Difference between revisions of "The Age (32)"
(Import from source) |
m (Text replacement - "Category:188o" to "Category:1880") |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | [[Category:1880s]] [[Category:1880]] [[Category:August 1880]] [[Category:The Age]] [[Category:Newspaper]] [[Category:press report]] [[Category: | + | [[Category:1880s]] [[Category:1880]] [[Category:August 1880]] [[Category:The Age]] [[Category:Newspaper]] [[Category:press report]] [[Category:1880]] [[Category:Joe Byrne]] [[Category:Aaron Sherritt]] [[Category:Anton Weekes]] [[Category:Const Armstrong]] [[Category:Const Alexander]] [[Category:history]] |
− | MediaWiki:Sidebar | + | <sidebar>MediaWiki:Sidebar</sidebar> |
{{^|Original page location \documents\N80\80_08_09_Age2.html}} | {{^|Original page location \documents\N80\80_08_09_Age2.html}} |
Latest revision as of 22:19, 20 November 2015
full text of article
see previous
Mr Smyth: Had you any conversation with him then? Mr Gaunson objected to this question. He said that at the time the man was arrested he was suffering from his wound, and not only that, but his mind was not in a fit state to enable him to undergo a series of questions; the man was prostrate, and the police ought not to have questioned him.
Mr Smyth argued that according to the law of evidence the question could be put.
The objection was overruled.
Mr Smyth: Did you see him on Tuesday?
Witness: Yes. I was not requested by prisoner to go in and see him. I swear Constable Kelly was present during the whole time I was with prisoner. Senior-constable Kelly said, ‘Ned, do you ‘know’ this man?’
Mr Gaunson again protected against these questions being put. At a time when the prisoner was prostrate and wounded these men fastened themselves on him to get information out of him that would criminate him. It was a blackguard proceeding to go uninvited at such a time for the purpose of extracting evidence.
Mr Smyth objected to such language.
Mr Gaunson: I say advisedly it was a blackguard proceeding.
The objection was over ruled, and witness proceeded - The prisoner said ‘No, it is Flood, is it not?’ I said, ‘No; you took me for Flood the last time we met.’ He said, ‘Oh, no, it is not Flood.’ I said, ‘Do you remember the last time we met?’ He said, ‘Yes, I do.’ I said, ‘Did I not tell you then that I would much rather be shot than tell you anything that would lead to the death of those men?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘When I turned round, I saw you had my chest covered.’ He said, ‘Yes I had.’ I said, ‘When I held up my hands you shot Lonigan?’ He said, ‘No; Lonigan got behind some logs and pointed his revolver at me. Did you not see that?'’ I said, '‘No: that is only nonsense.'’ I then said, 'Kennedy fired a good many shots at you.’ He said, ‘Yes; he fired a lot. He must have fired nearly two rounds with his revolver.’ I said, ‘Why did you come near us at all? When you knew where we were you could have kept out of the way.’ He said, ‘You would have soon found us out, and if we had not shot you, you would have shot us.’ He also said, ‘Our horses were poor and our firearms were bad, and we wanted to make a rise.’ I asked him if I showed any cowardice, and he said, ‘No.’ That is all that occurred.
continued
, .1. , .2. , .3. , .4. , .5. , .6. ,
! | 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. |