Free Settler or Felon?
   Home   Convict Ships Index
Search Button


# Surname First Name Ship Date Place Source
21026 Hitchcock Anthony Lord Melville 1829 1833 4 April Patrick Plains SG
Bricklayer assigned to John Larnach

115637 Hitchcock Anthony Lord Melville 1829 1833 19 December - SMH
Anthony Hitchcock and John Poole to be forwarded to Newcastle district to be executed (executed at Patrick Plains)

158616 Hitchcock Anthony Lord Melville 1829 1834 10 January Patrick Plains Sydney Monitor
John Poole and Anthony Hitchcock executed on Saturday the 21st December near to the road which bounds one side of the estate of Castle Forbes, where one of the several outrages had been committed

158618 Hitchcock Anthony Lord Melville 1829 1833 13 December - Australian
Ensign Henry Zouch testified in Court for Anthony Hitchcock. Zouch had lived in quarters directly over Hitchcock's at Newcastle and knew him to be trustworthy and not likely of such an outrage as murder

94387 Hitchcock (alias Hath) Anthony Lord Melville 1829 16 November 1833 Castle Forbes SG
Aged 41 years. Native of Essex, fisherman and bricklayer. 5ft 6 1/2in, ruddy fair complexion, light brown hair, grey eyes, slight scar on left cheek, large scar back of right leg, dressed when last seen, in a blue cloth coat, with long tails, white duck trousers, white shirt, white waistcoat and straw hat. Absconded from Castle Forbes in company with John Poole, James Reilly, David Jones, John Perry and James Ryan after committing various outrages and taking with them silver plate, guns, muskets, horses and wearing apparel. 70 pound reward offered for apprehension

140750 Hitchcock (alias Nott) Anthony Lord Melville 1829 1829 May Port Jackson AO NSW Convict Indents Fiche No. 672
Age 20. Married. Fisherman and bricklayer from Essex. Sentenced to transportation for Life for highway robbery. Assigned to J.T. Lamb at (Belin) Hunter River on arrival

94376 Hitchcock (Hath) Anthony Lord Melville 1829 November 1833 Castle Forbes History of the Colonies
Anthony Hitchcock and John Poole indicted for maliciously shooting at John Larnach with intent to kill and murder him - The prisoner Hitchcock first addressed the Court. He said, the evidence of the witness Spark was utterly false. The treatment he had received at Castle Forbes was harsh in the extreme. He had been several years in the Colony, and while in the employment of the Crown had been so fortunate as to gain the esteem of his superiors, by whom he was placed in a situation of trust and responsibility. He had been employed in, and had charge of the Post-Office in Newcastle. For a knowledge of his general character there, he would call upon a gentleman in Court, whose testimony he was sure was proudly above comparison with any of the witnesses who had sworn against him. The gentleman alluded to. Ensign Zouch, one of the Jury, was here sworn, and stated that he had known Hitchcock for about six months, when at Newcastle Post-Office, from the situation of his quarters there, which were immediately over the prisoner's, he was enabled to state of him, that he was a quiet and well-behaved trustworthy man, and one not likely to be guilty of such an outrage as that for which he was now on his trial. Hitchcock went on to state, that it was to the unfortunate circumstance of his being assigned to the service of Major Mudie, he attributed all his subsequent misfortune and present unhappiness, he had been in the possession of an exemplary character before he went to Major Mudie, he had since been repeatedly flogged, by which, and by the unwholesome food he had subsisted on, his health had been ruined, and life itself rendered burthensome. He had been sentenced to an iron gang for an offence of which he knew nothing. The witnesses who swore against him made their depositions before the Magistrates in private. No confronting with the accused was permitted, nor was any defence called for. Whatever punishment was threatened by the master to his servant, was sure to be inflicted by the Bench, and this was the way in which justice was administered on the Hunter. If they refused to labour on a Sunday, flogging was threatened, and as surely given. Servants who had for months been due for tickets of leave, had been refused their indulgence, and, if at all importunate, a flogging bestowed rendered future application unnecessary. If the Court would but look at their bare backs, it would see that their statement was not exaggerated.