The Argus at KellyGang 16/10/1882 (3)

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search
(full text transcription)

see previous

ROYAL COMMISSION

AD INTERIM REPORT continued

4 The charge of having asked Mr. Andrew M'Cutcheon, licensee of the Horse and Jockey Hotel, for a loan of £60, is denied by Mr Winch, and being uncorroborated it becomes a question of veracity between the two witnesses Mr M'Cutcheon alleges that Mr. Winch called at his place of business about five or six years ago, and left instructions with his barman, since deceased, for the witness to see him at his office on the following day. On keeping the appointment, Mr Winch asked him for the loan of £60, as he was then in difficulties, and did not care for going to the Jews, adding that he would give him more interest for his money than anyone else. The subsequent conversations, no less than all the facts leading up to the interview, are circumstantially related by M'Cutcheon, whose evidence upon this point remained unshaken. Mr Winch admitted that he had had a private interview with Mr M'Cutcheon about the time specified, but that his object was to warn him of the complaints that were being made respecting the manner in which his house was conducted Superintendent Winch, in dealing with this witness, stated that from first to last he impeached his veracity. The statement that he had asked him for a loan of £60 he declared to be totally false. On one occasion he called at his hotel and told some one there that he wanted to see M'Cutcheon, who called afterwards at his office, when he administered the admonition above referred to. This, according to the superintendent’s statement, was not an uncommon practice with him.

An attempt was made to shake M'Cutcheon's credibility, by showing from documents that he had made connecting statements regarding an inquiry into his (M'Cutcheon's) conduct when he was a member of the force. The witness alleged that in conducting the inquiry in question Mr Winch had acted harshly towards him; but this opinion appears to have been based upon an erroneous impression formed at the time, and arose from the fact that M'Cutcheon had not access to the papers.

The superintendent farther charges the witness with having contradicted himself in questions 6526 31. A close examination of those questions, however. shows that there is no absolute contradiction involved. In the former M'Cutcheon denies that his premises were used for immoral purposes, and in reply to queries as to whether he traded after hours with thieves and prostitutes and as to his place being the resort of such persons, he declines to answer, as he said he might thereby injure himself. That he should allow objectionable character upon his premises is one thing, that he should cater to their immoral practices quite another.

5 There is no direct proof of this charge, namely, that Superintendent Winch obtained monetary assistance from Sergeant Bell. The allegation rests principally upon the testimony of the witness M'Cutcheon, who states that he obtained his information from the lips of Sergeant Bell himself, coupling with it the statement that the accommodation was necessitated by the presence of bailiffs in the office at Castlemaine, and that all the men had not been paid their salaries at the time. Sergeant Bell denies having ever lent money to Mr Winch, or having ever informed M'Cutcheon that he had done so. Nevertheless the belief seems to have been generally entertained by the members of the force that Superintendent Winch was under obligations to Sergeant Bell. The witness Senior constable Coniffe, who cannot be regarded as other than a most reluctant witness, declared that he participated in the same opinion, giving as his reasons for so doing the marked favours and concessions allowed to Sergeant Bell by Mr Winch. Sergeant Bell and Superintendent Winch endeavoured to damage M'Cutcheon's credibility by describing him as a man of low character, but they tendered no other evidence to support their statements. Reference to the witness's record sheet and testimonials did not bear out their assertions. M'Cutcheon was found to have borne a high character in the Irish constabulary, and when leaving the Victorian police Mr Winch himself referred in commendatory terms to the man and his connexion with the police.

The charge against Mr Winch of having been found in a notorious brothel by Constable Weldon, under peculiar circumstances, appears to be borne out by the evidence. According to this witness, while doing duty one morning, between 1 and 2 o'clock , in Lonsdale street , he was attracted by the cries of women to a house kept by a Madame Brussell, who informed him that she had been assaulted by two detectives. The constable entered the premises and ascertained that the originator of the disturbance was then in the house. Thereupon he instituted a search. On approaching the door of one of the bedrooms Madame Brussell objected to his entering, but as Weldon persisted she went inside, and after speaking to some one in the room, reappeared. Weldon, on entering, found Mr Winch standing on the floor. The officer explained his presence by stating that his object was to see how the police performed their duty in putting down the nuisance. The constable informed the commission that his impression at the time was that Mr Winch was not there on police business. He further added that Mr Winch told him not to say anything about the occurrence.

In order to refute this charge Mr Winch brought forward Sergeant Dalton. The latter deposed to having been in company with the superintendent on a certain occasion, between 2 and 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, when they heard the noise of women's voices proceeding from Madame Brusell's house, and on proceeding thither they were informed that two detectives had been there, and were the cause of the disturbance. He Dalton went in and sat in the parlour, but Winch proceeded upstairs. While there Dalton saw Constable Weldon enter. The conversation about the detectives and the presence of Weldon are the only circumstances that point to the occasion deposed to by Dalton being identical with that sworn to by Weldon, but opposed to those are the facts that the hours at which the alleged occurrence took place are different; that Weldon did not see Dalton, as he must have done had be been present, and that Weldon was accompanied by several other members of the force, whom Dalton states he did not see, as he must have done according to Dalton's statement. The cries also deposed to as having been uttered by the woman did not correspond. There seems good reason, therefore, to conclude that in calling Sergeant Dalton as a witness Superintendent Winch failed to shake Weldon's evidence, or sufficiently to justify his presence in the brothel. The original allegation, indeed, was that Mr Winch himself was the cause of the disturbance created, but of this no proof was forthcoming.

continued

, .1. , .2. , .3. , .4. , .5. ,


 ! 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.