QUESTIONABLE TESTIMONY

Observer, Volume XVIII, Issue 1020, 16 July 1898, Page 2

QUESTIONABLE TESTIMONY

Inspector Hickson Withdraws Some More Sworn Evidence.

It would be interesting to know whether any and what steps have been taken to get the sworn evidence of Inspector Kickson expunged from the records of the Police Commission. The Inspector himself confessed its unreliability when he asked _for and obtained the consent of the Commission to withdraw his sworn testimony one day and substitute other, testimony of a contrary character for it on the following day. This step became necessary in consequence of the Inspector being contradicted fatly in his main statements by his own men on questions of fact. Now his sworn evidence has been contradicted with equal force in a new quarter altogether.

Inspector Hickson said deliberately in the coarse of his evidence that he informed the Justices of the Peace of Otorohanga by letter that two swagsmen were being sent to their district to detect sly grog selling, and on this sworn statement he based the insinuation that the Justices of the Peace gave information to the sly grog sellers. This was a serious allegation, coming from so high an authority as an Inspector of Police, and having the additional weight of being made on oath. Bat the Justices of the Peace of Otorohanga at once collectively addressed a letter to the Police Commission declaring that no telegram, letter, or other communication was ever sent to them by Inspector Hickson relative to his intend tion to Bend any persons into the King Country to detect sly grog selling. Also, they challenged Inspector Hickson to produce from the police records a copy of the letter referred to, saying that if he failed to famish this document they could not avoid coming to the conclusion that he wilfully made a gross mis-statement, with a view to-discredit them because of state* ments they had made reflecting on his administration. '

This is a grave impeachment of the veracity of an officer holding a high and responsible position in the Department of Justice, and is all the more grave in view of Inspector Hickson's recent withdrawal of other of his sworn evidence before the Commission when it was contradicted. The Justices of the Peace in question sent a copy of their letter-to Inspector Hickson, with the result that he has practically withdrawn the evidence against them also. ' 1 have looked the matter up,' writes the Inspector, -• and have no record of any. official letter . being sent, and certainly accept as true your statement that no communication whatever was made to yon. I much regret that any offence should ■ have been given yon . - where

certainly none was intended, and re quest you to accept my apology in the matter.'

This is a lovely bit of floundering in an awkward position. Inspector Hicksonmade a serious charge against these justices, basing it on an alleged statement of fact, and we venture to say that if a witness in the Police Court had deliberately committed himself in . the . same way on oath he would have been indicted for perjury. Bat it seems — with two examples before U3— that Inspector Hickson may make serious statements on oath one day and withdraw them as valueless the next. This is why we ask whether the aworn evidence of Inspector Hickson ought not to be expunged from the records of the Police Commission ?