Royal Commission report day 17 page 1

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search

previous page / next page

The Royal Commission evidence for 10/5/1881

(full text transcription)

(see also introduction to day 17)

Sup Sadleir further examined


Hon. F. LONGMORE, M.L.A., in the Chair;

E. J. Dixon, Esq, J.P., G. W. Hall, Esq., M.L.A.,

W. Anderson, Esq., M.L.A., J. H. Graves, Esq., M.L.A.,

J. Gibb, Esq., M.L.A., G. R. Fincham, Esq., M.L.A.

Mr. Sadleir asked to make a personal statement in reference to question 1602 in Mr. Hare's evidence.

The Chairman. — You can take this opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Sadleir . —I refer to Mr. Carrington's letter at the end of the question. That letter was put in as evidence by Mr. Hare when I was absent from the Commission, and it is a letter containing some statements most damaging to my reputation. That letter was not received by Mr. Hare as he was speaking or giving his evidence; he had it from the 19th of July last, so he had full time to consider its purport, and yet he calmly and deliberately places this before the Commission as part of his evidence. If this sort of thing is to be allowed the reputation of no officer in the service—no person inside or outside the service—will be safe

4681 By the Commission. —Was that letter evidence?—(Mr. Sadleir) That was put before you as evidence.

4682 If it be evidence, is it not probable that Mr. Carrington will be called later on in this enquiry, and you will be able to cross-examine him then?— Yes; but it has been said, “If a lie gets twenty-four hours start,” &c.

Mr. Dixon submitted that it would be better for Mr. Sadleir not go on but to wait till Mr. Carrington was present.

Mr. Sadleir . —I am entirely in the hands of the Commission, and if I am not to be heard will sit.

4683 By the Commission. —What is your complaint?— The incorrectness of the thing; and its being put in is contrary to every rule of evidence—that an ex parte statement from a man himself absent should be put in as evidence, especially where it reflects on the reputation and character of another.

4684 It is too late to excise it now?— I myself hold several letters casting reflections on people. I should think it most dishonorable conduct, unbecoming in an officer or a gentleman, if I were to offer those before the Commission, and especially in the absence of the man whose reputation was attacked. I do not ask it to be excised, because what has happened cannot be remedied; but I would ask your opinion whether witnesses are to be allowed to put in ex parte statements of this sort, affecting the reputation of others.

By the Commission . —I do not know how we could prevent this statement going in. The evidence will be all before you, and we shall be able to receive any statement you make, and will be able to see whether there is any truth in it. We do not take Mr. Carrington's evidence as worth more than any other man's.

Mr. Sadleir . —It is a very serious thing to have one's reputation damaged, and for five or six weeks to elapse before one can give an answer to it. I thought it just to myself to call attention to the matter, and there I will drop it for the present.

4685 By the Commission. —You may be quite sure that you will get fair play; and, if I mistake not, in the last portion of your evidence you alluded to this matter?— I did, but I was under the impression it was not admitted into the evidence.

4686 And gave your opinion of Mr. Carrington very clearly?— I was not aware whether it was printed or not.

Mr. Nicolson . —I wish to make one observation with reference to Jacob Wilson, who was called before you at the last meeting, and laid before you an account of his looses through being employed by the police. I wish to repeat again that I altogether repudiate having any connection with that matter. What ever loss he sustained was not through me.

4687 By the Commission. —Under your responsibility, no action was taken in reference to this man at all?— None, whilst I was there.

The witness withdrew

  Thomas Patrick Dowling further examined

4688 By the Commission. —Was Sherritt attached to the party?— Not that I am aware of; he was to show us the way over to Byrne's house and back; that was what he was there for.

4689 Was he armed?— No. ....

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