CO537-(36-37) — Page 114

1972.

вый #прав

992

Clark

Inspector Conolly ?

A.

If I remember rightly, yes.

16122

Q.

And it was not the Indian, vice versa ?

16.122

A.

and it turned out eventually I believe, though I am

not absolutely certain, that the Indian struck the

There was a conflict of evidence, as far se I remember,

Ι

Inspector.

23

9.

Well, do you know that it was entered in the

misconduct book that Inspector Conolly is defendant,

16123

and the other man is plaintiff, and that it is entered

up that he, Inspector Conolly, is severely censured and

removed to another District.

As

of course it is wrong. It is unfair to Conelly.

16124

24 2.

We dont know the truth of it. I dont think it is wrong

in this way. You have put a little different light on

A.

24-

Q.e

The Chairinan:-

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.

Reference:-

537

36

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE

L

it. You have said that the Indian did charge Inspector

Conolly ?

Yes.

Therefore that is quite right, but in the punishment 161257.

awarded, they have forgotten to put the man's name

only. As a matter of fact, I understood that the

defendant was the Indian.

No, I understood it when we had the book before us,

that the Indian foreman alleged a charge of assault

against Inspector Conolly. The matter is investigated,

and it is entered, up; Defendant, Inspector Conolly, .

charged with assault. The complainant was an Indian

foreman. Punichment, severely censured, and removed to

another District. Now, reading that right across, you

could only read that Conolly was defendant, and was

found guilty and severaly censured, and ordered to be