Open Collections

BC Sessional Papers

REPORT Of the Commissioner appointed to enquire into the conduct of the Police Magistrate at Victoria,… British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1892

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcsessional-1.0063266.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcsessional-1.0063266.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0063266-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0063266-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0063266-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0063266-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0063266-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0063266-source.json
Full Text
bcsessional-1.0063266-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcsessional-1.0063266.ris

Full Text

 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 265
REPORT.
Of the Commissioner appointed to enquire into the conduct of the Police Magistrate
at Victoria, and copies of affidavits.
By Command.
JNO. ROBSON,
Provincial Secretary.
Provincial Secretary's Office,
1st February, 18m.
The Law Courts,
28th January,  1892.
Sir,—I have the honour to enclose my Report on the conduct of the Police Magistrate of
Victoria for His Honour's information, and remain,
Your obedient servant,
Henry P. Pellew Crease,
The Honourable Commissioner.
The Provincial Secretary.
The Law Courts, Victoria,
27th January,  1892.
To His Honour
The Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia.
May it please Your Honour :
In obedience to the mandate of the Royal Commission, with the execution of which I
have had the honour to be entrusted, I take leave to report, for the information of your
G overnment, —
That I have instituted a full and searching enquiry into "certain complaints against
" Arthur Louis Belyea, Esq., a Justice of the Peace for the County of Victoria, in relation to
"his office as such Justice, which complaints are contained in a declaration of one August
" May attached to that Commission, together with the answer of the said Arthur Louis Belyea."
The fullest opportunity was given to that gentleman, whose conduct was impugned,
during a prolonged enquiry, which lasted four whole days, to bring forward whatever evidence
he pleased that he thought could throw light on the subject. Experienced counsel was assigned
for his assistance, and a liberty of cross-examination permitted, of which the utmost advantage
was taken, and I believe it would not be too much to say that a patient and impartial hearing
was given to all that could be adduced in his behalf, and on the part of the learned Attorney-
General, who assisted in the enquiry on behalf of the Government, which appeared likely to
throw the slightest light on the matter before me under the Commission. It was stated at the outset of the proceedings that this was an enquiry into official
conduct, not in the nature of a criminal charge, and the evidence was sought and rendered on
that basis.
That evidence, in extenso, together with August May's declaration and the Police Magistrate's reply, referred to in the Commission, accompany this Report.
The evidence, which contains a full statement of the facts of the case, is too voluminous
for me to analyze and extract in the period of time which judicial duty has left at my disposal
for the purpose, notwithstanding the time which has elapsed since the conclusion of the
enquiry.
The delay so caused has not been without a certain advantage, for it has given more time
for that dispassionate reflection which the importance of the principle at the base of the
enquiry demands. That principle, shortly stated, is: That in the Magistrate's Court, the
initial tribunal where are originated nearly all criminal proceedings which may possibly affect
the honour, liberty, and even life of any man, woman, or child in the country, there shall be
no loophole left for a reasonable suspicion that the purity of the fountain of justice may be
sullied or influenced by a direct or indirect conflict between pecuniary interest and official duty
in the Magistrate presiding over such preliminary proceedings.
The statutory declaration of May, with attendant circumstances apparently in conflict on
important points with the Police Magistrate's declarations, made it the imperative duty of the
Department which is responsible for the due administration of justice in the Province to
ascertain at once, by any lawful means (and for this a Royal Commission was the proper
course), whether the conduct of the Police Magistrate in the alleged case of abduction, by or
through the Erieds, of August May's daughter, had been proper or improper, and whether the
above principle had been violated by him, either wholly or partially, in that case, and to report
accordingly for the information of the Executive.
I have gone through the case and all the evidence with the greatest care, and the conclusion that I have arrived at is: That in the conduct of Mr. Belyea in the case there has
been no appearance whatever of criminality.
In my opinion, however, there has been an error of judgment in more respects than one.
Eor instance, in not dealing with the Fried case as a prima facie case of abduction, at all
events after the Magistrate was made aware that the girl had gone away from her father's care
to Fried's barber's shop, and was presumably sheltered directly or indirectly there or by them.
The fact that the girl was anxious to get away from her own people and her father's
house and daily labour there, to a place where she could indulge in dress and jewellery and
freedom from labour, made no difference in the offence of abduction under the 49 Vic, c. 162,
in any person who had taken, or caused to be taken, an unmarried girl under sixteen out of
the possession and against the will of her father.
The father was entitled to the possession of his child.
I cannot acquit Mr. Belyea (after concluding, as he had a right to do from August May's
first statement and the letters of the girl herself, which I construe differently from the Magistrate, that there was no prima facie case for enquiry as to the alleged abduction to be dealt
with) of great indelicacy in offering to take the same case into the Supreme Court as a proper
case for habeas corpus, and demanding a fee of twenty dollars (of which there is no doubt)
from August May for such service, then going into the Police Court again, and dealing with
the matter as an application in a criminal matter and dismissing it. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 267
He had an undoubted right to practice in the Supreme Court if he chose, and there was
no illegality in his proceeding with habeas corpus, and he had a right to his own conscientious
opinion throughout.
But it had the effect of confusing the mind of such an ignorant man as August May, who
knew of no other Judge or other Court than the Police Court, and creating the erroneous idea
that by payment of a fee he could ensure by law the recovery of his daughter, a mistake of
which the immediate and peremptory repudiation of the request of a " guarantee" of her
return, in consideration of the twenty dollar fee, scarcely sufficed to disabuse his (May's) mind.
I cannot pass without remark the difficulty the Local Police seemed to experience in
finding the missing girl as contrasted with the facility with which the Provincial Police found
and brought the girl before Mr. Shotbolt, J. P., and restored her to her mother and father, and
(as I was given to understand in Court) to a life of steady and honest labour at her home.
As the practical consequence of this enquiry, I take leave to recommend to His Honour
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that in any new and future appointments to the Magistracy
which it may hereafter please the Executive to make, a condition should be insisted on that no
Magistrate should be interested directly or indirectly in the conduct of any criminal proceedings
whatever beyond the sphei'e of his duty as such Magistrate.
Commending all which to your Honour's favourable consideration,
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,
HENRY P. PELLEW CREASE,
Commissioner. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 469
AFFIDAVITS.
CANADA:
Province of British Columbia,
City of Victoria,
To Wit:
I, August May, of Seattle, carpenter, do solemnly and sincerely declare and say as
follows:—
1. That I am the father of Hattie May, who is now aged fifteen and one-half years, and
who up to the time of her leaving Seattle, as presently mentioned, lived at Seattle with her
mother (my wife) and myself, together with our two other children.
2. That last Monday week my said daughter Hattie left her home aforesaid at Seattle,
and having ascertained that she had gone to Victoria, and was being harboured at the house
of one Fried, of Victoria, a barber, I came to Victoria for the purpose of recovering my child,
and arrived here on the morning of Friday, the 4th day of September, instant.
3. That soon after my arrival at Victoria I went to the office of the City Police, and
about nine a. m. on the said 4th clay of September I laid the particulars of my case before
Superintendent Sheppard, who advised me to wait and see the Police Magistrate, which I did;
and there and then, viz.: in the Police Magistrate's office, in the City Hall, explained the
particulars of my grievance to the Police Magistrate, informing him of my daughter's age and
the other circumstances of the case.
4. That after explaining the said case to him, the said Police Magistrate invited me to
accompany him to an office in town, and he then conducted me to the office of Messieurs Belyea
& Gregory, solicitors, Government street, where, after perusing some letters which I had handed
to him at the Magistrate's office, the said Magistrate, who I now know to be Mr. Belyea, wrote
out some papers, which I signed, and in answer to a question by myself he demanded from me
a fee of twenty ($20) dollars, which I thought excessive and did not pay, saying that I would
see him again. He said that he would see Fried. I told Mr. Belyea that I would be willing
to pay him $20 if he would guarantee to get me my daughter, but this he would not do.
5. I then went to the house of the said Fried, and there I saw my daughter, and also
Mr. and Mrs. Fried. My daughter having expressed her willingness to go home with me,
accompanied me from the house to Government street, where, upon the pretext of going to
Fried's for some article of apparel, she left me at the post office, promising to meet me again
there in an hour.
6. That after the expiration of an hour, the girl not returning, I went back to Fried's,
but was told by Mrs. Fried that the girl was not there. I went a second time and received
the same assurance, and I then went to Mr. Belyea, on Government street, and he told me
that my daughter had been there. He then repeated his demand for twenty dollars, saying
that my daugter was not obliged to go with me. He said it would be all right if I would
bring him the twenty dollars before six o'clock, and he would then see if he could get the girl
to go with me, but when I asked for a guarantee he said he could not give it.
7. I then procured an officer, whom I met on the street, and took him up to Mrs. Fried's.
She asked if the officer had a warrant. He said no, he would like to see the girl (meaning
my daughter). My daughter then came out and said she had seen a lawyer, who had told her
that I could not get her back, and that she did not intend to go with me.
And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and
by virtue of the " Oaths Act."
Declared before me at the City of Victoria this
5th day of September, A.D. 1891. AUG. MAY.
Thos. Shotbolt, J. P. 470 Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. LS92
CANADA: \
Province of British Columbia, f
City of Victoria, (
To Wit: )
I, Arthur Louis Belyea, of the City of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,
Barrister-at-Law and Police Magistrate of the said City, do solemnly and sincerely declare as
follows:—
1. That on Friday morning last, Chief of Police Sheppard told me a man from Seattle
wished to see me. On going into my office at the City Hall I found there a man who gave
his name as August May, of Seattle. The Chief of Police came in immediately afterwards,
also sergeant of police Walker.
2. That the said August May stated that he had come over to Victoria for his daughter,
and related the following circumstances :—
3. That on the Monday week previous his daughter, Hattie May, aged between 15 and 16
years, had left home without his knowledge or consent, and for some days he did not know
where she was. Finally, a letter was received from her, stating she was in Victoria, working
with a Mrs. Fried, at $15 per month. This letter, and another from Hattie May, he handed
to me, which I read. I questioned him as to why and how the girl left home, and he informed
me that he had been told that she came to Victoria in company with a Mrs. Marr, who was a
relative of Mrs. Fried. I further asked him if he had seen the Frieds or his daughter since
coming to Victoria, and he replied he had not. I asked if he knew what the girl was doing.
He said he believed she was working there, as stated in the letters. He wanted me to issue a
warrant to arrest the girl, so he could get her home again. I questioned both the chief and
sergeant of police as to what was the reputation of the Frieds, and what kind of a house they
kept, to which they replied that, so far as they knew, the Frieds were respectable people and
kept a respectable house. Under these circumstances, I told May that I had no authority to
issue a warrant to arrest his girl, and could do nothing for him as Police Magistrate, but
advised him to proceed by habeas corpus against Fried. I told him I would as a lawyer
undertake this for him, and asked him to go to my office, namely, the office of Belyea & Gregory.
4. He went with me to said office, and after consultation with my partner, Mr. Gregory,
as to the best course to pursue, 1 told him that I would make up the necessary papers, then
send for Fried to meet him, May, when he (May) was to demand his daughter, and if Fried
refused I would at once make application to a Judge for habeas corpus and compel Fried to
produce the girl in Court. He agreed to this, and remained in my office while the necessary
papers were prepared. In the meantime I had sent a clerk to ask Fried to come to my office
for the purpose above stated.
My object in preparing the papers before calling upon Fried for the girl was, in case he
refused or failed to give her up, to lose no time in obtaining or serving the order to bring the
girl into Court, so that Fried would have little opportunity to put the girl out of his control.
The clerk sent to Fried returned shortly after twelve o'clock, and said Fried had gone to
lunch, but would be at my office at two o'clock. I told this to May, who agreed to be on
hand at two o'clock. As he was going out he turned to me and asked what it would cost him.
I told him our usual charge in such cases was twenty dollars.    He did not reply, but went out.
5. About 2 o'clock I returned to my office. May was not there, but Fried was. I at
once demanded of Fried that he give the girl up to her father. He said he had engaged
Eberts & Taylor. I said : " Then you refuse to give her up?" He replied she is with her
father now, or words to that effect. He then attempted to get an opinion from myself or Mr.
Gregory as to what he ought to do, and was told to go and consult Eberts & Taylor, we would
say nothing to him, as we were acting for May, the father.    He then left the office.
6. I believed then that the father had possession of the girl, and expected to hear nothing
more about it.
7. About an hour later May, the father, came into the office and asked me to get his
daughter for him. I said to him, have you not got your daughter now 1 He replied she had
gone away again, and was at Fried's house. I then asked him to make the affidavit which was
already signed by him. He then said he would pay nothing unless we would give him a
written guarantee that we would get his daughter for him. I said to him, we cannot do that,
we will do our best for you, but cannot guarantee that the Judge will give you your daughter,
although we believe he will. After some further conversation about the guarantee he left the
office and did not return. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 271
8. I have read what purports to be a copy of a declaration made by August May on
September 5th inst. The particulars and circumstances of the case related by him to me as
alleged in the third paragraph of said declaration were substantially the particulars and
circumstances set out in the third paragraph of this my declaration, and no others. It is not
true he then stated that Fried or any other person was harbouring the girl. He did not accuse
Fried or intimate that Fried had taken the girl away froiri Seattle, or that Fried or any other
person was responsible for her staying away. He represented only that the girl was hired, as
stated in her letters, at Frieds, at $15 per month, and that he wanted only to get her into his
possession and control again.
9. It is not true, as stated in the sixth paragraph of the said declaration, that I told May
his daughter had been at my office, nor, in truth or fact had his said daughter ever been in my
said office, nor, as I verily believe, in any of the offices occupied by Belyea & Gregory.
10. It is not true that I demanded $20 from said May, either at the City Hall, or at my
office on Government Street.
11. It is not true, but absolutely false, that I said to August May that his daughter was
not obliged to go with him, as alleged in said paragraph 6, nor is it true that I promised him,
May, it would be all right if he brought me the $20 before 6 o'clock, as further alleged in said
paragraph 6.
12. The said August May understood perfectly well that I and my partner were acting
as his legal advisers in the matter, and not otherwise. I am informed and verily believe that
after leaving our office he consulted Messrs. Bodwell & Irving, who advised him to proceed in
the said manner as I and my partner had advised. And I make this declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the "Act respecting extrajudicial oaths"
Solemnly declared at the City of Victoria this 1
9th day of September, A.D. 1891, before me, I A. L. BELYEA.
N. Shakespeare, J.P. )
CANADA: }
Province of British Columbia,   \.
City of Victoria.    S.S.   )
I, Henry W. Sheppard, of the said City of Victoria, Chief of Police, do solemnly and
sincerely declare and say as follows :—
1. I have read the solemn declaration of A. L. Belyea, Police Magistrate of the said
City, declared this 9th day of September, A.D. 1891, before Noah Shakespeare, J. P., and the
statements therein contained as to what took place and what was said in my presence are true
in substance and in fact.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by
virtue of the " Act respecting extra-judicial oaths."
Solemnly declared at the City of Victoria, this \
9th day of September, A.D. 1891, before me, f HENRY W. SHEPPARD,
N. Shakespeare, ( Supt. of Police.
J. P.        )
CANADA:
Province of British Columbia,
City of Victoria.      S.S.
I, Francis B. Gregory, of the City of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, do
solemnly and sincerely declare and say as follows :—
1. I have read a copy of the solemn declaration of August May, of Seattle, declared
before Thomas Shotbolt, J. P., the 5th day of September, A.D. 1891.
2. On Friday, the 4th instant, between 11 and 12 o'clock a.m., the said August May came
into my office in company with my partner, Mr. A. L. Belyea, and at the request of Mr. Belyea
I accompanied them into Mr. Belyea's room, where Mr. Belyea, in the presence of said August
May, informed me that said August May had applied to him as Police Magistrate for assistance
to get his daughter from the custody of one Fried, with whom she was working, and, as 272 Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892.
appeared by letters produced by the said August May, receiving the sum of $15.00 per month
wages. Mr. Belyea said he had no authority to do anything as Police Magistrate; there had
been no offence committed, and he thought the proper course to pursue was to make application
for a writ of habeas corpus, as had been done in the Webb case. I said this seemed to me
the proper course, and an affidavit and order were drafted accordingly. I did not remain in
the room while this was being done, but I heard Mr. Belyea say he would prepare them in
order to have them ready for use should Fried refuse to give her up, and before he could get
the daughter out of the way, or words to that effect.
3. Shortly after two o'clock p.m. of the same day Mr. Fried came to the office and asked
why he had been sent for, and as I was telling him Mr. Belyea came in, and he formally
demanded Mr. May's daughter, to which Fried answered that he had engaged Eberts & Taylor
in the matter, and added " What will I do 1" Whereat Mr. Belyea said, " Then you refuse
to give her up; we can get the girl, but we are acting for Mr. May and cannot advise you ;
go to Eberts & Taylor." My attention was here called to another matter. Mr. Fried went
away soon after.
4. Over an hour afterwards Mr. May came in and said he wanted his daughter, she had
been up in our office, and I told him that he was mistaken—that she had not been there (which
is the fact; she had never been in the office of Belyea & Gregory, or either of them), but I
said Fried had been there and said he had engaged Eberts & Taylor, and I immediately began
talking to Mr. Belyea as to the chances of finding a Supreme Court Judge to hear the application, saying that I knew the Honourable the Chief Justice would not hear it, for he had told
me in the morning (when I applied to him to know if he could hear an application for a writ
of habeas corpus in this matter in the afternoon) that he would leave Chambers about 2:30
p.m. After deciding that we might make our application to the Honourable Mr. Justice
Crease at his house, I believe I turned to Mr. May and said : "Mr. May, you will have to
pay twenty dollars," and he said : " I want a guarantee that I will get my daughter, and then
I will pay you." Mr. Belyea and I both told him that we could not guarantee success, but we
believed we would get his daughter for him; anyway, we would do our best for him. He
insisted upon the guarantee, and finally left, saying he would go and see the United States
Consul, and I told him to go and see the United States Consul, or anyone he liked, we could
not give a guarantee, whereupon Mr. May left the office, and has not been in the office since,
and on the following morning I learned that he had consulted the Hon. Attorney-General or
Messrs. Bodwell & Irving.
5. During the whole of the conversation with Mr. May, had in my presence, he said
nothing showing a desire to proceed against Mr. Fried, or to show that Mr. Fried had been
guilty of any offence. On the contrary, Mr. May said he only wanted to get his daughter
home again, and he did not care if she only remained " two hours," and it was his saying this
which influenced me in insisting upon payment of twenty dollars, because I believed the said
Mr. May was actuated by wrong motives, and would abuse his daughter should he succeed in
getting her home, and I believed that he would not pay the twenty dollars after he succeeded
in getting her, and would be unwilling to pay it in advance.
6. It is not true, as stated in the sixth parapraph of the said declaration of August May,
that Mr. Belyea told Mr. May that his daughter had been in the office, but in truth and fact
he said she had not been; nor is it true that Mr. Belyea said his daughter was not obliged to
go with him, but, on the contrary, Mr. Belyea and I told Mr. May that if he got possession
of her he could force her to go with him, as any father could his child; and I make this
solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the " Act
respecting extra-judicial oaths."
Solemnly declared at the City of Victoria, this \
9th day of September, A.D. 1892, before me, \ FRANCIS B. GREGORY.
Wm. Dalby, J. P. \
VICTORIA, b. C :
Printed by Richakp Wolfknden, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. MINUTES   AND   EVIDENCE.
December 29th, 1891.
Before Hon. Justice Crease, Commissioner.
The Commission appointed to enquire into certain complaints against Mr. Hallett, J. P.,
and also into certain matters against Mr. Belyea, J. P., having been read by the Deputy
Registrar, His Lordship asked if the charges were set forth in the deposition itself, when Mr.
Taylor said, "With your Lordship's permission I suppose that you will concede that Mr. Belyea
is entitled to be represented by counsel here ?"
His Lordship :  Certainly.
Mr. Taylor : Well, I appear then, my Lord, under those conditions upon his behalf; and
I have to ask your Lordship that you would direct that under those circumstances that the
charge be specifically made out against Mr. Belyea that they seek, your Lordship, to enquire
into. Your Lordship has had an opportunity of reading this declaration, just referred to,
that sets up a number of alleged facts.
His Lordship : Will you take the declaration as read 1
Mr. Taylor : Yes, my Lord. It sets up a number of facts that do not charge any
particular offence, nor do they put us in a position that we are able to meet any particular
charge. All we can say is that certain allegations in here are not true, but that leaves the
matter in too open a state, I submit, for us to be called upon to reply to it. Now, as your
Lordship is aware, in this Commission that has been sitting to enquire into the city affairs
their Lordships there directed that specific charges be made out, that the defendants, or the
city, practically, you might call them, have a certain period of time to answer those charges.
In other words, it is very much like a statement of claim and answer. Here is the original
which Mr. Belyea has just pointed out to me which I would like to see, if the Attorney-
General would allow me to see it. I have a document here which purports to be a copy of it.
I suppose it is.
Attorney-General : The original declaration of August May 1    I suppose it is there.
Mr. Belyea : The original is not in type-writing.
Attorney-General: Yes, that is the original.
His Lordship : It is very different from the matter of the municipality where there were
a great number of financial matters, which all had to be distinguished one from the other, and
then in another part of it combined together and to be dealt with partially and as a whole.
The question here is whether he discharged his duty as a Magistrate ?
Mr. Taylor : You see, taking it at that, I can scarcely understand that is the allegation—
that he did not discharge his duty.
His Lordship : You stopped me as the words were coming out of my mouth. I am not
so nimble and quick with mine as you are with yours, Mr. Taylor. It is alleged that while he
was adjudicating, or professing to adjudicate, upon matters which came before him as a Police
Magistrate that he turned it into a matter for private fees ; that is putting it shortly.
Mr. Taylor: Well, my Lord, could that charge be put in that way, then ?
His Lordship : Well, you have got it there.
Mr. Taylor : Of course I am not bringing this in for the purpose of delaying this in any
way.    I could not do that in any event.
His Lordship : I consider you as wanting to assist it in order to show that your friend—
I cannot say client in a matter of this kind—is thoroughly justified and quite clear of any
imputation at all.    I suppose that is the object of the original Commission 1 .ii Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
Mr. Taylor : If I could understand that this charge is as your Lordship outlined it just
now—that they applied to him in his capacity as Police Magistrate to prosecute the Frieds, or
something of that sort, and then he advised them to refrain from doing that and to take civil
action. If August May applied to the Magistrate to take an information against the Frieds
and he had dissuaded them from that and recommended them to this other course, knowing
the former course to be the proper one, he would be in a position to meet it, but there is no
allegation that he asked the Frieds at all.
His Lordship : If you cannot appreciate the depositions more than that I think it will be
better for me to read them.
Mr. Taylor : They contain some innuendoes, but they do not contain a single direct
charge. There has not been in the whole correspondence that has occurred between the
Attorney-General's Department and Mr. Belyea in connection with this matter since Mr.
Belyea was advised of this Commission, and, for that matter, before,—not a single charge or
allegation of fact against him, nor has any charge been formulated. On the contrary, they
kept referring to this document, except in one letter, where they say it is malversation of
office. Now, in what does that consist 1 This letter occurs in the matter (reads letter from
acting Deputy Attorney-General to A. L. Belyea, Esq., dated 21st December, 1891). Now
they hark back in that to the declaration of August May, and there is not in that declaration,
my Lord, a specific charge of any kind ; and they found everything on that, and I appeal to
your Lordship, as one of course as you are in this matter desirious of hearing all that is to be
said on both sides, and placing both sides in a position that all the facts may be brought out,
that they can be fairly met and not taken by surprise, whether you think there is a specific
charge of any kind in that declaration. For my part I have been unable to see anything except
a number of facts about a sum of $20, and what does that point to 1 He does not say that he
went to Mr. Belyea and wanted to have the Frieds arrested, or what the proceedings he did
intend to take were. It is simply a general statement of some facts that might point to fifty
different things, and. I submit that at all events we ought to be furnished with a specific
charge as to in what respect we erred, if at all. Then we are in a position to meet this matter
fairly and fully. By an alleged oversight, my Lord, while this Commission was issued, I think
on the 5th November, we were never apprised of anything in it until the 17th December.
His Lordship : I can easily account for the delay as far as I am concerned. I do not
think it advisable at all for me, merely because I am clothed with powers of that description,
to go and flaunt them before the public, and perhaps create a prejudice which may not, or in
any way ultimately, or at the commencement even, share until the time when I can act in the
matter ; and as all of you are perfectly aware, there has scarcely been a Judge more absorbed
on the bench. I am giving you the reason, because if you are ever asked for a reason you can
give it, because this is the truth, and that is always a good reason ; and I have not been able
until this day, which I have actually given out of the only vacation I have had, to try and do
justice in the matter between the parties.
Mr. Taylor : That is only as far as your Lordship is concerned. I am not complaining
about that. I do not know that there is any obligation on the part of your Lordship to notify
us at all. But we were not even notified till on the 15th December we got a letter of this
kind from the Deputy Provincial Secretary. (Reads letter in reference to oversight in not
notifying Mr. Belyea).
His Lordship : We will, I think, set that aside, because that  evidently  is inadvertence.
Mr. Taylor : You see the whole thing. As they state, this is a complaint about something. Now, what is that complaint about 1 It is not charged in that declaration of
August May's, I take it; a commission would not issue unless there were some formal
complaint. Commissions are not issued simply for the purpose of having Commissioners, but
simply because they think there is substantial ground and reason for them, and I submit
that we are entitled to know what that complaint is before we can be expected to answer,
and I ask your Lordship therefore if you would direct that a proper complaint be made
out.
His Lordship : I must hear the Attorney-General before I can conclude any point. I
have got the particulars of your side.    I should like to know what those of the other side 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. iii.
Attorney-General: May it please your Lordship : There are several reasons why the
request just made should not be acceded to. This is not a case like that of the
issue of the civic commission where certain petitioners made certain allegations
as to the conduct of civic affairs, and where there was a petitioner seeking redress on the one side and a corporation which is alleged to have neglected it's
duty upon the other. This is a matter generally referring to the administration
of justice, in which no complaint in formal language has been presented by anybody. It is merely a case where certain facts or certain evidence has been alleged before the department in this Province clothed with the duty of administering justice, in respect of which matter the officer having charge of that department deems it his duty that the matters shall be reported upon—not by
himself, but by an independent and judicial mind, after hearing both sides.
To prefer a complaint charging Mr. Belyea with the result of the facts which
may be, or which it is believed may be, adduced, would be to state the result
which the gentleman charged with the administration of justice in this Province,
myself, may conclude may be proved by the facts. Now, I do not propose to
do that for this reason : Upon the result of this enquiry it will be necessary
that I should advise the executive, and it would be highly improper if before I
have the facts determined in the way I have pointed out, I should attempt or
should allow myself in any way to be influenced by stating a set of charges, as
if I am satisfied that they would be substantiated. If I were to say, in other
words, that the circumstances alleged by August May amounted to attempted
extortion I should then be committing myself to a result upon the evidence. I
am not in a position to do that, It is not for me to say what the result of that
may be. I have my own opinion, but it is not pertinent to this enquiry that I
should state what that opinion is ; and, as it is my own private matter what my
opinion is, it will not assist anybody, if I should state what I think the result
of these charges would be, one way or the other. I have certain facts stated to
me in the deposition, which I deem of sufficient importance to have a proper
enquiry made into, and a report made to the Government dependent upon that.
The matter will then be further dealt with. Now, again, the delay of complaint
in these matters. A complaint in this matter means a complainant, a prosecutor. While I appear here to watch and consider this as a matter which should
be watched most seriously in the interests of justice, I am not here in the position of a prosecutor at the present time. To lay a complaint, properly speaking, if I intended to charge Mr. Belyea with extortion or anything with which
the law could take hold of him, would be a very different matter. A commission would not issue in that case, but an indictment would be laid ; but it is not
that which is alleged against him. All we want to know is this : Is the conduct imputed to Mr. Belyea as disclosed in the declaration of August May and
as disclosed also in the answer that Mr. Belyea put in, consistent with the high
iudicial office which he holds ; and it by no means follows that a man is fit for a
iudicial office simply because he has not done something which could be formulated into the charge which my friend wishes me to formulate against him.
Now, the circumstances as stated, and it seems to me, the undisputed facts of
this case are these : That August May on the 4th Sept. arrived at Victoria in
quest of his daughter who had recently disappeared from home—her home being at Seattle, and at that time when May came here, his daughter was living
with one Fried, a barber, and his wife. That upon arrival at Victoria, May
communicated with the city police, and the superintendent referred him to the
Police Magistrate, Mr. Belyea. Certain communications were then made by
August May to the Police Magistrate in the Police Magistrate's office; and as a
result, May was informed by Mr. Belyea that the matter was one in which he
as Police Magistrate could not interfere; that May's proper remedy was by
habeas corpus, which, as a lawyer, he, Mr. Belyea, would undertake for him.
It appears that August May was conducted by Mr. Belyea to the law office of
himself and his partner, situate on Government street, where, after making out
certain papers, it was intimated by Mr. Belyea to August May that a fee of
$20.00 would be required,    It further appears  from Mr, Belyea's statement iv. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
that after some conference with May in Mr. Belyea's office, he, Mr. Belyea, sent
for Fried, the man who was alleged to have this child in his possession, telling
him to call again later in the afternoon. Then it appears that after May had
left, Fried called upon Mr. Belyea who at once demanded of Fried that he
should give the girl up to her father; and Fried, after saying that he had consulted with Messrs. Eberts & Taylor, said "she is with her father now" or words
to that effect, producing the impression upon Mr. Belyea, according to Mr. Bel-
yea's own statement, that the father had recovered possession of the girl, and
that nothing further would be heard of the matter. It further appears that
shortly afterwards, that is, shortly after Fried's visit to Mr. Belyea, August
May called again upon Mr. Belyea, who asked him if he had got his daughter
now ? to which May replied that she had gone away again, and was at Fried's
house. Now, if that be the case, there was a fresh case of abduction at this
time. Mr. Belyea says, either in his letter or his affidavit, I forget which, "I then
asked him to make the affidavit which was signed by him for the purpose of
getting a writ of habeas corpus. He then said he would pay nothing unless we
would give a written guarantee that we would get his daughter for him." After
some further conversation about the guarantee, he left the office and did not return. Now, then, the matter having rested there for that day, August May
the next day laid an information before the magistrate, charging Fried with
abduction, and a warrant was issued, and then, another strange portion of this
business is that the matter was proceeded with before Mr. Belyea himself, in
the Police Court, after what had transpired the day before ; and the hearing
took place before Mr. Belyea on the 7th and 8th days of September ; and as a
result, Mr. Belyea dismissed the case, giving for his dismissal a written judg-
.ment, in the course of which he says, it seems to me there was a direct and easy
method for this father to have obtained possession of his girl by way of habeas
corpus, and if with the information of such a proceeding alluded to, the accused
did resist the application, this serious charge might then have been either
abandoned or substantially proved. Of course it is open to the remark that it
would appear it was never lost sight of by Mr. Belyea that this was and might
be a matter which would come before him judicially, which makes the question
of a fee of $20.00 an all the more serious matter. In the course of the investigation before the Police Court, the facts of the advice by the same magistrate
who was trying the case, to seek a habeas corpus, and the proposed fee of $20.00
to him, were fully disclosed, and published in the newspapers. Now, usually
what appears in the newspapers, is certainly not a matter to guide one in a
court of law, but when you are dealing with the good name and
fame of the administration of justice, facts appearing in the public
newspapers, as these did, making it appear that the Magistrate after receiving
$20 in this matter he was adjudicating, was a most serious matter and ought to
be enquired into. That matter was fully disclosed, and was certainly looked
upon as a very strange one. The demand of $20 was shewn, and Mr. Belyea's
justification was in his own language, in his own affidavit, that he had no
authority to issue a warrant to arrest the girl, and could do nothing for him as
Police Magistrate. That is what he says in his affidavit. Now, if that was his
opinion, that is the very reason I should have thought he ought to have left the
matter go. It is because it has appeared to me that conduct of this kind will
act as a precedent and as an example to other Justices of the Peace who will
not have the advantage of a legal training, the same as Mr. Belyea has, that this
matter should either be condemned or else upheld, because there are only those
two things. Either the conduct of Mr. Belyea was praiseworthy and proper
and justifiable for the reason he states, or else it was highly to be condemned.
If it be right all Magistrates in the country can do precisely the same thing.
Police Magistrates are now taken generally from the bar, where they have the
liberty of practising, but it does seem to me that it would be a dangerous thing
to justify and encourage Magistrates in receiving private fees whenever they can
satisfy their consciences by any method of reason which may be employed that
the case is not one which as Police Magistrate  they can handle.    It is making 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria.
52. Q._What did you think?
A.—I could not understand what he said.
53. Q.—Did you at that time tell Mr. May (Mr. Belyea?) that your daughter had been
with you at the post office?
A.—Yes, sir.
54. Q.—And did you tell him she had gone back to Fried's again ?
A.—No; I didn't know she was in Fried's house this second time after I went back.
55. Q.—You told him you had seen her go to Fried's barber shop ?
A.—Yes ; that is what I told him.
56. Q.—Was  that  before or after he said he would give you up to six o'clock to bring
the $20.
A.—It was just the same time.
57. Q.—What did he say he would do for the $20 if you gave him the $20 ?
A.—He just told me if I fetch $20 at six o'clock. I say I try to do it; I say I see.
He say "If I will get it, what will you pay me?" 1 said " I don't pay for
nothing. What guarantee will you give me if I bring the money 1" and he says
" No ; we will give you no guarantee ; we don't give you no guarantee.'
58. Q.—After this, what did you do ?
A.—After this was done, I go round on the street, and I find a man, McNeill. I
was mistaken. I thought he was a fellow from the police, and I ask him about
my daughter, if he knows anything, and this fellow says "I don't know; you
are mistaken, I guess." I went up right here in the Provincial Police Court—I
think the name of this gentleman, and he sent me along to Mrs. Fried's house.
Mr. Taylor: I have not before raised an objection to the large amount of hearsay
evidence produced here, but I submit there must be an end to it here. If your
Lordship intends to conduct it with regard to heresay evidence	
His Lordship : I have not put any hearsay evidence down.
Attorney-General: There is a good deal that the witness has said that is not strictly
relevant, but I did not like to stop him, as it is very difficult to get the evidence
out of him.
59. To witness : The next day you laid an information, didn't you, against the Frieds ?
A.—Yes; I	
Mr. Taylor : Do you propose to go into speaking about the information, because this
declaration does not speak about it ? Unless you are going into the whole
thing	
Attorney-General: Yes; I propose to go into the whole matter.
Mr. Taylor: The only course I can take is to ask your Lordship's ruling on the
matter.
His Lordship : Was anything done at all with regard to getting Hattie back—anything happening to McNeill ? If you are aware of anything done in that regard,
then there is a reason for it.
Mr. Taylor: I don't know whether your Lordship proposes to go into the whole of
this Fried case again, but, whatever was done, Mr. Belyea had nothing whatever to do with it.
His Lordship : If McNeill found the girl instantly, and got her instantly, or got her
after some little time, or did not get her, it might have a bearing on the case,
one way or the other.
Mr. Taylor : But unless Mr. Belyea has something to do with this—it is really going
into the whole thing. If you will let us go into it fully, we will go into the
whole Fried case again, but I submit my friend should not, and your Lordship
would not allow him to give pieces of fragmentary testimony in this case, and
statements of ex parte witnesses. If we are going into it, do so fully and freely,
but if not, do not go into it at all, except so far as these men and Mr. Belyea
had communication together.
His Lordship: You see, I do not say whether Mr. Belyea did or did not, and that is
why I do not like to open my mouth, in case I should be impliedly saying something I do not say. I can conceive very well that it is important—that it may
be something that he did or did not do, that might have been or might not be
of importance as to the difficulties or facilities for getting  hold  of  Hattie and 106.
Q.
A.
107.
Q.
A.
108.
Q.
A.
109.
Q,
A.
110.
Q.-
A.
111.
Q,-
A.
112.
Q.
A.
113.
Q-
A.
114.
Q.
A.
Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
why I did not think—although it was strongly pressed for—that the girl should
be produced before Mr. Ward ; on that account I strenuously opposed it, and
refused to produce her then.
-You opposed the production of the girl ?
-Yes, I did ; the point was pressed, but I objected strenuously to the girl being
put to shame.
- Could she have given any material evidence in the matter 1
-I think she could.
-For or against Fried ?
-I think that what she said would have been sufficient to have convicted Fried.
-To have convicted Fried ?
-Yes; although, mind you, she shielded him in every way in her statement to
me. She said she came with him voluntarily ; that he did not bring her away
from Seattle, but she came with him voluntarily.
-I don't want to know what her statement was.
-She complained, mind you	
-I simply want to know what impression she left on your mind ?
-She said he treated her kindly.
-In the face of that, you kept her away and prevented her being examined ? Is
that so ?
-I did so.
-Her evidence, you think, was material, and would have convicted?
-I think it would have been sufficient to have convicted Fried.
-And, in the face of that, you did not allow her to be examined ?
-No, I did not. Mind you, when I say would have been sufficient to have convicted Fried, I am speaking as a lawyer. The view that a jury would have
taken of it I cannot tell. What I may say is, that I do not want you to
uuderstand that I am trying to blacken the case against Fried. There was
nothing suggested about his trying to destroy this girl's morals, but I think
anybody could have seen what the result of it would have been, if the girl had
not been restored to her parents.
115. Q.—You think her statement would have been material?
A.—Yes. If I had proceeded with this case—if I had been obliged to proceed with
it, I should not have called that girl at the assizes, but it was the knowledge
that it would be a source of comment for the defence if I did not produce the
girl, which would almost certainly lead to the acquittal of the prisoner, that led
me to the conclusion that it would be best not to go on with the prosecution.
116. Q.—Let  me  understand  you.    If you  had gone on with this case you would  have
gone on with the depositions taken before Mr. Ward ?
-I did not go on with it, and I did not intend to go on with it.
-When you laid it, did you not intend to go on with it ?
-If it should have been necessary.
-You did not intend to unless it was necessary?
-As I told you just now, my primary object was to get the girl for her father.
-I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I would like an answer to my
question. Did you, or did you not, intend to go on with it, at the time you
laid the charge originally ?
-I had formed no intention at that time.
-How soon did you form an intention ?
-I formed my resolution in the matter very soon after the girl had gone away
with her father. I came to the conclusion that it would not be wise or politic
to press the matter any further, and, I think, anybody else can see it, too. If
you will take up these newspapers, for instance, with the flaming headings that
they had in the Times, about this Hattie May case, why, I cannot imagine any
literature which a father would consider more pernicious for his child or his
children to read than what you read in the daily press. Do you think it is
advisable to do anything to encourage it in any way? It most certainly is not.
121. Q.—I am not defending the newspapers. I was just going to ask you when you
formed the intention not to prosecute ?
A.—I think I formed it very soon after Fried and his wife were committed for trial.
A.
117.
Q,
A.
118.
Q.
A.
119.
Q.
A.
120.
Q.
A. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate,  Victoria. Ii.
122. Q.—Very shortly after they were committed ?
A.—Yes.
123. Q.—When you say "shortly," how long do you mean?   One clay or two days?
A.—I cannot tell you ; I cannot say at what moment of tine I came to that conclusion, but that was my general idea.
124. Q.—Had you formed that conclusion when the girl, Hattie May, left Victoria 1
A.—I don't really know when she did leave; I believe she left on the same day as
the trial in the Police Court.
125. Q.— The same day ?
A.—I think that was when she left.
126. Q.—At that time you had not formed your intention as  to whether you would pro
secute or not ?
A.—I cannot tell you, to a moment of time, when I arrived at that conclusion.    If
I gave the matter any thought at that time, I expect  I  had  concluded  not to
lay an indictment.
127. Q.--If you had given the matter any thought you had  concluded not to lay an
indictment.
A.—Yes.
128. Q.—So that the charge was laid without much thought being given as to whether you
would indict or not ?    It was chiefly a process to get possession of the girl ?
A.—And for the purpose of bringing Fried to justice.
129. Q.—How could it have been for the purpose of bringing  Fried  to justice, if you had
no intention of proceeding ?
A.—Well, you have to consider what has been accomplished in that  case.    The girl
has been restored to her parents, and the Frieds,  I am informed, have left the
country, and, I think, that is a very good result to attain.
-Did you hear about the girl being in gaol ?
-I asked the father about that, and, well, I read something in the newspaper
about that.    You should have asked the father about that.
-You did hear she was indicted ?
-I did not hear she was indicted.
-Well, prosecuted for stealing ?
-No, I didn't hear she was prosecuted for stealing. I will tell you what I did
hear, if you want to blacken her character more ; I don't think she is guilty of
anything for which her character should be blackened.
-I don't want to blacken her character.
-You have asked me, and I will tell you. What August May tells me about it
is that they were living in the same house where some articles were missed, and
this girl was supposed to be a party to it. She was brought before the Magistrate and at once discharged upon the merits. That is what I have been told
about it, and that is what I believe is the case. I will tell you what this girl
is doing, and has been doing ever since she has been over there, and I have it
from very good authority.
134. Q.—I don't want to know.
A.—She has been working there, like an honest young woman in her station should
do, in a factory. That is what she has been doing, instead of a life of shame,
which, probably, she would have been driven to, if not restored to her father
here.
135. Q.—You think that, do you ?
A.—I do so.
136. Q.—Why do you think that ?
A.—I have got very good reasons for thinking it.
137. Q.—Had the Frieds anything to do with it?
A.—I am not going to speak against the Frieds, at all, but I have very good reasons
for believing, and I can call evidence to show that there was every prospect of
that girl being driven to a life of shame, if allowed to remain here.
138. Q.—Through the Frieds ?
A.—I won't say. I will tell you one thing. They were not employing her to work,
but she was found by her father with her fingers bedecked with rings. That is
what occurred.    I think that is	
130.
Q,
A.
131.
Q.
A.
132.
Q,
A.
133.
Q.
A. 139.
Q.
A.
140.
Q.
A.
141.
Q.
A.
142.
Q.
143.
0,
A
144.
Q
A
145.
Q.
lii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
You constantly insinuate, and may just as well state that, in your  opinion, that
would have been the result ?
I think so.
Why didn't you prosecute them if you think they were that class of people?
Just, certainly, because I  conceived that the prosecution would result in most
certainly driving the girl to shame, and it would  have a pernicious effect upon
other people.
Was there anything improper that occurred on the hearing of  the evidence in
the Police Court ?
I take it that that is a very hard thing to prove.
Was there anything to have affected the girl's coming into court and  giving her
testimony ?
A.—Well, I will tell you one thing :    That  very closely  connected,  or  who would
have been very closely connected with the girl, was a woman who is a notorious
prostitute, and it would only have been a little while longer	
-Was that anything in the court ?
-Outside, entirely, and a thing it would have been very hard to prove.
-In what respect would the girl's coming into  the witness box here,  and giving
her testimony, have driven her to a life of shame ?
-I don't know of anything much more so, outside of the prisoner's dock.
•Don't you think it is a pretty severe reflection upon the administration of justice in this Province, that a decent woman cannot go into the box and give her
testimony ?
A.—I don't know what questions you would have put to her, but I  think, probably,
you would have put some very improper questions.
146. Q.—Are you judging from the questions I have put to you ?
A.—I would not have liked to have subjected the girl to your cross-examination,
under the Police Magistrate's instructions. When properly instructed I think
you are able to conduct yourself and control yourself very well, but I would not
like to subject any girl to your cross-examination under Mr. Belyea's instructions.
147. Q.—As a matter of fact, weren't you afraid to produce her  because  she would have
stated that there was nothing against the Frieds.
A.—She couldn't  have.    She would  certainly  have  told that  she  came   with  the
Frieds voluntarily—yes, begged them to take her—that is what she told me.
148. Q.—Do you think, in the face of that, that they committed any offence?
A.—I do, most undoubtedly.
149. Q.—You think that a man and woman who take a girl into their house, who begs to
come in, commit an offence ?
A.—Yes, and more particularly under the circumstances connected with this girl.
At the time that girl left Seattle her parents were poor people, and are poor
people still. She was helping to keep the household, and putting in her little
earnings there. Now, we are all, unfortunately, averse to work if we can get
out of it, and here was an offer made to this girl to leave her work and come
over here, where there was nothing to do, and where she would get jewellery
and finery put upon her.
-I understood you to say, just now, that she came of her own accord ?    Begged
to be taken ?
-That is exactly what she said ; she begged them to take her ; that is  what her
statement was.
-That statement you got from her, was it in writing ?
-I think I have seen it;   yes, it is in  writing.    I did not take it  from  her; it
was taken by the superintendent.
-Hussey ?
-Yes.
-He took it in writing?
-Yes, I read it.
-You did not gather it from her first letter to her sister ?
-No.
-Now, Mr. Davie, regarding that interview that you had with Mr.  Belyea,  in
your office     That was on Satuday, was it ?
150.
Q.
A.
151.
Q,
A.
152.
Q.
A.
153.
Q.
A.
154.
Q.
A.
155.
Q. A.
156.
Q.
A.
157.
A.
A.
158.
Q.
A.
159.
Q.
A.
160.
Q,
A.
161.
Q.
A
162.
Q.
A.
163.
Q.
A.
164.
Q.
55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. liii.
.—Saturday afternoon.
— You had a shorthand reporter there, behind a screen, didn't you ?
— Not at all ; there is no such thing in the office.
.—A high desk, then ?
.—Well, Mr. Belyea sat on one side of the desk and that clerk on the other.
—And it was so high he couldn't see over ?
.—He could see easily; he could see the clerk I had there.
—He saw him when he came up ?
.—He saw him when he was speaking.
You do not produce that statement the clerk took.
.—Unfortunately, he did not take it.    As  soon  as  Mr.  Belyea had gone a little
way, the reporter handed me a note saying " he speaks so fast I  cannot follow
him."
— There were considerable variations between the declarations of Mr. Belyea and
Mr. May, were there not ?
.—Well; I do not think there was much conflict between the two statements ; not
upon essential grounds.
—Not upon essential grounds ?
,—No ; I did not think so.    To tell you  the truth,  I made up my mind in this
matter pretty well upon Mr. Belyea's own affidavit.
—Made up your mind pretty well upon his own affidavit ?
.—Pretty well upon his own affidavit.
—For instance, Mr. Belyea says in his declaration  here  " It  is not true  that he
then said"—referring to a statement of May's—"that Fried or any other person
was harbouring his girl."
A.—I think that is immaterial.    It is  a  mere  matter of opinion  whether he  was
harbouring the girl or not.
165. Q.—Mr. Belyea says it is not true that Mr. May said so?
A.—I think it is probable that Mr. Belyea is right. I don't think Mr. May would
use that word " harbouring " at all. It is a word having a certain meaning, and
think if you were to ask August May what " harbouring " means, he would not
know.
166. Q.—Then how did you get that word " harbouring " into Mr. May's declaration ?
A.—Very properly ; it was the result of what he told me.
167. Q.—Wouldn't you give Mr. Belyea credit also?
A.—I say my opinion of Mr. Belyea's conduct was formed upon his own affidavit.
168. Q.—" He did not accuse Fried, or intimate that Fried had taken the girl away from
Seattle,   or that  Fried  or  any other person  was responsible for her  staying
away 1"
A.—Well, I give Mr. Belyea the  benefit  of that doubt, too, although I think  it is
very  unlikely that  Mr.   Belyea's  memory is accurate in that matter, because
from what Mr. May told me, he must have told Mr. Belyea the same thing.
169. Q.—Was not this declaration of Mr. Belyea's  corroborated by  the  Chief  of  Police
who was present at the time ?
A.—As to part of it.
170. Q.—Was it not entirely ?
A.—It is corroborated as to what is alleged to have taken place in Sheppard's presence.    The document speaks for itself.
171. Q. — He says that from letters that May showed him,  the girl was hired at $15 a
month, and that all May wanted was to get the girl into his possession and
control again. In the face of that, who do you give credit to ?
A.—Well, you are just picking out one paragraph of that affidavit, and I take the
whole of it. And he also states there, after that, that he saw Fried and that
after Fried had gone May came up and told him he had got his daughter
back again, and then she had got away from him again.
172. Q.—I know that; but I am asking you if you  give credence to  that statement of
Mr. Belyea ?
A. — I don't say that I gave credence to it, but I say that in my view of the matter
I accepted for the time  being  what was written  there, and I gave Mr. Belyea
the benefit of it. liv. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
173. Q.—You accepted it for the time being and gave Mr. Belyea the benefit of it?
A.—Yes on his own affidavit.
174. Q.—That statement is contrary to the plain meaning of May's.
A.—I don't think so. I don't think upon material points there is very much difference. The material point of this whole matter, shorn of everything else, is
that Mr. Belyea wanted $20 from this man before he would give him any kind
of justice, and whether he was administering justice as a Police Magistrate or
acting as a lawyer makes very little difference here.
175. Q.—Where does Mr. Belyea say that?
A.—He says the usual charge was $20. He says he told him that, and then he says
he did not demand $20, and I would like to know what is the difference ? A
man comes into my office and says " what is the charge ?" And I say " the
usual charge is $20." He goes off and says I demanded $20, and I don't think
he is very far wrong. I should have to swear by the book very closely before
I could say I didn't charge him $20.
176. Q.—You think there would be nothing wrong in an independent  lawyer doing that,
supposing he had gone to one 1
A.—That would have been an entirely different matter.
177. Q.—Let me understand what you mean in reference to this clause-	
A.—I gave him the benefit of it.
178. Q.—You say you think it was contrary to the gist of May's declaration?
A.—No ; take the whole affidavits together in all the material matters. May be you
will find there are contradictions, but I don't think they are important. The
one essential point in this case, is that Mr. Belyea, before he would give this
man justice, demanded $20.
179. Q —You have said that about 500 times.
A.—I have that in my mind, and that is, I think, sufficient to discard everything
else. You cannot do better than keep that in mind. Before May could get
any justice done to him, he had to pay $20, for a man cannot be Police Magistrate one moment and lawyer the next.
180. Q.—"That it is not true, as stated in the sixth paragraph of  the declaration, that I
told May that his daughter had been in my office, nor in truth nor in fact  had
his said daughter ever been in  my  office."    Did  you give any credit to that
statement ?
A.—I think Mr. Belyea is correct in that, and May is wrong ; the affidavit in that
respect is wrong.
181. Q.—Now, here Mr. Belyea says that  it is untrue that  he ever demanded $20 from
May, either in the City Hall or his office on Government street.
A —That I pronounce to be a play upon words.
182. Q.—You did not give any credence to that ?
A.—No ; because he contradicts it in another paragraph of his own affidavit. He
says he did intimate to May that $20 would be required.
183. Q.—"That it is not true, but absolutely false, that I said to  August May that his
daughter was not obliged to go with him, as alleged in said paragraph 6, nor is
it true that I promised him, May, if he brought me the $20 before 6 o'clock, as
further alleged in said paragraph 6."
A.—That is what I call swearing by the card.
184. Q.—How did May swear, by the card or by the board?
A.—He swore acccording to the substance.
185.—Q.—But not the fact ?
A.—Now, I will tell you just exactly how you would draw that paragraph, if you
were drawing up that declaration. You would say in addition to " nor is it
true that I promised him, May, it would be all right if he brought me the $20
before six o'clock, as further alleged in said paragraph six," you would add
" nor is it true that I made any statement to him which would justify him in
swearing to that effect." That is just exactly the way that you would have
drawn it. The way Mr. Belyea puts it is what is called in law a negative pregnant. Any man in reading that paragraph, as it is there, would see that it is
full of duplicity.
186.    Q.—Did you point out anything to Mr. Belyea, and ask for an explanation ? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrvte, Victoria. lix.
f.    Q.—I understand you to say that, at once, upon my  having  completed  reading over
this document to Mr. Belyea I handed it to you for copying ?
A.—Yes, sir.
5. Q.—And you made an accurate copy?
A.—I made an accurate copy; yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor : No, that is not what he said first.
Witness : I did make an accurate copy.
6. His Lordship : You can swear to the truth of the copy ?
A.—Yes, sir ; I can swear to the truth of the copy.
7. Attorney-General : Do you know (handing document) if that is it ?
A.—That appears to be the copy. I think it is. It was gotten up similarly to that,
and I think there are one or two alterations made with the pen which are my
corrections. I made an accurate copy of the draft in Mr. Davie's handwriting,
which was handed to me, and I handed it to Mr. Davie.
8. Q.—And, to the best of your belief, this is the copy ?
A.—To the best of my knowledge and belief, this is the copy.
9. Q. When you were in the Attorney-General's room, during Mr.   Belyea's statement,
where were you sitting ?
A.—I was sitting immediately to the right of Mr. Davie's desk, at a flat table.
10. Q.—At a flat table to the right of Mr. Davie's desk ?
A.—Yes.
11. Q.—Were you concealed in any way?
A.—No, sir; I saw Mr. Belyea, and I think Mr. Belyea saw me. It is not a very
large room.
12. Q.—You were not concealed in any way ?
A.—No, sir.
Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor :
13. Q.—You were sitting at a flat table?
A.—Yes, sir.
14. Q._Swear to that ?
A.—Yes, sir.
15. Q.—Are the balance of your statements equally accurate, with that ?
A.—Yes, sir.
16. Q.—How long were you there, altogether?
A —I was there about 25 or 30 minutes; possibly, a little more.
17. Q.—You were a clerk to Mr. Davie, at that time?
A.—No, sir.
18. Q, — How long had you been out of his employ?
A.—I never had been in his employment.
19. Q.—Never had ?
A.—No, sir.
20. Q.— Swear to that ?
A.—Yes,   sir.
21. Q.—Until this occasion?
A. — Until this occasion.
22. Q.—Have you been, since ?
A.—No, sir.
23. Q.—Never have been ?
A.—No, sir.
24. Q.—In his office?
A—Not to do any work.
25. Q. — Just loafing about his office ?
A.—I have been in his office at times, but I don't know that I have been loafing
about his office; no sir.
26. Q.—In and out of his office—but not in his employ ?
A.—No, sir.
27. Q.—Who were in the office when you went in ?
A.—Mr. Davie and Mr. May, I think.
28. Q.—The declaration, Mr. May's declaration, had been made out before, had it? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lv.
A.—I did what I thought was right in the matter, before I took any steps.
187. Q.    Did you, after you got this declaration?
A.— No, I did nothing at all after getting that, that I know of
188. Q.—You think those statements contain no material variations from May's  declara
tion ?
A.—I don't think so.
189. Q.—No material variations ?
A.—I don't think so.
190. Q.—Mr. Belyea told you,  in your office on  Saturday afternoon,  substantially the
same facts as are in that declaration?
A.—I think so.
191. Q.—Then, in  the  face  of  that,   Mr.   Davie,   why  did you  allow  May to make the
declaration he did, in these portions I have shown to you ?
A. —Was I going to make his declaration for him ?
192. Q.—I rather think you did.
A.—No, I do not think I did.    Was I to turn around to May and say  " here,  Mr.
Belyea says so and so, and you must swear to it ?"
His Lordship : Is that a statutary declaration ?
Mr. Taylor :  It purports to be.
His Lordship : Then, if the Attorney-General did what you insinuate he  did,   would
it not be sufficient to disbar him ?    Is that what you meant to imply ?
Mr. Taylor : With all due deference, and desire to regard your Lordship's questions
as far as I can, I do not propose to commit myself by drawing any inferences.
His Lordship : I did not think you would like to answer that.
193. Mr. Taylor: I simply ask the witness why, in the face of the communication made
to him by Mr. Belyea on Saturday morning,  did he allow May to make  this
declaration ?
A.—Because I was bound to give May credit for what he was willing to swear to.   .
194. Q.—Did you point out to him these variations between Mr. Belyea's statement and
his own?
A.—Indeed I did not..
195. Q.—I understand you that  at  the time Mr. Belyea came to your office  this declara
tion was unsigned and unsworn ?
A.—Certainly.
196. Q.—It was signed and sworn afterwards?
A.—Yes.    It was not for me to manufacture his affidavit to fit Mr.  Belyea's statement.    I merely let the man swear to what he stated to me was the fact.
197. Q.—Now, I want to ask you about this clause six -the latter part :    "I then went
to Mr. Belyea, on Government street, and he told me my daughter had been
there. He then repeated his demand for $20, saying my daughter was not
obliged to go with me. He said it would be all right if I would bring him the
$20 before six o'clock, and he would then see if he could get the girl to go with
me, but when I asked for a guarantee he said he could not give it." Now, you
had heard Mr. Belyea's statement before that ?
A.—Certainly. I was not in a position to judge, then, who was in the right, but I
was satisfied in my own mind, from the substance of what Mr. Belyea himself
related, that this $20 was highly wrong. That was the main thing I had in
view.
198. Q.—What  were  the   "other  circumstances"  referred to in paragraph three of that
declaration ?
A.—I am sure I don't know.    I suppose what  I  meant  was  that he informed him
as fully as he had informed me.
199. Q.—You did not know what those facts were?
A.—Do not misquote me in that way.    I say  I presume that  " the other circumstances " of the case there, were the other things that he told me.
200. Q.—You thought that that term covered the facts communicated to you?
A.—Yes.
201. Q.—Why didn't you put those facts in the affidavit ?
A.—Why,  the affidavit now is three pages long—would you want me to write a
whole book ? Ivi. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
202. Q.—What did you intend to cover by that expression ?
A.—There was a great deal that he told me at the time that related to the case
before him, as to the connection of these Frieds with a certain Mrs. Marr over
there, and who she was, and all about her. Those were some of the circumstances.
203. Q.—Why didn't you put those in ?
A.—Because I didn't think they had anything to do with the matter under consideration
204. Q.—These " other circumstances " referred to Mrs. Marr ?
A.—I don't say they referred to her alone.
205. Q.—What else did they refer to ?
A.—That was one of them.
206. Q.—All that May told vou he had related to Mr. Belyea at  the  Police  Magistrate's
office ?
A.—He told me he had told Mr. Belyea exactly the same as  he  told  me,   and   that
was one of the things he told me.
207. Q.—Now, you received a number of letters from Mr. Belyea, did you not,  after you
had his declaration ?
A.—I do not remember that I did.    I do not think so.
208. Q.—When did you first communicate to him about this Commission ?
A.—Well, I will tell you just exactly how that matter was done. The duty of communicating with Mr. Belyea about the Commission being issued is that of the
Deputy Provincial Secretary, and in the Attorney-General's office we naturally
concluded that that had been done, but it seems that there was some misunderstanding between the two deputies. Mr. Reddie thought it ought to come
from the Attorney-General's office, and my deputy thought it ought to come
from the other office, and, consequently, it was not sent to him until the 15th of
December. I was up there and was talking about this matter, and ascertained
from Mr. Reddie that notice had not been sent, and I said " you had better
send it at once," and I went over to my office and asked if they had sent
notice, and they said no, and I said "you had better send notice too." The
same thing occurred with Mr. Hallett; they never notified him.
209. Q.--You had some more communication with Mr. Belyea after that?
A.—No, not personally.
210. Q.—Your department had 1
A.—I think there were some letters written.
211. Q.—With reference to the charges ?
A.—If you will show me the letter of my deputy, I will tell you.
212. Q.—Here is a copy of a letter written by Mr. Belyea on the 19th.
A.—I have the original here.    (Read by witness.)
(Two letters from the Deputy Attorney-General to Mr. A. L. Belyea, read by
witness, dated 18th and 21st December.)
213. Q.—Mr. Smith replied to that on the 21st?
A.—Yes.
214. Q.—Then, did your department receive another letter from Mr. Belyea?
A.—Yes.
215. Q.—Was any reply sent to it?
A.—I do not know.    You can tell.
216. Q.—I don't think there was.
A.—Very likely, I don't suppose there was. There was no need of keeping up a
correspondence; Mr. Belyea already had received full particulars of the matter.
There is just one thing I would like to explain. You asked me whether habeas
corpus would not have been the proper means for May to adopt in order to
recover his child. I said it would not, and now I will tell you the reason why.
In the case of a child above the age of nurture, which, I think, is put at either
seven or nine years, the court, upon habeas corpus, will merely give direction
that the child can go where it pleases. Here is a girl between 15 and 16,
rather wayward in her disposition, who had voluntarily left her father's home,
where she was compelled to do hard work, and had gone to a home where she
was living in comparative luxury.    If that girl  had been brought before a 55 Vict. ENQUiRy re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lvii.
Judge, all that the Judge would have said to her would be, "you are at liberty
to go where you please." Is there any doubt as to where that girl would have
gone ? She would have said : " I refuse to return to hard work; I will go
to these people who give me a good time."
217. Q.—Then, don't you think you were interfering with the liberty of the subject ?
A.—No, I don't think so ; and that is the very reason why the criminal law was the
proper law to be put in operation in this case. Habeas corpus would not only
have been an altogether ineffective, but a highly mischievous remedy, because it
would have given that girl to understand that she could defy her parents, and
if she chose a life of shame she could live it without being compelled to go back
to her parents.
218. Q.—Do you pledge your opinion that the law  would allow her, on a habeas corpus,
to go where she pleased ?
A.—To go where she pleased.
Mr. Belyea : That is something new.
His Lordship : Have you got those papers I wanted ?
Mr. Belyea : I am under the impression, your Lordship, that those papers were sent
down here.
His Lordship : I give instructions that whoever has charge of those papers, shall
come with them and produce them before me.
Mr. Taylor : There is one thing I would like to mention, and that is with reference
to August May. The reason I wished to have him here, was so that I could
go through the transcript of the reporters' notes, and see whether they have
set out everything that May said. I am very desirous that he should remain
until I get those notes and see that everything is properly set out.
His Lordship : The best way will be to let him go now, and, after you have examined those notes, if it is necessary and important to go further and question
him in regard to them, let him come back again.
Mr. Taylor : But once he gets out of the country he will never come back again. It
is true he will do everything for Mr. Davie, but he does not desire to do
anything for us.
His Lordship : You can get Mr. Davie to send for him.
(Adjourned to Tuesday, 5th January, 1892, at 10:30 a. m.) lviii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
Third Day—Morning Session.
(Continued from 31st December, 1891.)
5th January, 1892.
(The Attorney-General drew the attention of the Commissioner to the report of the
proceedings on the 31st ult., appearing in the " Daily Colonist," claiming it was incorrect, and
handed in a printed statement in reference thereto.)
His Lordship : (After referring to the report published) : What I want you all to keep
in view, more particularly as it seems to have been a little less thought of than is perhaps
right and necessary, is that the main object, and the one object, of this enquiry, is to see
whether or not there has been a deviation from a clear, clean principle, which is of vital
importance in the administration of justice. This principle is that persons engaged in a
judicial position shall not assume, or enter, for the sake of gain, into a position where their
duty to the public and their personal interests conflict. Now, there is everything in a nutshell, and it has not once appeared, that I am aware of, here, in a clear and marked form.
And it is the object of this enquiry to ascertain whether or not, and, if so, whether wholly or
partially, a violation of a principle of such vital importance in the administration of justice
has occurred. That is the true idea, I am quite certain; and I am also quite satisfied, without
knowing exactly how or why, that it has not been so generally known and circulated as I think
is desirable, and, whatever the result of this examination, I am sure it will do good if it only
result in bringing before the public mind the principle which I have taken the liberty of
openly and clearly enunciating.
(Depositions taken in the City Police Court, before Mr. Belyea, handed in by the
Attorney-General.)
Francis V. Lee, sworn; examined by the Attorney-General.
1. Q.—What is your name?
A.—Francis Valentine Lee.
2. Q.—Do you remember being called upon to do some work at the Attorney-General's
office in the month of September last ?
A.—I think it was in the month  of  September ; I   remember being called  upon ; I
was only called upon once.
3. Q.—Will you tell us what occurred upon that occasion ?
A.—Mr. Davie, the Attorney-General, met me on Bastion Street; it was on Saturday afternoon, and asked me if I was busy that afternoon. I said no, I was
not, and he asked me to come over to his office and I went over there, and,
after waiting for a little while, he told me to go into his office. Mr. Belyea was
just coming in at the time, and I think that Mr. Sheppard, the Superintendent
of Police, had arrived there a few minutes before. I went into Mr. Davie's
office—the back office, his private office—and he told me to take a seat and make
a verbatim report of the proceedings. Mr. May, I think his name is, was
sitting down in the room, and Mr. Belyea came into the room and sat down
also, and Mr. Sheppard, and I think Mr. Sheppard had a little boy or girl with
him, and Mr. Davie then began to read over some depositions he had taken, I
think from Mr. May, to Mr. Belyea, whereupon Mr. Belyea replied. After a
time I found that Mr. Belyea was speaking too fast to make a verbatim report,
and I passed Mr. Davie a note to that effect, and Mr. Davie indicated to me,
either by nodding or saying as much, not to bother about going on. I stayed to
the end of the enquiry, and when Mr. Davie had completed reading over the
deposition he handed it to me and told me to make a type-written copy immediately. I went to the typewriter in his office, but it was locked, and then I took
it over to a machine in the town office, where I made an exact copy. I think
I made some carbon copies at the same time, and took them into Mr. Davie's
office, his down-town office, where, I think, but I am not sure, Mr. May was
then. He had come over, and Mr. Davie began reading it over, I think, to
Mr. May.    I didn't stay any longer ; I went out of the office. lx. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
A.—I presume so ; I was in the outer office at that time.
29. Q.—You presume so ?    Do you know whether it had or not?
A.—No, sir ; I suppose it had been read over to him.
30. Q.—You don't know whether it had been made out or not ?
A.—It had been made out.
31. Q.—Did you go into the room before Mr. Belyea got there, or after?
A.—I went in just, I suppose, half a minute, or a fraction of a minute, immediately
before Mr. Belyea.
32. Q.—Went in a fraction of a minute or immediately before Mr. Belyea ?
A.—Yes, sir.
33. Q.—Any alteration to Mr. May's declaration before Mr. Belyea got in there in that
minute ?
A.—No, sir.
34. Q.—Was no alteration made ?
A.—Not to my knowledge.
35. Q.—You say it was read over to Mr. Belyea ?
A.—Yes, sir.
36. Q.—And as soon as Mr. Davie completed the alterations in it he handed it to you
A.—Either that or very soon after ; it never went off his desk.
37. Q.—As soon as he completed the alterations in it he handed it to you 1
A.—Yes, sir.
Attorney-General: The witness never mentioned alterations.
Mr. Taylor: I beg your pardon, he did ;  in his examination by you.
38. Q.—How long after that, before you left the office ?
A.—I left at once ; at the same time as Mr. Belyea ; I passed Mr. Belyea in the
grounds.
39. Q.—With the declaration in your hands ?
A.—Yes, sir.
40. Q.—In Mr. Davie's handwriting ?
A.—Yes, sir.
41. Q.—With various alterations in it?    Interlineations and so forth, one might say ?
A.—Not subsequent to the time it was read over.
Mr. Taylor : He swore a moment ago that after the Attorney-General completed the
alterations, he took it; so there must have been some made after Mr. Belyea
was there.    That is what we say.
Attorney-General: He did not say anything about alterations. You said that. He
said there were no alterations subsequent to its being read.
42. Mr. Taylor : You passed Mr. Belyea in the grounds, you say?
A.—Yes, sir.
43. Q.—How long did he leave before you?
A.—He went out with Mr. Sheppard, the superintendent, just after, I suppose, the
Court of Enquiry was completed, and I got up and went out and tried the typewriter, and found it locked, and told Mr. Davie I would have to take it over to
town to copy, and he says: "Call Mr. Sheppard back," and I went to the door,
and they were not 50 feet from the door—well, not more than 100, certainly,—
and I called Mr. Sheppard back, and went out and passed Mr. Belyea in the
grounds.
44. Q.—When you were called over there, what instructions did you get ?
A.—Nothing, except to take a verbatim report of the proceedings.
45. Q.—Of everything?
A.—Of everything.
46. Q.—That any one said ?
A.—I suppose so—of importance.
47. Q.—How long was it before you passed the note to Mr. Davie that you were unable
to do this?
A.—A very few minutes.    Of course, I didn't take any notes while the deposition
was being read.
48. Q.—Who spoke first ?
A.—I think Mr. Belyea spoke in reply.
49. Q.—Did he speak before the charge was made ? 35 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxi.
—Immediately after the deposition was read over, as near as I can remember.
—Who opened the proceedings there?    Who made the first observation?
—I think  Mr. Davie made the first observation, and immediately followed it by
reading the deposition or declaration.
—Have you a note of his observations ?
—No, I have not.
—You couldn't take those ?
—I did take them, but I didn't keep it; it was incomplete.
—The declaration was then read over, and Mr. Belyea started to speak ?
—Yes, sir.
—And as soon as you found you couldn't report him, you thought you were no use
there ?
—When there was a break in the proceeding, I told Mr. Davie.
—Now, wasn't it Mr. Belyea you were there to report, entirely ?
—No, sir; not at all.    I had no instructions to that effect.
—At all events, you passed a note over when you found you couldn't report him ?
—Certainly.
—Did Mr. Belyea leave after he made his statement ?
—Well, I am not sure that he left immediately after making his statement, because
I think there was a good deal said—at least, there was something said after that
time.    He left the same time Mr. Sheppard did.
—Said by whom ?
—I  think  Mr.  Sheppard   made some remarks.    Mr. Davie was speaking about it,
and I think Mr. Davie told Mr. Belyea that he could let him have a copy of the
declaration, or something to that effect.
—Do you remember what Mr. Sheppard said ?
— No, I do not.
—Do you remember what anyone said there ?
-Yes.
-Who?
—I remember that after-remark of Mr. Davie's to Mr. Belyea ?
—Do you remember what Mr. Belyea said in reply ?
—I think   Mr.   Belyea made some statement in regard to the facts of the case; his
version at length.
—You  say  you  heard him make some statements ?    Do you know what they were
at all 1
—No, sir.
—Do you know anything about what Sheppard said ?
—No, sir;  I do not.
—Did you read over that declaration at the time?
—Well, I had to read it over, in typewriting it.
—You had to read it over, in typewriting it ?
—Yes, sir.
—And you heard it read over there, in the office, then ?
-Yes.
—Do you remember it from  the reading there ?
—Yes, sir, when I see it again to-day.
—How can you remember the document from the reading of it then,  when you
cannot remember any of the conversation ?
—Well, I read it over and made the copy on the typewriter.
—But I ask you if you remember that document, not from the copy, but from the
very fact of its being read there ?
Well, at the time—
—You remember, as a matter of fact, and that is  all,  that you had  it in your
possession and made a typewritten copy ?
—It is the same document; yes.
—You remember it from that fact ?
—Certainly.
—And not from the fact of its being read over in the office ?
—It was read over in the office first.
A.
50.
Q.-
A-
51.
Q.
A.
52.
Q.-
A.
53.
Q.
A.
54.
Q--
A.
55.
Q.
A.
56.
Q.
A.
57.
Q.
A.
58.
Q,
A.
59.
Q.
A.
60.
Q.
A.
61.
Q.
A.
62.
Q.
A.
63.
Q.
A.
64.
Q.-
A.
65.
Q.
A
66.
Q.
A.
67.
Q-
A.
68.
Q.
A.
69.
Q.
A.
70.
Q.-
A.
71.
Q.
A.
72.
Q--
A.
73.
Q-
A. Ixii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
74. Q.—Do you remember that document now, from the fact of its being read over in the
Attorney-General's office, or from the fact that you had it in your possession and
copied it ?
A.—I don't remember the details now, to any extent.
75. Q.—As a matter of fact, you don't remember any of the details now?
A.—Oh, I remember some of them now.     My impressions might be inaccurate, but
I have got an impression of what they were.
76. Q.—You wouldn't like to be strictly accurate about it?
A—No.
77. Q.—And yet you swear that this is  a  copy of the document,  without  seeing the
original ?
A.—No, I swear that that appears to be a copy, to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
78. Q.—Then, all you swear to is that you have a general idea that this might be a copy?
A.—No, a little more strongly than that.
79. Q.—Well, will you swear that you have a special idea that this might be a copy?
A. — I think it is, from my work.     I have got a pretty good idea.
80. Q.—You judge it, then, from your own work ?
A.—Yes.
81. Q.—That you would not make an incorrect copy?
A.—No; certainly not.
82. Q.—Then, you judge it because you think it is an accurate copy of the document you
copied from ?
A.—The typewritten copy I made was an accurate copy of the draft handed over by
Mr. Davie to me, and read over to Mr. Belyea.
83. Q.—That is: Assuming that this is an accurate copy, it is an accurate copy of the
document you copied from?
A.—I think it is, sir.
His Lordship: I understand him to say: "It is an accurate copy of the document
given to me by Mr. Davie, and read over to Mr. Belyea."
Mr. Taylor: Pardon me, my Lord, that is not what I understood him to say.
(Answer to Q. 82 read, at request of his Lordship.)
84. Q.—Mr. Taylor: I ask you again, do you swear that this is a copy of the document,
from the fact of your having heard the document read over in the Attorney-
General's office, or from the fact that you copied it from some document in your
own office?
A.—I swear that the copy, the typewritten copy, that I handed to Mr. Davie in his
office was an accurate copy of the draft copy handed to me by Mr. Davie in his
office, in the presence of Mr. Belyea, and Mr. May, and Mr. Sheppard.
85. Q.—Now, was it handed to you in the presence of Mr. Belyea?
A.—Yes, it was.
86. Q.—Will you swear that ?
A.—Yes, sir.
87. Q.—Then what did you mean by saying, a moment ago, by saying that after  Mr.
Davie completed the alterations he handed it to you ?
A.—I didn't.
88. Q.—Swear you didn't?
A.—Yes, sir.
Attorney-General: That is what you said, Mr. Taylor.
89. Q.—You base your belief upon the fact that you copied the document ?
A.—I copied the document; yes, sir.
90. Q.—And you think the copy you made was a correct and accurate copy ?
A.—Yes ; I am sure it was.
91. Q.—And you base that belief upon the fact that you copied it?
A.—Certainly.
92. Q.—And   not  upon  the  fact  that the document was read over in  the  Attorney-
General's office ?
A.—The same document was read over in the Attorney-General's office, and then, of 93.
Q.
A.
94.
Q.
A.
95.
Q.
A.
96.
Q,
A.
97.
Q,
A.
98.
Q,
A.
99.
Q.
A.
100.
Q.
A.
101.
Q.
A.
102.
Q.
A.
103.
Q.
A.
55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. Ixiil
course, I took it, after he had read it over, to make a copy of it, and it was the
same document.
—Do you base your belief upon that fact—that it was read over  in Mr. Davie's
office—or upon the fact that you copied it afterwards ?
—The fact of its being read over in Mr. Davie's office showed  me it was the same
document I brought away.
—The fact that he read over the same document there ?
—The same document; it never went out of my sight.
—It never went out of your sight ?
—No, sir.
—Were your eyes riveted on this document all the time you were there ?
—No, sir; it was on the desk.
—What sort of a desk was Mr. Davie sitting at?
—I think they call it a  "roll-top" desk.
—And you were at a table?
—At a table.
—Just, you said, on the right-hand side of him?
—Yes, the right-hand side.
—And you were watching him all the time you were there?
—He was right in front of me; I couldn't help watching him.
—I thought the table was at the side?
—The table was at the side, but it was at an angle.
—How do you mean?
—The roll-top desk here (indicating), and my table was along here.
—Then it was on the left-hand side?
—No; Mr. Davie was facing here (indicating), and  it was to Mr. Davie's right.
Here is the door, as you come into the office, and  Mr. Davie's desk  is  right in
front of the door, and Mr. Davie was sitting facing the door, and I was at Mr.
Davie's right, and Mr. May was sitting here (indicating), and Mr. Belyea here,
and Mr. Sheppard and his little boy were just next to him.
104. Q.—Will you swear that that is all accurate, now?
A.—That is my impression, from my remembrance of things.
105. Q.—Your impression ought to be pretty vivid, of that proceeding, oughtn't it?
A.—Yes, sir.
106. Q.—And you swear that that is an accurate description?
A.—I swear that that was my position, and that the other gentlemen were sitting at
that side of the room (indicating); I could see them all.
107. Q.—Well, I am simply giving you the chance of correcting it.    Do you think that
was the position of affairs?
—I think it was.
—You swear that?
—No, I won't swear to it; I might be a little inaccurate.    I will swear that is how
I was sitting.    The other gentlemen might not have been in the very positions,
relatively to one another, that I spoke of.
—Do you remember anything that Mr. Belyea spoke of, then?
—Not very accurately.
—Do you remember anything that Mr. Sheppard said ?
—No, sir; I don't remember.
—Do you remember what May said?
—No, sir; when Mr. Davie read it over, May nodded once or twice, as if he was
acquiescent in the statement.
—He seemed to nod, once or twice?    You don't remember what he said?
—I don't think he said much of anything.
—Where are you living now ?
—Portland, Oregon.
—How did you get up here?
—By boat and rail.
—Who paid your expenses?
—Paid them myself.
—Come up on a visit ?
A.
108.
Q.
A.
109.
Q.
A.
110.
Q.
A.
111.
Q.
A.
112.
Q.
A.
113.
Q.
A.
114.
Q.
A.
115.
Q.
A.
116.
Q. lxiv.
Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria.                        1892
A—No.
117.
Q.—Sent for ?
A—Yes, sir.
118.
Q.—By whom?
A.—George Byrnes, my uncle.
119.
Q.—George Byrnes, your uncle, sent for you?
A.—Yes, sir.
120.
Q.—You were not sent for by the Attorney-General ?
A.—He did not send for me.    Mr. Byrnes sent for me.
121.
Q.—George Byrnes, the auctioneer here ?
A.—Yes, sir.
122.
Q.—He sent for you?
A.—Yes, sir.
123.
Q._ When?
124.
Attorney-General: Have you the telegrams he sent, stating you were required  as a
witness in an important matter?    Just show them, if you have them ?
A.—I have a couple.
125.
Mr.  Taylor: As a matter of fact, you were sent for because the Attorney-General
wanted you?
A.—Well, I didn't know what I was wanted for till I got here.
126.
Q.—Paid your own expenses ?
A.—Yes; certainly.
127.
Q.—Generally do that if you are sent for to come as a witness ?
A.—I suppose so.
128.
Q.—When did you arrive here 1
A.—Yesterday morning.
129.
Q.—Did you ascertain then who sent for you ?
A.—I did not ascertain who sent for me, but I was told what to do.
130.
Q.—Told what to do yesterday morning ?
A.—Yes.
131.
Q.—By whom ?
A.—My uncle told me to go and see Mr. Davie.
132.
Q.—And you went and saw Mr. Davie ?
A.—Yes.
133.
Q.—What occurred there ?
A.—Mr. Davie told me what I was wanted for here.
134.
Q.—Told you what you were wanted for ?
A—Yes.
135.
Q.—What was that?
A.—To prove the accuracy of that document, or something to that effect; and also as
to my position when I was in the office.
136.
Q.—To speak as to the accuracy of that document ?
A.—Yes, sir.
137.
Q.—What document ?
A.—The document that I copied.
138.
Q.—Did you see the draft from which you copied ?
A.—When ?
139.
Q.—Since you have been here this time ?
A.—No, sir.
140.
Q.—Haven't seen it since the time you copied this ?
A.—No, sir.
141.
Q.—What date was that ?
A.—I do not remember the exact date ; it was on a Saturday afternoon.    It was the
day of the Seattle baseball match.
142.
Q.— The fifth of September?
A.—I cannot tell the date, exactly.
143.
Q.—That is the date it was sworn on ?
A.—I don't know whether it was sworn to; I suppose it was.     It  was a Saturday
afternoon.
144.
Q.—At all events, it was along about the first of September? Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxi>
6. Q. —That was the Webb case, was it not ?
A.—That is the Webb case; a case before Mr. Justice Walkem in, I think, May
last. In the office, after consultation with my partner, I told him what we
would do. I drafted the affidavit. I cannot say whether I drafted the order
nisi for a habeas corpus, or not. It was done, anyway. The documents are in
the office yet, I think. In the meantime Mr. Gregory, my partner, had gone
down to the Chief Justice to make an arrangement with him to hear the application, in case the girl refused to go with her father. He will state what took
place between himself and the Chief Justice. At 12 o'clock the papers were
ready. May had signed the affidavit, but it had not been sworn to. The reason
for the taking of all these precautions was, that, from the letters and from what
the father had told me, I had reason to believe that the girl would refuse to go
with him. That she, herself, had made up her mind she would stay here if she
could. The father had intimated as much to me himself, and I took these
precautions so that, in case she refused, while she was still with the Frieds, Fried
might be compelled to produce her in Court before she could get a chance to get
anywhere else, or Pried send her away out of his control. That was the only
object in taking these precautions — precautions that I always take in such cases.
At twelve o'clock I sent a clerk to Fried, about 12 o'clock, telling May : " Now,
I am going to send for Fied, and you are to ask Fried if the girl is there, and if
she is at his house demand that he give her up to you. If he says he is willing,
you go right up with Fried and get her, and that is the end of it. If he does
not do this, you will swear to this affidavit, and we will go at once to the Chief
Justice and get the order, or do the same if the girl refuses, when you go to the
house, to come with you." The clerk returned in a few minutes saying that
Fried had gone home to lunch, and would not be back until two o'clock, but
would be at my office then. I told May not to be late, because Fried would
probably be on time. I told this to May, and told him to be on hand at two
o'clock, at my office. He said he would. I told him not to be late because
Fried would probably be on time, and I didn't want him to be late. I told him
it was a little difficult to get a Judge in the afternoon, in case we wanted one,
and I knew we could not get the Chief Justice, because he had said he would
not be here after two o'clock, or half-past two. At that time there were only
your Lordship and the Chief Justice in the City, I believe. I went away to
iunch and I did not see May, or anybody else, until after I got back from lunch,
at two o'clock.    At two o'clock, when I came in	
His Lordship : One moment, Mr. Belyea	
7. Q.—Mr. Taylor : This was up to about one o'clock in the day, was it, Mr. Belyea ?
A.—Well, a little after twelve; a quarter-past twelve probably.
8. Q.—All this occurred up to a quarter after twelve ?
A.—A quarter-past twelve.
9. Q.—When was any mention made about a fee ?
A.—Oh, when Fried, after my having told him to be back at two o'clock, and his
promising to come.    He was in  my  room,  and he  got up  and  walked to  the
door.    That is the door between my room	
10.    Q.—You said Fried.    You meant May did you not ?
A.—I mean May. He got up then and went to the door, that is the door between
my room and the next room in the office, not the outer door, and as he got in
the door he turned round and said to me: " What will this cost me ?" or " What
are you going to charge me for this ? " or something like that. I think the
words were " What will this cost me ?" I told him our usual fee was $20, and
he did not make any reply. He did not say anything about sending for money
or not having it, or anything of the kind ; he just simply turned around and
went out. I should not have claimed or asked for anything then, and the case
would have gone through, but for his own actions, without any demand having
been made. I came back at two o'clock. I think I came back at sharp two.
My partner was in the office, my clerks, and Fried. I spoke to Fried, and the
first thing I said to him was : " Are you going to give the girl up ?" and he half
laughed, and said that he had employed Eberts & Taylor. I think it was
Eberts & Taylor, he said, lawyers.    I then said : " You  refuse to  give  the 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxv.
A.—Yes, I suppose it would be about that time.
145. Q.—You haven't the draft ?
A.—No, sir ; I handed the draft and the copies I made to Mr. Davie.
146. Q.—You haven't seen it since along about the first of September ?
A.—No, sir ; I haven't seen any of the documents since.
147. Q.—Are you prepared to swear this is accurate?
A.—That is a copy I handed to Mr. Davie on that afternoon.
148. Q.—And that it is a faithful copy of the document handed you on that morning ?
A..—It was handed to me that same afternoon—about an hour before, perhaps.
149. Q.—That is what I have been trying to prove.    You  are  swearing from  that  fact,
and from no other fact?
A.—Yes, when the document went out of my possession.
150. Q.— Will you swear this document is a copy of the document you heard read?
A.—Well, it is a copy of the document I handed to Mr.  Davie—that is all anybody
can say.
151. Q.—That is exactly what I want to know.    That is all you can base your belief on.
A.—Why, certainly.
Re-direct by the Attorney-General :
152. Q.—That document has the appearance of having been   written   on  your type-writer,
has it not ?
A.—Yes, sir.
153. Q.—And you tell us that the document which you did copy was the document which
was read over to Mr. Belyea in your presence ?
A.—Yes, sir.
154. Q.—And handed to you in the presence of Mr. Belyea ?
A.—Yes, sir.
155. Q.—You have been asked about Mr. Byrnes sending for you ?    He knew your where
abouts in Portland ?
A.—He did, sir.
156. Q.—You have no reason to think that I  would  have  had any  means of  knowing,
except by going to Mr. Byrnes ?
A.—Not at all.
157. Q. -Mr. Byrnes is a relative of yours, is he not ?
A.—He is my uncle.
158. Q.—You would come over upon his request, when  you  would  have  hesitated  about
coming on any one else's ?
A.—Certainly, that was  the  reason  I came.     If  anybody  else  had  sent  for me  I
should probably have made some arrangements about expenses or something of
that sort.
159. Q.—Now, Mr.  Lee, could you see the  door  leading out of  the  Attorney-General's
office, from where you sat ?
A.—Yes, sir.
160. Q.—So that anybody coming in that door could see you ?
A.—Yes, sir.
161. Q.—And you could see anybody coming in by that door?
A.—Yes, sir.
162. Q.—Were there any alterations made in this document after it was read over to Mr
Belyea?
A.—No, sir.
163. Q.—You had an opportunity of seeing, as to that?
A.—Yes, sir.
164. Q.—It was handed to you immediately ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor : Why don't you ask him if it is the original document?     Likely he will
swear to that, too.
165. His Lordship : What type-writer did you write it on ?
A.—A Caligraph, sir.
166. Q.—Do you now recognize the type ? lxvi. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
A.—Yes, sir ; it seems to be the same. Of course, a good many machines have the
same type.    It appears to be the same.    It was the machine I always used.
167. Q.—Where did you find it ?
A.—Over Messrs. Bod well & Irving's office, in a room they used for type-writing ;
the machine I always used there.
168. Q.—Just take a look over the  document  now, and  see if there are any  words or
phrases in it that you do recollect ?
A.—I recollect that in the document I copied there was a blank in front of Fried's
name.    It was his christian name, which was not in the draft handed to me, nor
was it in this copy, but now it appears here ; I recollect that, and also paragraph
No. 7 I recollect copying.
169. Mr. Taylor : What sort of a type-writer did you say you used in doing that ?
A.—A Caligraph, No. 3.
170. Q.—Never use a "Hammond?"
A.—I used to, when I first came to town.
171. Q.—Travelled with it, didn't you ?
A.—No, sir ;   left it behind me.
(The Attorney-General informed His Lordship that he had caused Officer McNeill to
be present in Court, in order that, if counsel for Mr. Belyea desired, he could be
called. Counsel for Mr. Belyea informed His Lordship that he did not wish to
call the Officer.)
(His Lordship stated that if there were any more documents to go in, counsel could
submit them to the opposite side, and by consent of counsel he would receive
and consider them )
His Lordship : Mr. Attorney, does that complete the examination ?
Attorney-General : That completes the examination.
Mr. Taylor: There are one or two witnesses whom I should like to call.
(Commission adjourned to 2:30 p.m.)
(At 2:30 p.m., on account of His Lordship being engaged in the Full Court, the
Commission was further adjourned to the 6th inst., at 10 o'clock a.m.) Victoria, B. C, 6th January, 1892.
Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Crease, as Commissioner.
Fourth Day—Morning Session.
Continued from 5th inst.
A, L. Belyea, sworn.    Examined by Mr. Taylor.
His Lordship : What name ?
Mr. Taylor : Arthur Louis Belyea.
1. Q.—Mr. Belyea, do you remember this man, August May, coming to see you on a
Friday?    I forget the date.
A.—Yes; he came one Friday morning, in the first of September.    About the first
part of September; I forget the exact date.
2. Q.—He only saw you at your office at the Police Court on one occasion, did he not?
A.—One occasion; that's all.
3. Q.—Will you kindly tell us exactly what occurred there ?
A.—After the cases in the Police Court were disposed of, the Chief of Police told me
that a man from Seattle wanted to see me. I opened my private room there
and walked in, and this man was either in there or came in with the Chief of
Police immediately afterwards; I am not sure which. Anyway, he was there,
and the Chief of Police, and the Sergeant of Police came in a moment afterwards—Mr. Walker. The Chief of Police told me the man wanted to see me
about his daughter, who had run away from home and come over to Victoria. I
asked the man what about it, and, I think, in reply, in substance, he turned to the
Chief and asked him for certain letters which the girl had written to her people
at home, and which the Chief of Police then had. Two of those letters, or two
documents, rather, I recollect distinctly that the Chief of Police handed to me,
both of which I read ; they are marked "Exhibits " A " and "B." Those two
I remember, distinctly, reading. Exhibit "C" I have no recollection of having
read, at all.
4. Q._Exhibit " 0 "—who is that addressed to ?
A.—Exhibit " C ' is the last letter written by Hattie May, evidently to her sister.
5. Q.—A letter to her sister ?
A.—Dated 31st August, 1891. That letter I have no recollection of having read.
I may have glanced through it, but I have no recollection of having read it,
although I have no doubt it was there at the time. The two letters which I
did read are these : The one marked Exhibit " A," which is as follows : It has
neither place or date, but it is the slip of paper which August May swore to as
having been sent to his house by his daughter, through an expressman, before
she left Seattle, or about the time she left Seattle. It reads : " Dear Parents—
I am going to be married, and gone East; will write soon; don't worry; I am
save. Your child, Hattie May. Good-by." Now, that is the first one. The
other letter that I have a distinct recollection of having read is a letter from
Hattie May to her parents, dated from Victoria on the 27th of August—presumably of last year, but it didn't say so. It says: "Victoria, B. C, Aug. 27th.
Dear Parents: I will write to let you know that I am in Victoria, and working
for a lady which I knew in Seattle, and I stay with her. I am working for her,
and get $15.00 a month. The reason why I wrote you I was going to get
married was because I knew you wouldn't like to let me go. I like this town
very much, and I am going to stay. I have a good home. The lady took me
over with her in Seattle, Monday evening. The reason why I didn't write
sooner was because we were not settled. You don't have to worry about me,
for I am all right and save. I will close my letter for to-day, hoping to hear
from you soon.    I remain your daughter, Hattie."    Then follows: "Address my lxviii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892.
letter to the post office. Address like this: 'Miss Hattie May, Victoria, B. C "
I remember reading those two letters, but I do not remember reading this one,
"C," at that time. I think that I read this one, or glanced through it afterwards in the Police Court, when the case was up before me. I do not remember
reading it before that. I then questioned May as to the circumstances under
which his child left home. He said that she went away in the evening, and,
except for the note, which is the first one I read here, he did not know anything
at all about her going away. She went away without his consent or knowledge.
I asked him if he knew where the girl was, and if he had seen her since he came
to Victoria, and he said no, and I understood from him that he did not want to
see her until he could get his hands on her to take her home. I asked him if he
knew anything about Fried. He said no. I asked him then if he knew how
the girl had come over from Seattle. He said he heard—he didn't know, but he
heard—that she had come over here with a Mrs. Marr, or Mahrer, who was
some relation to the Frieds, I think. That is all he knew about it. I then
turned to the Chief of Police and the Sergeant, and I asked them who the
Frieds were. Up to this time I didn't know who the Frieds were. He said he
believed it was Fried the barber at whose house she was working. I asked if
Fried was a married man, and I was told he was. I asked what kind of a house
he kept, and the Chief of Police and the Sergeant said that so far as they knew
the Frieds were man and wife and kept a respectable house. May did not then,
or at any other time afterwards, state that Fried or his wife had anything whatever to do with the girl's coming away from Seattle. He had not seen them, or
the girl, since he came to Victoria, and all he wanted then was a paper, which I
interpreted to mean a warrant, to arrest the girl and send her back to Seattle.
There was nothing in what he said that led me to believe, or even suspicion, that
he charged the Frieds with having taken the girl away from Seattle, and, so far
as I could learn, there was no reason for his thinking so, from the letters and
from what he told me himself. He insisted on this paper or warrant to arrest
the girl. I told him I had no authority to do that, and that I could not do it as
Police Magistrate; that the girl had not committed any offence, and that the
mere fact of her running away from home did not give me any jurisdiction to
arrest her, and I moreover told him that if he had any charge to make against
the girl, that that was another matter. He said he had not. He said the girl
had done nothing but simply run away from home. Of course, these are not the
exact words, but they are the substance of what took place. I then asked him
if he thought the girl would go back, and he said he did not think she would.
He did not think she would go back with him, simply on being asked to. He
said he did not think she would, for she evidently wanted to stay here. He
had told me, before that, that she was between 15 and 16, nearly 16 years of
age, and, I think, I told him then that if the girl was over 16, she could do as
she pleased, but if she was under 16 she would have to go with him—and I
think I was right, too. I told him that his proper course would be to proceed
by way of habeas corpus, to bring the girl into Court, and a Judge of the
Supreme Court would, if he proved she was under 16, and that he was entitled
to the control of her, order that she go with her father—with him. He was
satisfied with that, and I told him he would have to employ a lawyer to do that
for him. He said he did not know any lawyers. Well, I told him that was my
profession, and if he was willing that I should undertake it for him, that I
would do it. He consented to that. Nothing whatever was said about charges
or anything of the kind. I told him I could not do it there, but, if he came
down to my office, I would consult with my partner, and we would take what
steps we thought necessary. He came down to the office. This was about, I
should say, half-past eleven ; for what took place up in the Police Court probably
took 25 minutes or half an hour, or perhaps less time. Anyway, it was about
half-past eleven, I think, when I got down to the office with him. We went up
stairs, I called my partner in, we had a consultation on the matter, and we
decided that the proper thing to do was to take the same steps as had been taken
in a case in which we ourselves were concerned a few months before, by way of
habeas corpus. lxx. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
girl up ?" " Oh," he said, " the girl is with her father now. She left my
house an hour ago with her father." I said " that's all right." He continued
the conversation, more with my partner than myself, and it wound up by either
myself or my partner, or both of us, telling him that if he wanted any opinion
upon the matter, he had better go and consult his own lawyer ; that we would
tell him anything—we were acting for the father. He left the office and the
matter went out of my mind. I thought the father had the girl, and that was
the chief thing to be accomplished, and I didn't pay any more attention to it.
1 did not expect to see May again at all. I think about an hour afterwards, it
may have been less than an hour, but I think about an hour, about three
o'clock, May came up into the office. He has stated that I met him on the
street. That is false. I never saw him on the street, except in the morning.
I deny that. I did not see him on the street. I never spoke to him on the
street. I was in my own room and I heard his voice in the room of my partner
and, I think, I went out, or he came right in. I asked him what was the
matter and he, in substance, told me, when I asked him if he had not got the
girl, that he had, but she had run away from him again, and he believed she was
at Fried's, or words to that effect. I said : " Very well'; she has gone back to
Fried's has she?" He said yes. There was a little conversation about that
matter, and he gave me to understand that she had gone back to Fried's. I
said " Very well, we will have to proceed now, and go before the Judge," and he
at once made a demand for a written guarantee—he would not pay us anything,
either in advance or afterwards, unless we would guarantee that the Judge
would give him the girl. He was very promptly told that we did not guarantee
Judges' decisions at all, and that, although we believed that the Judge would
give an order that the girl should go with him, we would not give any such
guarantee, and he could consult any person else he liked. He insisted upon it,
but, of course, we did not change our minds, neither myself or my partner, and
we did not say much else to him, and he went out, and we did not see him
again. I did not see him again until the following day, when I met him in the
office of the Attorney-General.    I saw him there.
7. His Lordship:   You  did  not  see  him  again  until  you  saw  him  in  the  Attorney-
General's office?
A.—I have no recollection of seeing him  again until  I  saw  him  in  the  Attorney-
General's office.    Yes; the next day— Saturday.    Now,  while he  was in the
office, after three o'clock, or about three o'clock.
8. Q.—In your office ?
A.—My office. He said that he had gone to the house of the Frieds immediately—
or at least led me to infer that he had gone there- from our office, at 12 o'clock,
direct to Fried's ; that he went there, found the girl there, asked for her, and
she had come away with him. They had come down to the post office to get a
letter that she said she expected there. She did not get the letter, and she
asked him if she might go back to the Frieds to change her clothes, or to get
some clothing, one of the two, and he let her go; and that when he went to the
house after her, after a while, she would not come away with him—if she was
there at all. I did not understand from him, distinctly, that she was at Fried's,
but that he thought she was there. Now, May has stated in his affidavit that I
told him that if he would bring the $20 before six o'clock it would be all right.
That is false. I never made any such statement to him or anyone else, neither
was it made to him in my presence by anybody of the office. He was promptly
told that we would make no guarantees whatever. As far as I was concerned,
that ended it.
9. His Lordship : What does he say ?
A.—He states in his declaration that I said it would be all right if he would bring
the $20 before six o'clock, and that I would then see if I could get the girl to go
with him. That is absolutely false. In reply to that I say : " It is not true,
but absolutely false, that I said to August May that his daughter was not
obliged to go with him, as alleged in said paragraph 6, nor is it true that I
promised him, May, it would be all right if he brought me the $20 before six
o'clock, as further alleged in said paragraph 6." 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. Ixj
10. Mr. Taylor : Was there any such conversation at all?
A.—No ; no such conversation at all. The conversation about the guarantee is quite
correctly stated.
11. Q.—He says, in paragraph 4 of his declaration :  "and,  in  answer  to  a  question  by
myself, he"—that is you, Mr. Belyea—"demanded from me a fee of twenty
dollars ($20\ which I thought excessive and did not pay, saying that I would
see him again." Any conversation of that kind ? Anything said about excessive fees ?
A. — Not a word ; he did not say anything; simply the conversation I have related.
He simply asked me what the charge was, or what it would cost him, and I told
him our usual charge was $20; and he did not say a word, but turned on his
heel and walked out.
12. Q.—Now, Mr. Belyea, I will read you clause 6 of May's declaration:  "That after the
expiration of an hour, the girl not returning, I went back to Fried's, but was
told by Mrs. Fried that the girl was not there. I went a second time and
received the same assurance, and I then went to Mr. Belyea, on Government
Street, and he told me my daughter had been there. He then repeated his
demand for $20, saying that my daughter was not obliged to go with me. He
said it would be all right if I would bring him the $20 before six o'clock, and he
would then see if he could get the girl to go with me, but when I asked for a
guarantee, he said he could not give it." Now, regarding that portion of paragraph 6 where he says he went to you, on Government, what do you say ?
A.—I presume he means there the time he was back at three o'clock, because he never
was there about two.
13. Q.—It is the second time he refers to?
A.-- Yes. "He told me my daughter had been there." He never was told any such
a thing. His daughter never had been there, and, to my knowledge, never was
in the office at all, at any time, and neither I or any person in my presence ever
told Mr. May that his daughter had been there. It would have been absolutely
false if he had been told so. Again, he says here : " saying that my daughter
was not obliged to go with me." Now, he never was told or given to understand that. On the contrary, he was told that it was almost without doubt that
if the girl was taken before a Judge, the Judge would order her to go with him ;
and I have no reason to alter my opinion on that subject, notwithstanding the
extraordinary law we had from the Attorney-General the other day, which he
cannot justify by any decision within the last 200 years, and I challenge him to
do it, right here. I believed then, and I believe now, that the remedy by
h.abeas corpus was the proper one in the case; and had my advice, and that of
my partner, and the advice of the solicitors whom May consulted afterwards—
14. Q.—Who were they?
A.—I believe Messrs. Bodwell & Irving—and proceedings by habeas corpus taken, the
girl would have been delivered, by order of a Judge, up to her father that day,
and we would have heard no more about it.
15. Q.—That was on Friday, at the 3 o'clock interview ?
A.—Now, your Lordship, I want to call your attention to the last part of clause 3 of
May's declaration. He says : " And, there and then, namely, in the Police
Magistrate's office in the City Hall, explained the particulars of my grievance to
the Police Magistrate, informing him of my daughter's age and the other circumstances of the case." Now, all that he told me is substantially what I have
stated here, and what is stated in my declaration in answer to his. He did not
tell me that the girl was "being harboured in the house of one Fried." He said
he knew nothing about it except what was in the letter, and he supposed the
letter was correct and believed the girl was working there. He did not tell me
anything at all that would lead me to infer, or anyone else to infer, that the
Frieds had improperly brought this girl away from home, or that they had
anything at all to do with her coming.
16. Q.—Or anything at all to do with detaining her ?
A.—Or anything to do with detaining her. I, to use the common expression, sized it
up as the case of a runaway girl who had come over here from Seattle, got
employment in a family, and her father had come over wishing to get her back Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
There is an insinuation in this declaration of May's of the girl having been at
my office, and having afterwards stated she had seen a lawyer, that I was the
lawyer she had seen; more especially as, in that declaration, he alleges that I
told him the girl was not obliged to go with him. That is all absolutely false.
The insinuation is contained in three separate statements. I svant to shew that
to your Lordship. In paragraph 6 May says I told him that his daughter had
been to my office. A little farther on, he says I told him his daughter was not
obliged to go with him, and, in the last paragraph, he says that his daughter told
him that she had seen a lawyer and that she need not go back with him. There
is an insinuation there that I had advised the daughter.
17. His Lordship : No, I don't think that.    I do not think that at all.
A.—It looks very much like it. I would not be at all surprised if that should be the
inference somebody would attempt to draw. Of course, I know your Lordship
would not.
18. Mr. Taylor : At all events, it would be false?
A.—Absolutely false.
19. Q.—That was on Friday ?
A.—That was on Friday.
20. Q.—How did you come to go over to the Attorney-General's office on Saturday ?
A.—Saturday afternoon is, of course, among the legal profession, a half holiday. I
came down town with my boys, either to give them a row or a drive, I don't
know which now, and I found in my office, or Officer McNeill delivered to me,
I don't know which, a note from the Attorney-General, which I have looked for
but have not been able to find. It is among the papers, and I looked hurriedly
among the papers but was not able to find it.
21. Q.—What was it ?
A.—Requesting me to come over to his office, on a matter of vital public importance
—or something of that character.     1 met the officer, I think,  and I went over.
22. His Lordship :  Who was the officer?
A.—McNeill, I think.
23. Q.—Provincial officer ?
A.—Provincial officer. I went over there, walked in, and I found in the office the
Attorney-General, Chief of Police Sheppard and his little boy or girl, and one
August May. I saw nobody else in the office and did not believe then that
there was anybody else in the office, although I learned a few minutes after I
had been in there that there was somebody else in the office. I had not the
faintest idea of what Mr. Davie intended when he opened up by reading from a
manuscript, in his own handwriting, certain statements made by this man August May in reference to what had taken place the day before between himself
and myself and my firm. I listened to it, and when the Attorney-General
finished reading he told me that these statements had been made to him, he had
taken them down in writing, and wished me to answer them or to make any observations on them that I saw fit. He did not pass the document to me to read
myself—neither then or afterwards. I replied to it—making substantially the
same statement that is contained in the declaration, and substantially the same
statement I have made here to-day. If I did not specifically deny some of the
falsehoods that are in it, it is because, on the spur of the moment, they slipped
my memory, or because, in hearing Mr. Davie read it, I did not detect them at
that time. Had the document been placed in my own hands, I would have
marked them out very quickly. May sat there. Now, I may as well state
what I know about the invisible shorthand reporter : Mr. Davie did not tell me,
when I went in there, that he had a shorthand reporter to take down what I
said.    I was sitting on Mr. Davie's left.
24. Q.—You might just give us a little illustration of it, on a slip of paper.
A.—I think I can describe it quite clearly. I did not make a plan of the office—all
I know is that that shorthand reporter was not in my sight. I was sitting on
Mr. Davie's left, or rather, in front of him a little to the left; almost directly on
his left was Chief of Police Sheppard.
25. His Lordship : On Mr. Davie's right hand ? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxxiii.
A.—No, I was sitting in front of Mr. Davie, a little to the left hand side of the desk.
The Chief of Police, Sheppard, was directly, I think, on his left—in front of me,
to my right, that would be. May was sitting behind—to the right, and behind
the Attorney-General, and to my left, and I was sitting close up, quite close up,
to the desk—a high desk. My impression now is that there were books on top
of it,  or a  book shelf or something on top of the desk ; well up to my shoulder.
26. Q.—You say :  "I was sitting behind the desk" ?
A.—Close up to the desk, and the desk was on my left. The desk was to my left and
I was sitting close up to it. It was a high desk, and I am under the impression, though I may be mistaken about it, that there was a book shelf and books,
or, at any rate, papers on top of the desk, and I think that I am absolutely correct in saying that the height of the desk, with the books on it, was well up to
my shoulder when I was standing.
27. Mr. Taylor: It was not a flat table, at all events ?
A.—No, it was not a flat table.    It was a desk—I don't see any in this room as  high.
28. Q.—You heard Mr. Lee's statement, yesterday, did you not ?
A.—Yes. But I did not see Mr. Lee. I never saw the young man before, to my
knowledge, until I saw him here. I certainly did not see him in the Attorney-
General's office. The first intimation I had that there was anybody in the room,
except those I have mentioned, was seeing a note passed to Mr. Davie, just after
I had begun to make my statement. No one spoke, but I saw this note, and I
saw Mr. Davie take it up very quietly and open it and glance through it and
■ nod his head or make a motion, and I suspected then that there was an invisible
reporter around, but it did not affect me in the least. I went right on and
made the same statement in the same way—yes, if there had been a room full
of shorthand reporters. I did not see Mr. Lee there. I could not see him from
where I was, sitting down—and I am almost absolutely sure that I could not
see him, where he was sitting, even if I had been standing up. At least I did
not see him, nor did I see him when I walked out. If he saw me there must
have been an opening through the books or desk somewhere, that he could see
me through ; I couldn't see him.
29. His Lordship : You did not see him, at all, there ?
A —I never saw him, at all, there. When I got up to leave I did see a clerk or
person whom I have often seen about the office there—not Mr. Lee at all—I
think he crossed the room, on the other side, towards the other door. I am not
sure who that was ; it was a young man whom I have often seen around there,
but it was not Mr. Lee, because, he was more grown up than Mr. Lee is. It
may have been some of the attendants about the building ; I don't know them
all.
30. Mr. Taylor :   How long did that interview last, Mr. Belyea ?
A.—I suppose I was there half an hour ; I don't think I was there any longer.
31. Q.—You left then, did you not?
A.—I left, and came over to town.
32. Q. — What was the next communication you had with the Attorney-General's depart
ment?
A.—I think the next communication I had  was this communication of  September
7th, which is in here and marked Exhibit " D."
33. Q.—What date would that Saturday be, Mr. Belyea, do you remember ?
A.—Well, I think, that Saturday was the 5th ; Monday was the 7th. I think it
was the 5th.    That's right.
34. The uext communication was on Monday the 7th ?
A.—Yes, when I received Exhibit " D," and the enclosures mentioned.
35. Q.—What was the enclosure ?
A.—The enclosure was the declaration of August May—a copy of the declaration
which is here produced. The copy I received was an exact copy of this—-there
is no disputing that, but I am not prepared to say that is the same document
that Mr. Davie read to me. I have never seen that document, I would like to
see it. This is a document which covers two pages and a half on type-writer
paper; it was much longer than that in the original; Mr. Davie only read it to lxxiv. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
me once, and he did not read it very slowly at that, and I am not prepared to
say that this is a true copy of it. All I know is that this is the document of
which I received a copy on Monday the 7th—whether it is an exact copy of the
document read to me by Mr. Davie is a matter which, perhaps, Mr. Davie can
swear to—I cannot. Now, that letter of the 7th—I did not take that letter
as containing, even from Mr. Davie's standpoint, a statement of the case against
me. If I had, I should very promptly have replied and told Mr. Davie to confine himself to the facts; and at least to the facts as stated by Mr. May, which this
letter does not give correctly. But I took it to mean, in a general way, what
the charge was, what the substance of his declaration was, and I answered it
on that view of it, in which I believed Mr. Davie meant it, but he certainly
does not state correctly the facts.
36. His Lordship : You say you took it what?
A.—I took it simply as a letter notifying me of what I was expected to answer. I
did not take it as a statement of the case from Mr. Davie's standpoint; of
course, I had the declaration accompanying it, which was the real case, and it
was on that I answered and not on the letter. At that time the Frieds were
before me, as Police Magistrate, on a charge of abducting the girl.
37. Mr. Taylor : Just a moment, before you go into that—One  clause of this letter says
"that you had not, as stated by Mr. May, informed him that his daughter had
been to your office." Refreshing your memory by looking at that document,
Mr. Belyea, can you say, whether or not, on that Saturday, when you were in
the Attorney-General's office, you told him that that statement of May's that
his daughter had been in your office, was not true ?
A.—T certainly told him so.
38. Q.—You remember that ?
A.—I remember that distinctly.     I remember distinctly that I said it was absolutely
false.
39.—Q.—Do you remember whether or not you stated May's statement was false, when he
stated you told him that his daughter was not obliged to go with him ?
A.—Well, I do not remember denying it, but I have no doubt I did.
40. Q.—Do you remember whether it was submitted to you ?
A.—I do not remember whether that was stated or not. As I say, I did not have
the document to read, it was read to me only once, and I forget some of those
things—I cannot help it—but I certainly denied, emphatically, everything I
recollected that was read to me that was not true.
41. Q.—Now, you received that communication, as you have just remarked, on  the  7th ?
A.—Yes.
42. Q.—And replied to it in writing ?
A.—I did ; I think the letters are all in.
43. Q.—You replied, stating practically, that the matter was before you as Police Magis
trate ?
A.—Yes, and I would not reply until I had disposed of it.
44. Q.—The Fried case was disposed of, after that, before you ?
A.—Yes, on Tuesday or Wednesday ; I don't know which.
45. Q.—And you made a further reply then, did you ?
A.—I did.
46. Q.—What form did that reply take ?
A.—The form of a declaration.
47. Q.—Between the time that you wrote the note stating that the matter  was under
consideration before you as Police Magistrate, and the time you sent that declaration, had you any communication with the Attorney-General ?
A.—Yes, the Attorney-General, or the Department, were very anxious indeed, to get
my statement; they seemed to be in what I would term a very indecent haste
about this matter ; in fact, there was not a day passed that I was not told to
send it in, and I was at last told that if I did not have it in by a certain hour—
I don't know that any threats were held out—but I was told to have it in by a
certain hour.
48. Q.—Did you have any communication, in regard to that, in writing ? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxxix.
Victoria,  B. C, January 7th, 1892.
^CONTINUED   FROM    6TH   INSTANT.)
H. W. Sheppard, called and sworn.    Examined by Mr. Taylor.
1.    Q.—Henry W. Sheppard is your name?
A.—Yes.
3.    Q.—You are Chief of Police for the city ?
A.—Yes.
3. Q.—You know Mr. Belyea, and this Mr. May, don't you ?
A.—Yes ; I do.
4. Q.—Do you remember the 5th Sept. having any conversation with May ?
A.—On the 4th ;  on the morning of the 4th.
5. Q.— Will you just explain, Mr. Sheppard, how it was that you came to have that con
versation, and the circumstances of it?
A.—Well, my sergeant introduced me to him, and he spoke to me about his daughter
leaving Seattle without his knowledge, and that he had some  letters  from her.
I read one ; that was one from the girl to her sister.
6. Q.—You read the letter ?—that is, from Hattie May to her sister ?
A.—Yes; stating that she was working for $15.00 a month for Mrs. Fried ; and May
—I asked him what he wanted, and he said he wanted a warrant to arrest the
girl.
7. His Lordship : Did he say " warrant ?"
A.—A warrant, your Lordship.
8. Q.—Did he use the word "warrant?"
A.—Warrant. But I told him that if he wished to I would send a constable up there
with him to interview his daughter, and he said he didn't want that, he wanted
his daughter brought to him ; and I told him that I would introduce him to the
Police Magistrate.    I thought it was a case—
9. Q.—Never mind what you thought.
A.—I told him myself that I thought it was a case for habeas corpus.
10. Mr. Taylor : You told him that you thought it was a case for habeas corpus.
A. -—Yes; and I introduced him to Mr. Belyea in his office.
11. Q.—Did he say anything at that time, chief, about the Frieds taking or detaining the
girl?
A.—No; he had nothing against them,  whatever.     He said that they didn't take her.
It was a Mrs. Marr that she went away with—Seattle.
12. Q.—Did he tell you or say anything about what she was doing at the Frieds?
A.—Yes ; said she was in service there at $15.00 a month. That is what she had
written as such. That is what he said she had written—that she was working
at the Frieds for ,$15.00 a month as servant.
13. Q.—You introduced him to the Magistrate, Mr. Belyea?
A.—Yes.
14. Q.—Was anything said about a fee at that time?
A.—Nothing in my presence, nor never was—nor never was in my presence.
15. Q.—Nothing was said about a fee ; was anything said about a lawyer?
A.—Yes ; Mr. Belyea told Mr. May that he would introduce him to a lawyer.
16. Q.—How did that conversation come about, chief?
A.—Came about—Mr Belyea asked me in the presence of my sergeant what kind of
people the Frieds were—whether they were a respectable family, and I told
him I didn't know anything against them ; that as far as I knew, they were respectable people.
17. His Lordship : Did you say "very" respectable ?
A.—I said as far as I knew they were respectable.
18. Q.—You did not say "very?"
A.—No; I didn't put that word.
19. Mr. Taylor : After that, now, chief? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxxv.
A.—Yes, there is a memorandum from the Attorney-General himself, that I must
have my statement in by ten o'clock on a certain morning, as the Executive
met to consider it at twelve—I don't know whether they met for that express
purpose or not. I will put that memorandum in. I think that Mr. Smith, or
some other official of the department, came to me personally. It must be in by
10 o'clock as the Executive met at noon, I think those were the words. I will
have the document here, and your Lordship can see for yourself. I also had a
call from Mr. Smith, I think, or some person from the Attorney-General's
department. I think that call was while I was sitting on the Bench at the
Police Court, and I gave the same answer there that I gave to the Attorney-
General on the first occasion, in effect, that I would not make any reply until
I had disposed of the matter in the Police Court. I may say that I finished
the case in the Police Court about five o'clock one afternoon and I only had till
ten the next morning to make my reply.    The reply was drawn hurriedly.
49. Q.—You sent in a reply, before ten of the following morning?
A—I did.
50. Q.—That reply was in the form of this declaration of yours?
A.—It was ; yes.
51. His Lordship : What is the date of that declaration ?
A.—The 9th of September.
52. Mr. Taylor: Did you make that declaration on the morning that you sent it in—I
mean, the day that you declared it ?
A.—I think it was in the office of the Attorney-General within twenty minutes after
the time it was declared.
53. Q.—Was that on the evening that you say you closed the case?
A.—No ; it was the next morning
54. Q.—Then you closed the case on Tuesday at 5 o'clock, and this was in on Wednesday
before ten ?
A.—I do not remember the dates.
55. Q.—That will fix it, if you swear to that interval?
A.—Yes ; that was sworn to, and taken straight to the Attorney-General's office
within a very few minutes.
56. Q.—His first communication to you was on the 7th ?
A.—Yes.
57. Q.—To which you replied that the matter was under consideration ?
A.—Yes.
58. Q.—And you subsequently received a communication  requesting you   to  have  your
reply in before ten o'clock on the following morning ?
A.—Yes ; I think so.
59. Q.—And you immediately prepared this declaration,  declared  it the  next  morning,
and sent it in ?
A.—Yes.
60. Q.—And it is dated the 9th ?
A.—That would be the date.
61. Q.—That would be Wednesday morning?
A.—I could not say the day, but I think that is correct.    I think it was Wednesday.
62. Q,—After you sent that in, had you any further communication with the department?
A.—No.    All I knew was that the matter was going before the Executive, and that
was the last I heard of it until the 18th of December last, when I was told that
this Commission had issued on the 4th or 5th of November previous. The first
official notification I got was dated the 15th of December, and I got it on the
17th or 18th, from the Deputy Provincial Secretary, notifying me that through
an oversight, which he regretted, I had not been informed a Commission had
issued on the 4th of November, for the purpose of this enquiry ; so that two
months elapsed between the filing of the declaration and the issue of the Commission, and another six weeks before I knew of it. I might just say, your
Lordship, that during all the conversation between May and myself at the Police
Court, the Chief of Police and the Sergeant of Police were present. I had no
conversation with him alone at any time. lxxvi. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
63. Q.—In reference to one  clause there,  Mr.  Davie  said  something  about  a  negative
pregnant—oh, well, you have explained that, I think, sufficiently.
64. His Lordship : At the Police Court, the Chief of Police was present ?
A.—The Chief of Police and the Sergeant of Police were both present, and in my
own office my partner was present during all the conversation; at the Attorney-
General's office there were three or four. I have the original letter from the
Attorney-General to me on the 7th of September, and I have now the memorandum in his handwriting (producing document)—" Memo, to Mr. Belyea."
65. Q.—Is this the original memorandum ?
A.—Yes, sir. It is not dated, but is from the Attorney-General's Department, and
is, I believe, in the handwriting of Mr. Davie : " Your statement re May should
be in by 10 a. m. to-morrow, as the Executive will sit at noon." It is not dated
or signed, but I believe it is his writing, and that was the day before it was sent
in. It was sent in the next day. I think my letter in reply to that of 7th
September is also in.
66. Q.—That does not state that the Executive was called together for the purpose of
considering your case ?
A.—Oh, no.
67. Q.—That was your inference ?
A.—I said I did not know whether it was called especially for that purpose or not.
I believe my letter of the 9th, in reply to his containing the declaration, is
already in. I have here the copy that was sent to me, which I believe to be a
copy of the declaration already in, but it is not a copy which, was made at the
same time. It is, therefore, a copy of a copy of the original that was read to
me.    It is a copy of a copy, apparently.
68. Q.—It is sworn to ?
A.—It is a copy; that's all.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General :
69. Q.—Mr. Belyea swears it is a copy ?
A.—All I know is that it was sent to me as a copy, and I believe it is. I have not
compared it, but I have never believed anything different. I never had the
original in my hands.
70. Q.—Never had the draft in your hands ?
A.—The draft—that is what I mean.
71. Q.—I understand you to say that May did not tell you that the Frieds had taken his
daughter from Seattle ?
A.—He never mentioned it.
72. Q.—Neither was it so intimated in any of the documents which he showed you ?
A.—No; I did not see that, Mr. Davie. I read the letters, and they speak for themselves.
73. Q.—What I took you down as saying was :  " So far as I could see, there was nothing
shewing that the Frieds had taken the girl from Seattle."    Did he shew you this
letter of the 27th of August ?
A.—I believe he shewed me all the letters.
74. Q.—That letter does contain such a statement, doesn't it?    "I have a good home ;
the  lady  took  me over  with  her  in  Seattle."    You  say  you read the letter
through ?
A.—Well, I did not draw the same inference from that that you draw from it.
75. Q.—Will  you look   at your declaration, please.    Did you not take that to mean
Mrs. Fried ?
A.—No, I did not take that to mean Mrs. Fried.
76. Q.—Didn't you  take that  to  mean the  same lady she  had  a good home with and
worked for $15 a month for ?
A.—No, I take that to mean Mrs. Marr.
77. Q.—Just look at the first paragraph, I think it is, of your declaration.
A.—It is not the first.
78. Q.—No the third :  "That on the Monday week previous  his daughter, Hattie  May,
aged between 15 and 16 years, had left home without his knowledge or consent,
and for some days he did not know where she was. Finally a letter was
received from her stating that she was in Victoria working with a Mrs. Fried at 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxxvii.
$15 per month. This letter and another, from Hattie May, he handed me,
which I read." Now, then, will you just connect that paragraph in your
declaration with that letter : " I will write to let you know I am in Victoria
and working for a lady which I knew in Seattle, and I stay with her. I am
working for her and get $15 a month. The reason why I wrote you I was
going to get married was because I knew you wouldn't like to let me go. I
like this town very much and I am going to stay. I have a good home. The
lady took me over with her in Seattle." She refers to the same lady with
whom she was working for $15 per month, as taking her over from Seattle?
A.—My statement, in my declaration, is perfectly consistent with what I have
stated now : " Finally a letter was received from her stating that she was in
Victoria working with a Mrs. Fried at $15 per month." May told me; he told
me he believed she was there, according to those letters.
79. Q.—Does not this letter say that Mrs. Fried took her away 1
A. — It does not.
80. Q.—Is not that the meaning ?
A.—No, because  I  asked  May who the girl  left  with, and he said he believed she
came over here with a Mrs. Marr, and that is the lady referred to in that letter.
81. Q.—Could you not see from that that the lady for whom she was working for $15 per
month, was the lady who took her away ?
A.—No, I did not see it in that way at all—not in the light  of the statement that
May made to me.
82. Q.—But in the light of the letters ?
A.—I was not acting on the letters alone ; I had May there.
83. Q.—Is it not the meaning of that letter that Mrs.   Fried  was  the  woman who took
her away from Seattle ?
A.—It does not necessarily mean that.
84. Q.—I will read that part again :  " I am in Victoria and working  for a  lady which I
knew in Seattle, and I stay with her. I am working for her and get $15 per
month. The reason why I wrote you I was going to get married was because I
knew you wouldn't like to let me go. I like this town very much and I am
going to stay. I have a good home. The lady took me over with her in
Seattle." Now, had she mentioned any other lady to whom that could refer ?
A.—No. You can draw whatever inference you like. It was exactly in consequence
of that, that I asked May who the girl left Seattle with, and he said he
believed with a Mrs. Marr.
85. Q.—He gave you to understand that she was with Mrs. Fried ?
A.—Yes.
86. Q.—And you advised a writ of habeas corpus ?
A.—Yes, and I think I was right, too.    I haven't any doubt about it.
87. Q.—Admitting that to be the right remedy, the proper remedy, does it not follow
that the girl must have been illegally detained ?
A.—No ; not necessarily.
88. Q.—Then, you say that the writ of habeas corpus would lie, although the girl was not
illegally detained ?
A.—Why, the girl might stay there, not being detained at all, and the only remedy
to get her away from there would be by habeas corpus.
89. Q.—If   habeas corpus was a proper remedy, does not that,  of  itself,  show that a
criminal prosecution was a proper remedy ?
A.—Not at all; that is just where you and I draw the distinction.    I am going to
produce some authorities here that will overwhelm you on this matter.
(His Lordship ruled that an argument on this point could not take place at this stage,
and   that authorities must   be produced and argument addressed   to him,  as
Commissioner, by counsel, and not by a witness.)
90. Q.—You say that it does not follow that if this was a case in which a habeas corpus
would be successful, that a criminal prosecution would be the proper remedy ?
A.—Not necessarily ; no ; I draw the distinction, because, if your contention were
right, it would wipe away the usefulness of habeas corpus in such cases entirely,
and  we would always have criminal prosecutions, even where there was no
criminal intent whatever.    Criminal prosecution is the proper remedy where Ixxviii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
there is a criminal intent; where there is no criminal intent, habeas corpus is
the proper remedy. The books are full of it, too, although there are cases
where habeas corpus proceedings have been taken, where, undoubtedly, criminal
prosecutions would have succeeded; there must, however, have been a criminal
intent expressed. In this particular case, I think I was justified in what I did,
and I have authorities to support me.
.91.    Q.—That same day, you say, May came to your office about two o'clock ?
A.—Not at two o'clock; he went down with me first, and came back about three.
92. Q.—Was that when he told you that he had already had possession of the girl?
A.—Yes.
93. Q.—He then told you, did he not, that he had had possession of the girl, but she had
gone away from him again, and he believed she was at Fried's ?
A.—That she had asked him if she could go to Fried's to change her clothing or get
some clothing, and he had let her go, and then could not find her.
94. Q.—And he gave you to understand that she was then with Fried ?
A.—He did not say so distinctly; he said she had gone away again.
95. Q.—But that was the impression you gathered ?
A.—My impression was that she had gone back to Fried's and stayed there— not that
the Frieds had taken her away again ; that she'had gone back there again, and
gone back there with his consent. There is no abduction in that; you cannot
make abduction out of it.
(The Commissioner reserved for Mr. Belyea, at the request of his counsel, the right to
state the authorities on which he decided that it was proper to proceed by way
of habeas corpus.)
96. Q.—I want to ask you, Mr. Belyea, if, at the time these letters were handed to you,
you detected the highly perfumed scent which they bear ?
A.—No; they smelt more like an old tobacco pouch than anything else.
97. Q.—Didn't they smell the same then as they do to-day ?
A.—I didn't smell them ; I didn't get near enough, and I wouldn't have suspected
anything if I had; for they may have got that from May ; he was a very sweet-
smelling character.
98. Q.—But that is the way they were perfumed at that time ?
A.—I don't know; I am not in the habit of sticking my nose into places where the
Attorney-General is.
(Commission adjourned to the 7th inst. at ten o'clock a. m.) ixxx. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
A.—Then of course May wanted a warrant, as I say, for the girl. That is the reason
that Mr. Belyea asked me what kind of people the Frieds were.
20. His Lordship : He still used the word "warrant ?"
A.—He used the word "warrant."
21. Mr. Taylor : You say there was something said about getting a lawyer ?
A.—Yes; Mr. Belyea told May that the best way he could proceed is to get a lawyer
and have his daughter brought before a Judge of the Supreme Court. He
wanted to get possession of her.
22. Q.—He told him the best thing he could do was to get a lawyer and have his daugh
ter brought before a Judge of the Supreme Court ?
A.—Yes.
23. Q.—What did May say to that?
A.—May ?—I forget; 1 don't know whether he said anything ; I forget now if he did
say anything, but I know he left with Mr. Belyea ; left the office and went
away.
24. Q.—Do you remember whether anything was said about his not knowing any lawyers ?
A.—He might have said so, but I don't remember that.
25. Q.—You don't remember that?
A.—No ; might have been so.
26. Q.—Well, he left, you say, with Mr. Belyea ?
A.—He left with Mr. Belyea; yes.
27. Q.—-Then when did you next see him, chief ?
A.—I saw him in the Attorney-General's office the following afternoon.
28. Q.—Did you see a shorthand reporter there ?
A.—No ; I did not, sir.
29. Q.—You did not notice anyone ?    Who were there when you wore there ?
A.—Mr. May, the Attorney-General, and myself.    I  was there before  Mr.   Belyea.
30. Q.—That is before Mr. Belyea came ?
A.—Yes, just a short time     He came after, yes.
31. Q.—You say you didn't see anyone else?
A.—No; I didn't notice anyone else there.    I  did  see a  young fellow get up and
hand  Mr.   Davie a note.     I  didn't  notice him before.     I saw a young fellow
hand Mr. Davie a note, and he left.
31a. Q.—The young fellow ?
A.—Yes.
32. Q.—Had you seen him before that ?
A.—No ; I didn't know him, at all. I never saw him in my life. I didn't notice
him there before, at all.    He must have been there.
33. Q.—But had you noticed him there ?
A.—No ; 1 didn't notice him before that.
34. His Lordship : And he went out, you say ?
A.—He went out, your Lordship.
35. Mr. Taylor : Where did this note come from—what direction ?
A.—It come from there—where it stands, I think it was the east side of the desk
where Mr. Davie was sitting.
36. Q.—Was there another desk alongside him ?
A.—No; I didn't see any other desk.    It is a  very large round desk—high.
37. Q._Mr. Davie's desk was ?
A.—Yes.
38. Q.—Where was this note handed from ?
A.—As far as I remember, it was the east end of the desk it was handed—as if he
was sitting—as if the back of the desk was along there, and he got up at this
end and gave a note to Mr. Davie.
39. Q.—What kind of a desk was it ?
A.—One of these large, oval, half-round?
40. Q.—One of those roller desks ?
A—Yes.
41. Q.—The top rolls down ?
A.—Yes ; the top rolls down, a very high desk. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxxxi.
42.    Q.—You think he was at the east end.    You say that this note was handed from
the east side ?
A.—Yes, I think so, yes.
43. Q.—Now, who would have been in a better position to  have  seen  that—you   or  Mr,
Belyea ?
A.—Well, I should have been, of course.    I was a little further on in the room than
Mr. Belyea, but still I was not past the desk.
44. His Lordship : Have you any objection, Mr. Attorney, to my seeing your office ?
Attorney-General:  None, whatever, my Lord.
4 5.    Mr. Taylor : He said he would have been better able to see it than  Mr. Belyea.    (To
witness) :  How long were you there altogether, chief, on that occasion ?
A.—Oh, I don't think we was there more than ten minutes.
46. Q.—Were there any declarations read over, any statements ?
A.—Yes ; there was a statement—Mr. Davie read a statement over to Mr. Belyea.
47. Q.—And Mr. Belyea replied to that ?
A.—Yes; I forget now what it was. Mr. Davie read over a statement to Mr.
Belyea and Mr. Belyea replied. I don't remember now what the wording of it
was, but it was $20 was all I remember about it was in this statement. I know
there was a $20 mentioned.
48. Q.—After that statement was read, and Mr. Belyea replied to it, what occurred ?
A.—Well, I went away—we both left.
49. Q.—Go back for a moment, chief, if you will.     How was it you   came  to  go over to
the office at all that day 1
A.—I was sent for by. Mr. Davie.
50. Q.—And you arrived there before Mr. Belyea did ?
A.—Yes ; well, he was there close behind me.
51. Q.—Did any conversation occur between the  Attorney-General  or anybody  in  the
office?
A.—No, nothing.
52. Q.—Nothing about the merits of the case, at any rate?
A.—No.
53. Q.—May was there you say, then, when you left ?
A.—Yes; when I left, I left him there.
54. Q.—When did you next see him ?
A.—I saw him that same—in the afternoon when he laid the information, and
swore to the information, and the warrant was issued, and arrested Mr. Fried.
55. Q.—That would be —
A.—I believe between 5 and 6 o'clock.
56. Q.—On Saturday—that would be the 5th September ?
A.—That would be the 5th.
57. Q.—Had you seen the girl up to this time—Hattie May ?
A.—I had never seen her.
58. Q.—You had never seen her up to 5 or 6 o'clock on Saturday ?
A.—No.
59. Q.—When did you first see her, chief ?
A.—I think it was about eight, or a little after, that evening, outside the office.
60. Q.—Outside the Police Court office ?
A.—Yes ; this was after the arrest of Fried, of course.
61. Q.—She was there—she came down there?
A.—She came down there, I didn't speak to her, at all.
62. Q.—Was May there ?
A.—No ; I didn't see him.
63. Q.—Was not May there ?
A.—Oh, yes ; he was there.
64. Attorney-General: You say you saw him ?
A.—No ; I won't be sure; it was a little dusk, then. He might have been there, I
forget.
65. Mr. Taylor : Hadn't he been about there that evening ?
A.—Oh, yes ; he had been there before that.
66. Q.—In the evening, after six ? lxxxii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
A.—Yes.
67. His Lordship :  Who had been ?
A.—May ; of course he would know the man was arrested.
68. Mr. Taylor : You are not positive whether May was there ?
A.—No ; I would not be positive of that.
69. Q.—Were you in the Police Court at the investigation before Mr. Belyea ?
A.—I was.
70. Q.—Mr. May was present there, wasn't he ?
A.—He was.
71. Q.—And Mr. Walls appeared as counsel for him?
A.—Yes.
72. Q.—Do you remember a statement being made there by Mr. Walls?
Attorney-General :   Excuse  me, my Lord ; if Mr.  Walls has   made any   statement
he is the proper man to give evidence on it, and not have this secondary evidence
His Lordship : Yes ; that is right.
Mr. Taylor : My learned friend, with all due deference, is jumping before he comes
to the stile.
His Lordship : You can get Mr. Walls at a moment's notice.
Mr. Taylor : Pardon me, my Lord, I think I am entitled to produce evidence of it.
A deposition together with the judgment at the Police Court delivered by Mr.
Belyea were put in by Mr. Attorney—
His Lordship : I have not seen those things.
Mr. Taylor : That is probably the reason why your Lordship, not having had time to
go through them, would not appreciate my putting this question.
Attorney-General : I don't know whether your Lordship is going to allow this kind
of thing.
His Lordship : Was it anything made under oath ?
Mr. Taylor : No ; it was a statement which was accepted as part of the evidence in
the case.
His Lordship : I should like to hear Mr. Walls on that.
Mr. Taylor : It is in there, my Lord. I should like to call your attention to the fact
that it is in the deposition. There is no objection to my calling your attention
to it, with a view to laying a foundation for this question ?
His Lordship : You are not limited in any way whatever. It is impossible for anyone to have had a more free hand than that which I have endeavoured to give to
you.
Mr. Taylor : On both sides, my Lord. But it is in view of this fact that I wish to
bring this matter to your notice.
His Lordship : It will be sufficient for me to make a note of that. I do not want to
have it so that anyone shall ever after say there was any objection to the Commissioner's opinion on the ground that it was founded partly, or might have
been, on that which had not been entered. That is my reason if I do not limit
you to anything.
Mr. Taylor : I am going to endeavour to shew, as far as I can, the reason that I am
entitled to ask this question, and I am then going to ask your Lordship to direct
whether I am entitled to ask it. The reason is this : At that preliminary investigation at the Police Court, Mr. Walls stated—
Attorney-General : You are going to get the evidence down. Your Lordship sees
that this is all being done for the newspapers. It is just as well that your
Lordship should understand that. There is no good blinding your eyes to the
fact.
His Lordship : I will take care of this thing.
Attorney-General : I withdraw all objection. Let my friend ask what question he
likes. I think it will be much better to allow him to have his own fling and
bring the evidence out.    I understand exactly what Mr. Taylor is doing.
His Lordship : I am not of that opinion as far as the propriety or impropriety of
getting it is concerned. I want to know, is it a statement upon which Mr.
Walls can be examined himself ?
Mr. Taylor : Possibly ; but the statement itself has nothing whatever to do with it. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxxxiii.
His Lordship :  He was only counsel in the case, and not a witness.
Mr. Taylor : It was accepted as going in, not being under oath ; admitted by May,
there, himself, and everyone else.
Attorney-General: At all events, I think we had better have the statement.
His Lordship : It is not the regular thing ; and you know it, yourself.
Mr. Taylor: Your Lordship will see that I have been interrupted by my learned
friend half a dozen times, simply for the sake of interruption. He seeks to
whittle away the effect of the question. I was endeavouring to show your Lordship the reason why I asked the question, and I was interrupted.
His Lordship : If you absolutely press it, I should say the best way is to get Mr.
Walls; but the objection is withdrawn, and you are at liberty to ask it.
Mr. Taylor : But it is not his statement.
His Lordship : I know that.
Mr. Taylor : I think you see that after trying to explain, Counsel interrupts, and it
is impossible to proceed with the matter.
His Lordship : If Counsel interrupts, it does not affect me much.
Mr. Taylor : Certainly not, your Lordship, but	
His Lordship : Don't you see, you seem as if you are talking to the galleries.
Attorney-General : That is it, my Lord.
His Lordship : Will you be good enough to keep silence, and keep order in the Court ?
The only person who needs to be addressed in the matter is the Commissioner,
who has to give his opinion; and you are so earnest and enthusiastic, Mr.
Taylor—though it is an excellent thing for a Counsel to be enthusiastic in the
case which he conducts—that you forget that it is to me especially that it has to
be directed, just as if I was Judge and jury together. At least, that is the way
I look at it.
Mr. Taylor : Your Lordship is entitled to look at it that way, and I am perfectly
welcome to your opinion, but it is not the way that 1 look at it.
73. His Lordship : If 50,000 people were here, and as many newspapers were represented,
I should only regard what is evidence.
Mr. Taylor: Just pardon me.    I don't care two straws what the newspapers say, nor
have I raised any objection, except that my learned friend seems to be of such
delicate fibre that he seems to be touched by what appears in the newspapers.
Will your Lordship allow me to go on with it?
His Lordship: Certainly; I do not forbid you ; I do not allow you because I did not
have to pass upon it; but as a Judge I should say that the best evidence is the
evidence of the man himself, and I take it down.
Mr. Taylor: Allow me to say, it is not the statement of Mr. Walls I seek to get in;
but it is the fact that I seek to prove.
His Lordship: You told me it was a statement of Mr. Walls.
Mr. Taylor: I think you have there that the Chief has already sworn that Mr. Walls
made a statement 1
His Lordship :   " Asks about  statement of Mr.  Walls—discussion."    That   is all I
have got.
74. Mr. Taylor (to witness): Do you remember anything being said  there about the girl
being present on Saturday evening at the Police Court, by any one ?
A.—Yes; it was mentioned by Mr. Walls that she was there.
75. Q.—Where?
A.—At the outside the Police Court.
76. Q.—Was anything said about May being there ?
A.—Well, that I really forget.
77. Q.—You don't remember that?
A.—No.
78. Q.—Is Sergeant Levin here?
Q.—No.
79. Q.—How long would it take you to get him ?
A.—Not very long; he is in bed.
80. Q.—Is he in bed now ?
A.—Yes.
J lxxxiv. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria 1892
81. Q.—At all events, now, chief, can you sa}', of your   own knowledge, whether or not
the girl was there that evening ?
A.—Oh, yes ; I saw her there, but, as I say, I didn't speak to her.
82. Q.—You did see the girl on Saturday evening?
A—I did.
83. Q.—His Lordship : When did you first see her ?    About eight, or a little after, outside
the Police Office, after the arrest of Fried ?
A.—Yes; on the night of the 5th September,
84. His Lordship : That,  Mr. Taylor,  was the answer  he gave before.     It is  no good
cross-examining your own witness.
85. Mr. Taylor : No; I am simply seeking to get out the fact; he does not seem to remem
ber it.    Sergeant Levin, of course, was there at the time.
(Cross-examined by the Attorney-General) :
86. Q.—Superintendent Sheppard, you say that May told you he wanted a warrant to
arrest his daughter, and you told  him you would send  a constable up to arrest
his daughter?
A.—Yes.
87. Q.—And he said he didn't want that; he wanted his daughter brought to him ?
A.—He wanted his daughter brought to him.
88. Q.—He did not seem to be very anxious then to get his daughter?
A.—Well, he didn't seem to me.
89. Q.—And you thought it was a case for habeas corpus ?
A. —I thought so.
90. Q.—And you told him so ?
A.—I told him so.
90.    Q.—And a habeas corpus against whom ?
A.—To bring the girl before the Judge.
92. Q,—But a habeas corpus against whom ?
A.—Against the Frieds, if they detained her.
93. Q.—I thought you told us, just now, the complaint was against Mrs. Marr?
A.—No; he said his daughter left Seattle with a Mrs. Marr.
94. Q.—And he showed you that letter of August 27th ?
A.—I had the two letters, but I only read the one
95. Q.—Did he tell you anything different from what was in the letter?
A.—No; it stated in the letter she was working for the Frieds at $15.00 a month.
96. Q.—In fact, he told you about the same thing as was in the letter ?
A.—Yes; he told me she left without his consent.
97. Q.—Now, is your memory in this matter any better to-day than it was at the time
this thing occurred ?
A.--No.
98. Q.—Is it any better than it was on the 9th September ?
A.—On the 9th ?
99. Q.— Yes, Wednesday ?
A.—When it was before the Court ?
100. Q.—That is, after the Court.    Is your memory any better now than it was then ?
A.—No.
101. Q.—You made an affidavit or declaration in this matter, didn't you,  on the 9th
September ?
A.—Yes, I did.
102. Q.—At whose request?
A.—I forget that.
103. Q.—You remember all  these circumstances you told us, but you forget at whose
request you made that affidavit ?
A.—I said, I forget now.
104. Q.—You have a rather poor memory, Mr. Sheppard, haven't you ?
A.—Generally, very good.
105. Q.—But upon that subject not very good?
A.—Yes.
106. Q.—Now, Mr. Sheppard, can you remember what was your object in making that
affidavit ? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxxxix.
153. Mr. Taylor: For the girl?
A.—Well, for the girl's father; and I told him to go and see Eberts & Taylor, and he
went away. Some time afterwards Mr. May came in ; I don't know just when ;
it seems to me it was—I have got conflicting notions as to that. At one time
it seems it was quite shortly afterwards, and another time perhaps an hour or
more ; but Mr. May came in, and Mr. Belyea told him the result of our conversation with Fried, and told him we had better proceed now with the habeas corpus. No,—that is not right. He said he came in and told us—I remember
more clearly, now.    It seems coming back to me since I started to tell it.
154. His Lordship :  If you say anything that you are not quite certain about,  and recol
lect, and wish to correct, do not hesitate to do so.
Witness : Oh, certainly, T will. I say, since speaking in the matter I remember
more distinctly. I remember it was some little time afterwards,—perhaps an
hour or more when Mr. May came in again, and I looked up Mr. Belyea and
says—he asked—he said he wanted to get his daughter. Mr. Belyea said :
"Well, I thought you had your daughter ?" and he said he had her and had gone
down to the post office with her. This was the previous part of the conversation which 1 had with Mr. Belyea. He said he wanted his daughter, and Mr.
Belyea said, "Why, I thought you had your daughter," or words to that effect—
I don't pretend to repeat the exact words, and he said he had had her, but she
left him again at the post office. He said he had gone down to the post office
with her, and she asked him if she might go back to the Frieds—back to the
house I think he said she said, and I think it was to get something.
155. His Lordship : Yes ; you mean to the Frieds?
A.—I think that is what he meant. That is what I took out of it, anyway, and he
had consented and he had waited for her. She had gone back, and he had been
waiting for her, and she had told him how long she would be gone, but she did
not turn up.
156. Q.—Meaning "come back again to the post office?"
A.—Yes ; "come back again to the post office." I understood the post office was the
rendezvous after she returned from Fried's, but she failed to keep her appointment, and then he came back and told us that he wanted his girl. So, hearing
this, Mr. Belyea and I began talking about the thing; but first—
157. His Lordship :  "Then she came to our office ?"
A.—No, not the girl. Mr. May came to our office. I might say, on coming in, Mr.
May said that the girl had been up at our office, which surprised me very much,
because the girl was certainly never there to my knowledge—I was there all the
morning, except for a moment or two when I was down at chambers. The girl
was certainly not in the office, at all. The man seemed to be somewhat confused about all his notions.
158. Mr. Taylor : Did you ever tell him she was there?
A.—Never, or anything like it. In fact, I told him she was not there—when she had
not been there.
159. His Lordship : And I believe what you say, too.
A.—After Mr. May told me the circumstances of the girl leaving him at the post
office and not returning ] sort of cross-questioned Mr. May with a view of finding out what he intended to do with the girl, because I saw by one of the letters
a hint of cruelty, and Mr. Fried started to say something of the same nature
when Mr. Belyea came in, and the conversation dropped. I questioned him
very particularly as to the girl; what she had been doing, and what he was going to do ; but the only thing I remember him saying : "I want my girl. I
don't care whether she only remains two hours or not, I am bound to have her."
He used that very expression : "I don't care whether she only stops home two
hours or not." For my part, I made up my mind that Mr. May was not influenced by real fatherly motives, but was anxious to get his girl for the purpose
of punishing her before leaving. I was sitting down, and Mr. Belyea, I think,
was standing at the window, and I said : " Mr. Belyea, I don't think Mr. May
is influenced by proper motives," knowing that if a case of cruelty was made out
it would be fatal to a habeas corpus proceeding, or possibly be fatal—it would
have to be very strong.    I thought that such a defence would be so set up by the 55 Vict. ENQumy re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1xxx\
A.—No; I really don't know just at present.
107. Q.—You don't know that the object of making that affidavit was laying the facts of
this case before the Government, do you?
A.—I believe it was.
108. Q.—You cannot recollect who asked you to make the affidavit, or what the  object of
making the affidavit was ?
A.—I believe it was yourself ; I am not sure ; I could not say.
109. Q.—Now (producing document), just be kind enough to look at this affidavit, and see
if that is your affidavit that you made ?
A.—I took no notice at the time; that is my signature.
110. Q.—Did you not make that affidavit at the request of Mr. Belyea, corroborating what
Mr. Belyea had said ?
A.—Yes ; I did, before Mr. Shakespeare, I remember.
111. Q.—Your memory is very poor upon this  whole matter,  isn't it,  when you cannot
remember at whose request you made the affidavit ?    You say you thought you
made it at my request, and now you come to consider further, you see, you find
out you made it at the request of Mr. Belyea ?
A.—Yes.
112. Q.— In vindication of Mr. Belyea, isn't it?
A.—Well, it is exactly what I knew	
113. Q.—I suppose it was intended to be a full statement,  wasn't it 1
A.—Yes.
114. Q.—How was it when you made this full statement on the  9th  September—all you
had to say in the matter—how was it you did not tell us about this  man  refusing to have a constable sent up for his  daughter, and  about your  having told
him about habeas corpus ?
A.—Didn't I state it there ?
115. Q.—(Affidavit read.)    Now, Mr. Belyea said nothing about your  telling  him   of  the
habeas corpus nor about sending up a constable.     I want  to  know  how it was
you never told these circumstances at that time ?
A     1 don't know ; but they were said at that time.
116.—Q.—But  this is the  first time  that you have stated under oath,  or have stated it
officially ?
Mr. Taylor :  He does not  purport  to do  that  in there.    He simply says what Mr.
Belyea said was true.
117. Attorney-General (to witness): Is this the first time,   Mr. Sheppard,  that  you  have
made any statement of this kind officially ?
A.—Yes ; the first time.    I gave no evidence in the Police Court.
118. Q,—No, you gave no evidence in the Police Court, and this is the first time you have
stated anything of the kind, officially ?
A.—Yes.
119. Q.—Now, you say you gave no evidence in the Police Court.    You never  informed
Mr. Taylor, I suppose—who was defending him—what  May  had told  you, or
would you have told him at the time of the evidence in the Police Court ?
A.—I might have told him.
120. Q.—You don't remember that you did ?
A.—I might have done so; I might have told him  what he said in the Police Court
—that is on the Fried case.
121. Q.—However, this is the first time of your having officially stated what you are
stating now ?
A.—Yes.
122. Q.—As a portion of what you have told us, you say that you told May before he
spoke to—before you introduced him to—the Police Magistrate, that his proper
remedy was by habeas corpus ?    You thought it was a case for habeas corpus?
A.—I thought so ; of course I am not a lawyer.
123. Q.—Just so.    If he got a writ of habeas corpus,  of course you expected he would
pay for it—pav a lawyer for getting it ?
A.—Yes.
124. Q.—Then when Mr. Belyea told May the same thing, you were not at all surprised,
were you ? Ixxxvi. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892-
A.—No.
125. Q.—Neither, I suppose, were you surprised  to hear that Mr.   Belyea  had  intimated
that a fee of $20 would be right for getting it ?
A.—Well, of course, I don't know whether he did or not.
126. Q.— You heard it?
A.—I heard it.
127. Q.—You heard him read it in the Attorney-General's office?
A.—Yes, I heard it.
128. Q.—And in view of Mr. Belyea being a solicitor, and giving the same advice  as you
gave, you did not think there was anything wrong about it ?
A.—No.
129. Q.—Tell me this, on your oath : Did not  Mr.  Belyea's conduct at that  time, strike
you as very singular indeed—the action that he took in this matter?
Mr. Taylor : That is a matter of opinion.    That is  what this investigation is for.    I
object to any opinion evidence from Mr. Sheppard.
130. Attorney-General  (to  witness): Did  not   Mr.   Belyea's   conduct   strike  you  as  very
strange indeed—very unbecoming ?
A.—I thought something of that kind, to take him to some other lawyer.
131. Q.—You thought it very unbecoming?
A.—I would not say that.
132. Q.—Did you not think it was so unbecoming that you   wrote  to Fredericton at that
time enquiring about Mr. Belyea's antecedents ?
Mr. Taylor : 1 object to that.
Attorney-General:  It is a very material question, because' Mr. Sheppard's  views and
opinions about this matter are altogether different from what they were at that
time.
133. Mr. Taylor : Now, may I ask your Lordship for a ruling upon it?    I simply object to
my learned friend asking the opinion of the witness.
His Lordship : I agree with your objection. I do not wish anything to be brought
into this Commission that is not immediately connected with it.
Mr. Taylor: I am glad that your Lordship agrees with me.
His Lordship : Not with you ; but I only rule on the question.
Mr. Taylor : As long as you make that ruling I am satisfied.
Mr. Belyea : Will your Lordship permit me to say a word here ? I am the person
most vitally interested here, and want to know the facts of this; and if Mr.
Davie is ready to go into antecedents I am ready for him any day.
His Lordship : I must restrict you, Mr. Attorney, because life is short.
Attorney-General : I am merely dealing with the recollection and credibility of this
witness. Of course, if your Lordship rules that I cannot ask this question I
will not proceed ; but I want to know whether this conduct of Mr. Belyea, in
connection with the Fried matter, did not strike him as so unbecoming that he
wrote to the Superintendent of Police at Fredericton, enquiring about his
antecedents ?
134. His Lordship (to witness): Do not answer that.
A.—No ; I would not answer it.
135. Q.—If it was necessary to answer I would make you answer.
A.—Yes, I would, your Lordship, but I don't think it has anything to do with it.
136. His  Lordship :   It is  not  for  him  to  say  whether  he  will answer it or not, and if
necessary for the purpose of justice, he has to answer it.
Witness : I know, your Lordship, but it hasn't anything to do with this case.
137. His Lordship : I know, but that is for me to decide.    You may  rule in your Police
Court, but not here.    I direct you not to answer that.
A.—Very good, your Lordship.
138. His Lordship: In reference to this habeas corpus, not so much  with  reference to this
case, as to your conduct as Superintendent of Police in the police office, what
business had you to express any opinion to Mr. May as to what was the proper
course for him to pursue, when you had a special chief over you—Mr. Belyea—
to consult ? What business had you to advise Mr. May that a habeas corpus
was his remedy when you had no authority to express your opinion on the
subject? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. lxxxvii.
A.—I merely told Mr. May I thought so, and would introduce him to Mr. Belyea
and get his opinion.
139. Q.—What business had you to tell Mr. May what you thought?    You  are an  officer
in a municipal office.    What business had you,  as police officer,  to express  an
opinion  as  to  remedies  for  persons applying to the police for the redress of
wrongs, or for remedies ?
A.—Well, I have a good many people come here—
140. Q.—But what business have you to express an authoritative opinion on   cases  before
you, which can only be expressed by your superior officer ?
A.—I didn't.    I say I introduced him to Mr. Belyea.
141. Q.—Do  not mistake  what  I  mean.    I try to  make my words as clear as I can ; I
articulate them as clearly as possible, so "that he who runs may read." What
business had you, in the presence of your superior officer—or whether your
superior officer is near or not—to give an authoritative opinion as to what you
thought he should or should not do ?
A.—I didn't see any harm in it, your Lordship. I did certainly introduce him to Mr.
Belyea.
142. Q.—That is right enough.    I am complaining that you did not introduce him  before
you spoke to the man.
A —Yes ; I understand your Lordship now.
Mr. Taylor: I made, a moment ago, an objection to this going in. I now ask your
Lordship to allow me to withdraw that objection, and to allow this witness to
state anything that happened—any communication that he had, and any answer
he received.
His Lordship : Your objection was withdrawn, as far as that is concerned, before.
Mr. Taylor: The only thing I want understood is, on behalf of Mr. Belyea, we have
not the slightest objection. On the contrary, we would rather have the whole
of this thing gone into, if your Lordship thinks it pertinent to the enquiry.
His Lordship : I do not think it is, but I make a note of what you have said.
F. B. Gregory, called and sworn.    Examined by Mr. Taylor:
143. Q.—Francis B. Gregory is your name, I think?
A—Yes.
144. Q.—You are a partner of Mr. Belyea?
A.—I am.
145. Q._What is "B"?
A.—" Brooke ;" after the Rev. Dr. Brooke—if that will help him.
146. Q.—Do you remember meeting this man May?
A—I do.
147. Q.—Last September ?
A.—I remember meeting May. I think it was in September; I am not positive
about the month.
148. Q.—Where?
A.—In my own office; the office of Belyea & Gregory.
149. Q.—Will you tell his Lordship exactly what occurred while he was in there?
A.—Well, Mr. Belyea came in the office while I was sitting at my desk, followed
immediately by Mr. May, and at Mr. Belyea's request we all went into Mr.
Belyea's room; and Mr. Belyea then stated to me the facts of the case about as
he has stated them here, which I have not—
His Lordship : Came into your room ?
A. — We went into Mr. Belyea's room. I made a declaration, my Lord, at the time,
that has already been spoken of, which I would like to look at to refresh my
memory, because I have not thought of it since until this investigation. Mr.
Belyea said that Mr. May had applied to him as Police Magistrate to get his
daughter from the Frieds, and he said that he had told Mr. May at the time,
after enquiring into the circumstances—repeating the contents, the subject
matter of the letters, and the enquiries he had made of the authorities (Sergeant
of Police) as to the character of the Frieds—he had then told him that he had
no jurisdiction to issue a warrant for the arrest of the girl, and he had no juris- lxxxviii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
diction to take any proceedings under the criminal law, and he told him that he
brought him down here to take proceedings by habeas corpus. He asked me
what I thought about it ? I must first state that Mr. May had stated that the
girl had left Seattle without his knowledge, and he produced some letters. I
see there are three ; I thought there were only two; but the two that I read
were, I think, the two longer ones. The short one I do not remember reading.
I certainly read the other two long ones.
150. Q.—You say they were all there?
A.—No ; I cannot say I remember three; I remember two. I do not remember any
particular number, but I remember the contents of those two letters which I
remember reading.
151. His Lordship :  Were there three papers?
A.—That I cannot say ; there may have been three. The short one is very short. 1
think it was there, but I would not like to say it was. Mr. May said that he
believed his' daughter had left home with a Mrs. Marr, who had come over here
She was now living here with Mr. and Mrs. Fried, working for them for $15 a
month—which information, I believe, he got from the letters ; one of the letters
certainly stated that. So Mr. Belyea and I talked the matter over for just a
moment, and he asked me if I did not think habeas corpus the proper proceeding,
and I immediately said "yes," as had been done in the Webb case; for, a few
months before that, a Miss Webb was detained by one of our citizens here, and
it was Messrs. Eberts & Taylor took proceedings, and the proceedings that then
were taken were habeas corpus proceedings. Mr. Belyea said he had no
authority to act as Police Magistrate, and he would take habeas corpus proceedings, and told May he would draft the affidavits that were necessary there and
then. He certainly stated he would do this first, as a precautionary measure to
prevent the Frieds, if disinclined to give the girl up, and inclined to detain her—
of which at that time we had no knowledge what he would do—to give ourselves
an opportunity of speaking to the Judge immediately for a writ of habeas corpus,
so that in the event of Fried refusing, we could serve the writ on him and have
the child brought up. And while Mr. Belyea was drafting these I had occasion
to go down to the Chief Justice's chambers, and I enquired of the Chief Justice
while there, if he—I put it this way : I asked him how long he would be in his
chambers in the afternoon, and I think he said " until about half-past two," and
I told him that we wished to make an application to take out a writ of habeas
corpus to him ; and there was a little, just a very little, said about the subject,
and I left him. The affidavits were drafted. I went into my own room while
Mr. Belyea was doing the work ; I got out some precedents on my desk, just
opposite the door between Mr. Belyea's room and my own, which door was left
open. I heard some conversation going on in there; I don't know that I heard
it all. Mr. Belyea sent the clerk up to Fried's with a message. I don't remember his doing that, but I remember the clerk coming back and saying Fried was
away. I came back to the office immediately after luncheon, and Mr. Fried
came in very shortly afterwards, and wanted to know what we wanted him for ?
I don't think that I stated the whole case to him. I think I just had a little
conversation with him when Mr. Belyea came in, and Mr Fried did say, I think,
something to the effect that Mr. May was cruel to his daughter, but nothing
very much, anyway. In fact, we had hardly opened our conversation when Mr.
Belyea came in.
152. His Lordship : Who said that ?
A.—Mr. Fried, the man in whose house Miss May was at the time. Mr. Belyea
asked Fried if he was willing to give up the girl, and he didn't say "no," neither
did he say "yes." I think he laughed, and said "Eberts & Taylor were his lawyers in the matter—that he had engaged them," and I think immediately afterwards said that the girl had gone to her father—with her father. "Her father
had come to the house and got her," I think he said. Now, Mr. Fried, I think,
then went away. Oh, no ; Mr. Fried—he was addressing himself particularly to
me—asked what he should do. I told him that we could not advise him, at all,
but that Eberts <fe Taylor being his lawyers he had better go to them. I said
we would go for the girl, and we would get her, anyway. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria.
them Judges in their own case ; it is causing their duty to conflict with their
pecuniary interest. It seems to me so; I may be wrong. But whether that
be the case, if there be no violation of principle, your Honour will report
accordingly ; if there be a violation of principle, then we will know that, so that
those in a similar position to Mr. Belyea will know whether or not such conduct
as he admits himself—I don't think we need go further than the statement—
then the sooner we shall know whether his conduct is right or wrong.
His Lordship : Then I understand you to say, Mr. Attorney, as you put it, the
enquiry is into the general facts of the case, as relating to Mr. Belyea ?
Attorney-General : Just so, sir.
His Lordship : Mr. Belyea's views and actions with regard to dismissing the case,
and then dealing with it in his private office ?
Attorney General : Yes; proceeding with the case at all under the circumstances.
However, that is possibly more a matter of indelicacy than anything else, but
there the facts are, just as I have stated. I believe there are some conflicts in
the account given by August May and Mr. Belyea, but in the brief statement
I have just given your Honour I have not dealt with those discrepancies,
because I really think it is hardly pertinent to this enquiry.
His Lordship : Then it is not in the nature itself of a criminal charge ?
Attorney-General: It cannot be, your Honour, this way.
His Lordship : It is not capable of being reduced to that form ?
Attorney-General : Precisely. If this was a criminal charge the matter would not
be taken in the shape of proceeding by commission ; it would proceed by
criminal indictment. Now, I do not know whether any of those papers which
were sent	
Mr. Taylor : Before they go in in this case, my Lord, I would like to understand
exactly how we are placed in this matter. I understand there never has been
any complaint in this. This commission is purely of the Attorney-General's
volition, and he does not propose to make any charges. Now, it only remains
to ask your Lordship whether you will direct any to be made ?
His Lordship : Well, but you do not understand	
Mr. Taylor : I believe I do, quite, sir.
His Lordship : No, of course I have not had anything to do with the matter. I
never read a word of it in the paper; only what I just gathered here, and of
course, casual conversation will occur—you will hear persons talking that way,
but it goes in at one ear and out of the other. But I say now the meaning of
the enquiry—and it is an enquiry—is to ascertain the fact, not with a view to
make a charge.     That is what it comes to now.
Mr. Taylor : It is the view of the Attorney to justify himself in advising the commission.    He starts it of his own volition.    There is no complaint.
His Lordship : The matter is before me by the Commission, and I am obliged to deal
with it. I have either to say I will take the Commission or not. There it is
stated, and that I must deal with ; and it will be necessary, therefore, to take
the evidence to ascertain what were the facts that transpired with regard to
that, and in the giving of that evidence Mr. Belyea will be as much represented
as anyone else.
Mr. Taylor : I understand your Lordship, then, to agree with the Attorney-General
that it is not necessary for him to make the charges ?
His Lordship: Not to formulate the charge, which, I think, would be giving it a
criminal aspect. It really appears to me, as far as I can see now, by just a
casual glance, it does not deserve that.
Mr. Taylor : Of course, if your Lordship rules we are not entitled to have a specific
charge made. There is another thing : it is apparently outlined here by Mr.
Attorney, something that is not even suggested or hinted at even in August
May's declaration, that Mr. Belyea ought not to have taken this case.
His Lordship : I have nothing to do with that.
Mr. Taylor : That is the trouble, you see.    It leaves me in such a vague position.
His Lordship : Unless it should come in as drawn in by the other facts of the- case
which are not before me.    Of course I neither shut my eyes nor my mind as to vi. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
any necessary  deduction of fact  which  may be eliminated  in  the process of
enquiry.
Mr. Taylor : Then the utmost I can get out of this—Mr. Belyea should not act in a
civil capacity for August May ?
His Lordship : You want to separate one part from the whole and divide it up into
separate allegations, as if it were a pleading.    It is not capable of that.
Mr. Taylor : No; I want to know, my Lord, what we have to meet, and I cannot at
this minute get it.
His Lordship : Well, he complains of his general  conduct being practically  equivalent to malversation of office, not amounting to a criminal charge at all.
Attorney-General :   I   want to   know   whether   this   is   a   fair   example   for   other
Magistrates ?
Mr. Taylor : I object to have the affidavit going in at all, my Lord.    It was not made
under any local statute that I am aware of.
His Lordship : It is part of the enquiry.    He is liable under it, if it should be proved
he is falsifying it, for perjury.
Attorney-General : To meet my friend's views I will call August May, and  ask  him
to give his statement again.
Mr. Taylor : Then I understand that that document does not go in in evidence.
His Lordship : But it is before the Commission.    It is, as it were, the document you
are asking for.
Mr. Taylor : This alleged declaration purports to be made  under the Oaths Ordinance.    There is nothing in that Ordinance authorizing this, and, therefore, if
this is proved false, we cannot proceed against May upon it.
Attorney-General: It is a declaration; if you read the Oaths  Ordinance, you will
see that a declaration is always directed to be taken in a matter which  is not
the subject of judicial enquiry.
Mr. Taylor : I object to that.
His Lordship : If he makes a false statement you want to have him so that perjury
shall be assigned  upon him, and you  think  that perjury cannot be assigned
upon him in the proceeding.    Is that you view ?
Mr. Taylor : Yes, my Lord, any way.
His Lordship : I have got to meet that, and, therefore, we will have the man himself.
August May, called and sworn ; examined by the Attorney-General.
1. Q.—What is your name?
A.—August May.
2. Q.—Where do you live ?
A.—Seattle.
3. Q.—Are you a married man ?
A.—Yes.
4. Q. —How many have you got in the family ?
A.—Three of them.
5. Q.— What are they ?
A.—Two girls and one boy.
6. Q.—What is the age of the boy ?
A.—He is 23 years.
7. Q.—And the eldest girl ?
A.—The one will be 18—the eldest one—and the second will be 16 next February.
8. Q.—And that is your youngest child?
A.—Yes.
9. Q.—What is her name?
A.—Hattie.
10. Q.—Your wife is alive?
A.—Yes.
11. Q.—You live with her, do you?
A.—Yes.
12. Q.—You live with your family at Seattle, do you?
A.—Yes; live all together. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. vii.
13. Q.—What is you occupation?
A.—I am carpenter.
14. Q.—Do any of your children follow any occupation?
A.—Yes; the son he is a little engraver, was, and eldest daughter is book-binder.
15. Q.—And does the youngest child do anything?
A.—Yes; she work in the box factory—cigar boxes.
16. Q.—And they all live at home?
A—Yes.
17. Q.—You have one common table?
A.—Yes; they all eat together.
18. Q.—I suppose they contribute their wages to the general support?
A.—Yes.
19. Q.—Was that the state of affairs last September?—the beginning of September!
A.—Yes.
20. Q.—Did anything happen the first week in September with any of your children?
A.—No; not what I know.    I didn't know anything.
21. Q.—Hattie was at home, was she, at the commencement of September?     Did she go
away?
A.—Yes; she left home.    I don't know anything at all about it
22. Q.—When was it that she left home?
A.—Well, he went out about half-past nine o'clock—I don't know exactly—till it
come six o'clock regular to supper, she didn't come in. It comes nine o'clock,
and after she sent a letter saying she had gone to Victoria—the letter must be
here—that she was going to be married.    I cannot read English.
23. Q.—Attorney-General: Mr. Belyea has seen these letters?
A.—She sent a letter to his sister, not to me; the address was to sister.
24. His Lordship: To her sister?
25. Attorney-General: She sent to the eldest daughter?
A.—Yes.
26     Q.—Was this the letter?    (Reads letter dated Victoria,  August  27th).    That must
be another.
Witness: The first was sent to the sister.
27. Q.—Did you (producing document) get this letter from her?
A.—Yes.    This was brought by a boy the night.
28. Q.—That was one of the letters.    (Marked " A.")    That (producing document) is one
of the letters?
A.—Yes.    (Marked exhibit "B.")
29. Q.—Here is another letter.    (Read and marked exhibit  "C")    In consequence of
what you had heard about your daughter's whereabouts, did you come to
Victoria?
A.—Well, I came here, I forget the day which it was. It was Tuesday night; on
Friday morning I came here and I ask for the Police Station is where, and a
fellow told me and I went over there; it was about eight o'clock I went over
here, and no one I see except a policeman, except a policeman, and I ask him
what I can do, and he shewed me the letters, and he told me to wait till half-
past nine till the Chief of Police comes, and I gone up there waiting there and
the Chief comes and told me he cannot do anything, I had to wait till the
Magistrate comes. The Magistrate comes, and then the Magistrate he saw me
and told me he hadn't got no time, but as soon as another case would be through
he would come and finish mine. After the case was done, he took me there in
the office and he read them letters, and he told me to go along.
30. Q.—You shewed him these letters?
A.—Yes; the Chief of Police gave it to him.    I gave it to the Chief the first thing.
31. Q.—He read the letters?
A.—Yes; and after he told me to go along with him up town in his office.
32. Q.—What then?
A.—Then he takes a paper and write and makes me sign. I forget what he write.
Of course, you know, I cannot understand very much English. I signed this
paper, and then I ask him how much, and he told me he charge me $20.    I said 33.
Q-
A.
34.
Q--
A.
35.
Q.-
A.
36.
Q.-
A.
viii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
I hadn't got no $20.00 by me, but maybe I could raise it. I am going to send
a telegram home and maybe I gets it; and after I go to Fried's house. I was
very short of money.    I thought I could not throw out $20.00.
—You did not pay the $20.00 which he ask you?
—No; I did not have it.
-After you left Mr. Belyea's office, what did you do?
-I went down to Fried's house, and I seen there Fried and his wife and my
daughter, and I ask Fried—
-He kept a barber's shop here, didn't he?
-Yes.
-And you saw Fried?
-And he told me, well he would not keep it, he can go. And they took him in
the other room, they were eating dinner together. I was in the other room, he
did not let me in; the door was a little bit open and Fried says: "Well, you go
along with the old fellow. I will go and see a lawyer and I will find out what
he want to do." After Fried left the house, and my daughter sat there, and I
said: "Will you go?" and she said "yes." She had some man's ring on his
finger, and I say "how you get those?"    I say, "those gentleman rings."
-You saw some rings on her finger?
-Yes.
-And you asked her where she got the rings?
—Yes; she didn't tell me anything. She say she go and change the rings after
she come back from the post office, and go and change the clothes.
-Did she go away with you?
-Yes.
-And where did she go?
—To the post office.
-You and she walked together to the post office?
-Yes.
-What happened at the post office?
—In the post office was no letter there, and she say to me she going to Fried's
house and change clothes, and after it we go to the steamer to Seattle. I
watched him, and I see she goes right straight to Fried's barber shop, and
after she didn't go to Seattle; she go right straight to Fried's barber shop.
-You did not see her go out of the barber's shop?
-No.
-She said she would come back, you say, and meet you?
-Yes.
-In how long?
—In about half an hour, at the post office.
-Did she come back?
-No
-Finding that she did not come back, what did you do?
—Well, I went up again to Fried's house, and I asked if she was here, and Mrs.
Fried told me she ain't here yet—she don't know where she is.
-Did you go more than once to the house?
—Yes; after I go up to his office.
-Tell us about that? When you were told by Mrs. Fried she did not know, what
did you do?
—Now I go right to his office.
-To whose office?    To Mr. Belyea's?
-Yes.
-Did you see Mr. Belyea?
—Yes; I find him downstairs, and after I went up, and met in his office, and
asked him what he going to do. He says, "Well, you get your money at six
o'clock. If you get your money, all right; and if you don't get your money I
won't do anything for you." I ask him " Is my daughter here?" I don't know
what he says. I ask his partner and he say "I guess she was here; I don't
know for sure, I didn't see it."
37.
Q.
A
38.
Q,
A
39.
0,
A
40.
Q.
A
41.
Q.
A
42.
Q.
A
43.
Q.-
A.
44.
Q.
A
45.
Q.
A.
46.
0,
A.
47.
Q.
A.
48.
Q.
A
49.
Q.
A
50.
Q,
A
51.
Q,
A x. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. .     1892
handing her back. Now, at the present moment, I have not the slightest idea
how she got back, if she got back. I have no more idea than that inkstand
whether or by what means she got back ; whether through Mr. Belyea or anybody else. You know I generally keep my mind as blank as it can well be to
receive fresh impressions.
Attorney-General: I do not intend to go into facts that will not be strictly relevant.
60. To witness : After this, was there a case in the Police Court ?
A.—Yes.
61. Q.—Who sat as Magistrate ?
A.—This gentleman, here, was.
62. Q.—And what was the result of that case?    Was it dismissed, or what ?
A.—Yes.
63. Q.—Dismissed by Mr. Belyea ?
A.-Yes.
Mr. Taylor : Has your Lordship a note of my objection to that ? So far, the utmost
that we have been able to get out of the other side is that their charge is contained in August May's declaration. Let us stick to that. Let us stick to
something.
His Lordship : You have just thrown that aside.
Mr. Taylor: I understand, then, that the. charges are not that contained in the
declaration; and they obtained this Commission upon something that is not
coming before the Commission ? I wish to point out to your Lordship that that
must be their position, or else that ought to be confined to this declaration, and
that does not go beyond the interview with May and Mr. Belyea in Mr. Belyea's
office. I wish to point out that I admit nothing here. I don't know whether
your Lordship understood me as admitting anything. I have taken the objection to that, but I have nevertheless been told that the charges are contained
in that paper. I imagine it is not a declaration at all; it may be a copy of
something that they say is a charge, and which we say is not a charge; but it
ends at the interview at Mr. Belyea's, and my learned friend is now going into
some subsequent historical transaction.
64. Attorney-General (to witness): Subsequently, you got your daughter back ?
A.—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor.
—When did you come over here, Mr. May 1
—I told you about Friday—I don't know which day.
—How did you get here to-day ?
—I came here yesterday.
—How did you happen to come ?
—Well, Mr. Hussey was there, and he told me, if I got time, to come along here,
and I says " If Mr. Davie calls me, I am willing to go any time for him."
—Did he pay your expenses over ?
—Well, he pays the fare for me.
—All your bills here ?
—No ; no bills he has paid for me yet.    I expect to.
—Has he promised it ?
—Yes ; he has told me he will pay.
—And you came here yesterday ?
-Yes.
—Why didn't you come over to the trial of the Frieds ?
— Well, nobody sent me notice; I thought it was no use.
—They didn't ask you to come ?
—Nobody sent me notice.    I thought it was no use, and I didn't like very much
to come here.    It cost me all the time money.
—You didn't like to come, and nobody asked you to come ?
-No.
— Was there anything said, when you left, about your coming back ?
-Yes.
65.
Q.
A.
66.
Q.
A.
67.
Q.
A.
68.
Q.
A.
69.
Q.
A.
70.
Q.
A.
71.
Q.
A.
72.
Q.
A.
73.
Q.
A.
74.
Q.
A.
75.
Q.
A. xc. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
Frieds, and I said to Mr. Belyea—I stood up and said to Mr. Belyea : " I don't
think this man is influenced by proper motives, and the best thing we can do is
to make him pay in advance; he will probably not pay, and that will be the end
of it." Now, I don't know whether it was after that was said, or before Mr.
Belyea and I began discussing—it must have been before that—Mr. Belyea
and I were discussing the probability of finding a Judge in chambers to hear the
application. Up to that time I had not told Mr. Belyea the result of my visit
to the Chief Justice, but then I told him I knew the Chief Justice would be
unable to hear it, as he had told me he would be leaving chambers at half past
two ; and I decided then, as I stated in my declaration here, to make the application to Mr. Justice Crease, at his house.
160. His Lordship: Tome?
A.—Yes, my Lord.
161. Q.—I was well out of it.
Witness: I am very sorry we did not make the application. It would be Utterly
impossible for Mr. Belyea or I, or any other man with a grain of common sense,
to make up his mind to apply to either the Chief Justice or Mr. Justice Crease
for a writ of habeas corpus in a matter like this, knowing that a criminal
proceeding was the proper proceeding, because his Lordship would simply send
us back to lay a criminal information. We determined, knowing your Lordship's willingness to act at his house in a case of necessity, we had no hesitation
in making up our minds to ask you. Then, going back to where I was a moment
ago, which really happened afterwards, when Mr. May asked us to give him a
guarantee, I told him we could not do it, and Mr. Belyea the same. My reason
for being unwilling to give a guarantee particularly was because I had an idea
that a case of cruelty might be set up, and it was "possible to make out a strong
case, though I didn't think it, and that it was impossible to guarantee a Judge's
decision at any time, because the Judge is always right enough, but the poor
practitioners are not always able to interpret the law correctly, being influenced
by their wishes and the interests of their clients. I was very unwilling to give
a guarantee, with or without the money, and he said he would go and see the
United States Consul. I told him to go and see the Consul, or who he liked—
we didn't care—and we would not give him any guarantee. That is about all.
Oh, yes! I see! My declaration brings it back to me; I had forgotten. Mr.
May, in his declaration, apparently stated, creates the impression—I don't see
it just in his declaration—but I think he said we told him that we could not
compel his daughter to go with him. Now, that is quite a mistake. I told him
most distinctly the moment the girl was in the presence of the Court that he
would have the same right over her that any father would have over his child,
and that he could take her by force. That is, the moment she was in the presence of the Court, and the Court having declared that she was not illegally
detained—although I didn't put it that way. And Mr. May, in his declaration,
states that Mr. Belyea told him if he brought back $20 before 6 o'clock, it
would be all right. I cannot say that Mr. Belyea did say that Now, I was
present during the whole of that afternoon's conversation, or in my own room,
with the door open, doing that which would not particularly distract my attention, and I am quite sure that Mr. Belyea never said any such thing. If he had
stated it, I am positive I would have heard it, I do not remember hearing anything of the kind. During the whole of our conversation with Mr. May, the
letters in our possession, all the information upon the subject that we had, there
was no intimation on May's part that he wished to proceed against the Frieds,
nothing that I saw that would lead me to think there was any proper—that it
would be a proper course to proceed against the Frieds, or if such proceedings
had been taken, that there was a ghost of a chance of such succeeding. At the
time, we were, and it must not be forgotton that for my part 1 knew nothing
whatever of the Frieds. I didn't know that Mr. Fried was a barber. I don't
think I had ever heard his name before, and Mr. Belyea said "that is all right;"
he took his information from the Chief of Police, who reported that they were
respectable people, and it was on the fact of their being respectable people, I 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xci.
suppose, I was somewhat influenced in being guarded about giving a guarantee,
that if they showed a case of gross cruelty, the Court would not disturb it.
There are ample authorities to show that the age of	
162. Mr. Taylor : Now, will you explain the circumstances attendant upon the  making  of
this declaration by Mr. Belyea, yourself, and Chief of Police Sheppard ?
A.—Mr. Belyea, of course, showed me the letters which he received from the
Attorney-General from time to time, as he received them. The first letter—I
also saw the answers—I think all the answers. Mr. Belyea replied saying that
he didn't think he should make any reply until the investigation then going on
before him was concluded. Now, I don't remember just the exact times, but I
remember that the investigation was concluded a very short time before Mr.
Belyea received his further letter from the Attorney-General, stating that his
answer, if he had any, must be in by a certain hour, as the Executive was going
to sit. I know that the declarations were all prepared hurriedly, as quickly as
we could on the morning of the same day on which they were to be in, because
the investigation at the Police Court, I think, did not finish until the night
before. I took the declarations over to Mr. Attorney-General—rushed there.
I don't remember who swore mine, or, rather, before whom I swore them, but I
remember that immediately after swearing, I had to hurry away, and got a hack
and rushed over to the office of the Attorney-General with it, and I was then
behind the time at which he said the Executive would meet.
163. Attorney-General : The Executive would meet at 12 o'clock, and that was  about  10.
Witness : Well, that is not so, Mr. Attorney, because I  remember  distinctly  saying
to you at the time I delivered them, being surprised to find you in the office,
because it was after the hour the Executive was meeting, and I supposed if the
Executive was meeting, you would be with them. I will swear most positively,
and I know I am not mistaken, that the hour which Mr. Davie fixed for a
meeting of the Executive had passed before I delivered these things to him. I
had hurried to get them to him, and after I delivered them to him, I said to
Mr. Davie: "Why I thought the Executive was meeting?" and he said they
were waiting for these things, which at the time I did not believe, but I did not
attach much importance to it. It is simply to shew the hurried way in which
the declarations were prepared. I think Mr. Davie's notes said the declarations
must be in by 10, because the Executive met at 12. I remember that they
were two different hours. I don't know of anything else, that I know of, about
the case.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General:
164. Q.—I might ask you, you hesitated about giving May a guarantee ?
A.—I did.
165. Q.—You did not think it was a proper case for a guarantee ?
A.—Well, I don't know, I don't think any case is a proper case for a guarantee.     No
solicitor could give a guarantee.
166. Q.—That is what I  wanted  to find  out  from you, whether  you  thought it  was a
proper case to give a guarantee ?
A.—In any case, no solicitor would give a guarantee, but it would  be  utter  folly, if
you knew there was a possibility of a defence, to give a guarantee.
167. Q.—It would be utterly wrong in any case to give a guarantee ?
A.—I would think so.
168. Mr. Taylor : You did not give one, at all events ?
A.—No; from what I have learned though, I think we might safely have given one,
as far as the giving is concerned.
169. His Lordship : If such a thing were adopted in the profession, it would be an utter
disgrace to it?
A.—There is no danger of Belyea & Gregory doing it.
170. His Lordship : I never mentioned it to you, because  I feel  that so strongly;  I did
not think it was required to be mentioned.
171. Attorney-General: There is just one matter, my Lord, that I would like to mention.
(To witness): Before you asked May the questions, are you quite  sure you  did
not see three letters ?
A.—Oh, no; I am not sure I didn't see them.    I think it is quite possible. xcii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
172. Q.—Don't you think, as a professional man,  you would  naturally  ask  him  for  any
papers, before you gave him an opinion on the case ?
A.—I think it highly probable I saw all three letters. I have a distinct recollection
of seeing the two longer letters, and which I now consider the two important
letters. The third letter was simply a scrap of paper by the girl that she had
left home, and was going to be married. I cannot say I remember reading it,
but I have little doubt that 1 saw it.
Mr. Taylor : I have asked Sergeant Levin whether he remembers the circumstances
at the time the girl was at the Police Station in the evening, and her father
being there, but he does not remember, so it is no use calling him.
Attorney-General : I will tell you who does remember about it and that is Mr. Walls.
You can call him.
Mr. Taylor : No ; you can call him. He is too much on your side for me to call him.
It is so utterly immaterial that I do not propose to burden the Court with it.
I do not think there are any more witnesses, my Lord, we desire to call. I had
intended to call Mr. Bod well upon the question whether May had been there
to consult him, or not, and what he recommended, but, after all, that is not very
material. It is, after all, a question of law, as to whether a criminal or civil
proceeding should have been taken.
His Lordship : It is not part of our enquiry.
Mr. Taylor : Well, it has a bearing on it, but I shall submit it to your Lordship afterwards, as a matter of argument; but I think that is about all the testimony
that we shall call.
His Lordship : Then if you mean that to be final, I want to ask Mr. Belyea a question of my own. Stay where you are, Mr. Belyea ; you are under the same
obligations as before. Mind, I have not read over your declarations or anything
else, but merely from my memory I am asking this question. It was a thing
which impressed  me, because it  was a little unusual, and I will tell you  why.
173. Q.—Why was it that you did not read carefully the whole  of the papers—the three
papers which May placed in your hands when he came there ?
A.—I read	
174. Q.—Your answer was that you read the first and the second, but you glanced  at  the
third ?
A.—Because, in glancing through the third one, I found it was simply a series of denials
that any person had anything whatever to do with taking the girl away from
home—that she came willingly.    I simply glanced  through it, and turned at
once to question May.
175. Q.—But did you not think it part of your duty, as an investigating Magistrate,
to examine closely documents of that description, especially on having read the
first two ?
A.—The first two struck me as the most important, and when I came to read the
third, as I think your Lordship will when you read it through, it seemed to me
to be in reply to a letter which the parents or the sister had written to the girl,
accusing somebody of having taken her away from home, and which virtually
she does in this letter repudiate and deny. All through the tenor of the letter
is the same, all the way through ; and that is what it was in glancing through
this letter, that induced me to turn to May and question him as to how the girl
left home—as well as the others.
176. Q.—How was it that you came to the conclusion that she was there in the service of
May (Fried ?)—an absolute conclusion, almost sufficient for action in the ordinary way, when the girl in her two letters tells palpable falsehoods, and owns
she was telling falsehoods ?
A.—Well, I was not altogether governed by the girl's statements. 1 took it for
granted that she was a runaway girl, and I did not expect her to tell all the
truth in her letters. May, himself, gave me information upon the subject, about
the girl, about what she was doing, coupled with what -was contained in this
letter. I asked him if the girl was there, and he said he thought she was. I
think he told me he ascertained, after he came into town, that she was working
there.    However, I am not sure, but it seems to me so.
177. His Lordship : That is what struck me, and I thought I would ask you the question. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xciii.
A.—May never intimated or insinuated that the  Frieds  had  anything  whatever to
do with bringing that girl away from Seattle or detaining her here.
178.     Q.—How could you know from what he said that she was with the Frieds ?
A.—Because I saw in those letters, and he told me she was there. If he had told
me that she was working at your Lordship's house, I had just as much reason to
believe him. I knew no more about the Frieds than the man in the moon, and
I turned at once to the Chief of Police and asked him whether they were
respectable, and he said they were, and I did not propose to treat them as criminals because they had a girl in the house. I may state that in my view there
never was a case of abduction proved, or could be proved, in law. If there had
been, there would have been a conviction long ago.
Mr. Taylor then addressed his Lordship, followed  by the  Attorney-General,   at the  con
elusion of which the Commission closed,
EXHIBITS.     -
A.
Dear Parents,—I am going to be married and gone east; will write soon; don't worry;
I am safe.
Your child,
Good-bye. Hattie May.
B.
Victoria, B. C, August 27th.
Dear Parents,—I will write to let you know that I am in Victoria. I am working for
a lady which I knew in Seattle, and I stay with her. I am working for her. I get $15 a
month. The reason why I wrote you that I was going to get married was because I knew
you wouldn't like to let me go. I like this town very much, and I am going to stay. I have
a good home the lady took me over with her in Seattle Monday evening the reason why I did
not write sooner was because we were not settled you don't have to worry a bout me, for I am
alright and save.    I will close my letter for to-day, hoping to hear from you soon.
I remain your daughter, Hattie.
Address my letter to the Post Office.
Address like this :  Miss Hattie May, Victoria, B. C.
c.
Victoria, B. O, August 31st, 1891.
Dear Sister,—I received your letter this morning and was glad to hear from you, but
sorry to tell you that I am not coming home and nothing can make me come home for I am
doing nothing wrong, and if you want to know so bad who the lady is that I am staying with
is, Mrs. Fried, and am in a respectfuly familie and if you don't what to believe it come and
find out for yourself. Mrs. Marra has nothing to do with me she don't know anything about
me she has enough to tend to her own bussnes with out tending to mine. I tell you that,
never ascuse other people of what they are not guilty, you can send all the police after me you
want they can't get me home, and I am not coming home. I guess you know yourself how
fine they treated me. I have had enough of it I tell you. I told you long time ago that the
day would come when they would be sorry for it, and I tell you they can't get me home
for I am on the Britchish sole, and they can't get me home because I am doing nothing
wrong wether I am of age or not. I will always let you know how I am getting a long if you
wish to hear from me, and as for Mrs. Marra has not skipped the town she is wright in Seattle xciv. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
and you if do not believe it go and call at her mother's house and you will find her there and
none of them told me to go. I went with my on free will. Tillie never told me to go you
know better than that yourself. No more knews for to-day write another time i'm well yours
as ever sister, Hattie May.
Regards to all don't worry about me for I am alright.
Address :  Miss Hattie May> Victoria, B. C, Post Office.
D.
Attorney-General's Office,
Victoria, Sept. 7th, 1891.
A. L. Belyea, Esq., Police Magistrate, Victoria :
Sir,—I beg to enclose copy of the declaration of August May which I read to you
in the Attorney-General's office on Saturday last, when you stated the substance of the
matter to be that upon Mr. May laying his case before you as Police Magistrate you had
advised him that as Police Magistrate you could do nothing for him, but that for a fee of $20
you would, as his legal adviser, apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which
course you conceived to be the proper one in the case, in view of the girl being under the age
of sixteen years ; that you had not advised Fried in the matter, but that he had taken the
advice of Messrs. Eberts & Taylor ; that you had not, as stated by Mr. May, informed him
that his daughter had been to your office, and that the reason why May would not pay the $20
was that you and your partner would not give him a guarantee of success.
I have to inform you that it is my intention to forthwith lay the facts of this case before
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and I shall also be prepared to lay before
the Government any other matters which you may wish to urge in relation to the statements
contained in the enclosed declaration. I have, <fec,
(Signed)        Theodore Davie,
Attorney-General.
E.
Provincial Secretary's Office,
Victoria, B. O, 15th December, 1891.
Sir,—Through an oversight, for which I desire to express my regret, you were not
notified, as was intended at the time, of the issue of a Commission on the 4th day of November
last to the Honourable Mr. Justice Crease, appointing him a Commissioner to enquire into
certain complaints in relation to your office as a Justice of the Peace for the County of
Victoria, contained in a declaration of one August May, and to report to the Lieutenant-
Governor in Council the facts found by him on such enquiry.
I am, &c,
A. Campbell Reddie,
A. L. Belyea, Esq., J. P., Victoria. Deputy Provincial Secretary.
F.
Attorney-General's Office,
Victoria, December 18th, 1891.
A. L. Belyea, Esq., Barrister, &c, City :
Sir,—I am instructed to inform you that the Honourable the Attorney-General has
been advised by Mr. Justice Crease of your having been notified that the Commission directed
to him, of enquiry into your official conduct as Police Magistrate, will be opened in the County
Court room in the Law Courts on Tuesday, the 29th inst., at 11 a.m.
In accordance with the request of the Commissioner I beg to notify you that the matter
to be investigated by the said Commission is contained in the complaint of August May, dated
the 5th September, 1891, a copy of which was forwarded to you on the 7th September last.
I have, <fec,
(Signed)        Arthur G. Smith,
Acting Deputy Attorney-General. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xcv.
0.
Attorney-General's Office,
A. L. Belyea, Esq., Barrister, &c, Victoria: Victoria, December 21st, 1891.
Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 19th
inst., requesting that the specific charge against you in your official capacity be furnished you
in writing.
I am instructed to advise you in reply that no more particular statement can possibly be
given you than is contained in the declaration of August May, referred to in my last communication, as the substance of the charge, however it may be technically termed, is contained in
such declaration. Your action has been characterized as improper (or to use a more formidable
phrase, as a malversation of office), and the object of the Commission is to enquire into and
certify as to its propriety or otherwise.
1 am also instructed to inform you that it is intended that August May shall be present
before the Commission, I have, &c,
(Signed)        Arthur G. Smith,
■—  Acting Deputy Attorney-General.
H.
REG. v. FRIED. \
Information of August May./
The accused was arrested on an information charging him with unlawfully taking one
Hattie May, an unmarried girl under the age of sixteen years, out of the possession of her
father against his will on or about September 4th, instant.
The information is based upon section 44, of chapter 162, R. S. Canada, 1886, which
reads as follows :—
" Everyone who unlawfully takes, or causes to be taken, any unmarried girl, being under
the age of sixteen years, out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother, or
of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and
liable to imprisonment for any term less than two years."
In order to justify me in committing the accused for trial there must be at least a prima
facie case proved, which I take to mean such proof as, if not rebutted or shewn to be clearly
consistent with innocence, would justify a jury in finding a verdict of guilty.
The circumstances of this case are briefly as follows : About two weeks ago the girl, without
leave or knowledge of her father or mother, left her home in Seattle. Some days after she
wrote home to her sister stating her whereabouts. Her father, the prosecutor, came to
Victoria on Friday last for the purpose of taking her home to Seattle. About noon of that
day he went to Fried's, the accused, house and asked for the girl, at the same time asking the
accused if he would give his daughter up. The accused answered yes, and the daughter left
Fried's house at once and came with her father down town to the post office. She left him
telling him she was going to Fried's to change her clothing and would return in an hour to
him. The father states she went direct to Fried's barber shop. He, however, shortly afterwards went back to Fried's house and enquired for the girl, but it does not appear that she
then was there. He returned to the post office, but the girl did not put in an appearance.
The father again went to the house of Fried once or twice the same afternoon ; once at least
in company with Provincial Officer McNeill. The daughter was then there, but refused to
come away with her father. Fried was not present then, and it does not appear that he saw
the girl after she left his house with her father about noon.
After the accused was arrested it was stated by counsel, but no proof was adduced, that
the girl had been at the police office with Mrs. Fried about 9 p. m. on Saturday, and had then
gone away alone, since which time she had not been seen, though the police had searched for
her as a witness for the prosecution.
These are substantially the facts of the case proved, except the last as to the girl's being
at the police office and going away alone, which was stated by counsel, and is no doubt true.
The essential matters to be proved I conceive to be : (1.) The age of the girl—under
sixteen. (2.) That she is unmarried. (3.) That the accused took the girl out of the charge
of her father.    (4.) And against his will.
It is wholly immaterial whether force was used, or what motive the accused may have had,
or that the girl consented.    None of these are part of the offence.
It is not suggested that Fried had anything to do with the girl's leaving her home in
Seattle, and if such were the case I apprehend that it would not be an offence over which our
Courts could exercise jurisdiction.    That fact that the girl was at Fried's house on Friday does Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
not of itself constitute the offence, but had Fried denied her presence there when asked by her
father, or refused to give her up to her father, no doubt he would have been within the statute.
But as he at once gave the girl up I am of opinion that up to that time he, Fried, cannot be
said to have either taken or had the girl unlawfully in his possession against the will of her
father. It is stated by the prosecutor that he overheard Fried say to the girl: " Go with your
father, and I will fix a lawyer so you can stay," or words to that effect. This may be true ;
no doubt is true, but to my mind it does not show that Fried intended to get the girl back
again except in a lawful manner. It is true the girl did go back to Fried's house, but in doing
so she had the permission of her father, and even if she had not such permission there is not a
tittle of evidence to shew that Fried took her there, or by any means induced her to go, or
absent herself from her father. From the time the girl left Fried's house with her father
there is nothing to shew that Fried saw her, except the statement that she went from the
post office to Fried's shop, in Trounce avenue. Whether she saw Fried there or not is not
proved, though it seems to me that the prosecution might have followed this up if it contained
anything of importance against the accused. The prosecuting counsel stated that he has been
unable to find the girl, and intimated that the defence knew where the girl was. This may
be true, but it is not on surmises that men are to be committed for trial for any offence, much
less one of so serious a nature as this.
There is another material point on which there is no direct evidence, that is, that the
girl was unmarried. This was no doubt an oversight, and I do not attach very great importance to it, because if the evidence on the other grounds had been at all clear I would have
allowed the prosecutor to reopen the case and prove the matter.
The statements made by Fried to Sergt. Langley, had they been coupled with proof that
the girl was then under his, Fried's, control, would be important, but standing alone they do
not in my judgment add materially to the evidence against him and are, in fact, capable of
construction in his favour.
The prosecutor himself states that Fried has never refused to give the girl up, and as the
only time he was asked to do so he did give her up, and the girl left him in company with her
father, and he is not shewn to have again taken her from her father, either directly or
indirectly, or ever had control of her.
How this girl came to be at Fried's house, what she was doing there, whether as a servant,
or visitor, or boarder, is left wholly unexplained. But I cannot from anything of this kind
draw inferences against the accused. It seems to me that there was a direct and easy method
for this father to have obtained the possession of his girl by way of habeas corpus, and if with
the information that such a proceeding would have elicited from the accused he resisted the
application this serious charge might then have been either avoided or substantially proved. I
say this because the prosecutor has stated that all he wants is the possession of his child.
Taking the evidence as it stands I am of opinion that it is not sufficient to put the
accused on trial, and he is accordingly discharged.
Now while that is the result of this application you know quite well, Mr. Walls, and you,
Mr. Taylor, that if at any time the prosecution come into possession of other evidence which
will justify them in bringing this charge afresh they may do so. All I decide to-day simply
is that from the evidence before me there is not sufficient to constitute a prima facie case to
send this matter up for trial. In matters of this kind I would advise Mr. Fried and every
other man who has in his house a strange girl under sixteen years of age—and this girl was a
stranger—that just so soon as her father, or any one who purports to be her father, claims
her to turn her out in the street. That is the only safe thing whatever may be their motives
—the law does not take those into account—the motive shewn may be good or bad. It appears
to me that Fried is not wholly free from blame here, though saying that does not say he is
guilty of this charge. This might happen to any man—to every man in fact who finds it
necessary to employ a servant in his house if she happens to be under sixteen years of age,
and whenever her father demands her the only safe way is to give her up. There is no
evidence, I think, tending to establish the taking away of her from her father by Fried; if
there were it would have been a different thing, and so long as he allowed her to go no charge
should be laid at his door. This is an unfortunate case for the girl and an unfortunate case
for the father; and it seems to me that the whole prosecution has been misconceived. It
would have been a very easy and simple matter for the father to have gone and by habeas
corpus have got this girl brought before a Judge of the Supreme Court, and there would then
have been no occasion to bring this case up here.    The accused is discharged.
VICTORIA, B. c,
Printed by Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty A.
77.
Q.
A.
78.
Q.
A.
79.
0,
A.
80.
Q.
A.
81.
Q.
A
82.
Q.
A.
83.
Q.
A.
55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrvte, Victoria.
76.    Q.—Just  half  a minute;  go  back  to the time you came over here first:  After you
got the letters from Hattie, you came here on Friday ?
-If I had the letter along with me,  I brought them along from Seattle.
-What day was it you got here ?
-It was on a Friday, as much I remember.
-Did you get here in the morning boat, or in the evening ?
-I got here in the morning.
- About 7 o'clock you got here ?
-No; it was about 4 or 5 o'clock.
-Did you see the Frieds before you saw Mr. Belyea at the Police Court ?
-No.
-You went direct to Mr. Belyea?
-The first was at the Police Station.
-What did you tell them there, Mr. May ?
-Who ?    I ?
-Yes—the policeman you saw first ?
-Well,  I   showed   him  the  letters.     I  told   him   about  the  whole  thing—my
daughter;   and the old  fellow  there  on  the  police he  says :   "I know your
daughter ; I seen him the first evening he came here; but noboby take him for
a witness ; " he seen me here all right.
84.    Q.—What did you tell them you wanted to do there, Mr. May ?    What did you want
the policeman to do ?
—Just to tell me what time the Chief come, and I like to see the Chief of Police.
—And you did see the Chief, did you ?
-Yes.
—What did you tell him ?
—I gave him the letters, and he told me about it—he told me he could not do
anything till the Magistrate come; I would have to wait till he come.
—Didn't you tell him you wanted your daughter?
—Yes; I wanted Hattie back, I told him, and I told the Magistrate, too.
—You told the Chief of Police you wanted your daughter ?
-Yes.
—Did you say you wanted to arrest her ?
—Well, I told him if he could help me to get her back.
—That is all you told him ?
—Yes.
—And all you told the Police Magistrate you have referred to ?
—Yes.
—That is this gentleman?
—Yes.
—You saw him?
-Yes.
—What did you tell him ?
—I told him about the same—I would like to have my girl.
—You said you wanted to get a warrant to arrest her?
—Well, I told him I would try to do the best I could to get him.    I would like
to have him back.    I expected him every day, and the police told me they
could not find him.
96.    Q.—Keep yourself down to the Police Court: On Friday morning you saw the Magistrate, and he said he had to deal with a case?
—Yes.
—And then he went on the bench and disposed of some case?
—Yes.
—How long did he stay there ?
—Well, he was there about an hour and a half.
—You waited?
—I waited.
—You saw him probably about 11 o'clock?
—Yes, it was somewhere along about 11.
A.
85.
Q.
A.
86.
Q--
A.
87.
Q.-
A.
88.
Q.
A.
89.
Q--
A
90.
Q.-
A.
91.
0,
A.
92.
Q-
A.
93.
Q-
A.
94.
Q.
A.
95.
Q.
A.
A.
97.
Q--
A.
98.
Q.-
A.
99.
Q-
A.
100.
Q-
A. 101.
Q,
A.
102.
Q.
A.
103.
Q.
A.
104.
Q.
A.
105.
Q.
A.
106.
Q,
A.
107.
Q.
A.
108.
Q.
A.
109.
Q.
A.
110.
Q-
A.
111.
Q.
A.
112.
Q-
A.
113.
Q--
A.
114.
Q.
A.
115.
Q.-
A.
116.
Q-
A.
117.
Q--
A.
118.
Q.-
A.
119.
Q.
A.
120.
Q.-
A
121.
Q--
A.
122.
Q.-
Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
—What did you say to him first ?
—I told him that if he could help me to get my daughter,
—Who spoke first, you or he?
—I spoke to him, of course, and then he told me to come in here—in the office.
—What did you say to him?
—I don't remember what I say.    I just like to have my daughter—that is what
I told him.
—You said you wanted to have your daughter ?
—I told him that she is up by Fried's.
—You told him you wanted a warrant to arrest her ?
—Yes, if I could not get it, I just ask.
—You asked him if you could get that?
—Yes.
—That you wanted that?
—Yes, of course; if I get it I want it.
—And what did he tell you then ?
—He told me to go along with him to his office, and he find out what he can do
with these things.
—Didn't he tell you then you could not get a warrant to arrest the girl ?
—No; I can swear he didn't say anything, and   I don't remember  anything—
remember about that he say he would not give me a warrant.
—You mean to say that you will swear that he didn't tell you that he could not
give you a warrant, or that you mean you don't remember what he said ?
—I don't remember anything about warrant no more that they are talking about.
I don't know anything about him no more.
-You asked him for a warrant?
—Yes.
—He must have told you something?
—He told me come along in my office and we find out what we can do.
—Didn't he tell you there he could not give you a warrant, and that the girl
hadn't done anything wrong ?
—I guess he did say so ; I am not sure.
—And then you said you wanted to get the girl some way, didn't you ?
—I told him I wanted to get her back—that is all.
—Did you at that time tell either of the policemen that you first saw, or the Chief
of Police, or Mr.  Belyea, that the Frieds were detaining the girl against her
will ?
—No; I didn't know anything before.    I didn't see Fried before.
—You hadn't seen him before?
—No, sir.
—You didn't know anything about that ?
—No; I don't know where he lives, and I don't know anything about that.
—You simply wanted to get the warrant to arrest the girl ?
—To get the girl along.
—And he told you he could not give you that ?
—I don't know ; I guess not.    I am not sure ; I don't remember this.
—This was about half-past eleven o'clock you told him you wanted to do something to get the girl?    Didn't he tell you you would have to get a lawyer and
proceed by way of habeas corpus ?
—He didn't say anything about the lawyer ;  he tell me to go along to his office.
—Just try and remember if he said he could not give you a warrant, and you said
you wanted to get the girl ?
—I don't know.
—Go back to the Court for a minute and try and remember what occurred there.
Didn't he tell you then that if you wanted to get the girl, then the way to do
it was by habeas corpus, and you would have to get a lawyer  to do  it ?    Do
you remember his using the word habeas corpus ?
—No ; he told me to come along with him in his office. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xiii.
123. Q.—Do you remember him saying to you that if you wanted to get the girl,  then
you will have to get a lawyer to act for you ?
A.—I didn't hear anything about a lawyer.
124. Q.—Just try and remember whether he did or not.    Will  you swear he  didn't tell
you that ?
A.—Well, 1 don't know ; I guess he didn't say anything about a lawyer.
125. Q.—Now, just try and remember.    I want to get down to something in this.    Will
you say he did or did not say anything about a lawyer to you ?
A.—Well, I don't know anything about him no more, he  didn't know  very  much
speak there in the Police Office.
126. Q.—But didn't he say to you, Mr. May, that that was a matter in which you would
have to get a lawyer to act for you ?
A.—I don't know anything what he say.    He told me something about lawyer.     I
don't know whether he has got anything.    I don't know anything about him—
I don't know anything about what he told me—anything about the lawyer.
—Did he, or did he not ?
—No, he didn't.
—Will you swear that ?
—I don't remember anything.
—Will you swear he didn't ?
—I cannot say.    I told you once I don't remember no more,  and  I didn't  see a
lawyer.
—You don't remember what occurred there ?
—No.
—Do you remember who was at present ?
—Yes.
-Who?
—I was talking with him ; there was nobody present  in  the office except  I  and
him,—in the Police Court.
—Was the Chief of Police not there ?
—He was round there—I don't know.
—Wasn't there a policeman there ?
—No ; not after he was speaking about office words, and we left the police and go
up town.
135.    Q.—Will you swear that the policeman and the  Chief  of  Police  were  not  present
there all the time you were talking to him ?
—This was round there.
-Where were you talking to him—in the Court room ?
—No ; in another room.
-In his private room ?
-Yes.
-Weren't they in the room ?
-Who ?
-The Chief of Police and a policeman ?
—No ; the Chief of Police was there.    I don't know if he was in the room.      The
room was—I guess not as he was there.    He was there as soon as he gave  the
letters to him and speaking together, the Chief of Police was there.
-During the time you were talking to Mr. Belyea, the Chief of Police was there 1
-I guess so ; I don't know for sure.
-In Mr. Belyea's private room ?
-Yes.
-How big a room was it ?
-I don't know just; I remember it was a small room.
-Wasn't another policeman there beside the chief ?
-There was more policemen there.    I didn't take any notice beside the Chief.
-Will you say that Mr. Belyea did not say this to you ?
-1 can say this : I don't remember.
-Don't remember what ?
-That he told me something about the lawyer.    I don't know anything no more.
127.
Q,
A
128.
Q.
A
129.
Q.
A.
130.
0,
A.
131.
Q.
A.
132.
0,
A.
133.
Q--
A.
134.
Q.-
A.
136.
Q--
A.
137.
Q,-
A.
138.
Q.-
A.
139.
Q-
A.
140.
Q,-
A.
141.
Q.-
A.
142.
Q.-
A.
143.
Q.-
A.
144.
Q--
A.-
145.
0,-
A.- xiv. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
146. Q.—I was not going to ask you that.     Did Mr. Belyea not  say  to  you  there, that
you would have to get a lawyer to act for you in that matter, and you said you
didn't know any lawyer, and he said " well, he was a lawyer, and if you  didn't
mind, why, he would act for you in a civil matter ?"
A.—Yes, I guess that is about right—no, he didn't say he was  a lawyer,  I  would
have just to go along with him in the office.
147. Q.—You think that is about right?
A.—That is about right.
148. Q.—That this was something which required a lawyer ?
A.—Yes.
149. Q.—And you said you didn't  know a lawyer, and he said he was one, and  if you
didn't mind, he would act for you ?
A.—Yes ; that is about it.
150. His Lordship (to witness): Did you say you did not know any lawyer?
A.—Yes.
151. Mr. Taylor (to witness) : You did not tell Mr. Belyea at that time that  Fried   was
either coaxing your girl away, or keeping her away by force, did you ?
A.—Well, I did not know anything.
152. Q.—I am simply asking you—you did not tell him so because you didn't know it?
A.—I don't know what I told him ; the only time I speak to him was  getting the
girl back.
153. Q.—I understand what you mean, but I am only  trying  to  get  out what you  said
then.    I understand  you  didn't know  Fried was  keeping her—that she was
up here, and you wanted to get her back ?
A.—Yes.
-But you didn't think that Fried was keeping her at that time in the morning ?
-No.
-You simply wanted to get her?    He says:  "I hadn't  seen  the  Fried's  in the
morning ; I didn't know anything about them ?"
-No, I hadn't seen them before.
-You didn't know anything about the Frieds at that time in the morning ?
-No, sir.
-As far as you knew at that time, Mr. May, it was simply a case of Hattie's
running away from home, and going to this house to work, and you wanted to
get her home ?
-Since I get here	
-Before you left to go down to the law office down town with this gentleman, you
went up there first, and you  saw the two policemen, and saw Mr. Belyea, and
you had this talk that we will not go over again.    At that time all  you  knew
was that Hattie was running away from home, and  was working at this house ?
-And working there.
-When did she tell you ?
-Yes ; she wrote a letter to her sister, not to me.
-That is all you knew at that time about it ?
-Yes.
-You came down town with Mr. Belyea  to his  office; what did you say when
you got there ?
A.—He asked what time they left the house and what everything.    I  told  him  as
much  as I  could  speak  English,  and  he put this on the paper, and after, I
signed this, and	
-What did he tell you he was going to do ?
-He was going to something for me to take this into Court, to get a lawyer for me.
-Didn't he say he didn't know, but he would try  to get the girl up  before the
Judge ?
-He told me that he was going to send for Fried.
-To demand the girl ?
-Yes ; was going to see Fried about one o'clock.    I went down about  this time,
at one o'clock, and Fried told me he was going to his office.
154.
Q.
A.
155.
Q.
A.
156.
Q.
A.
157.
Q.
A.
158.
Q.
A.
159.
Q,
A.
160.
Q,
A.
161.
Q.
162.
0-
A.
163.
Q.
A.
164.
Q.
A. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria.
261. Q.—Well, I believe you in some instances.
A.—I find it was correct.
262. Q.—Every statement that is in there ?
A.—I don't know how many statements is in there.
263. Q.—Do you know what you put in that statement at all ?
A—Oh, yes.
264. Q—What did you put in it ?
A.—I explain the whole thing like I come in the Court and explain the whole thing—
what I came and what I done, what the fellow told me, what was charging me—
that is all on the paper.
265. Q—And then he wrote it out ?
A.—Yes.    I don't know who write it out this in his office.
266. Q.—That is your language ?
A.—It was in his office.
267. Q.—How long were you over there altogether ?
A.—By Mr. Davie ?
268. Q.—Yes ?
A.—Well, maybe hour or hour and a half.
269. Q.—You say that he read this over, and it was correct ?
A—Yes.
270. Q.—And you will swear now it is correct ?
A. — I guess it is correct.    There is nothing else in there than was before, I guess.
271. Q.—Let  me  read  it over  to you,  Mr.  May,  and see if you say now it is correct.
(Reads first clause.)    Is that true ?
A.—Yes.
272. Q.—What have I just read to you ?
A.—That is right; what I told him.
273. Q.—But what have I just read to you ?
His Lordship : How can you expect him to repeat all that in English ?
Mr. Taylor : That is precisely, my Lord, the point I am going to make,
His Lordship : The point you are going to make is an impracticable one. You want
a man who is a German to speak to you in a language which he is not accustomed to, of affairs which he knows and understands. The man has sworn
now, remember, that he understood what was read to him there, and the part
you have read there, he swore that he understood it and then you ask him to
put that back into English as it is there 1    How can you expect it ?
Mr. Taylor : I simply ask the question; you can do as you please.
His Lordship : Can you expect it ?
Mr. Taylor : I do.    I read it, and then asked him what he meant.
274. Q.—"That I am the father of Hattie May, who is now aged 15 years, and who up to
the time of her leaving Seattle, as presently mentioned, lived at Seattle with her
mother and my wife, etc."    Now, what do you mean by that?
A.—What do I mean ? Mr. Davie asks me if you live together, and I say yes, and
eat and live in my own house. That is just what I had to say, and I say today what I said then.    I tell you again.
His Lordship :  He understands perfectly what you read.
275. Q.—(Second clause of declaration read to witness by Mr.  Taylor) :    Do you under
stand what those words are ?
A.—Yes.
276. Q.—What do they mean ?
A.—That means I want to get my daughter; if I go into the court I have to have a
case.
Attorney-General: I ask your Lordship if he has a right to try to befog the witness
in this manner. It is perfectly impossible for a man who has got a very imperfect knowledge of English, or even if he had a very good knowledge of English, to ask him if that is true—reading it in English is one thing, and asking
him to reconstrue it is another thing altogether.
His Lordship : It is quite unreasonable.
Mr. Taylor : I am not surprised that my friend should attempt to raise this objection ; it is quite on a par with the manner in which he has tried to conduct the
other parts of this matter. Victoria, B. C. 31st December, 1891.
Before Hon. Mr. Justice Crease, as Commissioner.
Second Day—-Morning Session.
Continued from 29th inst.
Present: The Attorney-General; Mr. Taylor, for Mr. Belyea.
His Lordship : I saw a paragraph in the paper; I didn't read the whole; I make a
point of not reading the papers in connection with any matters that are before the
Court, but I could not help seeing one thing, and that was as to my opinion
about the desirability of having the depositions in the case. I did not intend
to have them, and one of the last things I said was that I should not require
to see the proceedings and depositions in the case. But those I now want in.
The proceedings before Mr. Belyea—we have nothing to do with any proceedings before any other magistrate.
Attorney-General : Since your Lordship has mentioned what has appeared in the
newspapers, I may say—and it is something which I might not have mentioned
otherwise—that, apart from setting out copies of the documents in the case,
which I believe are accurately copied, the report of what is alleged to have
transpired in this Commission the day before yesterday, appearing in the
Colonist of yesterday, is an utter distortion.
His Lordship: I did not wish to enter into a disquisition on such a subject, but I
may say that while the matter is in the hands of a Judge, it is altogether
improper to make observations or to suppress the facts, one way or the other.
There must be nothing more than an impartial and fair account of what occurs
in the place where justice is administered. At the same time, I am astonished
that a paper here should be able to set forth, at such great length, so accurately,
and in so short a time the various documents in this matter, and I have no doubt
that what is omitted is omitted by accident and not intentionally.
Attorney-General:  It is not merely what is omitted, but what is distorted.
Mr. Taylor : I did not see the Colonist until yesterday afternoon. My attention was
then called to it, but, as a distorted account, I have looked at it, and I cannot
see that there is anything particularly wrong in it. Of course, they did not
report everything that has taken place.
Attorney-General: But they have reported a great deal that never did take place.
His Lordship : I am not, at present, capable of forming an opinion as to that, but I
saw, from the documents which were copied out there, that it was made,
apparently, with great care. Just with a glimpse of it I could, having been
accustomed to reporting myself, see that to that extent, it was apparently
very well done.
Attorney-General : I understand that. I say that, apart from the copies, the thing
is an utter distortion.
His Lordship : I shall try to be guided only by what actually occurs before me in
the Court itself, that is my sworn duty, and it is what I wish to adhere to,
strictly. I did not mention this report for the purpose of calling out a discussion on the point, but merely to explain to you one reason why, before giving
my ruling, it is necessary that I should have before me the record of the proceedings in which Mr. Belyea in this matter has been engaged. Mr. Belyea,
alone—not any other magistrate.    I must have them.
Attorney-General : I will see that the Clerk of the Police Court is subpcened to
produce them.
His Lordship : You propose, I understand, to make a statement ?
Attorney-General: Yes, your Lordship. xlii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria 189:2
Theodore Davie, sworn :
(His Lordship explained that, on Commissions of the character of the present, it was
necessary, in the interests of both parties, that the Cammissioner should obtain
all possible information bearing on the subject, which could not always be of
the most formal character.)
Witness : August May came to me on, I think it was Friday, the 5th of September.
He told me that his daughter, a child under the age of sixteen, was being
detained by	
1. His Lordship : Was being, or had been ?
A.—Was being detained by the Frieds, who had taken her away from him at Seattle,
and he also told me that the Frieds were living in the city. I at once gave
him a note, or wrote out a note and told him to take it to Mr. Sheppard, the
City Police Superintendent. I told him that the proper place for him to make
his complaint was in the Police Court. He then, much to my surprise,
informed me that he had already been to the Police Court, had seen the Magistrate, and had been met with a demand for $20 before anything could be done
for him.
2. His Lordship : That is what he said ?
A.—That is what he said. I at once concluded that it was a matter which required
to be looked into. I made an appointment with May to come to the Attorney-
General's office next day.
3. His Lordship: Made an appointment with whom ?
A.—With May, to come to the Attorney-General's office, at two o'clock, I think, or
some time in the afternoon, and I at once sent, one of the constables, a Provincial constable, with either a note or a' message requesting Mr. Belyea to
meet me there also. I took a clerk with me for the purpose of taking down
what transpired in shorthand. The same clerk was also a typewriter. When
August May came there I reduced his statement into writing, in the form of
a declaration, identical in language with the declaration of August May now
before the Commission. He gave me the particulars himself, which I carefully
extracted from him. Presently Mr. Belyea came over and came into my room,
where there were August May, the clerk whom I have previously mentioned,
and myself. I then read to Mr. Belyea the statement of August May, which,
at that time, of course, had neither been signed by August May nor sworn to ;
it was a draft of the declaration which is now before the Commission. After I
had read it, Mr. Belyea proceeded to make a statement, but, after he had proceeded a little way, the shorthand reporter whom I had there passed me a note
saying he was unable to follow him—he spoke too quickly. I made notes—a
very short note—myself, of what Mr. Belyea told me, and this is the document.
(Produced by witness.)    It is a rough note.
4. His Lordship : Notes made at the time ?
A.—Yes, sir ; at the time.    It is a very imperfect note.
5. Mr. Taylor : I ought to be entitled to see that before you read it.
A.—(Handing document.) There it is; it is practically what he says now; not
much difference.
6. Mr. Taylor : What did you say it was, Mr. Davie ?    A rough, imperfect draft ?
A.—I didn't say it was a draft, at all. It is a memorandum. (Read by witness.)
Of course, he said a great deal more than that, but that is what I have got
down. After having taken this statement, or after having listened to Mr.
Belyea, and after he had left, I handed the draft declaration which I had
written to the clerk who was sitting at my side, telling him to immediately
make me three, or two or three, copies upon the typewriter. He had no typewriter in the Attorney-General's office, or, at least, there was none in the
Attorney-General's office that he could use, and so he went to town, and shortly
afterwards—it didn't take him very long to make them—handed me the copies;
one of which is the declaration of August May, which you have before you. I
then took him, May, to Mr. Shotbolt, who is a Justice of the Peace, where the
document was carefully read over to him again and explained. Mr. Shotbolt
was very particular in doing it himself, and he swore to it, at the same time 55 Vict. Enquiry rk Police Magistrate, Victoria. xliii.
(I think at the same time) laying an information against Fried for abduction.
It is a criminal—I may just mention, although, of course, everyone knows it—
that it is a criminal offence to take a girl under the age of 16 years out of the
possession of her father or her parents, or to detain her against the will of her
parents On Monday, the 7th of September, the following Monday, I caused
a letter to be sent to Mr. Belyea.
7. His Lordship : Who sent it ?
A.—I did, as Attorney-General. Perhaps the original is there, and Mr. Taylor will
produce it.
(Letter, dated 7th September, 1891, from Attorney-General to A. L. Belyea, Esq.,
handed in by Mr. Taylor.)
Witness : On the following day, in reply to that. I got this letter.
(Letter from A. L. Belyea, Esq., to the Attorney-General, handed in.)
..Witness :    That is the original letter which I got from  Mr.  Belyea.    I venture to
say, if Mr. Belyea had had any idea whatever that that declaration as sworn to
was not the same as read to him, that was his time to say it; instead  of which
he merely acknowledges the receipt of the declaration.
Mr. Belyea : I don't believe I had even read it, at that time.
Witness : Then, subsequently, on, I think, the next day, the 9th of September, Mr.
Gregory—I think it was Mr. Gregory, Mr. Belyea's partner—handed me the
affidavit of Mr. Belyea, or, rather, the declaration of Mr. Belyea, which is now
before the Court, dated 9th September, 1891, in which he gives his version of
this matter. That declaration was accompanied by the affidavits of Henry
Sheppard and Francis B. Gregory.
8. His Lordship:   The declaration of Mr. Belyea is dated the 9th September,  1891?
A.—Yes.
9. Q.—Accompanied by a declaration of Mr. Gregory?
A.—Yes, and also one of H. W. Sheppard, Superintendent of Police.
Mr. Belyea : They are ah dated the 9th.
Witness : It is not usual to keep draft documents, but occasionally you do see them
lying around. I was under the impression, when this matter was before the
Commission the day before yesterday, that I had recently seen the draft declaration of August May, of which this declaration is a copy. I looked for it, and
also made my clerks look for it, but, unfortunately, we have not been able to
find it. There was, as it happened, about this time, or shortly afterwards, a
complaint against the official conduct of the Police Magistrate at Vancouver,
which I made a preliminary investigation into, laying the matter, in both cases,
before the Executive, with the result that the present Commission of Enquiry
into the official conduct, both of Mr. Belyea, of Victoria, Police Magistrate,
and Mr. Hallett, of Vancouver, Police Magistrate, was directed. Hence this
Commission.
10. His Lordship : This Commission is the result?
A.—Yes. I wish to say something further : Mr. Belyea, in his letter to me of the
8th of September, speaks of pending proceedings " now before" him, in the
Police Court. Those pending proceedings, or that pending proceeding, was the
hearing before Mr. Belyea, of an abduction case against Fried, which he dismissed, giving for this dismissal a written reason, of which I have a copy. I
would not be sure, and I cannot say exactly say where that came from; I don't
know whether it was sent me by Mr. Belyea, or who it came from. (Document
handed in.)
Mr. Belyea : You sent a shorthand reporter up to the Court to take it.
Witness : I don't know, I am sure ; it may have been taken by a shorthand reporter.
Mr. Belyea : You sent the shorthand reporter up there, and I gave him the original
draft.
Witness : I did not send the shorthand reporter up there, excuse me, I think—but
it was very possible the shorthand reporter went up there.
11. His Lordship : It is the original judgment ?
A. — It is a copy of it.
Mr. Taylor : Oh, I fancy that is a copy of it (saving all just exceptions as to its
accuracy.) xliv. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
(Copy judgment read by witness.)
Witness : That statement of Mr. Langley's, referred to in the judgment, was that
Fried told him that the girl was in his, Fried's, possession.
Mr. Taylor :  Excuse me, it was nothing of the short.
Mr. Belyea :  It was nothing of the sort.
His Lordship : It is not usual for counsel to contradict a witness.
Witness : Mr. Belyea says that this judgment was taken by the shorthand reporter,
and it is very possible that the shorthand reporter may have taken it.
Mr. Belyea : No, I didn't say that. I said it was a copy of my draft. I may say,
my Lord, that Mr. Evans, the official Court stenographer, came to me. He
said he had been sent up to take a report of the judgment, and, when he found
it was written out, he came to me for a copy, and I gave my judgment to him,
and he brought it down and type-wrote the document, and I have a copy he
made.
Witness : I think that is very likely to be the case. I think it is very likely that
Mr. Evans was sent up there for that purpose, although I did not send him up.
It is very likely he was sent up from the Department. A fresh information
was laid afterwards, at my direction, before one of the Magistrates in the
city, with the result that both the Frieds were arrested. This time it was an
information against both husband and wife.
12. His Lordship : You said both the Frieds ?    That meant husband and wife ?
A.—Yes, husband and wife. They were arrested, and, immediately upon their
arrest, as you have been told here, and as I have been informed, the girl was
also found, with the result that she was restored to her father and mother, who
took her away. Both Fried and his wife were committed for trial. When the
Assizes came on I did not think it was in the interests of justice to bring this
girl over here for the purpose of exposing her in an Assize Court, and, consequently, I laid no indictment before the Grand Jury, and, in that matter, I
never consulted with the father, May, at all. When this investigation was to
be held, after Mr. Belyea had written, saying that he expected Fried to be
present for cross-examination	
Mr. Belyea :   " May."
Witness : May to be present for cross-examination ; I sent the Superintendent of
Police over to try and get him, and he came over. May speaks very imperfect
English, as you have heard, but there is no difficulty, whatever, in sitting down
with him, and in conversation, ascertaining, with very little trouble, what he
wants to say. If you talk quickly to him, why you simply bewilder him.
That is all I have to say in this matter.
Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor :
13. Q.—You originated this charge against Mr. Belyea, yourself?
A.—What do you call " this charge ?"
14. Q.—This Commission ?    Without a complaint ?
A.—I had no complaint before me, other than what I have told you.
15. Q.—You had a complaint in Mr. Hallett's case, and none in this case ?
A.—In Mr. Hallett's case there certainly were a long series of charges.
16. Q.—And you hadn't any in Mr. Belyea's case ?
A.—No such documents.
17. Q.—And you got a Commission for both of them?
A.—Yes ; when you say I " got the Commission"—that was the course the Executive took.
18. Q.—Under whose advice ?
A.—Well, I think, it is on a memorandum from myself.    In fact, I know it is.
19. Q.—The Executive took that course under your advice ?
A.—Yes.
20. Q.—And, practically, on your suggestion, too ?    Didn't you bring it to the  notice  of
the Executive ?
A.—I brought it to the notice of the Executive.
21. Q.—What  is  the real impropriety or malversation of office  that you accuse  Mr,
Belyea of ?    In what does it consist ? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xlix.
A.—Before Mr. Belyea ?
88. Q.—Yes.
A.—Yes.
89. Q.—And also present before Mr. Ward ?
A.—Unquestionably they were before Mr. Ward, and, unquestionably, before Mr.
Belyea, too.
90. Q.—Then, they must have been present at the assizes ?
A.—They were.
91. Q.—Why did you not proceed with the case, then?
A.—There are many cases where, in the interests of society and of justice, although
the criminality of the accused is perfectly certain, it is not advisable to lay an
indictment before the Grand Jury. This was one of them. I am invested
with a discretion in cases of this kind, and, here, I exercised, and I think I
exercised it rightly.
92. Q.—I  understood you   to say  that this  charge  was  laid  with  a dual purpose: to
punish the offender and to secure the custody of  the girl  for  the parents.    In
other words, to recover the girl and punish Fried ?
A.—Yes, and, as I told you, my primary object in  taking these  proceedings  was to
procure the father his child.
93. Q.—Your primary object was to procure the father his child 1
A.—Yes.
94. Q.—And not to punish Fried ?
A.—I say my primary object was to procure the child for the father.
95. Q.—Did you not consider it a portion of your duty to punish the offender ?
A.— I did; to punish Fried, but I said my primary object was to get the child.
96. Q.—And your secondary object was to punish Fried ?
A.—Yes.
97. Q.—You got the girl ?
A.—I got the girl. The Provincial Police got the girl within half an hour after the
warrants were placed in their hands, and the City Police and city authorities
had been searching for days and said they couldn't find her.
98. Q.—Do you know how they got her ?
A.—In a house.
99. Q.—Did she not, as a matter of fact, come out of the house and give herself up 1
A.—I will call Mr. McNeil, and he will tell you all about it.
100. Q.—You don't know how they came into possession of her except by hearsay?
A.—Except by hearsay, but if you will ask Mr. McNeil he will tell you. I know
she was found half an hour after the warrants were placed in the hands of the
Provincial policemen, and the city authorities had been searching for days.
101. Q.—And could not find her ?    Is not that also hearsay evidence you are giving?
A.—I know they couldn't find her, or wouldn't find her, one or the other. I know
that when this matter was brought before Mr. Belyei in the first place, if he
had simply sent a police officer up to the Fried's you would never have heard
anything more about it.
Mr. Belyea : That is exactly what I wanted to have done, but May wouldn't have it.
102. Mr. Taylor: Do you think the Magistrate should utilize the police in that way?
A.—Unquestionably ; that is what they are for.
103. Q.—Wouldn't that have been a matter for the Superintendent of Police.
A.—Well, the Magistrate might, perhaps, have given his directions to the Superintendent of Police, and the Superintendent would have given directions to an
officer.
104. Q.—I understood you  to say that there  were some  cases in which you think the
prosecutions ought not to be proceeded with, in the interests of the public ?
A.—Yes there are.
105. Q.—What circumstances were present here?
A.—The first circumstance would be bringing this child, less than sixteen, who had
already been lured away from home once in her life, before an assize court,
where she would have to tell her story before a lot of people and be subjected
to their gaze. I can imagine nothing more liable to drive a girl to a life of
shame than to make her face an ordeal of that kind, and that was the reason 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xlv.
A.—Now, if you want to know my opinion about this—well, I don't know that I am
compelled to give it.
22,    Q.—I don't know that you are.    I simply ask you.
A.—If you wish to have my opinion in the matter I will give it to you. I think
Mr. Belyea acted most improperly ; I think he acted in a way that no Magistrate should act. He certainly acted in a way that led May to believe, and a
great many others to believe, that there was no justice for him until he paid
$20 to the Magistrate.
—May believed that ?
—Yes, that is the charge May brought to me.
—You think, then, that is the gist of this evidence, that he led May to believe
there was no justice here unless he paid $20 to the Magistrate ?
—That is what May understood from him.
—Then the whole thing was a wrong impression in Mr. May's mind.
—I don't know about that.
—Do you think that was a correct impression from the circumstances that
occurred.
—I don't know. I cannot help thinking that if I had been treated in the same
way that May was, I should  have  had  exactly the  same impression.
—If you had been treated in the same way that Mr. May was you would have had
exactly the same impression ?
—Yes—that is if I had not been a lawyer and known the difference between
the habeas corpus and the crimininal proceeding.
—Mr. May ought not to have had that impression if he were a sensible man ?
—I think nine men out of ten would have had that impression.
—Was that a proper impression for a man to gather ?
—I think it was a proper impression for May to have.
—Was that the impression you would have had?
—I should say of any Police Magistrate who made such a proposition to me, if I
had been in May's position, that he was wholly unfit to be a Police Magistrate.
—What part of it was wrong ?
—You ask me what I think was wrong. This man, May, went to the Police
Magistrate complaining of what was, to my mind, a matter which, as Police
Magistrate, Mr. Belyea should have taken hold of.
—What was that, now ?
—The absence of his daughter.
— He wanted a warrant to arrest her ?
—I don't know what he wanted. I know he laid his case before the Police
Magistrate, and the Police Magistrate, instead of acting as a Police Magistrate,
beckons this man and takes him down to his private office and intimates to him
that a fee of $20 is required, and that he cannot act for him as Police Magistrate, at all. If you call that proper—some people might—but to mind, it is
subversive of every principle of justice.
34. Q.—Subversive of every principle of justice?
A.—I think so, and every principle of right.
35. Q.—That he should have acted for him in a civil capacity ?    Is that what you mean ?
A.—I think Mr. Belyea's conduct in this matter is wholly  subversive of  what is
right.
36. Q.—Would it have been wrong for Mr.  Belyea to have referred him to another
lawyer, or firm of lawyers ?
-It would, possibly, have been a very proper thing  for  him  to have told him to
take advice.
-Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that that is what he did  advise  him to  do
first?
-I don't know.
-Wasn't that the evidence adduced before you ?
-No, I don't think so.
-That he said " this is matter you had better see a lawyer about ? "
-I have Mr. Belyea's declaration here.    Let us see if he says anything like that.
He may have stated it.    I do not think that is what he says.
23.
Q,
A.
24.
Q.
A.
25.
Q,
A.
26.
Q.
A.
27.
Q.
A.
28.
Q.
A.
29.
Q.
A.
30.
Q.
A.
31.
Q.
A.
32.
Q,
A.
33.
Q.
A.
A.
37.
Q.
A.
38.
Q.
A.
39.
Q,
A. xlvi. Enquiry re Polick Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
40. Q.—Never mind.
A.—Well, now, you asked me whether Mr. Belyea made such a statement. He
says : "I questioned both the chief and sergeant of police as to what was the
reputation of Fried and what kind of a house he kept, to which they replied,
that, so far as they knew, the Frieds were respectable people, and kept a
respectable house. Under these circumstances I told May I had no authority to
issue a warrant to arrest his girl, and could do nothing for him as Police
Magistrate, but advised him to proceed by habeas corpus against Pried. I told
him I would, as a lawyer, undertake this for him, and asked him to go to my
office—namely, the office of Belyea & Gregory."
41. Q.—Apparently, you would infer from that, that what May wanted was a warrant
to arrest the girl ?
A.—I think Mr. Belyea says that is what he wanted, but	
42. Q.—Would it, in your opinion, have been wrong	
A.—One moment	
His Lordship : Let Mr. Davie finish his answer.
43. Mr. Taylor : It is only taking up time.
A.—There was no reason why, if May misconceived what he ought to do, that the
Magistrate, because there was no right to arrest the girl, should have acted as
he did. I quite admit that May's idea that the girl should be arrested, was a
wrong one, but it was the duty of the Magistrate, surely, to put him straight,
and say : " the girl is not the proper party to arrest; the proper party to
arrest is the person detaining your girl." Just allow me further, in answer to
your question	
Mr. Taylor : You are, surely, not allowed to make a speech in answer to every question.
Witness: Mr. Belyea says, in his affidavit here, that this offence occurred outside
the jurisdiction. Well, be it so, and that he had no jurisdiction. But when
May came to his office, he tells us, he understood the girl had been restored to
her father, when Fried —I beg your pardon, Fried—and he gathered the same
thing from May himself, who immediately told him the girl had been taken
away again, and he found out that was the case. Surely, that was a fresh
case of abduction then, and for a man to tell me that, after what had occurred,
Mr. Belyea was right to sit upon this case, where he had demanded $20, and
discharge the man, why, is that what a Police Magistrate ought to do? Would
you think any man was fit to hold the office of Attorney-General, if he did not
bring such a case before the Court ?
His Loi'dship : Pardon me a moment; it is not necessary to go into the whole matter
again.
Witness : I did not mean to, but Mr. Taylor seems to think it is unreasonable that,
with the facts of this case before me, I should have allowed this complaint—
why, I should have been wholly false to my duty if I had not done so.
44. Mr. Taylor : 1 was about to ask you, when you gave us this long speech, if  it would
have been wrong on Mr. Belyea's part, had he referred May to another lawyer?
A.—Before acting himself ?
45. Q.—Yes.
A.—I don't think it would have been wrong.
46. Q.—If May said to Mr. Belyea, at that time, that this girl  was  simply  working at
the house, and did not communicate to Mr. Belyea that Fried was keeping her
or detaining her in any way 1 That this girl had simply run away from home
and was working at that house, without communicating to him that Fried was
detaining her in any way, would you have considered it proper for Mr. Belyea
to have allowed him to lay a criminal charge against Fried ?
A.—I never considered any such circumstances as those, because they were not laid
before me. I took the declaration of August May, the letters which were
written, and also what Mr. Belyea says himself, and I think that no such case
as that was made out.
47. Q.—Without Fried's  attempting,  or using influence,  or taking this  girl away,  or
restraining her from going to her father,   would there have been  any  offence
within the meaning of that section under which the charge was laid ? 50.
Q.
A.
51.
Q.
A.
52.
Q.
A.
53.
Q.
A.
54.-
-Q.
55 Vjct. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xlvii.
A.—That would be a matter for Mr. Belyea to decide after hearing the case, and
not to pre-judge it, or ask for $20 before he would give his opinion about it.
48. Q.—That was a matter for him to decide ?
A.—Yes; but not to pre-judge, and ask for $20.
49. Q.—Would there have been any offence if these circumstances were not present ?
A.—I am not prepared to say that. I mean to say that that was the very point for
Mr. Belyea to decide, after hearing the case, and not to pre-judge and decide it
in his own favour at once, and say he would have to be paid $20 for his fee.
-Do you know, as a matter of fact, that there were any such circumstances communicated to him at that time ?
-You are asking me whether I would rather believe August May's statement upon
that matter, and the letters which the girl wrote, than what Mr. Belyea swears
to here.
-Mr. Belyea and Mr. Gregory and Mr. Sheppard ?
-Well, I think I would rather not say who I would rather believe in this matter.
-That is not an answer to the question ?
-I am not going to say.
-You decline to answer ?
-Yes, I decline.
-Would you have considered it a proper thing to have done, to have laid a criminal charge against a man, assuming, for instance, that Fried was ignorant of
where the girl came from or who her father was ? Would you have considered
it a proper thing to have laid a charge against him ?
-I think it would have been very proper to have allowed Mr. Fried to prove that.
I think that when a man is found in the possession of a girl, under the circumstances that Fried was, if he says he came by her innocently and don't know
where she came from, it is a very proper thing to bring him before the Court
and let him prove it.
-Were any of those circumstances brought out before Mr. Belyea, in the Magistrate's office, that morning when May first came there ?
-What occurred in the Magistrate's office, as detailed to me by August May,
may be read in his declaration.
-I ask you would it have been a proper course to pursue, for the Magistrate to
have laid a criminal information ?
-The Magistrate wouldn't lay an information.
-He takes it. If that girl were found at your house, without any evidence showing that you knew anything about her, would it be a proper course ?
-If the girl were at service ?
-Yes ; at service with respectable people, who knew nothing at all about her ?
-That was not the case.
-I ask you :    Would it have been a proper course to have taken ?
-Most certainly not, but that was not the complaint that August May made to
Mr. Belyea. That is not what Mr. Belyea stated his complaint to have been.
He wanted to get his daughter, and had come over here for that purpose.
-You directed the first criminal charge to be laid ?
-You might have those letters read, and then tell me if there is any truth in
what you suggest.
-Did you direct the criminal charge to be laid, Mr. Davie ?
-Which one ?
-Either of them ? I think you stated that you directed the second, and I think
you also mentioned the first, ?
-I was present when the first was laid.
-It was done under your direction ?
-Under my advice.
-In the City Police Court 1
-I laid it before Mr. Shotbolt, a Justice of the Peace.
-Are you referring now to the first one ?
-The first one ?
-Mr. Shotbolt was a Justice of the Peace, simply, was he not ?
-A Justice of the Peace.
55.
Q.
A.
56.
Q.
A.
57.
Q.
A.
58.
Q.
A.
59.
Q.
A.
60.
Q.
A.
61.
Q.
A.
62.
Q.
A.
63.-
-Q,
A.
64.
Q,
A.
65.
Q.
A.
66.
Q.
A. 67.
Q--
A.
68.
Q-
A.
69.
Q.-
A-
70.
Q--
A.
71.
Q--
A.
72.
Q.-
A.
73.
Q.
A.
74.
Q-
A.
75.
Q-
A.
xlviii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
-And Mr. Belyea was Police Magistrate for the city ?
—Yes.
-Why did you not advise that information to be laid before him ?
-Why, after his connection with the case, it would have  been  a most  improper
thing to have done.
-Most improper ?
-Yes.
-Why was that charge laid ?
-For the purpose of enabling the father to get his girl  back,   and  to  punish the
guilty parties, if possible.
-Then, I am to understand, Mr. Davie, that the charge was laid for  the  purpose
of recovering the girl and punishing Fried ?
-Yes.
-Do you think that was a proper charge to lay 1    To lay a criminal charge to try
and get possession of the girl ?
-Unquestionably, I do.
-To  employ  the  machinery  of the  criminal law  for the  purpose of recovering
possession of this girl ?
-I do.
-Would a habeas corpus have been a proper remedy ?
-A   wholly  improper   remedy;   a   wholly   ineffectual   and   a   wholly   improper
remedy.
-In what respect were the public interested in the restoration of  this girl to  her
father ?
—I think the public is interested in  the  control  of every  child  by  her parents.
The whole social fabric would tumble if it  were  not  so—if parents  were not
given the custody of their children.
76. Q.—Is the criminal law  designed  for the purpose  of punishing criminals,  or  for
asserting private rights.
A.—For punishing offences, and doing what is right.
77. Q-—You had a dual purpose, then, in this charge—to procure  the girl and  punish
the offence ?    Then you travelled a little outside the pale of criminal law?
A.—No, I did not.    The object of the criminal law  is  to  secure to  the  father  the
possession of his child—in this particular instance—and  to punish, if possible,
those who take her away from him.
-Is that your opinion of the intention of the clause ?
-Yes, and to punish the offender.
-To secure him in the custody of the child 1
-To get him the custody of his child.
-You say so ?
-Yes.
-And that was your object in laying the charge ?
-That was my primary object.    I had more in mind the procuring for the father
the custody of his child than I had punishing the Frieds.
-You remember the investigation at the City Police Court ?
-Yes.
-And you know the evidence that was taken there ?
—I read it in the newspaper.    I don't know whether  it  is  correctly  reported, or
whether it is not.
-You read it in the newspaper ?
-I don't think I read the depositions.
-Had they any fresh evidence at the time the second charge was laid ?
.—No, no fresh evidence to speak of.    I  think there  was another witness  called
before Mr. Ward, but nothing essential.    To my mind, the evidence of Langley
was quite sufficient to fasten the case upon the Frieds, and that was the opinion
of the Magistrate.
86. Q. — In your opinion, the evidence of Langley was quite sufficient  to  fasten it  upon
Fried?
A.—I think so.
87. Q.—Then, in your opinion, the essentials of the crime were present ?
78.
Q-
A.
79.
Q.
A.
80.
Q.
A.
81.
Q.
A.
82.
Q.
A.
83.
Q.
A.
84.
Q,
A.
85.
Q
A. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xv.
-What time was that ?
-About one o'clock.
-After you left Mr. Belyea's office ?
-Yes.
-Mr. Belyea told you, then, to go and demand the girl ?
-Well, I don't know what you mean, "demand."
-Did Mr. Belyea ask you to go and ask Fried for your girl ?
-No.
-He said he would send and ask for her ?
-Yes.
-And then you left his office ?
-Yes.
-And you went up to Fried's house ?
-Yes.
-And you asked for her ?
-Yes.
-Was anything said about money up to that time ?
-Yes; there was said about the $20.    When I spoke he said that he  charge  me
165.
Q.
A.
166.
Q.
A.
167.
Q.
A.
168.
Q.
A.
169.
Q,
A.
170.
Q.
A.
171.
Q.
A.
172.
Q.
A.
173.
0,
A.
174.
Q.
A.
175.
Q.
A.
176.
Q.
A.
-You asked him what it would cost?
-Yes.
-And he told you it would cost-	
-Twenty dollars.
-And you agreed to pay that?
-I told him yes, I willing to do it, but I have not got money along, I will
try to get the money from Seattle ; I send dispatch over. I ask him if he
would give me any guarantee for him to get my daughter back, and he said
" No, he could not give no guarantee for this."
177. Q.-  Didn't he also tell you  that he would bring the girl up before a Judge of the
Court, and that the Judge would probably give  her to you, but that he could
not guarantee that he would ?
A.—Well, I don't know anything about it.    As soon as he say he could not give me
guarantee, I go down.
178. Q.—That  he could  not give you a guarantee,  but would bring her up before the
Judge, and perhaps the Judge would give her to you?
A.—I  go   as   soon as he  told me he  would  give no guarantee.    I never pay   a
lawyer before he has done ; that is what I do.    I make arrangement  with him
—if you get it  through  I pay you this  much,  and if you  don't, I pay you
nothing.     I have not got very much to speak with him afterwards.
179. Q.—So that the only way you deal with a lawyer is  on a  contingent fee.    But did
he not say that to you ?
A.—No, I don't remember anything he say about going to a Judge.
180. Q.—What did you understand him to say ?
A.—That he would bring this before the Court to-morrow ; that is what I expected.
181. Q.—Well, he told you he was going to	
A.—He told me to bring this before the Court as soon as I paid the $20.
182. Q.—What Court did you think ?
A.—At the Police Court, that is what I expected.
183. Q.—Did he tell you that he would take you in the Police Court ?
A.—No, he don't say anything about the Police Court.
184. Q.—Didn't he tell you that he would take you before a Judge of the Supreme Court ?
A.—No ; there was no talk about Supreme Court.    I never could find out how it is
he is judge himself, and after, he is lawyer himself. I ask some fellow—
another fellow—for I would not have anything to do with him. I thought
there must be something wrong if he is judge himself and he is lawyer himself.
185. Q.—And that there was something wrong in asking for $20 before he did the work ?
A.—Of course.    I am not acquainted with this—in this Court; but in the United
States I know the law.
186. Q.—Of course you are familiar with the law over there ? Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
A.—I have got lots of lawyers to tell me over there.
187. Q.—Will you say'he did not tell you that?
A.—I don't know anything what he say from the Police Court.
188. Q.—I am talking about the office—that he didn't say to you  that  this matter would
have to go before a Judge of the Supreme Court ?
A.—No, he didn't say anything about Supreme Court.    He say  "Court,"  not Police
Court.    He did not speak.    We were talking about it from  " the  Court."    No
more Police Court nor Supreme Court.
-He didn't say a Judge of the Supreme Court ?
.—I don't remember a name like that.
—Will you say he did not say that to you ?
-I don't remember a name like this.    You ask me a name I cannot tell you.
—You do not remember whether he said that  to you or not ?
—No; he didn't say anything about Supreme Court.
—You will swear then he didn't say that to you ?
—No, he didn't say that.
—Who was present then ?
—His partner was in the other room.
—Was the door open ?
—I am not for sure whether it was or not.
—His partner was there ?
—I don't know if somebody else was in there or not; I don't know.
—Weren't there two other clerks there ?
—Two fellows up there, I don't know.
—There  were   one   or   two  up  there  you didn't  know besides   his  partner,   I
suppose, you mean ?
-Yes.
—Well, this was about 12 or half-past?
—Well, it was about half-past 12.
—And then you left his office ?
-Yes.
—You told me you would have to telegraph to Seattle to get the $20 ?
-Yes.
—You did not telegraph ?
-Yes.
—Did you ?
—You bet I did.    You go and ask here in the telegraph office.
—Well, after you telegraphed you went to Fried's house ?
—I sent a telegraph before I went to Fried's house.
-After you sent the telegram  you went to his house ?    You  sent the telegram
first?
—Yes; I spoke to my daughter, " if you come back I don't have to pay the $20,
I have to send  despatch  to  Seattle for $20  to see I get the money  out.    I
didn't pay anyway.
-Did you tell her that ?
—No ; I don't know before.
-You just said if she would go with you she would save the $20, and Fried
advised her to go with you ?
—Yes, once.
-And then she went with you, and you went down to the post office?
—Yes ; made an excuse to get away.
-What time was that ?
—It was about two o'clock, between two and three o'clock.
-In the afternoon ?    Did you go to see Fried again that afternoon ?
—Yes ; I was there twice.
-To his house ?
-Yes.
-Did you see Fried, or Mrs. Fried ?
-Mrs. Fried ; Fried was gone before I left the house.    I waited for my daughter;
come and told him.
189.
Q,
A.
190.
Q,
A.
191.
Q,
A.
192.
Q.
A.
193.
Q.
A.
194.
Q.
A.
195.
Q,
A.
196.
Q.-
A.
197.
Q.
A.
198.
Q.
A.
199.
Q--
A.
200.
Q,
A.
201.
0,.-
A.
202.
Q.
A.
203.
Q.-
A.
204.
Q--
205.
Q.
A.
206.
Q-
A.
207.
Q.
A.
208.
Q-
A
209.
Q.
A
210.
Q.
A.
211.
Q.
A. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria.
—And then you went back to Mrs. Fried, and she said the girl wasn't there ?
-Yes.
-And then didn't you go to Fried's barber shop?
—Yes; I went to Fried's barber shop and then there was nobody in except the
barbers, and I asked if my daughter was here, and one of them said she was here
a good while ago she left the barber shop.
—She was not there then ?
-No.
—Then did you see Mr. Belyea after that ?
-Yes.
-What time ?
—Well, I don't know exactly what  time it was.    After three o'clock.    I don't
remember the time.
-About three o'clock ?
-Well, may be three, or half-past.    I didn't have the time along.
-Did you see him before or after you went to the barber's ?
—No ; I went to the barber's shopi before I went to him.
-Do you   remember  making  any statement before the  Attorney-General,  Mr.
Davie here—this gentleman ?
—Well, I don't know  what you mean.    You speak too  high words.    I cannot
understand.
-Did you sign a paper ?    You know what " sign a paper " is ?
—Oh, yes ; that is my name.
-Did you (producing document) sign that paper before Mr. Davie?
-Yes.
-Who wrote that paper?
—Well, that was wrote in Mr. Davie's office.
-By whom?
—Well, I don't know who wrote it.    He read it to me, and I sign it.
- Who told him what to put in that paper?
—I told him everything—how the whole thing is.
-Before or after he wrote this paper?
-Yes.
-Before or after he wrote this paper?
—Before.
-How did you come to go over there, Mr. May?
—I told you once, that the saloon-keeper, the German saloon—
-Try to get this out of your mind.    We are not trying the Fried case.    How was
it you came to go over there ?
A.—Well, Mr. Richter, I told him about this thing.    I come here.    I have not got
friends, in the Police Court I cannot do anything,  and  everybody charge  me,
and he says "I know a good man here—the best man here in town."
Who asked you for money beside Mr. Belyea?
-Well, if I ask a fellow to go along with me on the police to help me out, he say
"Oh, I cannot do this for nothing; you must pay me $3.00."
Who was that?
-Oh, it was a chimney-sweeper and another fellow, he has got an office here, and
he charge me $5.00.
Where?
-On the street not far from where your office is; he is a small man, and he speak
German and he charge me $5.00.
-Is he a lawyer?
-I don't know; he has got a different kind of business; I lose his card.    He is a
small fellow; he walks every time with a stove-pipe.
■He works where?
-I don't know.
-How old is he?
-Oh, he may be about fifty-five; a little man, walking all the time in stove-pipe.
I ask him.
212.
Q.
A.
213.
Q--
A.
214.
Q,
A.
215.
Q.
A.
216.
Q.
A.
217.
Q-
A.
218.
Q.-
A.
219.
Q-
A.
220.
Q.
A.
221.
Q.
A.
222.
Q-
A.
223.
Q.-
A.
224.
Q--
A.
225.
Q.-
A.
226.
Q.-
A.
227.
Q.-
A.
228.
Q--
229.
Q.
A.
230.
Q,
A.
231.
Q.
A.
232.
Q.
A.
233.
Q.
A
234.
Q.
A. xviii.
Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria                         1892
235.
Q-
-How did you come to get acquainted with him?
A-
—Well, I ask some fellows; I must have some help.
236.
Q--
-Who did you ask, Richter?
A.-
—I was in German saloon; I said "I must have somebody to have in Court," and
one says "I know a fellow; I look him out," and he  told me  $5.00 he charge.
Well, you didn't let him come and  I didn't pay $5.00.    You keep him as  long
as you please, and I didn't get one.
237.
Q-
-You mean Mr. Walls, the lawyer, who acted for you?
A.-
—I could not help myself; I could not understand what you said.
238.
Q.-
-You mean the lawyer who acted for you down at the Police Court?
A.-
—I don't mean the lawyer.
239.
Q.-
-Did you not go to one or two lawyers after you went to Mr. Belyea?
A.-
—I didn't have two lawyers; I only have one.
240.
Q-
-Didn't you go to Bod well & Irving?
A.-
—I don't know the name.
241.
Q.-
-On the corner down here,—the brick office?
A.-
-I don't know the name except I see him.
242.
Q--
-Did you go to see any other lawyer besides Mr. Belyea ?
A-
—I guess I saw two or three of them.
243.
Q.-
-And they all wanted pay ?
A.-
—Nobody ask me for pay, and I only wanted to find her before 1 get the money
from Seattle.
244.
Q.-
-You went to see two or three lawyers ?
A.-
-Yes.
245.
Q--
-Why didn't some of them act for you ?
A.-
—Well,  they didn't  say to  do anything.    I  told them I waited for money, and
they told me to come in again.    That is all they want—the money.
246.
Q.-
—Who was it told you that ?
A.-
-What ?
247.
Q-
—When you told him you hadn't any money—to come in again ?
A-
—I don't know the name.    I don't know anything.
248.
Q-
—Where is the office ?
A.-
—The office is here.
249.
Q--
—On the corner ?
A-
—Yes; I guess I was here the first day.    I could not remember this street or this
street.
250.
Q.-
—It is right over from the corner from this Court House ?    Was that the building ?
A.-
—I  don't  know  if  that  was  the  building.    I talk with it about two or three of
them.
251.
Q-
—And that is the answer you got all round ?
A.
—Yes.    I didn't say (stay ?) in the office.    I seen one fellow who shewed me two
of them.
252.
Q.-
—Do you understand English very well ?
A.
—No ; I can't understand it.
253.
Q.-
—Was this paper you signed before Mr. Davie read over to you ?
A.
—Well, I know my name.
254.
Q--
—Well, I know you know your name, in all probability.
A.
—There is no my name here; I cannot find my name.    That is my name.
255.
Q--
—Was that paper read over to you before you signed it ?
A.
—Yes.
256.
Q--
—And explained ?
A.
—Yes.
257.
Q-
—And is every statement contained in that paper perfectly true ?
A.
—What is it means—"perfect"?
258.
Q-
—Well, is it a lie or the truth ?
A.
—Well, what he reads it to me, and I signed it, and I find it correct.
259.
Q--
—You mean by that, it was the truth ?
A.
—Well, I don't know what is means by " the truth."
260.
Q.-
—Don't you know what the truth is ?
A.
—No. xx. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
His Lordship : I say that it is not feasible, because I understand his language. You
could not get that—you could not put his English into the exact words there,
because he has not got those English words in his head.
Mr. Taylor : I am not trying to impute anything to the witness, I am simply trying
to shew, and can shew, if your Lordship will allow me to shew it.
His Lordship : You are asking from the witness what is unreasonable to expect. He
can tell you what he knows—the sense of what he said, and he knows the sense,
and what he is doing, and you have to take it in his words and not render it—
very probably it is rendered there into plain English.
Mr. Taylor : But your Lordship will bear in mind that the only charges we have
been able with the utmost effort to get from these parties are the charges made
in this declaration by August May, who is practically the complainant in this
case.
His Lordship : I dismissed the word "charge" altogether.
Mr. Taylor : Call it innuendo. Perhaps the person who deposed to these facts did
not know what he did when he made it. You will not even allow me to ask
him what it is he has sworn to ?
His Lordship : Now, don't you say that to me, if you please.
Mr. Taylor : Your Lordship will understand that I am putting it not as a personal
matter, but as a mode of conducting the enquiry.
His Lordship: You want to mix up two points and two matters which ought not to
be mixed up together. For instance, this man is asked with regard to his deposition—call it whatever you like—a portion of it is read over to him and he
knows the general purport of it, and he says " that is true." Then you ask him
to render that back again, and say "Now, what was it you did say?" Well, his
effort to render it back in the same language—he cannot do it; it is impossible.
Mr. Taylor: My Lord; as a matter of practice, it is fair to ask a witness whether
certain statements are true, then take up those statements seriatim and ask him
whether they are true or false?
His Lordship: That is perfectly right.
Mr. Taylor: And I propose to shew that the witness is not to blame. He does not
understand them, and that they were all formulated by the Attorney-General,
who practically is making this charge.
His Lordship: How can you make him understand? There is scarcely an affidavit,
as you know well, which any man makes—some illiterate person—that can
possibly be rendered back in the same language in which you in your duty and
which I have professionally done—could expect him to render it back again
into your English.
Mr. Taylor: I don't want him to render it into my English, but into his own, and
say what he meant by it?
277. To witness: What did you mean by that  statement?    (Reads clause 2.)    What did
you mean by "harbored?"—did you know what that meant?
A.—That means I just look to have my daughter back.    That is everything I   told
him—that is right what I mean.
278. Q.—What does that mean there?
A.—Would you get me a German fellow what can explain this?
279. Q.—What you mean there is you wanted your daughter back?
A—Yes.
280. Q.—And what else?
A.—Nothing more; I would not have anything more. I would not come here and
make something.
281. Q.—Do you know what means —"harbored?"
A.—I cannot explain it.    I cannot explain it in English.
282. Q.—You cannot explain it in English?    " But I know I wanted my daughter back."
"That soon after my arrival at Victoria round to the office of the City Police and
at about nine o'clock before Sheppard, who advised me to wait and see the Police
Magistrate, which I did, and then in the Police Magistrate's office in the City
Hall explained the particulars of my grievance to the Police Magistrate and
informed him of his daughter's age and the then circumstances of the case." 55 Vict. ENQiriRy re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xxi.
You have told me a few minutes ago what took place there—what you told the
policeman and the Chief of Police, and Mr. Belyea?
A. — No; I have told you three or four times I came there and ask  him what I  can
do.
—I know; don't go over it all again.    What you have told me, before, is correct?
—That is correct.    I give it this.
—You have told me all the circumstances you have told him?
—Yes.
— (Clause 3 read to witness).    Now; is this statement correct?
—Yes.
—Did you tell him you thought the fee was excessive?
—I don't know what " excessive " means.     I know what it  means in  German; I
don't know what it means in English.
—(Reads  paragraph 5)  " promising to meet me again in an hour."
—I wait there for an hour.
— "That after the expiration of au hour, the girl  not  returning, I  went back  to
Fried's house, and told Mrs. Fried that the girl was not there ?"
—Yes ; she told me so.
—"I went a second time, and received the same assurance"—what was that?
—I went a second time, and the girl was not there.
—Did she tell you so?
—Yes.
—"I went to Mr. Belyea on Government street, and he told  me my daughter was
not there"—did he tell you that?
—No; he told me but I talk with his partner, and she told me she was not here.
—What do you mean by declaring that  Mr. Belyea told you your daughter had
been there, when you say now he didn't say anything of the kind?    Do you
know this is the same as an oath?
—His partner told me she was here, maybe.
—Here is the question: You have declared here that Mr. Belyea, when you went
up to his office, told you your daughter had been there?    Did he, or did he not?
—He didn't tell me downstah's.
—Did he tell you upstairs?
—Upstairs his partner told me maybe she was here.
—He has sworn that Mr. Belyea didn't tell him downstairs that his daughter had
been there.     Did he tell you upstairs?
—Upstairs his partner told me he guess she was here.
—Is that the gentleman sitting there?
—I don't know.
—It was his partner said that he thought she had been there?    Did Mr. Belyea
tell you?
—No; I didn't ask him no more.
—Then that statement in there is not true?
—Yes; his partner that he think, he guess my daughter was here.
—But you have sworn that Mr.  Belyea told you that—that this gentleman told
you that.    That is not correct, then?
—Yes; it is correct.
—Did he tell you that?
—His partner; I guess that is just as good as he.
-Did Mr. Belyea tell you that?
—I told you twice that he tell me I guess she was here.
-Who ? Mr. Belyea ?
—No ; another fellow.
—You swore Mr. Belyea told you ?
—Who told you that I swore ?
-Did he tell you that ?
—Who?
-Mr. Belyea?
—Well, I told you twice that his partner—I don't know whether his partner or
who it was.
283.
Q.
A
284.
Q,
A
285.
Q.
A.
286.
Q.
A.
287.
Q.
A.
288.
Q.
A.
289.
Q.-
A.
290.
Q.
A.
291.
Q.
A.
292.
Q-
A.
293.
Q.
A.
294.
Q.
A.
295.
Q.
A.
296.
Q-
A.
297.
Q-
A.
298.
Q--
A.
299.
Q--
A.
300.
Q-
A.
301.
Q,.-
A.
302.
Q-
A.
303.
Q-
A.
304.
Q.-
A
305.
Q--
A. xxii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
306.    Q.—Why did you swear that Mr. Belyea told you that, before  Mr.   Davie, that  Mr.
Belyea told you that ?
A.—Well, I thought this fellow's name is Belyea ;  I  didn't know  the name of  the
fellow.    I don't know the name yet.    I just know him by the magistrate.
307.—Atty.-General: Was Mr. Belyea present when he told you ?
A—Yes.
308. Mr. Taylor : You thought it was the magistrate ?
A.—Yes ; I don't know the name.
309. Q.—Did you tell Mr. Davie that the magistrate had told you that your daughter had
been to his office ?
A.—Yes, I did tell him that.
310. Q.—Was that the truth ?    Did you, or didn't you ?
A.—He put on the paper everything I tell him.
311. Q.—Did he tell you that?
A.—Yes
312. Q.—Was it true or not ?
Attorney-General : What is the good of trying to befog the witness in this way?
The man's statements now are perfectly consistent with the statements in the
affidavit that Mr. Belyea was there, and now he says Mr. Gregory; but the
material statement in that is the fact that Mr. Belyea required a fee of $20.
Mr. Belyea : For perfectly legitimate work.
Mr. Taylor: The material part is he did not know what he was saying, and my
learned friend formulated it so as to get to.
Mr. Taylor : (to witness) : Well, that statement is not correct?
A.—It was correct; I didn't have the name from him.
313. Q—" He then repeated his demand for $20, saying my daughter was not obliged to
go with me ? "
A.—Well, he says may be, and may be she go and stay here.    He  would not  give
any guarantee for this.
314. Q.—But he did not say she was not obliged to go with you ?
A.—Well, he says he would not give no guarantee whether she would go or not.
315. Q.—He did not say though that she was not obliged to go with you ?
A.—No.
(Adjourned for one hour.) 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xxiii.
Victoria, B. O, 29th December, 1891.
Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Crease, as Commissioner.
First Day—Afternoon Session.
Present: The Attorney-General; Mr. Taylor for Mr. Belyea.
August May, cross-examination continued by Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor (to reporter) : What was the last question ?
A.—" He did not say, though, that she was not obliged to go with you ?"
Witness : He says maybe the Judge will let her go, and maybe not; that's what I said.
1. Q.—That is what you said in answer to that question ?
A.—Yes.
2. Q.—Then there was some conversation about the Judge ?
A.—I don't know about any conversation. Mr. Taylor, I will tell you, this paper
was shew to this gentleman here (indicating Mr. Belyea) before I signed it; it
is in Mr. Davie's office, and then it is correct, and there was somebody else there
too, and he says himself right. I don't know what is the matter ; you cannot
expect it from me ; I am an old fellow and I have something else to do; I came
here to Victoria; I didn't know anything was the matter, and you ask me these
questions which I never know anything at all about, and I got more to do in
my home; I make my living this whole time, and you cannot expect it from
me that I remember over three or four months ago what I speak.
3. Q.—That is exactly what  I  want to  show—that  when you made this  you didn't
understand English very well ?
A.—I didn't said no more than that.
4. Q.—And you did not know quite what was down here?
A.—You didn't ask me before anything about my girl. You did ask me the whole
time in the Police Judge's what I eat and what I drink, and I thought you
going to ask me how many times I sleep with my wife—I expect it every
minute. You never ask me what my daughter does home ; you didn't ask me
this. I tell you, Mr. Taylor, he didn't ask me this in the Police Court. He
just ask me what I drink and eat, and I expect him to ask me how many times
I sleep with my wife. He didn't ask me what my daughter did, and what she
come here for; no, sir; there was no word; nobody ask me what those wages
was like. There is evidence, plenty ; all the Germans was round there, and he
didn't ask one word about the case.
5. Q.—At the time you went to the Police Court, Mr. May, you had not signed this
paper ?
A.—I had no time in the Police Court; I didn't have anything to do there.
6. Q.—You were at the Police Court before you signed this ?
A —I signed this after this gentleman (indicating Mr. Belyea) comes to Mr. Davie's
office. This gentleman was in Mr. Davie's office, and he didn't say anything is
wrong, and, of course, everything is three or four months ago.
7. Q.—He didn't say it was wrong then?
A.—No.
8. Q.—Will you swear that is true ?
A.—Yes ; there was Mr. Davie there, and somebody else, too.
9. Q.—That is as correct as the balance of your statements ?
A.—Yes.
Attorney-General: That is absolutely correct. When this man made his statement
to me I reduced it to writing, and I then sent for Mr. Belyea, and when Mr.
Belyea came over there I read this statement to him, before this man had
signed it and sworn to it. xxiv. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
Mr. Belyea : Not from that paper.
Attorney-General: It has since been type-written, exactly as you see it there. I
read this statement to, and heard what Mr. Belyea said, and being quite satisfied
as to the accuracy of this statement—which, for other reasons, you will find is
correct—the witness was taken before Mr, Shotbolt and the document sworn
to; Mr. Shotbolt, first of all, taking the document into his own hand and
reading it and explaining it to this witness.
Mr. Taylor : Do I understand my learned friend that he heard Mr. Belyea's statement
before he allowed the witness to swear to this declaration ?
Attorney-General: I heard Mr. Belyea's statement; certainly.
10. Mr. Taylor : Did Mr. Belyea, himself, ever ask you for $20, or was it his partner ?
A.—He, himself, says for $20.
11. Q.—Did his partner ask you ?
A.—No ; he make the paper out, and I ask him and he tell me it was $20 ; he didn't
ask me, he just tell me it was the cost.
12. Q.—It was Mr. Belyea, and not his partner ?
A.—It was this gentleman (indicating Mr. Belyea) ; I don't know his name ; it was
this gentleman was making the papers out.
13. Q.—Now, I would like to get an answer to this question, Mr. May : You say that at
the time Mr. Belyea asked you for the $20 he said that your daughter was not
obliged to go with you ? Did I understand that ?
A.—That's what he says. I don't know the law ; I told me I don't know the law.
That's what makes me mad. But he will have the $20, and he can't say I have
my girl or not. I say you know very well I haven't got that much. In the
Police Court he talk to me about like a robber.
14. Q.—Just think a minute before you  answer.    Did  Mr.   Belyea ever tell  you that
your daughter was not obliged to go with you ?
A.—That's what he said; that's what he told me.
15. Q.—Are those the words used?
A.—I think so ; I am not sure ; it is 3 or 4 months ago.
16. Q.—Be sure about it ?
A.—I cannot be sure about it.
17. Q.—Did he tell you what you have just stated a moment  ago, that  he didn't know
whether the Judge would order her to go with you or not 1
A.—I am a man of 50 years old now, and I cannot remember this.    I had no notice
of for what I am coming here for.    If I had notice of what  for I come here for
maybe I remember.     I come here yesterday, and I didn't know for what; just,
of course, Mr. Davie calls me and I was willing to go for him anytime.
18. Q.—Do anything for him anytime ?
A.—What I can do for him I am willing to do, for he done for me, too.
19. Court: At the time Mr. Belyea  spoke  about  that  $20, did he  tell you that your
daughter was not obliged to go with you ?
A.—Yes, I think so.    Excuse me,  gentlemen,  he told me,   " I  don't  know if you
can get your daughter ; maybe she can stay here, too; I don't know."    That's
what he told me.    Cannot say for sure.
20. Mr. Taylor: Those were the words, " Maybe you can get your daughter back.    I
cannot tell for sure ?"
A.—And "maybe not."
21. Q.—" Maybe you can get her back, and maybe not; I cannot tell you;" that is what
he said ?
A.—That's as much as I remember.    I cannot remember for sure.
22. Q.—Your statement here says that your daughter was not obliged to go with you ?
A.—You and Fried speak, and you say no, you wouldn't let her go ;   you know
this very well.    He wouldn't let her go.    That other police won't find  her on
the street, and the other police find her right away.
23. Court: Find who ?
A.—My daughter. I like to find out the kind of business he does here. I know
very well the kind of business he does here, but I couldn't get her; the police
couldn't find her. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xxix.
A.—Well, of course, if he wouldn't come with me I must have the law—the suit—I
don't know what you call it.
110. Q.—That is what you wanted when you went there ?
A.—Yes ; I thought the law help me when I cannot help myself.    The law—the law
of British Columbia.
111. Q.—What you wanted, then, was to arrest the girl and  take  her  with  you,  if she
wouldn't come herself?
—Bye and bye.    I have to see what is wrong first.     But they didn't do this.
—That is what you told him you wanted done, is it?
—I didn't tell him.    I  expected  him to  know  that law  himself.    Every J udge
knows his business.
—Didn't you ask him to give you something to arrest the girl ?
—Give me?    No, sir; I didn't ask him about a warrant,  because  I  thought  the
Chief of Police makes out the warrants.
—You did expect to get a warrant ?
—From the Chief of Police ; not from him.
—And you did not ask him ?
—No, sir.
—A warrant from the Chief of Police—what for ?
—For my daughter to come, and I can see him, and for him to come with me.
—By a warrant you understood some paper to make your daughter go with you ?
—That's all.
—It was not to arrest her ?
—Yes.
—It was to arrest her too ?
—Yes.
—Did you say that there ?
—I didn't say to him.
—Did you say it to the Chief of Police ?
—No, sir.
—Now, as far as you knew about Fried, up to that time?
—As far as I know he is in Seattle, and I seen his wife about three nights walking
round with Tillie.
—Who is Tillie ?
—Her sister.
—You did not know, at that time, anything about Fried ?
—You  ask  me  about Fried.    I don't know for what I come here.    I have heard
about Fried, and Fried is there, and he don't care for you.    You never get any
more money out of him ;  I am sure for that.
—You don't want to answer my question, then ?
—Any question you tell me, I will answer.    I am here for this.
—Did you tell Mr. Belyea, or the Chief of Police, at that  time,   that  Fried  was
keeping the girl away from you without your consent ?
—That's what he did.
—Did you tell them that ?
—Yes; I told just the Chief of Police.
—Just told the Chief of Police ?
—Chief of Police.
—You did not tell Mr. Belyea ?
—He knows very well.    The Chief of Police tell him everything.
—Did the Chief of Police tell him that ?
—I guess so.    He is paid to do this.
—Did he do it ?
—I don't know.
—Did you tell him, at that time, that Fried had taken the girl from Seattle?
—Of course, I told him.
—Mr. Belyea ?    The Magistrate ?
A.—I at first saw the Police Chief.    I spoke to that gentleman.    I didn't know the
name Magistrate,
A.
112.
Q.
A.
113.
0,
A.
114.
0,
A.
115.
Q.
A.
116.
Q.
A.
117.
Q,
A.
118.
Q.
A.
119.
Q.
A.
120.
Q,
A.
121.
Q-
A.
122.
0,
A.
123.
Q.
A.
124.
Q,
A.
125.
Q.
A.
126.
Q.
A.
127.
Q.
A.
128.
Q.
A.
129.
Q.
A.
130.
Q.
A.
131.
Q,
A.
132.
Q.
A.
133.
Q. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xxv.
24. Mr. Taylor: Did  you  tell  Mr. Belyea,  the first  time you saw him, the age of your
daughter Hattie ?
A.—Yes, I told him;   and I had the papers along too, but, of course, I didn't shew
him.    I got the age of my child when he is born.
25. Q.—You mean a certificate ?
A.—Yes; from the old country.
26. Q.—You didn't shew him that ?
A.—No,  I  didn't  shew  him  that;   I  had  no  need  to shew him; I wouldn't shew
everybody.
27. Q.—Did you  tell  him,  at  his  office  in  the  Police Court, the age of your daughter
Hattie ?
A.—I  told  him about three or four times in his office.    He ask me what age he is.
You ask me what age he is.
28. Q.—That  was  in  the  Police  Court, afterwards ; but I am speaking of the morning
you came here—Friday morning.    You remember that ?
A.—Yes, I remember.
29. Q.—You  went  up  to  the  Police Station and saw the Chief of Police, and you saw
this gentleman, Mr. Belyea ?
A.— Afterwards.
30. Q.—About half-past eleven ?
A.—No ; about half-past nine or ten.
31. Q.—And he went on and tried a case in Court, and you saw him afterwards?
A.—Yes.
32. Q.—Did you tell him the age of the girl ?
A.—Yes; I told him he is fifteen—fifteen years and about six months.
33. Q.—You told him that ?
A.—Yes.
34. Q.—You didn't shew him the certificate ?
A.—No, sir.
35. Q.—And you told him that in the presence of the Chief of Police ?
A.—I don't remember about that Chief of Police.
36. Q.—Now,  do  you  remember his  asking  you,  when you  saw him then, as to what
Hattie was doing ?
A.—Yes.
37. Q.—And what did you tell him ?
A—I told him she was working at making paper boxes.
38. Q.—But here, Victoria, I mean ?
A.—I told him I don't know.
39. Q.—Told him you didn't know, but believed she was working at Fried's ?
A.—No,  I  don't believe it; I told  him that there is no telling what he does here
Then he told me this fact:  "I know Fried; he keeps a good house."    That
what this gentleman (indicating Mr. Belyea) told me.
40. Q.—Was that Mr. Belyea or one of the policemen ?
A.—Mr. Belyea told me :   " So for as I know Fried, he keeps a good house."    This
gentleman told me.
41. Q.—Did Mr. Belyea tell you that ?
A.—This gentleman, Mr. Belyea, told me this.    So far as I know, the Chief of
Police was there too.
42. Q.—As far as you remember, the Chief of Police was there too ?
A.—There were two.    He ask him, and he says :   " As far as I know, Fried keeps a
good house."
43. Q.—Who said that ?
A.—This gentleman here.
44. Q.—Did not Mr.  Belyea ask  Chief of Police Sheppard what sort of a house Fried
kept ?
A.—I don t know; maybe he had asked him before.
45. Q.—You don't know whether he did or not; but, at all events, he told you that
himself ?
A.—He told me : " As far as I know, Fried keeps a good house. xxvi. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Atictorta. 1892
46. Q.—Did not you tell Mr. Belyea that, as far as you knew, your daughter was work
ing at Fried's ?
A.—No, sir.
47. Q.—Didn't tell him that 1
A.—No, sir; and he didn't work here. I can bring witness that she not works
here.
48. Q.—Did he ask you what she was doing ?
A.—He ask me:  " What your daug hter does ?" and I say :  " I don't know."
49. Q.—You said : " I don't know ?"
A.—And I cannot know.
50. Q.—Did not you tell him, then, that you believed she was working ?
A.—I told him I don't know what he does here.
51. Q.—Did not you say :   "I don't know what she is doing there, but I believe she is
working there " ?
A.—Who says it ?
52. Q.—Didn't you say :   " I don't know  what she is doing there, but I believe she is
working there ?"
A.—I know she wasn't working there.    If she wanted to work, she has a good job
in Seattle.
53. Q.—How did you know ?
A.—I know it from Storrs himself, and his wife, in Seattle. When I went to Seattle,
he says to me : " Have you had much trouble ; I will do everything I can for
you.    I know what Fried is ; he is now in Seattle."
54. Q.—Did you know anything about him then ?
A.—No; but of course he gave his account about Fried. I got my daughter, and
my daughter is all right.
55. Q.—But I am speaking of when you came over here first.    Did you know anything
about him then ?
A.—I saw him first time in Victoria, and that's all I know.
56. Q.—And you didn't know anything about him then ?
A.—I know as much as I am not a British Columbia man.    That's all I know.
57. Q.—Did you know anything about Fried when you came over here the first time ?
A.—You think of him what you please, and I think of him what I please.
58. Q.—Did you know anything about him when you came over ?
A.—What the people tells me in Seattle, and his wife's sister.     That's all I know.
59. Q.—About his wife's sister in Seattle ?
A.—Yes ; and anything such was done about.
60. Q.—Didn't you tell Mr. Belyea what the girl was doing, and that you believed she
was working at Fried's ?
A.—Working was not talked of at all.
61. Q.—You didn't say that?
A.—No, sir; wasn't talking about the working. If he likes to work, he stops in
Seattle and wouldn't come here.    So I shew you a letter	
62. Q.—Did Mr.  Belyea ever tell you, at that time, that he had no authority to issue a
warrant to arrest the girl ?
A.—I don't speak to Mr. Belyea about that, and I just ask the police chief if he can
do it.    That was  the instructions I  had  from Seattle—to go to the Chief of
Police, and the Chief of Police can do anything for me if he likes.
63. Q.—That the Chief of Police could do anything for you, if he wished to ?
A.—If he like.
64. Q.—Did  Mr.  Belyea ever tell you that he had no authority to issue a warrant to
arrest the girl ?
A.—I  didn't ask  him  for  a  waraant at all.    I want to get that from the Chief of
Police, for I don't know this gentleman can make me out a warrant.    I know
this yet, but I didn't know it before.
65. Q.— Did he tell you that ?
A.—No, he didn't tell me anything about a warrant, and we didn't speak anything
about a warrant. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xxvii.
66. Q.—He didn't speak anything about a warrant, and you didnt speak anything about
a warrant ?
A.—No; my mind was to get the warrant from the Chief of Police.    That was what
my mind was when I came here that time.
67. Q.—I merely ask you what he said to you ?
A.—We didn't speak anything about warrant.
68. Q.—Did you want to arrest the girl at that time ?
A.—Yes; I saw Mr. Davie, and I told him I like to see my daughter once.
69. Q.—But you hadn't seen Mr. Davie then ?
A.— I seen him this time before.
70. Q.— But on Friday morning ?
A.—No; on Friday morning I couldn't spoke to anybody.
71. Q.—Did you want to arrest the girl on Friday morning ?
A.—No, sir.
72. Q.—You did not ?
A.—No, sir; I just like to spoke to him, that was the first thing.     I just like to see
him.
73. Q.—To whom ?
A.—To my daughter.
74. Q.—Just wanted to speak to her ?
A.—Yes.
75. Q.—Did you go and try to speak to her at Fried's ?
A.—Yes.
76. Q.—You did go and try to speak to her at Fried's ?
A.—Yes.
77. Q.—Before you went to the Chief of Police ?
A.—No, sir.    As  soon  as  he  charged  me the twenty dollars, I wanted to do something else.
78. Q.—That twenty dollars was in the afternoon, wasn't it ?
A.—Yes.
79. Q.—And this was in the morning ?
A.—This was in the morning.
80. Q.—You had not seen the girl then ?
A.—I seen him about before two.
81. Q.—Between two and three ?
A.— Somewheres there.
82. Q.—You  had  not seen  the girl  at  the  time you  were  at the Police Court in the
morning ?
A.—No; I didn't know the house or anything.
83. Q.—And you didn't want to arrest the girl then ?
A.—No, sir; I will just take him along.
84. Q.—Take who along ?
A.—My daughter; she wouldn't come no more, and he told me	
85. Q.—How did you know she wouldn't come ?
A.—He told me, as soon as I went around
86. Q.—But  that  was  along in  the afternoon.    I am   speaking of the morning.    How
did you know ?
A.—My daughter says no, he wouldn't come no more ; that Fried knows by a lawyer,
and he told me " You haven't got no right to take me along."    That's something
you don't ask me.
87. Q.—But in the morning—how did you know your daughter wouldn't come with you
in the morning ?
A.—I couldn't know; I didn't ask it; I couldn't talk to him.
88. Q.—You say you couldn't speak to her ?
A.—No.
89. Q.—Had you tried ?
A.—I tried.
90. Q.—How had you tried ?
A.—I had to find out first where he lives and where Fried lives.
91. Q.—What you wanted to do was to have a talk with your daughter? xxviii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
A.—T want him to go back with me and save the $20 ; save the money.
92. Q.—You wanted to go and see her and have a talk with her, in the morning?
A.—Not in the morning.
93. Q.—What did you want to do?
A.—I have a child; the Jew come and take the child, and I try the best I can to
get her back. I didn't want to give it to him. I don't want to raise a child
for over fourteen years, and feed her and keep her in clothes, and then give her
to a Jew.    Have you some child you would give to a Jew ?
94. Q.—Again I ask you, what did you want to do, when you went to Mr. Belyea in the
morning ?
A.—I wanted my daughter back ; that's what I come for.
95. Q.—Did you ask him for a warrant to arrest her ?
A.—Yes.
96. Q.—You did ?    That is what your object was ?
A.—As soon as he wouldn't come no more, I say she have to go. I say : "I guess
there is a law in British Columbia that everybody have to go to the Court."
97. Q.—That is what you went there for, then ?
A.—I told I like to see my daughter here.
98. Q.—That is what you told when you went there in the morning ?
A.—No; I didn't tell anything what is not in that paper there.
99. Q.—Tell me, Mr. May, what you did tell him when you went there ?
A.—He has got the whole thing here what I told him, and as I told Mr. Davie.
100. Q.—I am asking you, now, what you told him there?
A.—Mr. Taylor, I cannot remember everything.
101. Q.—I am not trying to catch you in any way.    I simply ask you what it was?
A.—I am here. You can catch me any time you want to. I catch you, too. I am
not afraid for anybody. I am not no lawyer; I am an American citizen ; an
American man—from Germany.
102. Q.—Oh, I have no doubt you are a most estimable citizen.
A.—Anybody there can tell you what kind of a house I keep, and what kind of a
character I have.
103. Q.—I have no doubt of that, but I want to know from you what  you  wanted  Mr.
Belyea to do for you when you went to the Police Court in the morning ?
A.—Well, I expected to do like in the United States, and like in the old country,
and for the Judge to do for me what he ought to done—what the law says he
ought to done; and when I go up to him and when I find out that he is Judge
and lawyer too, I think there must be something wrong, and I went to see if I
find some Germans. I couldn't find the Oddfellows. If I find the Oddfellows
they give me help, and I didn't have this much trouble. I find a German, and
he tells me Mr. Davie is the man; " you go right to him; he is the only man
lives here that do right for everybody."
104. Q.—For everybody ?
A.—Yes ; for everybody.
Attorney-General: Yes, that's right. That is what the Attorney-General is-for;
that is his duty.
105. Mr. Taylor : How long was that after Friday ?
A.—I guess Saturday, before we was in the Police Court.
106. Q.—Before you were in the Police Court?
A.—Yes ; you fellows wouldn't do anything for me. You asked me what I eat and
drink, and how much money. Well, I haven't got much money awhile yet;
you couldn't get much money out of me.
107. Q.—I ask you what you wanted to have done when you went to the Police Court  in
the morning ?
A.—I told you everything before.    I like for my daughter back.    My child I am
anxious to get.
108. Q.—That's all you wanted ?
A.—That's all.
109. Q.—And you wanted him to give you something to arrest your daughter and make
her go with you ? xxx. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
134.    Q.—I want to know if you told Mr.  Belyea that Pried  had  taken  this  girl  from
Seattle ?
-Yes; I told him.
-At that time ?
—I don't know which time.
-I am speaking of that first time—that Friday morning ?
-May be the first afternoon; I don't know for sure.
-Did you tell him, on Friday afternoon, that Fried had taken the girl away from
Seattle ?
-Yes, sir; of course he took him.
-Did you tell him ?
-Yes, I told him; yes.
-You told him that ?
-Yes.
-Did you tell him that Fried kept the girl away, or was responsible for her staying
A.
135.
Q.
A.
136.
0,
A.
137.
Q.
A.
138.
Q.
A.
139.
Q.
A.
140.
Q-
A.
141.
Q.
A.
142.
Q.
A.
143.
Q--
A.
144.
Q-
A.
145.
Q,
A.
146.
Q.
A.
147.
Q--
A.
148.
Q.
A.
away
149.
Q-
A.
150.
Q.
A.
151.
Q,
A.
152.
Q.
A.
153.
Q.
A.
-The word  " responsible " wasn't talked at all.
-Did you say that Fried was keeping her away ?
- Didn't say ; he just says to me " I know Fried; so far as I know he keeps a
good house."
-Did you tell him that Fried was keeping the girl away ?
-I couldn't tell him before I seen Fried.
-You couldn't tell him before you saw Fried ?
-And I saw Fried, and Fried told me, first time and second time, "He wont
come by you."
-You could not have told him that before you saw Fried ?
-My daughter told the Jew to tell him as I am no good, and just keep him to
labour. The letter is just here in my poket. If you like to see it, I will shew
it to you.
-You didn't see Fried until about two or three o'clock ?
-I tell you first time it was between one and two.
-Did Fried keep the girl away from you then ?
-Yes.
-He did
-Yes; he don t give her to me, and so I was there another time with Mr. McNeill,
and I say " I get my daughter, no matter what it costs. I know what kind of
people you are; I have find some German here, and I bring evidence."
-Did Fried refuse to give you the girl when you saw him the first time ?
-Yes, the first time and the second time he wouldn't. He says "I don't care, she
can go." And then I tell you these words—He was sitting at the table at
dinner, and I stood in the sitting room, and I hear him say "There, Hattie,
you go along with the old man"—He don't call me father, just the old man—
" and I will go and see a lawyer "—And then the name Taylor was there—"and
fix it so you can stay." And I went there that evening, and he says that Taylor
says "You cannot get him back, I have to keep him here;" and I say "No,
you can't keep him here."    I like to know how he can keep my child ?
-The first time you went to see Fried ?
-Fried is at the table.
-The first time you went to see Fried was at his own house, here ?
-He isn't got a house here; he pays rent.
-And that first time he advised Hattie to go with " the old man " ?
-He says " You go to the post office, and I go to a lawyer and find out." And
then it is your name what he speaks about. I want to know what have you to
do with my daughter?
-Did he use my name at that time ?
-Yes; Taylor.
-What did he say ?
-He told me you say I can't get him back, and he have to stay here. Now, I like
to see who got the daughter—you or I. 154.
Q.-
A.
155.
Q.
A.
156.
Q.-
A.
157.
Q--
A.
158.
Q.
A.
159.
Q.
A.
160.
Q.
A,
161,
Q.
A.
162.
Q-
A.
55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xxxi.
—Did she come with you at that time ?
—Well, only to the post office.
—What made her come with you ?
—Nobody else, except that.
—Do I understand you that Fried said " You go with the old man, and   I will go
and see a lawyer," and that, at the same time, he told you that he had already
seen me and that she couldn't go with you ?
—It was after that.    It was the third time, and Mr. McNeill was round with me.
—Was that on Friday ?
—It was on the same day.
—However, the first time, Hattie went with you ?
—Yes, down to the post office.
—Did Fried ever refuse to give her up ?
—Not after.
—Not afterwards ?
—No.
—And that was the way he refused that time ?
—Yes.
—He told her to go with the old man, and he would go and see a lawyer ?
—And there was this name said, Belyea.    He was eating, and he told  me he had
got notice to go there ; that's all I know.
163.    Q.—Did Mr. Belyea say anything to you about $20 at the Police Court in the City
Hall ?
-No, he says in his office ; he said so.
-He didn't say anything about it at the City Hall ?
-He didn't have much talk ; about two or three minutes altogether.
- Did he say anything about $20.00, to you, at the Police Court?
-No.
-It was afterwards, at his office, down town ?
-Yes ; he had everything done and I signed it, and I asked him.
-And then you asked him how much it would cost ?
-How much it would cost.
-That was just as you were going out ?    Just as you went up to Fried's ?
-Yes, that's right; I go and see Fried again then.    I  tried to save the  $20.00,
and I go see my daughter first.
-You asked what it would be; he said $20.00, and you left then ?
-Yes.
-And when you got outside you thought you would save it by going up and seeing
the girl yourself ?
-Yes, I found the number of the house.
-And you went there and got her ?
-Yes, she went down to the post office with me, and then went away.    I guess
she went to your office.    Do you remember her in your office ?
172. Q.—Not then, Mr. May.    At all events, she came down as far as the post office with
you?
A—Yes.
173. Q.—You didn't think that Fried was keeping her away from you, then, did you?
A.—Well, I was in his barber shop, and the barber told me " Oh, no; you never get
the girl away."
174. Q.—Up to that time you did not accuse Fried of keeping the girl away from you?
A.—Oh, well, I know this before I got here.    The people tell me in Seattle, in Port
Townsend, and in Victoria, and I know about his father, and the man who
married the sister was in my house Sunday, and he told me about the whole
family and what he was doing, and he says " You have your daughter back ;
he is no good people."    If he was here, it was very easy for me.
175. Q.—Some one advised you  to take your daughter back—that they were not good
people ?
A.—That's what the man says.
176. Q.—Did you tell Mr. Belyea that ?
A.,—I tell him everything I could; everything I know I tell him.
164.
Q
A.
165.
Q-
A.
166.
Q.
A.
167.
Q.
A.
168.
Q.
A.
169.
Q.
A.
170.
Q.
A.
171.
Q,
A. xxxii. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
-Did you tell him that?
—I guess to get my daughter I have to tell everything I have said.
-Did you tell him ?
—Yes, I tell everything.
-Did you tell him they were not good people and you wanted to get her back ?
—Yes, and he told me " So far as I know, Fried keeps a good house."
-Did you tell the Chief of Police all that, too ?
-The Chief of Police tell me the same thing, that, as far as he knows, Fried keeps
a good house.
-Did you tell him that?
—Yes, I tell him.
-That they were not good people, and you wanted to get your daughter back?
—Yes, and the Chief of Police tells me that, so far as he knows.
-I ask again, did you tell that they were not good people and you wanted to get
your daughter back?
—Yes, that's what I told him.
-You told that to the Chief of Police and to Mr. Belyea?
—Yes, sir; I told them I  had plenty  of  witnesses  in  Seattle,  but,  of  course, I
couldn't get them here.
—On Friday morning, at the Police Court?
-Yes, the first day I was at the Police Court.
Didn't you tell Mr. Belyea that day that the girl   was   working at  Fried's,  and
you only wanted to get possession of her again?
-No, I didn't tell her anything about him; of course, he  had the letters and  he
knows more about the letters than I do.
And the letter says she was working there?
-The letter says (?) — ha — who wrote the letter?
Who did write it?
-I don't know; I know it is from my daughter,  and  I  know  she   didn't   work
there; that's what I know.
She stated, in all her letters to you, that she was working there?
-He didn't send letters to me, at all, but to his sister, and the sister  tells  from
this what is the matter, and to go over.
Is this your daughter Hattie's writing?
-Yes, it is his writing.
And you told Mr. Belyea that?
-Yes, I told him everything.
You told him she was working there?
-No, working wasn't talked.    I know, very well, he wasn't working.
Why did you tell him she was working?
-If he wanted to work he had a good job.
Why did you tell him she was working up there at Fried's?
-I don't.   I know there is something wrong.   I tell him this.    I have two doctors
and they find out what he did, and you don't bring him here.
Did you tell Mr. Belyea he was doing anything wrong?
-Yes, and he says " as far as I know, Fried keeps a good house-"
You will swear at all events you did not tell him that you were working there?
-Yes, swear to that.   The word "work" not talk between us.  It was pretty quick,
the whole thing, not much time.
You didn't talk then as much as now?
-No, I couldn't; we didn't have no time.
Nothing was said then about the $20.00 until after the papers were made out,
and you were leaving his office?
-Yes; the $20.00 was the first thing after I signed the papers.
-You asked about it yourself?
-Yes; it was my business; I had to ask.
That was Friday.    Then you had a case in the Police Court on Saturday, didn't
you?
-No; I guess Monday.    Them gentlemen is not in a hurry here.
177.
Q.
A.
178.
Q,
A.
179.
Q-
A.
180.
Q--
A.
181.
Q--
A.
182.
Q.-
A.
183.
Q-
A.
184.
Q--
A.
185.
Q-
A.
186.
Q--
A.
187.
Q-
A.
188.
Q-
A.
189.
Q--
A.
190.
Q,-
A.
191.
Q,-
A.
192.
Q,-
A.
193.
Q.
A.
194.
Q--
A.
195.
Q--
A.
196.
Q-
A.
197.
Q-
A.
198.
Q-
A.
199.
Q--
A.
200.
Q.- .tblSLAIIVt ASStWIBLY,
BRITISH
55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xxxiii.
201. Q.—Now, you had a second case in the Police Court down stairs here, Mr. May—there
was a Court downstairs in this building?
A.—Yes; you was here, too.
Attorney-General: I thought you didn't want to go into that?
Mr. Taylor: My learned friend has given the evidence of the girl  going home  with
her father, and I am simply going to question the witness on that point.
202. Q.—The girl went home with you?
A.—The girl went home with mother.    The mother was here, and the girl comes to
mother.
203. Q.— She would not go with you?
A.—Well, I don't ask her.    The mother is here, and I don't ask her.
204. Q.—She went with her mother?
A.—Yes, they went all three together home.
205. Q.—Who do you mean by three?
A.—I, my wife, and my daughter.
206. Q.—Did the girl tell you anything at that time?
A. — The girl don't say anything and keeps quiet, and I don't ask  her  to  tell  of it,
and I wouldn't know.
207. Q.—Did she not say that she wouldn't go with you if you prosecuted the Fried's?—
that they had not done anything wrong?    Did she tell you that at any time?
A.—I just speak to she once in Fried's house here.
208. Q.—Were you in the Attorney-General's office when Hattie was brought there?
A.—No, sir; I was here on the corner, and I seen the whole company  comes along.
My daughter comes right away when she sees the mother.
209. Q.—She would not come with you, but she came with her mother?
A.—She think she can stay here, and as soon as she find  out  that the law don't let
her stay she is willing to go any time.
210. Q.—When she found that the law would not allow her to stay, she went with you?
A.—Yes.
211. Q.—As long as she thought that the law would allow her to stay, she would not go?
A.—She would stay here; she had a good life here.
212. Q.—The law would not allow her to stay?—how did she find that out?    Do you know
how she found that out?
A.—Fried told her everything, and you the rest of it.
213. Q.—I told her the rest of it?
A.—Yes.
214. Q.—Are all your statements as true as that one?
A.—Yes.    She told my husband everything and my eldest  daughter,  and my son
heard the whole thing pass.
215. Q.—What place are you referring to?—Seattle or Victoria?
A.—In Seattle.
216. Q.—Something that occurred after she got to Seattle?    I am asking you of something
that occurred before she got to Seattle.    At all events, all you know is that she
wouldn't go with you?
A.—Until the law says she have to go; the law of British Columbia says she have
to go.
217. Q.—What law told her that?
A.—The law of British Columbia.
218. Q.—Who was the instrument of the law?
A.—Mr. Hobson is a lawyer in the Supreme Court.
219. Q.—Wasn't it the Attorney-General that told her that?
A.—He told me yes, I got a right to get him back.
220. Q.—He was the one that told her?
A.—He told me, the second time, that's right.
221. Q.—And he was the man who told her?
A.—I guess that's right; that's nothing wrong; the child belongs to me.    You mean
I raise a child for fifteen years and send him over here for you?
222. Q.—Is it not a fact that she would not go unless you promised not to prosecute the
Frieds? Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
A.—She was willing to go the first time, but you and Fried told her he didn't have
to go. You and Fried told her, "the old man can't do anything; we keep you
here."
223. Q.—How do you know that?
A.—The girl told Mr. Hobson, and the eldest son and my wife.
224. Q.—Did she tell you that?
A.—Yes.
225. Q.—When?
A.—In my house.
226. Q.—In Victoria?
A.—No; home.
227. Q.—In Seattle, you mean?
A.—Yes; that's my only home; I have'nt got a home here; not like the Indians; I
just got only one.
228. Q.—Would you be surprised to learn that that statement is false ?
A.—I cannot speak no more than what the girl says himself.
229. Q.—You don't know anything about it, as a matter of fact ?
A.—No, if I know this before she never comes here.
.230.    Q.—Why didn't you bring this girl into the Police Court, down stairs here, Mr. May ?
A.—Well, I guess he haven't got anything to do.    Why didn't you bring him, up
there, in the Police Court ?    You didn't bring she, and you told me you couldn't
find him.    Didn't you say this to me ?
231. Q.—Why didn't you bring her into the Police Court, down stairs here ?
A.—I haven't got no use.    I didn't bring him over here.
232. Q.—I mean down stairs, before she left here, at all ?
A.—Which down stairs ?
233. Q.—The time both the Frieds were tried, down stairs here, do you remember that ?
A—Yes.
234. Q.—Why didn't you bring her there as a witness ?
A.—She haven't got anything to do in the Police Court; I thought he haven't got
anything to do there; I don't know what is right.
235. Q.—Is that the reason why you didn't bring her down there ?
A.—That is good reason.
236. Q.—Because she couldn't have anything to do ?
A.—You tell me she is no use in the Police Court up  there, and I think it was no
use to have her too.
His Lordship :  His answer is that she hadn't anything to do in the Police Court.
237. Mr. Taylor :  She hadn't anything to do in the Police Court ?
A.—That's what you tell me I tried to get him, about three times, in the Police
Court, and couldn't get him.
238. Q.—But you got her before this Police Court was held down stairs?
A.—I mean up there where this gentleman (indicating Mr. Belyea) was Judge.
239. Q.—^But I am speaking of the Police Court downstairs, here.      I  ask  you why  you
did not bring her into the Police Court down here ?
A.—I didn't have her ; she was with my wife.
240. Q.—Why didn't you bring her ?
A.—I have got no time to walk up to my wife. He tell me " you want take me
along. I going to sleep in the railway cars in the station. You go where you
please.    I wont see you any more."
241. Q.—Why didn't you bring her as a witness?
A.—I thought it was no use—like you did.
242. Q.—Had she seen Mr. Davie before that?
A.—No; Mr. Davie, she didn't see Mr. Davie before.    Just the evening, maybe Mr.
Davie saw her.    I don't know ; I never was in there.
Attorney-General : He don't know anything about it.
243. Mr. Taylor : Had she seen Mr. Davie ?
A.—I don't know; she was here in the Police Office as well; I couldn't say ; I
didn't see. 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. xxxix.
335. Q.—Weren't you there ?
A—No.
336. Q.—Then you cannot tell what did occur, can you ?
A.—I was in and out all the time.    You see, I had business in my own office.
Attorney-General: There is a further document which, I think, it will be necessary
for your Honour to have before you.    I refer to the depositions taken before the
Police Court.
Mr. Taylor : I  submit, my Lord, they are not evidence against Mr.   Belyea.    Here
was a charge against the Frieds of abduction, and certain testimony was given
in that case, and my learned friend  seeks  to put that  testimony  in  for the
purpose of proving I know not what against Mr. Belyea.    I submit that is not
evidence.    Mr. May was the all-important witness there, and we have had the
opportunity of examining him.
His Lordship : Yes; I think that is sufficient.    I should like, however, to see the
paper that was shown to Mr. Belyea himself.
Attorney-General: The original?    If your Lordship will adjourn for a quarter of an
hour, I will try to find it.
His Lordship : Yes; because there may be a difference between the declaration as
sent and the document read.    I think I caught an ejaculation from Mr. Belyea
or Mr. Taylor which makes me consider it desirable to see the paper which was
read.    I certainly would like to have the document which Mr. Belyea did see.
Mr. Belyea : Your Lordship will allow me to state that I did not personally handle
or read this document; but the Attorney-General read a statement to me, in
his own handwriting; I did not see the statement.
Attorney-General:   How  do you  know it was in my handwriting if you did not
see it ?
Mr. Belyea : I did not have it in my own hands, to read it.    I know it was in your
handwriting.
(After a recess of 30 minutes.)
His Lordship : Have you found that paper, Mr. Attorney ?
Attorney-General: No, your Honour; 1 am very sorry to say that I have not been
able to find it. It was a draft document, and sometimes those things are
allowed to accumulate, and I saw it, I know, a week or two ago, and hoped
that I would be able to put my hands upon it; I may be able to do so yet.
His Lordship: Do you know the person who copied it on the type-writer ? Is he
capable of swearing to the accuracy of the copy ?
Attorney-General—Oh, yes; certainly. But he is not here at the present time. It
was a young man named Lee who copied the draft, which I gave him.
(The Attorney-General, on the request of Mr. Taylor, replied that he had no power to
keep Mr. May until the next sitting of the Commission. After hearing counsel,
his Lordship directed Mr. May to attend before him on the 31st inst., at 10
a. m.)
Commission adjourned to 31st instant, at 10 o'clock a m. 55 Vict.
Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria.                       xxxv.
244.
Q.
—The reason you  didn't  bring her  down there   as   a   witness   was   because you
thought she was no use there ?
A.
—That's what I thought.
245.
Q.-
—Do you know what the charge was, against the Frieds, down there ?
A.
—The charge was to get what belongs to me ; they did rob me of my child ; he
works, and I have to get my wages.
246
Q.
—What were you trying to do ?
A.
—I had a right to try and get my child.     That's what the law  says;   I  can't  do
anything but what the law says.
247.
Q.
—What were you trying to have them put in gaol for ?
A
—What have he come with his wife and take my child away for?    That's what I
do, and I expect the law of British Columbia give me this right to ask for my
child.
248.
Q-
—Couldn't your child have told whether Fried took her away, or not ?
A.
—I couldn't speak to him ; I couldn't.
249.
Q.-
-You couldn't?
A.
—No, sir, I couldn't; they speak to me  " you let  the girl alone,  don't  speak a
word."
250.
Q.-
—Who told you to let the girl alone and not speak a word to her ?
A.
—Everybody ; Mr. Sauer and all the friends.
251.
Q.-
—All the saloon-keepers in town ?
A.
—Not all of them ; all the friends.
252.
Q--
—All that you were acquainted with ?
A.
—Yes, and a couple of Oddfellows too.
253.
Q--
-They all told you to let the girl alone ?
A.-
—Yes, they said "you haven't anything to do now; she is in Court, and you get
him back all right."
254.
Q-
—Then, you did not bring it to get the girl back ?
A.-
—I didn't bring no court.
255.
Q--
-Did you see the girl, at all, before that Police Court ?
A.
—I saw him bringing her along the street—Mr. McNeill.
256.
Q--
-Did you have a talk with her ?
A.-
—I didn't have a talk ; just as soon as the girl sees he cries out, and the mother
says " come," and he comes along.
257.
Q.-
-Did you have a talk with Hattie before the Police Court trial downstairs ?
A-
—I couldn't have.
258.
Q.-
-Did you have ?
A.-
—No, sir ;  I was there, my wife and my son.
259.
Q-
-You didn't talk with her ?
A-
—No, sir.
260.
Q-
-Now, is it not true that Hattie refused to go with you until her mother came ?
A-
—That means " refused?"
261.
Q--
-Said she wouldn't go with you ?
A.-
-She says, the first time, she will go, and except you and Fried says she can stay
here she will go; that's what she says.
262.
Q-
-Did she tell you that, here in Victoria ?
A.-
-That's what she told me in the house.
263.
Q.-
-Did she ever tell you, here in Victoria, that she wouldn't go with you ?    That
you were cruel to her ?
A.-
-She told me I am no good, in Fried's house.
264.
Q--
-Was that the first time you saw here ?
A-
-First?    What are you talking about ?    It was the third time.
265.
Q.-
-One o'clock ?
A-
-This was about, quite almost about, half-past five.
266.
Q-
-She said she wouldn't go with you ?
A-
-Not yet no more ; seen a lawyer, his name is Mr. Taylor, and he tell don't have
to go.    And Fried, too.
267.
Q.-
-Do you know whether she had seen a lawyer or not ?
A-
-That's what she tell me ; I don't know.    I didn't watch her. xxxvi. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
268. Q.— This was on Friday ?
A.—-Yes, I expect so; it was the first day I been in the Police Court.
269. Q.—That was the reason she gave you for not going with you ?
A.—Yes ; this was after.
Re-direct by the Attorney-General:
270. Q.—You understood this document when you signed it, did you ?
A.—Yes.
271. Q.—It was signed before Mr. Shotbolt, was it not?
A.—Yes.
272. Q.—A magistrate ?
A.—Yes.
273. Q.—Now, did the magistrate, who signed his name on that after you, read this  over
to you and explain it ?
A.—Yes, in your office ; he didn't say anything that it was something wrong.
274. Q.—No—you are thinking of Mr.   Belyea—this is  another magistrate altogether.
You are speaking of Mr. Belyea now, who came to my office ?
A.—Yes.
275. Q.—When I drew this document up Mr. Belyea  was  sent for—is that the case ?—to
my office—the Attorney-General's office ?
A.—Yes.
276. Q.—Do you remember that he was asked what he had to say to it?    You remember
that being done—the document being read over to Mr. Belyea ?
A.—Yes.
277. Q.—That was before you had signed your name to it?
A—Yes.
278. Q.—Afterwards, where was it that you went and wrote your name to it?
A.—The gentleman was out.
279. Q.—Afterwards, you went to Mr. Shotbolt, another Magistrate, on Johnson Street,
did you not ?
A.—Yes; that's so.    That was just about  evening.    I  couldn't find  the place  no
more.
280. Q.—You went to Mr. Shotbolt ?    That is the gentleman who signed his name there ?
A.—Yes; I been there in the evening, with the lawyer that was in the Police Court.
281. Q.—Before you signed that and swore to it, did Mr. Shotbolt,  this other Magistrate
in Johnson Street, read it over to you, and explain it to you ?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Taylor :  He does not even know what the word " explain " means.
282. Attorney-General: You know what it is to read the document over, do you not ?
A.—Yes; the whole thing; just  the same as  I  tell you.    You am asking me a
question what yet I don't know.    I cannot explain this.
283. Q.—No; but you remember Mr. Shotbolt, the Justice on Johnson Street ?
A.—Yes.
284. Q.—Do you remember his reading this document over to you before you signed it ?
A.—Yes.
285. Q.—And you understood what it said ?
A.—Yes.
286. Q.—You say that when you were in Mr. Belyea's office the second time, it was the
partner, Mr. Gregory?
A.—Well, I didn't know about the partner.    I didn't know  anything  about that.
Nobody can blame me for that; it was the first time for me, and I was excited
to get my daughter back.
287. Q.—And he was the man who said that the girl had been there ?
A—Yes.
288. His Lordship : He did not say positively that the girl had been there?    He said "I
guess so " ?
A.—Yes ; he says " I guess so."
289. Attorney-General: Was Mr. Belyea present at that time ?
A.—I seen Mr. Belyea downstairs.
290. Q.—Was he present at that time ? 55 Vict. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria.
A.—I guess not; I seen him downstairs. I see him out there, and he told me " You
better get your money before six o'clock, for after six o'clock we locked the
office, and I won't do anything for you before the money is here."
291. Q.—You were asked by Mr. Taylor why you didn't bring your daughter to the Police
Court?
A.—Yes, I told him two times in the Police Court to get her; I couldn't find her.
292. Q.—But afterwards, when you had  the  trial  in  the  Police Court, when your wife
came over ?
A.—Well, that was Monday we had to go to the Police Court.
293. Q.—And then your wife came over?
A.—Yes, I sent for my wife; I think that is the best thing; and she come over and
my son.    That is witness enough.
294. Q.—And  then the policemen,  Mr.  McNeill and Mr.  Langley,  got hold of  your
daughter, did they not ?
A.—Yes; they bring her.
295. Q.— Then they found the child ?
A.—Yes.
296. Q.—And they gave the child to its mother?
A.—Yes.
(Objected to by Mr. Taylor, as leading.)
297. Q.—You quite understood this document when you signed it?
A.—Yes.
John M. Langley—Called and sworn.    Examined by the Attorney-General:—
298. Q.—You are Sergeant of Provincial Police?
A.—I am.
299. Q.—Do you remember an enquiry being held before Mr. Belyea,  as Police Magis
trate, into the Fried abduction case ?
A.—Yes.
300. Q.—You appeared then and gave evidence, did you not ?
A.—I appeared and gave evidence at the Provincial Police Court.
301. Q.—In the City Police Court, as well?
A.—Oh, yes.
302. Q.—You gave evidence in the City Police Court?
A.—Yes ; I was thinking of them only being arrested once.
303. Q.—At that time had the girl, Hattie May, been discovered ?
A.—Not at that time.
304. Q.—Before whom was the investigation held ?
A.—Before Mr. Belyea, as Magistrate.
305. Q.—After this investigation, what happened ?
A.—There was a warrant put in our hands to arrest Fried and his wife.
306. Q.—Issued by whom ?
A.—I think it was issued by Mr. Shotbolt, but I couldn't say.
307. Q.—By a local Justice of the Peace ?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Taylor : You ought to produce that warrant, if you are going to give evidence
about it.
Witness : That warrant, I believe, is filed away with the other papers,—the depositions. I arrested Fried on the 9th; that would be Wednesday—Wednesday,
the 9th of September, about half-past five in the evening.
308. Attorney-General: Did you arrest his wife, too ?
A.—I sent Officer McNeill to arrest his wife; she was arrested at the same time.
309. Q.—Was the girl found ?
A.—The girl was discovered in the house opposite Fried's.
310. Q.—That was almost immediately, was it, or how long after the arrest of Fried and
his wife?
A.—Just a few minutes afterwards.
311. Q.—Up to that time she had not been seen—that is, not since the proceedings were
pending in the Police Court ?
A.—Not that I am aware of. Enquiry re Police Magistrate, Victoria. 1892
Mr. Taylor : I do not really see what this has to do with this investigation.
His Lordship : I cannot tell you that.
Witness : We were not on her track before; still, we keep cases a little.
312. Attorney-General: After the girl's  arrest,   what  was  done  with her?    Or, rather,
after the girl was found, what became of her ?
A.—She was taken down to the Provincial Police Station, in the evening.
313. Q.—Did she meet her mother there?
A.—She met her mother there, yes, and father and brother.
314. Q.—The next morning, was there a hearing—or, what happened ?
A.—Yes; there was a hearing in the Provincial Police Court.
315. Q.—What became of the girl after that?
A.—Well, she went home with her father and mother.
Cross-examined by Mr. Taylor :
316. Q.—Was that girl discovered in Fried's house ?
A—No.
317. Q.—What do you mean by saying "she was discovered," anyway?
A.—Well, she was stopping at Mrs. Randall's, right opposite.
318. Q.—After you arrested the Frieds, how did you discover her ?
A.—Well, I forget almost exactly, now.
319. Q.—You say you " discovered her " ?
A.—So many cases come in our hands.
320. Q.—Will you swear you forget about it?
A.—Well, Officer McNeill had more to do with it than I had.
321. Q.—Don't you know, perfectly well, that after the arrest of the Frieds the girl  came
out of the house of Mr. Randall and joined them ?    Is not that the fact?
A.—No, sir.
322. Q.—Will you swear it is not?
A.—Yes; Officer McNeill, as I said before  in  my  evidence, went up and  arrested
Mrs. Fried, and he brought the girl down with him.
323. Q.—Well,  you don't  know where  she was,  then,  or anything  else,  of your  own
knowledge?
A.—Not of my own knowledge.
324. Q.—You heard Mr. McNeill swear to it, in the Police Court, did you?
A.—No, I don't think I did.     I think I was out of Court.
325. Q.—What you are deposing to, about the discovery of the girl, is purely hearsay?
A.—I am sure of what I am saying.
326. Q.—It is hearsay?    It is what you heard from Officer McNeill?
A.—Yes.    I wanted them both arrested at once.
Mr. Taylor : He has deposed to a lot of things, about the girl being discovered and
so forth, which he doesn't know anything about.
327. His Lordship: You state this as a Provincial Officer:  "She was taken to the Pro
vincial Police Station."    Do you know that of your own knowledge?
A.—I was there when she arrived.
328. Q.—And that she met her mother, and father, and brother there?
A.—Yes, in the opposite room.
329. Q.—And that there was a hearing in the Police Court?
A.—Yes.
330. Q.—And, as to what became of the girl, that she went home with her mother and
father—that much you can depose to, I suppose ?
A.—Yes.
331. Mr.   Taylor:   If your  Lordship will   allow,   I will  ask just  one or two  questions.
What, Mr. Langley, became of that hearing in the Police Court ?
A.—They were sent up for trial.
332. Q.—Did it ever come to trial ?
A—No.
333. Q.—Do you know why ?
A.—I couldn't say.
334. Q.—Do you know whether, at this time, application was made to have this girl
examined and to have the father bound over to appear at the assizes ?
A.—I don't know.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0063266/manifest

Comment

Related Items