THE DUNEDIN GAOL ENQUIRY.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2762, 31 July 1883, Page 3

THE DUNEDIN GAOL ENQUIRY.

(By Telegbafh.) Dubbdin, July 30. The principal evidence taken at the gad enquiry to-day was from the prison punishment book with regard to the sentences in* dieted by Justices. Mr Whitefoord intimated that he was taking a note of the caaca from the book brought under notice by Captain Hume, for the convenience of Mr Brown or any other Magistrate who might be called to explain. This was one of the most lerious matter* the Gommiision had to enquire into, i.e., the detention of prisoners afttr their time. Among the cases was that of Patrick Walih. '.-. Captain Hume read a olause of the Prisons Act, which showed that no one Justice could order a prisoner to forfeit more than a maximum of 81 marks. On the 25th February, 1576, Walsh was charged with using obscene language, and sentenced on the Ist March by Mr Brown, a Yiiiting Justice, to forfeit 100 marks. On the Bth June, 1879, he was charged with hating a lead penoil in his possession without permission, and for that Mr Brown recommended that his pardon should be cancelled. Mr Curtis: For the same off 9 nee on the 6th December he had been cautioned. Captain Hume laid that according to that sentence the prisoner forfeited 1278 marks. Without this his marks would all have been earned by the 22nd of July, 1879, bat b» was not discharged until the 21st January, 1880. A prisoner named Home wat shown to have used improper language on the 17th August, bnt the charge was sot heard till 27th September. It was next shown that a prisoner named Robert Butler committed an offence at Maitland street works on the Ist February, 1877, which mi not dealt with until ihe 3rd March. Mr Curtis : Yet the Visiting Justices seem to hare been frequently at the gaol during the interral. The prisoner Butler was also shown to have been aenUneed by Mr Brown on the 15th March, 1879, to forfeit 100 marks. Captain Hume wished to draw attention to the fact that this prisoner's punishments had been extraordinarily light all through, as compared with those of others. For assaulting a fellow prisoner at Bell Hill be only loit his tobacco for one week. He was cautioned repeatedly, and received trifling punishments for insulting language, violent conduct, insubordination, &e. A number of cases of short' sentenced prisoners were also instanced. One prisoner, it was shown, was ohtrged witb idleness for a number of days during March and April, but the charges were all dealt with on April 23rd, a day or two before they should have been. Mr Curtis would like to know what occurred Did the man know that all these charges were going to be brought against him or was he allowed to go on in ignorance, oommittiog the offences from day to day P There appeared to have been a number of visits from the Juaticei in the meantime. Captain Hume did not think they wen likely to got any very satisfactory informa tion on the point. A charge agaimt anothei prisoner (Anderson) was shown to have beo: heard on the 4th May, the offence bavin) been committed in February. Mr Curtis commented upon this as t " tremendous " lapse of time. Arthur Brown, sentenced for throe month had one month additional for five days' idle nets, and John Smith, idle on June 9th, wa not brought up until July 14th. This latte prisoner amongst other offences was charge' with using the following language : — "I wil report that doctor when I see a prope Magistrate. God forgive you, Mr Caldwell as I do. Many have you killed in tbi prison." The examination of the punishment boo was continued at some length. A number o cases were noted in which prisoners got cxtr sentences the Srat time they were brough before- the Visiting Justioes ; others for nearl the same reason being merely cautioned. Tb Commiesioners noticed also cases in which male warder leporlod females for varioa offences, and Mr Whitefoord pointed oti that one man awaiting trial was brought u for washing his clothes on a Sunday. The inquiry was then adjourned.