CASE FOR DEFENCE OPENS

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

CASE FOR DEFENCE OPENS

"CHARGES WANTON AND WITHOUT

FOUNDATION."

This morning, Mason again entered the witness-box, and, examined by Mr. Macassey. said that he could not remember having been asked by Mr. Macassey whether .he was not satisfied that there was a major thief, neither did he remember counsel having said that the third man in question could not be the maior thief.

■ "Did you hot say that I could not get a conviction?"—" That I did not say."

"Senior-Sergeant Bird first reported the case and was fully conversant with the facts?"—" Yes."

Questioned by Mr. Justice . Stringer and Mr. Macassey, witness said that he was intimidated by the presence of a Hansard reporter in the Supreme Court, for he felt that there was a conspiracy to trip him after his action in the Magistrate's Court.

"In what way were you humiliated?" asked Mr. Macassey.—"By being super, seded in the Supreme Court procedure."

A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.

■ "Don't you know that the evidence which you say was suppressed could only have been brought out by cross-ex-amination by counsel for the defence?" asked his Honour.—"l do not know."

"I am afraid you have not studied lit." To Mr. Myers: "I have always oeen used to placing all facts before the Court."

Mr. Skerrett, opening the case for the defence, submitted that the charges were wanton and were without foundation, that they were unworthy of the tribunal set up to investigate them. Mr. Myers had stated that no personal attack was made against the three officers, but that it-was the police system that was attacked, but, he submitted, it was obvious that the complaints were nothing more nor .less than charges of misconduct against those officers. He thought that Mr. Myers mast have been deceived as to the "facts, otherwise he would not have encouraged a, public agitation for a public inquiry simply on the generalisations made by Mr. Mason. ■ It was strange that publicity had been given in the daily newspapers to the statements of a third party without verification. It [appeared that Mason had adopted an incurable bias that a third man was the master thief a-nd that Miles and Millanta, were dupes; his conclusion that if that were so Miles and Millanta were innocent was wholly illogical. There was no intention of intimidating Mason by the preseoice of if Hansard reporter at the Supreme Gourti, for tha Commissioner of Police, ,in view of the considerable public interest in the MilesMillanta case, wished to have all the facts in 1 hand, and the reporter was instructed to take notes of the evidence of other witnesses beside Mason, as well as addresses and comment. WITNESS FOE, THE DEFENCE. Inspector W. B. M'llveney, the first witness for the defence, recounted, his discussions with Mason of the preliminary report made by the latter. Witness said that it appeared to him that Miles and Millanta would have to be prosecuted, to which. Mason replied, "For God's sake don't do that, sir. If you do my evidence will get them off."' At that time on© of the men was in custody upon a charge of receiving stolen_ property. During the, conversation witness, had pointed out to Mason that the story of the surreptitious mee'tifig of Miles and' Millanta with the third man, if correct, was an evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of Miles and Millanta. Witness refeirred to other details of conversation already brought out by the cross-examination of Mason, aii'd stated that when Mason had mentioned that the "case would be the end of him in the service," he had told him that if ha were under any obligation to the men, or had made them any promise he (witness) would respect it. Mason replied that he was under no obligation, but he would, tell the whole truth. Witness replied that he did not wish, anyone to tell an untruth, and that it was immaterial to him who was prosecuted; if there was evidence against the third man witness would prosecute him, but at the time there was evidence only . against Miles and Millanta; he would not allow the matter to drop. In view of the peculiar attitude taken up by Ma-son, witness had referred the question of the prosecution of Mjles'and Millanta, first on a .charg© of theft, and secondly of receiving, to Superintendent Norwood, though in the ordinary course I ho would have, decided the question himself. The conviction list of one of the men suspected was attached to the file merely for the information of the prosecuting officer. "Mason held the opinion that the thirdman was the guilty party, apparently you were equally convinced that Miles and Millanta were guilty?" asked Mr. Myers, in opening the crosi-examination. —"I .simply wished the guilty persons, the persons against whom there was evidence, to be prosecuted." "You will agree that the police should:, not keep back any information which may be- of aid to the accused persons?"— "Nothing of value should be kept back." AN ATTACK EXPECTED. "Did you not, on the morning of the lower Court hearing, instruct DetectiveSergeant Eawle to keep noties of what happened, and 1 to report to you?"—l'As a result of what Jtawle told me, I understood- that Mason intended to make an attack on his superior officers." "Do you suggest that Mason would have made that attack ?—"I do, and I hold that hel was attempting to make that attack when he was checked by Bawle. His opening remarks, 'although I have sworn informations, etc.', were an attack right away." "There seems to be an obsession in your own mind as well," suggested Mr. Myers:—"Certainly not." x Witness maintained that there was nothing whatever unusual in the Crown Solicitor's action in handing further inquiries over to another officer when the investigating officer was available. "Personally, if I were Crown Solicitor and I found that an officer had taken up a. strong view of a case I should suggest that another officer should take over further inquiries," remarked Mr. Justice Stringer. "That was exactly the position," replied Mr. Macassey. The Inspector also held that Mason had unduly delayed his later investigations at Petone, for though he was at that time engaged in work out of Wellington he still had time at his disposal. IN THE LOWER COURT. Detective-Sergeant Rawle, who was acting as chief^detective at the time when the Miles-Millanta case went before

the Magistrate's Court, gave evidence as to instructions received as to the checking of Detective-Sergeant Mason in case of an attempted attack on his superiors or in the introduction of matter not relevant to the case. Mason did not ask witness to bring out any particular points in evidence. Witness objected to Mason's expressing an opinion as to the innocence of Miles and Millanta; and the objection was upheld by the Magistrate.

In answer to Mr. Myers as to why he had. not discussed tho case with Mason as well as reporting it to the Inspector, witness said that he considered it, his duty as acting chief-detective to report the probability of an attack to Ms superior officer. He had purposely not led evidence as, to the selling of pans ,to Tomline during the past six or seven years, as he considered that matter irrelevant to the case.

After the luncheon adjournment Superintendent S. P. Norwood gave evidence, and the Commission reserved its decision. - '