The First Fleet Peat Family

Copyright Carol Baxter 2012
Prepared for Peat descendant Jeanette Bradley


Appendix 1

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey
Charles Peat – Highway Robbery, 5 December 1781[125]

Tried by the First Middlesex Jury before Mr. Baron HOTHAM.

CHARLES PEAT was indicted for feloniously making an assault upon RICHARD DOWN, Esq. upon the 27th of October last, upon the king's highway, in the parish of Finchly, and putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and taking from his person a silk purse, value 3 d. and 23 shillings in money numbered, being his property.

RICHARD DOWN, Esq. Sworn: Upon the 27th of October, the prisoner at the bar stopped my carriage upon Finchly common, and demanded my money, near the seven mile stone, about half a mile upon the right hand of the mile stone, not upon the great road.
Where was you coming from? - From London, and was going to my house in the country. I had turned from the road about half a mile. It was about three quarters past four in the afternoon.
Was he on horseback? - Yes.
Was he alone? - Yes, I gave him my purse; says he, if you value your purse, you will please to take it back and give me the contents of it, and he returned my purse.
What was in it? - 23 shillings. He returned the purse, and while I was taking out the money, my servant that was behind the carriage, jumped on behind him upon his horse.
He had not taken the money? - He had taken it but returned my money again, saying, if you value your purse, you will please to take it back again, and give me the contents; my servant clasped him round the body and brought him to the ground, they both came to the ground together. I immediately got out of the carriage, and assisted the servant to secure him, and with some little difficulty we did so. I put him into the carriage, and drove him myself to Colney-hatch, for the coachman John Sawton, had got on the highwayman's horse in the beginning of the business, and went away. So the horses stood while the robbery was committed, the prisoner was put in the carriage. I drove the man home. The prisoner refused my watch; he saw it, he said he was an unfortunate man, and only wanted a little money, and behaved throughout with remarkable civility. We carried him before a justice, who committed him.
Cross-Examination: I apprehend if you had been disposed to have kept your purse and money, he would not have required it back again of you by your account? - Most certainly, he gave it me to take out the contents of it.
He said he was very unfortunate and only wanted a little money? - Yes; and behaved with remarkable civility.
Court. How long might he have your purse in hand? - Not a moment; he looked at it, and said, if you value your purse, you will please to take it back and give me the contents, he had got near the carriage side, the tail of the horse against the hind wheel, the servant jumped upon him and brought him to the ground.
I understand from you, it was done all in the same moment, the taking the purse and returning of it? - As soon as possible, he was not a yard from the carriage during the whole time. As soon as he saw the purse, he looked at it, and said, if I valued my purse, take it back and give me the contents of it.
He might have had the watch if he pleased? - Yes; he said I see you have a watch.

JAMES FOX sworn.
You are servant to Mr. Down? - Yes; upon the 27th of October, my master and I and my fellow servant, went from town to Colney-hatch. We was stopped upon the road by the prisoner, he asked for watch and money, and my master gave him his purse, he asked my master, is the purse of any value to you? he said yes, a little, and he gave him the purse again, and told him to give him the contents, while that was doing, my fellow servant jumped upon the horse, and both came down together and tusled upon the ground. When down, I came to his collar and he snapped a pistol, then they had another tustle upon the ground, and he said he would surrender. When they had got him in the carriage, my master drove him home.

What do you know of this? - Upon the 27th of October, I saw the prisoner at the bar pass the carriage and ordered it to stop. My master gave him his purse. He asked if he had any regard for his purse. My master said he had, he gave him the purse back. In the mean time I leaped behind him on the horse. He fell to the ground. We took him and put him in the carriage and brought him before a justice.


I leave it entirely to the lenity of the court. I have no council. I entirely leave it to the lenity of the court.

Court. If you are satisfied from the evidence in point of law, though Mr. Down did not lose his purse nor his money, as you hear by the evidence, the prisoner being taken by the servant before the robbery was completed; yet he had in fact demanded his money; and from the impulse of that threat and demand Mr. Down had actually given him the money and purse; and after he had got it, he said, if you value your purse take it, and give me the money, he took it back. Therefore the possession of the money was changed from Mr. Down to the prisoner, if he had it but an instant in point of law, it amounts to a robbery.
Foreman of the Jury. With very great concern the gentlemen of the Jury find him guilty; but beg leave at the same time, earnestly to recommend him to mercy.
Prosecutor. I beg leave to make the same request.

GUILTY. (Death.)

Appendix 2

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey
Charles Peat – Returning from Transportation, 7 July 1784[126]

Tried by the London Jury, before Mr. ROSE.

CHARLES PEAT was indicted for feloniously returning from transportation, and being found at large in this kingdom without any lawful cause before the expiration of the term of seven years, for which he was so transported.

The record examined by Edward Reynolds, Esq; Clerk of the Arraigns.
Prisoner. I beg permission of the Court to read my defence [transcribed above].
Court. Hand up that defence.
Prisoner. My Lord, I have a pardon dated the 12th of July which is two months before the other pardon.
Court. Gentlemen of the Jury, I need scarcely tell you that this is an indictment which if made out by evidence, materially affects the life of the prisoner, for the returning from transportation is a capital offence: Charles Peat is charged in this indictment for returning from transportation, and without any lawful cause, being found at large in this kingdom; this fact the prisoner at the bar has denied: It appears from the record that has been read, that a person of the name of Charles Peat was indicted for a highway robbery on Richard Downs, and that is sufficient evidence to prove that same person was tried in this Court by the name of Charles Peat and convicted of a highway robbery; it likewise appears by these records, that the said Charles Peat received his Majesty's pardon, on the condition of going to Nova Scotia, for the term of his natural life, but it must be proved that that Charles Peat is the person that was tried, and that he had been actually in the way of transportation, George Holt is called, and he tells you - (here the learned judge summed up the evidence, and added:) Gentlemen, in favour of the prisoner's life, it is very fair to presume that prisoners take many names, and we may very fairly presume that another man of the name of Charles Peat has been tried at the sessions; therefore you are to consider upon this evidence whether you are completely satisfied that that very Charles Peat who was found at large, and is now brought to the bar, is the same Charles Peat that was tried and convicted for this highway robbery, and Owen who speaks to the identity of the prisoner, does not go all the length I have seen gone in those cases, for he falls short as to the identity of the man, that was tried in this Court for the robbery of Mr. Downes, now although the prisoner was on board this ship, yet unless he is the man that was convicted of that robbery, he is not the man described by this indictment, and Owen only says the prisoner was convicted for robbing a gentleman in his carriage, now upon reading the indictment, it does not appear how the gentleman was robbed, he cannot even tell you where it was, he says indeed that he was present when the prisoner was brought to the bar, and that he was to be transported afterwards, and that he saw him in the lighter; but the question is whether you are satisfied under all the circumstances of the evidence, that this is the very man who was tried for a robbery on Mr. Downes; if you are satisfied that he was tried for that robbery on Mr. Downes, that this is the identical person, and that he was found at large here, in that case you must find him guilty.
Jury. My Lord, in his defence he says he was pardoned on condition of serving on board a man of war.
Court. With respect to his defence I did not state it to you, because the facts respecting these convicts will be examined by the Judges, and he has proved nothing, but the facts can very easily be known.
Jury to Owen. Can you positively swear to the identity of the man who was convicted for robbing Mr. Downs?
Court. He has not swore that.
Mr. Silvester. Somebody ought to prove certainly that he was the man that was tried here for that identical robbery.
Court. The indictment charges it to be a robbery on Mr. Downs, and Owen cannot go that length, I believe, Gentlemen, I can save you some trouble, I for my own part giving my opinion, am not satisfied with this evidence, I do not think the case is made out; for it must be proved that the prisoner was the man that robbed Mr. Downes, now that he has not been able to prove; Owen certainly does not prove that that man committed the robbery as laid in the indictment.
Jury. Owen said that he neither recollected the Gentleman's name that was robbed, nor the place where it was committed.
Court. He says he has seen the prisoner before, he was convicted in December 1781, of a highway robbery, he was present, it was for robbing a Gentleman in his carriage, he knew no more; certainly that does not prove that this was the man.
Court. If the prisoner makes out his case he then will be discharged, if he does not he will then be sent to his former sentence, and every proper enquiry will be made.


Appendix 3

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey
Hannah Mullens – Theft, 6 December 1780[127]

Tried by the Second Middlesex Jury before Mr. Baron PERRYN.

ANN MULLINS was indicted for stealing a linen bed-gown, value 6 d. a linen gown, value 18 d. a cotton handkerchief, value 1 d. a stuff petticoat, value 10 d. a woman's silk hat, value 2 d. and a linen cap, value 1 d. the property of Elisabeth Canks, spinster, October 26th.


On the 26th of October I lost the several things mentioned in the indictment (repeating them) from the Coach and Horses, Belton-street, Coal-yard. I was washing my pots in the yard; I saw the prisoner go up stairs, and come down with a bundle. I went up stairs about a quarter of an hour after and missed my things. We had lodgers in the house, so I thought she had gone up to some of the lodgers. Upon missing them I went to the first pawnbroker's, which was Mr. Mills, in Short's-gardens, there I found the hat. The prisoner was taken up at the Sun, the corner of Brownlow-street, the next morning. She was taken before the justice and there she owned she had taken the things.
Were any promises or threatenings made use of to induce her to own it? - No. She took us to Little St. Andrew's-street, and Lumber-court, where we found all the rest of the things.


I am a pawnbroker. I have a gown the prisoner brought to me to pawn, between eleven and twelve o'clock at noon of the same day it was stolen.
(The gown was produced in court and deposed to by the prosecutrix.)
Davis. I have a bed-gown, but I could not find it; and I have a handkerchief I took in of her at the same time.


I keep a clothes-shop in Lumber-court, Seven-Dials. I have a stuff petticoat I bought the same day of the prisoner, in the open court. She was an old clothes woman; I have dealt with her before. The prisoner, the prosecutrix, and the constable came to my shop for it the next day.
(The petticoat was produced and deposed to by the prosecutrix.)


I met a woman I had worked with at an upholsterer's; she said she wanted to make up her rent, and asked me to pawn these things for her, which I did.

GUILTY of stealing the goods to the value of 10 d.

Appendix 4

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey
Hannah Mullens – Fraud, 26 April 1786[128]

Tried by the London Jury before Mr. Baron EYRE.

HANNAH otherwise HANNAH MULLENS, was indicted, for that she, well knowing that one Peter Roach had served our Lord the King, as a seaman, on board the Burford, and that certain wages and pay were due to him for such service, on the 11th of November last, she did appear in her proper person before the Worshipful George Harris, and did produce and exhibit a certain paper, partly printed, and partly written, with a certain mark thereunto set, which purported to be the last will and testament of the said Peter Roach, and did then and there unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly, take a false oath that that paper did contain the last will and testament of him the said Peter Roach; and that she was the executrix therein named, with intent to obtain probate, in order to receive the wages and pay so due to him the said Peter Roach, for and on account of his said service, against the statute.

A second count, for that she, supposing certain wages and pay was due, &c.


I am a clerk in the Prerogative-office. This is a will of Peter Roach; I bring this from the place where the original wills are deposited.


I am clerk to Mr. John Crickett, Proctor, in Doctors Commons. I know the prisoner; I saw her, and received this will from her; I wrote this jurata upon it. I went with her to be sworn; I saw her sworn; I saw Doctor Harris sign it.
What was the oath? - She swore that paper contained the last will and testament of Peter Roach; that she was the executrix therein named.
Court. To what purpose was this oath administered to her? - For her to receive the effects.
What was to be done in consequence of that oath? - To obtain probate.
What was the purpose for which she appplied to you? - To prove the will, to obtain probate.
Did she come alone? - No person with her, to the best of my knowledge; I do not know where she lived; I did not see her husband; she sent some person after it the next time; it was some man.
(The Will read, witnessed by Philip Riley and John Penny.)


There is no other man of the same name; this man, Peter Roach, appeared to have served on board the Coventry, from the 16th of July, 1781, till the 2d of September, in the same year; when he was discharged into the Burford, on the 14th of August, the Coventry was at sea at some part of the East Indies, latitude 18.

Turn to the Burford book, how and when does he appear to have been on board? - He arrived in the Burford the 3d of September from the Coventry, and served to the 19th of April, 1783, when he died in Madrass road.
Were there any wages due to him? - There were.
Are there now? - Yes.
Look for John Penny and Philip Riley? - John Penny appears to have died on the 8th of August, 1779, at the hospital at Symons Town, I believe, in the East Indies; and Philip Riley did not die till the 6th of June, 1782.
Then he was borne on the ship's books at this time? - Till the 6th of June, 1782, they both belonged to the Burford.
Court. Supposing a person had come to have enquired at the office for the name of Peter Roach, what information would you have given? - I should have given the original entry in the Coventry, carrying it back to July.


I was quarter-master on board the Burford in 1781; I knew Peter Roach for a good while; I have seen him write, he wrote pretty middling, that a man might read, and he could write both in pen and chalk, for he was in my watch; he was blown up in the East-India man, called the Duke of Arthur, the 19th of April, 1783; I never saw him write any will or power, or any such thing as that; I have seen him write, he has written with my pen a twelvemonth before his death; he came to the Burford in 1781 from the Coventry.


I was a foremast-man on board the Magnanime.
Did you know Philip Riley of the Burford? - Yes.
Have you seen him write often? - Yes.
Look at this? - That was never his hand writing in the world; I knew him extremely well, he wrote a very heavy and a very ordinary hand, indeed; he was very little used in writing.
Court. Do you remember Riley in the Burford in the year 1781? - I knew him in the year 1782, after the 12th of April; I knew nothing of him before that time.
Court to Williams. When did Riley first come into the Burford? - On the 13th of December, 1778, and died the 6th of January, 1782.
To Pluck. Did you know of his death? - No.
How long had you known him? - Between two and three months.


What relation were you to John Penny? - I was his mother's own sister, and his own sister is in the next room; he was a mariner on board the Burford; he could not write, nor read writing.
What became of him? - He died abroad, I forget the name of the place.


Had you a brother of the name of John Penny? - Yes; he was a mariner on board the Bedford, or some such name.
Was it the Burford? - Yes.
Where did he die? - At the Cape of Good Hope.
What age was he when you last saw him? - I do not know; he might be upwards of forty.
Did you see him a little time before he left this kingdom to go abroad? - He could not write when he went from this kingdom, unless he was learned abroad; he could neither read nor write.
Does it appear from the ship's books where this young man represented himself as coming from? - From Folkstone.
How old was your brother when he died? - He might be about forty-five or forty-six.
What year was he born in? - I do not know; he was younger than myself; I am forty-eight; he has been gone eight years this April, to the best of my memory.
How much younger was he than you? - Two or three years.
To Williams. You say he had entered his forty-ninth year? - Yes.

JOHN ABEL, alias PATERSON sworn.

I know the prisoner, she asked me some questions once.
What? - She asked me if I knew such a ship as the Burford, from India; it was about ten days or a fortnight before I was taken; she asked me if I knew any of the people belonging to the Burford, for she had got a person that did belong to that ship, that brought her from Ireland, and she had his will and power; and she asked me to go to the Pay-office to receive the wages, and if I should be asked whether I brought the will over, to say, yes; that was all.
Did you go with her? - Yes.
Did you say so? - They did not ask me.
Court. How long have you known this woman? - I never saw her, to know her, but once or twice.
Where did she live? - I saw her at a public house; I do not know where she lived.
How much was you to take for your trouble? - She did not promise me any thing particular; she said I should be satisfied.
Did you know Roach, Penny, or Riley? - No.
You went along with this woman? - Yes.
What did you tell the gentlemen at the Pay-office? - I do not know that they asked me any questions; I did not speak, that I know of.
So the woman was a stranger to you? - Yes; I had seen her once or twice before.
Did you know where she lodged, or was to be met with? - No.
Do you think it was a proper thing for you to lie for this woman, though you did not swear for her? - I did not think of the consequence; she told me she could not find the man.
Court. Take care of yourself in future; if you had come here as a party, it would have gone very hard with you.

- SLADE sworn.

On the 27th of February, the prisoner, in company with this man, who went by the name of Patterson, brought this administration belonging to Peter Roach; upon looking who were witnesses to the will, I found that one of the witnesses was dead two years before the will was made; I asked her who brought it over; she said the man that was with her; she said his name was Abel; she brought this paper with her. (The paper read.)
"Burford, Peter Roach, No. 1648, Madrass, R. D. 5. 8. J. P." It belongs to the office of a Mr. Willcotes.
(The paper shewn to the Jury.)
Do you know any thing of that ticket? - Yes, it is wrote by a person in our office, whose name is Stephen.
Is it his business to make out these sort of tickets? - By the authority being produced.
Has Mr. Stephen been applied to, to know whether he can give any account of it? - I believe not.
The Navy-office is down at Crutched Friars? - Yes; I dare say he can give no account of it.


My Lord, a young man that belonged to the Burford, Patrick Croghill, delivered me this will at Mrs. Mould's, the Cock, in High-street, St. Giles's, about eleven months ago.
Have you got the letter in which it was brought to you? - No, Sir, I have not, I have lost it; I could neither read nor write myself, I got a young man to write a letter for me.
Had you any reason to expect that you should be made executrix to this man, and that he would leave you this money? - I had not seen him these ten years.
Was he a relation to you? - No; he lived with me half a year; he never sent to me; I never heard from him from the time he went away; this is the man that wrote the letter, whom I called from the next box.
How came you to keep it so long by you? I was big with child, and I did not like to go till I was well.
Is there any body here that knows that this man lived with you? - I do not know.
How old are you now? - I am going of twenty-six.
And you say this was ten years ago; you must have been very young indeed? - Yes.
Where did you come from? - From Ireland.
How long have you been in London? - I have been in London about ten years.
Where have you lived, what part of London? - I lived at St. Giles's, and in a good many parts.
In what way? - As a servant; I have been a servant these four or five years; I have lived with this child's father these two years; his name is Edward Mullins.
What is he? - He porters.
Who is he that you call to give an account of your receiving this letter? - That man there.


What countryman are you? - An Irishman.
How long have you known this woman? - About two years.
Do you know Edward Mullins? - No.
Do you know where the prisoner has lived these last two years? - I know she lived in St. Giles's; I live in Drury-lane, I am a labourer.
Have you got any of your writing here? - Yes; I went before my Lord Mayor, when I was stopped.
Who stopped you? - The Lord Mayor.
How came you to be stopped? - When I appeared as evidence for the woman.
Tell me what you know about this matter? - I saw a will inclosed in a letter, delivered to Hannah Mullins about a twelvemonth ago.
Who was it delivered to her by? - A sailor.
Did you know the sailor? - No.
Do you know how the sailor found her out? - Yes, he enquired of Mrs. Moulds for her.
How came he to find out Mrs. Moulds? - The direction was on the letter.
So then it was in consequence of the direction being on the letter, at Mrs. Moulds, that this woman was found out? - Yes.
You read the direction? - Yes.
Was she in the room at Mrs. Mould's at the time that the man came there? - Not that I know of; he enquired for her when he came in, and Mrs. Moulds sent for her.
When she came, what happened then? - I do not know, I took no further notice, till she handed me the letter; I saw him give her the letter.
Was the letter sealed, or unsealed? - Sealed.
Did he tell her who it came from? - I cannot say.
Did she read the letter? - I read it, she could not read.
What was in the letter? - I cannot tell.
What was there besides the letter? - There was a will in it.
Whose will was it? - I cannot tell you.
How do you know it was a will? - When I read it, every body in the house said it was a will; I did not know it was a will till I was told it.
You do not remember whose it was? - No.
Look at that writing and tell me whether it is your hand, did you write that before my Lord Mayor? - Yes.
How happens it that you, who have known this woman so long, should not know Mr. Mullens? - She has had two or three husbands while I knew her.
You are not one of them, are you? - No.
Court to Abel. Did you never receive a letter from her desiring you to come? - No.
Court to Edwin. Do you know who it was that brought the letter? - I cannot say.
Look at Mr. Patterson, and say whether that was him or not? - I cannot say it was.
Can you say it was not? - It is so long ago I cannot say.
Where was this woman's husband when the letter was delivered? - I cannot say.
Have you never said it was Patterson that wrote the letter? - I never did.
Did you happen to know how long Mrs. Moulds has kept that house? - While I was in London.
How long is that? - About six or seven years.
Court to Patterson. Was not you the person that brought this letter? - I was persuaded to say so at first.
The question is, whether you did not deliver this letter to this woman at Moulds'? now take care before you answer it. - No, Sir, I did not.
You did not? - No.
Is Mrs. Moulds here? I will read to you what the minutes are of your examination, and then I wish you to consider what answer you will give to me; you said you was born at Hippersley in Worcestershire; that you was on board the Eleanor brig five years ago, is that true? - Yes.
That you never knew Peter Roach; that you had the letter on board the Burford, in 1783; that that letter was given you; that you sat down in the box, that there were two or three men in the same room, that you sat down in the middle box? - I did not say that before my Lord Mayor.
What part of it did you say, did not you say before my Lord Mayor, that you delivered this letter to this woman? - Yes, the day I was taken up; then, when my Lord asked the truth, I told him, and he told me it was better to tell the truth, and I did tell him all the truth about it.
So first of all you did say so, and it was not true? - Yes, then I told him as I have told you.


I am a labourer and porter.
Are you acquainted with that man, Daniel Patterson? - No, I never saw him till I saw him at the prison.
Did not you see him at the Cock? - No, I could not swear that I saw him.
Where do you live? - I lodge in Dyot-street.
Was you drinking with him at the Cock? - No, I was drinking with Edwin at the Cock.
Do you remember the circumstance of a man coming in and enquiring for Mrs. Mullens? - Yes, I heard that circumstance particularly, I happened to be sitting in the middle box, and some time after they came in, she turned about and called Edwin out of the box from me, as I sat alone, I turned about and I saw both their heads together, and he was reading in a slow voice.
Who was the man that brought that letter? - I do not know.
Look at Mr. Patterson? - I have seen him often since,; I never said he was the man.
Did not you say that Patterson came to enquire for Mullens, and that Patterson gave her a letter? - I could not swear that he was the man, or that he was not the man, I never said he was the man before my Lord Mayor.
Then observe, before my Lord Mayor you did not say that Patterson was the man? - No, I did not.
Court to Prisoner. Can you satisfy the Jury what name you go by now? - Yes, by the name of Mullens.
Why the man's name that you live with is Mullens? - But my father's name was Jack Mullens.

GUILTY, Death.

She was humbly recommended to mercy by the Jury, because they supposed she had been drawn in.
Court. It is just now suggested to me, that this is not the first or second of these wills, that she has been concerned in; and if so, you would wish to withdraw your recommendation; but if she is really an innocent person, we will listen to it; I shall desire my Lord Mayor, who has had this affair before him to make enquiry into it.