Royal Commission report day 42 page 8

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search

previous page / next page

The Royal Commission evidence for 3/8/1881

(full text transcription)

(see also introduction to day 42)

Mr James Wallace giving evidence

14679 What justification had you?— The repeated attempts of Ward to report me, and reports of Ward's immorality.

14680 Was it not your personal animus?— No; I had no animus whatever.

14681 Was there anything to justify you?— I think it was too strong.

14682 Was it untrue?— No, I have still the opinion that he was not a man of moral character.

14683 Was there anything to justify you making such a statement in writing?— Only the current reports.

14684 You were occupying the position of a teacher of the youth of this colony?— Yes.

14685 Without having any proof positive, you did not hesitate to pen a sentence which involved the slander of a man's character, sufficient, probably, to cause him the lose of his situation in the public service, and without any positive proof?— Without any positive proof any more than current reports.

14686 And yet you thought yourself justified in slandering a man's character without having any proof?— I did.

14687 Were you not actuated by mere animus and nothing else?— I do not think so.

14688 I think it would be difficult to make us believe so—did you think at that time that Jack Sherritt was a sympathizer with the outlaws?— I did.

14689 Is all the rest of your valuable information supplied to Mr. Nicolson of equal importance to that paragraph in your letter, in your opinion, after due consideration?— Well, I admit that was unjustifiable and wrong.

14690 Do you think that all the rest of all your writing is of equal importance, in the interests of the public, to that statement contained in your letter obtained from Jack Sherritt?— I say the whole of that information was important to the public.

14691 You think the whole of your information was of equal value?— I am not talking about the equality—I say that may have been too strong, but the information I supplied was of use.

14692 Were you aware, at the time you wrote this paragraph against Ward , that Ward knew you were in communication with Mr. Nicolson ?— He stated that I was publicly.

14693 Did you know from Mr. Nicolson whether Ward knew?— I did not.

14694 Did you ask Mr. Nicolson ?— I reported the circumstance of Ward speaking about me in that way, and asked him to prevent Ward doing so.

14695 Did you ask Mr. Nicolson whether he had informed Ward that you were in correspondence with him?— I cannot recollect that point for certain.

14696 To Mr. Nicolson — Had you made Ward acquainted with the fact?— No, Detective Ward was not aware of it till the Commission sat, to my knowledge.

14697 To the Witness— Did Sherritt know you were in correspondence with Mr. Nicolson ?— He did not, that I was aware of.

14698 Did you know that Sherritt was engaged in the confidence of the police?— Yes, I believe

14699 You knew all through at this time that you were speaking of Aaron Sherritt ?— That he was in communication with the police.

14700 Did you know it officially?— Yes, from Mr. Nicolson .

14701 Were you desirous of placing Aaron Sherritt upon the best possible terms of confidence with the police authorities?— No, rather the reverse, if I understand your question. My impression all through was that Aaron was playing the double game, all through up to the time I left.

14702 It may be the impression that you were playing a double game. We do not want impressions. Were not you actuated with a desire to represent to Mr. Nicolson that Aaron was playing double?— I did so because I honestly thought so.

14703 Will you now speak positively that Aaron ever admitted he had that watch?— I will—he did several times.

14704 Will you, if Jack Sherritt comes, in and swears he did not, contradict him on oath?— I will if he says so.....

Previous page / Next page


 ! The text has been retyped from a microfiche copy of the original.

We have taken care to reproduce this document but areas of the original text may been damaged.

We also apologise for any typographical errors.

The previous day / next day . . . Royal Commission index RC_index.html