706
intended to reserve his defence it is difficult to suppose that he would not have made some protestation of innocence. It is still more difficult to suppose that when he found that he was to be recommended for dismissal he would, if innocent, still have abstained from asserting his innocence.
I believe the truth of the matter to be that Holt was guilty, and at the time had nothing to say. That when he heard that other policemen had successfully appealed, he thought that he also might as well try his luck. That he took advice how to proceed (the petition of 1903 was certainly drawn in a lawyer's office, and it is hardly less certain that that of the 1899 is not his handiwork) and it was seen that his silence at the enquiry would be a fatal obstacle unless it could be explained away. That the plea of intending to reserve his defence is merely due to the legal ingenuity of his advisers.
I should reply that the matter was considered in 1908 by the then Governor, Sir H. Blake, and that the S. of S. is not prepared to reopen the case.
... cases in that ...
I still differed from the other cases in that the convict who produced the money stated that he had after receiving it personally handed it to Holt. In the other cases there was no evidence that the money ever reached the policemen. Here there was. Holt was charged with neglect of duty ... with receiving bribe ...
A policeman must have known what cross-examination meant & must...