft, who had already received her money.
Mr. BALFE explained, in reference to an observa- tion by the hon. the Colonial Treasurer, that the reso- lutions passed in that House on two occasions, and were rejected in the other House.
Mr. REIBEY said it was true the widow did receive £100 out of the £450. But the eldest son, who had a claim, had given a document expressing his willingness that the balance of the proceeds of the property should be divided among his mother, sister, and brother.
The motion was then passed, and Mr. Reibey pro- posed as the committee Messrs. Gellibrand, Pillinger, Lamb, Balfe, and the mover.
Mr. GELLIBRAND said they had better have a new committee. There were some new members in the House, and it would be advisable to have some of
tbem on the committee.
Mr. REIBEY said he would give notice, and
At a subsequent period of the sitting the committee was appointed, consisting of Messrs. Keach, Pillinger, Lamb, Balfe, and Reibey,
THE TROTTING HORSE Event, The Mercury, 10 Aug 1878
" MERRYMAN. "
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MERCURY.
Sir,-Some time ago this favorite horse met with a severe accident, which rendered it neces- sary to place him under the care of an expe- rienced veterinary surgeon, when he was handed over to me ; but, not being satisfied in my own mind, I put him under Mr. Beecroft, blacksmith and farrier, of Bathurst-street, Hobart Town, whom I had ascertained had been very success- ful in similar cases, A wonderful improvement was soon apparent, and in about three weeks' time he was able to be taken to Clarence Plains, and to run about the paddock, and will be fit for service very shortly.
In justice to Mr. Beecroft, I consider it my duty to make his qualifications known to the public, and can confidently recommend him to any one requiring his valuable services, as a most careful, attentive, and promising man, likely to rise in his profession.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. RUMNEY.
Hobart Town,
1st August, 1878. C677
Beecroft having surrendered his claim referred to in the report of a former committee of this House, under date 1st November, 1875, and his desire to allow the amount claimed, viz., £310, to bo divided by the Select Com- mittee appointed by this House, between his'mother and her children, the £310 be distributed as herein- after mentioned, viz., £100 to Wm. Beecroft, and the balance (the mother having already received £100) to be equally divided between herself and her other children. Event, The Mercury, 13 Sep 1878
The report was received and ordered to bo taken into consideration on the 27th August.. At the sugges- tion of the Colonial Treasurer, the document was ordered to be printed.
MRS. BEECROFTS CLAIM. Event, The Mercury, 28 Jul 1879
The House went into committee, and on the motion. of Mr. REIBEY, it was agreed to present an address to His Excellency the Governor, for the purpose of dividing an escheat to the Crown of £310 between Mrs. Beecroft and her children.
The resolution was reported, agreed to, and ordered to be transmitted to the Legislative Council.
Veterinary Skill.-On Friday morning a large tumour of 20 years' standing was extracted by Mr. Wm. Beecroft, veterinary surgeon, Bathurst-street, from the throat of a well-known horse belonging to Mr. John Watchorn. The tumour was 21lb, in weight, 6in. long, and 5in. round ; it was egg shaped. The horse is getting on well, after being the subject of the critical operation described. Event, The Mercury, 25 Sep 1879
COLLISION IN ELIZABETH-STREET.-An accident occurred in Elizabeth-street yesterday morning about 10 o'clock, by which the horse of Mr. John Ayton, furnishing warehouseman, was seriously injured. The animal was being driven in a spring cart along the street, when a two-horse carriage, a public conveyance, came up in the opposite direction. The road was greatly narrowed at the spot by an ex- cavation for pipe-laying broadly fringed by heaps of the dug-up earth, and the two conveyances came straight at one another. The driver of Mr. Ayton's conveyance had managed to pull up on observing the danger ; the other attempted to do so, but too late, as it is said he was looking carelessly round, and the pole of the vehicle entered the neck of Mr. Ayton's horse near the chest, to the depth of several inches, throwing it down. The wound was sown up by Mr. William Beecroft, of Bathurst-street. It is very questionable whether the narrow streets of the city should be further narrowed to a breadth of 6ft. or 8ft. taken up by pipe-laying, for this, as in the case under notice, necessarily causes danger of collisions. Either there should be less encroachment, or the work should be expeditiously done early in the morning or in tho evening, while there is but little traffic in the thoroughfares. Event, Launceston Examiner, 4 Nov 1880
AVETERINARY OPERATION.-On Monday last a most difficult operation was com menced by Mr James Beecroft, black smith, etc., George-street, upon a mare the property of Mr J. Johnston, East Tamar. The horse has been suffering for the past nine months with what is known as polyphous, a fungus growth, which has come from the near nostril, rendering it diflicult for the horse to breathe and take food. The operation was very successfully completed yester day; and the fungus, which weighs about four pounds, thoroughly removed, leaving the horse apparently none the worse- a casual observer being unable to detect the place of removal. Mr Beecroft is to be commended for the skilful manner in which the operation has been performed. Event, The Mercury, 19 Jan 1881
Alleged Embezzlement.-Alfred White was charged, on the information of D. C. Delaney, with having, on the 17th December, at Hobart, em- bezzled tho sum of £2 10s., the moneys of John Stevens, of Hobart, Ho pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. Crisp. Event, The Mercury, 19 Jan 1881
John Stevens, baker, Argyle-street, deposed that on the day named in tbe information he passed Beecroft's blacksmith's shop, in Bathurst-street, where accused was employed. White called out to him, and asked him if he had sold his mare. He replied that he had not. White said he knew some one she would suit, and asked the price. Witness said £14, and,offered White 10s. if he could sell it. White said he would go up and fetch the mare, and when witness got home, half an hour afterwards, she was gone. White called on him about noon, and said he had shown her to some one at New Town, and that she refused to start. Witness told him he knew it had not been at work for some time, and he had better run it about for an hour. White
started, for. New Town again, and witness went down to the shop in tho evening. White said he had not sold the mare, but was going to see about it further. Later in the evening witness saw White at Beecroft's shop. White then said he had sold tho mare for 10 guineas, but would not say to whom he sold it, when witness complained of the low price. Beecroft was in his shop when White ran out after him. Beecroft's name was not mentioned in the affair at all. Witness called next morning, and White gave him two £5 notes and a half sovereign. Witness gave him 7s. 6d. for his trouble. White would not say whom the horse was sold to, except that it was at Now Town. On the 8th January, witness saw a boy riding the mare down Harrington-street, and on enquiry he found she belonged to Mr. Beedham, of Liverpool-street. He had some conversation with that gentleman, and in consequence of what he ascertained he went and saw White at the shop. Witness asked him what he meant by selling the mare for £13, and only giving him 10 guineas, White said 10 guineas was all he got. Witness said Mr. Beedham, who bought the mare, said he gave £13 for it. White then excused himself by saying that some one who was with him sold the horse. Witness said,he should see further about
it.
To Mr. Crisp : Was anxious to get rid of tbe mare. Had advertised her for sale, and had her put up at auction, the reserve price put on her being £14, but she did not sell at it. Did not tell White that the lowest, he would take for the mare was 10 guineas. Was dissatisfied with his selling it at that price, and therefore only gave 7s. 6d. as commission. From his last conversation with
White, he understood that Beecroft and White shared the profit between them.
To the Bench : White was his agent for the sale of the horse, and any money received for it should have been given by White to him.
David Seddon, teller of the Bank of Australasia,
deposed to cashing a cheque (produced) for £13 on the 18th December, drawn by W. H. Beedham, and payable to Mr. Beecroft, or order.
William Henry Beedham, grocer, Liverpool-
street, deposed to White offering the mare for sale, saying that it belonged to a Mr. Robinson, of Glenore. White represeted that he was sent to Mr. Beecroft to sell the horse, and after some bargaining witness bought tho animal for £13, giving the cheque (produced) to the accused. White gave him the bill produced in return for the cheque. This bill represented the horse to be purchased of
Mr. Beecroft.
Mr. Crisp addressed the Bench in defence of the accused, alleging that he, as apprentice of Mr. Beeoroft, simply acted as his agent in the matter, and that the profit of the transaction went to that gentleman.
William Beecroft, veterinary and blacksmith, deposed that the accused was his apprentice. The mare sold to Mr. Beedham on the 17th December was bought from witness. He sent White to Mr. Stevens to know what he would take, and, on learning that £12 was wanted, sent him back again to try and get her for less, White came back, and said the lowest Mr. Stevens would then take was 10 guineas. Witness examined her and said he would take her at that price, after trying her in harness. He sent White with her up to Beedham's with a high recommendation as to her suitability, as Mr.
Beedham had asked him to find him a horse. Eventually, Mr. Beedham took the horse, and paid with a cheque which was cashed by another boy, Arthur Beecroft, who gave witness the money. Witness paid ten guineas to the accused for the
horse.
To Mr. Tarleton : I bought the horse from Mr. Stevens. I did not see White run out from the shop to Mr. Stevens. I did not tell him to say
some one at Now Town wanted the mare. I told him not to mention my name to Mr. Stevens, as we were not on good terms with one another, and never had been. Robertson was present when
White sold witness the horse on Stevens' account. Did not tell White to say the horse was the property of Mr. Robinson, of Glenore. Paid White in two £5 notes and a half sovereign.
Mr. Tarleton asked the witness where he got
the notes from.
Beecroft prevaricated o good deal. First he said he got them by labour, then by the sweat of his brow, then by his anvil, then by the labour of his arms.
Mr. Tarleton told him after each answer, some of which were twice repeated, that it was no reply to the question put to him, which dealt with a very important point in tho case, and warned him that if he persisted in refusing a proper reply the Bench had the power of committal, and would exercise it. Beecroft refused to reply any other way than that he got the notes by the sweat of his brow.
Mr. Tarleton ordered the sub-inspector on duty to take him into custody, committing him to the bouse of correction for seven days' imprisonment, for prevarication and refusing to give evidence in
the witness-box.
Beecroft was removed to the watchhouse in custody.
Mr. Crisp next called for the defence,
Edgar Smith, packer at Messrs. Perkins' establish- ment, deposed that about three or four weeks ago he was at Mr. Beecroft's when White called there with a, horse and cart. White got out and called Mr. Beecroft away to speak to him. Witness did not hear what was said. Witness accompanied White to Mr. Stevens', and heard that gentleman say that the lowest he would take for the mare was 10 guineas.
Archibald Robertson deposed, that he remembered White coming back from Mr. Stevens, and telling Beecroft that the lowest price Stevens would take for the mare was 10 guineas. Beecroft said he,
would have him, and sent White up to Beedham with tho horse. Witness saw White drive away. Next day he saw White pay Stevens the money.
Afterwards White came through and told witness, he had only got 7s. 6d., whereas he ought to have got half-a-sovereign.
Mr. Crisp said that was his case, and he hoped that Beecroft's conduct would not prejudice his client in the eyes of the Bench.
Beecroft was called in, and had his evidence read over to him. This having been done,
Mr. Crisp made an appeal to the Bench that he might have another opportunity of answering the question, as he was not only a man in business, but a husband, and the father of a family, and not in the habit of giving evidence in Courts of law. Mr. Crisp also went to Beecroft and begged him audibly
to tell the whole truth.
Mr. Tarleton said that they must understand at once that he had not taken the course he did on
account of any offence offered to himself personally. Such things he could afford to set aside. The cause, however, was that the question he put was one highly pertinent to the issue, and the witness refused to answer it in a very abusive and improper way. It affected the whole credibility of his evidence, and from further particulars placed before the Bench, it was made still more important. The law was quite clear as to how the Bench could act in such a case.
Mr. Crisp having made a further appeal on behalf of his client,
Mr. Tarleton asked the man if he would now give a proper answer to the question put to him.
Beecroft : Your Worship, I accumulated it from time to time. Honestly I got it. From the sweat of my brow.
Mr. Tarleton : Is that your answer ?
Beecroft : Yes ; I cannot give any other answer. Mr. Tarleton : Of course, it is your own look out. I hold it to be a refusal to answer the question, and you stand committed for seven days.
Beecroft then signed his depositions, and was taken to the watchhouse in custody.
At the request of Mr. Tarleton, the Superin-
tendent called
Detective Constable Delaney, who deposed to the
arrest of the accused. White told him next morn- ing that he took the cheque to the bank for Mr. Beecroft and got it cashed, giving the money to Mr. Beecroft, The watchhouse-keeper was present at the time. He did not describe the money so
obtained from the bank.
Delaney volunteered a statement that when he arrested White, Beecroft told him to hold his head up, as they could do nothing to him.
Mr. Crisp : Quito so. Whatever there was to do was Beecroft's affair.
Mr. Tarleton, after consulting his brother magis- trate, addressed the accused, saying:-From the evidence it is clear that you have committed a course of grievous lying, going first to one person and then to another, and behaving in an extra- ordinary way for one bearing your character and having such testimonials from clergymen and others as your counsel has put in. It is fearful to think of you going deliberately lying to persons in this way for tho miserable purposes of gain. That you did so, however, is perfectly clear from the evidence of responsible and respectable witnesses, whose evi- dence cannot be disputed. I hope you will feel such a sense of shame at your guilt as will be a lesson to you hereafter. As to the charge against you, although there is considerable doubt as to the truth of Beccroft's evidence, still it raises a doubt as to your guilt, of which you shall have the benefit, and we therefore discharge you.
An Unruly Witness.-A blacksmith named Beecroft had yesterday a severe lesson in evidence giving in a Court of justice, as for his dogged determination not to tell the "whole truth" he is now in the house of correction, where he will remain for six days longer. The facts, which appear in full elsewhere, relate to the charge of embezzle- ment against the lad White, Beecroft's apprentice, a very important point as regarded the agency of the boy being how the money was paid to the owner of the horse. To this Beecroft would give nothing but impertinent replies, and Mr. Tarleton accord- ingly vindicated the dignity of the Bench and the claims of justice by punishing him summarily. Beecroft's evidence was otherwise so contradictory to other witnesses and facts which have since come to light, that it will be fortunate for him if he has not to answer to a much more serious charge on a future occasion. Event, Launceston Examiner, 19 Jan 1881
Alfred White, an apprentice of Mr Beecrofts, blacksmith, was charged with embezzling £2 10s. It was alleged that he had sold a horse for a baker named Stevens for £13, but only accounted to Stevens for lOgs., keeping the difference. The evidence was not quite conclusive, and the Bench gave him the benefit of the doubt, though Mr Tarleton told him he had gone about deliberately lying for the purposes of gain. A good deal of interest was taken in the case by clergymen .and religious people, as White was a Sunday-school teacher. During the hearing of the case Beecroft was sent to gaol for seven days for prevari cation and refusal to give evidence. Event, The Mercury, 21 Jan 1881
Imprisonment for Contempt.- Mr. Crisp, the solicitor for the blacksmith Beecroft, who was imprisoned for contempt of Court on Tuesday last in refusing to answer questions in the witness-box, brought the case of his client before the Police Magistrate yesterday, stating that Beecroft was now willing to answer any questions and make a full explanation of his conduct. Mr. Tarleton expressed doubt as to his power, now the case had closed, to rc-swear the man and take his evidence in the absence of any accused person. Ho pointed out the important hearing on the case of the question which Beecroft refused to answer straightforwardly, and said it would be a dangerous sort of precedent to establish-to allow a man liberty to refuse to answer proper questions put to him, and then, when his confederate-the accused-had been, as the result of such contumacy, released from custody, to allow him to say, ' Now I am quite ready to answer your enquiry, for it can do no good to the prosecution or harm to the accused." Mr. Tarleton, however, promised to consult with the Solicitor-General on the point, and give his answer in Court this morning. Event, The Mercury, 22 Jan 1881
Imprisonment for, Contempt -At the sitting of the City Police Court yesterday, Mr Tarleton stated that he had consulted with the Solicitor General in reference to the application made to him on the previous day by Mr Crisp, tho solicitor for Beecroft, the man who was sent to gaol for con- tempt of Court on Tuesday last Mr Crisp had appllied that Beecroft might be given another chance to answer the question he had previously refused to reply to straightforwardly Mr Tarleton stated yesterday that the Solicitor General coincided with him in the opinion that he had no longer any power of action in the mater, and that so far as he was concerned, the case was concluded. The only appeal now was to the Executive Government, with whom alone the power rested to release the man. Mr Crisp asked Mr Tarleton if he would recommend the release. Mr Tarleton said he should not interfere either one way or the other with the matter. Event, The Mercury, 6 Jul 1881
POWELL v. IMLACH. Mr J. Powell for plaintiff, Mr R. B. Miller a for defendant. Jury--Messrs H. Tyson, Thomas Taylor, and A. Simson. The action was one to recover £40 damages for loss of a valuable mare belonging to Mr as explained by Mr J. Powell, were that on the night of June 21st, plaintiff's boy was driving in the mare for orders on the Elphin-road, when the mare collided with a horse and cart, which was being driven by the defendant's son on the wrong side of the road, without lights. The animal was staked by the shaft of the cart, and subsequently died from the injuries. Plaintiff claimed £40 damages, the mare being valued at £30, and the other charges being made up of Event, The Mercury, 8 Sep 1883
£5 farrier's fees, and sundry expenses connected with burying the carcase, loss of the mare's services while under attendance, etc. These facts were deposed to by the plaintiff, Jno. Rose, the boy who was riding the horse, Timothy Donovan, who witnessed the occurrence, and Mr Beecroft, farrier, who attended the mare. For the defence, Mr Miller raised a non-suit point to the effect that the defendant was not liable, as he was not in charge of the cart at the time of the accident, and the cart was not being driven on his business or by his servant. There was no evidence to this effect. His Honour thought the question was one for the jury to decide. Mr Miller then addressed the jury for the de- fence, and contended that the horse and cart that collided with the mare was owned by de- fendant's son, and was merely loaned by the owner to his father for the purpose of taking out milk. At the time in question the horse was not so engaged, but was being driven home by the owner, who was returning from town after having the animal shod. Under those cir- cumstances the defendant could not be held liable for the accident. He should also show that at the time of the accident the mare was on the wrong side of the road, and that she was being galloped by Rose, who was riding her. He called James Imlach and Daniel Imlach, two sons of defendant, and Wm. Imlach, the defendant, in support of these facts. Counsel upon each side having addressed the jury, his Honour summed up, and the jury re- tired at 3:20, returning into Court at 4 p.m. with a verdict for plaintiff for £10.
FOUND in Bathurst-street, on Wednesday morning, TWO HORSES, one Brown Horse, one Grey Mare. Owner can have the same by paying expenses. W. BEECROFT, Veterinary, Bathurst-street, Hobart. Event, The Mercury, 5 Sep 1885
TO OWNERS OF CATTLE. Event, The Mercury, 23 Feb 1886
I have much pleasure in testifying to the skill of Mr. BEECROFT, of Bathurst- street, as a thoroughly competent VETERI- NARY SURGEON, having had him to a cow of mine, which was in a very dangerous state. Owing to Mr. Beecroft's skilful treatment she is now completely recovered.
C. J. FISHER. Kingston,
August 28, 1885.
A, REFUTATION. Event, The Mercury, 17 Apr 1886
SIR,-My attention having been fre- quently drawn to a letter in your issue of the 15th inst., written by a person who con- ceals his identity under the name of " Justice," I desire in fairness to myself to reply to the gentleman who has selected a nom de plume so entirely inconsistent with the character of his correspondence.
The writer, evidently actuated by envy of my reputation as a veterinary surgeon, states that " in the accident which recently occurred at the now Government offices, where it was found necessary to destroy a horse which had fallen down a pit and broken its back, a person was called in who it is well known is not a veterinary surgeon, and is not at all capable of qualifying for one."
Tho public are aware that I was the vet. who attended on that occasion, and I there- fore wish to point out how slight the grounds are upon which "Justice" bases his remarks.
I have now studied and successfully prac- tised the science of veterinary surgery for 25 years, and the numerous favourable re- ports which have been published in the local papers, and the unsolicited testimonials which I have repeatedly received, would sufficiently support my reputation without further comment ; but I may mention that in several instances members of the medical profession have expressed their surprise at the success which has invariably attended my practice, and their appreciation of the skill necessary to lead to such success.
I have, moreover, been frequently called upon by owners of stock who have been dis- satisfied with tho treatment adopted by a duly qualified vet., and in more than one instance I have found that most deplorable results have followed the practice of a quali- fied, but unskilled vet. Were it possible for one to obtain my formal diploma in Tas- mania, I should not for one moment doubt that I could prove my knowledge of a science which has been my natural study from boyhood.
I submit that these facts should be suf- ficient to quiet the perturbed spirit of " Justice," and to assure him of the impro- bability of maltreatment in any case consigned to the care of-Yours, etc..
W. BEECROFT.
February 22.
TO HORSE OWNERS AND OTHERS. Event, Launceston Examiner, 29 Nov 1886
One of many other testimonials received by W. Beecroft during his practice as a Veterinary Surgeon in Hobart :
"Mr. BEECROFT has had sole care of my horse that was so badly staked. I have every reason to be well satisfied with his treatment. It was a case needing much care and skill, both of which were ably supplied by the vet. in question. I have no hesita- tion in recommending him in a similar class of case."-EDWARD. L. CROWTHER,
March 20, 1886. _M.D.
STRAY HORSES ON THE LINE.-Through a crossing gate being left open on the Queechy farm, some three miles from town, five horses got on the line on Saturday evening and the goods train from Hobart dashed through them about 8 p.m., two being killed, two badly injured, and one escaped with a severe shaking. Four of the horses belonged to residents of Laun ceston, who had sent them out to grass at Queechy. Mr. J. Moore, the occupier of Queechy did not learn what had happened for some considerable time afterwards, and after examinining the horses sent into town at 2 a.m. for Mr. W. Beecroft, farrier, who arrived at Queechy a couple of hours later. He found one horse, belonging to Mr. J. Stephenson, suffering from a ruptured abdomen, and another, belonging to Mr" A. Hart, had severe lacerated wounds. Both horses were removed to town, and under Mr. Beeoroft'streatment are making favourable progress, and are expected to recover from their injuries. One of the horses killed belonged to Mr. R. Buchanan, and the other to Mr. Moore, and the horse that escaped with "a shock to the system" was Dr. Murphy's property. Event, Launceston Examiner, 4 Dec 1886
VETERINARY. -We recently mentioned that two horses seriously injured by col- lision with a train on the Queechy farm had been placed under the care of Mr. W. Beecroft, and their progress has been watched with interest by a good many per- sons, as some doubted the possibility of curing the injuries received by one in par- ticular. Both animals, however, are now out of all danger, and fast recovering, a result that reflects credit on Mr. Beecroft's skill and care. Event, The Mercury, 4 Jul 1887
TO HORSE OWNERS AND OTHERS. Event, The Mercury, 14 Mar 1888
I wish to return my sincere THANKS to Mr. W. Beecroft for the skilful way he has cured my horse " Reform," which was so badly cut the day after the Butcher's Sports. I recommend him to the public in general.
JOHN BROUGHTON.
VETERINARY.-It is by no means an un- common sight to witness a horse undergoing treatment for some disease or concealed in- jury which, in many instances, proves to be purely imaginary, but there is a horse at present under tho care of Mr. W. Beecroft, the well-known farrier, of Buthurst-street, well worth inspection by those interested in veterinary cases. The animal belongs to Mr. R. Porthouse, and was injured by colliding with a brewer's dray in Macquarie-street last Monday even- ing, and the wound it has received was caused by the shaft of the dray, which entered at the upper joint of the humerus or upper arm bone, tearing away the flesh and completely severing the right carotid artery in its passage, and traversing the anterior division of the scapula, or blade bone, right up to the cartilage. As the windpipe is visible, it may be supposed that the wound is a very severe one, and it seems a marvel that any life-is left in the animal. Every care is being taken of the horse, and Mr. Beecroft is in hopes of effecting a cure, the only dread being that tetanus may set in and baffle him. Event, The Mercury, 4 Jul 1888
A BOLT of a rather serious nature occurred yesterday afternoon, when two horses in a wagonette, owned by Mr. W. Young, took fright and galoped off. Mr. Young was standing a few yards from his horses, at the Roman Catholic Cemetery. when a vehicle in front of them drove rapidly off, the driver cracking his whip. This startled the animals behind and they set off at full galop. Rushing furiously down Bathurst-street, they turned into Patterson-street, and reached the corner of George and Patterson streets without accident, but there they had too much pace on to turn the corner safely and ran into a part of Mr. A. Green's buildings. On ex- amination it was found that the wagonette as and one horse were very little injured, but the second horse was hurt seriously. The animal was taken to Mr. W. Beecroft, who found that an upper pastern joint was seriously injured. This will incapacitate the horse from working for several months, during which time it will remain under Mr. Beecroft's care. Event, The Mercury, 13 Aug 1888
WANTED, a smart Boy. Apply to James Geappen, General Black- smith, Bathurst-street, opposite Beecroft Shoeing Forge. Event, The Mercury, 21 Dec 1888
THE CASE OF CRUELTY TO A HORSE. Event, The Mercury, 7 Jan 1889
SIR,-Will you kindly allow me space in your widely-circulated paper to state a few facts in reference to the cruelty to a horse referred to in your sub-leader of to-day.
In the first place, I received a letter on Friday, the 7th inst, from Mr, Blacklow, Broadmarsh, informing me that his mare fell with him on that day, and injured her knee, and requested me to send for her and attend to her, which I did. On the mare reaching my stables I found she had received a very severe flesh wound on the knee, which I attended, to at once. I beg to state the inspector (Duggan) did not see the mare until the following day, and he expressed his pleasure at hearing she was doing well. I wish to state there were no bones broken nor fractured, and I can produce the knee to prove it. It was at the owner's request that the mare was destroyed, he fearing the ex- pense ; but not by any one else's orders. The inspector was labouring under a great mistake when he said it was marrow running from the knee. Inspector Duggan; said he would not have summoned the defendant only he was driven to do it ; and from my experience Duggan is not qualified to give an opinion as to whether it was marrow, or joint oil running from the, knee.
Apologising for trespassing so far, being an interested party in the case, I hope you will I do me favour to publish the above.
-Yours.
etc. W. BEECROFT. Bathurst-street, Hobart.
(No evidence showing that the facts were as above stated was produced in Court. -- ED. M.)
HOBART, Event, The Mercury, 21 Mar 1889
January 5, 1889.
TO MR. BEECROFT.
I am requested by the Wirth Bros. Circus Proprietors, to inform you that they are EXCEEDINGLY SATISFIED with the manner in which you SHOD their HORSES, and that you are one of the best Horse Shoers they have ever had dealings with.
Yours truly,
ALEXANDER.
Business Manager Wirth's Grand Circus.
SUPREME, COURT. Event, The Mercury, 8 Jan 1890
SMALL DEBTS JURISDICTION.
Wednesday, March 20.
[Before His Honor Mr. Justice DODDS.]
HINSBY V. McDermott.
Claim £40, damages for loss of horse.
Tho SOLICITOR GENERAL, (instructed by Young and Walker) appeared for the plain- tiff) and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, (instructed by Elliston and Featherstone) for defendant. Tho following were the jury :-Messrs. J. Macfarlane, Edwin J. Rogors, and Wm. Marsh.
The Solicitor-GENERAL, in opening the case, pointed out that a horse named Darkie had been sent to defendant at Bellerive to be taken care of on his run, and for which 1s. 6d. per week was to be paid. This con- tract had, been broken, the horse had been used, and subsequently from injuries re- ceived had died. There had been the fees of the veterinary surgeon to be paid, and he maintained that defendant having entered into a contract to look well after the horse must either return it safe and sound or make such recompense as could reasonably be expected.
Mr. Hinsby said that in November last the horse had been handed over to defendant with instructions to take great care of it and not to use it. Defendant agreed to do this, and said it would be put on a run on which there were two other horses and 1s. 6d. per week was to be paid. Subsequently, however, when she asked for the return of the horse and it came, she found that the hoofs were bleeding, that there was a girth and curb mark, and every appearance of the horse being used. When taxing defendant's son with this, he said the horse had always been lame, and that the saddle mark was on it when it came into their hands. Later he accounted for the lameness of the horse by the fact that it had fallen down a well and received the injuries complained of. She had had the horse for some time, but it had never pre- viously run lame. The injuries were of such a nature as to necessitate the calling in of Mr. Beecroft, a veterinary surgeon, but notwithstanding his cure the horse died on Sunday, January 8, just three days after it was brought over. She valued the horse at £30, and had paid Beecroft £3 1s. 9d., and defendant 12s. Its loss had caused her considerable expense and inconvenience. Cross examined : She had never asked defendant to try and get £20 for the horse. Although Hill, who had the horse for a week before defendant, rode it daily to water, he never used a saddle.
Thos, A. Dossitor said ho knew the horse well, and on the Saturday before it was turned out, it was, as far as he knew, sound. When he saw the horse on January 2, the day it returned from defendant, it had the appearance of having been ridden or driven very hard, having saddle marks and injured hoofs. He was removed to Beecroft's, where he subsequently died.
Charles Hill, a stable proprietor at Bel- lerive, stated that he had charge of the horse for one week prior to its going to defendant. He rode it twice a day to water at a canter, the distance being about half a mile. The horse appeared all right when he had it, but he would not have cared to have given more than £7 for it had it been offered him for sale.
Thos. Ed. Dossitor said that the day he went for the horse to defendant, a young fellow was sent for it, who treated it rather roughly, trotting it round the paddock three or four times. When the horse was brought to him it was limping, and he noticed the marks upon it descibed by previous wit-nesses. The shoulder of the horse was lumpy, as though it had been jumped. He never noticed any of the marks upon it before it went to defendant.
Robert Wood, cab proprietor, valued the horse at £25, and said he would have been willing to pay £20 for it himself when it was sound.
P.C. Carpenter, City Police Force, said he had had 13 years experience with horses in a cavalrv regiment, and five years as a trainer. He considered the horse a good one prior to seeing it at Beecroft's. After seeing its condition there, he was of opinion that the horse had been " ridden to death " on a hard round, one hoof being almost worn away. He also corroborated the statements made as to the marks on the horses body. Prior to its injuries he con- sidered £28 would be a fair market value. His HONOR : Supposing the horse was 13yrs. or 14yrs. old, what would it be worth ?
Witness : Just the same.
Wm. Beecroft, a farrier of 27 years standing, said when he first knew the horse in good condition he valued it at £20. When he was called to the horse on January 2, he found the insensitive sole of the horses feet worn off, causing inflammation. He called the attention of Mr.Dossitor to saddle and curb marks, and then with extreme difficulty got the horse the 20 yards to his place, where he treated it. It could not stand on its feet, and on the fourth day when the horse moved the hoofs were coming off behind, and two hours afterwards the horse dropped dead. The condition of the horses feet led him to believe that the horse had been overridden without shoes. Witness afterwards went over to Bellerive to see the well that defendant said the horse had fallen down. The well was 12ft, or 15ft. deep, and even had the horse fallen down it, it would not have caused the injuries to the feet. The well appeared to him to have been an old quarry. It was close to the house. Cross-examined : He was of opinion that the whole of the in- juries described could be caused by the horse being over-ridden. There were poles across the well, and if the horse fell on them it might cause some of the injuries, but not to the hoofs. The bruises might have been caused by the horse struggling to get up. The curb mark and girth mark could not have been caused by the well.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for the defence, contended that the horse had never been over-ridden, but that the injuries were the result of an accident. The well spoken of had been covered by poles and boards, and by tome means the horse jumped on to these boards, which gave way,and left it suspended for half an hour, quite long enough to cause the injuries, with the ex-ception of the hoofs, about which they knew nothing. The value of the horse had been over estimated, and they would prove it to be so.
George H. McDermott, butcher, Bellerive, said that in November last plaintiff's maid arranged with his brother about using the horse. He saw it once whilst it was running on his brother's farm, and it then appeared to be in good condition. He never rode it, or authorised any one else to do so. He had made the same answer to plaintiff when she spoke to him afterwards about the horse's condition. The day after the horse was sent to the farm plaintiff's maid came and asked him to remove the shoes, as Mrs. Hinsby said the horse suffered from bad feet. He told her that it was too late to take off the shoes, as the horse was already in the bush. It was also told him that Mrs. Hinsby would be glad to get £20 for the horse. Cross-examined: He did not take charge of the horse. He had seen it at Hill's stables prior to its being sent to their farm, and it was then in fairly good condi-tion.
Alfred McDermott said that last year he had the horse for eight weeks running on his farm. It always appeared in fair condition. He never rode it, nor was it ever ridden, as far as he knew. It accidentally fell down a well on the farm, and when it was got out it walked stiffly and appeared to be hurt. That was about a week prior to its removal. Cross-examined : The horse appeared to get better after a day or two, and Mrs. Hinsby was not informed of the accident at the time, He believed, that the horse cast its shoes, and did not see anything the matter with the horse until after the ac- cident. He did not see the curb and other marks on the horse when in his possession He only saw the marks on the hips where the horse had evidently scraped himself in trying to get up, He was not aware of any- body riding that horse to Richmond and back.
F. McDermott, brother of last witness, said he resided with the previous witness at Rosny Farm. The usual care had been taken of plaintiffs horse. The horse, however, jumped on to a covered well, and fell across the hole where he laid for about half an hour. Tho horse was very weak when it was got out, and its hoofs seemed to be cut about. He saw the horse at Richmond on Boxing Day, and on inquiry found that his brother Frank, a boy, had ridden it there and back. He rode back with his brother, and the journey from Richmond to Bellerive occupied about two hours and a half. He never knew the horse to have been ridden on any other occasion. His brother had no permission to ride the horse to Richmond. Before the horse fell into the well he would have valued it at £7 or £8. It was about 17 or 18 years old. Cross examined : They started from Richmond after the sports, about 4.30 next morning, but they did not gallop the horse after leaving the Horse Shoe Hotel to reach home by a certain hour. He had told both his brothers that the horse had been ridden to Richmond. He did not notice any marks on the horse when it came on the run, but he noticed one or two marks when it left. He thought the hoofs had beon injured by falling into the well. He could not say how the shoes came off, but he knew that it had no shoes on when it was ridden to Richmond. Asked if he did not think that was a cruel thing to do and ought not his brother to be prose- cuted by tho Sciety for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. . His HONOR: He is hardly likely to give an opinion on that point. (Laughter.)
Henry Lamb valued tho horse at £12, and Oswald Park, veterinary surgeon, said that the condition of the horse, as described by witness Beecroft, would not be caused by over-riding. He should have been very sorry to give a definite opinion of the cause of death without a post mortem. Falling into the well would not produce the injuries to the feet, but it might produce the other injuries. The accident might have been such as to give a spinal injury, and thus cause death. Witness then produced a hoof, and described the process by which it could be worn down until the sensitive sole was reached. He was of opinion that overriding a horse without shoes might lead to its hoofs being worn down. Cross-examined :
If the horse had been ridden continually on a hard road inflammation of the feet might be caused. Inflammation of the feet pro- duced symptomatic fever, and eventually if the horse did not get well, affected the brain through the nervous system, thus causing death.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL : What do you take to be the value of the horse ? Witness : £15.
Counsel on either side having addressed the jury, His HONOR summed up and pointed out that the question at issue was whether defendant had exercised sufficient care in looking after the horse, and whether proper precautions to prevent it being in- jured in any manner had been taken. In assessing damages a fair value should be allowed for the horse, the veterinary surgeon's bill had been rendered necessary, but the 12s. claimed back from defendant after his having kept the horse he thought could not be allowed.
The jury retired for a few minutes, and on returning into Court said they found for plaintiff with £15 for the horse, and £3 1s.
9d. veterinary surgeon's account ; total,
£18 1s. 9d.
A BOLT.-Yesterday morning, shortly after 1O o'clock, a horse attached to a pagnal, both the property of R. Walker and Co., bolted from their stables, Watchorn-Btreet, heading in the direction of Bathurst-street. Down the latter street it rapidly increased its pace, and as it neared Barnett's establishment at tho corner of Elizabeth-street matters looked bad for the verandah. At this juncture, however, a dog sprang out, frightening the animal still more, and causing it to swerve to the left It made a dash across Elisabeth-street, and with one jump passed between the verandah posts of Mr. lfe's shop on the opposite corner, landing right into the window amongst the wares, terrifying those who were in the place at the time. The pain of its wounds, for the thick plate glass bristled round it like so many bayonets, caused the horse to back out, and in doing so it fell over into the street and was quickly secured. When unharnessed it was found to have a deep wound on the neck, another on the withers, and a most severe cut on the near leg just above the knee. Mr. Beecroft, veterinary surgeon, has it in charge, and says it will be some weeks before it can possibly work again. Mr. Ife estimates his loss at £25. Event, The Mercury, 5 May 1890
BY APPOINTMENT Event, The Mercury, 2 Jul 1890
W. BEECROFT, 84, BATHURST-STREET, Thirty Years' Practical Experience as VETERINARY. Horses, Cattle, and Dogs treated with skill and judgment. N.B.-Horses attended to in Town or Country on the Shortest Notice. 71
SURGICAL SKILL. TO HORSE OWNERS AND OTHERS. Event, The Mercury, 16 Jul 1898
One of many other Testimonials received by Mr. W. Beecroft during his practice as a Veterinary Surgeon in Hobart :-I had oc- casion recently to place in his hands a valuable horse which had met with a severe injury. It was this : One of my horses was kicked by another with both feet, causing a severe fracture above the knee, which was considered incurable by many experts, and the horse was recommended by several to be shot, and through Mr. Beecroft's wonderful skill and treatment I can produce the horse as well and able to work as ever, and I could recommend any farmer or dairyman to secure his services should they have a valu- able animal in danger.
WALTER F. REYNOLDS,
g!93_Black Brush.
CANCER IN CATTLE. Event, The Mercury, 23 Jul 1898
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MERCURY.
Sir,-Allow me to call your attention, in a list of testimonials to Mr. W. Beecroft (veterinary surgeon), in the Tasmanian Mail of the 1st inst., to one given by Colonel Cruickshank for Mr. Beecroft's successful removal of a cancer from a milch cow.
As a farmer, and one who has lost a near and dear relative from the above dread disease, I consider it my duty to ask those whose duty it is to have the welfare and
health of the city of Hobart at heart whether animals infected with cancer should be allowed to live or not?
I have myself within the last two years, killed and burned (without skinning even) two beasts that were infected with what I thought might be cancer.
As a fellow being I would respectfully ask Colonel Cruickshank to destroy that cow, if only for the sake of himself and family. -Yours, etc., FARMER
P.S. -This is meant to reflect no dis-credit on Mr Beecroft, who, I believe, is a good vet, but I doubt his ability to cure cancer in a beast when it cannot yet be cured in a human being.
F.
July 4.
CANCER IN CATTLE. Event, The Mercury, 6 Jan 1899
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MERCURY.
SIR,-A letter appealed in your issue of 16th of present month re "Cancer in Cattle," signed " Farmer " I do not wish to occupy your space in this matter, but I feel it my duty to reply in some way to the letter as written. My experience has proved my qualification, and re cancer I may say that if your correspondent, as signing himself "Farmer," wished to know, or wishes to know, I am in a position, with my experience, of meeting " cancer" cases every day of my life. Human beings are allowed to be practised on without fear of death ; while dumb animals "are allowed to be murdered." My experience and proof should be sufficient to satisfy all owners of animals, without respect to "human beings" whom I know nothing about what- ever.
-Yours, etc. W. BEECROFT,
Vet. Surgeon. Liverpool-street, July 21.
A Bolt. -Yesterday forenoon, a bolt, which was happily unattended with any accident, occurred in Liverpool street. The runaway was harnessed to a landau owned by His Excellency the Governor, and was standing outside Beecroft's shoeing forge, Liverpool street, the driver having left it for a moment, when it became affrighted and bolted. Its career w as short, somebody stopping the horse at Barrack street. Event, The Mercury, 13 Mar 1899
A COMPLAINT. Event, The Mercury, 17 Mar 1900
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MERCURY.
Sir,-Will you allow me to state matter of facts, viz.: I called at the Brighton Telegraph Office 5min. to 8 on March 10 to call W. Beecroft to a horse that was seriously injured. One of the officials looked out of the window but never came to see what was wanted. This is not the first time that it has occurred. I should recommend that a more suitable and I obliging postmistress be appointed.
Yours,
etc., HENRY E. GAGE.
Brighton, March 11.
NOTICE.-W. BEECROFT & SONS, Obituary, The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.), 6 Jul 1901
having given up their SHOEING BUSINESS, have much pleasure in recommending Mr. WILLMOTT to their very numerous friends as Shoeing Smith.
Also W. BEECROFT may be consulted on all Veterinary cases at Mr. Willmott's forge, Liverpool-street ; or at his private residence, "Woodford Cottage," 171, Melville-street.
BEECROFT. - On Friday, July 5, 1901, at his residence, 171 Melville-street, William, the beloved husband of Kate Beecroft, in the 56th year of his age. Funeral will leave the above address on Sunday afternoon, at 2.30, for Cornelian Bay Cemetery. Obituary, The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.), 20 Jul 1901
BEECROFT. - On Friday, July 5, 1901, at his residence, 171 Melville-street, William, the beloved husband of Kate Beecroft, in the 56th year of his age. Event, The Mercury, 23 Jul 1901
THE Practice of the late W. Beecroft, Veterinary Surgeon, is still carried on by his sons. 171 Melville-street. Event, The Mercury, 6 Aug 1901
FOR SALE - Two Pairs of Black-smiths' Bellows and Anvil. Apply to Beecroft Bros., 171 Melville-st. Event, The Mercury, 7 Sep 1901
IN the MATTER of the LIQUIDA- Event, The Mercury, 1 Oct 1901
TION of the AFFAIRS of "BEE- CROFT AND DAVIS."
To JOHN DAVIS, lately of Gormanston,
in Tasmania, Baker.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Application has been made to the Court in the matter of the above liqui- dation by the Trustee thereunder for directions as to dealing with the sepa- rate estate of the said John Davis, which application stands adjourned to FRI- DAY the thirteenth September 1901 at 11 o'clock and you the said John Davis are required to attend such application and in default of your so doing such order will be made as to the Court may seem just.
Dated this sixth day of September 1901.
C. H. ELLISTON AND SON,
Attorneys for the Trustee.
HORSES and Cattle treated in all diseases by Beecroft Bros., 109 Bathurst-street.
Parents
Father: William Beecroft
Mother: Mary Cosgrove
Spouses and Children
1. *Kate Dean 1
Marriage: 25 Sep 1867 - Launceston, Tasmania, Australia 1
Status:
Children:
1. William Woollands Beecroft 1
2. Arthur Dean Beecroft 1
3. Henry Boswell Beecroft 1
4. Frank Romney Beecroft 1
5. Elizabeth Ann Dorothy Beecroft 1
6. Kate Dean Beecroft 1
7. Thomas Beecroft 1
8. Joseph Beecroft 1
9. Olive Beecroft 1
Notes
Death Notes:
171 Melville St
Sources
1. LDS - IGI Index (familysearch.org).