POLICE COMMISSION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11558, 20 April 1898, Page 2

POLICE COMMISSION.

SITTINGS IN CHRISTCHURCH. < |The Police Commission resumed its sittings in the Provincial Council Chambers at ten yesterday. About twenty persons were present altogether. The Chairman stated that the hearing of the complaints against two constables would be postponed until eleven o’clock, pending the arrival of Mr Kippenberger,' who was appearing for the men. The members of the Commission occupied themselves until eleven with the perusal of various documents. At 11 a.m. about fifty persons were present. It was announced that Mr Kippenberger would be detained in the Magistrate’s Court for a quarter of an hour. In the meantime the Commission took the evidence of Alfred Stanton, first-class constable, stationed at Christchurch, who had sent in a letter making certain statements. He deposed that after having been out of the force for eight or nine months he rejoined in 1885. In his letter he stated that he had been appointed district clerk in January, 1886, and had held the position since. In 1890 he applied for the special allowance for district clerks, and was refused, and told that it was intended to employ constables instead of sergeants as district clerks, and not to give them special allowance. In 1893, when he was removed to Christchurch, he found that his junior clerk, a constable, was drawing clerical allowance, though it had been refused to himself. He had not complained to the department, as he thought that if he did so it would cause the other constable to lose his clerical allowance, and he did not wish to cause any injury to a comrade. To Colonel Hume: He got house allowance. All the sergeants who had been district clerks had been removed or were dead. The assistant clerk in Christchurch, who was a first-class constable, got 6d a day special allowance, but no house allowance. The sergeants employed as district clerks got house allowance in addition to the special allowance. "When transferred to Christchurch witness was a third-class constable. Most of the men who entered the force when he did were now second-class constables, but they were on street duty. To the Commissioners: He got 10s a week house allowance. As to suggestions on the condition of the force generally, he 'thought that the educational standard of the average recruit was far too low. Many of them could not pass the Fourth standard, and their reports were absolutely painful to read. There should he a pension scheme, which might be supported by outside emoluments which now went to constables, and by contributions from pay. He thought the force was unanimous in wishing for a pension fund, but be did not know that all of them would be willing to give up anything towards it. There was a compulsory system of life insurance in the force. He did not think the men would he willing to pay a similar sum, or say 5 per cent instead, to a pension fund. The present rate of pay was not sufficient. Men should get at least 7s a day when joining. Promotion should ■be more ranid. Colonel Hume ,asked if the witness could name a man who had joined in the last ten years who had not passed the Fourth standard. Witness said he could not. He did not know anything about it, but he would he surprised to hear that they had. Mr Kippenberger then appeared on behalf of. Constables Barrett and M’Kenzie against whom a charge had been made by Mr T. E. Taylor. The Chairman stated that the charge was that on the night August 12, the two constables, while on duty, had left their beats and gone into the Cafe de Paris, where they remained for half an hour. Mr Taylor called Inspector Broham, who deposed that on the night of August 12 Constable Barrett was on the Triangle beat, and Constable M’Kenzie on the beat down High Street. Mr Taylor intimated that he intended torecall Mr Broham later on. To Mr Kippenberger; Witness had a complaint about two constables about the time, and inquired into it in the ordinary way through Sergeant Wilson, who was a very careful sergeant, and whoso report was sent to the Commissioner’s office. The .complaint did not specify these two constables. It emanated from Mr Taylor, who refused at the time to mention the names of ihemonstables, saying, so Sergeant Wilson reported, that he did not. wish to injure the constables. Witness was satisfied by Sergeant Wilson’s report that the charge was not sustained. To that report were appended the statements of a number of individual witnesses. Mr T. E.-Taylor deposed that on the night of August 12, 1897, he came into Christchurch! It was the night following a race meeting. He had frequently been informed that police constables were in the habit of frequenting hotel bars at night. Mr Kippenberger objected. Witness continued: He met a friend, and they strolled round till nearly twelve. Just before twelve Sergeant Wilson spoke to two constables near the corner of High and Cashel Streets, and passed up towards the Bank of New Zealand. After he left they stood smoking for some time, and just before twelve they spoke for a second or two to some cabmen, and then went to the entrance, of the Cafe, where they stopped close to the door, which opened a few seconds after and they passed inside. Witness remained on the opposite footpath in Cashel Street with a friend for half an hour, and posted another man at the back door of the hotel. At this stage, on the application of Mr Kippenberger, witnesses were ordered out of court. Witness,-, continued: Just before 12.30 the Cafe door opened, and a man in his shirt sleeves stepped out, looked up and down the street, made some motion to someone inside, and the two constables came out. Between twelve and half-past Detective Madderncame along Cashel Street, going towards the police station, and witness spoke to him. A few minutes after the men came out witness met Sergeant Wilson and aconstable near Ballantyne’s, and spoke to the sergeant. After the men came out of the hotel they went to the crossing near Myers’ shop, where, alter talking with Detective Benjamin and Acting-Detective Fitzgerald, they separated. There was no disturbance at the hotel, so far as one could see from the street, either before or after the men were there.

To Mr Kippenberger: Witness’s companions were Mr Robson, a bootmaker, and Mr Hoddinot, a blacksmith. They were prohibitionists. Witness had not been in Cashel Street for any length of time prior to the men going in. When',they did so witness was opposite the entrance of the Bank of Australasia. It was a fine night, but he would not swear the moon was shining. Witness was not determined to get a conviction, hut as a citizen he was perfectly entitled to see what any constables, who were public servants, were doing in their hours of duty. On another occasion, subsequently, he with another companion, took similar means of satisfying himself as to the truth of certain allegations made against the force —that they frequented bars at night. He based his general charges on what he saw on these two occasions and on a great deal _ of accurate knowledge acquired otherwise. He gained knowledge that constables entered bars on the second occasion, hut the evidence was not sufficient; there were not enough people who saw it. Refused to give the names of the two men to Sergeant Wilson, but gave no sentimental reason—told the sergeant that it was the duty of the police to look after their own men, and that they must find them out. Saw Inspector Broham, who told him that Sergeant Wilson’s report was that he could not ascertain who the two men were, and that Benjamin and Fitzgerald denied having spoken to the two men at the corner. The inspector remarked, apparently in a jocular manner, referring to Benjamin and Fitzgerald, that they would swear anything. They had denied speaking to the men at the Grain Agency corner, and it turned out

Levy's corner. Was quite prepared to believe that there were men in the force who would swear anything. Frederick Robson, bootmaker, and Alfred Hoddinot, machinist, corroborated Mr Taylor’s evidence. The Chairman intimated that the members of the Commission would visit the various localities mentioned in the evidence. Inspector Broham, re-called, deposed that he had seen Mr Taylor two or three times with reference to the case, and had interrogated Detectives Benjamin and Fitzgerald as to whether they had spoken to the two men at the Grain Agency or Walker’s corner. Witness told Mr Taylor that Benjamin denied that he had spoken to them at the Grain Agency corner. Mr Taylor said that if Benjamin had said that he was saying what was not true. Witness might Jhave acquiesced, but did not say, of Benjamin or any other detective under his charge, that they would swear anything. Told Mr Taylor that the two constables denied having been in the hotel, and he might have added that they would say anything. If so that referred to the constables and to this charge. At tbe request of Mr Kippenberger, witness put in the report made by Sergeant Wilson at the time, August 13. It was read, and was to the effect that a complaint had been made by Mr Taylor that two constables had been in the Cafe from twelve to twenty minutes past, that the Sergeant had been told by Mr Beauchamp, licensee of the hotel, that no constables had been in the house at the time mentioned, but two young ratn who said they were travellers, and were tell and wore overcoats, had been in. After the luncheon adjournment, Mr Taylor called Garrett Fitzgerald, detective, stationed at Christchurch, who deposed that on the night of Aug. 12 last year, with Detective Benjamin, he spoke to Constable M’Kenzie on the crossing opposite Walker’s, tobacconist’s shop. He afterwards saw Constable Barrett in High Street, opposite the Hall, To Mr Kippenberger: Constable Barrett was on his beat when witness saw him. Did not see Barrett and M’Kenzie together., Some few days after the occurrence witness was asked about it by the inspector; Constable M’Kenzie was also on his beat when witness saw him standing at the corner about 12.15. M’Kenzie went away with Detective Benjamin to lock up a drunken man, whom witness and Benjamin had seen lying in the street. To Mr Taylor : Witness was not absolutely sure as to the hour. Frank Thompson deposed that he was a house and land agent in business with Mr T. E. Taylor. Was with Mr Taylor when the latter saw Inspector Broham in reference to certain constables having been in Arenas’ Hotel. There was some confusion as to tbe position at which certain detectives had met certain consables, whether at the Grain Agency corner or Yvtelkor’s corner, and Inspector Broham said, “They will swear anything.” It subsequently transpired that the constables ■were correct as to the location, and that there had been a misunderstending. To Mr Kippenberger: Was certain as to Inspector Broham’s remark, because it struck witness that the inspector could not have a very high opinion of the men under him. Witness was a prohibitionist, and had once been out with Mr Taylor at night subsequent to the occasion referred to in the present charge. f Mr Kippenberger addressed the Commissioners for tbe defence, contending that the witnesses in support of the charge were mistaken, and that some of them, were, moreover, biassed. He called Constable Thomas Barrett, who deposed that he had been stationed in Christchurch for over seven years, and had known Mr Taylor for about five years. On August 13 last, about 1.20 a.m.. Sergeant Wilson asked him if he bad gone into any hotels. Witness bad not been in the Cafe that night, nor in Constable M’Kenzie’s company. Saw M’Kenzio about 1 a.m. in High Street, in company with Detective Benjamin. They were arresting a man for drunkenness.

To Mr Taylor: Saw Night Watchman Paget that night about midnight in High Street, near the Hereford Hotel. Witness met no constable that evening. Had joined the police force from the Armed Constabulary. Constable Donald M’Kenzie deposed that he had been stationed in Christchurch about fifteen or sixteen months. He did not go into the Cafe with Barrett on August 12 last. Early the following morning Sergeant Wilson asked him if he had been into the Cafe. Had not been in company with Barrett that night, but had seen him on his beat in High Street, about eleven. Witness was then on his beat. They were both wearing overcoats. To Mr Taylor: Spoke to’Detective Benjamin about a quarter past twelve that niebt. Reported himself to Sergeant Wilson about twenty minutes to one near Tuam Street. Witness was at Walker’s corner when he saw Barrett, and the latter was near the Hall—Kenneth, Matheson’s place. Could not exactly tell that it was Barrett, but could see that it was a policeman. Should think it would have been possible that night to distinguish a policeman across Cashel Street, Picked up a drunken man that night in Tuam Street. Detective Benjamin told him of the man, whom he took to the station about 1 a.m. It took fully half-an-hour to take him to the lock-up. Was at Walker’s corner when Benjamin told him of the man. It took witness five or ten minutes to get to the corner of Tuam Street where the man was. To the Commissioner: Witness smoked, and so did Barrett. Witness occasionally smoked bn his heat. Mr Taylor asked if a subscription list had been passed round the town to defray the expenses of .this defence—-with witness’s knowledge. Witness replied that this was the first he had heard of it. Had not heard that a subscription list for that object had been passed round among the police in the barracks. George Alfred Manning deposed that he

had been assistant barman at the Cafe in August last, and. knew Constables Barrett and M’Kenzie. On the night of August 12 anrnquiry was made as to two constables having been in the hotel that night. Witness was on duty that night. His duty, after eleven o’clock, was to see that boarders were in, and to admit, by the front door, those who stayed out. Did not admit either Barrett or M’Kenzie that night. Two gentlemen came to the door afte:- twelve, but be could swear they were not Barrett and M’Kenzie. They rang the bell, and Mr Beauchamp, the licensee, admitted them. To Mr Taylor: The door bell was in the hall, where witness had to sit till the last boarder was in. Had to go to work about 6.30 a.m. Sometimes had to sit up till a quarter to three, and sometimes got away at a quarter past eleven. Had left the Cato on New Year’s Day, The two men admitted stayed in the porch for three or four minutes and went away. They said they wanted beds. Heard about M’Kenzie and Barrett’s case the same night from Mr Beauchamp. Was upstairs, taking the numbers of the rooms, when the sergeant called, about ten or fifteen minutes after the two gentlemen went away. That would be about a quarter to one o’clock. Never admitted anyone by the back deor. All the bedrooms were occupied except one double-bedded room. George Beauchamp deposed that he wasmanager of the Cafe do Paris, of which he was licensee, on August 12 last. Remembered that night on acconnt of Sergeant Wilson’s inquiries. Constables Barrett and M’Kenzie were not in the hotel that night. A little after midnight two men, tall and rather stoutish, one, at least, wearing an overcoat, . came and' asked for accommodation for the night. They were accompanied by Mr Warnes, the fishmonger. They did not get any accommodation. They were inside for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, while witness was ascertaining whether there were any beds available. To Mr Taylor: All the bedrooms were full that night without exception. Thought that the double-bedded room was occupied. Could not say whether or not a doublebedded room was offered to the two men who wanted accommodation. V ; Henry Paget .deposed that he had been night-watchman , for four or five years in Christchurch. Remembered.' a ; complaint against Constables Barrett and M’Kenzie, but did not remember the date. Had been at the corner of Cashel and Colombo Streets, near the Cafe, about five or ten minutes past twelve on the eight referred to. Saw no persons go into the Cafe till some time afterwards, when Sergeant Wilson went in. There were not many men about; it was a remarkably quiet night for a race night. Saw no one in front of Taylor’s grocer’s shop, opposite the Cafe. Saw Barrett within two or three minutes of twelve o’clock opposite the Hereford Hotel, and about a quarter of an hour afterwards just by Kenneth, Matheson’s, in High Street, on his beat. Saw Constable M’Kenzie returning from taking in a drunken man an hour before he saw Barrett, and also taking in another afterwards. The Chairman said that the police records showed that M’Kenzie had locked up a woman at 10.30 p.ra. that night and a man at 1 a.m. on the following morning. To Mr Taylor: Witness was in front of Mr Gundersen’s, in High Street, when the clock struck twelve. Saw some men leave the Cafe before Sergeant Wilson went in. To the Commissioner: Saw two men leave the Cafe somewhere about half-past or twenty minutes past twelve; thought they were constables, but when he came up to them he found they were not, but were wearing waterproofs, he thought. To Mr Taylor: Witness had been in the police, but had resigned sixteen years ago. The two men were wearing cape-coats. To the Commissioner: Did not notice anyone standing at the boot shop at the corner of Colombo and Cashel Street about , a quarter-past twelve, but would not swear there was not anyone there. Major Cunningham deposed that he knew Constables Barrett and M’Kenzie, and looked on them as very excellent constables. He was not, however, intimately connected' with them. He was canvasser for the Government Life Insurance Department. His business took him a great deal into the streets, and he knew several constables fairly well. William Robinson, bootmaker, deposedthat he had a shop in High Street, and had known Barrett five or six years, and M’Kenzie about twelve months. Had seen them continually passing his shcp, and thought them among the best men in the force for soberness, steadiness and straightforwardness. Had seen their conduct to the people passing by his shop, and thought the two constables were a credit to the police force. This concluded the evidence for the defence. Mr Taylor drew attention to a paragraph in Sergeant Wilson’s report, to the effect that Mr Beauchamp had told him that there.had been no constables in Iris house; that two young men from the country came about twelve and claimed to be travellers, but he would not serve them. Mr Taylor pointed out that Mr Beauchamp now said that the men wanted beds. Mr Beauchamp was recalled, and said that the men did not ask for drinks, but for beds. He could not, at this lapse of time, exactly remember what he had said to the sergeant, and he was not responsible for what appeared in the report. The Chairman requested that Mr Wames, who was said to have introduced the two men, might be called if Mr Kippenberger desired. Mr Kippenberger said that he had been asked to represent the constables, and he would like to know when the evidence as to their generally visiting hotels came on. The Chairman said that this would be done. He asked Mr Taylor -when he intended to call the evidence.

Mr Taylor stated that he intended to call a lad who was in Wellington if the Commission would subpoena him. The Chairman said this would be done. The Commission would not express any opinion on the evidence just given, but would embody their observations in their report. Stephen Maitland Kelso, second-class constable, stationed in Christchurch, deposed that he had joined the force in July, I£Bl, and was not promoted till March or April, 1892. Had-been stationed in Wellington, Hokitika, Grey mouth, Westport, Eeefton, Wellington again and Christchurch, where he had been seven years. Seventeen constables, his juniors in the service, had been promotedfrom second to firstclass between February, 1597, and February, 1898. The promotion of these from third to second had not been gazetted except that of one—Patrick Joyce, promoted for extinguishing a fire. There was only one fine, of 6s, recorded against witness, fifteen or sixteen years ago. His meritsheet showed three successful prosecutions for sly grog-selling, one for breach of the Beer Duty Act, and one instance of arresting a naval deserter. He Had been recommended for promotion on August 26, 1884, and on Nov. 20, 1886, by Inspector Emerson, and on Oct. 15, 1890, by Inspector Goodall. Had always done mounted duty. To Mr Tunbridge: Fifteen pf the twentyfive meii recently promoted from second to first were junior to him. He believed that the junior man of those just promoted from second to first class had been promoted to second class in 1886. . His complaint was against the delay in his promotion from third to second. To Colonel Hume: Witness had no means of knowing until now, when he saw the numbers in the Gazette, that all these men were juniors to him. Had made application for promotion in October, 1890, and it had been referred to Colonel Hume, who replied that there were many third-class constables before him on the list for promotion. He had net brought the matter before the Commissioner when lie came round, as he thought he had had his answer, and he did not so much mind one or two juniors being put over him, but when it came to fifteen at a time he thought it time to complain. At 4.45 p.m., the Commission adjourned to 10 a.m. to-day.