The Argus at KellyGang 5/10/1882
THE POLICE COMMISSION
The Police Commission met again yesterday. There were present Messrs Longmore (chairman) Fincham, Anderson, and Hall, MLA's and Mr Dixon.
The inquiry into the complaint made by Patrick Boardman against certain detectives of having "put up" a rubbery at the Commercial Bank, Hotham, was resumed.
The evidence taken on the previous day was read over in the presence of the witnesses who had been called.
Richard Sutcliffe formerly landlord of the Turf Club Hotel, Hotham said that he remembered the detectives coming to his hotel. There were five of them. He did not recognise any of them among those present. The detectives took a room from him. There had been a robbery previously in his hotel. They took the room for one night and said they expected something to occur. They did not say what they expected. They asked for a room overlooking the bank yard. They only stayed in his hotel on the night of the robbery. He suspected that the detectives were watching the bank. He had a conversation with the bank manager afterwards.
To Detective Duncan -Witness mentioned to the detectives when they came there about some suspicious characters who were in his bar in the day. They were two young men whose appearance he did not like. There had previously been an attempt on the bar. The men entered by a side window He had heard of another attempt at house-breaking in the neighbourhood. A "jemmy" was found near his premises by Sergeant Dalton. That was on the night of the robbery. It was at about 11 o'clock when the detectives came. He left the front door open for them. From the room taken by the detectives they could see for some distance beyond the bank. Witness heard no screams or cries for help from the police at the time of the robbery. Witness had reported the attempt upon his premises to the detectives before they came and asked for the room. He heard no disturbance on the night of the robbery.
To Mr Boardman-There was communication between his yard and that of the bank. The detectives could not have been secreted in his yard without his knowledge.
Francis O'Meara, sergeant of police stationed in Melbourne stated that he remembered on the 18th August last, hearing from Detective O'Donnell that a robbery had been reported in the Victoria Hotel on the evening of that day. Boardman was arrested as one of those who were in the bar at the time of the robbery but after being examined the landlord of the hotel allowed him to be released. Witness believed that it was partly in connexion with the Victoria Hotel robbery that Boardman was charged and convicted for vagrancy. Boardman kept company with known thieves ever since the sentence for the Commercial Bank robbery, but not so much lately. Witness did not think that he would be justified in charging him with being a vagrant, but he might perhaps do so if he had been watching him.
Detective O'Callaghan was proceeding to examine the witness, when.
Mr FINCHAM asked some questions as to the avocation of Boardman.
Detective O'Callaghan said that if the commission desired to screen the character of Boardman of course there was no use saying anything.
The CHAIRMAN said that the commission would not allow Mr O'Callaghan to interfere with their duties.
Detective O'Callaghan said that he had no desire to interfere, but only to secure a fair bearing. He thought that the witness was in his hands and that he ought to be allowed to examine him without interference.
The CHAIRMAN said that the commission would not hear Detective O'Callaghan any further and that officer withdrew.
The room was also cleared for a time. On the door being opened again.
The witness (Constable O'Meara) examined by Detective Nixon, said that he did not know the grounds on which Boardman was charged with vagrancy. He thought that this was no exceptional case. It was the usual thing for all detectives and constables who knew anything of vagrants to give evidence against them as had been done in this case. If he knew that Boardman was keeping company with certain known thieves, he would have felt justified in charging him with vagrancy. It was an everyday occurrence for six or seven detectives to be called to prove a man's vagrancy.
Detective Duncan said that he knew nothing whatever of a list of discharged prisoners purporting to have been sent by him to Boardman. It was positively untrue that he had ever sent such a list. He had written to Boardman, but did not send that list. Boardman was employed by him, but it was as a spy on his associates. He received no money, and gave no information which led to any convictions. Witness never promised Boardman £3 a week. His first acquaintance with Boardman was after the bank robbery at Hotham in 1877. He saw him some time after and Boardman then offered his services, stating he could be of great use to the detective department. Witness referred him to Mr Secretan. Brought the offer under that officer's notice and subsequently saw Boardman. It was then that Boardman gave information as to certain persons with whom he was acquainted who were connected in various ways with the receipt or disposal of stolen property. Witness then sent him a list of stolen property to see whether be could trace any of it. Boardman also gave information concerning the perpetrators of certain crimes in Sydney and Adelaide , and the information was sent to those cities. He did not hear any result from that information and had no further communication with him. His connexion with Boardman was known to the department, he made use of him only for the public advantage, had never led him or others into preconcerted robberies, and had, no design against him. At the time of the bank robbery at Hotham there had been numerous robberies, and the detectives had information that there was likely to be a big robbery there, and acting on this information they watched the place for some time and occupied several hotels besides Sutcliffes. (Witness then described the method adopted for watching the bank premises and detecting the offenders, as well as the finding of a large collection of burglars tools, dynamite, &c. He also deposed to Boardman's attest after a struggle, in which witness was assaulted. One of the detectives remarked to Boardman.
"I did not know you went in for this." He replied "Oh yes; I intend to go in for worse." He was tried, committed for trial, pleaded guilty, was sentenced and made no complaint at the time about the proceedings against him)
[Mrs Lucretia Moran was called at this stage to give evidence as to charge against Superintendent Winch. She stated, in reply to Senior constable M'Cutcheon, that her husband was employed in the Railway department. Senior constable Conniff called on her a few nights ago. He spoke about Mr Larner, regretting he had been so foolish. Peter Martin was there. Nothing was said about bailiffs at Castlemaine. Did not hear anything about Mr Winch. Conniff went to her house to say that his daughter, who had been ill, was getting better.]
John Duncan, detective, gave further evidence to the effect that he had received letters from Boardman under a nom de plume of J Brown, which letters he would try to find. Those letters were for the purpose of arranging interviews. The information he obtained from Boardman as to criminals was verbal.
Patrick Boardman, recalled, was cross-examined by Detective Duncan. He said-I have known you for eight or nine years. The first occasion I met you was when you rushed upon me at the Hotham bank affair, referred to in my statement of yesterday, and struck me with handcuffs. Could show no bruises. Had not visited the bank before the night of the attempted burglary. Heard Britchner signal to the detectives. You proposed to me that I should inform against two of the men with us that night on certain conditions. You said you wanted Britchner for some other purpose, and wished him to get off. Was sent to the Industrial School in 1870 for immoral conduct. Was then about 14 years old. Never gave any information to you about criminals. You made proposals to me, saying I would be a useful man in the department. Made the statement to the commission in consequence of a communication I had with Detective Foster, and of the police hounding me down.
To the COMMISSION - Foster offered me no inducement to make the statement. He only asked me to speak the truth.
Detective Duncan - How long have you known Mr Foster, and how long has he known you?
The CHAIRMAN said that Mr Duncan had conducted the cross examination most unfairly. That question was asked with a sneer that was an insinuation.
Witness to Detective Duncan -I have known Foster eight or nine years. Never took him- into my confidence before. Made the statement to the commission, because the police were hounding me down.
To the COMMISSION -I never wrote to Duncan under the name of Brown. Did not supply to Duncan the information as to certain criminals in Sydney and Adelaide that he has said this day I did give to him. I sent a telegram in the name of Brown.
John Duncan, recalled, was cross examined by Boardman, and stated, - You made an offer to me, not I to you. You told me a certain hotelkeeper encouraged criminals to go about his place. [This statement was denied by Boardman.]
The commission adjourned until 11 o'clock am next Tuesday.
| ! | 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. |
