Prison robbed

The colourful history of Victoria Prison contains many interesting incidents and in 1855 it was reported that the prison itself was robbed.

An old history recounted the tale:

Robberies at this period were frequent in different parts of the town, and amongst them, one had been committed on the Police-guarded premises of the Chief Police Magistrate. Now, an important one was reported as having been committed in Victoria Gaol, in consequence of which the authorities were severely taken to task, strong suspicion in this case resting upon the European prison subordinates. The Gaol was under the sole charge of a turnkey named Whelan, and on the 20th of August, Goodings, the Chief Gaoler, discovered the padlock of the store-room forced, and upwards of 90 pounds, partly belonging to prisoners, abstracted from a camphor-wood box, wherein the property of prisoners was kept, there being no safe in the gaol.

The occasion was deemed appropriate, however for noticing the small pay allowed the Gaol subordinates. The Chief Gaoler had $45 a month; his wife, acting matron, $5; McLaughlin, first turnkey, $24; and Whelan, the second turnkey, formerly a private in the 59th Regiment, $15. On these salaries all these people had to provide themselves; and it was a matter for surprise how Government imagined honesty could be maintained in men of Whelan’s class, especially on the small modicum he received. Of the money lost a sum of 30 pounds belonged to prisoners who were entitled to its return on the expiry of their sentences. The Sheriff, it appeared, had brought an iron chest for the gaoler’s use some months before, but as the Government would not allow the disbursement, it lay in the robbed store-room un-used. McLaughlin and Whelan were committed for trial for larceny on the 30th August, but the case being a weak one, they were let out on bail, the prosecution being subsequently abandoned by the Attorney-General.

A seaman named Clark, on the 7th of September, sued Goodings, the Gaoler, for 18 pounds 16 shillings and sixpence, moneys deposited by him in terms of Ordinance No. 1 of 1854, on the occasion of his being sent to gaol for refusing to do work on board ship. The defence was that the money had been stolen from the store-room in the Gaol, together with other moneys belonging to himself, the defendant, and to other prisoners. The case was dismissed, the Chief Justice holding that the Sheriff was the proper person to be sued. The Court at the same time informed the plaintiff that, unless he was prepared to prove gross negligence, the plaintiff must stand the loss himself. On the plaintiff remarking that he had lost everything he possessed in the world and for which he had worked hard, His Lordship replied “perhaps a memorial to the Governor might obtain compensation – he, the Chief Justice, was there to administer the law and could only suggest the application.”

The History of the Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, by James William Norton-Kyshe. 1898. Republished, Vetch and Lee, Hong Kong, 1971.

centralpolicestationhongkong.blogspot.com
***