The Argus at KellyGang 14/12/1882
THE POLICE COMMISSION
The Police Commission resumed its sittings yesterday at the old Treasury the members present being, Mr Longmore (in the chair), and Messrs Hall, Anderson Fincham aid Dixon.
The commission went on with the investigation of the charges made against the detective force of not having restored stolen property to the owners until long after the period of its recovery.
James Gunson residing at Grattan street Carlton, and William Redfearn Watson, landlord of the Ballarat Hotel, at the corner of Little Bourke street and Swanston street both called by Detective O'Callaghan gave evidence regarding property stolen from their places and afterwards restored by the detectives. Mary Elizabeth Gunson stated that a chair stolen from her residence was found in the possession of the men arrested for the robbery at the Technological Museum, one of whom she believed to be Walsh.
One of the witnesses stated that his family had an objection to prosecute, and in the other case no proceedings were taken as the culprits were convicted on another charge.
Frederick Secretan inspector in the detective force stated that he instructed Detective O'Callaghan to take up the Webster jewellery robbery case which occurred in April 1881. With his knowledge Detective Wilson was put on to watch the house of a man named Walsh, and on account of certain movements reported by him on the night of the 7th April it was agreed in his (witness’s) presence that Walsh's house should be searched on the following morning at an early hour. Walsh was taken into custody on that morning, and gave information which led to the recovery of the jewellery and the arrest of other men. The property found at Mrs Lamb's place was labelled and placed in the store room at the detective office.
At this stage Walsh objected to Detective O'Callaghan being allowed to ask the witnesses leading questions.
Mr DIXON also referred to the fact that Detective O'Callaghan was putting ideas into Mr Secretan's head.
Mr Secretan complained in an excited manner about the insinuations thrown out by the members of the board and said that if they were continued he would leave the room. The witness then gave further evidence relating to the robberies at the Technological Museum at Mr Webster's and at the residence of Mr James, and explained that Detective O'Callaghan had reported frequently to him on these cases and acted under his instructions. When a prisoner was charged with several offences and received a heavy sentence on one of them the other charges were not brought forward unless the owner of the property particularly desired it.
Detective O'Callaghan reminded the witness that the commission had expressed an opinion that he (Detective O'Callaghan) was unfit for his position and wished to know Mr Secretan's opinion on that declaration.
The Chairman refused to allow the question and stated that they had judged Detective O'Callaghan by his conduct during the inquiry.
Mr Secretan continued -Every stolen article brought to the office was entered in the books by the clerk present at the time. The detectives bringing in the property had nothing to do with the entry.
The Chairman directed the attention of the witness to the irregular nature of the entries in the stolen property book and asked whether under this defective system entries could not be destroyed without anyone being afterwards able to ascertain to what property they referred.
Mr Secretan replied that anyone who had a wish to do so might remove an entry from the book and destroy it without fear of discovery.
Mr DIXON -It is an extraordinary fact that as soon as the evidence leads up to a particular point the supplementary report on this subject is always found to have been lost.
Mr FINCHAM -The object for which they disappear is too palpable.
The CHAIRMAN -Before this inquiry commenced I received an anonymous letter stating that the papers when required would not be forthcoming and it is rather peculiar that this has turned out to be exactly the case.
Detective O’Callaghan -The man who wrote that letter was the one who stole the papers.
The CHAIRMAN to Detective O’Callaghan - If you want to keep your character produce the supplementary reports. Everything affecting the discrepancy between you and the witnesses has disappeared.
Mr Secretan -I think the papers have been stolen but Mr Chomley had charge of the office during my absence.
Mr FINCHAM -You have no right to make insinuations.
Mr Secretan -I had no intention of doing anything of the sort. I merely mentioned the fact as relieving me from the responsibility.
Mr DIXON to Mr Secretan -Your conduct with regard to the application for extension of leave of absence and evident disinclination to come before the commission has been in keeping right through with the conduct of the detective force.
Prior to the adjournment Detective O'Callaghan was examined regarding letters furnished by him to the Herald newspaper and relating to the business transactions in Sydney of Patrick Boardman. A letter was also read from Boardman denying the charges made against him and enclosing receipts for the payment of money to Sydney firms.
During the afternoon both Detective O'Callaghan and Mr Secretan were examined at length on the system adopted by the department for taking a trustworthy record of stolen property recovered and brought to the office, but very little in addition to the information already given by other witnesses was elicited.
The CHAIRMAN informed Detective O'Callaghan at the close of his examination that he had laid himself open to grave suspicions as the papers required to exonerate him were always missing. Nearly every officer in the department was open to the same charge.
Detective O'Callaghan repeated his assertion that the papers were stolen from the office by an ex member of the force who was in league with Walsh and Boardman but refused to say positively that Foster was the man referred to.
Mr Secretan who was re-examined, stated that Boardman had received money from the detectives for information supplied.
In reply to Mr LONGMORE the witness also stated that if stolen property was taken from the detective office under the present system there was no evidence in the shape of records to assist in the prosecution of the thief.
The Commission then adjourned until to- day at half past 10 o'clock.
| ! | 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. |
