THE POLICE COMMISSION.

Otago Witness, Volume 23, Issue 2684, 23 August 1905, Page 17

THE POLICE COMMISSION.

-j— ♦ , FIFTH DAY. J A CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT. -Alfred -JD. Broad, brushmaker, said that in June, 1902, he was the owner of a dredge et . Waitahuna. His dredgemaster wrote fcim that he and his men were threatened Vath. summonses because they had not firstclass certificates. He wanted something 'd'oiie, and -witness- left for Waitahuna. He first called on Inspector O'Brien, and told him if "anyone was to be summoned it was himself (witness). He expected the inspector .to look into the matter, but -instead six summonses -.were"' issued. Witness did not )get a summons.- "He closed down .his dredge until, the, judgment was' given." The itfagi?trate dismissed ' the cases,, 6a,yaag the wrong anari had been summoned. Witness had got iio* redress^ for this;, it .had cost him about £30. Witness • was the 'man to summon, and -not the' men ( at '' all. He maintained that the • inspector did not' do his duty. •To Inspector O'Brien-: He had represented this matter to the Government three times, and had got no - satisfaction. • It ,■ might not be the duty of the police to administer the Inspection of Machinery Act, but they did it. Archibald Walker, inspector of machinery for Otago, said that it -was has department ' only that administered the Inspection of Machinery Act. As provided by the act, he asked the police to make inquiries for him. On. the occasion referred to by the last witness he requested the police to make inquiries for him. He received a report sod gave instructions for a prosecution. The case was dismissed because the wrong persons were .prosecuted. He had never knowzt the polir-e to prosecute without a request from witness's department. • To Mr Broad: .The tliree men were prosecuted. He gave no instructions for the prosecution of any particular men except the owner and the engineer, and the owner svas not summoned. Mr Bishop: Do you wish to make any explanation, "Mr O'Brien? Inspector O'Brien: -I have no wish to say anything. -- Mr Bishop : You understand that he says you declined to prosecute him and prosecuted ' others whose prosecution was not authorised? Inspector O'Brien: That is not so. Mr Bishop : WiH you. get the papers from ; fWeVington and put them in. Inspector O'Brien: Yes. CHARGES- AGAINST A SERGEANT. -Constable Matheson, stationed at Invercargill, _ stated that he served in. Dunedin from February, 1902, . till- May, 1903., He contradicted the' statements of ex-Constable M'Donald- about , thieving- having gone on for . a -number ■of 'years. There was always a time appointed for" the sergeants, and he served under Sergeants ITyons, Griffiths, Higgins, and Dew. He desired to protest against the treatment sneted out to him by a sergeant now on duty in Dunedin. Mr Bishop: You had better give hie name. The witness said lie referred to SeTgeant Biggins. While on night duty Sergeant Higgins on" two occasions used insulting language to him. He had two notes of this in his diary, written up immediately he came off duty. On February 10, 1902, lie was spoken to by Sergeant Higgins in a very insulting manner. He had not the words entered. On a previous occasion Bergeant Higgins had insulted him in a most abusive manner. He (witness) was then a young and inexperienced constable, tend did not know whether to report the sergeant or not The sergeant reported ihim (wiiness), and he was brought before the inspector and charged with using insulting language to the sergeant. He had answered t3ie sergeant back. He brought forward a witness to show that he (witness) was first insulted, but the inspector convicted him and disregarded the evidence of himself (witness) and his witness. Sergeant Higgins brought two trivial charges against him prior to that. The first was jthat he was not working his beat properly, and 'the second was that he had left his !beat and telephoned to the station to spy out his (Higgins's) movements. On the first charge there was only one word against another, and on the second the sergeant ftwought ex-Constable M'Donald, whose (word had several times been disbelieved, to give evidence They both stated that ihey recognised his (witness's) voice over itho telephone, although they both admitted they had never before heard his voice over .the telephone. The third charge was that of insulting language before referred to. On the third charge he was fined_ ss, and on the other two severely reprimanded, j

and h© was convicted on two of them on the bare word of the sergeant. Some time after this Sergeant Higgins again insulted him, and he (witness) reported it. His report was returned to" him with the intimation that, as he had no corroborative v evidence,- v his report could not be entertained. He did not even get the treatment '■'' that^'a criminal before the court would. ' Ex-Constable Bunting was the witness he - brought .to show he (witness) had been insulted. - ' l He (witness) could cite several instances showing that Sergeant Higgins was not capa-ble of carrying out his duties. There was one case in which Constable James Bunting was fined for not remaining at the .point where Sergeant Higgins ' asked' him to meet him. The Sergeant - spoke sharply "to Bunting for not waiting^ and Bunting replied that he had waited until the time was up; "sharp words ensued, ' after which Bunting was charged with using insulting language, and fined. Witness was on the other side of the street, and heard everything, but never heard /Bunting use insulting language. The witness went on to refer to some alleged drinking while on duty, but admitted that his information was only hearsay, and that the constable who gave it was now out of the force. The constable in question was reported by Sergeant Higgins for being drunk, and he was ■ punished. The witness also said it was ' common talk that while a young constable was arresting a man in Rattray street, and lhad been forced through a window, Sergeant Higgins went up on the Rattray street car, and never offered assistance. The affair was reported, but the report was " chucked out." The same sergeant "saw two constables, who were favourites of his, coming out of a hotel while in uniform ; but . he simply told them not to do it again. . The witness went on to refer to some case i of a man wno was ill in High street, and the sergeant had not given him (witness) the prompt assistance required. On the occasion of his (witness's) being fined for not ' remaining at a certain point, he had met \ the sergeant and told him there was nothing j to report, and then he (witness) walked on. j Sergeant Higgins insulted him, and told ! him he should have waited till the relief '. man came up. The next ni^ht ■witness I waited, and the sergeant used insulting language, and asked Him what he waited for. The sergeant swore at him. It was a well-known fact that the sergeant could not approach men in that manner without swearing at them. The witness also referred to the hardship entailed on constables through being obliged to attend court after being on night duty. Witness served under four sergeants in Dunedin, and it was common talk that while under Sergeant Higgins the men would do as little as they could possibly do, while under the others they would do ! their utmost. The sergeant referred to was the laughing stock of the force, and his name was a by-word amongst the men from the Bluff to Auckland. Witness was never paid a surprise visit while on night duty by any sergeant. _ . To Commissioner Dinnie : Witness had nofc j apDealed against the inspector's decisions, | although he was aware he could do so. To Inspector O'Bx-ien : The regulations , showed plainly that he could appeal to the commissioner, but he had not done so. He ■ was inexperienced, and was feeling his way as gently as possible at the time. He denied that he ever spoke through the tele•phone on the occasion referred to. To Sergeant Higgins: Witness was going i to stop at the voint he was told to wait at till the relief man came up, but was ordered to go on round his beat. He did not see him (Sergeant Higgins) drinking from a bottle in the street; he only heard this i from the constable who was reported for [ drunkenness. He had never produced his ■ boot before in evidence against a sergeant, i but he had produced a memo. book. It was not shown conclusively that the entries , were faked. There were two memos. on j one page, and one made on the 25th day j followed that on the 28th. The commissioner , had said the entry was not in accordance ! with the charge. It was not true that } witness caused a great deal of trouble down here, and he was not an agitator. He was badly treated, and resented it. He got on very well in Invercargill, and it was not a fact that the men down there sal on him. MORE POLICE EVIDENCE. Constable Wohlmann, district clerk at Tnvercargill, contradicted <>x-Constable M 'Donald's statements regarding- thieving having gone on for a number of years. Witness was on duty in Dunedin from 1895 to IS9B. Surprise visits were occasionally paid by the sergeants, but very seldom. According to j regulation 205, the times for visiting the | men were set down, and according to the J

regulations the sergeants, appeared to be acting in a proper manner. When constables had to follow regular beats, any practised criminal could soon learn where a constable would be at a certain time. The real remedy was to alter and change the times, and by getting better men and better sergeants into the service. The Premier had stated that the minimum wage fox* a labourer should be 8s a day, but the police had to work seven days a week to earn as much as the labourer did in f.ix. ' Country stations, of course, were inducements, but promotion was too slow. To Mr Bishop: Witness's deliberate opinion was that a sergeant's word was taken before a constable's; but from a disciplinary point of view he could not see how this could bo helped very well. In meet cases, he 'thought, the serge.ant would be right; but sergeants were not perfect. There was one sergeant in Dunedin, now out of the force,l who was not fib to be out at night, and on one occasion lost his relief because he could not see it across the street. — (Laughter.) The belief that a constable's word had no chance against a sergeant's engendered a feeling of dissatisfaction, and led to constables preferring not to report sergeants. More sergeants were required. The rank of sergeant-major should be revived. The clerical part of the work was increasing so much that a higher standard of educational efficiency should bo set. He believed the men were only required to pass the Fourth Standard. Commissioner Dinnie: Witness had not been aware that the men were required now to pass examinations equal to that of the Sixth Standard. I Constable Holmes (of Invercargill) said | that he was on duty in Dunedin in 1902, I and he emphatically contradicted" ex-Con-J stable M'Donald's statements. The sergeants paid visits at stated times, and he j only remembered two surprise visits, and j those were by Sergeant Griffiths. He 1 thought the beats should be reversed and changed sometimes. As far as he was concerned, he had no grievances against any of the sergeants. Sergeant Higgins did not have a very nice way of addressing his men, and was somewhat aggressive sometimes. The general feeling amongst the force was that the sergeant's word was taken too readily by the inspector. He also thought' that in the selection of men the physical proportions were given 'too great prominence, while intelligence was not so much considered. To Sergeant Higgins: There was some bad feeling over the Griffiths affair when witness was here. On more than one occasion he (Sergeant Higgins) had spoken somewhat harshly. A policeman was entitled to be treated a 6 a man. Sergea-nt Higgins: Don't you know there was a conspiracy amongst hhe men against n<e? — Net in my time. The witness also said he believed Sergeant Higgins did double back on constables at certain times. Mr Bishop : It is his general demeanour you refer to? — Yes* he may not be able to help it. Constable Rcaney. of Invercargill, gave evidence contradictory of the statements ir-adet by ex-Constable M'Dcnald. Constable iT. A. Oruiokshanks stated thai he joined the force in 1898, and served two years in Dunedin before transfer to the Bluff. Ho contradicted ex-Constable \ M'Donald's statements regarding thieving ' having gone on for a mi nib to of years. He ] had had a difference with Sergeant Higgins i about the mann--<r in which the latter spoke to him. Witness applied for a transfer on ■this account, and. being pressed by the inspector, gav^i his reasons. The inspector said he had better stop in Dunedin, and everything went on very well after that. Sergeant Higgins might ha\'e us&d a little more tact in giving orders to me before the public. Witness was in Dunedin only in Inspector Pardy's time. Constable Dwan. of Nightcaps, said he joined the force in 1900 at Dunedin, and did three years' duty here. There was no i&xity on the part of the sergeants, but a cortain amount of bad feeling did exist. He had never been reported by a sergeant. He seived .three years under Sergeant Higsjins,, and it was a well-known iact that Sergeant Higgins was the worst-liked man in the force on account of his activity. He* 'had known all the sergeants ho served uncW to double- back. To Sergeant JTiqrgins: There was no> laxity on hits (Higgins's) part. Hft never noticed Sergeant Higgins to be o-\evbearing to him or any other nian, and had known him to doubb back on constables. He had never known him (Sergeant Higgins) to have signs of liquor about him at any time. AN EX-CONSTABLE'S EVIDENCE. Ex-Constable William Curtis (for whom Mr Irwin appeared) desired to give eudenoe. j

He joined the force in Wellington in May, 1900, and in November of the same year was transferred to Dunedin. He was under Sergeants Higgins, Lyons, and Donovan, and was reported for breaches of duty by Sergeant Donovan. He was charged with failing to find a door open. He • had not thought it his duty to try doors until after 11 p.m. Sergeant Donovan told him to go into the shop and get f-omething to place against the door, and subsequently the, sergeant unjustly accused him of going through the shop, and said he was not fit to be in the police. Though witness brought Constable Hodgson as witness, ihe inspector disbelieved both against Sergeant Donovan. On one occasion lie was half an hear late in meeting Sergeant Donovan, and told the sergeant there was a row up in Cargill street, but the sergeant disbelieved him and reported him ; but he (witness) got the benefit of the doubt. He was also reported for lying down on his beat, but he denied this, and called a wiiness to show that he was at a corner waiting for the sergeant at 1 a.m. The witness and he were disbelieved. Witness was called to resign over that. To Commissioner Dinnie : Witness was reported in Wellingtoi. for neglect of duty. To Inspector O'Brien : There were three charges against him in Wellington, and he ■was fined on two of Iheni. Two charges were for neglect of duty, nnd the third for being under the influence of liquor.

Inspector O'Brien : Did not one of the charges show cowardice — yeva saw a row, and went away out of the road? — The men were on private grounds, and I could not interfere.

Is it not a fact that you were actually dismissed from the servies in Wellington before being transferred to Dunedin, and were taken on on the following day and sriven another chance and sent down here? — The witness admitted this was so.'

Did you know that Inspector Emerson reported you as utterly unfit for the service?—l do not know.

In other answers the witness said no one told him that ju was not usual to try the doors only after 11 n.m. The sergeant did not find him in Mrs Dreaver's shop by himself.

Inspector O'Brien: Your statement was that you told the sergeant that another constable was in the shop with you, and when the other constable denied having been there you admitted the other constable was not in with you? — I don't recollect that.

The witness also said he had not heard the South Dunedin firebells on a certain right when he was charged with sleeping on duty, although Sergeant Ryan had been farther away and had heard them. Witness wnt xo live in a restaurant in George street in respect to which a charge of sly grog-selling was pending. Sergeant Ryan said he had heard the firebells and whistles on tho night c' the fire at Donaghy's ropie works quits plainly, but Curtis trad not, and it was plain Curtia had: been sleeping on duty. Constable Hodgson gave evidenr-> regarding finding Mrs Dreaver's fhop door open after Curtis had previously passed it. Sergeant Donovan told Curtis to go in and got something to barricade the door with. Some time later witness was opposite the shop, and Donovan and Curtis cam© out, and Donovan asked witness if he had been in, and witness replied in the negative. The sergeant then n,sked Curtis if he had not said he (witness) was in with him, and Curtis replied '"No."' The sergeant then told Curtis he was not fit to be a member of the foi-ce. This concluded the sittings at Dunedin.