The Argus at KellyGang 27/9/1882
THE POLICE COMMISSION
Yesterday's proceedings of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the working and administration of the police force were of an unusually interesting character. They consisted principally of the cross examinations of witnesses who had previously given evidence against officers. The chairman (Mr F Longmore) presided, and Messrs Anderson, Hall, and Dixon were also present. The unsettled question of whether the representatives of the press should be admitted to the proceedings or not was first considered Superintendent Winch and Sub inspector Larner, who were in attendance were consulted as to whether they had any objection to the presence of the reporters, and although they expressed a strong desire that the inquiry should be held with open doors, the commission finally decided to continue the practice hitherto followed of excluding the press.
A young man named Patrick Boardman, who was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment at the City Court last week as a vagrant on suspicion that he had been concerned in the recent robbery of £40 from the Victoria Hotel , Victoria street , Hotham, was first called, but his examination was deferred. Boardman, who is at present on bail pending the hearing of an appeal against the sentence, has made a number of serious charges against the detective police, which the commission intend shortly to investigate Sub inspector Larner was next called, and informed that the commission were prepared to recall any of the witnesses who bad made charges against him, so as to afford him an opportunity of cross-examining them and rebutting their evidence. He declined to do so, however, and confined himself to a written statement which traversed the evidence of his accusers in a general way. Mr Larner admitted having borrowed various sums of money from publicans, whom he named, and repaid ?????????????? ? wherever he had borrowed money it was as a private individual, and never in his. official capacity as an officer of police.
Superintendent Winch read a lengthy statement????????????????????? were made against him. He positively denied ever having misused or abused his official position, and he challenged anyone to come forward and prove the contrary. He was then confronted with Sergeant Bell, of North Fitzroy , Sergeant O'Sullivan, of Carlton; Constable Weldon, and ex constables Cash and M'Cutcheon, who were called into the room together for the purpose of being cross-examined on the evidence which they had previously given. Superintendent Winch protested against the men being crowded into the room together while the examination was proceeding, as he thought it sufficient for one man to be dealt with at a time, but the commission thought otherwise, and a somewhat extraordinary scene was then enacted M'Cutcbeon stated that while Mr Winch was stationed at Castlemaine he used the money which had been forwarded to him to pay the men, and that when complaints were made of the delay which took place in the payment of the wages, he borrowed money from Sergeant Bell, who was stationed in the district, and made the deficiency good.
Mr. Winch declared this to be on unmitigated untruth, and he defied his accuser to prove the statement. Sergeant Bell, who was present, denied the truth of M'Cutcheon's statement, and asserted that he never lent Mr Winch money in his life, either to make good a deficiency or for any other purpose M'Cutcheon also stated that Mr. Winch on one occasion asked him for the loan of £60, which he refused. Mr Winch characterised the assertion as an infamous lie, and he challenged the production of proof. Constable Cash made a number of charges against Mr. Winch, and he was cross examined and re-examined at considerable length, but without eliciting anything of importance. The case had not concluded when the commission rose at 4 o'clock , and it will therefore be continued at 11 o'clock to day.
Sergeants Perry, Dalton, O'Mears, and Constable Coghlan were in attendance daring the day, but were not called Mr H Edwards, of the White Hart Hotel, was called early in the day, but he refused to produce his ledger, and his evidence was not important.
| ! | 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. |
