Some years ago, I did some in-depth studies of the place, in person at the Gaol and by digging up old newspapers and articles.

I came up with many contemporary newspaper articles from the era.

In fact, some of the information I found is now used on the signs informing visitors about the history of the Gaol.

This particular case dates back to the late 1800s.

A newspaper article from the Sydney Morning Herald dated Friday March 25, 1887 involves a very colourful and interesting story concerning a trial, specifically Alick Lee versus Ousley Rowley.

The newspaper article read:

Central Criminal Court Thursday before his Honour Acting Judge Stephen.

Mr Ellis conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Crown.

Alick Lee, a prisoner at Trial Bay Gaol was arraigned to face an indictment charging him with wounding Ousely Rowley with intent to murder on January 16, 1887 at Trial Bay Gaol.

Mr Canaway was assigned to defend the prisoner.

The evidence given on behalf of the Crown showed that on the date mentioned in the indictment, Alick Lee , a confinee in Trial Bay Gaol, had been sentenced to seven days solitary confinement by the visiting justice for making a complaint respecting the food of the Goal, which was considered to be unfounded.

Lee was being removed to the cell when he suddenly turned upon the chief warder, the complainant Ousley Rowley.

Lee stabbed Rowley in the lower portion of the abdomen with a table knife, inflicting a serious wound.

Mr Canaway, the defense counsel, argued Lee had just cause for complaint about the food and did not deserve punishment.

Dr Casement, medical officer to the Goal, gave evidence to that effect after he examined the meat in question and found it tainted and unfit for human consumption.

On a previous occasion, the doctor was also called upon to examine some bread and found it to be sour.

Lee called several witnesses to testify in his defence.

He maintained when he was leaving the hospital, where the meat had been examined by the doctor, the chief warder, Rowley, pushed him from the doorstep.

The prisoner said the ill-treatment by Rowley goaded him to assault the warder, but he didn't commit the deed with murderous intent, but rather in the heat of the moment.

Mr Canaway addressed the jury at considerable length on behalf of the prisoner and commented severely upon the action of the chief warder, Rowley.

His Honor summed up briefly and afterwards read over the evidence to the jury.

The jury retired to consider their verdict shortly before 5 pm, but even after deliberating well into the late hours of the night, they were unable to agree.

Unable to reach a consensus, the jury were locked up until the following morning.

The Court adjourned until 10 am Friday morning.

Ultimately, the jury were unable to come to a decision, and a subsequent retrial found Lee guilty with a sentence of five years.

Unfortunately for Lee, he went on to be hung for his part in an incident that became known as the "Barraba Outrage" in 1894.

But that's another story.....

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: