Difference between revisions of "Royal Commission report day 47 page 8"

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replacement - "MediaWiki:Sidebar" to "<sidebar>MediaWiki:Sidebar</sidebar>")
m (Text replacement - "Story of the KellyGang - the Royal Commission evidence [[" to "[[")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Story of the KellyGang - the Royal Commission evidence
 
 
 
[[Royal Commission report day 47 page 7|previous page]] / [[Royal Commission report day 47 page 9|next page]]
 
[[Royal Commission report day 47 page 7|previous page]] / [[Royal Commission report day 47 page 9|next page]]
  
 
== The Royal Commission evidence for 31/8/1881 ==
 
== The Royal Commission evidence for 31/8/1881 ==
  
''''''
+
{{Full Text}}
 
+
=== full text ===
+
  
 
(see also introduction to [[Royal Commission report 31/8/1881|day 47]])
 
(see also introduction to [[Royal Commission report 31/8/1881|day 47]])

Latest revision as of 21:03, 20 November 2015

previous page / next page

The Royal Commission evidence for 31/8/1881

(full text transcription)

(see also introduction to day 47)

F. C. Standish giving evidence

16098 How many officers are there you could receive it from in the office—what gentlemen in the office would presume to write to the Chief Commissioner?— I am not certain whether it was in writing or verbally.

16099 You said you got a letter?— I got a letter in which there was an expression of regret that I was not in the office, because I got through the work much more rapidly than Mr. Nicolson.

16100 The charge must have been in writing if it induced you to come down?— It was no charge, and I am not certain whom it came from; but it complained they were kept so long owing to Mr. Nicolson coming late to the office.

16101 You said in consequence of the office getting into a perfect muddle you had to leave Benalla and come down—you still adhere to that?— Yes, I do.

16102 You just now expressed your readings to withdraw that statement altogether?— How?

16103 That the office was in a muddle?— Well, “muddle” is perhaps not the word. I mean that the business was not got through at all quick.

16104 That is another matter altogether. That was not the impression that was conveyed by your evidence quite. I imagined, not that the clerks were kept late, but that the office business was badly done, or not done at all. If you wish to modify your statement, so as to say the work was not done so well as in your time—?— That is what I meant—that the work was not got through so promptly.

16105 Was the work of the office in arrear at the time?— There were several things standing over.

16106 You got this letter from someone in the office. Is there any other gentleman in the office occupying a position of sufficient importance beside Mr. Moors who would write to you officially on the subject?— I got no communication officially on the subject; I got a private letter.

16107 That would not surely bring you down to do official duty. You say you came the office right?— Yes; and the general management of the police force. I had no official communication on the subject from anyone.

16108 Has Mr. Hare had anything to do with the office work in town?— Never during my time.

16109 Do you wish to abandon that charge of the office being in a muddle?— I want to explain what I meant, that there were complaints that the business was held over, and the clerks were kept a long time beyond their usual time, owing to Mr. Nicolson not coming to the office early.

16110 Were there any more clerks employed in the office when he was there than before?— I fancy not.

16111 Then, if the work was got through every night except a few papers for yourself to deal with could the office be in a muddle?— The word “muddle” is rather a vague word. I mean the work was not got through quickly or expeditiously.

16112 That is simply abandoning the charge, is it not?— I leave it to you to decide that.

16113 Could there have been more work at that particular time in the office owing to the Kelly business?— I do not think there was much more.

16114 You have expressed an opinion about Mr. Hare . Has Mr. Hare done anything extra either outside the office, in the field, or in the office beyond what Mr. Nicolson has done?— Mr. Hare has always been one of the most active and energetic and capable officers of the police force.

16115 Mr. Nicolson asked you yesterday if any business ever failed under him that you gave him to do, and you did not reply?— As Inspecting Superintendent?

16116 Yes?— He used to go round and send in a long report.

16117 He had other duties before that; was not Mr. Nicolson an energetic officer?— Excessively reticent and not fast.

16118 Was not he a reliable officer?— I know nothing against him.

16119 That is not an answer to the question. Was not he a reliable officer while he was engaged with you twenty years?— I had no reason to doubt his reliability, but he was so excessively reticent and mysterious at all times, particularly at the time of the Kelly business.....

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.

We also apologise for any typographical errors.

The previous day / next day . . . Royal Commission index RC_index.html