Royal Commission report day 51 page 4
The Royal Commission evidence for 8/9/1881
(see also introduction to day 51)
[[../../people/peN_P/nicolsonPAC.html|Ass Com Charles Hope Nicolson]] giving evidence
17156 It is recognized as an official irregularity?— Yes.
17157 And your duty as Inspecting Superintendent was to report any irregularity?— Yes.
17158 If you conceived it to come within that class?— Yes.
17159 And you reported it?— Yes.
17160 In doing that, had you any desire to reflect injuriously on the men or on Mr. Hare?— Not the slightest. In all my reports my study was to give a photographic picture of every station I visited, without reference to individuals at all.
17161 Had you personally any antipathy or dislike to this man?— No, not at all. I knew him well before. I knew he was a very smart man in the Ballarat district. I found him when I went to Kyneton the same man, except that he had fallen off a good deal in Kyneton. He required looking after. He was a first-rate man if looked after, and was a man who would go to the dogs if not looked after.
17162 The object of official inspection is that any irregularity of any kind shall be reported there is no option?— There is no option whatever. I do not think that was received in a proper spirit.
17163 That is the whole charge?— Yes.
17164 Was it the duty of Mr. Hare, as officer in charge of the district at that time, to have reported the act of this man that you officially complained of?— Mr. Hare had a perfect right or any other officer to meet any objection that I made as inspector.
17165 That is not the point. My question is—was it right or proper for other the constable to carry out this course, or subsequently for the officer to allow this course, which was in violation of the recognized practice of the force-that is the charge you imply. If it was wrong of a man to carry out this proceeding of which you specially complained, was it equally wrong on the part of the officer in charge to permit it?— Yes, but the officer might have a different opinion, and, if he had, he had a perfect right to express it; but what I object to is the manner in which he gave his opinion about it, because the matter was a matter of practice throughout the force, and he was the only one different. I think there was a disposition to overlook things in the district.
17166 It was your duty, as inspecting officer, to report on them?— Yes.
17167 Any violation of the recognized practice, an officer under you would be equally responsible for as the man himself who had committed it?— Yes.
17168 If he had officially passed it over?— Yes.
17169 I want to know if there were special circumstances on that occasion that rendered it necessary for Mr. Hare to permit this violation of that duty?
Mr. Hare . –Yes.
The Witness . –I do not think so.
The Chairman . –Yes, but Mr. Nicolson knew the constable required particular supervision, and one morning soon after the constable was found dead on the road with his neck broken, after having been drinking at several places the night previous.
17170 By the Commission (to the witness). –When you were inspecting, you felt it necessary to send in a report of any particular constable, would that report necessarily or in the ordinary course be forwarded to the superintendent of the district under whom that constable was placed?— Yes, after being sent to the Chief Commissioner—always.
17171 Then, if that was sent to any superintendent in any particular district that you inspected, the superintendent in charge of the men would be at liberty to express his opinion?— Most decidedly, to the Chief Commissioner.
17172 Then has Mr. Hare done otherwise in this case than what was usual in other cases?— Yes.
17173 Have you received reports from the superintendents, when you have made reports reflecting on a sub-officer, disagreeing with you?— Explanations.
17174 What is the exception you took in this particular instance?— This practice that I found fault with was an irregularity, contrary to the practice of the service. The man; I also stated, was a man that required supervision, which he was not getting; and in Mr. Hare's reply, he says— “I am not aware how Mr. Nicolson became aware that Constable Redding was wanting in discretion and required looking after.”
17175 The charge you made against the officer was that he did not keep his accounts in the way he ought to have done?— Yes.
17176 Will you read Mr. Hare's minute—why he did it?— “With reference to the receipt from prisoner Murdoch, the W. House book at Hotham will show the prisoner was lodged there. I consider that, in a place like Donnybrook, where the C. P. Sessions only visits twice a month, and the clerk requests that the proceeds of distress warrants may be paid over to the plaintiffs, there is no objection to the constable doing so, providing he holds a receipt from the person to whom he paid the money, which was done in these cases.”....
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. |
The previous day / next day . . . Royal Commission index RC_index.html
