Royal Commission report day 52 page 4
The Royal Commission evidence for 9/9/1881
(see also introduction to day 52)
[[../../people/peB/brookeSmithPinsp.html|Insp Brooke Smith]] giving evidence
17517 You inferred from that they could not be the outlaws?— I did. In fact I did not believe four men crossed there at all.
17518 If they did, why should they cross under there?— I did not see why they should have gone through the town at all; they could have gone to another bridge without being seen at all, and in fact they could have gone under that other bridge.
17519 You did not leave in consequence of not having received instructions?— Yes, I had no party.
17520 You admit there were three mounted men there?— Not under me-they were not mine.
17521 Would those men have been justified in acting without instructions from you?— If they had seen the persons of that description they would have been perfectly justified to have gone on at once.
17522 If your superior officer were not there, and you had information which led you to suppose that they were the outlaws or men bearing their description, do you mean the Commission to understand that you would not have been justified in going in pursuit without orders from your superior?— I certainly would not have left the station without that.
17523 Both Sergeant Steele and Constable Johnson, in speaking of the tracks, observed that the ground was so very soft that it was not easy for the marks to be obliterated. Is it not strange that all those men concur in their testimony as to the condition of the ground, and you yet could not discover the marks?— I never knew that Constable Johnson or Sergeant Steele were down there examining the tracks.
17524 It is proved that the tracks were seen days after-the hoofs of horses?— I did not see it. The tracks spread nearly the width of this room on that occasion-Lake Rowan to the Warby Ranges. I thought there were fire horses, shortly before the Mansfield murders, when I was in charge of the Beechworth district. The tracks subsequently joined together. I came down to Wangaratta, and took out this party. The reason why I stated to you I would not take a party out without leave was simply that Mr. Nicolson arrived in the district. And here is a letter that will show what I mean, but I do not know Whether it should be read.
17525 You had better read it?— “30th October 1878, Myrtleford. My dear Brooke Smith,—I arrived at Wangaratta yesterday evening, and was surprised to find you gone. I followed you here to learn your object and plans, because I have been placed in charge of this case, and have been made responsible for all steps taken and result. I must return to Wangaratta and to Benalla, if possible, to-night. I cannot ascertain your object and plans, excepting that I find your men are not supplied with hobbles, billy cans, &c., which show that you do not anticipate camping out. Take care of your men, don't expose them without all due precaution. I am sorry you have not more rifles. If ill-prepared for a mountain scouring expedition, rather return soon quietly than proceed beyond reach of supplies, and re-organize again when your party may have something tangible to work upon, which I humbly trust to be able to obtain for them. I intended you, when I was prepared, to despatch a party to scour between the North-Eastern road and the Murray River. Three parties besides yours are now out under my knowledge. Communicate with me by telegraph at every opportunity. Don't waste your strength fruitlessly until you get further orders. Ever yours, C. H. NICOLSON.
Benalla my head-quarters. When you return to Wangaratta don't dismiss men to their stations without consulting me. C. H. N.”
17526 Is there anything in that document to prevent your starting on information such as that which has been given?— I think so
17527 Which part of the letter?— Particularly the last part. I could not take a party out under those instructions.
17528 Does not he say there that he hopes that you may have something tangible on which you may work?— Yes.
17529 Do you think the information we have referred to to-day was not a sufficiently tangible thing to start on?— I told you before that I did not believe the information.
17530 Was it in consequence of the written instructions that you received from Mr. Nicolson that you have now referred to, or your unbelief in the information supplied to you, that you did not proceed on those tracks?— I did not positively put any faith in the statements.
17531 Then it was not in consequence of your being restricted by instructions from Mr. Nicolson?— No, certainly not.
17532 Suppose the information had been conveyed to you, beyond a question of doubt, that those four men were the outlaws, would you have been prevented from starting by the instructions in that letter?— I think I would have been running, a considerable risk, but I should have done 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. |
The previous day / next day . . . Royal Commission index
