STORIES OF THE POLICE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6970, 9 November 1909, Page 8

STORIES OF THE POLICE

AN AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL. HOW HE GOT INTO THE FORCE. Describing what ■be calls case "No. G,” Mr H. W. Bishop, in his Police Commission's report, says This is the case of the Australian criminal of which so much has been said. This man applied for admission to the force on the 19th March,' 1903. He arrived in New Zealand from New South Wales on the 27th February, 1908. Ho was sent to the Training Depot on. j the 20th March, 1908, and sworn iu as a constable on the 14th May, 1908. Prior to his enrolment no inquiries whatever apoear to have been made as to his antecedents beyond the examination of certain quasi-testimonials that he produced, amongst these being one from a man called Lnnny, who described himself as general manager of the Lnnny property, the applicant also having described himself as overseer and caretaker of the Lnnny sisters' estates. These Lnnny sisters' since turn out to be the two maiden aunts of the man, and their property brings them in' some MS per annum.

A PHOTOGRAPH IDENTIFICATION. ,On the 3rd April, 1908, the Commissioner addressed a letter to the Inspec-tor-General of Police, Sydney, New South Wales, asking that inquiries bo made as to this man's character. A reply was not, received until the 17th -July. 1908, giving his criminal , antecedents. But, before this arrived, he had been identified as the original of the photograph of a New South Wales criminal of the same name. Detective Cassells, in looking over* a book of photographs, accidentally noticed this, one, and on the 18th June, 1908, he reported the fact. The man was dismissed on the 20th June. The only excuse made by the Commissioner for enrolling this man before the inquiries were completed is that he wanted a man to make up a batch of ten to go into the depot. I see no sufficient reason in this for taking a man' that he was not sure of. No risk should be taken,in a matter of this sort. It brings scandal on the force and causes adverse comment. The Commissioner appears to have attached considerable importance to a recommendation by Mr Wilford, M.P. But all that I can see that Mr, Wilford did was to say that he knew some of the man's family, and they were respectable.

ANOTHER MAN FROM AUSTRALIA. No. 7 is a man, also from Australia, who, Mr Arnold states, - was admitted into the force, and was called upon to resign for misconduct. ; This man was enrolled into the New Zealand police force on the 20th March, 1908, on the strength of his previous service in the South Australian Eighth Contingent and in the South Australian police force. His discharges showed his character to have been good. As he only left the South Australian force on the 31st January, 1908, and joined here on the 30th March, 1908, it is apparent that he could only have been a very short time iu New Zealand. Absolutely nothing was known about him beyond the discharges, and we have seen what these have proved to be ■ worth in other cases. On the 22ud November, 1908, he was fined 10s for being off his beat and in tho Albert Hotel without lawful excuse between 2.25 a.m. and 3.10 a.m. NEGLECT OF DUTY.

The next entry on his defaulters sheet shows that on the 27th March, 1909, he was -called upon to resign and allowed twelve days* annual leave to 13th April, 1909, for "neglect of duty in failing and refusing to render assistance to. several, of his comrades who were engaged in bringing a resisting prisoner along the street, surrounded by a riotous and obstructing crowd.” X do not consider that Mr Arnold's statement is in any way "a gross misrepresentation of the, facts, as it is described by the Commissioner. On the contrary, 1 believe it to be substantially correct, for that is the distinct impression left on my mind after closely reading all the evidence given at the inquiry and the reports of the constables. Inspector Hilison said of him, "I have several times noticed him inattentive, slovenly on his beat, and given to gossiping, and have checked him without good result. X consider he is one -of the most useless men in the station as a policeman, and one who will do no duty that he can avoid.”

In spite of all this, there is an entry on his defaulters sheet by Sub-Inspector Wright, "Discharge handed to ex-Con-stable Hood, 12/5/09. ‘Generally good/" This can only bo described as perfectly astonishing in ' the face of the man’s record. THE CASE OF "J. D One of the -worst cases that I hare como across in connection with laxity in admitting men to the police force is that of a man named J. D., who was admitted as a probationer on the 15th November, 1905, and sworn In on the 22nd December, 1905. There is an extensive file relating to this case, and X have gone carefully through it, and the profound impression is left upon my mind that, had it not been for the pressure brought by a then member of Parliament. the man would never have been accented. There are no less than three

letters on the file from Mr R. M. Houston, M.H.R., dated loth April, 1903, Ist October, 1903, and 20th September, 1905. strongly recommending the man for selection. The inquiries about him were never satisfactory and were never properly completed, and almost every statement that* the man made about himself was a lie, and he even went to the length of producing documents on behalf of himself that belonged to another man of the same name. He was finally allowed to resign as from the 13th April, 1907. It turned out that- he had deserted his wife and family in England, and was a thorough bad lot. AN UNPRINCIPLED SCAMP.

During the inquiries that were made before be was admitted to the force, a constable reported that he had frequently seen him under the influence of liquor, and that once, when he was on a spree, ho had an intim'ate connection with a certain forged cheque. Another constable reported that he was in debt in the district in which he' lived, that he was of drunken habits, and very quarrelsome whilst drunk. One man said he was absolutely “no class, and totally unsuited for the police force. It is true that other people in various reports spoke of his good qualities; but, judicially reviewing the whole case, 1 can see no excuse whatever for having admitted the man into the pone© force. I can only conclude, as I have said, that “political influence” was the deciding factor. The man. on the. 16th November, 1908, actually had the impudence to officially apply for. permission to get married in Dunedin, although he was known in the Department as a married man, having so stated in lus application form. He finally left the Dominion with a woman. The Commissioner described him in his final minute on the paoers as an unprincipled scamp.