SPECIAL LAND COMMISSION
 [ Blair v Duffy - 7th January 1869 ]

 A commission - consisting of Mr. G. Higinbotham. vice-president of the Board of Land and Works),   Mr. C. Hodgkinson, Mr John Steavenson, and Mr. Skene - was held yesterday at the board-room of the Lands Office to inquire into a charge of dummyism made by Mr. William A. Blair, lime merchant, of Queen Street, against Mr. Charles Gavan Duffy, M.L.A., and of a counter charge of dummyism brought by Mr. Duffy against Mr. Blair

CONTENTS

Proceedings of Day 1 of Hearings (Thursday 7th Jan 1869) 2
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic: 1848 – 1957), Friday 8th January 1869, page 6
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5824230

Proceedings of Day 2 of Hearings (Friday 8th Jan 1869) 11
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic : 1848 – 1957), Saturday 9th January 1869, page 6
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5821986

Proceedings of Day 3 of Hearings (Saturday 9th Jan 1869) 16
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic : 1848 – 1957), Monday 11th January 1869, page 6
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5816438

Proceedings of Final Day of Hearings (Thursday 14th Jan 1869) 17
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic : 1848 – 1957), Friday 15th January 1869, page 6
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5811088

Relevant Portion of Nepean Parish Plan 1872 20
Relevant Portion of Nepean Parish Plan 1879 21
Report on “The Big Day”, 2nd November 1868 22
The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 -1954), Tuesday 3 November 1868, page 3
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article177002691

This document is based on the OCR translations of the original newspapers available from NLA. Every effort has been taken to make it accurate by eliminating all the inevitable weird characters, odd spelling, erroneous ‘words’ and occasional corrupted formatting by proofing against hard copy printouts of the digitised page images.

Bernie Woiwod and Noel Erbs for Rye Historical Society, November 2015.

The Argus (Melbourne, Vic: 1848 – 1957), Friday 8th January 1869, page 6
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5824230

SPECIAL LAND COMMISSION
[ Blair v Duffy. Report on first day of hearings, Thursday 7th January 1869 ]
A commission - consisting of Mr. G. Higinbotham. vice-president of the Board of Land and Works), Mr. C. Hodgkinson, Mr John Steavenson, and Mr. Skene - was held yesterday at the board-room of the Lands Office to inquire into a charge of dummyism made by Mr. William A. Blair, lime merchant, of Queen Street, against Mr. Charles Gavan Duffy, M.L.A., and of a counter charge of dummyism brought by Mr. Duffy against Mr. Blair
Mr. Billing appeared for Mr. Duffy;
Mr. Purves appeared for Mr. Blair.
Mr. Grant, who was present before the inquiry commenced, stated that at his request Mr. Higinbotham had consented to take his place as chairman of the commission.
Both sides having consented to Mr. Higinbotham presiding.
Mr. Higinbotham said he had consented to take the chair at the request of Mr. Grant, who, for some reason unknown to him (Mr. Higinbotham), felt some reluctance to be present. He might say he was in total ignorance of the facts of the case, and would therefore ask that the whole matter should be fully stated.
Mr. Billing said that as the complaint was made by Mr. Blair, his counsel would have the right of commencing, but he might say that the matter arose out of some applications for land at Nepean under the 42nd clause, in which there was a dispute as to the priority of application. Out of this dispute a charge of dummyism was made by Mr. Blair against one of the applicants - Mr. John Duffy.
Mr. Purves said that his learned friend was not stating the case correctly. He (Mr. Purves) appeared for William Allison Blair, and the charge he brought was not against John Duffy, but against the Hon. Charles Gavan Duffy.
Mr. Billing stated he had before him a letter from the board intimating that the inquiry was about to be held, and in this letter the name of John Duffy was the only one mentioned. Moreover, the land was not applied for by Mr. Gavan Duffy, but by John Duffy.
Mr. Higinbotham read the notice which had been sent to the parties, from which it appeared that Mr. Grant had decided that Mr. Hodgkinson had properly refused certain applications, including Mr. Blair's, and that the only matter to be investigated was the charge of dummyism.
Mr. Purves wished Mr. Hodgkinson to state whether the Mr. Duffy referred to in his letter as having called at his office on Thursday in relation to this matter was not Charles Gavan Duffy.
Mr. Higinbotham thought it was not necessary the question should be answered, as the fact would appear in the course of the inquiry.
After some discussion, Mr. Hodgkinson read the notes he had taken at the sitting of the commission at Schnapper Point on 7th December:- "The commission sat at Schnapper Point on the 7th December. Mr. John Duffy had applied on the 2nd November for allotments 63, 64, 65, 70, and 71; in all, 158acres, 1rood, 20 perches. He marked out the land by four posts at nine a.m. on that day, and advertised his application in a Geelong paper. Mr. John Duffy, when making the application, reported himself as holding sixty acres in fee simple previously. All the land had been applied for by other persons, viz :- James Swan, a farmer, holding 108 acres, applied for lot 63 on 2nd November; David Swan, his son, holding no land, applied for lots 64, 65, 70, and 71, on 2nd November ; James Mailer, a gentleman, holding no land, applied for lots 64, 65, 70, and 71, on 2nd November; William A. Blair, lime merchant, holding 700 acres of land, applied for lots 64, 65, 70, and 71 on 2nd November:
Julia Ford, spinster, holding no land, applied for lots 64, 65, 70, and 71 on the 17th November; and Walter C. Knight, a labourer, holding no land, applied for lots 64, 65. 70, and 71 on the 16th November. Of the persons named, W. M. Blair was disqualified because he already held 700 acres of land in the same district, and did not put down posts on the 2nd November; James Mailer, because he had not put down posts at that time; and Miss Ford and W. C. Knight, because their applications were evidently of too late a date. The claimants were therefore limited to Mr. John Duffy, Mr. James Swan, and Mr. David Swan. Mr. John Duffy objected to the two Swans - first, because they had respectively only put down one post on the land; second, because they had advertised in a Melbourne paper, which was not the nearest to the land; and third, because he believed they were dummies for Mr. Blair. In reply, the Swans stated that they had each only put down one post, but that they were not aware that more was required ; that they had, however, put written notices on the posts, but that Mr. John Duffy had not put notices on his posts; that they were each prepared to make statutory declarations that they applied for the land entirely on their own behalf, and that they were not in collusion with any other person; and that if they obtained the land they would fully carry out the conditions of the licences.
The decision was postponed, and I informed all the parties that, on receipt of the statutory declarations, I would take steps to bring the matter before the Board of Land and Works. The declarations were made and handed in at the termination of the hearing of other applications. Mr. Duffy subsequently informed me that his son had, to his certain knowledge, put notices on the posts on the ground.
A brief discussion took place as to which party should be heard first; but Mr. Hodgkinson having stated that the inquiry was held in consequence of Mr. Blair's complaint against Mr. Duffy, it was decided by the board that Mr. Purves should open the case.
Mr. Purves, after a few observations as to the nature of the case, asked that witnesses might be ordered out of the room.
Some of them left, but others appeared reluctant to retire; and among these were the Hon. H. M. Murphy, who stated, he never, that he had nothing to do with the case, and, if called as a witness, he could give no evidence. He merely attended as one of the public, and thought it rather arbitrary to be ordered out of the room when he really was not a witness.
Mr. Purvis again asked the board to order all to leave the room who were to be called as witnesses.
Mr. Higinbotham said the board had no power to order witnesses out of the room, but if any remained after the intimation was given, his conduct would be matter for comment, and his evidence might be refused.
A number of persons then left the room, but several who were pointed out as witnesses remained. All who had left, however, returned in a few minutes.
Mr. Purves then stated that if they were allowed to remain he could not proceed with his case. It would evidently be impossible to prove a charge of dummyism if the persons ' against' when the charge was made were allowed to be present.
After a conversation in which the propriety of clearing the room altogether was mooted, all interested left the room, except Mr. C. G. Duffy and Mr. W. A. Blair, and their legal adviser's. Mr. Murphy returned to the room at a later period of the day, but he was not examined as a witness.

Mr. Purves stated that on the 7th December certain, allotments were thrown open for selection in the Parish of Nepean, in the county of Mornington. At the commission, which was held in an extremely irregular way, and in ignorance or contempt of all form, some individuals obtained the coveted allotments. According to his instructions it secerned that two parties one fighting this battle - one party led, or supposed to be led, by the Hon. Charles Gavan Duffy, and the other by Mr. W. A. Blair. Mr Blair subsequently bought a charge against Mr. Duffy of securing certain lots by means of dummies. These lots were known on the plan as Nos. 72, 69, 60, and 67, and for convenience of reference they might be termed back allotments.
In the present case, Mr. Blair charged Michael Cain with being concerned in the transaction as Mr. Duffy's dummy Acting under instructions of Mr. Blair Mr. Gillott on 9th December wrote a letter to the President of the Board of Land and Works, in which contained the gist of the charges against Mr. Duffy. The letter was as follows:-
“1 Market Square,
Collins-Street West,
Dec. 9, 1868,
“To His Hon. the President of the Board of Land and Works.
"Sir,- I am instructed by Mr. William Allison Blair, of Queen St, lime merchant, to call your attention to the unfair manner in which the commission which sat on the 7th inst. at Schnapper Point was carried out, and to request that before any licences are issued the matters decided by the said commission will be reconsidered and adjudicate .upon by a commission composed of more than one person. My client states that his application was improperly rejected at the instance of the Hon. Gavan Duffy, on the ground that he had not advertised the same in the latest newspaper, to wit, a Geelong newspaper although he proved that he had advertised in a Melbourne newspaper (the Age) according to directions given to him at the Crown Lands office. Again, applications of other persons were held 'too late' although (as proved) they were lodged with Mr. District Surveyor Bage at the hour of nine o'clock in the morning of the 2nd November last, and applications of Mr. Duffy and his party thereby became successful, consequently their applications must have been lodged before the advertised time. Mr. Blair, at the sitting of the commission, asked Mr. Duffy if he had made his arrangements with Mr. Bage before the advertised day, but this question Mr. Duffy declined to answer.
"My client further alleges that Mr. Duffy (who was present throughout the sitting of the commission) took a most prominent part in the proceedings, and raised the whole of the objections against the application of other persons (except these of his own party), and he and his party are the only persons who have secured any land.
"Mr. Blair further alleges that by undue influence, not only on Mr. Bage, but also on Mr. Hodgkinson, Mr. Duffy and his party secured all of the allotments at Point Nepean, and that he (Mr. Blair) undertakes to prove that numbers of persons who were successful in obtaining land were merely ' dummies' of Mr. Duffy. '
Mr. Blair trusts that, under the circumstances, you will be pleased (before any licences are issued in respect of these allotments at Point Nepean) to cause a thorough inquiry to be made, and the matters referred to another commission, and, if necessary, Mr. Blair and other residents of that district will prove the above allegations.
I have the honour to be, sir
Your most obedient servant,
Saml. Gillott.''

This letter contained all Mr. Blair's charges against Mr. Duffy, and he believed they would be proved satisfactorily. The only notice received of any counter charge was conveyed in a letter received from Mr. Hodgkinson to Mr. Gillott in answer to the letter of 9th December. It was dated 14th December, and was as follows:

“Office of Lands and Survey,
Melbourne,
14th Dec, 1868.
"Sir,-Your letter of 9th ''inst. has been submitted to the Hon, The President of the Board of Land and Works, together with my notes of evidence taken when at the Courthouse, Mornington, and which completely disprove the gross misstatements which, in accordance with Mr. Blair's instructions, were made in that letter.
"You say therein - 'My client states that his application was improperly rejected at the instance of the Hon. Gavan Duffy, on the ground that he had not advertised the same in the nearest newspaper.' A reference to my note shews that Mr. Blair's application was not rejected for that reason, but because he already held in fee a very large quantity of land at Point Nepean, and because, on his own admission, he did not put down posts in the land at nine a.m. on the 23rd November, at which time (which was the earliest at which land could be marked out under the new regulations) Mr. Duffy had 'put' down posts.
"You further state that applications of other persons were held 'too late,' although, as proved, they were lodged with Mr. District surveyor Bage, at the hour of nine o'clock on the morning of the 2nd November.
"In reply to this allegation, I beg to inform you that my notes shew that the only applications refused by me as being too late were these of Mr. Knight and Miss Ford, which were respectively dated 10th and 17th November, and were not received by Mr Bage before these dates.
"You remark in your letter, that 'Mr. Blair further alleges that by undue influence, not only on Mr. Bage but also on Mr. Hodgkinson, Mr. Duffy and his party secured all the allotments at Point Nepean; and that he (Mr. Blair) undertakes to prove that a number of persons who were successful in obtaining land were merely 'dummies’ of Mr, Duffy.
“The persons here alluded to must be the three Cains, whose applications were approved, as they were not objected to when being dealt with. I, however, afterwards he said it alleged that they were dummies for Mr. Duffy.
"It is remarkable that whilst Mr. Blair considers I have unduly favoured Mr. Duffy, the latter gentleman called at this office on Thursday last to represent that I had dealt unfairly with him by entertaining the applications of the two Swans, as he alleged that they were dummies of Mr. Blair, and asked that their applications1 be reinvestigated by another member of the Board of Land and Works.
"Mr. Grant has decided that the applications of Messrs. Blair, Morley, Knight, and also that of Miss Ford, for the land alluded to in your letter were justly refused by me. He has also decided that the complaints by Mr. Blair, that Mr. Duffy employed dummies; and the counter complaint by Mr. Duffy, that Mr. Blair employed dummies, shall be investigated in the board-room, Melbourne, by myself and two other members of the Board of Land and Works: and that in the meantime, no licences will issue to any person for any portion of the lands in dispute.
"The day for this investigation will be Thursday, 7th January next, at, ten o'clock am.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your most obedient servant,
C. Hodgkinson,
Assistant-Commissioner of Lands and Survey
“Samuel Gillott, Esq., solicitor, Collins Street West."

The learned counsel, after a few further remarks, called –
Charles Gavan Duffy, who said,- I have applied for allotments 93, 82, 77, and 74 in the parish of Nepean. I believe there is a waterhole on No. 93. The signature to the application for the allotments is signed by, me. I may say I had no notice that these lots would be brought before the board, as| they were granted to me,
Mr. Purves.- Was allotment No. 93 granted to you ?
Mr. Duffy.-Yes, subject to the reservation, of the waterhole,
Mr. Hodgkinson read his notes of the decision respecting the allotments:-
Charles Gavan Duffy, 100 acres. One of the allotments applied for by Mr. Duffy, No 93, formed the subject of a petition from the inhabitants of Nepean, who desired that this allotment should be proclaimed a water reserve, as it contained wells much used by them. Mr. Duffy contended that such reservation was not required, as water could be procured anywhere in Nepean by digging, and presented a counter memorial to the effect that there was no objection to his holding this land under the 42nd section.' Decided that Mr. Duffy’s application for allotment 93 should remain in abeyance pending inspection of the allotment by a Government surveyor, and that Mr. Duffy, the secretary of the Kangerong Road Board, and Mr. Ford, as' representing the objectors, respectively, be informed when the surveyor would inspect the allotment. Mr. Duffy's application for the rest, of the land wanted by him favourably entertained, subject to curtailment of the strip of land near the beach,"
Witness, continuing,- I never applied for any other land in the parish of Nepean, except one allotment to be put up to auction, and it was put up to auction. I have applied for a beach frontage, but it forms part of the allotment I have named. It was before the 2nd October that I saw some person about the land. I saw my son, who was Crown tenant of the land.
Mr. Purves.- Did you see anybody besides your son about lots 93, 87, 77, or 74.
Witness.- I don't understand you; you must be more specific. I can’t see the bearing of your question.
Mr. Purves.- It is very plain. Did you see anybody but your son?
Witness.- Yes; I called on Mr. Bage, the contract surveyor, I saw him before the 2nd of October. I asked him the method of application, of which I was wholly ignorant. He informed me of the process of applying. I should say there are about 100 acres in the lots. I don't think Mr. Bage said anything about the quantity. It is possible that I said, as the lots were on land of which my son was Crown tenant, I should make the application.
Mr. Purves.- Was anything said about the amount?
Witness.- He and I know 100 acres was the largest quantity that any applicant could take up. I did not ask him if there were any means of taking up a larger quantity, he did not make any remark to me upon that subject. He gave me the information that I asked, as it was his duty to do
Mr. Purves.- Was the question of dummies introduced into this conversation?
Witness.- No, certainly not. I called on him simply to ascertain the method of application, of which I was ignorant, and he gave me the information. That terminated the interview. I did not say to Mr. Bage that I wished to select all the open land on my son’s name or anything to that effect. Mr. Bage did not ask me if I wished to take up the open land. Mr. Bage, whom I never saw before, simply gave me the information as a public officer. I did not know of his existence before that day. I next saw Mr Bage between that date and the 2nd of November. It was to ascertain a point respecting which I was in doubt, namely, when the 2nd of November commenced for the purpose of these applications. I mean the period of the day upon which: applications would be first received. He told me that the decision of the board was that the day commenced at nine o'clock. I have no recollection of any further conversation. It is a matter of such a trivial nature that I did not pay much attention to it. The interview only lasted two minutes. I can't tell the day when it took place. I called on him as I was passing in town. It was probably the 2nd of November. I was at the Heads on the 2nd of November. I can't tell the day I left Melbourne. I went to Queenscliff, and slept there one night, and crossed the bay on the following day. If the 2nd November was on a Monday I went to Queenscliff on a Saturday, and crossed the bay on Sunday. I was at the Heads the day before the selection.
Mr. Purves.- When were the figures in your application altered?
Witness.- I never altered any of the figures. I fell into an error of putting lot 95 instead of 93, as I did just now in telling the board that I applied for 95 instead of 93 - 95 is sold. I wrote out 95 in the first instance, but before I sent in my application I corrected it. That is the only alteration I remember having made. The application was put in a printed form supplied to me by the contract surveyor, which he filled up afterwards.
Mr. Purves.- When was the altered application made?
Witness.- That document is one which the contract surveyor ought to send in. It was left with him. It was filled up in his office in Queen-street.
Mr. Purves.- You wrote this application the 2nd of November, the day you said you were at the Heads.
Witness.- That is merely the date of the application. I cannot state the length of the land fronting the bay; you must measure it yourself.
Mr. Purves.- What became of the paper that you and the contract surveyor filled up?
Witness.- He got it. I wrote it in his office. It is dated 2nd November, but I cannot fix the date it was written. It may have been a week after the 2nd of November when the contract surveyor gave me notice that it was necessary to fill out this form. I had made application for the land before this. I suppose the application is in his custody. It was lodged on my behalf. I had nothing more to do with it. Michael Levison, the man in my employment, lodged it. I cannot tell the date it was lodged. I instructed him to lodge it as soon after the 2nd November as he could. He told me he did so. It was enclosed in an envelope addressed to "Ed. Bage, contract surveyor, Melbourne."  My son's application was in the same letter; nothing else, except a communication stating that I forwarded the application for my son and myself. I paid the fees as soon as I understood the survey was made. I cannot tell if I paid them by cheque or money. I cannot state the amount. These are not facts which a man carries about with him. Mr. Bage gave me an account for myself and my son. I paid the amount. I also paid the tees for the three Messrs. Cain. Cain's account was not included in that for my son and myself. The reason I paid Cain's account was this - Bage was out of town, and John Cain having come to town to present a memorial about a petty sessions and land for a cemetery, he asked me to accompany him, as a Member of Parliament and one having an interest in the district. I did accompany him to the Chief Secretary's office and to this office. He then told mc that he had called several times at Bage's, and could not find him in. He gave me the amount of the survey-fees to forward to Bage, as he was going out of town next day. It is not my usual custom to act in this way, but did so for Mr. Cain, because he was a neighbour and a friend of my son's, Cain gave me notes and silver. My impression is that I paid Bage by a cheque for my son's, my own, and Cain's accounts. I got the money from Cain at the Parliament Houses. I have not got the account Bage furnished me. I did not pay the survey-fees on the 2nd November because the survey was not made then. The money was not paid when Levison lodged his application. I obtained a printed form from Bage, and I filled it up in my son's house at Nepean, and sent it down to Levison. I beg your pardon, I am now speaking of the first application I made before the 2nd October, and which I destroyed when I found that Mr. Grant had postponed the day for selections from October to November.
Mr. Purves.- Where were the applications for the 2nd of November filled up ?
Witness.- I filled them up at my own house at Hawthorn.
Mr. Purves.- Where did your son get the form?
Witness.- I sent it to him, and he filled it up and returned it to me. I cannot fix the day. It was two or three days before the 2nd of November. I sent no forms to anyone but my son. I sent him forms to be filled up for the Minister of Justice; Mr. Murphy, who had applied for land in the district ; also for the three Cains, and I think for the Minister of Justice's brother, N. J. Casey. I sent them before for the Cains because my son asked me to do so. Living in town, as I did, I had facilities which they had not.
Mr. Purves.- You managed the whole business for the Cains?
Witness.- That is not a question. It is an observation, and an untrue one. I got from my son the applications of, I think, all the parties I have named.
Mr. Purves.- I wish to know if the Cains filled up the forms in the first instance?
Witness.-So far as I know the forms came from my son. I sent my son's and my own and the three Cains' applications to the contract surveyor by the same messenger.
Mr. Purves.- In the same envelope?
Witness.- No. Levison carried the letter from me and my son, and the letter forwarded by the Cains to me, and sent by me to the surveyor. I did not read Cains' application.
Mr. Higinbotham.- I understand you to say that Levison not only took an envelope for yourself and your son, but also a letter forwarded to you by your son, enclosing an application from the Cains
Witness.- Exactly. The envelope holding Cains' letter was addressed to Bage.
Mr. Purves,- Were Murphy's, Casey's, your son's, and the Cains' applications sent by the same messenger?
Witness.-I think Mr. Murphy's was a day or two later. The Caseys sent theirs by their own messenger. I am not certain about Casey's brother. I may say this - Well, it does not matter. ,
Mr. Purves.- Are you certain that you did not write the envelope to Bage?
Witness.- I am persuaded that it was sent to Bage, because I received it from my son. I did not address the Cains' application, and therefore, it must have been addressed when I received it. My son's letter came by post. I did not pay the fees for anybody but the Cains. Certainly not for Murphy or the Caseys. They resided in town. I advertised the applications in a Geelong paper on account of Casey, the three Cains, my son and myself. I think they were all advertised in the same paper on the same day. I then advertised them as passed through Geelong on my way to Point Nepean. I paid for them. I sent my son a memorandum of the amount. I paid for Cain's. Mr. Casey offered to repay me the half-crown I paid for him, but I would not take it. The Cains have not repaid me. I sent my son a memorandum that the advertisements cost three half-crowns. I only saw the Cains once. I acted as my son’s agent when I paid this amount. There are few fathers who would not do this for their sons. I advertised in the Geelong paper because they wore nearest to Nepean.
Mr, Purves.- You went fifty-three miles to get the nearest paper.
Witness.- I complied with the regulation
Mr. Higinbotham - Is Geelong nearest to Nepean?
Witness.-Yes.
Mr. Purves. - The regulations say to nearest local paper. Who informed you the Geelong papers were the nearest local papers? ,
Witness.- My impression is that I heard from the department. I measured on the map, and saw that Geelong was the nearest,
Mr. Purves.- How far, is Nepean from Geelong and Melbourne ? ,
Witness.- I can't say. I took a ruler and measured it upon the maps. I measured also Hobson's Bay to Geelong.
Mr. Purves.- Then the nearest way to Nepean is to go across the bay.
Witness.- I never travelled any other way. I don't know if anybody also goes the way. I have travelled that way ten years.
Mr. Purves.- Did you understand that the Geelong Advertiser is the local paper at Point Nepean.
Witness.- Yes. I don't know if the in poundings are advertised in it. I never saw the Geelong Advertiser or the Age at Point Nepean. I have seen The Argus there. I objected to Mr. Blair's application before the commissioner at Point Nepean.
Mr. Higinbotham said that this line of examination could not be continued if it was intended to go into the charge against Mr. Blair now. Mr. Purves said he put the question in this way, that Mr. Duffy applied at Mornington on behalf of a number of individuals, and amongst these the Cains. Mr. Duffy objected to Mr. Swan and Mr. Blair on behalf ‘of Michael Cain, and unless he was authorised by Cain, he had no right to do so,
Mr. Higinbotham stated that he, was satisfied with the explanation.'
The examination continued- I applied at Schnapper Point only as an applicant I did not appear for the Cains pro or con. I objected to Mr. Blair because he had accumulated a large quantity of land in the district. It was Mr. Blair's conduct during the inquiry that induced me to speak for my son. I objected to nobody besides Blair, but Swan, who was competing with my son. I appeared for Casey, and twice answered an objection for him. I was also ready to appear for Casey's brother if any objection had been made to him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Billing.- I wish to make this statement. In the year I860 my son became Crown tenant by tender of a few hundred acres of land at Point Nepean. Before that period it had been lying idle. After the police farm had been broken up, which I think was in 1802, Mr. Purves, a squatter, the father of my learned friend, and Mr. Ford, a smaller squatter, had occupied the land during this time rent free, and they then took steps to have a gate on the run taken down. They did not succeed, because it was shown that the gate was on a road which leads to the Sanitary Station, which is only travelled by Mr. Ford, and that he was not inconvenienced in any way. Some ill will then sprang up between my son and his neighbours, and they annoyed him in various ways, their stock trespassing on his run. When the land was thrown open for selection under the 42nd clause, he and I determined to take up the quantity which we were entitled to do by law. He told me that his only friendly neighbours were the Cains, and he was persuaded that Purves and Ford, although large proprietors, would do their best to compete for his land. We found that applications were put in by Mr. Purves, by my learned friend who appears for Mr. Blair, by his brother, by Mr. Ford and two of his sons, his daughter, and a relative named Blake. I came to the conclusion that as they all applied for the same land that they were dummies, and that Mr. Blair thought that the 'land would be decided by ballot, and that he would multiply his chances by having a large number of persons. This was the matter I brought before the commission at Schnapper Point. I interfered in my own and my son's behalf because we had invested £3,000, £1,500 of which he had inherited from his grandfather, and £1,500 which I had advanced him. I never desired, however, to do more than take up the 100 acres to which we were each entitled. I suggested to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Casey to take up allotments for a seaside cottage away from society, where they could obtain relaxation when they wanted it. I thought they would be good neighbours. I received no instructions from the Cains; nor am I interested, directly or indirectly, in their applications. The statement in Mr. Blair's letter about "my party" being the only one successful is not true. The first person who succeeded was a policeman, whom I never saw before. I trust I may be permitted to say that the statements which have lately appeared in the newspapers on this subject are gross misrepresentations, and I can only imagine they were supplied by Mr. Blair.
Mr. Purves objected to any such statement being made.
To Mr. Steavenson:- Cain's application did not clash with my son's. This was done intentionally, because they were friendly.
To Mr. Higinbotham,- I am not aware that my son has any interest in Cain's application, directly or indirectly. He was only anxious that Cain should get it, to keep out unfriendly neighbours.
Edward Bage, authorised surveyor under 42nd section, said:-
My duties are to survey land applied for under the 42nd section of the Land Act. I saw Mr. C. G. Duffy a few days before the 2nd November, in reference to land he intended to apply for. He asked me for information as to the method of application. I gave him notices to post on the land, and the forms of advertisement. I gave him half-a-dozen forms. I usually give a large number of forms. The information I gave Mr. Duffy was as to what was necessary to comply with the regulations. Nothing further. I may have mentioned the number of acres he could take up. He did not state he wished to take up more than 100 acres. Next saw him some days after 2nd November. Can't tell the exact date. I keep no diary. It may have been a week after the 2nd November that I saw him. He came to ascertain whether there were any other applicants. I showed him the book containing the applications. It is usual to give that information. Mr. Duffy originally applied for Lot 95, and I wrote that number down, but on looking at the map immediately afterward I saw that 95 was sold, and I altered it to 93. I altered the lines on my own authority, because Mr. Duffy had left me a map, showing the lots he wanted. I told Mr. Duffy that I had altered the number after the 2nd November - about a week after. The lots applied for in the application of Mr. Duffy are 95, 82, 77, and 74. I did not alter that document because it was unnecessary. I altered it in the book. These are all the applications I received on the 2nd November. I received them by message. I gave Mr. Duffy two application forms, for himself and his son, and I received them back again. I sent them by post. , Mr. Duffy's letter was, put in and read as follows:-
Hawthorn,
Nov, 2,1868.
Dear Sir,-I send you herewith the notices of application under the 42nd section for myself and my son. I enclose also a plan by which you will see the exact position of the land. -Where the applications' are for separate allotments you will observe that either purchased or reserved land intervenes! And that I took the nearest Crown land available.-
Faithfully yours, C. Gavan Duffy.
Edward Bage, Esq."
The notices enclosed were :-
" Notice.-I, C. G. Duffy, have applied under the 42nd section of the Amending Land Act, 1805, for eight licences, to occupy 100 acres of land consisting of allotments 74, 77, 82, and 95, and the unsurveyed land beginning at allotment 100 A, and passing the said allotment 95, in the parish of Nepean, county of Mornington. Surveyor, Mr. Bage, 35 Queen Street. The notice of John Duffy was for eight licences, consisting of 158a. 1r. 26p., allotments 63, 64, 65, 70 and 71.
Examination continued.- I don't think I should know the messenger again; he was only in the office for a moment. I began to make entries in my book on the 2nd November. Mr. Duffy's and his son's applications arrived about nine o'clock that day. Cain's arrived about three quarters of an hour afterwards. They were brought by the messenger that brought N. J. Casey's. Mr. J. J. Casey arrived on the 4th. I am positive Cain's applications did not arrive with Duffy's. I received survey fees for the allotments; I received Mr. Duffy's fees three weeks afterwards. They were paid by Mr. Gavan Duffy personally, his cheque, for his own and his son’s land. John Michael Cain's fees were also paid - by Mr Duffy. Accounts were furnished to Mr. Duffy on separate papers for each person. Separate receipts were given. I had a note from Mr. Cain, stating that he had left the money with Mr. Duffy. There were no other amounts besides these paid by Mr. Duffy' cheque. The amount, I think, was £7 2s. Odd I can’t tell the day I received the cheque - I think about a week before the commission sat at Schnapper Point. Mr. Duffy never said he would like to take up the whole of the land, nor did I suggest dummyism as a means of getting it. I did not tell any person that I had suggested to Mr. Duffy to apply through dummies. Mr. W. A. Blair’s’ application was received about twelve o'clock on 2nd November. It was certainly not received at twenty minutes past nine. I told Mr. Blair that other applications had been made for the same allotments. Mr. Blair said he would go at once and see the President of the Board of Land and Works. I do not decide who is the first applicant. The book shows which person comes first. If all the persons came together I put them down as simultaneous applicants; but I have had no cases of the kind. I know Mr. Duffy's application was received first because the man who brought it was standing at the door of the office before nine, and he spoke to me as I went up the stairs. I told him he would have to wait till after nine. I am certain I did not take the envelope from him before nine. The man went down stairs when I told hint I could not receive the application, and he waited a quarter of an hour before he came back. I. did not tell Mr. Blair that there was no use in his lodging an application as there were so many people before him. He did not say he would see the President on account of anything I had done. I might have said to him it was of little use his putting in an application for the land. I frequently do so. Mr. Blair might have said he understood all applications before a certain hour were on the same footing.
To Mr. Steavenson: There was no conversation with Mr. Duffy about dummyism?
To Mr. Hodgkinson.- I told Mr. Blair his application would be of no use, as there were so many before him.
To Mr. Purves.- Mr. Duffy and Mr. Swan were the only applicants before Mr. Blair for the same land.

John Duffy, farmer and grazier, said,- I am son of Mr. C. Gavan Duffy. I applied for land at Point Nepean under the 42nd section. My father acted for me. He got the forms for me, but I can't say if he gave them to me personally or by letter. I filled them up, and sent them back to him. I don't remember if I got forms for other persons. I got three forms; one of them I put on a peg on the land; two I filled in, and sent to him. I don't remember about any other forms.
To Mr. Purves.- There may have been other forms.
Witness.- I dare say there were. If I had any other forms I gave them to the parties to fill up. The parties were the Cains and the Caseys. That is all I had to do with them that is to say, I got them back from the Cains and Caseys, and sent them to my father. Can't say how I gave them to him - either by post or personally. If I sent them by post I addressed them. I can't tell whether I sent them by post or not. I can't undertake to say whether I got the forms all at the same time. I should think I sent them all back at the same time. I am in partnership with my father. My father paid the survey fees; my share would be debited to me. I instructed him to pay fees on account of the Cains. I can't say I have received money from the Cains. There is an account between us, and they owe me £7 or £8. I received no money from them on account of this land. I instructed my father to advertise my application. I am certain I did not instruct him to advertise anyone else's. I can't state what the advertisement cost, the advertisements of the Cains are included in the accounts current - that is they will be included. There have been no accounts furnished for some time. My father did not tell me the cost of the advertisements, but I think they were half-a-crown each. I generally deal with John Cain, as he is the man of business. I did not pay their survey fees, and therefore they don't owe me them, I am responsible for the advertisements of the Cains. I instructed Mr. Murphy to insert the advertisements. I would not say I saw Mr. Murphy personally. I acted for the Cains in the matter, and instructed Mr. Murphy either directly or indirectly to advertise the Cains' allotments. John Cain can read and write. I acted for the Cains because I was anxious for them to get the land, as they were friendly to me. I wished to prevent Purves and Ford getting the land. I was not so much interested in Cain getting the land as in preventing others getting it. I was at Schnapper Point at the sitting of the commission, and I urged objections. I was assisted by my father. I objected to David Swan that he had not pegged the land, and also that he was a dummy for Mr. Blair. I objected to Mr. Blair and Mr. Mailer because they had not pegged. I can't say if my father objected to them. I objected to the allotments at the front beach, not to the back beach. I believe my father backed me up. I objected to James Swan, when I applied for Lot 63-one 1 had applied for. I did not get any land. The three Cains and my father got land. Mr. Murphy, the two Caseys, and myself had our applications postponed for the consideration of the board. James Swan applied for land that Michael Cain also asked for. Cain got the land. Cain was not present, and a policeman was sent after him. There was great confusion. I don't know if James Ford objected to Michael Cain getting the land.
Examined by Mr. Billing. - I have been on the best terms with the Cains. Their father has got a small run and purchased land. Mr. Ford, my neighbour to the west, has been very unfriendly on account of his stock trespassing on my land. Purves held land beyond the Cains. His stock is as bad as Ford's. Purves and Ford have tried to get a gate taken off one of my fences. If that were done their stock would be always trespassing. John Cain spoke to me about his selecting land on my run. I told him I was anxious to assist him in every way to prevent others getting it. I was especially afraid of Mr. Purves, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Blair, who owns land adjoining Purves'. Mr. Blair has 1,200 acres. None of the industrial class, except the Swans, applied for land. I am not interested directly or indirectly in the land taken up by the Cains. It is not my intention to occupy any of it. I can't tell which of the advertisements Mr. Murphy inserted.
Mr. Purves - The land in dispute is about three miles from my homestead. I bought allotment 60, adjoining the land I applied for. That is all the land-about thirty acres - I have in the neighbourhood. I am afraid of Blair, because he has not the reputation of being a good neighbour. I think Mr. Blair has about 2,000 acres. I speak from report.
Mr. Higinbotham.- Had you any arrangement or understanding with any of the Cains that they should apply for or take up any of this land for your own benefit or your father's?
Witness: No, none whatever.
Mr. Higinbotham. Was it exclusively for their own benefit that they should take it up?
Witness.- Exclusively.
Mr. Higinbotham. - They were to take up this land for themselves, and not directly or indirectly for you?
Witness.- That is so.
Mr. Higinbotham.- You declare that positively.
Witness.- Positively.
Mr. Higinbotham. - I understand you to declare now that there is no arrangement by which you have an interest in the land?
Witness.- None.
Mr. Purves. - Or in the grass?
Witness.- No.
Mr. Higinbotham. - Were you to have anything to do with that ?
Witness.- No.
Mr. Steavenson.- Was it arranged with you and Cain which allotment you were each to apply for?
Witness.- Yes.
John Cain said:- I am son of Owen Cain, I have two brothers. I can read and write. I transact my own business, and my brothers' business in Melbourne I generally get done for me by somebody. I applied for land at Nepean in November last. I got the forms from John Duffy, and gave them back to him. He came to Melbourne. I got six forms from John Duffy. I filled up three; one form was sent to the newspaper, another sent to Mr. Bage. Mr. Duffy acted as my agent in the matter. I don't know who put the advertisements in the paper. I have not paid for the advertisements. I have got to pay 2s. 6d. each for them. Mr. John Duffy told me, soon after the advertisements appeared, that was the price of them. There is an account between him and me. I paid the survey fees to Mr. C. G. Duffy, at the Parliament Library - four £1 notes and 2s.6d.; the latter to Mr. Bage. I wrote in Melbourne, at the Parliament Library. I had complained to Mr. C. G. Duffy that I was unable to see Mr. Bage, and I had to leave town; and he undertook to pay the fees. I wrote the letter to prevent delay in town. I was not advised by anybody to write it. I put the letter Mr. Bage's box. I did not put the money in the letter because I thought the other was the surest way. To the best of my belief Mr. Duffy did not tell me to write the letter. I owe Mr. John Duffy £10. I am not in partnership with him, nor did I sell sheep on a joint account with him. He sold me cattle, and I did cartage for him. I have sold Mr. Duffy meat. I do a little butchering. I am to take the 7s. 6d. off the meat. I paid Mr. C. G. Duffy cash for the fees, because I had no transactions with him, and did not know he was a partner with his son. I have not agreed to let John Duffy have the grass of the land I have got. I want the grass for myself. My brothers and I have 100 head of cattle. The cattle are my father's, not ours but we have the use of them. I got 133 acres.
Cross-examined by Mr. Billing.- I intend to use the land myself. I have not applied for it directly or indirectly for the benefit of Mr. Duffy. James Cain's advertisement was inserted last at Prahran; the others about a week before at Geelong. Mr. Murphy inserted the first advertisement or the second.
To Mr, Steavenson.- I do not intend to live on the land, but adjoining it.
To Mr. Purves.- The cattle now on the land are my father's and brothers'. '
To Mr. Higinbotham.- We first saw by the newspapers that the land was open for selection, but I learnt from Mr. John Duffy that land taken up under the 39th section was not protected from selection under the 42nd. . Mr. Duffy did not urge me to select it. There was no arrangement that I should select for Mr. John Duffy's benefit, or that he was to have the use of the grass. There is no such arrangement at present.
James Ford.- I was at Schnapper Point on 7th December last. I applied for allotment A, south of the Police Paddock, and for two back beach lots, 62 and 67. None of my applications were successful. When Mr. Hodgkinson saw there were no other applications to consider, I went and spoke about mine. He said he knew nothing about my applications, but on looking he found a paper with my name. He told me lot A was taken up by Mr. Casey, but that 62 and 67 were not taken np. I asked if I could have them, when Michael Cain came forward and said he was an applicant. James Swan said he applied for one lot. I told Mr. Hodgkinson I had not pegged, and then he said I could not get the land. Almost all the persons had left the Court, but Mr. Hodgkinson was still on the bench.
Mr. Higinbotham pointed out that the board had nothing to do with what was done at the commission at Schnapper Point.
To Mr. Billing.- My father has 1,500 acres in the' district. 'My brother, sister, and a person named Knight, applied for land. '
Michael Cain said,- I am a limeburner. I applied for 151 acres at Point Nepean on 7th December. I was promised the land. I have done nothing with it. I will put a crop in part of it, and leave the rest for grass. I own three horses and five or six cattle. I am a partner with my brother in lime-burning, not in the cattle. I thought of taking up the land because I was told by my brother the land was open for selection. I picked out the back lots because it suited my purpose. l had no arrangement with Mr. Duffy not to select the same lots as he did. I filled up the forms myself, and sent them to Melbourne by Mr. Duffy. I got them from my brother's place.
Mr. Purves - Did Mr. Duffy suggest you should take up land?
Witness (after a long pause).- Mr. Duffy recommended me to take up land. I did not agree with Mr. Duffy to take up any particular allotments. My brother told me the lots I was to take. My brother paid the survey fees: the money was got from the bank. I did not tell him to give it to anyone. I sent the advertisement to Melbourne by Mr. Duffy. I have not paid for them yet. I intend to fence the land, and put on it my own stock, not my brother's.
Cross examined by Mr. Billing. - Mr. Duffy has no interest, directly or indirectly, in the land.
To Mr. Steavenson.-I intend to reside on the land.
This closed the evidence for Mr. Blair.
Mr. Billing said, as all his witnesses were called he had no further evidence to give, but he submitted that no case had been made out.
Mr. Higinbotham stated that both counsel would be heard on the evidence; then the charges against Mr. Blair would be proceeded with, and the Board would take time to consider their decision. He wished however, to ask Mr. Blair a few questions. '
Mr. Blair replied he was willing to answer any questions.
Mr. Higinbotham.- Did you authorise Mr. Gillott to write the letter of 9th December, 1808.
Witness.-Yes.
Mr. Higinbotham.- It is there stated, "Mr. Blair further alleges that by undue influence, not only on Mr. Bage, but also on Mr. Hodgkinson, Mr. Duffy and his party secured all of the allotments at Point Nepean." Had you any evidence in support of this allegation that you have not produced to-day.
Mr. Blair.- At Mornington, I saw Mr. C. G. Duffy use his influence with Mr. Hodgkinson. It was observed by more than myself. It was also patent to me that Mr. Duffy, from the time the court opened till it closed, was allowed to make any remarks he chose, but when I attempted to speak, as, for instance, when I wished to take the part of the Swans, when Mr. Duffy and his son were both talking at a young and illiterate lad, and when I impulsively went forward to say something for him, I was not allowed to speak.
Mr. Higinbotham.- You gave no evidence of this.
Mr. Purves.- I did not call Mr. Blair, because this had nothing to do with the charge the board is investigating.
Mr. Higinbotham.- Mr. Blair brings a grave charge against a member of the board and a member of the public which affects the case very much. Either the charge should not have been brought, or some attempt should have been made to prove it.
Mr. Purves.- I am here to protect Mr Blair from a charge of procuring land by dummies, and to show that Mr. Duffy obtained land by dummies. In my humble judgment, though I may consider Mr. Blair's letter ill advised, it has nothing to do with the case to be considered. I don't attempt to defend the letter for one instant.
Mr. Higinbotham.- Well, this letter states -"Mr. Blair undertakes to prove that numbers of persons who were successful in obtaining land were merely ' dummies ' of Mr. Duffy." Had you any further evidence on this point beyond what you have produced to-day?
Mr. Blair.- I had the evidence of the great interest taken at the court by Mr. Duffy in the Cairns' application; and when any person supposed to be connected with me applied, Mr. Duffy carne forward and objected. It was the common talk at Mornington that Michael Cain was a dummy.
Mr. Higinbotham.- And on the common talk and your own observation, you authorised your solicitor to write this letter?
Mr. Blair.- Yes, taken in connexion with my having called at Mr. Bage's with my application, when he told me there was no use m lodging it, as I was too late. I then said I would see further into it. I was at Bage's office at twenty minutes past nine, and he told me I was too late, although I understood that all applications before ten o'clock were on the same footing. He then told me I could leave the application if I chose, and he would forward it. I called on Mr. Bage next day, and asked him if he still adhered to his opinion, because I had no desire to go to further expense of advertising if I had no chance. He said I might advertise.
Mr. Higinbotham.- These were the grounds on which you based your complaint?
Mr. Blair.- I considered them very suspicious. I may state that as to Mr. Hodgkinson that he behaved very courteously to Mr. Duffy, but when I tried to speak about the Swans, he told me I had no position, though he had allowed Mr. Duffy to speak for others; and he sent for a policeman to put me out.
Mr. Hodgkinson.- I may explain. My reason for doing that was because Mr. Blair wanted to interfere with an answer to a most important question, which I have found enables me to detect if the applicant is a dummy. Mr. Duffy said Swan was a dummy for Blair. I then asked Swan what allotments he wanted, and before he could answer, Mr. Blair came forward to prompt him, and I told him he must not interfere or I would put him out of court.
The inquiry was then adjourned till next day.

The Argus (Melbourne, Vic : 1848 – 1957), Saturday 9th January 1869, page 6
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5821986
SPECIAL -LAND COMMISSION.
The commission appointed to inquire into the charges of employing dummies brought by Mr. W. A. Blair against Mr. C. G. Duffy, - and of a similar charge brought by Mr. Duffy against Mr. Blair, resumed its sittings yesterday morning at the Crown Lands office. The members of the commission present were Mr. Higinbotham, Vice-President of the Board of Land and Works (chairman), Mr. C. Hodgkinson, Mr. Skene, and Mr. Steavenson.
Mr. Purves appeared for Mr. Blair; Mr. Billing, for Mr. Duffy.
Before the proceedings commenced, Mr. Duffy asked to be permitted to offer an explanation of the evidence he had given on the previous day.
Mr. Purves objected to any explanation. Mr. Duffy had already offered half a dozen statements to explain away his evidence.
Mr. Higinbotham thought Mr. Duffy should be heard; the board of course would remember that it was given by one who had heard all the evidence.
Mr. Duffy then said.-- When I was asked yesterday if I had put in advertisements for the Cains, I did not remember that, in point of fact, only two of the Cains applied for land in the first instance, and the other about a week afterwards, as will appear by Mr. Bage's book, or the records of the department. Therefore when I said I put in the advertisements for all these gentlemen in the Geelong paper, I put in the advertisements for two of the Cains only; the other was put in by Mr. Murphy about a week afterwards. I may also say that in one of the reports I am made to say that I never before saw the policeman who got the land at Schnapper Point. I did not say so. I intended to say that I had no connexion with him. I have seen the man for the last ten years at the sanitary station; I could not have said, therefore, that I did not see the man before.
[Mr. Duffy's evidence was taken down in shorthand and the notes of the reporter are - "The first person who succeeded was a policeman, whom I never saw before. I had nothing to do with him."]
Mr. Purves.- Did you not say yesterday that - " I put in the advertisements for the Caseys, Mr. Murphy, the three Cains, myself, and my son?"
Mr. Duffy.- Yes ; but in point of fact I only inserted two advertisements. I had forgotten the circumstances.
Mr. Purves then addressed the board on behalf of his client, stating that it should be remembered that the gentleman who was opposed to Mr. Blair was one well skilled in artifice, and if any man could disguise his acts by an apparent representation of truth, it was one who was such a master of the art of dissimulation as the Honourable Charles Gavan Duffy. He was as capable of employing dummies and giving the least clue to his proceedings as any man in the colony. He was doubtless aware that it was possible for him to be accused of a crime of this nature, and, therefore, he was likely to take such steps as his great experience might suggest to protect him from that charge things that would not strike a common mind would be sure to be patent to a man so clever in artifice as Mr. Dully. Ile was, besides, at one time President of the Board of Land and Works; he was well acquainted with the working of the department and of the Land Act; he had himself drafted a land act; he, therefore, knew the points he was likely to be examined upon, and would take special care to act so as to nullify any proceedings against him. It was only, therefore, by considering his conduct very strictly, by comparing his evidence with that of the others, by viewing the acts of others in connexion with his own, that they could arrive at any conclusion. They had then the facts that Mr. John Duffy and his father were partners in a run at Nepean, on friendly terms with the Cains and unfriendly with other neighbours, although that was the first time he (Mr. Purves) knew that the neighbours were unfriendly to Mr. Duffy. John Duffy admitted that he was anxious that the Cains should get the land, and one of the Cains acknowledged that John Duffy recommended him to take up the land. They also found Mr. C. G. Duffy advising Mr. Murphy and the Caseys to take up land in the same neighbourhood. The Cains were charged with being dummies of Mr. Duffy's, but he might go further, and charge the Hon. H. M. Murphy with being also a dummy. The board would remember that when witnesses were requested to withdraw yesterday, they were very reluctant to leave; that Michael Cain, who was, perhaps, less posted up than the others, would not retire for a very long time ; and that the Hon. H. M. Murphy treated the board with gross discourtesy, for he remained in the room the greater part of the day. He (Mr. Purves) was thus deprived of an opportunity of examining Mr. Murphy, for it was useless to call a man as a witness when had heard the greater part of the evidence. They found, however, that Mr. C. G. Duffy went to the contact surveyor, got a number of forms of application, which lie transmitted to his son, for the Caseys, the Cains, and the Murphys. Why did he take such an extraordinary interest in these persons? Why could they not apply for themselves? It was said that the Cains resided at Nepean, but the others lived in Melbourne, and could have obtained the forms for themselves. Then they had the discrepancies between Mr. Duffy and his son and Mr. Bage as to what was done with the applications. John Duffy did not know he who sent the forms to his father. His father said he received the Cains' forms in an envelope, addressed to Mr. Bage, and enclosed in one to Mr. Duffy. Mr. Duffy said he sent the forms of the Cains' and his own by one messenger to Mr. Bage, whilst Mr. Bage alleged that there were two messengers-that Mr. Duffy and. his son's forms carne at nine o'clock ; that Mr. Casey's and the Cains' were brought by another and a different messenger, some time afterwards, on the same day. Now, either Mr. Bage or Mr. Duffy was unworthy of belief in this matter. But taking, as he did, Mr. Bage's evidence as altogether unworthy of credit, Mr. Duffy's and his party's statements proved conclusively that he had a number of dummies. Before going farther he wished to allude to one matter. It was insinuated yesterday that he (Mr, Purves) was a dummy of Mr. Blair's. Now, he was only there, on his professional honour, to support Mr. Blair's charge, but he would say that he never was a dummy, and never should be a dummy for any man breathing. An allusion was also made to Mr. Gillott's letter respecting the undue influence of Mr, Duffy.
Mr. Higginbotham.--I made a mistake in alluding to that yesterday, but I wished to ask a question on the latter part of that sentence.
Mr. Purves thought it would be fair to state that Mr. Blair's reason for making the statement as to undue influence, was that Mr. Duffy was at one time president of the Board; that Mr. Hodgkinson was once a subordinate of his, and acted under his instructions. Mr. Duffy was also a man of high standing, and when he went to Schnapper Point and acted as counsel for men when he put forward to secure land; it was hardly too much to say that he used undue influence. The learned counsel then proceeded to comment on the other parts of the case, dwelling on the fact that John Cain wrote the letter to Mr. Bage at the Parliament house Library (he had no doubt written at the suggestion of Mr. Duffy), and on the fact that Mr. Duffy paid the Cains' survey-fees by his own cheque instead of paying the money that John Cain gave him, that is to say if John Cain ever gave him any money, which he very much doubted. He also alluded to the discrepancies in the evidence respecting the advertisements, to the fact that they were not yet paid for, to the fact that the Cains applied for different land to the Duffys, and contended that it was a clear case of conspiracy, and that the charge against Mr. Duffy was proved.
Mr. Billing then addressed the board, observing that he had come to the office on the previous day to defend John Duffy, as he understood that the dispute was between John Duffy and Mr. Blair. The charge was a most grave and audacious one to be made against any man, and still more against a public man who occupied the respectable position Mr. Duffy did. The charge was a most reckless one, and not a particle of proof had been tendered hi support of it; whilst wholesale accusations of corruption were made against Mr. Hodgkinson and Mr. Bage, public officers. It was said by his learned friend that these charges were difficult to be sustained, but if so they ought not to be lightly made. He could only suppose that this case was brought forward for political reasons, perhaps to shut the mouth of Mr. Duffy when another land bill was under discussion by a taunt that he was an employer of dummies. He therefore could understand the reasons why this charge was made against his client, a gentleman whom he was proud to call his friend. He would not follow the observations about Mr. Duffy's dissimulation because they had nothing to do with the case. The learned gentleman then commented on the evidence, and contended that the policy of the Land Act was to exclude large landed proprietors from the benefit of the 2nd clause, and to create ‘yeoman population men’ of small capital like Mr. John Duffy. He referred to the application being sent by Mr. Duffy's servant, which was owing to the fact that a trustworthy person must be employed, because it was necessary all applications should be lodged soon after nine o'clock on the 2nd November. Mr. Duffy had explained about the advertisements and the payment of the survey-fees. There was nothing extraordinary in his doing friendly acts of that kind for neighbours. It was natural, as the Duffys had unfriendly neighbours on one side of them, that they should be anxious to secure good neighbours on the other; and to that extent, and that only, were they interested in the Cains being successful applicants for the land.
Mr. Higinbotham stated that the board would reserve its decision on this case till the other one was disposed of.
The charge against Mr. Blair was then proceeded with. Mr. Billing appearing for Mr. John Duffy, and Mr. Purves for Mr. Blair.
Mr. Purves said he was only prepared to defend Mr. Blair against charges brought by the Hon. Charles Gavan Duffy. This was the first time he had heard of John Duffy being the complainant.
Mr. Higinbotham remarked that the charges were made by Mr. John Duffy in the letter to the board, although Mr. C. G. Duffy had adopted the charges. He also understood that, at Schnapper Point, it was John Duffy who complained against Mr. Blair.
Mr. Blair said that the quarrel was commenced by Mr. C. G. Duffy, and he wished him now to prove his accusation.
Mr. Purves stated that he did not wish for any adjournment to meet Mr. C. G. Duffy, but if the board went on with Mr. John Duffy's complaint he should retire, as he had no instructions about it, and neither he nor his client had heard of it till now,
Mr. Higinbotham apprehended that Mr. Blair did not wish for an investigation; but, even if he did withdraw, the board would proceed with the inquiry ex parte.
Mr. Blair did not shrink from any inquiry, but he wanted to meet Mr. C. G. Duffy and not his son.
Mr. C. G. Duffy said that he did not know anything of the existence of the Swans till the commission sat. The charges against Mr. Blair were contained in the letter of John Duffy but, if necessary, he was willing to join in the charges. Any postponement would be attended with great expense.
Mr. Higinbotham said the board did not desire Mr. C. G. Duffy to be the complainant; he must meet on his own responsibility.
Mr. Duffy.- Mr. Billing, I beg you will appear for me now.
Mr. Billing stated the case, the charge against Mr. Blair being that he had employed two persons named James Swan and David Swan in selecting land under the 42nd clause, at Nepean. Mr. Blair attended at the commission and interfered actively on their part, and evidence would be given by John Duffy, Mr. Bage, and others, which would clearly prove the relation between the parties.
John Duffy stated that James and David Swan are father and son. They reside at Nepean. James Swan applied for lots 63, ,68, 67, 69, and 72. I applied for 63. Michael Cain applied for the other three. The Fords, Knight, and one of the Purves's applied for the same lots. Mr. Blair and Mailer applied for 64, 65, 70, and 71. David Swan applied for the same lots. I live about a mile from Swans. They act as servants of Blair's - meet him with led horses when he goes to Nepean. They also occupy the same land with him. I put posts on the ground, in the manner mentioned in the regulations, about nine o'clock on the morning of 2nd November. Michael Mahon, my servant, assisted me. Swan has stated that my notices wore not placed on the post. That is perfectly untrue. Mahon and I searched carefully for posts erected by the Swans, but could find none.
Cross-examined.- My father drafted the letter I sent to the board. My brother Francis copied it. I did not sign it; my brother signed it for me. I was not present when it was written. It was arranged that this course should be taken. I never saw the letter before to-day.
Mr. Higinbotham.- It is a case of ratified forgery.
Mr. Purves.- I don't put it that way; but I think it is sufficient justification for my refusal to appear against John Duffy.
Cross-examination continued.- My brother was not at Tootgarook on 9th December, to the best of my belief. I can't tell where he wrote the letter, although it is dated from Tootgarook. I enumerated the charges to my father before he left Schnapper Point. I could not tell the charges against Mr. Blair. I will make a complaint against him if you wish it. I have no evidence myself that the Swans are dummies, but they have witnesses to prove it, I have heard from many people -John Cain and Michael Clarke for instance-that Blair was in the habit of stopping at Swan's house. My letter states that the contract surveyor made a survey for me. That is not true. The land was surveyed previously. He made a plan for me. I have seen the Swans burn lime, I believe for Mr. Blair. I don't know of my own knowledge that Blair and the Swans occupy the same land. Mahon made a statutory declaration for me about the fences. He is not here today as he was too busy to leave Nepean, The land I applied for is somewhat in the form of a boot. Í put in four pegs only, as I considered that sufficient. I put down pegs for my father, myself, the two Caseys, Michael Cain, and Murphy. I had the pegs taken to the ground on the previous evening-twenty four pegs altogether. I started from the house at six o'clock, and it took me three or four hours to put in all the pegs.
Mr. Higinbotham reminded Mr. Purves that the board would not deal with the priority of the application.
Examination continued. - Michael Cain's allotment, which I pegged for him, is two miles and a half from his house. My house is the same distance from the lot. I pegged for Cain because I was pegging for myself. I gave no reasons at Schnapper Point tor considering the Swans dummies. It was past three o'clock when I had finished pegging. The Caseys and Murphy instructed me to peg for them. Either John or Michael Cain instructed me to peg for Michael.
Re-examined.- Tootgarook is the nearest post town to me, and the answer would be sent there. At the commission Mr. Hodgkinson asked Swan for his advertisement, and Mr. Blair came forward with a Melbourne paper.
To Mr. Higinbotham.- The grounds of my charging Blair with employing dummies are first, because the Swans act as a sort o£ servants to him; second, because he came forward with the advertisement; third, because he came forward to assist David Swan in obtaining the same allotment that he (Mr. Blair) was applying for; fourth, because James Swan's land was mortgaged to Blair. I think it was before Mr. Blair's application was disposed of that he assisted Swan. The Swans are not domestic servants of Mr. Blair. They take charge of his land. It was because they applied for the same land as Mr. Blair did that I accused them. I also heard of a letter written on 2nd November by Michael Cain, for James Swan, to Mr. Blair. One paragraph was:- "Regarding what was proposed, I done my work on the 2nd November. I done it to the minute. If other people are asleep, I am not." Michael Cain told me he asked Swan how much he pegged, and he said 200 acres. At the commission, too, James Swan was ignorant of the place where the land was.
To Mr. Purves.- James Swan cannot read or write; he said that the land he wanted was at the “old settlement."
Mr. J. Duffy.- Another reason I have for complaining is that Mr. Blair's clerk sent in the notices to Mr. Bage for the Swans.
Mr. Higinbotham.- It appears to me that some of the reasons which apply on one side apply equally on the other.
Edward Bage, contract surveyor, said John Duffy applied for lot 63, which was also applied for by James Swan and by William Ford. The remainder of the blocks James Swan applied for were also applied for by Michael Cain, a portion by James Ford and William Ford. The first applicant for 64, 65, 70, and 71, was John Duffy, the second James Swan, the third W. A. Blair, and the fourth Mr. Mailer. James and David Swan applied by their agent, William Taylor, 7 Queen-street. Mr. Blair gave me his address as Essendon.
To Mr. Purves, - So long as the pegs are in the ground at nine o'clock on the day for selection, it does not matter how long before that date they were inserted. All who peg before nine o'clock stand on the same footing.
John Clarke, labourer at Nepean, said: - I have worked for the Swans at lime-burning. I have been paid by orders on Mr. Blair, 7 Queen Street. There is a clerk named Taylor there. I have seen Mr. Blair put up at the Swans when he visited Nepean. I have seen Swan meeting Blair with a horse. I have seen Swan looking over fences done by contractors for Mr. Blair.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves.- People are generally paid at the Heads by orders on town. I know the Victoria Lime and Cement Company, Limited. Mr. Blair is the company. I believe Joseph Cain was a shareholder of the company. There's a kind of a public-house near the Swans, I told Mr, Duffy last week what I have stated to-day. He stopped me on the road, and asked me if I know anything about the Swans. It is only by hearsay that I know the land fenced by contractors was Blair's, I never worked for Blair. The Swans lived near the old settlement. Swan lost a child when he lived there.
John Cain said Mr. Blair lives at 7 Queen Street He has a clerk named William Taylor. Blair usually stops at Swan's when he visits Nepean. Swan meets him at Dromana with a led horse. Swan's child is buried on a point projecting into the sea, on the opposite side of a road fronting the land he has applied for. Blair owns land formerly occupied by a man named Russell from the Crown, for which he paid £25 a year. Russell had a limekiln on it. Russell now rents the land from Blair.
Mr. Higinbotham thought this evidence was irrelevant, if it was intended merely to injure Mr. Blair's character.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves.- I believe Mr. Duffy's application for a beach frontage would extend past the graves at the “Sisters."
To Mr. Steavenson.- I had nothing to do with the pegging of Michael Cain's land. Michael's is further off than the others, and that is the reason I did not peg his land.
Michael Cain said on the 2nd November I wrote a letter for James Swan to W. A. Blair. It was not intended I should know what it was about. Nothing was said about its being confidential. I recollect one paragraph. "I did my work on 2nd November in proper time. Things are going on first-rate." I asked him, in consequence of the letter, if he had pegged land, and he said, "Yes, about a couple of hundred acres."
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves.- I don't know if I pegged the same land as Swan. John Duffy pegged for me. He was pegging at the same place for others. I know my ground was pegged. Mr. Duffy and I live equally distant from the land. I supply Mr. Blair with lime.
Mr. Purves here handed the witness a letter received by Mr. Blair.
Witness- (after examining the letter closely). I think this is the letter I wrote.
[The letter was as follows :-" Dear Sir,- I have enclosed Mr. Bennett's wood account, and also an order of Mixner and Co. for £10 10s. I went on the 2nd November, and did the proposed work. Get the cattle as quick as you can, for the grass is losing. Things are progressing favourably down here. Send me down 3cwt beef, bag salt.- Yours truly, Jas. Swan."]
Witness,- I can explain my mistake in this way. We had a long conversation before the letter was written, as James Swan did not know how to word the letter, and I altered the words for him. Swan seemed to be keeping his pegging dark. I wrote the letter at Swan's house about ten o'clock in the morning. He sent for me.
To Mr. Higginbotham.- I told Mr. Duffy about the letter. I told Mr. Duffy that Swan had spoken to me about other people being asleep. He did not tell me to write that. I asked Mr. Duffy to peg out my land. I have done work for him; helped him to gather in the harvest.
Mr. Higinbotham.- Why did you not peg out your own laud when you had not to work for anybody but yourself?
Witness.- I thought Mr. Duffy could do it for me.
To Mr. Steavenson.- I know the Swans well. I don't know how they work, whether as masters or servants. I was working at a quarry three miles from the land pegged out on the morning of the 2nd November. Mr. Billing then put in a mortgage 10th September, 1862, James Swan to William Allison Blair, for land at Mornington, for £127.
This closed Mr. Duffy's case. Some conversation took place relative to Mr. Purves calling evidence. Mr. Purves thought he ought not to be deprived of his right of reply by being compelled to call witnesses when Mr. Billing ought to examine. Mr. Higinbotham said the board would examine Mr. Blair if no one else did, but counsel would then not have the power of cross-examination.
Mr. Purves then said he would call evidence, and proceeded to comment on the evidence, which, he said, was contemptible, and unworthy of notice, and given by men who violated private confidence.
William Allison Blair said,- l am connected with the Victoria Lime and Cement Company, 7 Queen-street. William Taylor is a clerk of the company. I did not instruct Taylor to take Swan's application to Bage's. All the lime-burners, James Swan among the rest, transact their business in Melbourne by agents. The lime merchants are the agents; they receive the goods and cash the orders. James Swan told me about a week before the end of October, that he intended to apply for land at Point Nepean, and he mentioned the land he intended to apply for. As he would require to peg there at nine o'clock, he asked me to attend at the Government offices in relation to the applications, as he did not understand the work. I referred him to Mr. Taylor, and told him to attend to what Swan might require, and I believe Taylor carried out his instructions to the letter. When I got the note I handed it to Taylor to carry out its instructions. The letter was no secret; it was the company's. He had told Taylor he would peg out the land on the 2nd November, and the letter was sent to tell him that was done. [The letter written by Michael Cain is the one alluded to.] The order of Mixner is one Swan received, and which he forwarded to me for collection.
To Mr.. Higinbotham.- I know of no reason why Swan should conceal the meaning of the letter from Michael Cain.
Examination continued.-The Swans are not and have not been my servants. I have slept at the Swans' in preference to sleeping in the bush or at the grog shanty. I have slept about a dozen times there in fourteen years. I take Swan to my house at Essendon when he arrives in town. He is poor but honest, but I would rather have him there than many I could name. I produced the advertisements for Swan at the commission, I attended there because I knew I would not get the land I wanted, as I had not pegged, I had put in the application in the first instance, because I knew that at Phillip Island no pegging was required, and if the same rule existed at Nepean I would have a chance; otherwise I would have none. From information I received from a friend, I could name the names of those who would be successful. They were Mr. Duffy, his son, Mr. Casey, and his brother.
Mr. Higinbotham.- Unless you give the name of the person who supplied the information you should not state that.
Witness.- I don't want to injure the .gentleman's position, but if you will guarantee that he will receive no injury, I will tell.
Mr. Higinbotham.- I have no power to give any such guarantee.
Examination continued.- At the commission Mr. Hodgkinson asked young Swan what land he wanted, but he could not answer, when John Duffy stepped forward and said he must be a dummy of mine, as he could not point out the land. Seeing the lad's distress I told the father to go forward, but being a little bashful, the Hon. Chas. Gavan: Duffy commenced to assist his son in brow beating the lad. I impulsively stepped forward to assist the lad by showing the advertisements. Mr. Duffy then stated that the men were dummies of mine, that I had no right to interfere, and Mr. Hodgkinson asked me to desist or he would call a policeman. I asked Mr. Duffy for his reasons for stating the men were my servants or dummies. He would not answer. I asked Mr. Hodgkinson to put the question, but he declined. I called on Mr. Duffy to prove his statement when he got up and screamed out that I was an oppressor, and had taken the ground over these men's heads. I bought the land at auction; these men I have allowed to retain the same position with me as with the Government, except that they are more secure. As to Swan's mortgage, Owen Cain came to me some years ago and wanted to obtain a transfer of the mortgage. I refused and since then he has become very unfriendly to me. I believed my application was disposed of at the commission before Swan's, but I can't speak positively as the confusion was great. There are five shareholders in the Victoria Lime Company; I am manager. I was not directly or indirectly interested in any way in the Swans' application. They were not to select the land on my account. Three or four years ago Swan took me to the "Sisters," a couple of cliffs at Nepean, and told me if he ever was in funds he would like to buy land there, as he had two children buried there, and he asked me if the land was ever put up to auction if I would assist him in getting it. I said I would; and I may say, if an application had been successful, I would have been a dummy for him and would have given him the allotment. It was I who informed the Swans about the land being open for selection.
Cross-examined by Mr. Billing.- I represented Mr. Mailer, as he was unwell. He is a retired gentleman, a land speculator. I did not know the allotments Mailer was wanting. I never saw his advertisement. I have as reason for appearing at the commission that was not going to refuse a man a favour when he was unwell. I did not know that he and I were competing for the same allotment. I knew I would not get any lots. I wrote the letter to the department on public grounds, because I had been told previously the names of the persons who would be successful.
I went to Schnapper Point because I was curious to know the success of this grand scheme. I am difficult to move, but when I am moved I am not easily stopped. I went down also to see that the Swans got fair play.
Mr. Billing.- You stated in your letter that your application was rejected at the instance of Mr. Duffy, and yet you now say you did not expect to get any allotments. Explain that.
Witness. - Because I did not consider Mr. Duffy's objection a good one. I think Taylor once paid money at the Treasury for land I bought. He will be at the Treasury tomorrow to pay for thirty acres I have bought. James Swan told me that David Swan intended to apply for the four front lots. I put in my application ten days after the conversation with the Swans. I put down pegs at the end of September for the selections in October. I had given up all idea of taking land till I heard of what was about to be done for Mr. Duffy. I neither wanted the land nor desired it, but, being at Nepean, I pegged out, to have my share in the land scramble as well as others. My peg was put down on 65. I was asked at Schnapper Point if I would reside on the land. I said, no, but as we had a number of cattle at the Point, the lots would have been useful as a grazing paddock, and I told Mr, Hodgkinson so. The statement in the letter from Swan requesting me to buy cattle, alludes to young cattle to be purchased for the yoke. I understood by the words "I did the proposed work," that he had pegged off the ground for himself and his son. I have known the Swans for fourteen years. Swan has overlooked contracts for fencing for me, and he has also had contracts on his own account for drawing wood.
Mr. Billing.- Why did you and David Swan select the same land?
Witness.- James Swan intended, if his son got the land, to set him up, and get him married. I lost any idea of getting the land after the 2nd October, because I did not care for it. The Swans and I have some land under one fence. Eighty four acres belong to me, but are leased to Swan; the remainder (108 acres) are Swan's. I never threatened to turn him out. I never turned any man out. I brought down the newspaper to show that Taylor did his duty to Swan. The advertisements were paid by the company's money, and debited to Swan. Taylor was instructed to pay the survey-fees if called upon. I applied for the same lots as Swan to give me a position at Mornington.
James Swan, a limeburner, at Point Nepean, said,- I applied for allotments Nos. 63, 66, 67, and 72, known as the back allotments, and applied for them on my own behalf. Some years ago I lost two of my children, and buried them close to the allotments I applied for, which are situated in a neighbourhood called the Old Settlement. My wife particularly wished me to apply for the allotments. I never was in Mr. Blair's service, but occasionally brought a horse to Dromana to oblige him, as I might do for anyone else. There is no circulation for money down at the Heads, and we send up orders to town for our stores. I filled up a printed form of application for the allotments, and Mr. Taylor lodged them for me. I sent the order on Mixner to assist in paying the fees. In my letter to Blair, by .the " proposed work'' I meant pegging off the land. The lands were not to be handed by me if I got them to Blair, I went to Schnapper Point, and the only persons who opposed me were Gavan Duffy and his son. Michael Cain did not oppose me. I told Mr. Duffy that he ought not to stand up against a poor man like me. They opposed me because I had not pegged the land. I did peg it, upon my word, and if I was to die for it tomorrow. Mr. C. G. Duffy said I was a dummy for Mr. Blair, and I said I was not. I was the last man but one called, and my son was the last. Michael Cain got the land after I had gone. As soon as I heard it I went to Mr. Hodgkinson, and he said he had not granted any, and would not grant any till he went to Melbourne. I gave Mr. Hodgkinson a statutory declaration at his request. Owen Cain wanted me to have Blair's mortgage transferred to him. I never thought Michael Cain had applied for the same land, or I would not have sent for him to write the letter.
Cross-examined by Mr. Billing.- I did not know what piece of land Mr. Blair wanted. I knew he wanted some. Taylor filled up the application for me. I sent him the number of the allotments I wanted in a letter written by John Cairns, a limeburner. I was in Melbourne after the 2nd October, and not before. I let a contract for Mr. Blair, by his orders, with a Mr. Rowley. My orders were always paid by the Lime Company. I am sure Mr. Blair did not stop at my house the night before the commission sat at Schnapper Point. I did not ask Mr. Blair what land he was about lo select ; it was not my place to ask any gentleman such a question.
Re-examined.- I saw Mr. Taylor in town before 2nd November, and asked him to put in my applications.
To Mr. Hodgkinson.- I did not mark out my son's land. My son and I intended to take up the land jointly. I had an idea to take up this land fifteen years ago. I once paid £0, and since then £20 a year licence for lime burning.
To Mr. Higinbotham.- I did not mark my son's land because I thought he would have to do everything himself.
Mr. Hodgkinson.- Did you not tell me that the reason your son did not know anything about the land was because you had taken all the steps in the matter
Witness,- No; I beg your pardon. You would not allow me at first to say a word against the Hon. Charles Gavan Duffy.
David Swan said,- If I had got the land I meant to make a home of it. I would not have given Mr. Blair the land. I cart wood for my father for Mr. Blair's limeburner. Mr. Blair never asked me about the land. My father spoke to me first about the selections. I pegged out my own land. Mr. Duffy and his son, at the Schnapper Point commission, called me a dummy. I got no land. No reason was given me. I could not point out the land I wanted. I can't read or write.
Cross-examined by Mr. Billing.- I was not asked at the commission to point out the land. I could not tell the numbers at the commission; I can now - John Cain has told me the numbers since. I put down only one peg on 64, I saw that number on the surveyor's trees. I knew the figures at Schnapper Point, but I could not remember the words, I have heard that Mr. Blair applied for the same lots as I did. I don't know why he did so. I have had no conversation with Mr, Blair about this case. I have been in town a week.
Re-examined.- I came to see the races.
There was one other witness to be examined, and as it was then half-past seven o'clock, the board adjourned till the following day at half-past nine.

The Argus (Melbourne, Vic : 1848 – 1957), Monday 11th January 1869, page 6
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5816438
SPECIAL LAND COMMISSION.
[Third Sitting Day – Saturday 9th 1869]
Mr, Higinbotham, Mr. C. Hodgkinson, Mr. J. Steavenson, and Mr. Skene, the commission appointed to inquire into the charge brought against Mr. C. G. Duffy, and Mr. W. A. Blair, of employing dummies, resumed their sittings on Saturday.
Mr. Purves appeared for Mr. Blair ; Mr. Billing for Mr. Duffy.
William Taylor, a clerk in the Victoria Lime and Cement Company, of which Mr. Blair is manager, said,- I was instructed to put in the Swans' application for land to Mr. Bage. Mr. Swan gave me the instructions, and Mr. Blair also spoke to me about it sometime in October. About the 22nd I lodged the application with Mr. Bage. On the 2nd November, a little after nine o'clock, Bage said there was an application, lodged before that by Mr. Duffy. I offered him the survey fees, but he would not take them, because he said they had been already paid by the first applicant. I took the money for the fees from the company's funds. I got the money from the cashier, and returned it to him. I also put in and paid for the advertisements in The Argus. Charged the account to Swan in the company's books. Swan has dealt with us for many years past. I believe Mr. Blair got a letter from Swan, telling the numbers of the lots wanted. Mr. Blair copied the numbers, and handed them to me in the office. I never acted as a dummy for any man.
Examined by Mr, Billing.- The paper containing the numbers is in Mr. Blair’s handwriting. I have kept it in the office since October. I never tear up papers. Sent in the application between nine and ten o'clock. I saw that there was another name down before mine. I don't believe I said anything about being sorry I was so late. First saw Swan about the 20th October; he asked Mr. Blair to put in the application, and Mr. Blair referred him to me as he would be out of town on that day. Swan's letter (through Cains) arrived before the 30th October. I did not act in any way for Mr. Blair's application, and did not know that he had made one.
To Mr. Higginbotham.- I don't know what became of the letter from which these numbers were copied.
Mr. Blair to Mr. Higginbotham,- The note containing the numbers of the lots was a simple slip of paper, gritty, and apparently part of a pass book. I copied it out for the sake of accuracy. I did not keep the paper.
Mr. Higinbotham.- You stated yesterday that you did not know the numbers of the lots David Swan applied for; how can you reconcile that statement with the fact that you copied the numbers from the letter sent you by Swan two or three days before the 2nd November ?
Mr. Blair.- I could not tell the numbers of the lots now. I knew that David Swan applied for the front lots as well as myself, and, as I said yesterday, I made my application to give me a position at the commission,
Mr. Higginbotham.- You did not tell the Swans at Dromana the lots you applied for.
Mr. Blair.- They did not know I was applying, and I did not tell them.
Mr, Taylor (to Mr, Stevenson) - I never saw the letter written by Michael Cain for Swan on 2nd November. It does not look like a business letter. It has nothing to do with the company; it looks like a humbug.
Mr, Blair explained that the word " account," alluded to in the letter, was about wood taken from his private property, and supplied to the lime-burners. It has nothing to do with the company. I initialled the letter when I received it.
Mr. Stevenson expressed himself satisfied with the explanation,
Mr. Purves and Mr. Billing having addressed the commission, Mr. Higinbotham stated that the decision of the board would be given at two o'clock on Thursday next.

The Argus (Melbourne, Vic : 1848 – 1957), Friday 15th January 1869, page 6
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5811088
SPECIAL LAND COMMISSION.
[Concluding Hearing, held Thursday 14th January 1869]
Mr. Higinbotham, Mr. C. Hodgkinson, Mr. Skene, and Mr. J. Stevenson were engaged on Thursday, Friday and Saturday last, in taking evidence on the charges of employing dummies, preferred against Mr. C. G. Duffy and Mr. W A. Blair. Yesterday the decision of the commissioners was given at the office of Crown Lands, by Mr. Higinbotham.
Mr.- Higinbotham said,- The board has been requested to investigate and deliver its finding upon two charges, one brought by Mr. Blair against the Hon. Mr. Duffy, and the other, a counter-charge brought by Mr. Duffy against Mr. Blair. The charge in each case is one that is commonly called dummyism. It has been referred to in terms of great but I think not of undue severity, by the counsel on both sides. It is, in fact, a charge of attempting to commit a fraud upon the Land Law, and in violation not only of the law but of the rights of other persons who made application for the same land, and who, if this attempt were successful, would be deprived of the land.
At a point, whatever may be thought of the charge, it is one which it is the interest and the determination of the Board of Land and Works to prevent, and so far as they can to punish in every instance. Therefore, when such a charge is deliberately made, it is one which ought to be investigated to the bottom, so far as the board can. And in one of these, cases the charge assumes proportions of special importance and magnitude. Mr. Blair, passing by Mr. Duffy, jun., directs his accusation against the Hon. Mr. Duffy, and from the manner in which the charge is brought forward, and the language in which it is couched, it is manifestly the intention of Mr. Blair to assert that the act of dummyism committed by Mr. Duffy is peculiarly censurable in a person holding his public position, and who was at one time president of this board. The board entirely concurs with that argument. We think if the charge is proved against Mr. Duffy it is one which, as committed by him, is deserving of special censure, and would be sure to result in consequences peculiarly painful and damaging to him. It should also be added, however, that just in proportion as the charge is grave, either from its character or the position of, the poison accused, the responsibility of bringing it is also great, and the censure that will attach to and bringing such a charge on insufficient grounds, and without adequate proof, is also great.
Now, the board think that there are three circumstances apparent in the case brought by Mr. Blair which justified suspicion in the mind of that gentleman, and which would have also justified an application by him to the board for satisfactory proof, either by statutory declaration or otherwise, that Mr. Duffy was applying for land for himself, and in supporting the applications of the Cains was not using them merely as agents to get the land for himself. These circumstances are first, that Mr. Duffy sends in the application of some of these persons by his own servant; second, that he pays the survey-fees for all of them with his own money, third, that he inserted the advertisements of the application of some of them himself. These are all acts which would probably be done by a person who wished to employ dummies; but, on the other hand, I confess that it appears to me that although they are acts which would be done by persons employing dummies, they would be probably done in a different manner. A person employing dummies would probably insert the advertisements, but he would not be likely to do so in person. He would pay the survey-fees, as the land was intended for his own benefit, but it is very unlikely that he would pay them with his own cheque. It is also improbable that he would send in the application of such persons by the hands of his own servant. These circumstances, if known to Mr. Blair, (though at present it does not appear that he was acquainted with them before this inquiry commenced) would have justified Mr. Blair, in our opinion, in representing them to the board, and in suggesting that further inquiries should be made. But they are not sufficient for inquiry to support the charge which he brings against Mr. Duffy. Another circumstance was strongly relied upon by the counsel who ably represented Mr. Blair at this inquiry. It was that Mr. Duffy attended, and improperly interfered with, the inquiry which was held by Mr. Hodgkinson at Schnapper Point on the 7th December. Now, we don't hesitate to express our regret that Mr. Duffy attended on that occasion --
Mr. Duffy.- I was summoned.
Mr. Higinbotham.- Or that Mr. Duffy interfered in the manner in which he did interfere on that occasion. He was applying for land, and, doubtless, had the legal right to be present. It is not his legal right that for a moment can be called in question; it is a question rather of prudence and taste. That he appeared is to be regretted for this simple reason, that his appearance and interference on that occasion naturally tended to excite suspicion, and also to inflame the minds of the persons who applied for land on that clay. Mr. Duffy perfectly well knew that he would derive no advantage from his position as a public man, and from his having been once president of this board. But it could not be expected that numbers of comparatively ignorant persons applying for land on that occasion would have known the same thing. They might naturally, and they probably did, consider that a person in his position, and of his public influence, and of his standing, would certainly outweigh any claims they might bring forward, and that they would not be on an equal footing with him. He could have been represented by his son, who was more capable of appearing for himself and his father than were many of the others to appear for themselves. For these reasons I regret that Mr. Duffy attended. But at the same time it is, as I have said a question rather of taste and prudence than of legal right. Unquestionably he had a right to be present. We don't think the fact of his presence is any evidence against him rather the contrary, as in objecting to other applications he was acting for himself, and not for these whose claims he professed to support.
However, whatever suspicions occurred through some of these circumstances, Mr. Blair did not take the course of representing them to the board and suggesting that they should satisfy themselves as to the doubts he had raised. Mr. Blair, on the contrary, writes, by his solicitor, an official letter on the 9th December, which contained a great number of very grave charges, into one only of which it is our business now to inquire. As to one charge, l am requested by my brother commissioners not to express an opinion upon it, because an opinion has been already expressed by the president of the board; but inasmuch as Mr. Bage has been called as a witness, and as his evidence has been commented upon, we think it due to him to say that nothing has transpired in this inquiry to justify the slightest suspicion of his integrity so far as his dealings in this matter are concerned. His evidence was given in a straightforward, calm, and thoroughly
consistent manner so far as the board can judge by the evidence before it. We do not believe that there is the slightest ground for impugning his integrity in these transactions.
The charge against Mr. Duffy is in these terms:- "Mr. Blair further alleges that by undue influence, not only on Mr. Bage, but also on Mr. Hodgkinson, Mr. Duffy and his party secured all of the allotments at Point Nepean, and that he (Mr. Blair) undertakes to prove that numbers of parsons who were successful in obtaining land were merely 'dummies' of Mr. Duffy." The "numbers of persons" shrink when this comes to be investigated to one person, Michael Cain, and Mr. Blair does not call any evidence in support of his charge except that of the persons accused either directly or indirectly. If this charge is, as represented by Mr. Blair, one of a highly disgraceful if not a criminal nature, then every one of the witnesses called by him might fairly have objected to answer any questions tending to criminate themselves. It would no doubt have been very unsatisfactory to the board had they taken that course and refused to answer questions, but Mr. Blair could not have complained had they taken that course. Mr. Blair is in this position - that he brings a serious charge and demands a public investigation, and when that is to take place he has no evidence to offer. That would have been his position had Mr. Duffy, Mr. John Duffy, and the two Cains taken the course which, so far as he was concerned, they would have been justified in adopting, and declined to answer questions which would show that they were guilty of a charge which Mr. Blair represented to be very grave.
I am happy to say that they did not refuse to answer the questions put to them. They answered the questions fully and frankly. The board are of opinion that the circumstances which made a prima facie case of suspicion against Mr. Duffy have been entirely explained away by the witnesses; that the charge has not only fallen to the ground, but that it is completely disproved by the whole of the evidence which Mr. Blair himself brought forward with the view of establishing it. Mr. Duffy has given an explanation, which seems to us satisfactory, of his view and acts, in connexion with the transaction. He states and his statement is not questioned, that he and his son took up, by tender, a small station on this promontory of land which had formerly been occupied by persons who afterwards became their neighbours on opposite sides. These persons who had occupied the land were naturally aggrieved by the loss of the land, and their cattle had continually since that time trespassed on Mr. Duffy's land. In consequence of this a very unneighbourly feeling sprang up between the parties, and Mr. Duffy became exceedingly desirous, when the land was thrown open for selection, of having friendly rather than unfriendly neighbours; and there is nothing contrary to the intention or spirit of the act in Mr. Duffy endeavouring to surround himself with friends and friendly neighbours rather than unfriendly ones, for if unfriendly persons got a footing near him, the position of the parties would probably be exceedingly uncomfortable. It was exceedingly natural that Mr. Duffy should desire that friends and friendly neighbours should get the land rather than that Mr. Blair and unfriendly neighbours should take it up. His fear appeared well founded, for Mr. Blair, Mr. Ford, and the other persons regarded as unfriendly, applied for the land. It was therefore a prudent precaution, and a natural act, to endeavour to substitute friends for enemies in close neighbourhood to him. In addition, Mr. Duffy, his son, and the two Cains have distinctly and positively affirmed that there has been, and there is, no arrangement between them by which the Cains were to take up the land on behalf of Mr. Duffy, or that Mr. Duffy should have any interest in it whatever. It has been observed that this evidence was not given on oath, but that observation will apply to the whole of the evidence, and I am myself inclined to believe that evidence is just as reliable and credible if given without oath, as if given on oath.
At all events, the remark applies equally to one side as to the other. We must judge from the consistency, the demeanour, and 'the manner of the persons giving evidence, and we unhesitatingly express our entire credence of the statements made by Mr. Duffy, and these called by his opponent to prove his opponent's case. We believe that not only has the charge fallen to the ground, but that it is completely disproved, and we are also compelled to say, that a person who obtains a public investigation on a promise to produce evidence which he does not fulfil, incurs, in our opinion, a just censure, not for entertaining suspicions which were natural, but for demanding a public investigation on a charge which he is not prepared to support by any evidence except that of these when he has accused, and which he endeavours to lend force to by pointing out that the person charged is one in whom such conduct would be peculiarly reprehensible. I pass now to the second charge - that by Mr. Duffy against Mr. Blair of employing dummies, namely, two persons named Swan. The counsel for Mr. Duffy stated that Mr. Duffy appeared as a prosecutor by compulsion. We do not assent to that statement. We think that Mr. Duffy, senior, is the person who brought and who matured this charge, and therefore he ought to support it. Both the Messes, Duffy charged the Swans, at Schnapper Point, with being dummies, and Mr. Duffy, senior, drew up the heads of the indictment; and the letter, although signed "John Duffy," was neither prepared nor written by him, and Mr. Duffy, senior, brought the letter to this 'office, and founded upon it a demand for an investigation. Although it does not matter to Mr. Blair - who is the prosecutor, we think that Mr. Duffy has only accepted the position which ensued from his in the first instance voluntarily becoming the prosecutor.
Now, many of the circumstances of the second case are similar to the first; the position of the parties is, in fact, completely reversed, and the counsel for the parties were in the unfortunate position of having alternately to attack and defend the same acts. Some of the acts charged on both sides were the same, and at one time it was necessary for one party to declare perfectly innocent and harmless, and not attended with suspicious acts, which they afterwards declared were fraught with suspicion, and conclusive evidence of the truth of the charge. There are, however, some circumstances in the second case which distinguish it very broadly from the first. Both Mr. Duffy and Mr. Blair acted for others; but Mr. Blair acted for others in a way that certainly has not till this moment been clearly and entirely accounted for. He formed the design as far back as October to take up this land for himself. He says he afterwards abandoned that intention, but subsequently recurred to it in consequence of having received information which he is unwilling to communicate, and of the value of which we cannot, therefore, judge. However, when he did eventually determine to apply for the land, there can be no doubt that he was anxious to get it, and when he called on Mr. Bage, and was told that there was a previous application, he evinced some annoyance and disappointment, although the fact of this previous application would have prevented him attending at Schnapper Point if he had no intention or desire to get the land for himself. He did attend at Schnapper Point, and although, strange to say, without help or intention of getting the land, he made the application only to get a locus standi. He did not tell the persons whom he was anxious to support, and with whom he rode to Schnapper Point from Dromana, that he was applying for this land. This is a strange and unaccountable circumstance. It is strange that he also attended to support a third applicant (Mr. Mailer) who is said to be a land speculator, and to whom he addressed no questions as to the allotments he (Mr. Mailer) was applying for. Thus Mr. Blair attends, and applies for an allotment for himself, he supports the application of two other parties for the same land, and although at that time he had no expectation of getting it, and although he knew he was not entitled to get it, he instructs his solicitor to write to the board that his application was improperly rejected. These are circumstances which distinguish this case from the other, and which, in one opinion, are calculated to excite a vehement suspicion of Mr. Blair's intentions and position in this matter. At the same time, suspicions, however strong, are not conclusive, although it is perfectly true, as stated by Mr. Blair's counsel, it is difficult in these cases to get direct evidence, and that we must be compelled to form our judgment on suspicious circumstances rather than on positive proof. However, we heard the explanation of Mr. Blair and the two Swans, and, in view of that evidence, we are disposed to think it was the intention of the Swans to take up this land for their own use, and, consequently, that this charge of dummyism brought against Mr, Blair is not proved, The account given by the Swans is a natural and probable account. It appears by other evidence than that of Blair and the Swans that two members of the family of the elder Swan are buried upon land immediately adjoining that which Swan, sen, applied for. It is also said that more than four years ago-long before there was any intention to throw open this land for selection, Swan expressed an anxious desire to get the land in the neighbourhood of the graves. Having formed that desire a long time ago, it was perfectly natural and highly probable when the opportunity offered that he should wish to avail himself of it, and get the land. It is also said that his son is about to be married, and he was anxious to have the land to settle on. In addition to this, we have the same distinct and positive statement by Mr. Blair and the Swans, similar to that mado by Mr. Duffy and the Cains, that there is no arrangement between Mr. Blair and the Swans, no agreement by which they were to hold the land as agents for Blair. Possibly Mr. Blair may have expected in the course of time that such an arrangement might to made by which he could get possession of the land. I don't say that he had any such expectation. I only express the opinion that, while the circumstances of Blair's conduct are fraught with suspicion as to his intentions, the evidence of Blair and the Swans leads us to the conclusion that the Swans intended to get the land for themselves, and consequently could not be employed by Mr. Blair as his dummies. The charge is not proved, and therefore it cannot be taken into consideration by the board. The general result is this - that the charge against Mr. Duffy is disproved, and ought not to have been made; that the charge against Mr, Blair has failed to he proved, and that the Swans are not dummies of Blair. The board arc only called on to express an opinion on these two charges. It is outside our present duty to express any opinion as to what decision will be given upon the applications. They will be dealt with immediately, by the rules under which the department determines these cases, such as priority of application, the position of the parties, and their actual requirements. If the board have erred in its opinion on these charges there is a very easy remedy available. There is a marked difference between a licence under the 42nd clause and a clause under the 13th clause. Under the 13th clause an estate in the land actually passes, and it is undoubtedly more difficult to deprive a person of a lease once granted to him than it is to deprive him of something not an estate in the land at all, but merely a temporary licence, which can be withdrawn at any time, and which is only granted for a single year. If any of the parties to whim these licences be granted should, by his acts or conduct, show that he is really an agent for another person, it will be perfectly easy to dispossess him. He must fence the land with his own money and reside upon it. If circumstances show that he does not spend his own money, or the suspicion is revived that he acts for another, there is a short and summary remedy to the person who thinks the licence should have been granted to him. At present we only deal with the charge of dummyism, and I have already expressed our opinion on it.
In reply to Mr. Duffy, Mr. Higginbotham said that it would not be necessary for the applicants to again attend the board.
This terminated the proceedings.



The plan of the new Parish of Nepean, dated January 1872, is reproduced below.
(Image courtesy State Library of Victoria)

Note that except for POLICE PADDOCK and FORD’S, it only shows survey details at this time. The block marked Owen Cain lies within adjoining land, already surveyed and occupied.
Note: A number of blocks have been shaded in on this plan for some reason. While the shaded blocks include numbers 63, 64 & 65 it is most unlikely that the shading has any relationship to the Duffy – Blair case.

The relevant portion of the Nepean Parish plan reproduced below dates from 1878.
(Image courtesy State Library of Victoria
































All the larger ‘farm’ blocks have been alienated from the Crown and the name of the purchaser is marked on accordingly, in many cases along with the date of the alienation.
The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 -1954), Tuesday 3 November 1868, page 3
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article177002691

SELECTIONS OF LAND UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS.

The new regulations promulgated by the Department of Land and Works, providing for the extension of the area of the selection of land under the 42nd section of the Amending Land Act, came into operation yesterday. From the reports received by telegram from the various Commissioners appointed to adjudicate between the applicants for the choice allotments of land thrown open yesterday in special localities, it is apparent that the utmost eagerness was displayed to secure possession, and owing to the admirable instructions issued for the guidance of the land officers, the proceedings passed off quietly, and the utmost satisfaction was given by the method adopted in determining the priority of application. It appears that the plan was not uniform, but this was probably owing to the different circumstances surrounding the several selections. The Assistant Commissioner of Lands and Survey adopted the method of giving each applicant a ticket and then determining by lot the order of the selection. This was conceded to be fair to all parties and did not meet with a dissentient voice. Other commissioners provided a form of application for each selector, in which they were required to name the particular allotment they desired, and when it happened that there was more than one selector for a particular section of land, the system of determining by lot was then resorted to. Both plans were approved of, and it is gratifying to find that with very few exceptions, where the bonafides of the applicants were inquired into they complied satisfactorily with all the conditions which the land Department imposed. The particulars to hand of the various selections are appended.

KEILOR. - The commission that sat at Keilor was presided over by Mr Morrah. There was a very large attendance of selectors, but the proceedings were orderly, notwithstanding the dissatisfaction openly expressed by persons who were not fortunate enough to secure an allotment. There were 221 applicants for the 62 allotments open for selection in the parishes of Maribyrnong and Kororoit, of which the whole was taken up. The mode adopted by the land officer was to issue forms to the various applicants, which they were required to fill up, and make their selection. In cases where the bona fides of the applicants was doubted a second application was received. Should any of the applicants recommended for the allotments be found to have acted as agents, or to be otherwise disqualified, persons furnishing evidence to that effect will have a claim for the allotment, to which the Board of Land and Works will give due consideration. The licenses will not issue until December, so as to afford time for the production of such evidence. Good order prevailed throughout the proceedings, and the selection passed off satisfactorily, with the exception, as before stated, of a few natural growls from disappointed applicants. The following are the names of the successful applicants for allotments at Keilor. For those marked with an asterisk (?), there was a second application entertained, the bona fides of the first being doubtful : — Joseph Watson, Michael Meagher,* John Tweddle, John Delahay, John Beale, Thomas Hart, William Egan, Andrew Corcoran, George Davis, Thomas Cranwell, John Cummin, Thomas Callagy, William Connor, Samuel Mansfield,* John Cavanagh, Francis Butcher,* Michael Cummins, John Foley, Edward Burgess, William McLellan, Matthow Harrison, Henry Parker, Bennett Opie, David Milburn, Richard Griffiths, Samuel Jones, James Christie, James Harrick, Matthew Harrison, jun., John Delahunty, Thomas McNamara, David Newell, James Mitchell, Wm. Vincent McMillan, Robert McNamara, James Bibby, Isabella Williams, James Lambe, Owen Flynn, Thomas Opie, sen., B. G. Davies, Jamas Scott,* William Ellis, James Tweddle, Edward Cahill, Joseph Oliver, Rody Kennedy, Wm. Dalrymple Keating, T. G. Anderson, Wm. Molloy, John Wilson, Alexander Blackwood, Matthew Higgins, Walter Scott, John Sloan, Margaret Cahill, Vera Quale, R. G. Ely, Patrick Dwyer, Michael McDonnell, Edmond O'Donnell, William Murphy.

ROTHWELL. - The commission consisted of Mr Chancery, assisted by the police magistrate. The excitement was not very great .About 200 persons wore present, and 173 applications made for land in the parishes ol Balban, Wardyonang, Moranghurk, and Wooryalock. The greatest care was taken to exclude dummies, and on the whole very great satisfaction was given to the genuine selectors. Some sections, especially those in the parish of Moranghurk, were well competed for; a large number, however, only had one applicant, and several lots were left unapplied for. The commission assumed that they had the right to deal dually with the applications, and, consequently, adjudicated in those cases where only one application had been put in, refusing or granting according to circumstances. There were a few instances of individual hardship, notoriously that of Mr Blair, the secretary of the Corio Shire Council, who applied for a section and was refused, although there was neither competition nor op position, on the ground that he had one or more pieces of land which he had let to tenants. The proceedings had not closed up to a late hour.

COLAC. — We learn by electric telegraph that there were 607 applicants for the land open for selection at Beeac, and in consequence of the great rush of selectors at Ondit, the Cundare Farmers' Commons only was selected. The Ondit Town Common will be selected today. The people were very orderly.

WINCHELSEA. — At this place there were between 400 and 500 people assembled. The selection took place at the shire hall. The Commisioners took the names and particulars of all the applications for each allotment before calling upon applicants for the next allotment. The list of applicants being exhausted, a short adjournment took place. At two o'clock the commissioners gave their decision. The best feeling prevailed. The following is an epitome of the result of the applications, viz.: — Tutegong, 30 ; Mirneo, 89; Murgheboluc, 3 ; Birregurra, 175; Guarwarre, 59. Total: 390 applications. At Mirnee, allotments 29 and 30 had eleven applicants for each; for lot 3 there were nine applications, for lot 15 there were nineteen applicants, for lot 21 there were five applicants, and for lots 5 and 16 there were four applicants each.

LITTLE RIVER.— The telegrams received from this locality are in substance embodied in the following particulars : — For Moranghurk there were 44 applications, of which nine were approved, being all the lots open. Five were distributed by lot. Fur Woorayaloak there were 22 applications, of which ten were approved and one refused. For one allotment there was no appearance of the selector. Nine lots were not applied for. Four allotments were distributed by lot, the number of applicants rendering that course necessary. For the parish of Wurdyonang there were 30 applicants, of which 12 were approved for 14 lots. Two of these were distributed by lot, and two were refused. Two allotments were not applied for. For the parish of Bulban there were 79 applications, of which 41 were approved for 45 lots. Of those 12 were not applied for. Twenty-nine lots were not applied for.

SNAPPER POINT. — The Assistant Commissioner of Lands and Survey, telegraphing from this place, says:— Of 112 allotments open to be taken up under the 42nd section of the act at Phillip Island, all have been selected except two. The arrangements for dealing with the applications have given general satisfaction, and have resulted in more than one-half of the allotments having been obtained by local men following the avocations of farmers, fishermen, gardeners and farm laborers.

ROCHESTER. — The land officer, Mr J. H.Taylor, reports of the selection in this locality: — There were 57 applications, of which 27 were approved, for about 2500 acres, which are all considered bona fide. There were twenty applications for lots 142 and 145, and five for lot 75 Corop. There was no sign of a disturbance.

---