The Complete Inner History of the KellyGang and their Pursuers (9)

full text

CHAPTER 1

continued

THE ADMSSION

After the capture of Ned Kelly at the "Siege of Glenrowan" some of the truth leaked out. Inspector Wm B Montfort, who succeeded Superintendent Sadleir at Benalla, gave evidence before the Royal Commission on 9th June, 1881, as follows:-

Question by Commissioner: If there was frequent crime in the district undetected, and the offender not made amenable to justice, would you not know that the man (policeman) stationed there was more than likely inefficient?

Inspector Montfort: Not necessarily.

Question: Would the book show the action the constable took on that information?

Inspector Montfort: It would only show that he made inquiries in a general way; it would not give the details. For instance, two men might come over from New South Wales and go to Moyhu and steal horses there, and successfully pilot them across into New South Wales , and it would be a difficult thing to make the police officer responsible for that. It does not necessarily follow that the thieves live in the district. In answering another question, Inspector Montfort said: "When I went to Wangaratta in 1862 the great trouble the police had then was with the Omeo mob of horse stealers. They used to come across to Wangaratta, steal horses, go to Omeo, and plant them in the range and alter the brands, and sell them in Melbourne or in New South Wales . I could mention the names of the parties. There is still the same complaint (June 9, 1881). That is why I consider the doing away with the Healesville station was a great mistake'at the time." This clearly proves that the police knew that the horse stealing in the Kelly Country was not done by the Kellys.

In order that Inspector Montfort might now speak with even greater freedom, the Royal Commission took the following evidence from him, on oath, behind closed doors:-

Question: How was it that, on the prosecution of MeElroy and Quinn there, they were not made amenable to some sort of justice to keep them quiet?

Inspector Montfort: The case against McElroy was not proved. The charge was that he snapped a loaded gun at Quinn with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, and that was not proved to the satisfaction of the justices. It was sworn to right enough by Quinn, but the justices did not believe him. There was subsequently a cross-summons taken out by McElroy against Quinn for some alleged insulting language made use of by Quinn at Mrs. Dobson's public-house (at Swanpool). It is usual in the bush to have cross-charges made. I suggested to the bench that they should postpone the hearing of the case against Quinn for a week, but they decided they would hear it to-morrow (June 10, 1881). I did that because I considered Quinn was taken by surprise; that he, in ignorance, trusted me to defend him, when I had no status in the court to do anything of the kind, and I considered, that it would be treating him with injustice not to let him have the option and opportunity of employing a solicitor.

Question: You were prosecuting McElroy

Inspector Montfort. Yes. I might say, in connection with this, that a great deal of the difficulty with these men (Kellys and their friends) would be got over if they felt they were treated with equal justice -that there was no "down" on them. They are much more tractable if they feel they are treated with equal justice.

 This admits police persecution in the form of Loaded Dice, and could be admitted only behind closed doors.

See previous page / next page

This document gives you the text of this book about the KellyGang. The text has been retyped from a 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. JJ Kenneally was one of the first authors to tell this story from the KellyGang's point of view