COMPLAINANT'S CASE

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 85, 7 October 1920, Page 8

COMPLAINANT'S CASE

MASON GIVES EVIDENCE

The inquiry into the charges laid by Detective-Sergeant Mason against the police administration in tho matter of what he alleged were improper practices in tho pursuit of charges of the theft of between thirty and forty sanitary pans, the property of the Petonc Borough Council, laid against two men, John! Millanta and Ernest Miles, was con* tinned yesterday afternoon . aftsr Tha Post went to press. < Detective-Sergeant Mason alleged that he had been placed in such a' position in having been forced to swear information against the two men, whom he considered dupes of a third man, that there was no other course open to him. hut, to resign from the Police Force.

His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer, presided, and with him was Superintendent. Wright, of Auckland. Mr. M. Myers appeared for Mr. Mason and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., for the senior police officers —Superintendent Norwood, Inspector M'Uveney, and Detective-Sergeant Rawle—against whom Mr. Mason's allegations are in the main directed. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Police Department, andl Mr. P. Levi to watch the case on behalf of Richard Swayslahd. Continuing his evidence, Mr. Mason said that during a second discussion of the case with the Inspector he told him that he was quite satisfied that the third man was the thiet and that it was a funny thing that he could not get Millanta, and Miles to identify him. The Inspector asked witness if he had explained that charges of breaking, entering, and theft would be laid if the thief were not found. Witness replied that he had not done so, though he had* made mention of.a charge of "receiving." The Inspector replied that he must prose--cute Millanta aiid Miles, whereupon witness replied that if he were called before the Court he would tell the whole truth, even though it was the last case he would ever undertake. The Inspector replied: "I cannot help that. You answer my questions and I will prosecute them." Inspector M'llveney then suggested that witness should again go to Petone to endeavour to obtain further evidence against the other man. He did so, and gathered information which still further strengthened his opinion. The next step was that he was instructed to swear informations . against Millanta and Miles." He was struck at that time by the fact that the conviction list of one of the men was attached to the file, an unusual proceeding. He had not expected that the Superintendent would sanction a prosecution. His brief, together with the files of the case, was handed to Detective-Sergeant Rawle, and as the case proceeded he was aware that certain facts in his brief were «uppressed, for instance, the fact that Mr. Tomline had stated that he had been purchasing pans from two men other than Millanta and Miles for the past six or seven years. Witness did not remember any other specific fact mentioned in the brief and not brought out in Court, but ho maintained that the officials were, aware of other facts which were made, plain in the other reports and which were not elicited ; that the shed had not been broken into a3 was alleged, ,and that the shortages were given first at 400 and then at 500. Certain of these facts were pencilled by Detective-Ser-geant Rawles "Not asked." When witness concluded his evidence he thought it his duty to mention that h« had a doubt about the case, for he realised that if he did not do so he might be sharply questioned in the Supreme Court. Further he did not wish to place Detective-Sergeant Rawle in a fake position. The latter had objected that the statement was merely an expression of opinion. RECEIVING OR THEFT. In answer to questions from the Magistrate, said witness, he had again repeated his doubts. ' ' To his Honour : He had not attached sufficient importance to the facE that but one set of wheel tracks was found at the depot to mention it in his report. "Assuming that your suggestion as to the third man being the thief is correct, how would that affect the laying of charges of receiving against Miles and Millanta?" asked his Honour.—"l merely wished to lay all the facts before the Court." CASE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. When witness was told by the Crown Prosecutor that Senior-Sergeant Bird' would place the case' before the Grand! Jury, witness asked Mr. Macassey if he was aware that he had expressed himself in the lower Court as having a doubt about the case. To this Mr. Maoassey had replied, "That is all right, Mason; I don't think there is need for any doubt." 1 "Ha*d you gone before the Grand Jury with the case, would you have expressed your opinion of it?" asked Mr. Justice Stringer.—"No; under th« circumstances I would not have done so. I would have.waited till the case went before the jury-" Shortly after the Supreme Court hearing, he handed in his resignation, but, up to the present time, he had not received his discharge. THE CROSS-EXAMINATION.' Under cross-examination by Mr. SkerTiett, witness said he was aware that in. any case the articles obtained by Miles and MiJlanta were stolen property, and that the men would be required to give an explanation as to how they became of them. He doubted the third man's story, as he considered it not possible to remove 400 or 500 pans from the shed in such short time, and because he knew that Tomline had been buyingi similar articles during the past six or' seven years.

"Why did you all along exonerate Miles and'Millanta?" asked Mr. Skerrett. Witness replied that he ha»l nob done.more than to place the result of his inquiries faithfully before his superior officers. If h« officers then considered that Miles and Millanta should be charged with receiving, let them be so charged. Several times during the cross-examin-ation witness was pressed for his specific reasons for believing that, the third man was the thief; the answers in each occasion centred round the fart that so large a number was missing and that 'Tomline had stated that he had purchased similar pans during the past six or seven years.

Questioned as to the conversation between himself and the Inspector, witness denied that he had said, "For God's sake don't prosecute them, otherwise my evidence will get them: off." •

: Further questions concerned the discussions of the case by witness and Inspector M'llvehey. Witness said that he told the Inspector that he had made no premise to Miles or Millanta. "Did you say to 'the Inspector, 'It means the end of, me in the service' ?" - -'I did not use those words. I merely said that I would tell'the whole truth even if it were the last case I ever prosecuted." • "Did the men Miles and Millanta satisfy you that they had 'come by .this property .honestly?"—"Xo, they did not."

"Then was it not reasonable to prosecute them for receiving?"—" That course

was open to my superior officers." "Why do you say that you were compelled to lay informations against Miles and Millanta?"—"l was compelled to lay informations for theft against them."

"Would you have laid informations for receiving?"—" Yes." "If they were to be charged with receiving, why not with theft?" asked his Honour.

Witness stated that had charges of receiving been laid against Miles and Millanta, he would still have followed the course of placing all the facts he had before the Court.

"No one interfered with you in the preparation of your brief?" —"No." Mr. Skerrett, after referring to the brief, said that the only fact not brought out by Detective-Sergeant' Rawle was only inferentially mentioned in the brief. Further hearing was adjourned till this morning.