QSA563608 1888 Minutes of the Civil Service Commission, Police, Wednesday 6 February, Dominick Heavey Police Staff file

[upper right corner, written in ink] [PComr?]

[oval stamp] COMMISSIONER OF POLICE. 05, 190. QUEENSLAND 15 APR. 89

[centred, written in ink] Civil Service Commission.

C. S. Com. - Police - Wednesday, 6th Feb. - FORTY-THREE WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY, 1889. (At No. 1 Committee Room, Legislative Assembly.) Present : T. UNMACK E.B. FORREST F. KATES R.J. GRAY. T. UNMACK IN THE CHAIR. DOMINICK HEAVEY, Ex-Constable, examined : 10723. By the Chairman: What are you? I am an ex-constable, and at the present time I am a stockman on the Herbert River. 10724. How long were you in the force? About 12 months, from the 17th June of one year until [in right margin, in pencil] dischd April the 15th June of the next. 10725. You have written to the Civil Service Commissioners offering to substantiate and prove certain charges of mismanagement and injustice on the part of certain inspectors. You have also formulated a charge against Inspector Stafford of receiving £30 under false pretences as the cost of shifting a police camp from Glenroy to Palmerville? I have. 10726. in reply to our request you have volunteered to come to Brisbane at your own expense and prove these charges? I have done so. 10727. Very well, we shall be glad now to hear anything you have to say; of course you understand you must give us ample proof of what you say? Anything I have put on paper I am prepared to prove. 10728. Very well, go on in your own way? On the 2nd or 3rd August, 1887, I took possession of the [in right margin, in pencil] - arnd 12 Aug, left 10 native police camp at Palmerville, and immediately after arriving there I was introduced into a blacksmith's shop by the inspector who had taken possession of the police quarters. 10729. What inspector? Inspector Stafford. He told me I would have to stop in the blacksmith's shop until such time as I built a cottage or made some provision for myself. I said: "Is there no provision "made here for police quarters?" and he replied: None whatever; I am in possession of the police "quarters, and you will have to abide by my decision." I said: "Mr. Stafford, am I sent up here to stop "under these old bellows, without any provision at all being made for me?" and he replied: "You will "have to abide by my orders." In the meantime he had given £8 to a carrier named Fox to bring four [in right margin, in pencil] - money Paid "2" Save loads from Glenroy to Palmerville. The rest of the Government property I changed from Glenroy to Palmerville. I had been doing native police camp sergeant's duty previous to this; x [written in ink] and I was sent out [in right margin, in pencil, and underlined] - where on duty. When I returned there was a permanent order there from the inspector, through another constable, for me, to the effect that I was to sell a Government horse, named "Oblivion," that had been employed by the force for fourteen years. I said I would not sell the horse, whether I got an order to do so from Inspector Stafford or Inspector Murray, because it was contrary to the rules and regulations of the force to dispose of anything like that. I was told I was to sell the horse to a man named Bostock, who was travelling on the road to Croydon. The man called on me on the following day, and said: "You are to give me Oblivion." I said: "What for?" and he replied: "I am going to Croydon, "and I bought him from Mr. Stafford." I asked him if he had got an order from Mr. Stafford, and he said "No; but I was told by Mr. Murray that you would give me Oblivion, and put a price on him." [in right margin, in pencil] - false I said: "I would not dispose of him in that way, even if Mr. Murray gave me an order, without "I got instructions from the Commissioner to do so." I did not give him the horse, and when Stafford returned he said to me: "How dare you contradict my instructions." I said: "In what way, "Mr. Stafford?" He replied: "You ought to have given Oblivion to Bostock." And I said: "I would not do that, because it is contrary to the rules and regulations of the police force to give Government property away like that. Stafford got into a rage then, and what followed I am not going to repeat here, except what concerns myself. 10730. What became of the horse? The horse is gone. He sold him and two or three more besides. 10731. But if he sold the horse did he not account for the money? I do not know. I asked Mr. Murray about it on two or three occasions, but he would give me no satisfactory reply, because between two sub-inspectors a policeman can have nothing to say. 10732. By Mr. Forrest: Did he pocket the money? He received the money. I do not know whether he returned it; but I say it is against the regulations of the police force to sell horses at all except upon the order of the Commissioner, and then they must be sold by public auction. 10736. By the Chairman: Can you prove that he kept the money for his own purposes? I would not on any consideration say he did pocket the money. He received it; but whether he returned the money to the Government or not I do not know. 10737. By Mr. Forrest: Then why do you raise a charge of this sort when, by you [sic] rown [sic] showing, there is nothing in it? I can show you that it is contrary to the regulations. 10738. Never mind the regulations. You charge the man with fraud and you are not game to prove it here? Well, I suppose I had better have nothing more to say. 10739. By the Chairman: I will quote from your own letter. You charge Stafford "with selling a Government horse to a traveller and not accounting to the inspector for the said horse." What do you say to that? Anything in that letter I can substantiate. 10740. Well, do so? I can substatiate [sic] that from the Commissioner's report. 10741. I ask you to substantiate it? I am powerless; I could not ask men to come here. 10742. You see you are not here merely for the purpose of giving evidence. You are here for the purpose of proving and substantiating charges you have made against some of the officers of the Police Department, and that you must co [sic]? I am quite prepared to do it. 10743. That is all you are asked to do. You charge a man with selling a Government horse and "with not accounting to the inspector for the said horse." You say he has not accounted for the horse? I could not prove that. 10744. By Mr. Kates: Did you write to the inspector on the subject ? I reported the matter to the inspector twice, but, he being in league with Stafford, I could get no satisfaction from him. 10745. Did you get any answer from him ? He never replied to me. He was in league with Stafford for disposing of and destroying Government property.

[centred] C. S. Com. - Police - Wednesday, 6th Feb. - FORTY-FOUR 10746. By the Chairman: We must drop the charge then, as you say yourself you do not know how Stafford accounted for the horse? It will cost me £60 to get back to the place where I was employed. It does not matter to you if that man has not disposed of the money. I can prove it from the Commissioner's report. 10747. What Commissioner's report do you want - his annual report? I want the Commissioner present. You do not want me to take a man up short and say this or say that. 10748. By Mr. Forrest: We expect you, when you make a charge of a distinct character against a man, in a letter, to make it good, and that you have failed to do? Well, how else will I do it? 10749. Whatever way you like? Well I will summons the Commissioner, that will be pretty good proof of it. 10750. By Mr. R. J. Gray: How do you know he did it I was present at the time he sold the horse. 10751. By Mr. Forrest: Did you not state that the man pocketed the money? Most decidedly. He put the money into his pocket when he received it. 10752. You must not shuffle here. Answer my question properly or I will make you? Did he appropriate it for his own use? Most decidedly he did. 10753. By the Chairman: You will have to prove that? I will prove it through the Commissioner. 10754. By Mr. R. J. Gray: How do you know he applied the money to his own use? Well I do in this way. That he has tried to induce me to dispose of two or three more horses in addition to this one. That is what he did. 10755. By Mr. Kates: If the Commissioner says he accounted for it, there's an end of it? Yes; there's an end of it. 10756. By Mr. R. J. Gray: But there is not an end to the slander you are making now? What I am saying I am worth it. 10757. By Mr. Kates: How will you look here if you are told he refunded the money to the department? I can bet my life he did not. 1075A. By the Chairman: Well, we will send for the papers and see what he did? Very well. [tick, left margin] 10758. You say in your letter that you reported Sub-Inspector Stafford to Inspector Murray of Cooktown on three different charges - "1st. For receiving the sum of £30 under false representing to his inspector that it would take the above amount to change the Glenroy camp to Palmerville." What have you to say to that? That charge is perfectly true and I am prepared to prove it. 10759. Let us have it then? Out of the £30 he paid £8 to a carrier named Fox to draw the remains of an old shed to Palmerville. 10760. Will you tell us first of all how you know he received the £30? I have seen all the vouchers returned for it, [sic] With four Government horses I did the rest of the work of changing the camp, and, as I say, he paid Fox £8 for drawing five loads of timber. 10761. We have an official record before us to the effect that Sub-Inspector Stafford never received more than £10 of that money, and that the other £20 were paid to the men who did the work, and who gave a receipt as per voucher for it. Are you in a position to prove the countrary [sic]? I am in a position to prove he never paid a shilling but the £8 he paid to Fox. When I made my report against Stafford he may have gone to work and issued receipts and vouchers for different things, when he found I would not be a party to his disposing of Government property. I can prove by two constables and by the carrier that it only cost him the £8 to change the camp. I did the rest, and I built cottages to the amount of £15 there. I can get two magistrates and one member of Parliament who have seen the buildings I put up there. 10762. You must confine yourself to the question. You say he received £30, of which he only paid away £8. Now I have a memorandum here from Inspector Murray, to the effect that he paid the money himself, and that Stafford never had the handling of more than £10 of it? How can he say that whenStafford received the money and the vouchers for pay, I saw the cheque given to Stafford. 10764. What cheque? The cheque for £30 for the removal of the Glenroy Police Camp. I had it in my hand. 10765. A cheque for £30? Yes; that is what he got for it. 10766. There must be some extraordinary stories somewhere? Yes; otherwise I would not have come from Herbert River. 10767. Well, we have the vouchers here. You must give us some further proof. We have the official documents at variance with what you have said? There is no such thing as vouchers between these two sub-inspectors. 10768. Your own word is not quite sufficient against these official documents in such grave charges? I could prove it by two other constables; but what have I got to do with summonsing constables. 10769. What other constables? Constables Murray and O'Brien. 10770. Was the Government not willing to render you any assistance in this inquiry? I do not care whether any assistance is given to me or not. I speak the truth. 10771. Well, I have here a report from Stafford on the subject, under date 2nd June, and addressed to Murray, and he says:—

"Referring to the money expended in shifting the camp, you are aware that the sum of £10 was paid to James Fox for cartage, also that the sum of £20 was paid to James Bostock for the cartage of five loads of building material from Glenroy to Palmerville and the erection of buildings at Palmerville. You are aware that I only handled £10 of it, which I paid to Fox and for which you have got a receipted voucher."

Inspector Murray corroborates that statement in the report from him which I have already read to you. Now, are we to understand from you that both these men told lies on the subject? Most decidedly. [tick, left margin] 10772. By Mr. R. J. Gray: Would you say so if you saw the receipted vouchers produced? I would believe it then, because Bostock did not have a saddle strap and he never drove a nail at the place. 10773. By the Chairman: The next charge you make is that you reported Stafford "for keeping a blackboy chained up to a post by the legs for a period of thirteen days without food or water - and sitting in his filth and dirt"? There is nothing in the world more certain than that. He was chained to a verandah post nine inches through, with a pair of handcuffs on him. 10774. By Mr. R. J. Gray: And had nothing to eat or drink during that time? I gave him something out of my own pocket as there was no provision made for his keep. Stafford went away and he instructed me to leave that boy on the chain until he returned. He went away one morning after hammering him and breaking his arm. 10775. By the Chairman: Now I will read to you what Stafford reports on that subject, under date 2nd June, 1888. He says:—

"I did have an aboriginal whom I employed as an interpreter leg-ironed to a post, as I was afraid he would get away and give notice to the murderers of Wright, of whom I was in pursuit. If any inhumanity was practised it was without my sanction and Heavey was responsible for it as he was distinctly in charge of the prisoner and rations were ordered by me to be served out to him."

What have you to say to that? What is the date of that report?

C.S. Com Police Wednesday, 6th Feb. FORTY-FIVE

10776. That is Stafford's report to Murray on the 2nd June, 1888? Well, the thing happened on the 2nd January.

10777. Yes, he is speaking of the time when the affair happened, and he says that the black boy was left in your charge during his absence, and that you are responsible for his treatment? That is very likely.

10778. That is very likely? Yes.

10779. By Mr Forrest: You are a nice sort of fellow to leave a nigger for thirteen days without anything to eat or drink? I gave him something.

10780. By the Chairman: Do you wish to say anything about the charge you make against the subinspectors of convicting and bringing a charge against you, and bringing you before the bench for unnecessarily using firearms? Yes, I have a lot to say; but I see I am debarred from giving evidence.

10781. No; you are not. You are expected to prove the charges you have made. In this case in which this charge of shooting was preferred against you, you were tried before two magistrates at Maytown? Yes.

10782. You gave evidence there? Yes.

10783. And you were found guilty and fined £1? Yes.

10784. Do you want to tell us now that those two magistrates also combined to do you wrong? No; the sub-inspectors did.

10785. You were convicted on your own evidence? I beg your pardon, sir. I was fined £1 I know, but it was for illegally carrying firearms on a Sunday, when the offence, if there was any at all, was committed on a Saturday, on the 14th January. After I had worked hard all day I took a rifle off the rack and went out duck shoooting.

10786. Your statement is not in accordance with the facts, for you got a summons? I got no summons.

10787. I have the summons here and there is no mention of Sunday in it. You are charged in it with having on the 14th January, being then a constable in the Queensland Police force, misconducted yourself by unnecessarily discharging firearms contrary to the Act in such case made and provided. That is the summons the bench dealt with? I have a copy of the Maytown Chronicle in which the case is referred to, and I have a letter {produced} from the presiding magistrate in which he states he would have fined me 5s., only he was under the belief that the offence was committed on the Sunday. I only bring this matter up to show you how I have been treated by these men.

10788. But your statements will not bear investigation. You say in your letter that "there was not even an information laid against me," and we have the information before us with the summons? There was not an information laid against me. When I was brought before the bench I asked the clerk of petty sessions: "Where is the information?" and he said: "There is no necessity for any informtion as long as the inspector says you are to be brought before the bench." I said: "Please read the information and see is it in accordance with the summons." So he read it, and then—

10789. By Mr R.J. Gray: Then there was an information, if he read it? I asked him to read the information, and he said the two magistrates said there was no necessity for an information as long as the inspector ordered me to be brought before the bench.

10790. By the Chairman: I have the information here signed by Police Magistrate McArthur, is that wrong too? Yes; he was not within a thousand miles of the place.

10791. This is the information {produced} and it states that it was sworn before Mr. McArthur, police magistrate, at Maytown, on the 2nd of February, 1888. Would you like to see it? I do not dispute it.

10792. But you say this gentleman was a thousand miles away? Yes; I am telling the truth.

10793. Are we to understand that this is also false? Yes.

10794. What is the use of your saying that. Here is the information with Mr. McArthur's signature. Do you mean to say it is a forgery? Yes.

{Mr R.J. Greg identified McArthur's signature on the information form}.

10795. If you are told this is Mr. McArthur's signature, how can you say he was not there? If he was there, why didn't he preside.

{Mr. Finucane, chief clerk and accountant in the Police Department, attended with papers connected with the charges made by the witness Heavey}.

10796. By the Chairman (to Mr. Finucane): Will you produce vouchers for the payment of £30 for the removal of the police camp from Glenroy to Palmerville? Yes. {Vouchers produced}.

10797. (To witness.) Here is a voucher for £20 signed by James Bostock. Look at that. You tell us that Stafford got the £30, and here is a receipted voucher for £20 with James Bostock's signature attached? What is the date of that?

10798. The voucher is dated 16th October, 1887, and is for work connected with the erection of a stable and constables' quarters in the police station yard at Palmerville, as authorised by the Commissioner of Police. there is another voucher here for £10, receipted and signed by James Fox, for carrying stores and building material from Glenroy to Palmerville? I admit that Fox got £8.

10799. But here is the man's signature for £10? I see.

10800. Then in reference to Bostock's voucher, do you say it is a forgery? Bostock's signature?

10801. Yes? It is a real forgery.

10802. To (Mr Finucane): Is this the original voucher? Yes; it is a duplicate voucher. That, I presume is Mr. Bostock's signature to it.

10803. (To Witness): What have you to say to that? I say that on the 12th November, he went away to Croydon, him and his brother, and he took away a Government horse. That is what I talked about, and will talk about.

10804. Then you say Bostock's signature is a forgery? Yes; the greatest falsehood ever stated. I can prove it by two constables; but I am powerless here at the present time. If I could produce Murray, the constable, here I could prove it.

10805. I will read you the language of the receipt to the voucher:– "I certify that the above claim is correct, being the amount due and owing to me for the services above mentioned, and I hereby authorise the same to be paid on my behalf to my credit in the Queensland National Bank, Croydon."

That is signed by Bostock.

Mr. Finucane: The money must have been paid by Mr. Kob.

[handwritten underneath] Paid by Commr in usual way. F.J.M.

C. S. Com.—Police—Wednesday, 6th Feb.—FORTY-SIX

10806. By the Chairman : Yes, the money was placed to Bostock's credit in the Queensland National Bank at Croydon, by the accountant of the Colonial Secretary's Department. Do you still say that Bostock never received it? That is after I reported Stafford to the Commissioner of Police and the [inserted small pencil: x] Colonial Secretary. That transaction took place according to the date on it fifteen weeks after Bostock left Palmerville. I reported Stafford for receiving the amount, and then he went to work and posted it here and there and received vouchers for it, and did the best he could to get out of the difficulty, because he and Murray were in league about this £30.

10807. Then what about this work supposed to be performed by Bostock at Palmerville? It never was [inserted pencil: xx] performed. He never drove a nail there, and I am prepared to prove that through two constables.

10808. Who are they? Michael Murray and John O'Brien.

10809. Then the accusation you really make is that this voucher for £20 is a manufactured one? [Yes?], that is it. Stafford received the money, and manufactured these documents after I reported him to Inspector Murray.

10810. Well, we will drop that subject for the present, and talk about the horse. (To Mr. Finucane): Have you any returns of horses sold in that district by the sub-inspector, and amongst others any concerning the sale of a horse called "Oblivion?" I see "Oblivion" is still in our stud, and is at Palmerville at the present time.

10811. (To witness): There you are. The horse, you see, is still there, and you have accused Stafford of selling him, and not accounting for him to the Commissioner? I do say so. There are seven-andtwenty horses there in charge of this man, who disposes of them in the best way he can. He may have got another horse, and he could call him any name he liked. I am prepared to prove to you that this bay horse "Oblivion" has been sold to Bostock. Bostock told me he bought him, and Constable Murray could tell you the same.

10812. Well we will see what Murray says; I have a report here dated January 31st, 1888, from Michael Murray, the man you speak of, and I find he says that on no occasion did he receive instructions from SubInspector Stafford to tell Heavey to sell a Government horse, and he also says that to the best of his belief the horse referred to in another part of Heavey's report was a cast and sold horse which Murray found down the Palmer River and brought down to the station on his return in the belief that he was a Governmhnt [sic] horse belonging to the station. You see he denies that he ever told you to sell the horse? I told you in the beginning that he told me that I was to sell the horse to Bostock, and I would not do it; I would not be a party to it.

10813. How can you say that when I have just read to you the man's report upon your charges? That is a different thing altogether. You must make some allowance for an unfortunate individual having to make a report between two sub-inspectors. I want truth and justice, and the facts I have stated have happened, and you can't blot them out.

10814. You wish us to infer, from what you say, that all these documents and reports were concocted with the connivance of Sub-Inspectors Stafford and Murray, to hush these charges up? Yes, to evade justice. The only thing is, did he sell the horse to Bostock on that date. That is what I want to prove [margin pencil: x] to you—a Government horse with the old crown brand on. I did not come down here to give false evidence.

10815. By Mr. R. J. Gray: What is the date of your report—You say you reported Stafford? Yes; I made a report to Sub-Inspector Murray.

10816. By the Chairman: Your report upon this matter to the Commissioner of Police is here, and is dated May 6th 1888 {produced}, and this voucher for the £20 is dated 15th October, 1887. Mr. Finucane: And paid some time in the beginning of December.

10817. By Mr. R. J. Gray (to witness): You say this was done after you reported Stafford? Yes.

10818. By Mr. Forrest: And, as a matter of fact, the voucher was in about six months before? I beg your pardon.

10819. By Mr. R. J. Gray: There are the documents to prove it? I reported Stafford before that. I can prove to your that Bostock never did any work there at all at that time.

10820. By the Chairman: You have heard that the horse you spoke of is still in the possession of the Government? No; I have not heard it. I was a party to sending five Government horses down to Cooktown. I say the sub-inspector had no right to dispose of any Government horse.

10821. He must have since he sends down returns of horses sold to the Commissioner? It is against the regulations of the police force. This horse "Oblivion" had the old Crown brand, and several other brands on him.

10822. Do you know any of the other brands? No.

10823. By Mr. Kates: The sum and substance of it is that you accuse Stafford, Murray, and Bostock of being in collusion to hush these matters up? Yes; that is it.

10824. By the Chairman: Well, we will make further inquiries? Very well.