EVIDENCE AT OAMARU.

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

EVIDENCE AT OAMARU.

(From Ouk Own Coreesfondext.)

OAMARU, July 19. The Police Commission sat here to-day to take evidence.

A number of business people, including the Mayor and several justices of the peace, came forward to deny the allegations of dishonesty among the police here Those constables examined who had done night duty in Christchurch all testified that there the sergeants were in the habit of paying surprise visits, and were apt to meet the men anywhere and at anj r time. Sergeant King deposed that he had heard no suggestions of dishonesty among the police here. There were two men on night, duty, and he (the Sergeant) had paid them" surprise visits during the night up to 1 o'clock, and in tho morning as early as 5. The only single constable who had retired in Oamaru for a number of years was a most respectable man, in whom witness had much confidence. Constable O'Brien deposed that he was

in ohargw of ex-Constable M'Donald when the latter went to see his mother at his home near Tota,ra. They remain*. J there for about half an hour, and the conversation was about the. robberies. ~ln reply to Commissioner Dinnie, witness said k* did not remember inaking any remarks about any robberies elsewhere than, in DufKsdin. If he did so ho was telling a lie. Warned by Commissioner Dinnie to be careful, witness adhered to this. Commissioner Dinnie then read a statement, made by M'Donald in Dunedin, in which he said that Constable O'Brien had said at M'Donald's mother's house that the same practices were going on in Christqhurch; that O'Brien had seen half a sack of goods brought in, and that half tho force should be in gaol. Witness denied having made any such statements. Mrs M'Donald, mother of ex-Con6tab!e M'DonaJd, deposed that when Constable O'Brien went to the house with her son Us had told her (to console her) that thieving was very common in the force. He bad also said that he had not boer- three mg^t? in the force in Christchurch before fee «fc«f things corning in. *■ Mr Poynton : That was to intimaie to you that others were as bad as your son?— Witness: Yes. Continuing, witness said her 'daughter had seen two letters from other peoplg about this matter. She would not say from whom the letters w&ie. Commissioner. .Dinnie:. Did Constable O'Brien say he saw sacks coming; inV— Witness: No; just bund'os. • "' To Mr Bishop : Tho letter told witness's son to cheer up ; they might any of tWm have been in it. Miss M'Donald, sister of ex-Consfcabio M'Donald, stated that in one of Iho lettws M'Dcnald was advised to cheer up, as ati might have been any of them. After a good deal of demurring witness wrote the name on a piece of paper, and handed it to the bench. There was a second letter, in which the writer said it would be s lesson to them all. She was not posifcira who wrote tliat second letter, and deolintd to give a name. The letters had been burned, but witness declined to say bywhoni. m TIMAKU, July 20. The Police Commission sat here this morning, and- took the evidence of a sergeant, the detective, and six constables— • this being all offering. The detective and constables all said that the system of control and supervision at Timaru was of thebest, the constables never knowing when to expect a visit from the sectional sergeant. The majority of the witnesses, who had been previously stationed at Christchurch, expressed the opinion that control % there, as at Timaru, left no room for im--proveinent. They had heard a rumour of " a theft there by M'Donald, but nothing: more. Some of the witnesses had been stationed at Oamaru. They said, that there was nothing in M'Donald's suggestion thafe thieving had been going on there. All denied M'Donald's suggestion re thieving^ by the fores at Timaru. t i Sergeant Warring said that there hadL only been two burglaries at Timaru during tho past four years, and in both cases the offenders we're convictedAt tho conclusion of the evidence Commissioner Dinnie made a statement refuting the suggestions made, by several of thenewspapers that the commission had been; appointed because the Government was not satisfied with his statement that the police had now got to the bottom of the Dunedin thefts. That statement only applied to Dunedin, and the commission had been appointed to inquire into other matters besides the Dunedin thefts. The Police* Depcitment had suffered a good dt?al from unjustifiable and adverse comment. ■3