THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR O'GRADY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIII, Issue 22, 25 September 1885, Page 23

THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR O'GRADY.

We have been requested to publish the following copy of the report made by Major Keddel), and laid on the table of the House of Representatives :—: — Greymouth, July 6, 1885. Sir, — [ have the honour to forward herewith, for tbe purpose of being laid before His Excellency the Governor, my several proceedings, and my opinion thereon, under the authority of tbe Commission issued in that behalf, in tbe matter of certain complaints made against Sergeant-Major Thomas O'Grady by James O'Brien and others, of this town. I have the honour to be, sir, Your most obedient servant, TAe Hon. J. Ballance, Jackson Kbddell, Minister of Defence, Wellington. Commissioner. I have the honour to Bubmit for the information of His Excellency the Governor the following as my opinion upon bearing the evidence adduced in support of, and in answer to, the charges preferred | against Sergeant- Major" Thomas O'Grady by James O'Brien and , others : With respect to that portion of the main charge preterred by O'Brien and others, as officers of the Irish National League at Grey- ' mouth, charging " Sergeant- Major O'Grady with circulating a false report concerning the funds of the Irish National League," | That the fact of the Sergeant-Major making such statement iB fully proved on the evidence of Messieurs Jones and Gilmer. I That with respect to that part of the complaint charging him I with having stated that he was afraid of being mobbed by the Irishmen at Hokicika when attending the ttial of John Donohue for murder at that place, the evidence is not conclusive. That with reapect to the general charge of mendacity contained in O'Brien's complaint, evidence was adduced to show that on the occasion of the case in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Greymouth in April, 1885, Dixon v. Henry O'Grady, for a breach of "The Animals' Protection Ace, 1881," in explanation of certain remarks made by Mr. W. H. Jones, solicitor, who appeared for the prosecution, complaining of a neglect of duty on the part of Sergeant-Major O'Grady ia not having taken all necessary steps to subpoena a witness (Gieseking) for the adjourned hearing of the case on the 21st April, and attributing the neglect to the fact of the defendant being his (the Sergeant- Major's) son, he (Sergeant- Major O'Grady) &tated tbat every endeavour had been made to effect service on the witness, and '* that he had had a constable watching the house "of the witness's mother for that purpose. It was proved by the evidence of the four constables who were stationed at Greymouth at this time, that the Sergeant- Major did make the statement to the Beucu in the hearing of two of them who were present oa duty at the hearing of the case, and by tbe evidence of each, that no cousiable was employed in the manner stated by the Sergeant- Major. With reapect 10 the two complaints — which have arisen out of the first made by O'Brien, by Me&srs. Campbell and Gilmer — ie,, that Mr. « ampbell held a mortgage over Mr. Gilmer's property, and ihdt Mi. Gilmer was under that, ooligation to Mr. Campbell— it has been proved on the evidence of the parries that no such mortgage ever esibted, and Seigeaut-Mapr O'Grady's evidence in defence admits ihat he had no fouuda 1 ion for the assertion, and, though he stated that he had heard it rumoured, he could not call to mind the name of any persen who had told him. I am of opinion that thoe complaints are of graver importance than the original by O'Brien. Sergeant-Major O'Grady has brought several witnesses to prove that they were in his comppny veiy frequently when at Hokitika attending Donohue's trial, aud that the statement that the Land League had contributed 10 the defence of Donohue, giving Mr. GuineßS £260 to defend him, was repeatedly mentioned ia their (the witnessed) hearing, and was common gossip and rumour there, and evidence 10 tbe same effect was given by witnesses called by O'Grady in Hokitika, also witnesses who testified to the fact that the same rumour was current and in everybody's mouth at Ureymouth both before and afu r the tiial ; yet Sergeant- Major O'Grady. who is stated to be an expenenced aud a highly miellig.-nt officer, states that he never even he.ud of this rumour utml he heard it from a Mr. Kennedy in a conversation with him, refeiri-d to in evideuce, wuich appears to have iaken place in Match or April lasi. I think that Sergeant- Maj >r O'Graly, who states in hia evid-nce that Messrs. Jones aud Gitmer a ? e meu of credit or to that tffect, should have stated to the Commissioner of the Armed Constabulary Force when asked for his explanations of the circumstances of O'tJrieu'o complaint what he das iv fact admitted during the present inquiry. That after such elapse of time (then over twelve months), he had uo recollection of the conversation and the statement, that he believed he bad never made ihe statement and could conscientiously deny it ; but if Messrs. Jones and Gilraer were prep ired to swear to that effect he was open to believe he might, huvo baid so, as he was merely repeating common rumour. S rgeaut- Major w'Grady may be truthful and honest in his denial tnat h*s made his siatement, for hat is a matter of memory ; but lam of opinion tbat he could not have been in Hokitika at the time of Donohae's trial and at Greytruuth before and after living constantly as an active police officer iv the midst of a community through which as he has shown me by his witnesses, this statement was so freely bruited aDout without having heard it himself. I believe his defeuce to be untrue, and his letter of explanation to the Commissioner of the A.C. Force, dated 22nd April, 1885, I consider most reprehensible. This letter was written after bis conversation with Mr. Jones, and after he bad ascertained that Gilmer w.is prepared to give evidence as to tbe complaint of O'Brien. Mr. Jones had wavered at first in his account of the affair ; his explanation is fully set out in the despositions. It appears to me the natural hesitation of a person asked to recall a street conversation, to which at the time of its

occurrence he attached no importance, at the request of a stranger, who represented the matter as serious to certain persons then, Sergeant-Major O'Grady perceived the importance of casting discredit on Gilmer's evidence, who was positive as to the circumstances and that was the main object and tendency of his explanation, and as he states that he believed it to be privileged and only for the information of bis superior officer, it is clear that he never supposed the false statements and innuendoes it contained would come to the knowledge of the persons concerned. The theory of the defence ia that the complaint was made with the object of procuring the removal of Sergeant-Major O'Grady from Ihe district, who on account of his having in the discharge of bis duty prosecuted a man named Hoghes for various offences— sly-grog selling, cattle-wounding and arson,— and also Doaobue for murder, had made himself obnoxious to the section of the community to which the complainants belong. There is no evidence to support this.

The complaint appears to have arisen oat of Sergeant- Major O'Grady having requested O'Brien or consented in reply to bis suggestion, to propose him as a member of the Irish National League, his name being proposed and objected to on account of it being known to some members that this statement with respect to the funds of the League being diverted towards Donohue's defence had been made by O'Grady. An enquiry then took place ending in the formal complaint being made in behalf of the Irish National League. In brief —l find the charge of having circulated the false report mentioned in O'Brien's complaint to be proved. That Sergeant- Major O'Grady did consent to be proposed a member of the Irish National League. That Sergeant- Major O'Grady did make a false statement to the Bench at Greymouth in the case of Dizon v. Henry O'Grady, on 21st April, 1885. That the statements made by Sergeant-Major O'Grady in his letter dated 22nd April, concerning Messrs. Campbell and Gilmer, were false and unfounded.

And I am of opinion that the police service would be benefited by| the removal of Sergeant -Major O'Grady from the Greymouth district.

And under the provisions of the sixth section of the Commissions Power Act 1867, Amendment Act 1872, 1 order that SergeantMajor O'Grady do pay to James O'Brien the sum of ten pounds and ten shillings for his costs. I certifiy the above as my opinion and the annexed documents as my several proceedings. Given under my hand and seal this 6th day of July, 1885, at Grevmoutb.

Jackson Kbddell, Commissioner.