The Argus at KellyGang 28/9/1882 (2)

From KellyGang
Jump to: navigation, search
(full text transcription)

see previous

Royal Commission evidence

He never borrowed money from Sergeant Bell. With regard to the 23s, he had no recollection of the occurrence, as it was alleged to have occurred 15 years ago, but he had no doubt that Bell 's statement was correct. He never borrowed money from Sergeant Peter O’Shaughnessy, but he sent for him recently and asked him if he knew what he was going to be examined about. O’Shaughnessy replied,   "No, and nothing else passed between   them. It was true that he was at Madame Bussell's house of ill fame, as stated by Constable Weldon. He was there on duty in company with Sergeant Dalton, and the sergeant was present to prove the fact. He denied having   been concealed in the house in any way. With respect to James Cash he denied that he had caused him to be unfairly discharged by the board, or that he ever suppressed summons for abusive words which had been issued by Cash against Martin Stobie, then the licensee of a hotel in Little Bourke street. Cash was superannuated on gratuity in the usual way by the Police Board under the 25th section of the Police Regulations Statute 1873. The summons against Stobie was not allowed to proceed, because the latter gave a different version of the case from that given by Cash, whose reliability, as could be seen by his record sheet, be had reason to doubt.

He denied having shown any favouritism or antipathy either to Cleal, Opitz, Mulcahy, or Billing when they were summoned for pumping offensive water or anything else as had been alleged by Sergeant O'Sullivan. Cautions   were administered in the ordinary way of business when necessary, and repeated offenders were punished by the court. He denied ever having removed O'Sullivan to   Fitzroy, Richmond , or Carlton , for the reason that he was too active in clearing the streets or closing the hotels, but simply because he deemed it right to do so in the exercise of his judgment as officer in charge. It was not true that he had "cleared   him out" because of his interference.   No such interference was brought under his notice. O'Sullivan was first transferred to Collingwood at his own request next to Melbourne on special duty at the railway station, next to Richmond to fill a vacancy, and finally from thence to Carlton at his own special request. He had nothing to say in reply to ex Constable White's belief that   money had been given by policemen for pro- motion beyond that he never heard of such a thing before.

No insinuation was made against him personally, but on behalf of the force generally he protested against the statement as a gross libel. He trusted that the commission would further inquire into the matter, and to facilitate such inquiry he handed in a list of all promotions made in the Melbourne district during the last nine years. Having referred to the evidence in a general way, he desired before concluding to draw the attention of the commission to the somewhat difficult position in which he had been placed for some time past. He had been harassed and pained in the extreme by vague reports that had appeared in the newspapers, without the slightest official authority or without an opportunity being afforded him to contradict them. The commission had bean in possession of information derived from private sources not indicated. In the evidence, and he had been kept in, complete ignorance of the charges made against him and the names of his accusers until the very last moment. He quite understood however that the commission considered it within the scope of their instructions to obtain all the information they could not only to prove the charges insinuated, but also to assist the in- nocent in refuting them. He was thankful that the commission had given him an opportunity to reply to the evidence. He had given them all the information he possessed and   had withheld nothing that came within the scope of the printed evidence. He did not care to say anything as to his fitness for the position he had so long held, but he referred the commission to the record of his service in the Police department.

Yesterday morning when the commission commenced the proceedings Mr Winch asked that the representatives of the press should be admitted and after a short deliberation the request was complied with.

William Bell sergeant of police stationed at North Fitzroy stated that when he was stationed at Fryerstown he occupied the rank of senior constable. Superintendent Littleton was in charge and when the strength of the district was reduced he was sent to Melbourne . Mr Winch was in charge at Castlemaine before coming to Melbourne . He was quite sure that he did not pay anything to Mr Winch as a consideration for   being removed to Melbourne . Mr Winch was stationed at Geelong when the removal took place and there was no conversation between them on the subject.

Alexander M'Cutcheon, ex senior constable stated that on one occasion he sent a Mr Stobie to see Mr Winch as Constable Cash had taken out a summons against him. Stobie knew Mr Winch and on coming out of the office he said, "I have put a nail in that -- s coffin," meaning Cash.

Martin Stobie formerly the keeper of an hotel in Little Bourke street stated that on one occasion he went to Mr Winch and asked him to suppress a summons that had been issued against him by a police constable for using insulting words. Mr Winch said it was a paltry case and the summons was withdrawn. He did not remember speaking to M'Cutcheon about the matter and had no   recollection whatever of ever having had any conversation with him at all with respect to the summons, either before or after seeing Mr Winch. He had offered no inducement to Mr Winch to suppress the summons.

Mr FINCHAM said no such insinuation had ever been made. The summons might have been suppressed for the best possible reason.

Mr WINCH stated that he had merely used   his discretion in the matter of this summons as it was necessary for him to do in hundreds of cases that came before him as the officer in charge of the city.

continued

, .1. , .2. , .3. , .4. ,


 ! 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.