Margaret Dacey

Free woman incarcerated at the Parramatta Female Factory.

Police Reports

EDWARD QUIN, free, charged with an assault on the person of MARGARET DACEY, and further with having committed a breach of the peace in the presence of the constables, after he had been warned to keep it. Fully committed for trial, and afterwards released on bail to appear.

See Original:THE POLICE. TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1826,” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Saturday 27 May 1826, p.2

♣     ♣     ♣

MARGARET DACEY was accused of being an accessary [sic] in a robbery. The prisoner, a mere girl, was committed for trial.

See Original: “POLICE INCIDENTS,” The Australian (Sydney, NSW : 1824 – 1848), Wednesday 8 November 1826, p.3

♣     ♣     ♣

MARGARET DACEY, who exhibited a vast dole of blarney and botheration, was charged by Mrs. ELIZABETH SIBLEY, with having had in her possession yesterday, an apron of which she had been robbed, along with other articles, about five weeks ago. The apron being produced in Court, and sworn to by Mrs. SIBLEY, the prisoner was committed for trial.

See Original:Police Reports. SYDNEY,” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Saturday 11 November 1826, p.3

♣     ♣     ♣

MARGARET DACEY was charged with having in her possession sundry articles of wearing apparel, knowing the same to have been stolen. Not Guilty.

See Original: “Sydney Quarter Sessions. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7,” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Saturday 11 November 1826, p.3

♣     ♣     ♣

MARGARET DACEY stood charged with receiving stolen property. Some odd articles of female attire, found in the prisoner’s possession, were sworn to by a woman named SIBLEY, to be her property—the same formed part of a robbery which had been committed some time prior at her dwelling. The prisoner, in defence, said she received the articles from a man under confinement in the gaol upon some charge of theft. She disclaimed all knowledge of their having been dishonestly come by; there was no concealment of the property; witnesses were called in her favor. Acquitted.

See Original:QUARTER SESSIONS:—(Tuesday.),” The Australian (Sydney, NSW : 1824 – 1848), Saturday 11 November 1826, p.4

♣     ♣     ♣


A complaint was made by some constables against four persons, for creating a riot in the streets on Tuesday evening last. The names of the parties charged, LYNCH, QUIN, BROWN, a soldier, and a woman named MARGARET DACEY—all free people. The two former, and the woman, it appeared, had come up from the Five Islands, and had been spending a portion of their earnings in getting “groggy.” Some constables, whilst patrolling Kent-street during the evening, it seems, were called upon to take a man named MURPHY, who was then among others kicking up a row, into their custody, in attempting to execute which, they were surrounded by a mob of people, among whom were said to be the four prisoners who released MURPHY from the constables’ clutches; but in effecting this, fists were not the only means employed; the row became general, and one of the men engaged came off with the stab of a knife in the lower part of the abdomen; another’s finger was nearly sliced off. Before the fray concluded, many a dry blow had been distributed, and both sides had warm work of it. LYNCH was sworn to be the princiapl [sic] ringleader, and said to be the man who made use of the knife. QUIN and the woman were represented as aidors [sic] and abettors; the former in having taken a part in the riot after it had commenced; and the woman for being an auxiliary, by encouraging with the clack of her tongue. The soldier had not assisted in the riot, further than by refusing to assist the constables when called upon to do so in the King’s name. All four persons, however, have been committed for trial.

See Original: “SERIOUS AFFRAY,” The Australian (Sydney, NSW : 1824 – 1848) Friday 6 July 1827, p.3

♣     ♣     ♣


THURSDAY, JULY, 19, 1827

EDW. MURPHY [EDWARD MURPHY], JAS. QUIVER [JAMES QUIVER], JOHN BROWN, J. LYNCH, and MARGARET DACEY were indicted for a riot and assaulting THOMAS DUNN, JOSEPH GAZAND, and EDWARD HOARE, constables, on the  night of the 3d of July inst.

THOMAS DUNN, a conductor in the Police, deposed, that about 12 o’clock, on the night of the 3d of July, as he was proceeding through Kent-street, in company with other constables, he perceived a number of persons, amongst whom were the prisoners, engaged in a very riotous manner; the prisoner MURPHY took up a stone and threw it with great force against a door, as he passed by, and burst it in; witness, with the assistances of GAZARD laid hold of him, when were both struck by the prisoner, as by QUIN and LYNCH, who rescued prisoner in consequence of which, he was not apprehended until next day; witness saw the prisoner BROWN, amongst the [group]; did not observe that he took any active part in the riot, but when called on to assist the constables, he did not comply; the prisoner, MARGARET DACEY, was amongst the crowd, encouraging the prisoners to resist the constables, and making use of the most violent and abusive language; witness had two of his fingers nearly cut off with a knife, which MURPHY had in his hand, and [made] several stabs through different parts of [his] dress.

JOSEPH GAZARD corroborated the evidence of the last witness; saw the prisoner MURPHY cut at DUNN, with a knife, several times; two of his fingers were cut nearly [off]; the soldier BROWN, was present, but did not assist the constables when called to do so; witness did not observe that he took any part in the rescue of MURPHY; the prisoner QUIN struck witness several times; LYNCH was not so violent; MARGARET DACEY was particularly active in urging the prisoners, and using most abusive language.

EDWARD HOARE deposed to the same effect: the whole of the party were more or less intoxicated.

The Chairman summed up the evidence. He considered the assault particularly with respect to MURPHY, of a most outrageous description, and he regretted that it had not been brought on for trial before the Supreme Court, under Lord Ellenborough’s Act. With respect to the prisoner BROWN, there was no evidence against him which went to shew, that he took any active part in the riot, but he (the learned Chairman)did say, that his conduct, in not assisting the constables when called on to do so, was most disgraceful in a soldier. As regarding the other prisoners, there was a distinction in the degree of guilt that attached to each, supposing the Jury should find them guilty, which would be for the consideration of the Court in passing sentence.

The Jury acquitted BROWN, and found all the other prisoners Guilty.

The Chairman, in directing the discharge of BROWN from the dock, observed, that the Jury had very properly acquitted him from the charge laid against him in the indictment, but he again repeated that his conduct, in not assisting the constables, when called on to quell a riot, was highly unbecoming in a soldier, and that the Bench would deem it their duty to make a representation of the case to the commanding officer.

The prisoner, BROWN, hoped that their Worships would consider him sufficiently punished, as he had worn a log night and day, since he had been committed to take his trial.

The Court then sentenced the prisoner MURPHY to two years, QUINN one year, and LYNCH, to six months in an iron gang, and MARGARET DACEY to one month in the second class in the factory.

See Original:Sydney Quarter Sessions. THURSDAY, JULY, 19, 1827,” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), Monday 23 July 1827, p.2


# Free

# Second Female Factory

# Year: 1826

# Second Class