DENTAL SCANDAL.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 5 February 1926, Page 8

DENTAL SCANDAL.

WERE EXAM. PARERS SOLD?

SER iOUS ALL EG A TIOXS.

The Public Service Board inquired into the allegations against an employee of the Dental Board (says a Sydney paper). The allegations are that this man allowed a candidate at the recent dental examination to see certain questions prior to the test, it is alleged that he received £SO tor the “favour.” . , , Though the matter is one of great public importance, the inquiry was held in camera. The board s _findings will be forwarded to the Minister toi Health (Mr Cann), who will decide what action should be taken. A member of the Board was interviewed, and asked if it was tiue that he had been told of the allegations against one of the board’s officers before the examination was held. ' He not onlv admitted having been warned, but said that he informed the president of the board (Mr .Donald Smith) of what he had been told pnoi to the examination. . Asked if anything had been done, the member of the board said that certain action had been taken But so many rumours go about. lie .added, “that one does not know what to lieAt the Public Service Board’s inquiry, Mr Rogers appeared for the Crown Law Department .and Mr JNiland watched the employee’s interests. DETECTIVE’S REPORT.

Detective-Sergeant Truskett gave evidence concerning his investigations into the allegations. In his report after his investigations, Detective Truskett stated that the student who secured the advance questions alleged that they were typed for him by an offical of the boaid whom lie named. "When taxed with the act the official is said to have at first declared that the whole thing was “a lie.”, and that the papers must have been stolen. Later, it is alleged, he admitted having typed certain papers, _ which were different from the official _ examination papers. The report indicated that there were slight, hut immaterial, discrepancies between the actual wording of the alleged “advance questions” and those which were finally placed in the hands of the sitting candidates. The next witness was an apprentice student, who alleged that he bought the examinaton papers for £-50. This took place at the Dental Board’s room on December 4. which was three days before the examination commenced. He handed the.papers to a Macquarie street dentist. , The dentist who received the papers fold the board that he had given the student £SO with which to purchase the examination papers. He received the uapers from the student the same dav. At this stage Mr Xiland said that he wanted an assurance from the. Attor-ney-General concerning the inquiry. The allegations against his client were of a serious nature, and he wanted to he assured that no criminal charge would follow the inquiry, otherwise his client would not answer questions. The incuiirv adjourned., and on resuming Mr Rogers, it is 'reported, assured Liin that no criminal pharcre would be preferred against Mr Niland’s client. The fnouiry was concluded shortly afterwards.