Difference between revisions of "The Argus at KellyGang 18/5/1881"
(Import from source) |
m (Text replacement - "'''''' <br /> " to "") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{Full Text}} | |
| − | + | ||
At the sitting of the Police Commission yesterday, Mr [[O'Connor|O'Connor]] complained of a paragraph that recently appeared in a contemporary professing to give the opinion of the commission regarding his conduct, and stated that it was most unfair and prejudiced his case. The commissioners, who have not yet finished taking evidence regarding Mr O'Connor's connexion with the Kelly operations, entirely repudiated the paragraph, and disclaimed any responsibility for it . | At the sitting of the Police Commission yesterday, Mr [[O'Connor|O'Connor]] complained of a paragraph that recently appeared in a contemporary professing to give the opinion of the commission regarding his conduct, and stated that it was most unfair and prejudiced his case. The commissioners, who have not yet finished taking evidence regarding Mr O'Connor's connexion with the Kelly operations, entirely repudiated the paragraph, and disclaimed any responsibility for it . | ||
Constable [[../../people/peB/barryDpc.html|'''Barry''']], one of the force engaged in the Kelly operations,was examined. During his evidence, some questions put by Messrs. Sadleir and O'Connor raised the point as to how far the officers concerned were justified in taking part in the proceedings. After some discussion, the officers were told that they might put questions to elicit information as to their own conduct or to protect themselves but not to discredit any other officer. | Constable [[../../people/peB/barryDpc.html|'''Barry''']], one of the force engaged in the Kelly operations,was examined. During his evidence, some questions put by Messrs. Sadleir and O'Connor raised the point as to how far the officers concerned were justified in taking part in the proceedings. After some discussion, the officers were told that they might put questions to elicit information as to their own conduct or to protect themselves but not to discredit any other officer. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{MicroficheCopy}}<br /> | {{MicroficheCopy}}<br /> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 17: | ||
[[Category:1880s]] [[Category:1881]] [[Category:May 1881]] [[Category:The Argus]] [[Category:Newspaper]] [[Category:press report]] [[Category:1881]] [[Category:Joe Byrne]] [[Category:history]] [[Category:Royal Commission into the Kelly Gang]] | [[Category:1880s]] [[Category:1881]] [[Category:May 1881]] [[Category:The Argus]] [[Category:Newspaper]] [[Category:press report]] [[Category:1881]] [[Category:Joe Byrne]] [[Category:history]] [[Category:Royal Commission into the Kelly Gang]] | ||
| − | MediaWiki:Sidebar | + | <sidebar>MediaWiki:Sidebar</sidebar> |
{{^|Original page location \documents\N81\81_05_18_Argus1.html}} | {{^|Original page location \documents\N81\81_05_18_Argus1.html}} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:04, 20 November 2015
At the sitting of the Police Commission yesterday, Mr O'Connor complained of a paragraph that recently appeared in a contemporary professing to give the opinion of the commission regarding his conduct, and stated that it was most unfair and prejudiced his case. The commissioners, who have not yet finished taking evidence regarding Mr O'Connor's connexion with the Kelly operations, entirely repudiated the paragraph, and disclaimed any responsibility for it .
Constable Barry, one of the force engaged in the Kelly operations,was examined. During his evidence, some questions put by Messrs. Sadleir and O'Connor raised the point as to how far the officers concerned were justified in taking part in the proceedings. After some discussion, the officers were told that they might put questions to elicit information as to their own conduct or to protect themselves but not to discredit any other officer.
| ! | 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. |
31-aug-10
