TO SAVE THEIR CIVILIAN CLOTHES.

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 130, 29 November 1926, Page 10

TO SAVE THEIR CIVILIAN CLOTHES.

Allegation 8: "That Baume was not required to dress in ordinary prison garb; that seven or eight prisoners under Borstal sentence at the Terrace Prison on the 4th November, 1926, were dressed in prison garb and placed at work." The evidence in answer to the first part of this allegation is that Borstal detainees are not placed in ordinary prison garb whilst detained in a prison pending transfer to an institution, and in-Baume's case this practice was carried out. As regards the second part of tho allegation, tho evidence is that only three Borstal detainees were in the Terrace Prison on the 4th November 1926, and not seven or eight as alleged. These were not dressed in prison garb, but in hospital blues, on account of their transfer being delayed through congestion at" the Borstal institution, and this was done to prevent, them wearing out their civilian clothes while waiting for transfer. Tho only work they were required to do was to clean the upstairs cell range which they occupied. Allegation 9: "That Baume was kept at tho Terrace Prison nearly a fortnight after being sentenced." The evidence shows that Baume waa

sentenced on the 6th February and transferred to AVaikeria Institution on the 12th February. The delay ' was partly due to the Supreme Court sittings not ending till the 9th February, and transfers are delayed until the cud of the sittings so that all prisoners for transfer can be escorted at one time. Allegation 10: "That. Baume was not required to make his bed, and that another prisoner was detailed to make it for him." The evidence shows that fins allegation is untrue. IGNORANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGULATIONS. .negation 11: "That Baume was allowed "daily visits in contravention of Regulations 262, 263, and 264," which were quoted by Mr. Elliott as applying to his case. Tho evidence shows that the Regulations referred to by Mr. Elliott are Prison Regulations and arc not applicable to Borstal detainees. Mr. Elliott says that his experience of prisons, prisoners, and prison administration has extended over eighteen years. If this is so, it is strange that a man of his intelligence should be so ignorant of tho difference between Prison Regulations and Borstal Regulations. Allegation 12: "That Baume was proceeding on transfer to the AVaikeria Borstal Institution near la Awamufu was made the recipient of a wcll-lilled hamper, tho other prisoners-on transfer having to bo content with a wrappednp lunch of dry bread and meat." The evidence as to this allegation shows that it is customary to allow relatives to supply provisions to Borstal detainees about to be transferred, and that Baumo's hamper was accepted on his behalf on condition that it was shared on the train journey by the two reformative detainees, who were being transferred along with him. This was done, and the provisions supplied by the prison officials for the journey were not used. "A WASTE OF TIME." After consideration of the allegations and the evidence in reply to them, I flnd that some are untrue; other allegations are so trivial that no one with a knowledge of the regulations which apply to different.classes of prisoners, or any idea of the valueof words, would waste time in' making them, and all are easily explainable when the circumstances surrounding Baume's stay in the Terrace Prison are made known. It would have been more satisfactory if Mr. Elliott had appeared at the inquiry and produced the affidavits which he says continued the allegations published by him regardless of their truth or falsity. ' The fact that he refused to appear and support the statements upon which he relied to show preferential treatment by the prison officials, or to listen to their explanations in answer, to his allegations, raises a strong presumption that he did not know whether the allegations were true or false, and that he took no reasonable precaution to verify them, and was not iv tho least concerned' whether or not they reflected upon the honesty and integrity of the prison officials. Further comment is unnecessary. The result of this inquiry satisfies me that no such preferential treatment as alleged by Mr. Elliott was given to Baume either when detained in the Terrace Prison or on his journey to tho AVaikeria Institution, and that tho prison officials treated him while under their charge in accordance with the regulations which applied to his case. (Sgd.) AY. G. RIDDELL, Stipendiary Magistrate. Accompanying the report were the sworn depositions of the whole of the ■ officials of the Prisons Department who had contact with Baume during his period of detention at.tho Wellington Terrace Prison. Thereport shows that the depositions were taken before AY. G. Riddell, Esq., S.M., in the presence of Mr. R. Hartlie Boys, who appeared for Mr. Howard Elliott, and who was afforded full opportunity to cross.examine the wi:\"sses.