Tag Archives: Gay

The Execution of Edward Feeney 1872

THE CRIME

The Argus (Melbourne)

7 March 1872

THE TRAGEDY IN THE TREASURY-GARDENS.

Edward Feeney, the man who was arrested on Tuesday on suspicion of shooting the man Charles Marks, who was found dead in the Treasury-reserve, was taken before the City Bench yesterday on a charge of murder. He made no remark, and Mr. F. Stephen appeared on his behalf. The Bench remanded the prisoner to the inquest, which will probably take place this afternoon.

The following further particulars have been obtained :- The two on Tuesday afternoon, about half-past 1, went to the shop of

Mr. Davies, photographer, Bourke-street, and had their portraits taken. They said they wanted to be taken “in action” with

pistols they had, and Mr. Davies jocularly suggested that they should represent bushrangers, and take their coats off. They took

off their coats, and were “larking” with each other, playing with the pistols. One of them suddenly presented a pistol at the head of the operator, and snapped the trigger, but the weapon was not loaded.

Feeney seemed to be aping the swell, and the other was rather sullen. They were taken standing hand in hand, and also in a very curious position which they chose themselves. They stood within arm’s length of each other, face to face, and each pressed the muzzle

of his pistol against the other’s breast.In this position their portraits were taken.

Marks, who was very bounceable, having given a deposit of 10s., had first had his portrait taken alone in a standing position. The two were not sober, and were consequently so unsteady that the photographs were somewhat blurred. They left instructions for a couple of copies of each picture to be prepared. One of them had something like a powder-flask in his pocket. The following is a copy of the

letter found in Mr. Clay’s wine-shop:

“Melbourne, March 6.

My Dear Mother, –

I send you this. You will never hear from me

again. When you hear from Jack Burton

I shall be in eternity. Send out money

to put a headstone to us. Two of us die as

brothers.

P.S. – Leave Louise what you were

intending on leaving me. I can say no

more, and I am, dear, yours while on earth

CHARLEY.

Heaven have mercy, and receive

our souls.”

A young man named Henry James, living at the Great Britain Hotel, Flinders-street, who knew the strange couple, has stated that the cause of the tragic occurrence was the two men being in love with one woman, who was employed at the hospital. Marks told him they were both courting this woman, and that it was not the first time they had fixed their affections upon the same object, both having courted one girl in Portsmouth.

One of these women was a Jewess. Marks tried to prove, in a conversation, that he was unaware of his chum’s being in love with the same girl, and that Feeney was much annoyed at this selection of one woman by both occurring so often,and said that, in consequence, the acquaintance between the two must cease. After Feeney took the poison at the hospital,Marks, who was then on board the Edina,

took some rat poison, but vomited it, and then tried to cut his throat with a razor, but failed. He afterwards said that it was Feeney’s attempt which made him try self destruction, and he told James that he intended suicide, and gave James a letter, which he said was important, for Feeney.

He said, when the Edina got to Warrnambool, he would either go up the country or something surprising would be heard about him. When James remarked on the folly of the proceeding,

Marks said, “Oh, it’s all right,” and rushed away. Marks had the woman in question on board ship on Sunday week, and was very frightened that Feeney should hear of it before Marks himself should tell him.

Feeney and Marks slept in the same room in the Great Britain Hotel on Sunday night, and were heard talking over this double mutual murder, which Marks at other times made no secret of, speaking openly about the proposal.

James is to be a witness at the inquest.

marks feeney 2

THE COURT

The Argus (Melbourne)

18 APRIL 1872

 THE TREASURY-GARDENS MURDER

THE TREASURY-GARDENS MURDER.

Edward Feeney was indicted for the wilful murder of Charles Marks on the 5th March.Mr. O’Loghlen prosecuted; Mr. Moles-worth (who was instructed by the Crown) defended the prisoner.

The witnesses examined for the prosecution were— Dr. W. McCrea, Thos. Ambrose, gardener at the Treasury gardens; Michael Cain, another gardener; Benjamin Bride, caretaker at the gardens; Nicholas Bickford, Crown lands bailiff; John Balfour, police constable; W.A. Bradford, surgeon at the Melbourne Hospital; Dr. Edward Barker; James Stewart, photographer (assistant to Mr. Davies, Bourke street); A. Clay, wineseller, Bourke-street east; Frederick Rutherford, hall porter at the Melbourne Hospital; and Anne Mackenzie, formerly nurse at the hospital, a witness who was only found a few minutes before the case for the Crown was brought to a conclusion.

The case as proved by these witnesses was that Feeney had been for about l8 months a wards man at the hospital. Marks was wards-man for about a year.

Both left about the beginning of February. After Marks left he was employed as steward on board the Edina steamer, and whilst thus engaged he attempted to commit suicide. None of the witnesses spoke of this as to their own knowledge, but Clay said he had heard it. Feeney had also tried to commit suicide by taking laudanum, and Mr. Bradford said there was great difficulty in saving his life. On Sunday, the 3rd March, Feeney and Marks were seen together on board the Edina. On the following Tuesday, about half-past 1, they went together to Mr. Davies, to be photographed. Mr. Davies asked how they wished to be taken. Marks replied that he wished to be taken in action.

Davies answered, “What, as young bushrangers?” Stewart then asked how they would be taken, and Marks said with the pistols pointing at each other. Stewart told them if they wished to get into one carte de visite they must not stand too far apart.

Marks replied, “Oh no, we won’t stand far apart; we want the pistols pointing at the breasts.” They then placed the pistols close to each other’s breasts. They then had another photograph representing each as shaking hands with the other. Feeney objected to the photograph being taken, but, Marks insisted upon it, and spoke in a very commanding voice. Marks then had a picture of himself taken alone.

According to Stewart he was very talkative and excited, Feeney being rather depressed. Between 3 and 4 o’clock on the same day Feeney and Marks went to Clay’s wine-shop. Clay knew them both for about nine months. Marks ordered two glasses of wine. They both went into a sitting room, and Marks got pens and ink from Clay.

Both were engaged for some time in writing. Marks said they were going home. During the conversation that took place Feeney held up a pistol, cocked and loaded apparently to the muzzle, as there was some blue paper sticking out of it. Clay seized hold of the weapon, and Marks told Feeney to put it up. Marks also had a pistol in his breast. As they were leaving the shop, Feeney said, “You’ll see me again this evening, Clay;” to which Marks rejoined, “No, you never shall.” Nothing more was seen of them till about 25 minutes past 4, when the report of a pistol was heard in the Treasury-gardens.

 Dr. McCrea, Ambrose Cain, Balfour, and Bickford, with a number of other persons, rushed to the spot. Feeney and Marks were lying under a large willow, beside an artificial watercourse, or creek. The “creek” was 3in. or 4in. deep, and about 18in. wide.

Both Marks and Feeney were lying on their backs, and about 6ft. distant from each other. Between the two was a loaded pistol, capped and cocked. This pistol was about 2ft. 9in. from Marks, and less than 4ft. From Feeney. Portion of another pistol—the one that was fired, and which had exploded—was found in the creek, about 4ft. From Feeney, and 10ft. from Marks. Marks was  quite dead. His left breast was exposed, portion of his shirt having been on fire. Feeney was lying smoking a cigar. Dr.McCrea asked who shot the deceased. Prisoner replied he shot himself. Cain also asked who shot the deceased, but got no answer. Cain tore off a portion of the burning shirt and threw it into the creek. Some linen material was afterwards picked up there, all scorched, which Cain thought was what he had thrown away.

Bickford also asked the prisoner who shot Marks, and Feeney replied, “We came here to die together. He tried to shoot me, but could not.” Bickford said, “But you shot him though.” To this he made no reply. Bickford expressed an opinion that both were lying down when the shot was fired, as the branch of the willow under which they were was only about 3ft. from the ground.

Balfour, the constable, said that when he arrived he asked Feeney “Are you wounded?” Feeney

took part of a cigar out of his mouth, and said

“No.” The constable, on examining him, found

embedded in the breast of his coat a small

piece of wood, part of the exploded pistol. As

he was pulling out the fragment, Feeney said,

“It’s all right; I’m an old campaigner.”

Balfour also noticed that his right forefinger was cut. He found on him a powder flask, 15s. in silver, a bank pass-book, and three letters—

13th February, from Marks ( To Edward Feeney – Ned) 

27th February, from Marks ( To Edward Feeney – Ned) 

And the 28th February, from a woman, under the signature of “A.”

This last letter Anne Mackenzie acknowledged to be in her writing. It was as follows:—

“Melbourne, 28th February.

” Ned, you wrong me very much when you speak about Marks. I asure [sic] you this would be the last of my thoughts. If there was not a nother man in Melbourne, I would not cast a thought over him. Walk with him that I did twice, but never a gain Ned, let me know When you can see me a gain once more, and then as you like let us be as strangers, and believe to be yours &c, one who Wish you Well. A”

The other letters were .”S S. Edina, 13th February, 1872.

” Dear Ned,

—I have wanted a serious chat with you for some days, and have not had the chance, so I have written what I wanted to say. Ned, we are much alike; placed in this way, we have both lived, but cannot obtain our ambition; therefore we shall both remain single. I want to know if you like me well enough to accede to the proposal I make, that is, to remain fast friends, not friends to-day and to-morrow, but for ever. I do not attempt to deny, but am proud to say, I love you as a brother, and perhaps more, for I don’t know a brother’s love, never having had one, and I know you are fond of me, or at least I hope you are. Ned, we are both getting old enough to look out for the future, so I want us not ever to part. I am, as I told you before, expecting at the death of my poor old mother about £800 to £1,000, but in what way I am to receive it I cannot say; but when I know you shall know also. Of course, when we have sufficient to start business with, we will, that is if you intend to be the friend I desire, which I sincerely hope you do; but think, Ned, if you like me well enough for that; I hope you do. If I go home you come. If you go I come with you, but as we neither have many friends we care much for, I think we might do far worse than be united in close brotherhood. If, as I said before, you can without any scruple say yes, do. I shall be waiting in dread, for fear of no.

Answer this in the same manner, by writing. Hoping, please God, you accede to my proposition, which I’ll close, and believe me to remain your sincere friend until death does part us, Charlie.

I mean every word, and more than is here written,

—Yours, CHARLIE.”

“Don’t be advised by any one, but let it come from your own heart.”

“S.S. Edina,

Tuesday, 27.February

“My dear Ned,

—I was glad you got in all right last night, not but what I should be very glad for you to leave, but I should like you to leave on your own account.

“Ned, you know the strain you were in at — time. Now, as you are my friend, don’t do anything of the sort. If you do I shall not remain long. Ned, now I know the reason of your determination, and that we  are, what by the blessing of God we shall remain, true to the core. I feel happy, and shall sail to-day with a light heart. “Fancy the good reception we gave each other in the morning, and then at night, and that you and I are the same as before. “Ned, for my sake don’t do anything to yourself. When you look at your money you will find you are a note short. Perhaps you remember my taking it. I only took it, Ned, as you should not lose it. When I see you on Friday I will return it. “Hoping you will enjoy every blessing life can afford, I close. I remain yours truly,

“CHARLIE.

“P.S.—My hand shakes so from taking a little too much last night—CHARLIE.”

On Marks were found a D box of percussion caps, a memorandum-book, a bag containing swan shot, two letters, and 14s. 8d. The letters were said by Rutherford, of the hospital, to be in Feeney’s handwriting:—

“Melbourne

February 20th  1872.

“My dear Charlie,—I have at last come to the conclusion to answer your letter, and I dare say you will brand me as one of the most deceitful beings in existence. “I would have replied sooner, but I was trying to battle with myself; and as you noticed me every night so very dull, I suppose you won’t now wonder at the cause. I knew I would have to separate from you, and I did not like to mention it. The cause of my determination must remain a secret; and I trust that any little matters known to you will also remain secret. “Your kindness to me during and since my illness I shall never forget, also your offer last night, which I could not accept. “As I told you, I have come to the conclusion to remain in the hospital, as I consider it would be ungrateful for me to leave after the attention I got during my late illness. “Wishing you ever y happiness that the world can afford, I remain, yours,

“EDWARD.

“Your trunk I shall put a rope on. I dare say Jack will see it safe. Three shirts I have sent to the wash which I shall take an opportunity of forwarding next week. With regard to the little running account between us for tobacco, washing, and cash, let Jack know, and I shall forward it as soon as I possibly can.—E.”

“24th February, 1872.

“Dear Charlie,—

I received yours of the 20th February. I regret much that you should think I am so frivolous as to trifle with your feelings. As I said in my last letter, I am sorry that we should part, but fate has decreed it so, however unpleasant it may be to both of us.

“What I said in mine of 18th inst. I mean. “Trusting you will forget my unkind treatment to you, I remain, &c,

“EDWARD.”

pistol

The loaded pistol was drawn by the constable, who found in it nine swan shot, similar to those found on Marks; the wadding was white paper.

Dr. Barker made the postmortem examination on Marks. He found powder ingrained on the right hand; the left hand was across the breast. There were three gunshot wounds superficial on the left arm—one at the elbow, one in the centre of the fore arm, one about an inch lower down, and one between the thumb and the forefinger.

On the right side of his chest and on the breast there was ingrained powder; on the left side several scars. There were nine perforations in a square of two inches. Three of the shot had passed through the apex of the heart; that was apparently the fatal wound, paralysing the heart’s action.

Two of the pellets had also passed through the stomach and one was found in the liver. Seven of the shots altogether were found; the other two were still in the body. The weapon from which they were fired must have been about two or three feet from the body. The wounds could not have been self-inflicted.

On this evidence, the case for the Crown was shaped thus, that for some reason which could not be explained Marks had a hold over Feeney, and that Feeney was for some reason desirous of getting Marks out of the way. There was also probably some jealousy between them about the girl Annie. Whatever may have been the motive, there was little doubt that it was by Feeney’s hands that Marks came to his death.

That Marks inflicted the wounds himself was disproved by the evidence. There could be only two lines of defence. One that Feeney was insane—of this there was not a shadow of evidence, and the jury might dismiss it from their consideration—the other that the shot was fired in self defence.

But this was contradicted by Feeney’s own statement that Marks had tried to shoot him and failed, whether from want of nerve or having changed his mind did not appear. As to both persons determining to commit a sort of cross murder, the law was clear that where parties went out with such a design and only one was killed, the survivor was guilty of murder.

Mr. MOLESWORTH addressed the jury for the defence, remarking that the difficulties of his position were considerably increased by the

fact that neither he nor the attorney could get the prisoner to give any account of the transaction which would guide them in shaping the defence.

All he could do, there-fore, was to watch the case, and to make such suggestions on the evidence as might assist the jury in arriving at a just decision.

He contended, first, that Marks inflicted the wounds himself; and, secondly, that on the evidence the only conclusion to be arrived at

was that Feeney was insane. Feeney had no motive whatever for committing the crime.

He appeared to have been very friendly with Marks—so friendly that Marks offered to share £1,000 with him. Was it likely that he would voluntarily kill a person who was on such terms of friend- ship with him. The motives of jealousy were altogether disproved, for till the last both were on very friendly terms.

That he never contemplated committing any crime was shown by his telling Clay he would see him again that evening. He argued, therefore, that Marks had killed himself; and that unless it was shown Feeney had persuaded or encouraged him to the act, he could not be found guilty. Instead of Feeney encouraging Marks, all the evidence was that Marks was the one who possessed the most influence.

As to his insanity, he urged that it was not probable any one in his right senses would commit such an act, and Feeney’s whole demeanour from the time of the occurrence till that hour was proof of his not being in his right mind. Of all the persons who were in court Feeney was the one who was most unmoved at this trial. He concluded by asking the jury to find the prisoner not guilty on the ground of insanity, when he would be confined in a lunatic asylum for the rest of his life.

Mr. O’LOGHLEN submitted that the jury could not consider the question of insanity, as there was no evidence of it.

His HONOUR, in summing up, said that there were two defences—one that Marks did the act himself, the other insanity. The latter might be disposed of at once. Evidence should hve been brought forward for the defence to show his state of mind before and

after the occurrence. It would never do to say that a man was insane because he committed a crime, otherwise there would be a direct encouragement to crime, and the more atrocious the offence, the more reason for saying a man was insane. It would be said that a sane man would never murder his mother, nor a sane clergyman murder his wife.

The question of the prisoner’s sanity need not therefore be gone into. The other question was whether Marks destroyed himself. It was said, that as these two were friends, why should Feeney kill the other, and kill a man who offered to share £1,000 with him.

But look at Feeney’s letter, in which he declined the offer. The inference from it was, that he was trying to get rid of Marks—possibly in a gentle way, still that he was trying to edge off from him. Marks’s letters were all more warm than those of the other. There was no doubt that all through that day of the 5th March the prisoner was under Marks’s influence. Marks was the spokesman on all occasions, and once insisted on him doing what he wanted.

All through there was for some reason a dominance by Marks  over the prisoner. The law as to two persons going out with a common purpose of taking away their lives was this—that if one died, and the survivor, repenting at the last moment, saved his own life, the law would demand that life from him afterwards.  But the case for the Crown was not put on that footing; and it would be better, therefore, for the jury only to consider it in the aspect in which the Crown did present it, namely, whether the wounds were self-inflicted or not. If they found that Feeney fired the shot, they ought to find him guilty.

The jury, after deliberating 20 minutes, returned into court with a verdict of “Guilty,” The foreman of the jury stated that the scorched linen handed to them as part of the deceased’s shirt was really part of a handkerchief.

In reply to the usual question as to what he had to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, prisoner said he had nothing to say. His HONOUR, addressing the prisoner, said:

I really have not much to say to you. But I do think that if the statement you made is true, that both of you went out to die together, it was a cowardly act on your part when you found that the deceased’s life was gone you did not take the pistol and blow your own brains out.

Probably this is the severest thing I could say to you. But it was a cowardly thing of you to go there at all; and it was cowardly in you not to per- form your part that you had agreed to do.

You took his life when he could not return the fire. What your motives were for going there are inscrutable; they are known only to you and to him, but they must have been powerful motives.

Prisoner was then sentenced to death in the usual form. He was removed to gaol; and was as much unmoved by the sentence

as by anything that occurred during the trial.

The Court adjourned till next day.

POST CASE EDITORIAL

The Argus (Melbourne)

19 April  1872

THE EDITOR

We have always been of opinion that a judge should feel himself capable of rising superior to public opinion when  his duty demands that he should do so. This virtue, however, may be exaggerated into a vice, and we fear that his Honour Mr. Justice WILLIAMS is prone to such amplification of the judicial faculty.

The way in which his Honour elects to ride roughshod over the proprieties of the Bench has become of late unpleasantly marked. Not long since we were compelled to remark upon the eccentric notions of his Honour as evinced in his sentence of DRAPER, and now a still more startling evidence of his peculiarity of temper has been thrust upon us by his alarming utterances when sentencing FEENEY on Wednesday for the murder of MARKS. 

There is no need to comment upon the merits of the case. It appears from the evidence that FEENEY and MARKS went into the Treasury-gardens resolved upon mutual murder. Each was simultaneously to fire at the other, and so bring about simultaneous death. It would seem that—whether by accident or design —we do not pretend to say—FEENEY fired first, and shot his companion. The jury properly found a verdict of ” Wilful Murder,” and it became the [duty] of Mr. Justice WILLIAMS to pass the just [unclear] sentence of the law upon the survivor of this strange duel.

His Honour seizes the opportunity of displaying his opposition to commonplace views on the subject of suicide, by indulging in the following observations upon the conduct of the prisoner :-

” I ” really have not much to say to you ;

” but I do think that if the statement  you ” made is true, that if both of you went ” out to die together, it was a cowardly “act on your part, when you found ” that the deceased’s life was gone, that ” you did not take the pistol and blow ” your own brains out. Probably this “is the severest thing I could say to ” you.” It seems to us to be the most foolish thing that could possibly be said to anybody.

Whatever may be the private opinion of Mr. Justice WILLIAMS on the question of the cowardice of a man who refuses to kill himself after having failed to be killed by somebody else, the Bench is of all places in the world the precise spot where he should have refrained from

uttering such a sentiment. Suicide is recognised by the English law as a punishable crime, and for a judge to publicly call a man a coward because he did not break the law is an indefensible piece of folly. But when we remember that this judge was at that instant addressing a murderer for the purpose of sentencing him to death the folly becomes a public scandal which cannot fail to bring discredit upon the judicial office.

 We wonder how Mr. Justice WILLIAMS will justify himself when it next becomes his duty to reluctantly punish some courageous person for “an attempt at suicide.”

The law of partnership seems to have been intruding itself into his Honour’s mind, and having a dim recollection that by civil law a  ” contracting party ” is compelled to perform his contract in all particulars the unfortunate dulness of his reasoning faculty induces him to apply the argument to murder. If Mr. Justice WILLIAMS is determined to bring his office into contempt, nothing that we can hope to say will turn him from his purpose. We can only regret that we are charged with the painful duty of recording such exhibitions of indiscreet whimslcality —prejudicial alike to the Bench and to society at large.

VictorianCollections-medium

The Argus (Melbourne)

7 May 1872

The condemned man Edward Feeney, who  is to be executed on Tuesday morning for the murder of Charles Marks in the Treasury- gardens, still maintains the reticent and  almost indifferent demeanour which has  characterised him since the day of his conviction.

During the last week he received a letter from his mother in Ireland, which   he was permitted to answer, and a re- quest he made for the contents of his Communication to be kept secret, was com- plied with by the authorities. The Rev. Mr. Lordan and another Roman Catholic clergy- man attend regularly on the prisoner, who pays earnest attention to their ministrations. In the course of the week Feeney was visited by an old soldier comrade of the 18th Regi- ment, to which Feeney formerly belonged, and also by Miss Annie McKenzie, with whom Feeney and Marks were acquainted. He declined taking any exercise on Thursday and Friday, and seemed rather duller than usual, but on Saturday he again took the usual exercise allowed to prisoners in his situation.

 The warrant for his execution has been received by Mr. Costieau.

 THE HANGING

The Argus (Melbourne)

14 May 1872

Edward Feeney will be executed at 10 o’clock this morning for the murder of Charles Marks, which was committed in the Treasury-gardens. The condemned man was last night calm, self-possessed, and cheerful. After 9 o’clock last evening Mr. Castieau, Governor of the gaol, remarked to him that he was glad to see him so cheerful; and Feeney replied that he was quite resigned to his fate, but that he wished before dying to state calmly that there was not the slightest ground for the suspicion which he was told existed that there had been any relations beyond those of ordinary friendship between him and Marks.

He thought it was unfair that any reports damaging to his character should have been circulated without his being given an opportunity of disproving them. He then spoke disparagingly of Marks, and said the latter had professed to be very fond of him, and was very troublesome in consequence. He requested that this statement should be made public, and Mr. Castieau promised that it should.

He was then advised to get asleep, and said he would go to bed in about an hour.

Mr. Castieau states that, from his experience of the manner of condemned criminals, especially Catholics, immediately before execution, and from the solemn manner in which Feeney spoke, he believes that what he said was true. This statement, it maybe observed, even if true, does not affect the question of the murder, except in so far as it tends to remove one motive which has been assigned for the crime.

The Argus (Melbourne)

15 May 1872

The execution of Edward Feeney for the murder of Charles Marks in the Treasury- 
gardens on the 6th March last, took place yesterday morning in the Melbourne Gaol at 
the appointed hour of 10 o’clock. The sheriff (Mr. W. Wright) was present, as were also the
governor of the gaol, Drs. Barker and Moloney, the representatives of the press, and 
a few other persons.

When the prisoner stepped out of his cell he appeared to be quite resigned to the awful punishment about to be  inflicted upon him, and submitted to the pinioning operations of Bamford without any visible signs of emotion or fear. The Rev. Mr. Lordan, the Roman Catholic chaplain of the gaol, who had been in close attendance on the prisoner all the morning, read prayers during the whole time he was on the scaffold. When the drop had fallen there were slight spasmodic muscular contractions of the body, which lasted for about two minutes, 
but it did not seem that there were any remains of life, or that the contractions 
were different from what are sometimes seen in the bodies of other strongly-formed men in 
similar positions.

All the particulars of the history of the deceased man which are known in this colony have been already published. He was born in Ireland in 1834, came out to Victoria with the 18th Regiment, in which he was a private, in the year 1853, and was for some time latterly employed in the Mebourne Hospital. No public confession was made by him excepting the statement to Mr. 
Castieau published in yesterday’s Argus, in which he denied another crime that had commonly been imputed to him besides that of murder. 

marks feeney 1

THE WEEKLY

18th  MAY 1872

THE EXECUTION OF FEENEY

On Tuesday morning the sentence of death was carried out against Edward Feeney, the man who murdered Charles Marks, in the Treasury Gardens, in March last.

The attendance within the gaol was confined to a limited number of persons, consisting chiefly of those whose professional, duties required .their attendance, and -a. Few others who had gamed admission from motives of curiosity.

There were groups /of people outside the gaol at the time announced for the execution sufficiently large to remind one of those happily bygone days when the

Horsemonger lane gaol and Newgate presented the horrid spectacle of a malefactor swinging in mid air over the heads of the assembled thousands.

The postern door of the .gaol was also besieged by applicants for admission ; but none were let in without showing some good reason why they should be so.

At 10 o’clock the door of the condemned cell was opened for the exit of Feeney, who was preceded by Father Lordan.

The culprit displayed as much indifference as a man possibly could who knew that in another five minutes he would be dangling a

Corpse  at .the end of a few yards of rope.

 The state of mind that enabled him to coolly indulge in a cigar on the broad of his back in the Treasury Gardens, while yet the smoke from his murderous pistol was wreathing above the body of his murdered comrade— the apathy that made him, apparently, the most indifferent man present at the coronial inquiry into the cause of Marks’s death — the unconcern that enabled him to stand in the doek unmoved when the sentence of death was passed upon him, characterised him to the last. The ruling passion of the man was strong in death. His face was perhaps a little blanched, but he submitted to be bound with as much complacence as an ordinary mortal would be able to bear the application of the tailor’s tape to measure  him for new – suit of clothes.

 He muttered the responses to the priest’s ghostly consolations, walked to the middle of the drop with, a firm step, and stood there, seemingly as a matter of course.

Bamford then stepped quickly aside pulled towards him an iron lever like the switch on a railway line, and Feeney was shunted in to Eternity On Monday the man denied the filthy rumours in circulation respecting him and requested tint they might be publicy contradicted

Feeney came to this.colony in the ship Elizabeth Anne Bright in 1863. He was a native of Ireland and had a soldier in the 18th Regiment. His colonial career has been  placed before the public in detail recently.

THE WAGGA WAGGA EXPRESS

18th MAY 1872

THE EXECUTION OF FEENEY

Edward Feeney, themurderer, found guilty at the last Melbourne Criminal Sessions of shooting Charles Markes at the Treasury Gardens in March last, expiated his offence on the scaffold inside the Melbourne Gaol, according to law, at 10 o’clock on Tuesday morning, and a more painfully imposing scene is scarcely possible to be realised.

The terrible ordeal of publicly choking criminals has happily been discontinued in this country, yet the substitute of the private spectacle is none the less revolting, nor less fearful to contemplate, by those whose duty requires their presence on such occasions; and the ceremony of Tuesday morning was, indeed, a very painful one to look upon.

A man in the prime of life pinioned, and with the noose of a rope round his neck, dropping into eternity—not so, however, in this case, for the unfortunate man struggled for fully three minutes after the fatal rope had extended to its length, so clumsily had the mechanical part of the operation been performed by the common hangman, Bamford, who is himself at present undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for vagrancy. The particulars of Feeney’s case are so fresh in the memory of our readers that it is unnecessary to repeat any portion of them to-day.

Since his conviction, the prisoner has maintained the most stolid silence and indifference as to his fate, and also as to the crime of which he has been found guilty, neither admitting his guilt nor protesting his innocence in reference to it. And this determination on his part was maintained to the last. He was visited yesterday by the young woman Annie McKenzie, whose name has been mentioned as having been acquainted with both Marks and Feeney. He slept well during the whole of last night.

He was up early this morning, when he was at once visited by the Rev. Father Lordan, whose spiritual ministrations to the unfortunate man since his conviction have been most consoling and unremitting. When the hour appointed for carrying the sentence into effect (10 o’clock) arrived, the sheriff, the representatives of the press, and a few gentlemen authorised by Mr. Sheriff Wright, were admitted to the gaol, when the formal demand of the governor of the gaol, Mr Castieau, delivering the body of Feeney to the sheriff was gone through.

he was led from the condemned cell, which is immediately opposite the drop, to the platform of execution, the Rev. Father lord on still administering the consolatory assurances of his church, the prisoner appearing quite penitent and audibly repeating the prescribed responses. Bamford, having completed his arrangements, shook the prisoner by the left hand, and then let the long white cap over the man’s face, after which the fatal bolt was drawn, and the unfortunate man was on his way to eternity. Feeney struggled visibly by raising up his legs and dropping them down again. For fully three minutes he did this four or five times, and appeared as if suffering from cramp. The upper portion of the body gave no sign of animation.

Besides those mentioned, Dr. Maloney, the resident medical officer, Mr. Castieau, Governor, and several officers of the gaol, were present at the execution, and, the necessary certificate having 
been given and attested by several of those present, the awful ceremony had concluded. We learn the following particulars of the prisoner from the gaol 
register: —

His name was Edward Feeney, aged thirty-eight years, born in Ireland, arrived in this colony by the ship Elizabeth A. Bright, in 1863, had been in the 18th Royal Irish Regiment; he was 5ft 6in. high, stout make, fresh complexion, dark brown hair and blue eyes, a Roman Catholic, and could read and write  well.

He was admitted to the gaol on the 7th of March, on committal for trial for the murder for which he has suffered. During the last few days of his life he has been most anxious to leave the impression that he is entirely innocent of the charges made against him in connection with the unfortunate victim, and he wished this to be understood, although he made no actual denial of details in direct terms. He never once alluded to the terrible tragedy in the Treasury Gardens, and has remained doggedly reticent to the last.

He received a letter by the last mail from his mother in Ireland, which he has replied to, and the answer is now in Mr. Castieau’s hands for transmission by the next outgoing mail; but, as he requested specially that Mr. Castieau would not divulge its contents, we are, of course, unable to say anything about them. It is Mr. Castieau’s belief, from thought and close observation, that the man Feeney murdered Marks with premeditation and deliberation, and that, if ever man did, he has justly suffered for his crime.—Melbourne Argus.

THE AGE

20TH May 1872

The cast of Feeney’s head, exhibited in the window of the Waxworks Exhibition has attracted a large number of gazers. It is stated that the proprietor has obtained the actual hair and beard of Feeney to place on his wax model.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gone wrong...