1 THE NATIONAL MARGARINE COMPANY LIMITED 10 QUALITY STREET LEITH 19th June 1916 To The Under Secretary, The Castle, Dublin. Dear Sir, With reference to my letter of 17th inst. I beg to enclose
letter together with cheque received to-day from John R Moorhead,
Crown Solicitor, Belfast. It will be apparent to you that Mr. Moorhead has replied to my
enquiry in a most disrespectful manner and I must protest against
such treatment. The cheque enclosed has been made out on the basis of a cert-
ificate granted without the slightest consideration being given to
'out-of-pocket' expenses necessarily incurred to enable me to attend
the assizes. Seeing that I mistakenly rendered my claim to Robt. Dunlop,
Commissi-oners office.R.I.C. Belfast he might have had the courtesy
to inform me that the claim had been sent to the wrong person.
I trust you will now give orders for payment of my claim, Yours truly,
Rob Brown 2 COUNTIES OF ANTRIM AND BELFAST Crown Solicitors Office, 30 Rosemary Street, Belfast 20th January 1916 The king v McCambley Inspector General R.I.C. Full report please
With reference to A
in the Brown
Solicitor Report
please state how
mr. Brown traveling
expenses to the
assigns have been
dealt with
Also please attach
the papers relative
to the claim of this
witness in respect of
attendance in Belfast
petty sessions 24-1-16 Commt Please report on the
point referred to in first
paragraph of above minute 25-1-1916 J. I. Taylor Esq., Chief Secretary's Office, The Castle, Dublin. Dear Sir, Relative to attached communication
from Robert Brown, Assistant Manager of
the National Margarine Co. Ltd., I beg to
report that this claimant is without
exception the most cantankerous, truculent,
insolent and troublesome witness it has
been my experience to come across. He
described himself as the assistant manager
of this Margarine Company which purports
to have a number of branches in important
English and Scotch towns. So far as I
have been able to learn the only place
where the company has any substantial existence is
at Leith and some business appears to
have been done by them in foreign margar-
ine The claimant makes a virtue of
assisting the Police. the boot is
really on the other leg. the Company
had an agent or Canvasser in Belfast
named McCambley whose office was apparent-
ly the only 'warehouse' they had here.
McCambley was dishonest; embezzled small
sums collected for the company amounting
to about £20, and also converted some
stock of margarine (value for a somewhat
similar amount) to his own use. The 3 Company have really been getting the benefit of the criminal law to
collect this money from McCambley who pleaded guilty and whose
brother (a school teacher) has paid into court by way of restitution
ywo sums of £10 and £5 respectively and is to pay a further sum of £6 before the
March Assizes. in all £20 It will therefore be for you to consider whether
or not a portion of this restitution should not be appropriated
towards the cost of the prosecution. The Claimant Brown from the very start gave the police a lot of
trouble about his expenses and constantly threatened to leave.
The Police in the case warned me that I should have trouble with him
over his expenses. When I came to make out my certificate I was
informed that all his travelling expenses had been paid by the police.
In connection with the preliminary stage of this prosecution he was
paid, in pursuance of your minute, by my cheque of the 2nd December
1915 £2. 10. 0 for two days and three nights attending Petty Sessions.
At the Assizes I ascertained from the Police that he was detained
six days and six nights. Four of the days and four of the nights
were for actual attendance at the Assize and two of the days and two
of the nights travelling to and from the Assize by rail and boat.
I considered htat he was entitled to allowance for the two days
travelling as well as for the 4 days in attendance at Assize and I
calculated these six days at 10/- per day, namely, £3. Of the six
nights, two being spent on the boat, the cost of his accomodation
was already included and paid for in the travelling expenses paid by
the police. I considered him therefore entitled only to f our nights
hotel expenses and estimated this at 6/- per night, the two figures,
£3, and £1.4.0 being accordingly the amount of my certificate.
I had some hesitation in allowing the 10/- per day; I thought it was
the limit, and I thought the 6/- per night amply sufficient. Being warned by the Police while the witness was in attendance
at the Assizes that he was a most troublesome man and was constantly
talking about his expenses asking for money and threatening to leave; at the request
of the Police I went down to the hall of the court and saw him and
told him that if he left he would have to take the consequences. He
was grumbling that he had no money and wanting an advance towards his 4
expenses. I told him I had no power to make any advance and that at the
close of the case I could only make up my certificate upon which the
Clerk of the Crown would issue a chegue for him for the proper amount.
I knew from his talk about his loss of time that he would be dis-
satisfied with any reasonable amount and I explained to him that I
was bound by Treasury Regulations which, if I exceeded, I was liable
to be personally surcharged and that when he got his cheque if he were
dissatisfied with the amount of his cheque when he got it his only
remedy was to lodge his claim with the Under Secretary, The Castle,
Dublin, explaining that in after my certificate was issued I should have
no further control over the matter . Notwithstanding this, on the
8th inst. he wrote me enclosing the Clerk of the Crown's cheque
stating that he' did not know what it was for.' On the 10th inst I
replied returning him the cheque, stating that it was the Clerk of the
Crown's cheque for the witnesses expenses issued in pursuance of my
certificate, and reminding him that I had personally explained to him
that if dissatisfied with the amount his proper remedy was to make
a complaint to the Under Secretary, and also reminding him that I had
told him I was bound by Treasury Regulations. On the 12th
January he again wrote me expressing 'surprise' that the cheque was
for him and asking to be informed what the amount represented and
stating that he intended to apply to the Under Secretary as soon as
he had learned what the item or items were that I had refused to pay
for his expenses. In this letter he further states that he estimates
the 'loss of business profits' through being away from the business at
not less than £12 but that he had claimed a' modified fee' of £8.8.0
which would leave him considerably out of pocket. I had never
seen the claim referred to but that letter showed me the futility of
attempting to satisfy him by correspondence and as he had intimated
his intention of forwarding his claim to you I decided not to discuss
the matter with him. Accordingly I merely acknowledge receipt of his
letter and returned him his cheque limiting myself to again pointing
out that if he was dissatisfied his proper course was to apply to the
Under Secretary. To my letter of the 15th (consisting of a single
sentence as above) he replied on the 17th by what I considered a 5 truculent and insolent letter beginning with the words 'We are in
receipt of your favour of the 15th and I am surprised at your inept
remarks '. Seeing that I had made no remarks of any kind, inept or
otherwise,but merely referred him to the Under Secretary,I considered
his letter and his lecture insolent. With it he again enclosed me
the cheque which I again returned to him by letter dated 18th inst
intimating that if he forwarded the cheque to me again I should not
take the trouble to send it back, calling his attention to the
wording of the cheque itself, and intimating that it was intended to
cover six days' allowance to a person *in poor circumstances*
'pursuant to the Statute', and also his hotel expenses while attending
the Assize. I have never seen this man's claim for £10.10.11
'loss of business profits'. Apparently whatever this figure refers
to must be not the witness's loss but the limited Company's loss of his
services with which I had nothing to do. I considered the
amount certified for the witness (10/- per day in addition to £1.4.0
for the 4 nights) the full amount that this witness is entitled to
and I again direct attention to the fact that £14 by way of
restitution to this Company has been paid in since the trial by
the friends of the accused and other £5 is promised,no fraction
of which could be recovered apart from the prosecution, so that the
Company will have more than recouped their 'loss of profits' This witness gave both to me and the Police more trouble than
all the other witnesses at the Assizes put together. I am,
Yours faithfully, John R Moorheed
Crown Solicitor.