CHARGES AGAINST NELSON POLICE OFFICERS: CORRESPONDENCE, ETC., IN CONNECTION WITH CHARGES AGAINST VARIOUS POLICE OFFICERS STATIONED AT NELSON; TOGETHER WITH RESULT OF INQUIRY HELD BY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AND DECISION OF CABINET THEREON.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1902 Session I, H-16b

H.—l6b

1902. NEW ZEALAND.

CHARGES AGAINST NELSON POLICE OFFICERS: CORRESPONDENCE, ETC., IN CONNECTION WITH CHARGES AGAINST VARIOUS POLICE OFFICERS STATIONED AT NELSON; TOGETHER WITH RESULT OF INQUIRY HELD BY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AND DECISION OF CABINET THEREON.

Return to an Order (3) of the House of Representatives dated the 13th day of August, 1902.

Correspondence, etc. From Mr. Graham, M.H.E., to the Acting-Premier. (22nd April, 1902.) Apparent serious miscarriage of justice, result of private influence in connection with order for removal nearly all Nelson police. Fear matter will not end where it is. Public agitation already commenced. .Respectfully suggest you stay further action pending receipt my letter. From the Acting-Premier to Mr. Graham, M.H.E. (22nd April, 1902.) I have repeated your telegram to Minister of Justice, under whose administration the Police Department is, and on receipt of his reply I will wire you. From the Acting-Premier to Mr. Graham, M.H.E. (23rd April, 1902). Your communication re police in Nelson: I have received a reply from the Minister of Justice, who informs me that it would not do to allow any interference with the distribution of the men now. Owing to sides having been taken by the contending parties, and the police working in two different directions, the utility of the Force for the protection of the public and for the detection of crime was <n-eatly minimised, if not lost; and under the circumstances it was considered absolutely necessary that something should be done, and Cabinet adopted what they believed to be the best method of dealing with the matter. Capable men will be sent to replace the others. The Minister of Justice informs me —and in this I concur—that now that orders have been issued it would injure' the morale of the Force, and also have an injurious effect on the prestige of the police in Nelson, if any alterations were made. Ido not know what representations of private people you refer to, but can assure you that, personally, no communications of any kind from any one have reached me at any time in connection with the Police Force in Nelson. The official papers submitted to Cabinet some time ago contained the information upon which the decision was arrived at by Ministers after exhaustive consideration,

From Mr. Graham, M.H.E., to the Acting-Premier. (23rd April, 1902.) Be police: Eeceived your telegram with thanks, but deep regret. Do not understand reference, and have no knowledge of contending parties. The question is not one for contending parties, nor of sending capable men here, but bare justice to men who have proved themselves capable and respected and have almost eliminated crime and larrikinism in Nelson, who are now being dismissed and disrated for matters which departmental findings considered sufficiently punished by cautions for indiscretion, and in one case a fine of half a crown. I know of no private communication having been made to you personally, but am glad of your assurance to that effect. Public deeply agitated. I pray Government to grant public inquiry, and feel assured my knowledge your sense of right will cause this justice to be done.

I—H. 16b.

H.—l6b

2

From Mr. Graham. M.H.E., to the Acting-Premier. (25th April, 1902.) In compliance with almost absolutely universal desire here, will Government either reconsider or grant public inquiry in re charges against police? Am certain if you can spare time for full consideration Commissioner's report and findings thereon, your known sense of fair play will cause you to repudiate the unmerited punishment so far resolved upon-. I hope for a speedy reply such as will relieve public tension, which is very highly strung. Kind regards.

From the Acting-Premier to Mr. Graham, M.H.E. (25th April, 1902.) Your telegram re police affairs in Nelson : I cannot, of course, interfere in the administration of that Department in any way. The question of public inquiry I shall have submitted to Cabinet on the return of the Minister of Justice to Wellington.

From Mr. Graham, M.H.E., to the Acting-Premier. (25th April, 1902.) Cordially agree with you that Ministers not in charge should not interfere with administration Police Department. Thank you sincerely for your assurance that the question of a public inquiry shall be submitted to Cabinet, pending which doubtless decisive action will be stayed.

From the Acting-Premier to Mr. Graham, M.H.E. (25th April, 1902.) Your telegram to hand. Mine to you of this morning will doubtless have crossed it. You will recognise, of course, that it is not possible for me to interfere directly with the administration of another responsible Minister's Department.

From Mr. Graham, M.H.E., to the Acting-Premier. (28th April, 1902.) Please kindly reply if official action in reference to the proposed removal of Sergeant Mackay has been or will be stayed, as respectfully requested by telegram to you on Saturday last, pending public inquiry asked for. Am anxious to allay public feeling, which continues very strong.

From the Acting-Premier to Mr. Graham, M.H.E. (29th April, 1902.) Be police : Your telegram containing your representations on this matter was before Cabinet to-day, and after full consideration it was decided not to interfere with the former decision.

From the Acting-Premier to Mr. Graham, M.H.E. (29th April, 1902.) I presume your last telegram to me crossed mine to you. The Cabinet has carefully reconsidered the matter, but regret that the decision arrived at upon the facts placed before .the Ministers cannot be reversed. The Government will offer no objection to placing the whole of the correspondence on the table of the House.

From Mr. Graham, M.H.E., to the Acting-Premier. (29th April, 1902.) Be your telegram to-night stating that the decision arrived at upon the facts placed before the Ministers cannot be reversed : Do you refer to facts elicited in evidence at the departmental inquiry held in Nelson ? If Cabinet decision has been arrived at on any other facts or statements than those disclosed by the departmental inquiry, then the strongest possible reason exists for acceding to the request for a complete and exhaustive public investigation to prevent serious miscarriage of justice.

From the Acting-Premier to Mr. Graham, M.H.E. (30th April, 1902.) Your telegram of last night: I have nothing further to add beyond what I have already indicated—namely, that Ministers have carefully considered the whole matter upon fresh correspondence placed before them, and have done what they believe to be their duty. I have already said there is no objection to the full correspondence being placed upon the table of the House.

From Mr. Graham, M.H.E., to the Acting-Premier. (30th April, 1902.) Glad to receive your telegram to-night stating that Ministry has been influenced in its decision by correspondence never produced at departmental inquiry. Thank you for willingness to further consider matter next session. Meanwhile does Ministry decline to give opportunity to rebut the fresh correspondence you refer to by granting public inquiry ? •

From the Acting-Premier to Mr. Graham, M.H.E. (Ist May, 1902.) The statement contained in your telegram that Ministers have been influenced in their decision by correspondence not produced at the departmental inquiry is not correct. As already advised you in my wire yesterday, Ministers have had before them the full correspondence. I have already conveyed to you the decision of the Cabinet in the matter, and the case will not be reopened.

From Mr. Graham, M.H.E., to the Acting-Premier. (Ist May, 1902.) I have your wire stating that my interpretation of your last telegram to me is not correct, and I now quote the words in your telegram to me, to which mine was an answer —namely, " Ministry have carefully considered the whole matter upon fresh correspondence placed before them." If there was no new matter to guide Ministers to a decision, whence the meaning of the words "fresh correspondence"? Kind regards.

H.—l6b

3

Sir,— Office of the Minister of Justice, Wellington, 6th May, 1902. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant, covering copies of resolutions passed at a meeting of Nelson citizens on Thursday last, with reference to the recent police changes in that city. With regard to resolution No. 3,1 have no hesitation in saying that the statement contained therein is entirely unwarranted and absolutely without foundation in fact. I have, &c, John Graham, Esq., M.H.R., Nelson. Jas. McGowan.

Sir,— . Nelson, 2nd May, 1902. In compliance with a resolution passed at a very large public meeting of the citizens of Nelson, held last night, and by request of the Mayor of Nelson, I have the honour to forward you herewith copies of six resolutions which were adopted and passed by the meeting. Yours, &c, Hon. Jas. McGowan, Minister of Justice, Wellington. John Graham. Six enclosures, numbered from 1 to 6, containing resolutions referred to above. C. of P.—For file.—J. McG. 6/5/02.

Resolution No. 1. That this meeting deeply regrets the action of the Government in overriding the finding of the Commissioner of Police by deciding to remove and disrate Sergeant Mackay and calling upon Constables Burrell and Durbridge to resign, without first acceding to the request for a public inquiry into the charges made against them. J. G. Resolution No. .2. That this meeting expresses its high appreciation of the straightforward, independent, and efficient manner in which the services of the police have been performed during the time that Sergeant Mackay has been in charge of the Nelson Station ; and also expresses its deep sympathy with those suffering by the injustice that has been done them, not by the Commissioner of Police, nor by any departmental inquiry, but by the refusal of the Government to grant a respectful request for a public inquiry into charges that may have been made against them. J. G. Resolution No. 3. That this meeting strongly protests against the action of the Government in coming to an important decision in regard to members of the Police Force upon charges received by the Cabinet in private, and which the accused have had no opportunity of rebutting —a method of procedure contrary to all British justice. J. G. Resolution No. 4. That this meeting expresses its appreciation and thanks to the member for the district for the way in which he has brought the matter before the notice of the Government, and requests him not to relax his efforts in the endeavour to obtain the fullest and best public inquiry. J. G. Resolution No. 5. That a Vigilance Committee be formed to co-operate with Mr. John Graham, M.H.E., in endeavouring to secure a full inquiry into any charges against the Nelson Police Force that may have been brought before the Cabinet; such Committee to consist of the Eev. J. H. McKenzie. and Messrs. Eout, Bond, James Graham, F. N. Jones, Moyes, Finney, Fathers, Hanby, Haddow, Mercer, Gibbs, Baigent, and Dr. Gibbs, with power to add to their number. J. G. Resolution No. 6. That the Mayor be requested to forward copies of all resolutions passed at this meeting to the Government through their member. J. G.

Telegram. 29th April, 1902. H. Baigent, Esq., Nelson. Minister of Justice informs me that he has replied officially to your communication this morning. I can assure you Ministers have considered the whole matter very carefully, and it is quite evident that those who are agitating cannot be aware of the whole of the facts. There is no objection to all the correspondence being laid upon the table of the House after Parliament meets. Kind regards to Mrs. Baigent and yourself. J. G. Ward.

Telegram, 29th April, 1902. H. Baigent, Esq., Mayor of Nelson. Cabinet have decided that departmental orders re Police Force at Nelson must be carried out. Jas. McGowan.

Telegram, 29th April, 1902. J. Graham, Esq., M.H.E., Nelson. Cabinet have decided that departmental orders re Police Force at Nelson must be carried out. Jas. McGowan.

H.—l6b

4

Telegram, 29th April, 1902. The Hon. the Acting-Premier, Wellington. Eegret reported decision Cabinet re police. Eeceived no official reply myself. Public feeling very strong. Expect meeting will be called to-morrow and matter carried to Parliament. Kind regards Lady Ward and yourself. H. Baigent. C. of P.—File. 30/4/02.

Telegram, 25th April, 1902. Hon. J. McGowan, Minister of Justice, Wellington. In compliance with almost absolutely universal desire here, will Government either reconsider or grant public inquiry in re charges against police. Am certain if you can spare time for full consideration Commissioner's report and findings thereon your known sense of fair play will cause you to repudiate the unmerited punishment so far resolved upon. Hope to receive speedy reply such as will relieve public tension, which is very highly strung. Kind regards. For Cabinet. —25/4/02. John Graham.

Police Department (Commissioner's Office), Wellington, 18th April, 1902. Memorandum for the Hon. the Minister of Justice. Police Changes at Nelson. I RECOMMEND, — 1. That Sergeant Mackay be transferred to Ghristchurch for street duty there in accordance with Cabinet minute, and that Sergeant Dougan, now doing duty at Ghristchurch, be appointed to succeed Sergeant Mackay at Nelson. 2. That Constable Bird, who is Police Gaoler, be transferred to Blenheim, and that Constable Harris, now in charge of Mangaweka, who was formerly Police Gaoler at Westport, be transferred to Nelson to succeed Constable Bird. Constable Harris has bad varicose veins, and in consequence will have to be found a place where there is not much walking, or leave the service. 3. That Constable Williams be transferred from Nelson to Manners Street, Wellington, and that Constable Tonkinson, of Manners Street, succeeds Constable Williams at Nelson. 4. That Constable Kemp, of Nelson, be transferred to Mount Cook Station, and that Constable ,of the latter station, succeeds Constable Kemp at Nelson. has a brother, a notorious criminal, who when at liberty resides mainly about the Mount Cook section. It is therefore inadvisable that the constable should be doing duty in the same locality. 5. That Constable Fitzsimmons, of Wellington, be transferred to Nelson, vice Durbridge, called on to resign. I will select a man to fill Constable Burrell's vacancy later on, if necessary. J. B. TUNBRIDGE, Appd.—J. McG. 18/4/02. Commissioner of Police.

Police Department, Wellington, 18th April, 1902. Sub-Inspector Wilson, Greymouth. Police Changes at Nelson. The following transfers are to be carried out as early as possible :— Sergeant Mackay is transferred to Christchurch for street duty there in accordance with Cabinet minute, and Sergeant Dougan, now doing duty at Ghristchurch, is appointed to succeed Sergeant Mackay at Nelson. Constable Bird is transferred to Blenheim, and Constable Harris, now in charge of Mangaweka, who was formerly Police Gaoler at Westport, is transferred to Nelson to succeed Constable Bird. Constable Williams is transferred from Nelson to Manners Street, Wellington, and Constable Tonkinson, of Manners Street, succeeds Constable Williams at Nelson. Constable Kemp is transferred to Mount Cook Station, and Constable , of the latter station, succeeds Constable Kemp at Nelson. Constable Fitzsimmons of Wellington is transferred to Nelson, vice Durbridge, called on to resign. I will select a man to fill Constable Burrell's vacancy later on, if necessary. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Police Department, Wellington, 18th April, 1902. Inspector Gillies, Christchurch. Sergeant Mackay, now in charge of Nelson, is transferred to Christchurch for ordinary duty for six months at least, and Sergeant Dougan, now doing street duty at Christchurch, is appointed to charge of Nelson, vice Mackay. Please arrange for Sergeant Dougan to proceed as early as he conveniently can do so. J. B. Tunbridge, Commr. The Commissioner. —Sergeant Mackay arrived here on transfer on the 11th instant, vide my wire of yesterday.—W. J. Gillies, Insp. 13/5/02.

Telegram, 3rd May, 1902. The Commissioner of Police, Wellington. Constables Burrell and Durbridge, of Nelson, discharged this day. W 7 ere paid to and for 25th ultimo, date suspended. Circular 8/02 complied with. Edwd. Wilson, Sub-Inspector.

5

H. -16b

Telegram, 3rd May, 1902. Sub-Inspector Wilson, Greymouth. The services of Constables Durbridge and Burrell are dispensed with, with pay up to and for date of suspension. Jno. Evans (for Commissioner).

Telegram, 2nd May, 1902. Commissioner of Police, Wellington. Sergeant Dougan reports having read your telegram to Constables Burrell and Durbridge. They still refuse to resign on advice of their solicitor. Edwd. Wilson, Sub-Inspector.

Telegram, 2nd May, 1902. Chief Clerk, Police Department, Wellington. Please let Constables Durbridge and Burrell be informed that unless they now tender their resignations their services will be dispensed with forthwith, and if they still refuse, then let their services be dispensed with accordingly, with pay up to and for date of suspension. If they resign, then pay will be up to date of suspension likewise. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner.

rBLEGRAM, 2ND May, 1902. Sub-Inspector Wilson, Greymouth. Re Constables Durbridge and Burrell : Hon. Minister of Justice directs that decision of Cabinet already communicated to you must be carried out. They must resign at once. Jno. Evans (for Commissioner).

Telegram, 28th April, 1902. Sub-Inspector Wilson, Greymouth. Be Sergeant Mackay : Decision of Cabinet must be carried out. John Evans (for Commissioner).

Police-station, Nelson, 26th April, 1902. Report of Sergeant Mackay relative to the Memorandum of the Commissioner of the 17th April 1902, No. 325. 1 respectfully ask the Commissioner to recommend a reconsideration of the decision of the Cabinet conveyed to me in the above memorandum, and desire to urge in support of my application the following circumstances : — • 1. I have been a member of the Police Force for a period of twenty-five years, and have by a careful discharge of my duty succeeded in attaining my present position of sergeant in charge of a station and sub-district. 2. That during my service in the Police Force my defaulter-sheet has been satisfactory and no serious dereliction of duty has ever been charged against me. 3. That the charges, six in number, formulated against me and inquired into by the Commissioner were not of such a character as to warrant the severe punishment of removal and disrating. Of these six charges, I was acquitted by the Commissioner in regard to three, and respecting the remaining three, I was convicted and cautioned to be more careful in regard to two, and reprimanded and cautioned in regard to one. 4. That during the time I have been in charge of this station I have used my utmost endeavours to perform my duties satisfactorily and with discretion, and I venture to believe that I have succeeded. 5. The Commissioner will be fully aware that it is almost impossible for a police officer if he performs his duty conscientiously to be a public favourite. He must of necessity earn the illwill of some. While performing my duty conscientiously and zealously I have always endeavoured to do so without causing unnecessary friction. 6. In conclusion, I now respectfully, but firmly and with confidence, ask that the decision of Cabinet be reconsidered, and that I may not after my lengthened service be branded as a defaulter and reduced to a position inferior to that occupied by me four years ago. I sincerely trust that a review of the charges preferred against me and inquired into by the Commissioner will, in view of the Commissioner's finding thereon, weigh with the Cabinet and cause a reversal of the decision already conveyed to me. In asking this consideration I fully recognise the right of the Commissioner to remove an officer when and to where he pleases, and if my removal from Nelson be necessary in the interest of the service my ready obedience may be relied upon, but I respectfully beg that it be not ordered as the result of the charges recentiy inquired into, nor yet that mv position in the service be reduced. E. Mackay, Sergeant No. 210.

Telegram, 26th April, 1902. Commissioner of Police, Wellington. Sergeant Mackay telegraphs that he is posting to-day report concerning himself, and he requests you will hold over action until you receive same. Edwd. Wilson, Sub-Inspector. Decision of Cabinet must be carried out. —J. M. 28/4/02.

H.—l6b

6

Constable suspended, 25/4/02. Police-station. Nelson, 24th April, 1902. Beport of Constable F H. Durbridge relative to the Commissioner's Memorandum of the 17th April, 1902, No. 325. I desire most respectfully to ask for a reconsideration of the decision of Cabinet calling upon me to resign. I beg to urge, in the first place, my good conduct and satisfactory record during my two years service in the Police Force of New Zealand, and refer with pleasure and confidence to the fact mentioned by the Commissioner that the charge No. 1 preferred against me was the first record against me, and deemed a reprimand and caution a sufficient punishment. Of the other charges preferred against me, that for taking, with Constable Burrell, two young lady friends to the station, the Commissioner has done me the justice to say that the action was an indiscretion only, and considered a reprimand a sufficient punishment. Upon the charge preferred against me of sleeping when I should have been on duty I was acquitted by the Commissioner. The severe punishment, by a virtual dismissal from the Force, if carried out, will tend to ruin all my future prospects. I am still a young man, being only twenty-four years of age, and have the best years of my life before me, and my ambition is, and has been, to perform my duties as a police constable alike with credit to myself and satisfaction to my superior officers. My ambition still is to remain and rise by merit in the Force, and I implore the Commissioner not to brand me with the stigma of a dismissed constable, and thus ruin all my future prospects in life. In conclusion, I desire to say that if the Commissioner will grant, or cause my request to be granted, I will endeavour to show my sense of obligation by a careful, earnest, and zealous discharge of my duty. . . Failing compliance with my request, I respectfully beg that a magisterial inquiry may be made into the charges preferred against me, and a judicial decision obtained in respect thereto. The Officer in Charge of Police, Nelson. F. H. Durbridge, Constable No. 942. Forwarded to the Commissioner.— E. Wilson, Sub-Inspector. 28/4/02.

Constable suspended. 25/4/02. Police-station, Nelson, 24th April, 1902. Bevort of Constable Burrell relative to the Commissioner's Memoranditm of the 17th April, 1902, No. 325. 1 beg most respectfully to apply to the Commissioner for a reconsideration of the decision of the Cabinet, conveyed to me in the above memorandum, calling upon me to resign. Although three charges were laid against me, and the Commissioner in charges Nos. 1 and 2 reprimanded me and cautioned me, and in charge No. 3 fined me 2s. 6d., and I respectfully urge that these punishments fall far short of a dismissal. Up to the time of these charges I had a clean defaulters' sheet, and this fact is kindly referred to by the Commissioner in his decision upon charge No. 2. May I respectfully urge in my defence that the offences charged against me were committed in each instance without a desire to be guilty of a breach of discipline or of regulations, and, upon reconsideration, I venture to hope that so severe a punishment as requiring me to resign will not be insisted upon. I have hitherto enjoyed a good name and a good character among those who know me, and whose good opinion I value, and I sincerely trust that the disgrace of an enforced resignation will not be meted out to me. I am still a young man, being but twenty-nine years of age, and I pray that the Commissioner will not, at the commencement of my career, deem my offences of so serious a character as to warrant'my being treated as a disgraced man. In addition to the humiliation I myself feel, it will be a source of deep grief to those connected with me, and I therefore pray that the decision may yet be reconsidered. In conclusion, I can only add that if my prayer be granted my future services shall amply prove that the consideration accorded has been justified. Failing compliance with my request, may I respectfully beg that a magisterial inquiry may be made into the charges made against me, and a judicial decision obtained in respect thereto. A. Burrell, Constable 912. The Officer in Charge, Police-station, Nelson. Forwarded to the Commissioner. —E. Wilson, Sub-Inspector. 28/4/02.

Telegram, 26th April. 1902! Sub-Inspector Wilson, Greymouth. Be Constables Durbridge and Burrell: Pay up to date of suspension. Jno. Evans (for Commissioner).

Telegram, 26th April, 1902. Commissioner of Police, Wellington. Be Constables Burrell and Durbndge, suspended : Should they be paid up to date of suspension only or full month. Edwd. Wilson, Sub-Inspector,

7

H.—l6b

Telegram, 25th April, 1902. Sub-Inspector Wilson, Greymouth. Please submit as early as possible the reasons assigned by Constables Durbridge and Burrell for declining to resign when called upon to do so, and meanwhile suspend them pending decision of Minister. Jno. Evans (for Commissioner).

Telegram, 24th April, 1902. Chief Clerk, Police Department, Wellington. Please instruct Sub-Inspector Wilson to submit to Wellington, as soon as received, the reasons assigned by Constables Durbridge and Burrell for declining to resign, and to suspend the constables pending decision of Minister, to whom you will submit the matter as soon as received, wiring me gist of reasons put forward. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner.

Telegram, 24th April. 1902. The Commissioner of Police, Wellington. Nelson police wire Constables Durbridge and Burrell, under advice of their solicitors, decline to resign, and their reasons in writing will be posted to-day, reaching here, probably, in a few days. Please advise. Edwd. Wilson, Rub-Inspector.

Telegram, 24th April, 1902. Chief Clerk, Police Department, Wellington. Be Mr. Colvin's wire : Have replied regret sergeant's vacancy at Nelson already filled. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner.

Telegram, 24th April, 1902. J. B. Tunbridge, Esq., care of Police-station, Auckland. Mr. J. Colvin, M.H.E., Westport, wires: "In making departmental changes, would respectfully recommend Sergeant Darby for Nelson." Will you please reply to him. Jno. Evans.

Telegram, 24th April, 1902. J. B. Tunbridge, Esq., Commissioner of Police, Wellington. In making departmental changes, would respectfully recommend Sergeant Darby for Nelson. James Colvin.

Police Department, Wellington, 17th April, 1902. Sub-Inspector Wilson, Greymouth. 1 forward you herewith a copy of my findings on the charges recently inquired into by me against Sergeant Mackay and Constables Durbridge, Burrell, Kemp, and McGrath, and you will be good enough to communicate the result to the officers concerned. In addition to the punishments inflicted therein, Cabinet has made the following orders, viz. : — Sergeant Mackay to be removed from Nelson and not to have charge of a station for six months therefrom. Constables Burrell and Durbridge to be called upon to resign ; and Constables Kemp, Bird, and Williams to be removed from Nelson. You will also communicate this to the officers concerned, and direct Constables Burrell and Durbridge to submit their resignations forthwith. I will decide as early as possible where the sergeant and the other three constables are to be removed to and select officers to succeed them at Nelson. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police. Noted and returned to the Commissioner. The sergeant and constables named have been informed, and the decisions entered up in the defaulter-sheet.—Edwd. Wilson, Sub.-Insp. 14/5/02. Seen file.—J. B. Tunbridge. 19/5/02.

Police Department, Wellington, 27th March. 1902. The Eight Hon. the Premier. As directed in your memorandum dated the 26th instant, I have the honour to enclose you herewith, — 1. The files containing what purport to be and, as far as I am aware, are copies of statements made to Inspector Macdonell. The original statements were entered in the Inspector's memo-randum-book, which is in his possession at Napier; but, if necessary, this can be obtained. In submitting these copy statements I desire to point out that statements made, not in the presence of the accused, under the circumstances these statements were procured are not evidence against the accused, and as such can only be used to test the credibility of the witness when it has been decided by the tribunal before which the matter has been investigated that such witness is a hostile witness. 2. The files relating to the retirement of Constable Martin : These files speak for themselves, and it will be observed that the charges against the constable were three in number— (a) leaving the Nelson theatre, where he was sent on duty, without permission, and being off his beat; (b) losing his shako and not giving a satisfactory explanation ; (c) while on night duty being found in bed at the Nelson Police-station. Note. —The constable's shako (charge b) was subsequently found on the verandah of a house occupied by a reputed prostitute.

H.—l6b

8

3. The file relating to the late Constable Cullinane's illness. 4. A petition received by me this day from the Mayor of Nelson. 5. The files, Nos. 01/18i0, 02/396, 02/397, 02/437, 02/438, and 02/624, relating to charges of alleged assaults against various members of the Nelson police: File 02/624 reached me for the first time this morning. The other files also reached Wellington this morning from Greymouth. I was therefore unable to submit them earlier. Although these files are not asked for, I enclose them lest it should be suggested I was keeping something back from Cabinet. My reason for not inquiring into these alleged assaults are given on each of the files, except 02/624, which, as before stated, reached me for the first time this morning, and are also repeated generally in my memorandum on this subject dated the 24th instant. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Premier's Office, Wellington, 26th March, 1902. Memorandum for the Commissioner of Police. In going through the papers I find a reference is made to evidence tendered and signed statement given to the Inspector of Police, Mr. Macdonell. I presume there is a report with these papers, and I shall be glad if you will forward them for Cabinet. In the evidence reference is made to Constable Martin, who is retired from the Force for going off his beat. Inspector Macdonell makes the statement. Kindly forward the papers connected with Constable Martin's retirement. There is no further clue in the papers, and Inspector Macdonell should be able to give the details. Kindly send on file relating to Culinane's illness. We had it before in Cabinet in reference to Mrs. Culinane's claim for compensation. E. J. Seddon.

Petition from Nelson Eesidents. Sir,— 27th March, 1902. I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 24th instant, giving cover to a petition signed by yourself and 235 other residents of Nelson, addressed to the Hon. the Minister of Justice, asking that the Nelson District may not be deprived of the services of Sergeant Mackay, &c, and, in reply, to inform you that the petition will be placed before the Minister as requested. I have, &c, J. B. Tunbridge, His Worship the Mayor, Nelson. Commissioner of Police.

Sir,— Mayor's Office, Nelson, 24th March, 1902. I have the honour to forward you herewith a letter from the citizens of Nelson to the Hon. the Minister of Justice on the subject of police administration in this district, and to request you to have the goodness to place the same before the Hon. the Minister of Justice with such remarks as you may deem necessary. The subscribers to the letter have desired me to say that the letter to the Hon. the Minister has not been suggested by any person interested, and that no paid canvassers have been employed. A perusal of the names of the subscribers will convince the Minister that the leading citizens and representative business and professional men have signified their sympathies with the subjectmatter of the letter. Ihave&c, H. Baigent, J. B. Tunbridge, Esq., Commissioner of Police, Wellington. Mayor of Nelson.

[Forwarded through the Commissioner of Police.] Sir,— Nelson, 22nd March, 1902. We, the undersigned citizens of Nelson, have heard it rumoured and have seen by references in the public Press that charges have been made against the senior officer of police in the Nelson District, Sergeant Mackay. We have not been made acquainted with the specific charges made against that officer, but we desire to bring under your immediate notice our knowledge of the highly satisfactory manner Sergeant Mackay has performed his duties as a public officer since his appointment to the Nelson District. His careful atttention to his duties has, in our opinion, proved the means of reducing crime in our city and district to a minimum. As a police officer we have the most perfect confidence in Sergeant Mackay, and know him to be an officer whose integrity is undoubted, and whose attention to duty cannot be questioned, and we most respectfully beg that, consistent with the requirement and discipline of the Force, no action in regard to Sergeant Mackay be taken by the Hon. the Minister which will deprive this district of his services, or which will reduce him in status. Our remarks extend to the Nelson Police Force generally. We remain, &c, Sir, Gen. M. Kane, J.P.; Austin H. Bisley (Bisley Bros, and Co.); W. Eout, jun. (W. Eout and Sons); J. Henry Cock, merchant, Nelson ; Albert Pitt, solicitor, Nelson; Edward B. Moore, solicitor, Nelson ; Edward Moore, solicitor, Nelson ; Eoger W. W. Kingdon, solicitor, Nelson ; M. Harley, Wakatu Lodge, Nelson ; Albert H. Baigent, insurance agent, Nelson ; A. T. Maginnity, solicitor, Nelson ; T. M. Brown, jeweller, Nelson ; C. J. Harley, solicitor, Nelson ; John P. Harris, insurance agent; E. H. Birley ; H. Baigent, Mayor; Joseph Nock; J. Sharp, jun., commission agent; C. L. Bell (Harris and Bell); A. Wallace (W. Eout and Sons) ; Geo. Hogg and Co. ; J. Gore Allen ; Thomas Cawthorn ; W. G. Vining, Trafalgar Street;

H.—l6b

9

2—H. 16b

Fred. A. Bamford, insurance agent, Nelson ; Arthur H. Patterson, Hardy Street, Nelson ; Philip Wood, solicitor, Nelson; A. C. Maginnity, LL.B. ; Wm. Brown, jeweller; Alfred G. Betts, printer, Hardy Street; Sidney D. Levien, merchant, Nelson; Arthur E. Tasker, merchant, Nelson; A. R. Kitching, grocer, Nelson ; P. Harris, shopkeeper ; Bert. Tasker, draper ; C. R. Cooke, oil and colour man, Nelson ; W. R. Walker, accountant, Nelson; W. T. Bond, J.P. ; J. Wemyss Aspur, manager, Nelson Industrial Co-operative Society ;J. Harle; R. B. Jackson, J.P. ; Arthur W. Batchelor, accountant, Nelson ; A. W. Shallcrass, forwarding agent ; William Lock, J.P. ; John Scott, builder; John Johnston, carpenter ; Thos. M. Wimsett, blacksmith; Charles Haggitt, contractor; Thomas Gorman, cordial-manufacturer ; R. Hunter, watchmaker ; Chas. White, saddler ; J. C. Mercer, cycle-importer (City Councillor); Jas. Boon, chemist and City Councillor; T. Fathers, importer and City Councillor ; L. 0. Gully, Town Clerk, Nelson ; F. St. John, accountant, Nelson ; Phil. Topliss, law clerk, Nelson; T. S. Chisholm, storekeeper; Robert F. Nicol; R. R. Lairey, butcher; J. Hunter, builder and City Councillor ; G. M. Simpson, monumental mason ; Claude Barbur, tailor; John Jones, boot-importer, Bridge Street; G. W. Thorpe, manager C. Smith, cash draper ; John Say, stablekeeper; R. A. S. Ward, joiner; W. C. Cline, carpenter; John Duncan ; James Batchelor ; Francis W. Brown, compositor ; David Stewart Barnett; Lightband and Co., bootimporters; James C. Burford, J.P. ; J. E. Stevens, master mariner; James Graham, jun., house-decorator; Thos. Doidge, carpenter ; George R. Griffin (Griffin and Sons, Limited); Jas. Hudson, M.B. (City Councillor) ; W. F. Worley, schoolmaster; S. F. Botton, seedsman; S. Kirkpatrick; G. H. Bradley (Balane and Co.); F. G. Gibbs, schoolmaster; F. V. Knapp, schoolmaster; Thos. C. C. Scott; Arthur W. Salton, J.P.; Arthur B. Giblin, accountant, Nelson ; H. R. Duncan ; Arthur C. Lucas ; Cecil King, bank-manager; 0. E. Wilson, insurancemanager ; H. V. Phillips, storekeeper ; Healy and Son, bootimporters ; John Macanlighe, shopman ; Albert A Lucas, newspaper-proprietor ; E. Percival Rishworth, District Secretary, Australian Mutual Provident Society ; W. Bettany, accountant, Nelson ; E. Tinney, printer, Nelson ; Percy Band, journalist; H. Finney, accountant; J. E. Hounsell, stationer ; W. W. Lucy, J.P. ; M. P. Webster, storekeeper; Ambrose E. Mooth, agent, Nelson; F. W. Hamilton, merchant; W. G. Kerr (Buxton and Co.); Fred. 0. Hamilton (Buxton and Co.); W. Moyes, jeweller and watchmaker; W. Fooksey, carrier; Charles J. Bird, butcher, Nelson; Fredk. Graham, compositor ; L. A. Gibbs, medical practitioner ; Edw. J. Roberts, medical practitioner ; H. McArtney, plumber ; Geo. Muncaster, jeweller; Everett Bros., drapers; R. T. Melhuish, Inspector ; R. Allan, draper ; P. T. Burn, harness-maker, Nelson ; C. Thomas, stable-manager; F. Gay, coach-driver, Nelson ; F. N. Jones, saddler, Trafalgar Street ; James Graham, signwriter; V. A. Dee (E. W. Dee and Sons); George T. H. Dee (E. W. Dee and Sons) ; Robert White, tobacconist ; Thomas B. Usher, boot-importer ; Israel Johns, confectioner ; Robt. Allan, New Zealand Clothing Factory : T. Blake Huffam, music-seller ; W. R. Ancell, chemist; A. G. Burt, mariner; W. C. Ancell, J.P.; Robert Watson, blacksmith; George Millett, cab-driver; W. Jackson, groom; E. Edwards, cab-driver ; Frank Greenslade, tanner and currier ; H.J. Campbell, house-decorator; G. Webley, house-decorator; G. H. Campbell, house-decorator; W. Robertson, builder; C. P. Graham, plumber; A. W. Clanden, accountant; R. H. Simpson, carpenter; Wm. Corbett, builder; R. T. Booth, bank-manager; Wm. Haddow, J.P. ; Alfred Shone, builder ; F. Atkinson, contractor ; L. Sheather ;A. C. Moore; J. D. T. Brown, proprietor ; Alfred Amos ; John Graham, M.H.R. ; James H. McKenzie, Presbyterian minister; M. M. Webster, Treasurer, Nelson Harbour Board; Edwd. Hoon, resident forty-two years in Nelson ; Frank P. Rishworth, commission agent; John Brockman, tobacconist; R. Catley, clerk ;D. Watt, bank clerk; S. Blomfield, Registrar, Births, &c,; E. Atmore, fruiterer ; J. Gully, commercial traveller; W. S.

H.—l6b

10

Snodgrass, salesman; H. Milner, salesman ;W. D. Chisholm, salesman; S. F. Sherwood, salesman; 0. T. Burford, salesman; E. J. Pratt, salesman ;E. D. Low, commercial traveller; P. L. Gully, merchant's clerk; H. W. Eoberts, Customs clerk; A. E. Sclanders, clerk; E. J. Ensor, storeman; E. A. Sherwood, storeman ; E. W. Tibbie, storeman ; H. Bird, salesman ; E. S. Cresswell, sale-manager; J. P. Black, Customs clerk; A. H. Barltrop, storeman; Eobert Crisp, general carrier; J. T. Cathy, retired C.S. ; H. Brusewitz, photographer; C. Johns, baker; W. S. Milner, clerk ; Eobert Louisson, clerk ; J. G. Bartel, accountant; J. Joyce, clerk ; Jas. Houlker. 8.A., law student, Nelson ; Ernest Oakey, engineer ; F. W. Fairey, City Councillor ; John Corder, blacksmith ; Lucy A. Fabian, insurance agent; C. H. Jefferies, sign-painter; William J. Whiting, carpenter; J. B. Saxon, surveyor; G. C. Sharland, picture-framer; Thos. Hoyle Smith, furniture-dealer; James D. Eobb, labourer; H. V. Eodley, salesman; James Gribble, labourer; William Eogers, Manager S. and F. Company (Limited); B. K. Vinnes, librarian ; Edwin H. Lukins, limeburner; E. Gilmer, sheep-farmer; B. Mangen and Co., shipchandler and sailmaker; J. J. Cook, sailmaker; S. Brown, engineer ; J. H. Dayman, blacksmith ; A. Hawley, wharfinger ; W. E. Smith, clerk; C. Keeble, manager, Union Steamship Company ; T. Arthur, wharfinger; Alexander Grant, carrier ; J. W. Harris, tally-clerk; E. C. Shea, Eailway Wharf; W. Z. Johnson, waterman; G. Eennett, carter; F. H. Hounsell, clerk ; William A. Kenlin, C.E.; Samuel Hooker, foreman, City Council; W. Besley, sail and tent maker ; Donald McGregor, settler; Balme and Co., coachbuilders, Nelson; Walter D. Ken, clerk, Nelson; John Fiven, coachsmith ; Wm. W. Clifford, late District Superintendent Police, N.W.P., India; J. P. Kempthorne, Vicar of Christchurch, Nelson ; J. Harling, cabproprietor, Nelson; Thos. Pettit, storekeeper, Nelson ;M. Lightband, merchant, Nelson ; W. Hounsell, surveyor, Nelson ; Thos. W. Baigent, J.P., Nelson. The Hon. the Minister of Justice, Wellington.

Police Office, Greymouth, 26th February, 1902. Re complaint by youths named Cox, Neaves, Burns, and Simpson against Constable Burrell (correspondence sent to Commissioner's office on the Bth November last, file 01/1810): I beg to report that when this complaint was made, and Constable Burrell's explanation reached me, supported as it was by Sergeant Mackay, I certainly believed the constable's version of the matter. I regret to say Ido not believe it now. I believe the boys had good cause for complaint, and not only did the constable give an untruthful account of the affair, but that he endeavoured to get the only witness (besides the boys) to do the same, and thus he was assisted in doing so by Constable Kemp. When I recently heard of this I doubted it at first, until told that the present Mayor of Nelson was a witness to something of the kind. I then interviewed the man who complained of larrikinism to the police, which led to Constable Burrell being sent to inquire, or watch what was going on. His name is Marmaduke Wilson, whose statement is as follows : — " I got married the second time some months ago." [He is an old man.] " I was then living in Waimea Road. I was a good deal annoyed by lads and boys tinkettling us, shouting out, throwing stones, &c. I complained to the police. Constable Burrell was sent up to see about it. He came up between 6 and 7 p.m., I think this would be about four or five months ago. The constable came to the house. He told me four young fellows were sitting on a fence or end of a culvert, and requested me to walk past them to see if they would say anything ; he would follow me. I did so, but all I heard was something like, ' Father coming.' I thought they referred to me, and I asked them what they meant by it. They declared they said nothing to me, that they were speaking of a dog. I could not contradict them. Constable Burrell then came up and commenced talking to them. He asked what they were all doing sitting there. They said they did not think they were doing any harm by sitting there—and neither they were. At that time a young fellow rode up on a horse, and he came over to see what was the matter. I believe his name is Cox, son of old Mr. Cox living up the Waimea Road. Young Cox's horse was on the kind of a footpath formed there. The constable ordered him off or away. He refused, saying he was doing no harm, and he could not see why he should go away. The constable said he would make him go, and he hauled off and struck him two or three times in the ribs or somewhere. Cox did not attempt to strike him back. One of the other young fellows named Neaves said he thought the constable had no right to strike Cox. The constable asked what had he to do with it. Neave got up and made a step or two as if to pass the constable to get away, when the constable hauled off and struck him on the face. He struck him twice, anyway. I could not see whether his fist was clenched or not. Neave did not attempt to strike him back; he staggered back when struck, but did not fall. He told the constable he would likely hear more about it. I was really sorry to see him (the constable) striking the lad in the face. I told the constable I thought he did wrong in striking the lads as he did. He replied that it was far better than hauling them off to Court in the morning, as it would fall on their parents. I told him he took

fl.—l6b

11

the law into his own hands. About two or three weeks after this I was working for Mr. Baigent, the Mayor. I was, in fact, talking to him when Constable Burrell came up and called me aside. He told me he was in danger of being put out of the Force for striking the boys, and as he did it when trying to find out who broke my windows he thought I should do him a good turn. He then asked me to deny that I saw him striking them. I told him I could not do that. He said it was only reasonable, that one good turn deserved another. I told him I would not do the like of that for my son or my own father. He urged me strongly. I told him it would be perjury. I told him distinctly I would not stain my character by telling such a falsehood for any one. He then left me. I went straight back to Mr. Baigent, and told him what had taken place between the constable and myself. He told me I did quite right. A day or two after this Burrell and Kemp came to me to get something in writing from me to support Burrell. Kemp urged me, saying he thought I should do something for Burrell, as it might cause him to lose his place, &c. [I omitted here that his son was got to write a letter which he thinks he signed and handed to Burrell. He says he is not sure what was in the letter; thinks it was excusing Burrell without telling falsehoods. He is not certain that he signed it.—E. A. M.] "E. M. Wilson." This man has no grudge against the police in any way ; he says he should be sorry to injure any of them, but would not tell an untruth. He said also that it is so long ago that he is not sure he gave the details in the exact order in which they occurred, but in the main he is sure the statement is correct. I called three times to see Mr. Baigent re this matter, without finding him. I, however, met him in the street on the 17th, and asked him if it was true that Burrell called Wilson away from him as stated. He said it was quite true, and that Wilson told him the substance of their conversation immediately after. I asked if true that Wilson told him then that he was urged to tell an untruth. He said it was quite true, and he (Mr. Baigent) commended him for firmly refusing to do anything of the kind. I remarked that it cannot be a make-up since on Wilson's part. He said, " No, it is nothing of the kind." Mr. Baigent was evidently in a hurry at the time, he said he would like to see me that night, and asked where I was stopping. I told him, and he said he would see me at the hotel that night. I thought from his manner he intended to say something in reference to the police, consequently I waited about the hotel until pretty late, when I had to go out. When I returned I found he had called. It was too late to go to look for him. I left at 4.30 a.m. next morning. I did not go near the boys ; their complaint is already in writing. They may contradict Wilson for all I know. Ido not recollect the particulars of their complaint. I am afraid there have been several instances of this sort of conduct in Nelson for some time back, and there is no saying where it may end if not firmly dealt with. E. A. Macdonell, Inspector. Inspector Macdonell, —In these cases the complainants had ample corroborative evidence had they desired to prosecute the constable, yet, notwithstanding that I advised them to do so, they did not accept my advice. Under these circumstances I do not feel inclined to reopen the case after this lapse of time. After Wilson's written statement made soon after the occurrence, not much reliance can now be placed on what he says to the contrary.—J. B. Tunbridge, Com. 3/3/02. Noted.—E. A. Macdonell, Inspr. 23/3/02.

Police Department. From Inspector Macdonell, Greymouth. Eeceived 14/11/01. Subject : Eeport re Complaints against Constable A. Burrell, of Nelson, &c. Memoranda. Mr. Evans, —Please reply as per draft letter attached (letter No. 881, 22/11/01). Inspector Macdonell, —Please see copy of reply sent.—J. B. Tunbridge, Com. 19/11/01. Noted and returned.—E. A. Macdonell, Inspr. 26/11/01.

1901/1810, No. 881. Sir, — 22nd November. In further reply to your letter dated the 27th ultimo, complaining of Constable Burrell, of Nelson, having used obscene language, &c, I have to inform you that from information now before me I have reason to doubt the allegations contained in your letter, and consequently do not propose to take any further notice of same. If you are dissatisfied with my decision you can lay an information against the constable yourself. I have, &c, J. B. Tunbridge Mr. C. Neve, Nelson. (p. J. E., for Commissioner of Police).

H.—l6b

12

Police-station, Nelson, 7th October, 1901. Beport of Constable A. Burrell, No. 912, re Complaints from C. Neve and Others. I beg to report that from instructions received I went on the evening of the 25th ultimo to Waimea Street to inquire re larrikins in that street. Mr. Wilson, resident of that locality, complained of larrikins constantly insulting himself and daughter when they passed along the street of an evening. On arrival in Waimea Street I saw a number of youths in that street a short distance from Mr. Wilson's house. I went to Mr. Wilson and inquired if they were the youths who habitually insulted himself and daughter. Wilson went down towards the youths and, when near, the ringleader, C. Neve —known as leader of the Waimea Eoad "push " —passed some remark about Wilson when he passed, which caused the others to laugh loudly. Wilson stopped and asked Neve why he had passed remarks on him ; I came up then, and they all denied passing any remark. I cautioned the youths about their conduct. Neve came up to me in a fighting attitude, and said, " Who are you talking to ? " Thinking he was about to strike me, I pushed him off with my hand. Cox then came forward on a horse, and said, " Take no notice of him " (meaning me). I then requested them to stop loitering in the vicinity of Mr. Wilson's house, and refrain from insulting either Mr. Wilson or his daughter on any future occasion. I struck no blows, or used any offensive or obscene language, neither did I challenge any one to fight. I may say that a short time ago Mr. Wilson's window was broken by a large stone being thrown through it, narrowly missing the cot of an infant which was sleeping in the room. I learned that Neve and others were seen in this locality on the night the window was broken ; but sufficient evidence could not be got to convict him and his mates, though they are believed to be the ones who broke the window. A short time ago I reported seven others- —boys of their class —for a similar offence. They were brought before the Court, convicted and fined for breaking windows in that locality, which may have something to do with this complaint being made. These youths are well known to be of the " hoodlum " class, and think it great fun to annoy the inhabitants at a late hour of the night. Please see attached hereto a statement from Mr. Wilson. Eespectfully forwarded to the Inspector.—l may say that from what I have seen of Constable Burrell I feel quite sure he would not use obscene language, nor so far forget himself as to assault any person. Larrikinism is rather prevalent in Waimea Eoad, and Constable Burrell has been the means of a number of them being brought before the Court and fined; and, in my opinion, the complaint contained in the attached letter is a concocted one. Those making it are a class of youth I would place very little reliance on any statement they made.—E. Mackay, Sergt., No. 210. 7/11/01. Forwarded'for the Commissioner's information.—l would simply point out that if these youths were in any way insulting to Mr. Wilson or others they could be prosecuted under section 3, subsection (29), "Police Offences Act, 1884." Ido not know why this was not done.—E. A. Macdonell, Inspector. 11/11/01.

Waimea Eoad, 6th November, 1901. This is to certify that I, Marmaduke Wilson, was present with Constable Burrell on the evening of the 25th October when he had occasion to caution several youths for their bad behaviour. The constable did not make use of any obscene or abusive language. Their conduct to him was threatening and defiant. The boys of this locality have been a source of great annoyance to my daughter and myself for this last two months. About eight weeks ago the windows in my house were broken with these larrikins throwing stones, two large stones coming through the window into the room in which two of my infants were sleeping. Had the stones struck them, lam sure it would have killed them. Since Constable Burrell censured these boys it has had a good effect, and I have not been troubled with them. I am prepared to give this statement in any Court of law. I am, Marmaduke Wilson.

Police Department. From C. Neve and others, Nelson. Eeceived 30/10/01. Subject : Complaint against Constable A. Burrell. Memoranda. Inspector Macdonell, —Please call upon Constable Burrell to report on this complaint.— Jno. Evans (for Commissioner of Police). 30/10/01. Sergeant Mackay,—For Constable Burrell's report, please.—E. A. Macdonell, Inspr. 4/11/01. For Constable Burrell's report.—E. Mackay, Srgt., No. 210.

1901/1810, No. 816. Sir, — 30th October. In reply to letter dated the 27th instant, signed by yourself and three others, complaining of conduct of Constable Burrell towards you, I have the honour to inform you that your complaint is being inquired into. Yours, &c, Jno. Evans Mr. C. Neve, Nelson. (For Commissioner of Police).

13

H.—l6b

g IR • Nelson, 27th October, 1901. We, the undersigned, beg to lodge a complaint against Constable Burrell, of the Nelson Police Force—(l) for using obscene language in the public street, (2) for insulting Edgar Neve and Alfred Cox by striking them with his closed fist, (3) for wanting to break the peace by offering to fight five youths in the public street on the night of Friday, the 25th October. C. Neve. A. Cox. E. Burns. A. Simpson.

Police Department. From Inspector Macdonell, Grey. Eeceived 26/2/02. Subject: Alleged Immorality of Constable Durbridge (Nelson). Memoranda. Inspector Macdonell, —Please see attached report from Chief Detective McGrath. The action of the girl is scarcely consistent with abortion, and on the evidence as ip now stands Constable Durbridge cannot be accused of the offences (immorality and conspiring to procure abortion) which your report suggests, by innuendo at least.—J. B. Tunbridge, Com. 6/3/02. Noted.—E. A. Macdonell, Inspector. 23/3/02.

Detective Office, Wellington, sth March, 1902. Report of Chief Detective McGrath relative to 's Abortion (vide attached Memorandum). I beg to report that I have seen Mrs. , who states that came to hsr place as housemaid about June, 1901, from the , where she has been employed for three or four weeks. She told Mrs. that she was enceinte, and asked her if she knew of any person who would adopt her child from its birth. Shortly afterwards Mrs. says she arranged with a Mrs. , wife of a farmer at , to adopt the baby. was about a month at Mrs. when she complained of being ill one evening, and early the following morning Mrs. was called to her room, and, finding her in labour, sent for Dr. , who came at once, and a few minutes after his arrival the young woman gave birth to a stillborn child. Mrs. shortly afterwards, at Miss 's request, sent a telegram to Mrs. to the effect that was over her trouble. Mrs. says she has no reason to suspect that the young woman wilfully brought about her own miscarriage" She worked for Mrs. until the hotel was burned down. Dr. states that at the request of Mrs. he called at the Hotel at 6.30 a.m. on the 12th August, 1901, and saw , who had a miscarriage shortly after his arrival. The doctor cannot remember the probable stage of gestation, but he saw nothing to indicate that the abortion had been wilfully caused. I saw , who is now housemaid at Hotel, and her statement substantially agrees with the above. She says she was five months pregnant, and had no idea what caused the abortion. (She declined to say who was the father of the child, but stated that he was not a member of the Police Force.) , the woman referred to by the Commissioner, is a reputed abortionist, and was committed for trial here for procuring abortion, but the bill was ignored on the 7th February, 1898 (vide Gazette, 1898, page 67). J. A. McGrath, The Inspector of Police, Wellington. Chief Detective, 429.

No. 158. Police Department (Commissioner's Office), Wellington, 26th February, 1902. Memorandum for Inspector Pender, Wellington. Please see attached extract from a statement made by a of the Hotel, Nelson, and be good enough to cause , of the Hotel, Street, to be cautiously approached, with a view of getting corroboration or otherwise of the allegations contained in the statement. It is suggested that the trouble was got rid of at a near the Brunswick Hotel. Please let me know what is known re this J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner. For the Chief Detective.—l334/02.— P. Pender. 26/2/02.

Extract from Statement of , of the Hotel, Nelson. It is quite true got into trouble in this house ; she was a servant here. She did not like to tell me of her trouble ; she told the woman next door, and requested her to tell me. She did so. When I saw the girl afterwards she at first could do nothing but scb and cry. She afterwards told me all about it, and told me Constable Durbridge got her into trouble. I knew he used to be after her since I took charge of the house, but I understand she got into trouble before I did so, and while the woman next door had charge of it. Shortly after her admission she left for Wellington ; I understand it was to try to get quit or rid of her trouble. Shortly afterwards I received a telegram saying she got quit or rid of it. Mrs. , of the Hotel, Wellington, sent me the telegram for her. I burned the telegram.

H.—l6b

14

Police Department (Commissioner's Office) Wellington, 12th February, 1902. Confidential Memorandum for Inspector Macdonell, Greymouth. I am informed that there are certain rumours afloat in Nelson which reflect on the morality of some of the members of the police stationed there. As you have recently been in Nelson, no doubt these rumours, if such are afloat, would have reached you. Please let me know as early as possible if anything of the kind has reached your ears, and submit any evidence you may possess on the subject. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner. The Commissioner, —Please see reports and correspondence attached. Other reports will be forwarded at the same time.—E. A. Macdonell, Inspector. 23/2/02.

(Strictly confidential.) Sergeant Mackay,— Police Office, Greymouth, 24th December, 1901. I find it will not be convenient for me to visit Nelson at present (I intended doing so for some time), consequently I send you the attached anonymous letter for careful and cautious inquiry and report as soon as convenient. Please see that the fact we are inquiring does not leak out in any way. I may say I heard something of the matter from a different quarter a short time ago. I hope the woman mentioned will be discreet, and not disclose our inquiry to any one. I would be glad to know who the writer of the letter is; still, do not risk anything in endeavouring to find out. E. A. Macdonell, Inspector. The Inspector,—

On receipt of this correspondence, and seeing that was known to Constable Durbridge, and I being instructed to be so careful that nothing leaked out, I did not think it advisable to go near until the Inspector himself arrived. I knew of no other person to inquire from. This I mentioned to the Inspector when he was in Nelson last. E. Mackay, Sergeant, No. 210. Eeceived 9 p.m., 22/2/02.— E. A. M.

Eeceived 14/11/01, 1 p.m. Girl named got in family way to Durbridge, policeman. Went to Wellington got rid of child. Telegrams passed between them. Mrs. Hotel can give account.

Police Office, Greymouth, 23rd February, 1902. Ec Alleged Pregnancy of the Girl by Constable Durbridge, and her Miscarriage, supposed illegally caused in Wellington. On the afternoon of the 10th February instant I called at the Hotel, Nelson, and saw Mrs. , the licensee. I told her who I was, and what I came to see her about—viz., in reference to the condition, &c, of , and Constable Durbridge's supposed connection therewith. Mrs was very unwilling to say anything on the subject. She gave me to understand that she was afraid to do so. I assured her she had nothing to fear, &c, and that if she was in any way molested over the matter to communicate with me, and I would see she got justice. She still appeared to be very frightened. Ultimately she made a statement to me to the following effect: — "It is quite true got into trouble in this house. She was a servant here ; she did not like to tell me of her trouble ; she told the woman next door, and requested her to tell me. She did so. When I saw the girl afterwards she at first could do nothing but sob and cry. She afterwards told me all about it, and told me Constable Durbridge got her into trouble. I knew he used to be after her since I took charge of the house, but I understand she got into trouble before I did so, and while the women next door had charge of it. Shortly after her admission she left for Wellington. I understood it was to try to get quit or rid of her trouble. Shortly afterwards I received a telegram saying she got quit or rid of it. A Mrs. , of the Hotel, Wellington, sent me the telegram for her. I burned the telegram. was an excellent girl in every way until she met Durbridge. I never met a finer girl. I was exceedingly sorry for her. The single constables in Nelson bear a bad name for immorality. It is considered they have too little to do, and are not properly looked after ; that is the general opinion so far as I know. I often hear of rows and assaults committed by them. I hope it will not be known that I have said anything. lam going out of this house soon (it is a tied house), and I might be prevented getting another." On the 14th February instant I called again to ask which of the women next door told her of condition. As soon as she saw me she said, " I wish to God you would not come here ; you will be seen, and I shall get into trouble." I asked if any one had been calling on her. She said, " Yes; Durbridge was here, and asked if you had been here asking anything about him." I said, " No, Ido not know him; is he here?" He replied, "Of course he is," and left. "I am frightened you will be seen, and I shall get into trouble." I next (same day) called on next door, and asked for her married daughter, who had informed as before stated ; but she denied all knowledge of the matter, and pretended she did not believe the rumours about , &c. (I could see at a glance she was not telling the truth. She was fencing every question.) I left her and went to a Mrs. , who is carrying on a shop opposite the Hotel. I asked her if it was true that Constable Durbridge kicked up a row with her for connecting his name with trouble. She said it was her daughter-in-law he had been to. I then saw her daughter-in-law, who stated as follows: —

15

H.—l6b

"My name is , wife of , Waimea Eoad, Nelson. We all heard of trouble, and Constable Durbridge was blamed for it. I was not spreading it, I believe my mother-in-law said something about it. Some weeks after went to Wellington Durbridge came here and accused me of telling something about the girl, &c. I denied it. My mother-in-law asked him if he was not going to do something for the girl, &c. He simply laughed and passed it off, saying he had nothing to do with it, &c. " The girl came back about three or four months ago. She was in old . She told about it; said Durbridge was the father of her child, and that it was a boy. daughter had tea with us at the time, and told us all the girl told her mother. They made no secret of it then. We do not wish to be mixed up in this matter. I next called on , the old woman who used to have the Hotel, but she was evidently put on her guard. She was stopping at the time at a place called "The Wood," with a married son. All I could get out of her in answer to many questions was simply, " I know nothing about it. I have nothing to do with it. I don't understand or interfere with such matters. I would not think would do the like of that," &c. I gave her up. She is an untruthful old woman. I questioned her re girl's statement to her when she came back on a visit from Wellington—having tea with her, the child being a boy, &c.—but she gave the same evasive answers : could not remember; did not understand, &c. lam given to understand , the , could give evidence if he wished, but he will not do so, as he is very friendly with Mr. , who is the bosom friend of Sergeant Mackay, and gets all the possible horse hire from the police that can be given. Although and his wife promised me not to mention my interview with them, he immediately told Mr. , who, I am told, said to him, " He had no business in your place, put the b up as high as a kite." He was referring to me. This is all the information I got in reference to this case, with the exception of the attached report from Constable Williams. I requested Constable Williams to report anything he knew to me direct. He hesitated a good deal, as he is afraid they shall be revenged on him ; and from what I have heard all over Nelson I should not be surprised if they did. Durbridge, Burrell, and Kemp are apparently clubbed together, and, I believe, prepared to support each other in anything, and I very much fear they are too much favoured by the sergeant in charge. It will be observed that I instructed Sergeant Mackay to investigate and report on this charge on the 24th December last, but he did nothing in the matter. I attribute the difficulty in obtaining information to the fact that he knew such a complaint was made. Mrs. told me she heard Sergeant Mackay received several anonymous letters re Durbridge and the girl . If he did I never heard of it; but, judging from his failure to make any inquiry when instructed to do so, I would not expect to hear from him on the subject. Unless information can be got in Wellington, I do not expect to get much more in Nelson in reference to the girl's miscarriage, &c. Any steps taken shall have to be extremely cautious, and by trustworthy men, otherwise every effort shall be defeated. I find the number of people that can be " squared " is simply astonishing. Eeferring to Constable Williams's report, I understood he means a Mrs. , a supposed abortionist, not a Mr. I am not, however, positive. I may add that in all my experience I never came across such a state of matters as appear to exist in Nelson apparently since the time Sergeant Mackay is alleged to have been drunk. E. A. Macdonell, Inspector.

Sir,— Police Station, Nelson, 12th February, 1902. About the 25th of May, 1901, when out on night duty, Constable Durbridge asked me what part of Willis Street did Mrs. live in ? I asked him what he wanted to know for. He stated, " Nothing particular." I said, " Near the Brunswick Hotel." There was a man named , a butcher in Waimea Street, present at the time, who had been speaking to Durbridge when I came along. said to Durbridge, " I saw you in company with on several occasions." Durbridge replied, " Yes, but I can tell you who is the father. It is ex-Con-Stable •" He stated that he would go and tell the girl where this woman lived, as he did not like to see any girl in trouble. He went away in company with . I was not aware at the time why Durbridge inquired for Mrs. , or I would not have given him any information. Durbridge took some money out of the Post-Office Savings-Bank about that time. On the 27th May, 1901, Durbridge escorted a prisoner from Nelson to Auckland. The Inspector of Police, Nelson. J. S. Williams, Constable 754.

New Zealand.—Police Department. From Inspector Macdonell, Grey. Eeceived 26th February, 1902. Subject : Complaints of Assault by Constable Durbridge, &c. (2). Inspector Macdonell, —These assaults, if committed as alleged, constitute statutory offences, and the complainants should have laid informations against the constable at the time, when the matter could have been inquired into on oath. As they failed to do this, in my opinion it would be unfair to the accused to now institute an inquiry where the complainants can say anything without fear of the consequences. You will observe from the papers returned to you this day that I have formulated charges for offence against the regulations, police discipline, &c, against the various officers concerned, arising out of the other reports submitted by you.—J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner. 27th February, 1902. • Noted.—E. Macdonell, Inspector. 23rd March, 1902.

H— 16b

16

Police Office, Greymouth, 24th February, 1902. Ec Constable Burrell having assaulted a Young Man named Archibald Blincoe, Constable Durbridge looking on. The evidence is as follows :— Charles Gordon Stapp, son of Mr. Stapp, of the Nelson Post-office, says, " About half a year ago I was with Archibald Blincoe in Tasman Street, near the bridge. It was on a Saturday night, about 11 p.m. We were going home when we were overtaken by Constables Burrell and Durbridge. Burrell said to Blincoe, ' You are the bloke that has been " slinging-off" at people all night.' Blincoe denied it. Burrell then said, ' You are the fellow that said I was a bloody cow.' I think he denied this also. Burrell then hauled off and struck him on the side of the head, knocking him down on the road. He got up, when Burrell struck him again, knocking him down on the footpath ; and while down Burrell kicked him. I remonstrated with him on his conduct. Durbridge, who was standing a little distance away, came up. I took Blincoe away, and they turned back. Blincoe did not interfere with any one that night, nor did he provoke the constable in any way. I urged him to report the constable, but he said it was no use, that the constable's word would be taken before ours. We did not complain to any one. The assault was spoken of the same as many other similar ones. —John Stapp." Archibald Blincoe, residing at " The Wood," Nelson : His statement is very similar to Stapp's, only he says he has no recollection of being kicked while down, only he had a pain behind the left hip for several days after. He says, " Stapp wished me to report the constable, but I told him it would be two against two, and the policemen's word would be taken before ours, so we did not report him. I never provoked the constable in any way. Some time before, he asked me what I meant by a remark I made to a companion. I told him, and I thought he was satisfied it did not refer to him. I heard of several similar assaults by the police, but I did not interfere in any way.—Archie Blincoe." E. Macdonell, Inspector.

Police Office, Greymouth, 23rd February, 1902. Ec Charge of Unprovoked Assault against Constable Burrell, of Nelson, and at least Connivance on the Part of Constable Durbridge. Statements of Witnesses. Charles Eemnant, carter, Vincent Street, Nelson, states as follows: " About the middle of February last year I was in the company of Joseph Symes and his wife in Bridge Street, about 8.30 or 9 p.m. We saw two men a short distance away behind us. One of them called out my name two or three times. I did not reply at first; but, thinking it might be some one wishing to employ me, I went back to them, leaving Mr. and Mrs. Symes waiting. On coming up to them I saw it was Constables Burrell and Durbridge. Before a word was spoken Burrell hit me on the left jaw with his fist, and knocked me over. I got up, and asked what he did this for. He said something about telling yarns, and made another drive at me, but I got out of his way. Durbridge said, ' Give it to him;' give him all he wants.' I went back to my friends, and the constables went away. Mr. and Mrs. Symes saw all that took place. I reported the matter immediately after to Sergeant Mackay, but'he advised me to say nothing about it. I told him the constable would have a set on me.'and would have me some way the first opportunity. The sergeant said he would see to that, and that I need have no fear. I left then, and took no further action in the matter. Several weeks after this, one night I was going along Hardy Street. My nephew, George Gunderson, was with me. We passed Burrell standing in a doorway. When we passed Burrell called out,' I know what you are talking about. You are talking about Durbridge.' I said, ' Mind your own business ' (or something to that effect), ' and not interfere with any one on the street.' He replied, ' You need a good dressing down.' I replied, ' You are not fit to give it to me; your clothes save you.' He then jumped out on the street, and invited me to come on, making as if to take off his uniform. He then buttoned up, and said to my nephew, ' Take him home, young fellow.' The latter replied, 'He can look after himself.' We walked on, and, when some distance away, Burrell called out, ' I will have it in for you.' Some months after this Burrell found my horse and cart without a chain on the wheel; the cart had 24 cwt. on, and horse was quiet. I was summoned, and had to pay 9s. 6d. The same day I saw Burrell pass a milk-cart without a chain, but the driver of it was not summoned. lam afraid I may at any time be set upon by the single constables. We continually hear of some one being ill-treated by them. The only reason I can give for Constable Burrell's conduct is that there is an old man in Nelson who knew Burrell before he joined the police, who said to me that he was pleased to see how well Burrell was behaving since he joined the police; that he was a bit of a hard case or larrikin before then. I mentioned this in the Post-boy Hotel. Burrell was supposed to be after a woman there, who, no doubt, told him. I often saw him there, day and night, but oftener in the day-time. I saw Durbridge there too, but not so often. This house bears a bad reputation.—Charles Eemnant. 12th February, 1902." Joseph Symes, labourer, Warakapawa, near Nelson, states as follows :— " About the end of February last we were with Mr. Eemnant one night in Bridge Street about 10 p.m. when two men passed us a short distance. One of them called Mr. Eemnant two or three times, and he left us to speak to them. As soon as he got up to them he was struck and knocked down. He got up, and an attempt was made twice to strike him again, but he got away. When he got up he asked what it was for. The reply was " You b , you know what it's for," and something was said about " telling yarns," and the man lashed out at him at the same time, but Eemnant got out of the.way. When he came up to us he told us who it was ; that Constable Burrell assaulted him, and'that Durbridge was standing by. Eemnant's cheek was swollen for a week afterwards. Eemnant left us to complain to the sergeant, and returned and told us the sergeant advised him to let the matter drop, and say nothing about it.— Joseph Symes, Myra Symes."

Trie concluding words of this paragraph, " This house bears a bad reputation," should have bean printed within parenthesis, thus: (This house bears a bad reputation).

H.—l6b

17

Constable Williams overheard at a little distance part of what took place between Eemnant and Burrell in Hardy Street, and afterwards cautioned Burrell, who promised to be more careful in future. I have no reason to doubt any of these people. They did not come to complain to me. I sought them out, and they simply answered my questions. They all, independent of the case in question, bear witness to the bad repute in which single men are held in Nelson. E. Macdonell, Inspector. p.S.—I missed George Gunderson's statement. It is attached.—E. M. George Gunderson (twenty-two years of age), tailor, Nelson, states as follows : " About eight or nine months ago I was with my uncle Charles Eemnant in Lower Hardy Street. It was about 10.30 p.m. We passed Constable Burrell in a doorway. We did not speak to him. When we passed be called out something like this, ' What have you got to say about Durbridge now ' ? Uncle replied, ' Mind your own business,' and we walked to the corner. Burrell followed us, and went out on the street and offered to fight uncle, and made as if to take his coat off, but did not do so. Uncle said that his uniform saved him. It was then he made to take it off. He told me to take uncle home. I told him he was quite able to look after himself. He then said to me to go home ; I was only a thing. When we got some distance away the constable called out, ' I will have it in for you vet, Eemnant.' We gave him no provocation whatever. We did not speak to him until he spoke to us, and we were not speaking of Durbridge at the time. — George Gunderson. 12/2/02."

New Zealand. —Police Department. From Inspector Macdonell, Grey. Eeceived 3/3/02. Subject : Constable Durbridge charged with assaulting William Jay Bannehr at Nelson. Memoranda. Inspector Macdonell, —This is another case where a statutory offence has been committed, if these statements are true, and can only properly be investigated before a Magistrate. A man who intrudes himself into a disturbance with the remark, " What the hell (or devil) is the row," is not entitled to much sympathy, and after this lapse of time, and seeing that the statements have had to be drawn out of the witnesses, I shall certainly not attempt to deal with the complaint unless the evidence is given on oath. Had the complaint been promptly made I might have ordered the police to lay an information against the constable.—J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner. 3/3/02.

Police Office, Greymouth, 26th February, 1902. Re Constable Durbridge having violently assaulted a youth named William Jay Bannehr, son of Mr. Bannehr, editor and part owner of the Colonist, Nelson, about 12.30 a.m. on Christinas night or last New Year's morning (some said the one and some the other), and Constable Kemp having at the same time and place assaulted a drunken man (whose name I did not obtain), which almost led to an attack on the two constables mentioned. I first called on Mr. Thomas Henry Bannehr, editor and half-proprietor of the Colonist newspaper, Nelson. He told me it was quite true that his son had been brutally assaulted by Constable Durbridge; that he took his son and some witnesses to the police-station to repeat the matter to Sergeant Mackay. He found the latter was in bed. He saw Durbridge at the station and taxed him with his misconduct. He first denied it, and said the lad was drunk. The youth and others were brought before him, when he admitted he was not drunk. He (Durbridge) then admitted he was to blame, and apologised to the father and son for his misconduct. Mr. Bannehr says that, not knowing his son was so much hurt as he was, he accepted the apology. He was sorry he did afterwards ; but, having accepted it, he would not take action against the constable. At the same time he thinks the police—the single men in Nelson—require looking after. He gave me, privately, the names of several other young fellows who had been assaulted. I saw some of them ; others I was unable to see in the time at my disposal. I called several times to see the young lad himself, but did not find him at home. His mother is still extremely displeased at his treatment, and the worst of it is that they fear it may be repeated at any time (I may say that many are in similar fear, not only that they may be assaulted, but that if about at night by themselves, they may be locked up on some spurious charge.) After seeing the mother I.received the attached note from young Bannehr, declining to do anything in the matter The next day I drove out of town to see him. He stated as follows :— " -\s stated in my note, Ido not wish to take any action against Constable Durbridge ; I do not think it would be honourable. I will, however, tell you shortly what took place. It was either Christmas or New Year eve. A lot of people were about the streets. It- might be about 12 or 12 15 a m when I and some others noticed some disturbance in the street. Some one said the police had been ill-treating some one. I went to see what was going on. When I got in the crowd I said, " What the devil is the row about ? " Durbridge said, " What the hell has that got to do with you, Bannehr " and immediately struck me a severe blow with his fist on the jaw, knocking me down violently' I "ot up as soon as I could, but felt somewhat dazed. I had a light cane in my hand and, thinking he was coming at me again, I struck out with the cane, but missed him. He rushed at me lifted me up and threw me clean over his head (at least, I think he did). I realised what he was <roing to do and called out for help. One of the others got a hold of him to try and stop him, but ft was too late, and I fell heavily on the hard street. Ido not know whether I got up at once or not I was very stiff and sore after it. I could hardly eat anything for a week owing to the pam m my jaw I and others went and told my father. He went with us to the police-station. Constable

3—H. 16b.

H.—l6b

18

Durbridge apologised, and we proceeded no further with the matter. The following young men witnessed the assault: Claude Hamilton, of Buxton and Co.; Edward Daniels, of Wilkins and Field, ironmongers; Alex. Brown, watchmaker and jeweller; young Jackson, son of Jackson who keeps the tea-rooms ; Edward Ward ; and others. A great crowd of others witnessed the affair. When I was thrown down a crowd was got up to rush the police, but it was not acted on. One thing that influenced us a good deal to accept an apology was the fact that I was starting a little business myself, and I did not wish to be mixed up in a disagreeable matter of this kind." I next called on Edward George W r ard, grocer, Bridge Street, who stated as follows: "On last Christmas Eve a lot of people were out in the streets. I and some others were out somewhat late. We came across a half-drunken man in Trafalgar Street. He belongs to Nelson somewhere, but I do not know his name. He was fooling about and struck me, but not severely. I saw two constables a little distance off, and went up and told them. They were Kemp and Durbridge. I spoke to Kemp—l think he was in plain clothes. He said, ' I'll soon settle him.' He went over to him, and struck and knocked him over three times. Durbridge followed him. There was some uproar at the ill-treatment of the tipsy man. They did not arrest or lock him up. I was simply looking on on the outskirt of the crowd. Young Bannehr came up and asked me what was the matter. I told him it was the treatment the police gave the man. He said, ' We'll go over and see.' He went over amongst the crowd, and said, ' What the hell is the row? ' Durbridge said, ' What the hell has that got to do with you ? ' With that he rushed at Bannehr. I immediately saw Bannehr lying on the street. Bannehr got up, and he made a drive at Durbridge with a slight stick he had in his hand. I thought he struck him, but I am not sure. Durbridge caught him, took him up his own height, and threw him down very heavily, flat on the street —he fell with a thud, and lay fully half a minute without a move—quite still. We thought he was hurt severely ; he, however, got up, but was quite winded. He was very limp and helpless. I saw him again the next day and he was the same. —E. G. Ward." Mr. Ward told me that after Bannehr and others went' away to complain the two constables called him over and said, " You saw everything; you know it was not our fault." Ward replied, " I saw it all." They then said, " You will take our side, won't you." He replied, " I shall take no side." He says they spoke in a similar way to young Brown, watchmaker, &c, and did so again some time afterwards, and used a threat if he did not take their side by saying, " If not, we shall be even with you yet." Mr. Brown referred to was away in the country, so that I did not see him. I am, however, told that all the young men whose names were given by young Bannehr are highly respectable and will tell the truth. I tried to see some more of them, but did not find them in. As this was simply a preliminary inquiry, I left without seeing them. I have no doubt whatever but a dozen could be got to .prove the facts stated. I may say that Bannehr is a very slight youth, while Durbridge is a powerful athlete, and apparently only too anxious to show it. Since writing the above I received two statements from Messrs. Henry Frank and Ames Harling. Ido not know who sent them. These statements are attached. lam satisfied they are not by any means the best witnesses that can be got in the case. I may state that I forwarded these cases in this incomplete state simply because I was unable to see all the parties, to give the Commissioner some idea of the state of matters at Nelson, so that proper action should be taken to prevent any repetition of the same. E. Macdonell, Inspector.

S IB| Waimea Street, Nelson, 18th February, 1901. On the night of the 24th December (Christmas Eve) I was spending the evening with a friend (Ames Harling) in the upstairs of Mr. Dickinson's saddler's shop. About 12 o'clock we were talking to each other when we heard a noise in the street, and so we ran to the window to see what it was. In the middle of the road was Constable Durbridge trying to catch hold of Bannehr. Bannehr was trying to ward him off, but Constable Durbridge caught hold of him and threw him on his back. From the conversation that was going on between them they seemed to be talking over a person whom Constable Durbridge had a minute or two before handled roughly. Bannehr was asking him why he wanted to knock this person about for. Constable Durbridge told him he would do the same to him, which he did, as I have before stated. After this a crowd began to gather, and they parted, Constable Durbridge going towards Hardy Street, and Bannehr going the other way. I did not see the person whom they were talking about. This is all I can remember, to my knowledge. Henry Frank, Waimea Street, Nelson.

Sir, Nelson, 18th February. All I know about that case of Bannehr on Christmas Eve, the 24th December, myself and a mate (Harry Franks) were upstairs in Dickinson's shop, where I sleep, when we heard a row in Trafalgar Street. We ran to the window to see what was up, when we saw a crowd o-athered over by Hounsell, bookseller's, talking about some fellow the police had handled roughly. Then we saw Bannehr go over to them and ask what was up. Then Durbridge said something to him and then knocked him down. Bannehr got up and Durbridge and him had a scuffle. Durbridge caught hold of him, and it looked like as if he lifted him as high as his shoulders and dropped him down hard on his back. Bannehr lay there for a good time as if he was stunned. Then he got up and Durbridge said, " You are drunk ;go home." He was not drunk. Then, some more people came up and Durbridge went toward Masonic Hotel, and Bannehr went around into Bridge Street. That is all I remember seeing. Ames Hakling, Morrison Street, kelson, N.Z.

H.—l6b

19

Shakespere Walk, Nelson, 16th February, 1902. Sir,—Under other conditions I would have been pleased to give you any information, but having accepted an apology I feel that I cannot in honour consent to give evidence. Yours, &c, Inspector Macdonell. w - J - Bannehr.

New Zealand. —Police Department. From Inspector Macdonell. Eeceived 3/3/02. Subject : Constables Kemp and Burrell charged with assaulting George Allen, Nelson. Inspector Macdonell.—Another instance of a man nursing his wrongs until you seek him out and invite him to make a statement. If assaulted, as he alleged, then he should have taken action spontaneously, and the matter could have been inquired into on oath. This suggestion, that the complainants were afraid to complain, is all nonsense. People do not put up with being knocked about without complaining these days. This man can lay an information if he desires. J. B. Tunbridge. 3/3/02.

Police Office, Greymouth, 27th February, 1902. Beport re Alleged Assault by Constables Kemp and Burrell on one George Allen. George Allen, fireman, Port, Nelson, says, " The same night as William Eeed was assaulted by the constables I was assaulted, I believe by the same men. I was on my way home by myself pretty late, and when going along Haven Eoad I was passing Constables Kemp and Burrell. Pat Gallao-her was with them. As I was passing them on the footpath one of them put his foot out in front of me to trip me. I said, ' What is the meaning of this ? ' One put his foot behind me and the other at the same time struck me on side of the head, knocking me down. I said to Gallagher, • You witnessed that.' He said, ' Yes.' Kemp said, ' What is that ?' at the same time giving me a clout on the face. Both constables then took hold of me, saying they would lock me up. Burrell then said, ' He can manage him ; I need not interfere,' and he let me go after taking me back a few paces. Burrell said, 'We will let him go.' Kemp then let me go, and when he did so he kicked me as I was going away. I did not resist or attempt to retaliate in the least. I knew it was no use. I did not report it, as I had no witness. If I complained I might be worse treated another time. We often hear of this sort of thing on the part of the police. Arthur Young, of the Port was interferred with by some constables the same night when passing them alone. One of them put out his foot to trip him. He stumbled, but passed on without saymg a word, and was allowed to go on without further interference. I do not like making a statement in this way; I think it looks likes informing. I would prefer to go straight before them and make my statements there.—G. Allen." I did not hear whether or not this man has been interviewed by any of the single constables. He appears to me to be' a particularly straightforward man ; still, I have not the slightest doubt but almost every word he says will be denied. — -~ ' My remarks in Eeed's case re getting a careful statement from Pat Gallaghan, or Gallagher, fully applies to this case. I was unable to see Arthur Young above referred to, nor two others named W. Smith and H. Atmore, said to have been assaulted by Constables Durbridge and Burrell. I am very busy at present, but further correspondence will follow. E. Macdonell, Inspector.

New Zealand. —Police Department. Eeceived, 3/3/02. From Inspector Macdonell, Grey. Subject : Constable Kemp charged with assaulting William Eeed, Nelson, and Constable Durrell looking on. Inspector Macdonell,—lf this man had anything to complain of he should have done so at the time. The offence, if committed, is a statutory one, and could have .been dealt with by a Magistrate. The nearest the man can give is that it occurred two or three months ago, and he believed it was certain constables. Would it not be manifestly unfair to put constables on their defence as to what occurred two or three months ago when complaint could have been made at the time ? No doubt almost every person who has been proceeded against by the police imagine they have a grievance against the police, and are only too ready to ventilate their imaginary or real grievances when they are sought out and invited to make statements. This man can, if he wishes, lay an information and then the matter can be investigated on oath.—J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner. 3/3/02. Noted.—E. Macdonell, Inspector. 23/3/02.

Police Office, Greymouth, 27th February, 1902. Beport on Alleged Assault by Constable Kemp on William Beed, of the Port, Nelson, Constable Burrell looking on. William Eeed, fisherman, Port, Nelson, says, " About two or three months ago, on a Saturday night, I was coming home from Nelson. When opposite the gasworks I met two constables—l think, Kemp and Burrell. Pat Gallaghan, now in Wellington Gaol, was with them; they appeared to be questioning him. One of them said, 'Good-night' to me. I replied, 'Good-night, sir.' He asked, 'Where are you going?' I replied, 'Home, sir.' He then asked me my name. I replied, 'Eeed, sir.' He said, 'You are one of the notorious Eeeds,' and at the same time bashed'me across the face with his hand. I said nothing ; I simply walked away. Pat Gallaghan

H.—l6b

20

said, ' Good-night, Bill,' and I said, ' Good-night, Paddy.' I gave them no provocation whatever. I have told you all that took place. I was afraid to remonstrate that I would be roughly handled and locked up. It was pretty late at night. On arrival at the Port I reported the matter to Constable Jeffries. I think it was Constable Kemp struck me and that it was Burrell standing by. Next day I was in the train with Constable Burrell. I spoke to him about the manner in which I was treated. He declared he was not there, saying, 'If I was there it would not have happened.' —W. Eeed." I beg to state that this statement was taken hurriedly the afternoon before I left. I believe Eeed is given to drink, and he told me he was fined for bad language some time ago. He says he broke the law and suffered the penalty, but that it appears the police can break the law as often as they like with perfect impunity. I may state that this man did not complain to me. His name was given to me with that of many others assaulted by the single constables at Nelson, and I sought him out. Now, in this and following two cases I would suggest that a thoroughly reliable man be sent to Wellington Gaol to interview Patrick Gallaghan, or Gallagher, and get a fair statement from him as to what took place on the night in question. I would suggest that Sergeant O'Donovan be sent. I hear Constable Kemp has been to Eeed already. E. Macdonell, Inspector.

Police Department. Eeceived, 27/3/02. From Inspector Macdonell, Grey. Subject : B. Walker's complaints against the Nelson police, reports, &c. Sir,— Nelson, 18th November, 1901. In reply to your letter about my treatment, I am sending you Howard's own statement. He said he never denied anything to the police. They had him down at the station, but he said he never signed any papers for them. You have not got the words of the other four police besides those mentioned in your letter. Constables Bird and Williams were on night duty, and you might write and ask them about us staying at the station. Howard is prepared to swear that what he is sending you about my treatment is true if called upon to do so. Constables Aldridge and McGrath also knew we slept at the station. Howard's father knew nothing about us except that we slept at the station. Kemp and Durbridge went up to my people with a copy, and wanted them to sign their names to it, which they refused. Kemp then asked them if they would write a few lines as a great kindness, as it would help them a lot. The words that they wrote were I was fairly well treated as far as they knew, and signed their names to it. Howard was locked up at the station in the old cells on Tuesday night, the Bth October, 1901. No one came to see him all night. Durbridge told him if any one came and spoke to him to tell them to go to Hell. On the 9th October, 1901, Howard escorted Kemp and Durbridge to the camp. As they were coming over they saw a boy down the track, and the three of them got behind a tree and waited till he came along. Kemp and Durbridge jumped out in front of him and said, " Hands up." They then asked Howard if it was me, and he said, " No." They gave him some cake, and told him not to tell any one or else they would kill him, &c. The boy told the sergeant about it, and he laughed and said it would be all right. I can get the boy's own statement if you would like it. When they got to the camp Kemp said, " I arrest you," and he started handling me roughly, and we went over together. I got up, and Durbridge got me by the throat and banged me up against the fence of the tent. They then put the cuffs on my hands behind my back and on my feet, and then Kemp pulled out his revolver and said, "If you had run away I would have shot you." We remained at the camp all night, and came down on the 10th October, and slept at the station in the old cells. We were not searched. I had a razor and a sheath-knife, which Burrell took away from me in the morning at breakfast when I showed it to him. I had six cartridges and matches in my pockets. The gun was left in the passage where we were till 10.30, and then Durbridge locked us up, and told us not to speak to any one that came cruising around during the night. Durbridge acted as gaoler. On Tuesday, the 11th, we went up before the Court and were admitted to bail. After Court we were taken over to the gaol, and the sergeant told us not to tell Constable Bird anything about it, in case he brought up a fresh case. Howard was let out on bail in the afternoon. While staying at the station my aunt came round, and the sergeant said to her that we would get off lightly, but he said to her if she engaged a lawyer he would push the case to the uttermost. He told me one night we would get off lightly, but if I engaged a lawyer it would put him on his pins and he would have to push the case. My aunt told the lawyer about this, and he said if it was to come out he would get the sack. I was there and heard him say it. Constable Bird searched me at the gaol, and he was there when the sergeant asked me to stay with the men at the station when I got bailed out. I slept with the men in their own room on the 17th, 14th, and loth October, 1901. On the 13±h I went with them to the camp and brought the remainder of the stuff' over. On the 16th we were brought before the Court and let off on probation. There are several other charges against them, and if you are coming along this way I can make it worth your while to inquire into it. It seems as if those four you mentioned had done a bit of planning together, as they were always having trouble, &c, up this way. If they denied everything I wrote to you about, which was perfectly true, as Ido not want.to tell any lies about the matter, they must be very bad. I showed the mark that Durbridge left on my throat to a lot of citizens, and you can see the scars yet, although it is a month ago. When we were coming down the Maitai the second time Kemp asked the boy what he told for, and said he would chuck him in the river if his boss was not there, and swore at him. If you want to know anything about Durbridge and the girl, see copies of telegrams for June at Telegraph Department between Wellington and Nelson. Yours, &c, Inspector. B. Walker, Care of F. Trask, Collingwood Street, Nelson,

21

H.—l6b

Sir,— Nelson, 17th November, 1902. I, H. Howard, did not say anything to the police, or sign any papers, about Walker's treatment, but I am prepared to swear that he was badly treated when arrested by Durbridge, who caught him by the throat and held him till his face was black, and knock him up against the fence of the tent. H. Howard. Declared at Nelson, this 17th day of November, 1901, before me—Ernest G. Trask, J.P. Inspector.

Sir,— Nelson, 7th November, 1901. Constables Kemp and Durbridge went up to my relatives with a written paper and wanted them to fill it in, and they refused. It was to say that I was well treated, and all the rest. They gave them a statement that I was fairly well treated, as far as they knew. Do not forget to ask the sergeant if I slept at the police-station. You might ask Constable Durbridge if he knew anything about a who was in the family way by him. She was working at the Hotel, and she went to Wellington about the 27th May to give birth. She is working at , Lambton Quay. Yours, &c, B. Walker, Inspector of Police, Greymouth. Care of Mr. Trask, Nelson. Excuse writing in hurry. I gave my razor to Constable Durbridge to mind for me in the morning after we had been locked up all night, and I was not searched until after the first trial. They told my aunt it would be a great kindness to them if she would fill in the paper they took up.

Sir, — District Police Office,. Greymouth, 11th November, 1901. In reply to yours of the 19th ultimo complaining of your treatment by the police, &c, I have to inform you that you are contradicted in almost every particular—not only by Sergeant Mackay and Constables Durbridge, Kemp, and Burrell, but by your late comrade, Howard (supported by his father), and also by your own guardian (Mr. M. Baker). In the face of this I cannot see how you can attempt to prove any of your allegations against the police. Have you anything further to say ? I am, &c, E. Macdonell, Inspector of Police. Mr. B. Walker, care of Mr. F. Trask, Collingwood Street, Nelson.

The Commissioner. I beg to forward this correspondence for your information. On my arrival in Nelson, 2nd February, I found the youth Walker had left with the Ninth Contingent. The case is peculiar. I believe some of his statements are supposed to be true. The above letter is the one Mr. Trask is alleged to be showing people. E. Macdonell, 23/3/02.

(Telegram.) Inspector Police, Grey. Eeceived letter. Will write first opportunity. B. Walker.

New Zealand Police, District Office, Greymouth, Ist November, 1901. Memorandum from the Inspector of Police at Grey to Sergeant Mackay, Nelson. Subject : Letter of Complaint from B. Walker. This letter is forwarded for reports from each member of the Force mentioned therein, together with the original reports and correspondence. E. Macdonell, Inspector.

The Inspector. Please see attached reports from Sergeant Mackay, Constables Kemp, Burrell, and Durbridge; also statement from Howard and Barker. 7/11/01. E. Mackay, Sergeant, No. 210.

Inspector of Police, Greymouth. Nelson, 19th October, 1901. Sir — I, B. Walker, have been up before the Court for theft, and I thought you would like to know how things went on. My mate was locked up in the police-station all night and was not searched. He was told to tell everything and it would be made lighter for him and myself. He was told that he would have to lead them to where I was or else they would make it hard for him. I was camped in the Pelorus. Constables Kemp and Durbridge was led by my mate Howard. As they were going over the Maungatapu they saw a boy coming up the track. They got behind a tree, and when he came along they put two loaded revolvers in his face and said, " Hands up." When they saw it was not me, they gave him a feed and told him not to tell any one or else they would murder him. The boy is working for Mr. Dolomore, of the Maitai. He told the sergeant about it, and he laughed at him. They arrested me without a warrant. The sergeant told them that they did not want one. They held me by the throat till I was black in the face, and put the cuffs on my wrists behind my back and my ankles, and peeled the skin off. Then Kemp put a revolver on my face and said, "If you had run I would have shot you." They made us carry a swag each over twenty miles, and they carried none. We were kept in the police-station all night and was not searched. I had a razor, sheath-knife, and pocket-knife, a gun, and six cartridges in my possession. They did not come near us all night, which I believe is wrong

H.—l6b

22

When I was out on bail the sergeant asked me to stop with them at the station, and I stopped till I was tried. The sergeant told us to plead guilty and we would get off lightly. He said if his bosses said anything he would tell them to go to Hell, but if we got a lawyer he would push the case to the uttermost. We got a lawyer on the quiet and got off on six months' probation. I told the sergeant that there was a lot of goods belonging to me, and asked him if he would send to the place and see what I had bought, and he said that he had seen about them ; but he had not, and I was summoned for them, and I 'did not know till afterwards. I have the bill for them, and they are keeping and eating them at the station. lam nineteen years and my mate seventeen, and I think that we have been treated very rough. We had the sympathy of the whole of Nelson with us, and I got work the first day after the trial. If you want to know any more I will try and let you have it. I have got proof of all this. Yours, &c, B. Walker, Care of F. Trask, Collingwood Street, Nelson. It was in the old police-station we were kept, not the police gaol.

Police-station, Nelson, 11th October, 1901. Report of Constable Thomas S. C. Kemp re Arrest of Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard, charged with Theft. I respectfully report that on the 7th instant Frederick William Haase reported at the policestation that a collie dog belonging to him had been stolen off the chain some time during Saturday night. Sergeant Mackay instructed Constable Durbridge and Ito make inquiries. We learnt from a youth named Young that Walker had threatened to steal Haase's dog; also that Walker and Howard were supposed to have a camp, on the other side of the Maungatapu Eange. We informed Sergeant Mackay of what we had learnt, and he gave orders at 3 p.m. that we were to immediately start in search of their camp. Nine miles from Nelson, up the Maitai Valley, we were informed by Mr. Dalamore that a young man had passed his house about 6.30 a.m. carrying a swag, and two dogs following him. As it was too late to go further that evening, we returned to Mr. Smith's, six miles from Nelson. Early Tuesday morning (Bth) we resumed our search, accompanied by Sidney Smith, a young man well acquainted with the country. We followed footprints over the Maungatapu Eange and across Franklin's Flat for a distance of fourteen miles. As we did not provide ourselves with food we were compelled to return to Nelson. On our way to town a clerk at Dodson's said he had seen Howard up Brook Street. On detailing to Sergeant Mackay what we had seen and heard he told us to go at once to Howard's place, and bring him to the station. This we did, arriving at the station at 11 p.m. In consequence of his statement he was detained for the night. In the morning Sergeant Mackay drove Constables Durbridge, Howard, and I to the end of the cart-road in the Maitai Valley, Howard agreeing he would guide us to where the camp was. At a place some distance beyond the horse-bridge Howard showed us their half-way camp. In a large cavity in a rock on the bank of the creek they had a quantity of provisions stored, some of which Howard said were stolen from Kirkpatrick and Co., and some from Mr. Snodgrass, grocer, Hardy Street. Leaving this camp, we continued our journey over the Maungatapu, following the same tracks as we had traced the previous day. When we snowed Howard where we had been he said that we were within ten minutes' walk of the camp, and to go quietly, as Walker would take to the bush immediately he caught sight of us. When within 100 yards we saw Walker ; he was sawing a tree. It was agreed that I was to creep on ahead and get as near the camp as possible, while Howard would show himself. This plan was carried out, with the result that I got within 4 yards of him before he observed me. I arrested him on a charge of stealing Haase's dog. He asked me to produce my warrant, and endeavoured to escape. Constable Durbridge came over the creek and handcuffed him. Some time after, Walker, seeing he had no hope of escape, said, " It's all up ; I will tell you and show you all. I may as well be caught as my mate." The camp consisted of two tents : one contained provisions, &c.; the other was used to sleep in. In the provision-tent the following articles, which both admitted having stolen, were stored :— S. Kirkpatrick and Co. (Limited) list (during the month of May, 1901). —One 71b. tin white pepper (Is. 6d.), 10s. 6d.; one 10 lb. bag rolled oats (25.), 25.; seven 1 lb. tins jam (6d.), 3s. 6d. ; one 10lb. bag washing-soda Is. 3d.; one 21b. tin jam, 9d.; two 2 lb. tins baking-powder (2s. 6d,), 55.; two lib. tin baking-powder (Is. 6d.), 35.; one fib. tin baking-powder, Is. 2d. ; fourteen Jib. tins baking-powder (6d.), 7s. ; two 1 lb. tins " X " coffee (25.), 4s. ; one 1 lb. tin " Oriental " coffee, 25.; one 2 lb. tin " Eajah " coffee, 3s. ; two 1 lb. tins " Eajah " coffee (25.), 45.; two 1 lb. tins carbonate of soda (6d.), Is.; three £ lb. tins tartaric acid (Is.), 35.; seven 5 lb. bags rolled oats (Is.), 7s. ; one 2Jlb. bag rolled oats, 6d. ; six 51b. bags wheatmeal (Is.), 65.; one ilb. tin ground ginger (Is.), Is.: total, £3 ss. Bd. List of articles stolen from Mr. Arthur William Tatton, dentist, Trafalgar Street (about the Ist February, 1901). —Four grey blankets at 4s. each, 165.; one butcher's steel (25.), 25.; one chopper (25.), 2s. : total, £1. Stolen from Mr. Eobert Snodgrass, grocer, Hardy Street, during the month of July, 1901.— Six bars soap at Bd. per bar, 45.; fourteen cakes soap at sd. per cake, ss. lOd.: total, 9s. lOd. Stolen from Charles Noble, grocer, Brook Street, about the 21st September, 1901.—One 50 lb. bag of flour, valued at ss. From William Newport, labourer, Nile Street, 4th October, 1901.—Two pairs gum-boots at £1 per pair, £2. From Eichard Percival, Brook Street, about 19th September, 1901.—Two frying-pans at Is. 6d. each, 3s.

23

H.—l6b

From John Ward, Brook Street, gardener, about 20th September, 1901. —lewt. seed potatoes, value 6s. From Wilkie and Co., Bridge Street, butcher, on the 21st and 28th September, 1901. —Two hams valued at Bs. each, 165.; one double-reined bridle, 255.: total, £2 Is. 25th October, 1901. -Haase's dog, referred to at beginning of report, was in Walker's possession, and he admitted taking it in company with Howard on sth instant. On the 10th instant Constable Durbridge and I started with the two prisoners for town, taking with us as much of the identifiable property as we could carry. At 4 p.m. we arrived at Dalamore's, where Sergeant Mackay was waiting for us with a conveyance, and brought Howard and Walker to the station. Howard is seventeen years, and Walker nineteen years. Thos. S. C. Kemp, Constable 915. Sergeant Mackay, in Charge of Police, Nelson.

New Zealand Police. — Charge Sheet. — Cases for hearing at Courthouse, Nelson, on the 11th day of October, 1901. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On the 28th September, 1901, at Nelson, did steal two hams of bacon, value 165., the property of Wilkie and Co. Arrested by T. S. C. Kemp, Constable. Not bailed. No previous convictions known. Both pleaded guilty. Both remanded. Sentence deferred to the 16th instant. Probation Officer to furnish Court with report. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On the 21st day of September, 1901, at Nelson, did steal one bridle and martingale. Total value 255., the property of Wilkie and Co. Arrested by F. H. Durbridge, Constable. Not bailed. No previous convictions known. Both remanded to October 16th. Sail allowed, £50 each, with two sureties of £25 each. E. Mackay, Sergeant.

New Zealand Police. — Charge Sheet. — Cases for hearing at Courthouse, Nelson, on the 16th day of October, 1901. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker, and Henry James Howard. On the 28th September, 1901, at Nelson, did steal two hams of bacon, value 165., the property of Wilkie and Co. Arrested by T. S. C. Kemp, Constable. Bailed 12/10/01, 11.30 a.m. Two sureties of £25 each, himself in £50. No previous convictions known. Plea, guilty. Convicted. Put on probation for three months. Ordered to pay Bs. to Wilkie and Co. within fourteen days. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On 21st day of September, 1901, at Nelson, did steal one bridle and martingale, total value 255., the property of Wilkie and Co. Plea, guilty. Convicted. Put on probation for three months. Arrested by F. H. Durbridge, Constable. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On or about Ist February, 1901, did steal 4 blankets, value 165., 1 steel, 25., and 1 chopper, 2s. ; total value, 205.: the property of Arthur William Tatton, dentist, Trafalgar Street, Nelson. Arrested by F. H. Durbridge, Constable. Plea, guilty. No previous convictions known. Convicted. Put on probation for three months. E. Mackay, Sergeant.

New Zealand Police. — Charge Sheet. — Cases for hearing at Courthouse, Nelson, on the 16th day of October, 1901. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. During the month of May, 1901, did steal a quantity of provisions, value £3 ss. Bd., the property of Samuel Kirkpatrick and others, at Nelson. Arrested by T. S. C. Kemp. Bailed out 12/10/01, 11.30 a.m. Two sureties of £25 each, himself in £50. No previous convictions known. Plea, guilty. Having elected to be tried summarily. Convicted. Put on probation for six months. Ordered to pay 20s. to J. Kirkpatrick within fourteen days. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. During the month of July, 1901, did steal 6 bars of soap and 14 cakes of soap, total value 9s. 10d., the property of Eobert Snodgrass, of Nelson. Arrested by F. H. Durbridge. Bailed out 12/10/01, 11.30 a.m. Two sureties of £25 each, himself in £50. No previous convictions known. Plea, guilty. Convicted. Put on probation for three months. Ordered to pay 2s. 6d. to E. Snodgrass within fourteen days. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On or about the 19th September, 1901, did steal two frying-pans, value 35., the property of Eichard Percival, of Nelson. Arrested by T. S. C. Kemp. Bailed out 12/10/01, 11.30 a.m. Two sureties of £25 each, himself in £50. No previous convictions known. Plea, guilty. Convicted. Put on probation for three months. E. Mackay, Sergeant.

New Zealand Police. — Charge Sheet. — Cases for hearing at Courthouse, Nelson, on the 16th day of October, 1901. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On or about 20th September, 1901, did steal 1 cwt. potatoes, value 65., the property of John Ward, Nelson. Arrested by J. H. Durbridge, Constable. Bailed out 12/10/01. Two sureties of £25 each, himself £50. No previous convictions known. Plea, guilty. Convicted. Put on probation for three months. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On or about 21st September, 1901, did steal 1 501b. bag of flour, value 55., the property of Charles Noble, Nelson. F. S. C. Kemp, Arresting Constable. Bailed out 12/10/01. Two sureties of £25 each himself

H.—l6b

24

in £50. No previous convictions known. Plea, guilty. Convicted. Put on probation for three months. 9/10/01, 4 p.m., Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On the 4th day of October, 1901, did steal 2 pair of gum-boots, value £2, the property of William Newport, of Nelson. Arrested by F. H. Durbridge, Constable. No previous convictions known. Plea, guilty. Convicted. Put on probation for three months. E. Mackay, Sergeant.

New Zealand Police. — Charge Sheet. — Cases for hearing at Courthouse, Nelson, on the 16th day of October, 1901. 9/10/01, Arthur Bernard Walker and Henry James Howard. On the sth October, 1901, did steal one dog, value £2, the property of Frederick William Haase, of Nelson. Arrested by T. S. C. Kemp, Constable. Bailed out 12/10/01. Two sureties of £25 each, himself in £50. No previous convictions known. Plea, guilty. Convicted, Put on probation for six months. E. Mackay, Sergeant.

Police-station, Nelson, 7th November, 1901. Report of Sergeant E. Mackay, No. 210, re letter of 19th October from B. Walker, and Allegations contained therein. I beg to state that in consequence of F. W. Haase reporting the loss of his dog, I detailed Constables Kemp and Durbridge to investigate the matter, the result being they learnt of numerous other thefts which had not been reported to the police, and that the suspects, two youths, were camped in the Maungatapu Eanges. I instructed the two constables to proceed to the Maungatapu Eanges and endeavour to find their camp. The constables started at 3 p.m. on the 7th ultimo, returning on the evening of the Bth, and informed me that one of the suspects (Howard) was in town. I instructed them to bring him to the station, which they did at 11 p.m. same evening. I asked Howard if he was camped in the Maungatapu Eanges. He replied, " Yes, Walker and I are." I said, "Do you know anything about the hams that were stolen from Wilkie and Co.'s?" He replied, " Walker and I stole the hams, and also a bridle and martingale from Wilkie's. We also stole Haase's dog." I asked, " Have you stolen anything else ? " He answered in the affirmative, and enumerated the offences entered in the attached charge-sheet. I inquired off him the distance to his camp. He said, "About thirty miles; you will not find it unless you are shown," and said " I don't mind taking you to it. If you go you will have to start very early in the morning." I instructed the two constables to be in readiness to go with Howard at an early hour. I drove them to the foot of the Maungatapu between 5 and 6 the following morning, 9th ultimo. On the afternoon of the 10th ultimo I drove to the foot of the Maungatapu, and awaited the arrival of the constables with their prisoners. They arrived, each constable carrying a heavy swag, and the two prisoners a very light one. The prisoners and property were conveyed to the police-station. The prisoners were searched by Constable Burrell in the presence of myself, Kemp, and Durbridge. They were that night placed in the cell at the police-station. The following morning, 11th ultimo, they were brought before the Court and charged with the theft of two hams and a bridle and martingale from Wilkie and Cos. They pleaded guilty, and sentence was deferred to 16th ultimo, as many other charges were pending. Bail was allowed. Howard accepted it. Walker refused bail; said he was better off where he was. On the 12th ultimo Walker accepted bail. After being bailed he asked to be allowed to stay with the single men; that if his request was granted he would show a track by which pack-horses could be taken within close proximity of the camp. I decided to leave the matter in the hands of the single men, I knowing that it would save a considerable amount of expense and loss of time if we could get horses to where the camp was. On the 13th ultimo, at 3 a.m., the two constables, with Walker and two pack-horses, started for the camp, and returned with the two pack-horses laden with stolen property on the 14th. Neither of the accused made any complaint to me ; on the contrary, they told me they were well treated by the constables. They had no marks whatever on either of them, nor skin off. Had there been skin off Walker's wrist I must have seen it, as I examined his hands and arms when taking his description. Had there been any marks about his face or neck I would certainly have noticed it. As regards the allegation that I asked him to plead guilty, it is a deliberate and wilful falsehood, as there was no necessity for my doing so, as Howard had made a full confession prior to Walker's arrest, and the fact of the prisoner being in possession of the stolen property when arrested. As regards the allegation that he had bought some of the property and asked me to see what he had bought is untrue. The only articles detained by the police are those enumerated in Constable Kemp's report, to which the accused pleaded guilty, when read from the information in Court, the accused at the time being carefully warned by his solicitor to listen attentively to the information being read, and to plead not guilty to anything therein that he did not steal. Hereto I attach receipts from the different victims of accused's thefts. As to Walker having the sympathy of the whole of Nelson, it is not likely any sneak-thief would gain the sympathy of any respectable community. The only persons who appear to sympathize with him, and interest themselves on his behalf are the Trasks (butchers) of this town, who, it is rumoured, are related to Walker. I may say that after the offender had been sentenced he entered the employ of Trask (butcher), and came to this station in company with E. E. Trask, who demanded the stolen property, offering me a pound for it. I told Trask if he wanted the stolen property he had better go and see the owners.

25

H.—l6b

Had Howard lent his ear to evil advisers, as Walker has done, he too would have been persuaded to enter into this evil and, apparently, plotted agitation. The Trasks (butchers) are interesting themselves in a great measure on Walker's behalf, and the only reason I can assign for them doing so is that I dealt with them as butchers, and, finding them unsuitable, left them and "went elsewhere. This appears to have annoyed them very much, and it seems to me they are determined to have revenge, and not having any other method of making complaint have evidently used Walker as the medium of their grievance. It does seem strange that it is only the four members of the Force who were dealing with the Trasks and left rhem that are mentioned in this alleged grievance. E. Mackay, Sergeant No. 210.

Police-station, Nelson, 11th July, 1901. Report of Constable T. S. C. Kemp, re Accusations in A. B. Walker's Letter, dated 19th ultimo. I beg to state that the particulars of the case will be found in my report of the 11th ultimo. As stated therein., we left on the 7th ultimo; being unsuccessful we returned to this station on the Bth; interviewed Henry James Howard same evening, who volunteered to accompany Constable Durbridge and myself over the Maungatapu Eange the following morning. As it was late before Howard finished his statement he decided to stop at the police-station for the night, it being agreed that an early start would be necessary to reach the camp before dark. On our way over the Maungatapu we met a young man who said he had come from Canvastown, and was on his way to Nelson. He said he was very hungry, and we supplied him with lunch, and informed him of his distance from town. There was neither threat made or revolver shown to this man referred to. On the face of this assertion it is easily to be seen that it is a nefarious falsehood, as I fail to see how Walker, who was miles distant at the time, could know what took place when we met this man, and in my opinion this imputation was aided by some prejudiced person against the police. Eegarding the maltreatment at the arrest of Walker, I may say that on approaching the camp Howard gave us to understand that Walker would take to the bush. I crept ahead and got close to Walker before he noticed me. I arrested him. He struggled violently to escape. We both fell, being tripped by underwood. Constable Durbridge came to my assistance. Walker was handcuffed with no more force than was necessary to secure his custody. As Walker still made repeated attempts to escape, we put a large pair of handcuffs on his ankles and took him to the tent, where we left him while we separated stolen property from that belonging to the prisoner. How this prisoner could see he was black in the face is beyond my comprehension, and, in my mind, sufficient proof that he is given to gross exaggeration. After sorting portion of the stolen property, we removed the handcuffs off the prisoner's ankles. There was no revolver pointed in his face, threat made, or skin pulled off his wrists or ankles. He was not made to carry a swag ; he volunteered to carry one, which consisted of a 12 lb. ham rolled in a blanket. We ourselves carried from the horse-bridge 1 cwt. each. As to his accusation that he was not searched when placed in the cell at the police-station, it, too, is untrue and without foundation. He was searched twice—first when arrested, and again at the station, in the presence of Sergeant Mackay, Constables Burrell, Durbridge, and myself. He had none of the weapons on him he alleges to have had ; and this in itself will plainly show that his assertions are more in the nature of an agitation than a grievance. His allegation that they were not visited during the night when in the cells is fictitious. I had the keys and visited them during the night. They were brought before the Court and pleaded guilty to one charge. Sentence was deferred to the 16th ultimo, waiting report from Probation Officer. Bail was allowed. Walker refused to accept it. Howard obtained bail. Walker was placed in the police gaol until the 12th ultimo, when he was bailed, and asked as a special favour to be allowed to stay with us single constables, as he did not wish to go home, stating that if allowed to stay he would show the police a horse-track by which means they could get pack-horses within a short distance of the camp. Knowing the road to be of a rugged and dangerous nature, we deemed it advisable to accede to his request, keeping him the time at our own expense. Had we not allowed him the favour he asked it would have been almost impossible to get the stolen property for exhibits in Court. Constable Durbridge and myself worked very hard, going almost night and day to work up the case and recover the property. The accused were represented in Court by counsel, and made no complaint whatever. They were asked by their solicitor to listen attentively to the list of articles being read in the information, and if there was anything therein mentioned that they did not steal to plead not guilty. Howard and Walker left the station, apparently quite satisfied. From the attached statement of Howard, and the fact of Howard's father bringing his son to this station to make it, and being present and witnessing his son's statement, also the attached memo, from Walker's guardian, would tend greatly to show that Walker's complaint is instigated by an older counsellor than himself, and 1 believe that counsel to be the Trasks (butchers). We single constables were dealing with them for some time, and finding them unsuitable we decided to leave. Ever since they have shown great antipathy towards us. Thos. S. C. Kemp, Constable No. 915. Sergeant Mackay, in charge of Police, Nelson.

Police-station, Nelson, 7th November, 1901. Beport of Constable F. H. Durbridge re Accusations in A. B. Walker's Letter, dated 19th ultimo. 1 respectfully report that from instructions received I, in company with Constable Kemp, left for the Maungatapu Eanges in search of a camp belonging to Howard and Walker ; being unsuccessful, we returned to town. Having learnt that Howard, one of the suspects, was in town, we informed Sergeant Mackay of what we had learnt. He instructed us to bring Howard to the station ; this

4—H. 16b.

H.—l6b

26

we did. After the sergeant had had an interview with Howard, he instructed both Constable Kemp and myself to hold ourselves in readiness to proceed with Howard to the Maungatapu Eanges. It being late, Howard remained on the stititm, as an early start was to be. made next morning. We were driven to the foot of the Maungatapu Eanges. We then journeyed on our way to the camp. On the other side of the range we met a young man who said he had come from Canvastown. He complained of hunger; we gave him food, and told him how far he was from Nelson. There was no threats of any kind made, and I cannot understand how Walker could make such an allegation, as he was miles away at the time we met this man. Howard, who was present at the time, brands this assertion of Walker's as a deliberate lie. Eegarding Walker's complaint that he was ill-treated when arrested, is also an untruth. Constable Kemp and I arrested him, and we secured his custody with no more force or violence than was necessary to effect our purpose. He made repeated and deliberate attempts to escape, compelling us to handcuff him on both wrists and ankles for some time. This, in my opinion, was absolutely necessary,.as, had he once got away from us, we would never have been able to catch him in such a dense bush. As soon as we could give the prisoner our attention we removed the cuffs from his ankles. His complaint that I squeezed his throat is like all his other statements, utterly ficticious, and shows plainly the class of man we are dealing with. There was no revolver pointed at him, nor skin peeled off his ankles or wrists. The swag he carried was a very light one, made up of one 121b. ham rolled in a blanket, and it was Walker's own desire to carry it, remarking that it was the lightest swag he had carried over the range. The next complaint in his letter is that he was not searched when placed in the cell at the police-station. He must have a very defective memory, or he would remember that he was searched directly he was arrested at his camp, and again at the police-station, when there was present Constables Kemp, Burrell, and myself, and Sergeant Mackay. He had none of the weapons he says he had on him in the cell, and it is not likely that any constable would allow any prisoner to be in possession of such weapons. I know of my own knowledge that Constable Kemp visited the two prisoners during the night. They were brought before the Court, and pleaded guilty to the charge of having stolen two of Wilkie's hams. Sentence was deferred to the 16th ultimo, the Magistrate wishing to be furnished with a report from the Probation Officer. Bail was allowed, which Howard availed himself of, and Walker refused in open Court, stating to us that his reason for refusing bail was that he was better treated in custody than he would be at home. On the 12th ultimo he decided to accept bail, which he got. He asked us if we would allow him to stay on the station, and if we did he would show us a track by which we could get pack-horses close to the camp. As the road was a bad one and we were unacquainted with the country, we granted him his request, keeping him at our own expense. I think, instead of complaining, this ungrateful being should consider himself indebted to us, and, to my mind, he would be were he not prompted by the evil machinations of a certain party in this town. It was in the interest of the service that we allowed him to remain on the station, for had we not done so we would not have been able to get the exhibits for the Court. Mr. Harley, solicitor, appeared for both of the accused, and he told them to take particular notice of the articles enumerated in the information, and, if there was anything mentioned therein that they did not steal, to plead not guilty. Howard and Walker left this station well satisfied in every way, and I am sure they would be yet were it not for Walker's employer, Mr. Trask, who interested himself greatly before the trial, and sat on the bench with Mr. Eobinson, S.M., a thing that he has never done since I have been stationed in Nelson. We single constables some time ago took our meat from Trask, and finding him unsuitable we left him. Ever since then he has been very unfriendly towards us. F. H. Durbridge, Constable No. 942. Sergeant Mackay, in charge of Police, Nelson.

Police-station, Nelson, 7th November, 1901. Beport of Constable A. Burrell, No. 912, re Letter from A. B. Walker alleging he was not searched luhen he was placed in the Police Cells. I respectfully report that when prisoners Howard and Walker were brought to the police-station on the 10th ultimo I searched them in the presence of Sergeant Mackay, Constables Kemp and Durbridge. I took all personal effects from them. It is an absolute falsehood that they were not searched, and he had no such weapons on him as he alleges he had. Arthur Burrell, Constable 912. The Sergeant of Police in Charge, Nelson.

Sir, — Shelbourne Street, Nelson, 4th November, 1901. I have been requested by the police to state what I know concerning the treatment my nephew, A. B. Walker, who was arrested on the 9th ultimo, received while in custody and on bail, and my knowledge that he was fairly and well treated, and it was his own wish that he remained with them in place of returning home. He visited us while on bail, and it was through them he got it, as we were to allow him.to remain in custody as a further lesson. Yours, &c, The Sergeant of Police, Nelson. M. Barker.

H.—l6b

27

Brook Street, Nelson, 4th November, 1901. I, Harry James Howard, have been requested by the police to state all I know concerning the treatment I and A. B. Walker received while in custody. The police came to my parents' residence on the Bth ultimo, and asked me if I was willing to come to the police-station. On arriving at the station Sergeant Mackay asked me what I knew about the hams that were taken from Wilkie's. I said Walker and I took them, also a bridle. Sergeant Mackay asked me what I knew about Haase's dog. I told him Walker and I took the dog, which, with the hams, were at the camp at the back of the Maungatapu Eange, in the Pelorus. The sergeant asked me if I had anything else to say. I then told him of the various thefts Walker and I had committed, and where the articles were. I volunteered to take the police to where the camp was where I had left Walker. When I told my story to the sergeant it was about 12 midnight, and, as it was proposed to make a very early start in the morning, it was my wdsh that I be allowed to stay at the station for the night. Early next morning, in company with Constables Kemp and Durbridge, I was driven to the foot of the Maungatapu Eange by Sergeant Mackay. The two constables and I proceeded over the Maungatapu Eange. On the other side of the range we met a man who said he had come from Canvastown. I saw the two constables give him food, and treat him kindly. They never threatened him in any way, nor threatened to shoot him with a revolver. After he had finished his food he went on his way, and we resumed ours towards the camp, where we arrived the same evening. I, knowing that Walker would run away if he saw the police, advised one of them to go ahead. Constable Kemp crept through the bush and got close to Walker before he noticed him. I saw a struggle between the constable and Walker. Constable Durbridge ran over to Kemp's assistance, who were both on the ground. I saw Walker make repeated attempts to get away. I saw him handcuffed, and as he still persisted in trying to make his escape the constables put a pair of large handcuffs on his ankles. He was then carried to the tent by Constable Durbridge to pick out his own property from that which he had stolen. After this was done the handcuffs were removed from off his ankles. I slept that night handcuffed to Constable Durbridge, and Walker was handcuffed to Constable Kemp. I experienced no hardship through being handcuffed to the constable, nor did Walker. The following morning the handcuffs were removed from my wrist and Walker's. The constables made up portion of the stolen property into light swags. Walker's consisted of al2 lb. ham rolled in a blanket; mine two fryingpans, a bridle, a portion of a ham rolled in two blankets. I carried my swag without difficulty, and I heard Walker say his was the lightest swag he had carried over the range. It was of our own free-will that we carried these swags. On the return journey at the " horse-bridge "we visited a cave where there was a quantity of stolen property which I had pointed out the previous day. The constables each made up a heavy swag, and carried it to the foot of the range, where we were met by Sergeant Mackay with a trap. The property and ourselves were conveyed to Nelson Policestation, where we received food and kind treatment. We were both searched, and at night put into cells together. The following morning we were brought before the Court, and remanded until the 16th October. I received bail at the hands of my father. Walker said he did not want bail, as he was getting better treatment than he would receive at his home. I heard Walker volunteer to go back to the camp with the police and assist in getting the balance of the stolen property. I also would have gone back, but my father required me to assist him at the brick-kiln. I frequently met Walker on the street when he was on bail. He made no complaint to me of any harsh treatment. On the contrary, he said he was treated well. We did not have either sheath-knife, guns, nor ammunition or pocket-knives in the cell we slept in. I saw Constable Burrell search Walker before he was placed in the cell the first night. I was present at the police-station when Walker picked out his own property from amongst the stolen property, and said, " That's all that belongs to me," and put it into a sack. He asked the police if he would be allowed to leave it till he called for it. • Witness —John Howard. H. J. Howard. I heard my son make this statement. He made it of his free-will, and without pressure or threat. And lam thoroughly satisfied with the treatment my son received at the hands of the police in this matter. John Howard. P.S. —I have been requested by a certain party in this town to agitate against the police in this matter, with a view of causing trouble to the police. John Howard.

Police-station, Nelson, 16/10/01. Wilkie and Co.'s: Eeceived from the police, Nelson, two hams of bacon and one double-reined bridle and martingale. Wilkie and Co. Police-station, Nelson, 16/10/01. Tatton's : Eeceived from the police, Nelson, four blankets, one steel, and one chopper. A. Scott (for Mr. Tatton, October 17). Police-station, Nelson, 16/10/01. S. Kirkpatrick and Co. : Eeceived from thepolice, Nelson, 1 71b. tin white pepper, 8 tins jam, 19 tins baking-powder, 6 tins coffee, 2 tins carbonate soda, 3 tins tartaric acid, 8 bags rolled oats, 6 bags wheatmeal, 1 tin ground ginger. S. Kirkpatrick and Co. (p. J. Duff). Police-station, Nelson. Snodgrass : Eeceived from police, Nelson, 6 bars and 14 cakes of soap. E. Snodgrass (per W. S). Police-station, Nelson. Percival's : Eeceived from police, Nelson, two fryiDg-pans.

H.—l6b

28

Police-station, Nelson. Ward's : Eeceived from the police-station, Nelson, 1 cwt. potatoes. J. Ward. Police-station, Nelson. Noble : Eeceived from the police, Nelson, one 50 lb. bag of flour. John A. Cass. Police-station, Nelson. Newport: Eeceived from the police, Nelson, two pair gum-boots. William Newport.

Police Department (Commissioner's Office), Wellington, 25th March, 1902. Memorandum for the Eight Hon. the Premier. As directed in your two urgent memoranda, both bearing this date, I herewith beg to enclose the files bearing on the appointment of Constable Cullinane to Kumara Station, and result of inquiry into complaints against members of the Police Force at Nelson. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner. Premier's Office.—For Cabinet.—2sth March, 1902.

Police Department (Commissioner's Office, Wellington), 24th March, 1902. Memorandum for the Hon. the Minister of Justice. Complaints against Members of Nelson Police Force. £ have the honour to submit to you herewith the evidence taken by me at Nelson during an inquiry I held there between the 13th and 18th instant into six charges against Sergeant Mackay, three against Constable Burrell, three against Constable Durbridge, two against Constable Kemp, and one against Constable McGrath, together with my findings thereon, and in doing so I make the following remarks: — • None of the proved charges against Sergeant Mackay are of a serious character, the most serious being Nos. 2 and 3, omitting to enter in the station diary or report to his Inspector the particulars of the occurrences referred to in those charges. The question is whether those cases of neglect or omission unfit the sergeant for charge of a station. He has been a sergeant since 1894, and has been in charge of Nelson since the 10th September, 1898. He has never before been punished for misconduct as a sergeant, the last complaint recorded against him being on the 22nd April, 1890, when he was reprimanded. On the other hand, he has eight records of merit on his sheet, two of these records being for saving persons from drowning in Auckland Harbour. Under these circumstances I am of opinion that to remove this officer from charge of a station and place him on the streets in one of the large centres would be too great a punishment, and unless the charges against him are considered serious enough to warrant his removal from charge of a station there appears to be no reason why he should be removed from Nelson, as he would be equally as liable to repeat similar instances of neglect or omission at any other station as at Nelson. For the foregoing reasons I have not recommended his transfer. If, however, it is decided to remove him, Palmerston North Station will soon be vacant owing to the impending retirement of Sergeant-Major Eamsay through having reached the age-limit, and he could be sent there. With respect, however, to the removal of this sergeant, I.desire to bring under your notice the following, namely : — The attached letter, dated 13th instant, received by me from the Mayor of Nelson, together with the fact that on 18th instant a deputation consisting of Mr. Baigent, J.P., Mayor of Nelson, Mr. W. T. Bond, J.P., Mr. G. G. Eout, J.P., and Dr. Gibb, waited on me at the Nelson Police-station while I was there engaged in holding the inquiry, to express their high appreciation of the manner in which the police-work of Nelson had been carried out since Sergeant Mackay has been in charge at Nelson, and they trusted the sergeant would not be removed unless the inquiry disclosed offences against him which justified his removal. They went on to state that they feared the sergeant might be removed under any circumstances, as it was well known that a certain young man, the son of a Nelson resident who was supposed to have great influence with " the powers that be," had boasted in the hotels about Nelson that he would get the sergeant removed from Nelson. They pointed out how impossible it would be for the police to do their duty if it became suspected even that they could be removed at the will of persons such as those indicated. I gave the deputation no intimation as to what would be the probable outcome of the inquiry, and they did not seek to know. The deputation stated that they voiced a considerable section of the Nelson community, and I have reason to know that Mr. Graham, the member of the district, shares the opinion of the gentlemen forming the deputation. As regards Constables Durbridge, Kemp, and Burrell, I think it would be as well if these men were removed to other stations. The two former appear to have become too familiar with certain sections of the community at Nelson, and Burrell and Durbridge have, I fear, been too ready with their hands. The complaints against them, however, of assaults were of somewhat remote date, and as the persons aggrieved had their proper remedy before a Court (the offence alleged being a statutory one), where the evidence could have been taken on oath, I did not consider it right to go into such matters at a departmental inquiry, where the evidence is not on oath, and where private persons can say what they choose without fear of the consequences. In all charges of a statutory

29

H.—l6b

nature against the police, especially where the alleged offence has been committed by a constable not on duty, I make it a rule to refer the complainant to a Magistrate, unless the offence is a serious one and reported within a reasonable period of the commission, when I should direct the police officer of the district himself to lay an information against the offending member. The inquiry also discloses the fact that Constable Bird made a frivolous charge against Sergeant Mackay, which the evidence proved to be baseless, and that Constable Williams's word cannot be relied upon; indeed, he was so carried away by his desire to prove eases against his fellow-constables that in three instances he produced reports and memoranda in support of his statements which he said were made at the times of the several occurrences ; but these reports, &c, proved they were made at some subsequent date, probably, in my opinion, just prior to the inquiry, with the express intention of creating a wrong impression. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am of opinion that other stations should be found for Constables Bird and Williams, as well as Durbridge, Kemp, and Burrell, irrespective of whether or not Sergeant Mackay remains at Nelson. The remaining two constables (McGrath and Fanthorpe), the latter just transferred to Nelson, can, I think, be allowed to remain. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police. In Cabinet, 13th April, 1902.—Sergeant Mackay to be removed from Nelson, and not to have charge of a station for six months thereafter. Constables Burrell and Durbridge to be called upon to resign; Constable Kemp to be removed from Nelson.—Alex. Willis, Secretary. All other parties engaged in the quarrel to be removed.—J. McG. 16/4/02. In Cabinet, 16th April, 1902.—Approved.—A. Willis, Secretary.

(Urgent.) Premier's Office, Wellington, 25th March, 1902. Memorandum for the Commissioner of Police. With reference to your memorandum on my application to have the Nelson police papers for Cabinet, you ask the question if you are " to submit the files without first submitting them to the Minister, who has not been made acquainted with the result of the inquiry into the Nelson matter." The rule governing the question is that His Excellency the Governor, through any Minister, is entitled to see any papers and at any time. The Premier and any other Minister have the same right. It may happen that the Minister in charge of any particular Department may be absent, and a question of great urgency arise demanding immediate attention, and if the papers were unobtainable in the absence of that Minister it might lead to considerable trouble. In the absence of your Minister you are right in asking the question, but I spoke to Hon. Mr. McGowan before he left Wellington, informing him I should like to see the papers, and he said you were at Nelson and the inquiry was not complete, but that I should have the papers on your return. E. J. Seddon.

Premier's Office, Wellington, 25th March, 1902. Memorandum for the Commissioner of Police. Kindly let me have the papers connected with the police in Nelson, together with those on the subject of Constable Culinane being sent to the Coast. As these are required for Cabinet, I shall be glad to receive them at your earliest convenience. E. J. Seddon, Defence Minister.

Right Hon. the Premier. As the Hon. the Minister of Justice is now absent from Wellington, I beg to be informed if I am to submit the files named above without first submitting them to the Minister, who has not yet been made acquainted with the result of the inquiry into the Nelson matter. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner. 24/3/02.

Sir,— Nelson, 13th March, 1902. Hearing that your visit to Nelson is practically for the purpose of holding an inquiry into the conduct and efficacy of the Police Force in this city, I beg you will permit me, as this city's Chief Magistrate, and one whose duty it is to closely watch and note any defect or misconduct upon the part of any member of the Force, to lay before you my observations, and also to direct your attention to other matters which are, however, based upon general information, but without, so far as lam concerned, positive proof. At the same time you will please pardon my intrusion, and understand that it is not my desire or intention to attempt to interfere with a matter affecting your own Department (an interference on my part which would undoubtedly meet with a welldeserved rebuke at your hands). Of the purpose of this inquiry I know nothing, but I do happen to know that certain private citizens are trying to use their influence (the reasons for which I need not here discuss) to punish certain members of the police staff who have presumably incurred their displeasure, and who, I am informed, have openly expressed their intention of using their assumed political influence in the direction of doing them a positive injury. I had hoped to receive this evidence in writing, but so far I have not received it; otherwise I would, in fairness to our Police Force, long ere this have laid the matter before yourself or the Minister of Justice for investigation.

H.—l6b

30

• I quite recognise that the efficacy of the Police Force can only be maintained by strict supervision, but at the same time, when private citizens who assume to claim the ear and attention of Ministers of the Crown go so far out of their way as to hold out threats to any member of the Force, I feel a measure of justification in approaching you upon this subject with a view of defending those whom I believe to be innocent men from such cowardly, unjustifiable, and un-British attacks, such attacks as should by all right-thinking men be at once resented. I have no intention or desire to defend the police in any dereliction of duty (indeed, I conceive it to be my duty upon any such information becoming known to me to at once make the proper representations to the proper authority on behalf of the city), as it must be recognised by all that an efficient Police Force is highly essential for the safety, and peace, and well-being of any community. At the same time lam equally justified in resenting interference by private citizens. In justice to our local police and the officer in charge, I may be permitted (in my official capacity) to state that upon any occasion that the Council has had to communicate with them upon local matters we have always received prompt and careful attention to our requests. We are proud of the fact that we can claim for our city practically an immunity from crime and disturbance, more so, we believe, than any other city or town of the same size in the colony. This fact, I have reason to believe, you are already conversant with, and duly appreciate. Faithfully yours, Commissioner Tunbridge, Nelson. H. Baigent, Mayor.

Sergeant Mackay. Charge No. I. —lmproperly refusing Constable Bird access to the official statutes when the latter asked to be allowed to see them. Finding. —Constable Bird, in my opinion, absolutely failed to substantiate this charge. It was proved conclusively that the Sergeant's office, in which the statutes are kept openly on a shelf, was accessible to all the men practically at all times, night and day, and there was an entire absence of any evidence whatever to suggest that Constable Bird, or any other man on the station, was ever refused free access to the statutes. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 1. 13th March, 1902. Constable John Bird, No. 357, states :— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] About two and a half or three years ago I was on night duty on No. 1 beat. A few minutes past 11 p.m. I was opposite the Trafalgar Hotel, corner of Bridge and Trafalgar Streets. Sergeant Mackay came round and remarked on a light being in the bar of the Trafalgar Hotel. He entered the hotel, and when he came out he accused me of not knowing my duty, and said I ought to have gone in and seen that they closed up properly. I asked him how I was expected to know my duty when I did not have access to the statutes to read up. He replied that if I wanted to see the statutes I could buy copies of my own. He said he was not going to let everybody finger his statutes about. I replied that some of the statutes were in duplicate, and the spare copies ought to be left out for the men to see. The sergeant said there were only two or three duplicate copies, and I said there were nine or ten. Some angry words passed between us on that occasion on the subject of the statutes. The statutes and the duplicate copies are always kept in the sergeant's office. I have never referred to the subject since, so far as the sergeant is concerned. From what he said to me on that occasion I was afraid to take the statutes out of the office to peruse them. I have seen some of the men in the sergeant's office looking at the statutes on one or two occasions. When new statutes reach the station they have never been shown to me, nor, as far as I am aware, to the other men. Cross-examined by Sergeant Mackay.] On the occasion in question there were no other persons present except you and I. I do not remember seeing Constable McGrath. He did not join us that night before we separated at the corner of Hardy Street and Trafalgar Street. I do not remember seeing Constable McGrath before we separated. I remember on two or three occasions being left in charge of the office in your absence. From the time ex-Constable McDonald retired —he went on leave previous to retirement on 4th June, 1900 —until 3rd June, 1901, I was left in charge of the office whenever the sergeant was absent. I was in charge on the 3rd June, 1901. On that date I received a telegram from the Inspector stating that Constable Jeffires was to be placed in charge, and since then, as far as I now remember, I have not been left in charge. Since 3rd June, 1901, 1 have often been in the sergeant's office. When I have been in the office I could have perused the statutes; but owing to what you said two and a half or three years ago I did not touch them unless I wanted to see something in particular. On a few occasions last winter I sat by the fire in your office before 9 a.m. reading the newspaper, and I could have seen the statutes'had Iso desired. I remember on one occasion taking down one of the volumes of the statutes and referring to it while you were in the office. That was subsequent to the Trafalgar Hotel occurrence. You did not object to what I was doing. I think you told me to do so. I have been paraded both by the Inspector and Commissioner from time to time since the occasion in question, and asked if I had any complaints. I never complained of this matter. I abstained from complaining for fear that I might have to suffer at the hands of the sergeant if I did so. It has been understood that men who complained to the Inspector or Commissioner would have to suffer at the hands of the sergeant, irrespective of whatever the decision on their complaint might have been. The first complaint I made on this subject was in February last, when the Inspector requested me to make a report about anything that had occurred at the station within the last year or two. I then made a report. I did not submit the report through you as my next superior officer. I did not do so because the Inspector directed me to send it direct to him. I think I

31

H.—l6b

handed the report to the Inspector before he left Nelson. I have never suffered at your hands for anything I may have i-eported. I have seen what other men have suffered, one of whom was Constable Kelly, now in Dunedin. He complained to Inspector Ellison about his duties. He informed me that he had complained, and I knew he was in the office with the Inspector. His comolaint was on the ground that he had to do too much foot duty. lam aware that the key of the office is usually kept hanging in the passage. I have never been prevented from going into the office to consult the Gazette and statutes if I wished to do so, but after what you told me I never went to do so. There is a volume of selected statutes kept in the men's room. That has been there since Constable Durbridge came here. I have consulted it a few times. Be-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I do not remember if there was anything urgent on at the time you wired to have Constable Jeffries placed in charge. I generally come from my residence of a morning to read the paper. The office is open to allow of it being cleaned out before 9 a.m. I consider a man should be allowed to study the statutes at any time he is at leisure to do so, half an hour or an hour a day. I should want to take them out of the office to study them. I could not study them while the public and the men are in and out of the office or at the door. The sergeant objects to the men sitting about in the office for any length of time unless they have business in the office. After the complaint made by Constable Kelly to Inspector Ellison the sergeant used to parade the constable in uniform at 9 a.m. and send him out on duty. He had not done so before. This led to altercations between the constable and the sergeant, which resulted in the constable being reported and punished for insubordination. The constable was reported on a second occasion, and was then transferred to Dunedin. I did not submit the report handed to you in February last through the sergeant for fear I might have to suffer for so doing. I told you I was afraid to complain to you or the Commissioner. Sergeant Mackay was, I believe, away at Collingwood at the time you told me to make the report and hand it to you. Sergeant Mackay had returned from Collingwood before I handed you the report. Questions by Commissioner.] I joined the service on the 20th August, 1881. I had formerly just over two years in the Police Force. I had free access to the statutes prior to Sergeant Mackay coming to Nelson. Sergeant Mackay had been a few months only at the station when the Trafalgar matter occurred. The particular statute I then wished to refer to was "The Licensing Act, 1881," re persons being in the bar of a licensed house during prohibited hours. I was clear as to the law on the subject when the sergeant spoke to me, but I took that occasion to point out to the sergeant that men could not be expected to know the law unless they had access to the statutes. Sergeant Mackay's contention was that boarders had no right to be in the bar after the closinghour, and I maintained that there was no harm in the licensee having his bar lighted up after closing-hours to supply boarders. Prior to Sergeant Mackay coming to Nelson the men were allowed to take the bound volumes of statutes out of the sergeant's office to other parts of the station, or come and read them in the sergeant's office as long as they liked. During my upwards of twenty years' service I have been stationed in Nelson altogether eleven years and four months. I have served at Christchurch, Sydenham, Wellington, Kinnard, and Charleston. I was not, to the best of my belief, allowed to take the bound volumes out of the office at either Christchurch or Wellington. I cannot now recollect how we got access to the statutes at those stations. At Sydenham, Kinnard, and Charleston the statutes were under the control of the constables, there being no superior officer at those stations. John Bird. Defence. Sergeant Edward Mackay says : — Since I took charge of Nelson Station on 12th September, 1898, I have at no time refused any member of the Force access to the official statutes. The key of my office is always kept hanging in the passage, near the office-door. Whenever a member of the Force asks to see the statutes they are allowed access thereto when I have been in the office. When lam not in the office any member of the Force is at liberty to take the key and peruse the Gazettes, statutes, &c. If I saw any of the men perusing the statutes I have always assisted them in any point upon which they may have been in doubt. I deny having told Constable Bird that he would have to buy statutes if he wanted to consult them. I remember going past the Trafalgar Hotel about 11.10 p.m. one night shortly after I came to Nelson. I saw a light in the bar of the Trafalgar Hotel, and heard voices. I knocked at the side door of the hotel; Constable Bird was standing beside me. After about two minutes the door was opened. I walked sharply into the passage near the bar and told the constable to follow me. When in the passage I saw three men and the licensee in the passage. The bar was closed. I asked them if they were boarders, and they said they were. I informed the licensee he should not keep his bar open after hours. He replied he had not kept it open ; he was just giving his boarders a drink before he went to bed. I told him he would have to observe II o'clock more carefully in future : that 11 o'clock was 11 o'clock. I returned to the door, and saw Constable Bird standing there, and I said to him, " Why did you not come in with me?" He replied, " I did not know you wanted me." I told him it was his duty to follow the person visiting hotels closely to see and hear all that was said and done. He said, "You cannot expect me to know my duty if I cannot see the statutes." I said, " They are in the office for you to see at any time, but do not take them away." That was all that passed about the statutes. I walked along with him some distance on his beat, and asked him how the other hotels were, and he said, " All right." I went round myself and saw that the hotels in Trafalgar and Bridge Streets were closed. My office is always open to any of the men to come into and peruse the statutes when lam not engaged with any person in the office. Even if lam engaged I should not object to the men taking the statutes to any place on the station to read, but I object to them taking them off the station. Be Constable Kelly : At present I cannot recollect Constable Kelly ever having been punished or reported at my instigation. He was punished by Inspector Ellison for neglect of duty while

H.—l6b

32

temporarily employed at Spring Grove Station in connection with delay re correspondence. The reason Constable Kelly was more on foot duty after the report was owing to the troop-horse being turned out to grass. During the time the horse was turned out it was staked in the shoulder. It was stabled for a few days after the injury, and then turned out permanently into a paddock. Constable Kelly was then utilised for street duty in the ordinary way when I had other men employed compiling the jury-list and similar duty. I deny that any member of the Force at this station has been punished by me in any manner through having reported anything to his superiors. Gross-examined by Constable Bird.] The key of the office is, with the exception of perhaps once or twice in three months, when I may have something of importance in the office, hung in the passage. It is not a fact that when Constable Williams is on night duty or early morning duty the key is not hung in the passage. Ido not remember that on three nights when Constable Williams and you were on night duty that the key was not in its usual place. It, however, may have happened. It has not happened for a whole fortnight when Constable Williams has been on night duty. While Constable Kelly's horse was turned out I used to order him to parade at 9 a.m. daily, and if he had no factory duty to perform would send him to work the outskirts of the town, either north or south, as I might think fit. I have no recollection of speaking to you on the subject of Constable Kelly's duties at any time. I never told you that my object in turning out the horse was to show that a mounted man was not required at Nelson. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] The horse was turned out by direction of Inspector Ellison because mounted work was slack. I represented to Inspector Ellison that the work was slack. I do not remember that I recommended the horse should have a spell. As near as I remember, the question of the horse being turned out arose out of the forage return, which showed that the horse had been drawing full rations. The mounted duty was not as slack when Constable Aldridge went away, or shortly before he left, as it was when Constable Kelly was here. E. Mackay, Sergeant. Frederick Henry Durbridge, constable, stationed at Nelson :— Examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I have been stationed at Nelson since the 26th August, 1900, and prior to that I was stationed in Wellington. At no time since I have been stationed at Nelson have I ever been refused access to the statutes. I have no knowledge that any other member of the Force has been so refused. When on the early morning duty it has been my duty to sweep out the sergeant's office. I have alw T ays found the key hanging up in the passage behind the front door. lam a single man, residing on the station, and frequently, in the absence of the sergeant, I have had to answer the telephone when about the station. I have always found the key on these occasions in the usual place behind the front door. Gross-examined by Constable Bird.] I have occasionally failed to find the key behind the door when the sergeant may have been called away to his house suddenly for a few minutes. I have been on night duty with Constable Williams, and on those occasions I have always found the key in its usual place. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I am charged with an offence in connection with bringing two females to the police-station, and I understand the sergeant is charged with failing to report me for so doing. F. H. Durbridge. Constable Thomas Simpson Charles Kemp, stationed at Nelson, says:— Examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I have been at my present station since June, 1900. I have never been refused access to the official statutes since 1 have been on this station, and I have no knowledge of any other constable being so refused. If I want to get into the office during your absence I take the key from its usual place in the passage, and admit myself. I have always been able to obtain the key when I have wished to get into the office. When on the station and the sergeant -is absent I frequently have to enter the office to answer the telephone. [Not cross-examined.] Thomas S. C. Kemp, Constable. Constable Patrick McGrath,. stationed at Nelson, says : — Examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I have been stationed in Nelson about eight years. I have occasionally required the statutes when Sergeant Mackay has been absent. The key of the office is placed on a nail in the passage when the sergeant is absent, to enable the men to get anything from the office they might require. I have never been refused access to the statutes. Ido not know if any of the other men have ever been refused access to them. You have never refused me access to the statutes. I have had no difficulty in getting them if I required them. When I have been on the early morning relief I have always found the key of the office in its usual place in the passage. When on night duty I have always been able to get the key if I required it. Cross-examined by Constable Bird.] I have never asked Sergeant Mackay to let me see the statutes. They have always been in their place for me to see if I wanted to see them. I have always found the key in its place when I required it. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I have read the statutes from time to time, but I cannot state or specify any particular occasion. It may be six months ago since I last perused them. The sergeant has at no time done anything or said anything which led me to believe he was opposed to me seeing the statutes. I have never seen any of the men take the statutes out of the office to read. I have no recollection of the sergeant having, on receipt of the new statutes for the year, drawn our attention to any amendment of the law, or encouraged me to read the statutes. Be-cross-exammed by Sergeant Mackay.] There is a volume of statutes specially compiled for information of the police in the men's room at the station. 1 have never been refused permission to see this. The volume in question is the property of one of the single men, but I have always seen it lying on the table in the single men's room. I go into this room sometimes, but it is not a room generally used by the married men ; but there is no objection to the married men going into the room when they desire to do so. P. McGrath, Constable.

33

EL—l6b

Constable Arthur Burrell, stationed at Nelson, states: — Examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I have been at my present station about fourteen months, and was formerly at Dunedin about fifteen months. I have never been refused access to the official statutes since I have been in Nelson. In your absence, if I required to see the statutes I could get them. I could get into the office by using the key, which is hung on a nail in the passage. I have often to attend the telephone in your absence, and have always found the key when I wanted it. Cross-examined by Constable Bird.] I am unable to say whether or not the key was m its usual place the whole of the morning of the 11th instant. I was on night duty, and was then in bed. I am unable to say where the key was at 12.45 p.m. on the 11th instant. Ido not remember you standing at the office-door with some papers in your hand at the time named, or Sergeant Mackay coming into the passage and asking- me if I had the key. I do not remember handing Sergeant Mackay the key on the occasion in question. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I am positive I did not hand the sergeant the key on the 11th instant at 12.45 p.m. I have no recollection of whether or not I handed Sergeant Mackay the key of the office at the time in question. The sergeant did not ask me for the key on that occasion. I have a good memory as far as I know. The men on the station are continually in and out of the office, and on the date in question possibly I may have met the sergeant at the door and handed him the key, but I have not the slightest recollection of anything of the kind taking place. (Question: How do you reconcile the last answer that you may have done so, but have no recollection of it, with your positive statement just before that it did not take place ?) I have given all the explanation I have been able to give. I am aware that Sergeant Mackay is charged with not having reported the fact that Constable Durbridge and I brought two females to the station. By Commissioner.] At Dunedin there is a copy of the statutes kept in the library for any man to see. There is no library at Nelson Station. A. Burrell, Constable 912. Joseph Swindell Williams, constable, stationed at Nelson, says : — Examined by Commissioner.] I have been in Nelson since 2nd November, 1900. I have at no time been refused access to the official statutes by Sergeant Mackay. They are kept in the sergeant's office at the station on a shelf. I have never referred to the statutes in the sergeant's office, with the exception of on one occasion I wished to refer to the Justices of the Act, and I then asked the sergeant to let me see it, and he handed me a volume, but I could not find what I wanted. I examined the volume in the passage at the station, where there is a table. When I have wished to refer to the statutes I have gone to the bound volume of selected statutes in the single men's room. The statutes in,that volume are in a much handier form than having to wade through numerous volumes such as are in the sergeant's office. Cross-examined by Constable Bird.] I have not at all times, night and day, access to the sergeant's office to peruse the statutes. Thekey of the sergeant's office has not lately always been hanging on the nail in the passage. I have not seen it on the nail for some time past when I have been on night duty. On the night Walker and Howard were locked up in the cells the key was on the nail; that was on 10th October last. The key was not on the nail during the last fortnight I was on night duty. The last night duty ended on 10th instant. Previous to the last fortnight's night duty the key was not regularly on the nail. It was there on some occasions. It has not always been on the nail when I have been on early morning duty. I have sometimes had to wait for the sergeant to let me in to clean out the office. The reason I did not go to the sergeant's office to consult the statutes more frequently was because I thought the book in the men's room a much handier book. I cannot say whether or not the sergeant is agreeable for the men to come into his office ; I have not troubled him lately. By Commissioner.] The sergeant has never told me not to come into the office or done anything to keep me out of the office during reasonable hours. If I had wished to consult the statutes I dare say I could have done so.

Telegram. Sergeant Mackay, Motueka. 3rd, June 1901. Following from Inspector : If Sergeant Mackay has not already left Constable Jeffries in charge during his absence at Motueka, let it be done at once.—John Bird, Constable.

Beport of Constable John Bird re Sergeant Mackay's Eefusal to let him peruse the Statutes. Police-station, Nelson, 6th March, 1902. I beg respectfully to report that one night, some two and a half or three years ago—l do not recollect the date—l was on night duty on No. 1 beat a few minutes after 11 p.m., when, in consequence of something that had happened at the Trafalgar Hotel with reference to the Licensing Act, Sergeant Mackay found fault with me for not knowing my duty. I asked the sergeant how I could possibly know the law when I was not allowed to see the statutes, which were always kept in his office, where no one but himself could see them. His reply was that if I wanted to see the statutes I must buy copies for my own use, as he did not want every one fingering his statutes. The consequence is I have never yet seen any of the statutes of the last three years. I have been afraid to ask to see them since in consequence of what the sergeant said to me upon that occasion. They are still kept in the sergeant's office. John Bird, Constable No. 357. Sergeant Mackay, in charge of Police, Nelson.

5—H. 16b.

34

H.—l6b

Sergeant Mackay. Charge No. 2. —Omitting to bring under the notice of his Inspector the fact that Charles Eemnant, of Vincent Street, Nelson, had complained to him of being assaulted by Constable Burrell about February, 1901. Finding. —The sergeant ought at least to have made an entry of this complaint in the diary under the heading of " Occurrences," and it would have been better had he submitted a report to his Inspector. The constable at the time of the alleged assault was not on duty, and the offence was a statutory one; Eemnant therefore had his remedy in the Magistrate's Court. Had the alleged assault been committed by the constable while on duty there would have been absolutely no excuse for the sergeant not reporting the matter. As the constable was not on duty at the time, the sergeant, in the exercise of his discretion, might not have considered it necessary to report the matter; but I cannot accept that as a sufficient excuse, and therefore convict him of this charge, and caution him to be more careful in future. I think, under all the circumstances, that is sufficient punishment. J- B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 2. 13th March, 1902. Charles Eemnant, carter, residing at St. Vincent Street, Nelson, says:— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] About 16th February, 1901, I came to Nelson Policestation about 9.30 p.m. to see the sergeant, and did see him at the station later on. I told him that I had been insulted (by insulted I mean that Constable Burrell had struck me). I told the sergeant that Mr. Symes, his wife, myself, and a little child I had charge of were walking down the lower end of Bridge Street when I heard some one call out " Eemnant" three times. I went back and saw Constable Burrell, who struck me in the jaw and knocked me down. He said, "You know what that is for, you beggar." When getting up he made an attempt to strike me again. I told the sergeant Mr. Symes and his wife were present at the time. I also told the sergeant that another constable whom I thought was Williams was with Constable Burrell. (I subsequently ascertained that the other constable was Durbridge). I told the sergeant the constable had said his conduc#towards me was through my having told yarns about him. I told the constable if he did not stop I would go to the police-station about him. After I had told my story to the sergeant he asked me if I had said anything about the constable, and I told the sergeant I had seen Constable Burrell in the Post Boy Hotel, and I was asked who he was and if I knew him before he came to Nelson. I told the people who asked me that -I knew him when he was bushfalling at Pahiatua, and that he had not been long in the Force. When he left Pahiatua he was accused of his dog having worried eighteen sheep. I did not know about the dog having worried the sheep ;an old gentleman in the town had told me such was the case. The sergeant said Burrell was one of the quietest men he had on the station, and advised him to let the matter drop. I told the sergeant that if I did let the matter drop the constable would have me some other way. The sergeant said he would see that it would be all right. Cross-examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I saw you in Bridge Street on the night of the occurrence, about 10 p.m. There was a gentleman with you; Ido not know who it was. I was sober. You came back direct to the police-station with me and left the gentleman. I did not see any other person when we reached the station. I was quite sober. When I reached the office I told you I had been insulted by Burrell. The only persons I have repeated this story to are the sergeant and the Inspector. I remained in the office till after 11 p.m. You wrote a lot down. The police interfered with me once, and accused me of being drunk, but my wife came out of the Post Boy Hotel and told the police to leave me alone, and they did so, and I went home with my wife. You did not tell me to put my complaint in writing, and I did not say I would do so and let you have it next morning. You appeared to be writing down what I told you. I did not speak to any police officer on the matter after I saw you until Inspector Macdonell saw me at the Masonic Hotel about three weeks ago. I was told the Inspector was in town, and I then went to see him. When I saw him at the Masonic Hotel the Inspector took down my statement the same as I have made it here to-day. The statement I have given to-day is what happened between you and I. I came from Bridge Street to the police-station with you and did not follow after you; 1 have a witness who can prove that. The witness is named Friend. He followed us to the station. Questioned by the Commissioner.] On the 3rd October last Constable Burrell summoned me for not having my cart-wheel chained. I was fined 2s. 6d. and 7s. costs for this offence. lam aware that I can lay an information before a Magistrate against any person who knocks me down. I did not do so, as I thought if I told the sergeant it would be a warning to Burrell. I was content to allow the matter to remain at that until I found that the constable was interfering with me. The interference was as follows : One Saturday night, about March last year, I was walking down the lower end of Hardy Street with a friend (my nephew), when the constable, who was standing in a doorway, said, " I heard what you said about Durbridge." I made no reply, and walked on. The constable, who was in uniform, followed us, and said I was no good and wanted a good dressingdown. I told him he could not do it. He thereupon jumped into the middle of the street at the corner of Waimea and Hardy Streets and acted as if about to take off his coat to fight me, but did not take off his coat. I made no complaint of this until I saw the Inspector about three weeks ago. I kept quiet about the matter until I was summoned by Constable Burrell, and I then thought to myself, I will keep quiet until I get a chance to explain myself. lam convinced it was on a Saturday night that the last occurrence between Constable Burrell and myself took place. There was some play on at the theatre. Charles Eemnant.

35

H.—l6b

14th March, 1902. Joseph Symes, labourer, living at the Bush Tavern, Nelson, says : — Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I remember being in the company of Charles Eemnant at the lower end of Bridge Street, Nelson, about February last year. It was on a Saturday night, between 10 and 10.30 p.m., or somewhere thereabouts. Eemnant, my wife, and I were present. There was no child present. (When the statement was being read over to the witness he stated, "I am not now certain whether or not Eemnant had a little child with him.") Two men in private clothes, whom I did not know, passed us. After they had got a little way past one called out " Eemnant." I heard the word repeated three times. Eemnant said, " Yes, sir," and turned back to the men who had passed us. The men were 30 or 40 yards distant. When Eemnant got within reach of the man's arm he got a smack in the jaw which knocked him dowm in the road. When he got up he said, " What is this for?" The man said, " You b , you know what it is for." Some remarks passed about carrying yarns, which I did not get hold of. The man only struck Eemnant once ; but he struck at him afterwards, but did not strike him. Eemnant got out of the way. The men walked away along the road towards Nelson, and Eemnant returned to where my wife and I were standing. I noticed the side of his face was swollen up ; I do not remember which side. Eemnant soon afterwards left us, saying he would go and see the sergeant. I saw Eemnant again about three-quarters of an hour or an hour afterwards at his own house, in St. Vincent Street, Toitoi Valley. I was living in the same house with Eemnant. On his return he said he had seen the sergeant, who told him he would reprimand the man, and he thought the best thing he could do would be to hush the matter up and let it drop. Cross-examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I cannot state when I first met Eemnant that evening after leaving my lodgings in his house. I believe I did meet him somewhere near the Co-operative Store. lam unable to say how long I was in Eemnant's company before the occurrence in question. While we were together that evening we had one drink together. We had only one drink. lam unable to tell you the house where we had the drink. I think Eemnant left me once after we met that evening, I think to go to the Co-operative Store; but lam unable to say if he left me more than once. I can say Eemnant did not have a few glasses of beer in my company that evening. I did not see Eemnant go to the Co-operative Store; I fancied he went there. I waited about in the street until Eemnant returned to me. Eemnant, when he met me, may have had two or three drinks. I did not go to the police-station with Eemnant. When Eemnant returned to his lodgings he did not appear to have any more drink than he had at the time he left me. lam not certain whether or not I was in bed when Eemnant returned home. My wife and I occupied a sleepingroom to ourselves. Eemnant did not come into my room that night, but he might have gone to the door. Eemnant, to my knowledge, did not bring any drink home with him. I went out into the diningroom and had a talk with Eemnant after he returned home. lam unable to say whether I was fully dressed or only had my pants on when I went to Eemnant in the dining-room. I believe I have a clear recollection of what took place after Mr. Eemnant returned home. I believe my wife went into the dining-room after Eemnant returned home. It was not a moonlight night, and it was not a dark night. I am unable to say whether or not there was a lamp alight. Very likely I have been half-tight since I have been in Nelson. My wife and I separated about a fortnight ago. It was not through drink we separated. Drink was not the cause of it. I went to the Inspector of Police about four or five weeks ago. Mr. Eemnant came to me at Whakapuaka and asked me to go and see the Inspector at the Masonic Hotel, Nelson. He told me the Inspector of Police was in Nelson, and wanted me to go and state what I saw when he had that bit of a squabble or scrape. I went to the Masonic Hotel and saw the Inspector. I told the Inspector, as near as I can remember, what I have stated here. I believe the Inspector read over to me what he had written down. I cannot say for certain. No conversation has taken place between Mr. Eemnant or Constable Williams about what I was wanted for at the policestation. Mrs. Eemnant told me she believed I was wanted at the police-station about the affair of her husband. Questioned by Commissioner.] I do not know of my own knowledge who the men were that passed us on the night in question or the man who struck Eemnant. I could not recognise the men again. Although Eemnant might have had two or three glasses of beer before I met him on the night in question, the drink on him was not apparent to me. I do not remember having had any drink that evening except the glass I had with Eemnant. I had passed the whole evening walking up and down the street with my wife. I cannot say what time I left my lodgings that evening or the time I returned. I believe we were home before 11 o'clock, but cannot be certain. I remember the actual words used by Eemnant and the man who struck him, and also that Eemnant and I had one drink only together that evening, but I cannot remember clearly any other particulars. J. Symes. Mrs. Myra Symes, wife of Joseph Symes, states: — Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I remember about the latter end of February, 1901, one Saturday night my husband, myself, Mr. Eemnant, and a little baby boy were passing along the lower end of Bridge Street, Nelson. Two men passed us going towards the town. We were going in the direction of the Port. After they had passed us, one of the men called out " Eemnant" three times. Eemnant replied, "Yes, sir," and turned back and went towards the men. Almost immediately afterwards I heard some voices using bad language, and then I heard a fall; I then looked back and saw Eemnant lying on the ground. He got up and said, " What is this for? " One of the other men replied something to the effect that you know what it is for ; you have been telling lies. One of the men then struck Eemnant again, and again knocked him down. The other man said, "Give it to him; he deserves all he gets." Bad language was

H.—l6b

36

repeated. Some other man came along, and said to my husband, " Don't you think he has had enough?" My husband and the strange man went towards Eemnant and the other two men then walked away. Eemnant told my husband he would go and lay information with the sergeant, and then left us. We went on to the Globe Hotel, and my husband gave me a drink because I was upset, and we then went home. Eemnant returned home soon after we reached there. As near as I can judge, it would be about 11.10 p.m. when we reached home. When Eemnant reached home he said the sergeant had told him it would be best to let it drop or pass over. Cross-examined by Sergeant Mackay.] We left home early in the evening, I think about 7.30 p.m. or 8 p.m. My daughter, Eemnant, Symes (my husband), and the baby boy all left home with me. I think we went to the New Zealand Clothing-factory. I think we all went together to the Clothing-factory. I could not say how long I remained in the Clothing-factory. When I finally left the Clothing-factory I took with me the clothes I had purchased. My husband and Eemnant were outside the Clothing-factory when I left. I cannot say whether or not my husband and Eemnant had a drink together that night. My husband had a drink with me at the Globe Hotel after the occurrence. Eemnant was not then present. I should think the distance between Eemnant and us when the blow was struck was as far as from me to the drill-shed (about 14 yards). The night was neither dark nor light. The two men were in private clothes of a dark colour. Eemnant was wearing a dark-brown overcoat. We had one drink each at the Globe Hotel. My husband and I have separated through him taking drink and ill-using me. On the night of the occurrence Eemnant had a drop of drink before he came home, but he had none while in my company. I cannot say what he might have had with my husband when they were away from me. I remember they left me in Bridge Street when I went into Clement's shop. They went into next door to Clement's and had a drink. Be-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I am sure Eemnant and all of us left home together. On consideration, I am now of opinion that Eemnant did not leave home with us, but followed us and joined us at the Clothing-factory. It wa3 not at the Co-operative Store that Eemnant joined us that evening. lam convinced Eemnant was knocked down twice. I was nearly fainting when the occurrence was going on. Myra Symes. Defence. 15th March, 1902. Sergeant Edward Mackay states : — I have been in charge of Nelson Station about three years and six months. I have been in the Police Force nearly twenty-six years, and a sergeant since 1894. On 6th instant I made a report in answer to this charge, and submitted same to Inspector Macdonell. The report now shown me is the one I made. Ido not desire to add anything to that report or withdraw anything stated therein. [Eeport hereto annexed.] Complaint No. 2. I beg to state that a man named Charles Eemnant, of indifferent character, called at this station in the early part of last year. He. was in a semi-drunken condition, and stated that he had been insulted by Constable Burrell. As the man was in a muddled state with drink, and could not tell me anything further than kept on saying he was insulted, I suggested that he put his complaint in writing. This he said he would do. I heard nothing further of him or his complaint until I heard of it by attached memorandum, No. 161. I took it that the man's complaint was an imaginary one while in a semi-drunken state, and the fact that he did not put his complaint in writing, as he said he would. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I asked Constable Burrell if he had insulted the man Eemnant. He said, No ; but that he had ordered him off the footpath on several occasions. To the best of my recollection, that was all that took place between myself and Constable Burrell on the subject. I cannot now remember when I spoke to Constable Burrell. I cannot say how soon after the complaint was made that I spoke to Constable Burrell. Questioned by Commissioner.] I made no entry in the diary of Eemnant's complaint. I merely told Constable Burrell the man Eemnant had complained to me of having been insulted by him. The reason I did not make an entry in the diary under the heading of " Occurrences " was because I did not consider the complaint was a bond, fide one, and, secondly, I was waiting to receive the complaint in writing. E. Mackay. Sergeant Mackay. Charge No. 3. —Omitting to report that Constables Durbridge and Burrell had improperly taken two single females, named Smith and Kitching, into the single men's mess-kitchen at Nelson Police-station about midnight on the 18th July last. Finding.— There is no dispute as to the facts of this case, full particulars of which are set forth in the evidence hereto annexed. Constables Durbridge and Burrell took the young women on to the station to have supper. The females are respectable, and there is no suggestion whatever that anything of an immoral nature took place or was intended. The action of the constables was, no doubt, most indiscreet and liable to be misconstrued. In view of a wrong construction being placed on the constables' action, the sergeant should have entered the matter in the diary and reported it to the Inspector. He is reprimanded, and cautioned to be more careful in future. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

37

H.—l6b

Charge No. 3. 15th March, 1902. Joseph Swindell Williams, constable, stationed at Nelson, states : — Examined by Inspector Macdonell. —l remember on the 18th July, 1901, at about 12.20 a.m., when coming from the Government Buildings towards the police-station, seeing Constable Burrell, who was in uniform and supposed to be on No. 2 beat, go into the police-station and almost immediately come out again. He then went to the corner of the street, and returned to the station with Constable Durbridge, who was in plain clothes, and two females, named Kate Smith and a Miss Kitching. I went into the passage of the station and could then hear them all talking together in the single men's mess-room. I then went and called up Sergeant Mackay and reported what I had seen. The sergeant then came to the station. He went into the mess-room and then returned to the passage and called out Constable Burrell. The sergeant and Constable Burrell then went into the sergeant's office together and remained there together some little time —a few minutes. After coming out of the office the sergeant said to me, " Constable Durbridge had brought his girl in to supper ;we will attend to this matter in the morning." The two young women and the constables left the mess-room soon afterwards, and all went away together along St. John's Lane or Harley Street. I saw nothing more of any of the party that night, except Constable Burrell, who came off duty at 1 a.m. Ido not know why he came off at that time, but I remember the sergeant told him to come off at 1 a.m. when we were paraded for duty at 9 p.m. I made a report of the occurrence the following day, and was about to hand it to the sergeant, when he said there was no necessity to report the matter. I did not put the report in, but retained it until I handed it to you about three weeks ago. The report I handed to you was the identical report I made to hand to the sergeant the day of the occurrence Kate Smith at that time was a barmaid at the Eoyal Hotel. lam not aware that she has been barmaid at any other hotel in Nelson. Miss Kitching was about that time, I believe, in the employment of Mr. Jones, who keeps a bootshop in Bridge Street, Nelson. I believe the young women are related to one another through marriage. Cross-examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I first made a report on the matter on the same day of the occurrence, after I got out of bed. I told you on the verandah of the station that day that I had made a report. I said nothing to any one about the matter after that until the Inspector spoke to me during the Nelson Jubilee festivities about the matter. This would be some time during the first half of February ultimo. I think the Inspector spoke to me first on the subject. The Inspector asked me something about two females being on the station. The Inspector asked me if I remembered some girls coming into the station. I said " Yes." I had not given my report to the Inspector prior to that date. The Inspector asked me if I would give him a report on the subject, and I did so. I had the report all ready, and gave it him. I did not give you the report, as you told me the Commissioner would only laugh at me. lam positive I made out the report which I handed to the Inspector on the 18th July last year after I got out of bed on that date, with the intention of handing the report to you, and I should have handed the report to you had not you told me the Commissioner would only laugh at me. No third person was present when the conversation between you and I occurred on the verandah on the 18th July. I went to Greymouth on the 2nd March instant. I then wrote a report for the Inspector, but that report had no reference to this matter. I made no report whatever on this matter at that time. lam sure it was Constable Burrell who came into the office with you on the night of the occurrence in question. The constable and you might have been together in the office five minutes. The Inspector first spoke to me in the street. I did not go to him. I first saw the young women as they were entering the station. The two constables were with them. I called you up within five or ten minutes of seeing the females enter the station. I was waiting about the passage at the station during the period which elapsed between the females entering the station and calling you. You remained at the station about five or ten minutes after you had been into the mess-room and seen the females. The constables and females left the station while you were standing in front of the station-door. Ido not know anything against the character of either of the young women. Questions by Commissioner.] While the females were in the mess-room the door leading into the mess-room was open, and any person standing in the passage could hear the laughing and talking going on. The gas in the mess-room was, as far as I could see, turned full on. I saw nothing to lead me to believe there was anything improper going on between the men and women while they were in the mess-room. There is no mistake about the report I handed to the Inspector about three weeks ago being the identical report written on the same sheet of paper which I made on the IBth July, 1901, and which I should have handed to the sergeant had he not said the Commissioner would only laugh at me if I did so. The report, when I was about to hand it to the sergeant, was in exactly the same condition as it now appears, with the exception of the stamp and the pencil notes in margin. lam unable to explain how it is that the remarks alleged to have been made by the sergeant about the Commissioner laughing at the matter appear in the report, which I have stated was made before such remarks were uttered. I may not have had the report finished when the matter was discussed between the sergeant and myself. J. S. Williams. Defence. Sergeant Edward Mackay states : — I made a report in answer to this charge on the 6th instant, and desire that report put in. [Beport hereto annexed.] Complaint No. 3. I beg to state that one night during last winter Constable Williams called me up and informed me that there were women in the men's mess-room. I went to the mess-room, and there saw two young women, who I knew to be respectable, also Constables Durbridge and Burrell—one of the

H.—l6b

38

young women, a Miss Smith, to whom Constable Durbridge is engaged to be married ; the other her cousin, a Miss Kitching. They were all sitting at the table having some supper. I called Constable Durbridge to my office and informed him that it was very wrong of him or any other constables to take females into the police-station, and that it looked bad, and some persons would put a bad construction on his act. The constable explained that he had been to a social which lasted until late, and the young ladies had to pass the police-station on their way home, and when passing the police-station he, in a joke, asked the young ladies to have a cup of tea, not thinking they would accept his invitation. I admonished the constable for his act of indiscretion, and had I not known the young ladies to be of good character I certainly would have reported the matter at the time. It is the first and only act of the kind that has occurred since I have been here. I may say that Constable Burrell, who was on night duty, had done extra duty during the day—viz., being on duty at reception of returning troops from South Africa, and I had allowed him to go off duty at 2 a.m. This accounted for his being in the station at the time. In view of Constable Williams's evidence, I now desire to add that I did not take Constable Burrell into my office on the night in question. It was Constable Durbridge I took into the office. I did not speak to Constable Williams on the subject either that night after leaving the station or at any subsequent time. Constable Williams did not tender a written report to me on the subject at any time. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] After speaking to Constable Durbridge on the matter I went straight off to bed. I did not see Constable Williams in front of the station when I left to go to my house. I did not notice any person from the time I left the office until I reached my gate, about 15 yards distant. I then looked round and saw what I believed to be the two females in question and Constable Durbridge passing the police-station lamp. I did not think it necessary to make sure that the females were off the premises before I left. I was under the impression they had left the station while I was in my office. I am unable to state what the time was, as I did not look at the clock. I find on reference to the diary that Constable Burrell was on duty from 9 p.m. 17th till 1 a.m. 18th July, and was required for duty again at 7 a.m. in connection with the return of men from South Africa. Questions by Commissioner.] The statement in my report to the effect that Constable Burrell went off duty at 2 a.m. 18th July is incorrect. He went off at 2 a.m. on 19th July, instead of 18th July, and on the 18th at 1 a.m. E. Mackay. Frederick Henry Durbridge, constable, states :— Examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I remember bringing Miss Smith and Miss Kitching .on to the police-station at Nelson one night last winter. I took them into the mess-room. Constable Burrell was with us. When we reached the station it was about 1.30 a.m. After we were in the mess-room about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour you came into the mess-room. You called me into your office. You asked me what I brought the women on to the station for, and told me it was a very wrong thing to do. You said that as it was the first time such a thing had happened you would not report the matter, but do not let it occur again. I told you we were coming home from a dance, and had met Constable Burrell, who was coming off duty, and after standing talking a little while at the corner of Collingwood and Hardy Streets one of us (Burrell or myself) suggested the young ladies should come and have some supper, not thinking the invitation would be accepted. The young women, however, accepted the invitation, and we then brought them to the station and gave them some supper. We were all having supper when the sergeant came into the room. After leaving your office I returned to the mess-room and remained a few minutes and then left. We might have remained between five and ten minutes. Ido not know when you left the office. I could not say where you went after leaving the office. When leaving the station I saw Constable Williams standing opposite the station, in front of the sergeant's office. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I do not recollect the date of the occurrence. I met Constable Burrell coming up Hardy Street, at the corner of Collingwood Street. The two females were with me at the time. We came to the station, lam pretty well sure, by way of Hardy Street and Harley Street. We did not stand outside the station before coming in. I cannot say who came in first; we all followed closely. I have no recollection of Constable Burrell coming into the station and then coining out again before we all entered. I believe Constable Burrell was to come off duty at 2 a.m. The constable told me he was coming off at 2 a.m. lam sure he said he was coming off at 2 a.m. lam not sure which one of us invited the females into the station. I did not see Constable Williams as I came into the station. I did not notice any one walking about the station while we were in the mess-room, until the sergeant came into the mess-room. I did not hear the sergeant leave his office. I did not see anything of the sergeant when we were leaving the station. Constable Burrell did not accompany us from the station, as far as I remember ; I would not be positive about it. I did not consider it an improper action to bring the females on to the station. I have never seen anything of the kind at that hour of the night. I had leave from the sergeant to go to a social that evening. No time was mentioned. The social was held in the Catholic school-room, off Collingwood Street. Miss Kitching was living at Jones's boot-shop, Bridge Street—the upper end; and Miss Smith at the Eoyal Hotel, as housemaid. We should not have had necessarily to pass the police-station to get to the girls' lodgings. Had we gone the nearest possible route it would have taken us within about 100 yards of the station. Arthur Burrell, constable, states :— Called and examined by Commissioner.] I remember the night Miss Kitching and Miss Smith were brought to the station. The sergeant told me when going on duty to come off about 2 a.m. ; and about 1.45 a.m., as near as I can remember, I was proceeding towards the station, and when at the corner of Collingwood and Hardy Streets met Constable Durbridge with the two females. I told Constable Durbridge I was going off duty. I did not remark the time I was to go off duty.

39

H. —16b

The sergeant came into the mess-room while we were all there. He called Constable Durbridge into the office. I remained in the mess-room with the females, drinking my cocoa, until Durbridge returned. Constable Durbridge then took the females away, as near as I can remember. I did not leave the station. I spoke to the sergeant in the passage. He censured me for allowing the females into the station, and said if it happened again he would report us for it. Cross-examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I am sure you spoke to me that night before you went out. As far as I can remember, you went straight out after leaving the office. You spoke to me next day about it as well. The conversation that night occurred in the passage, as near as I can remember. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] It was the day before or the following day that I was doing extra duty, which entitled me to come off early. The sergeant told me I was to come off about 2 a.m. Had there been people about I should not have come off at that time. lam positive is was 2 o'clock that was mentioned to me that night. Ido not know what the books say as to the time I came off. Ido not think lam mistaken about the time. I may have passed the remark to Constable Durbridge that I was going off duty at 2 o'clock, or about 2 o'clock. It was so long ago now. As far as I can remember, we all entered the station together. We had not the slightest idea we were doing wrong ;we just walked in boldly. I cannot say I have ever known of a similar occurrence. Re-examined by Commissioner.] While we were in the mess-room the light was turned full on and the door leading into the passage wide open. I was aware that Constable Durbridge was at that time, and still is, engaged to Miss Smith. Arthur Burrell.

Sergeant Mackay. Charge No. 4. —Neglect of duty in not reporting Constable Durbridge, whom he saw lying asleep on the floor of the Nelson Police-station, at 4 a.m. 19th November last, while the constable should have been on duty. Finding. —This charge rests entirely on the uncorroborated evidence of Constable Williams. This constable's evidence during the inquiry was proved in several instances by his own reports and memoranda to be untrue. Under these circumstances I acquit the sergeant on this charge. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 4. sth March, 1902. Joseph Swindell Williams, constable, states :— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I was on night duty on morning of 19th November last on No. 1 beat. Constable Durbridge was on No. 2 beat. I visited the station at intervals during the night. The station is usually visited at 11.30 p.m., and from then every two hours. Constable Durbridge and I went on duty together at 9 p.m. 18th November. Ido not remember whether or not I saw him on his beat that night. About 4 a.m. 19th November I saw the constable lying down on the floor of the mess-room, apparently asleep. Sergeant Mackay came out from the mess-room putting on an overcoat. At that time I was on the verandah putting out the lights. I did not see the sergeant in the mess-room, but I heard footsteps in the mess-room while I was on the verandah, and when I got round to the front of the station I saw the sergeant on the verandah in front of the station buttoning up a waterproof. I think the sergeant said something to me about going up the Maitai Eiver. Just at that time Constable Kemp came out of the station on to the verandah, and the sergeant and he left the station together. I re-entered the station after they had left, and saw Constable Durbridge still lying on the floor in the mess-room. He was still asleep, and I woke him up. I then left the station and went away on my beat. I did not see the constable after that. I came off duty at 5 a.m., but I do not remember seeing Constable Durbridge then. Cross-examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I really forget the circumstances under which I came to mention the matter to the Inspector. The Inspector first came to me —I think, while I was on duty. I heard footsteps in the mess-room while I was near the verandah about to put out the lights. I did not see you in the mess-room. Ido not know that you were in the mess-room, but I heard footsteps in the mess-room which I took to be yours. I am sure the footsteps were in the mess-room and not in the sergeant's office. I saw you leave the station by the front door on to the verandah. At the time I saw you come out of the front door I was not in a position to see whether you came out of your office or out of the mess-room. The first I saw you that morning was, I believe, when you stepped out of the front door on to the verandah. I did not see you go to the station. It did not seem many seconds from the time you came out of the front door before Constable Kemp came out. I saw Constable Kemp and you go towards the Government Buildings. I think I did, but I am not certain. I could not say how much of my beat I worked after you left the station and before coming off duty at 5 a.m. I think you and Constable Kemp left the station together. I am, to the best of my knowledge, certain you and the constable went towards the Government Buildings. Questions by Commissioner.] When Constable Kemp came out of the station he was fully dressed in private clothes, with a waterproof on. He came out from the men's sleeping-room. I had not seen him about the station before that morning. The men usually keep their waterproofs in the mess-room. If Constable Kemp was wearing a waterproof, and I believe he was, presumably he must have got the waterproof out of the mess-room. I, at the time, believed the footsteps I heard in the mess-room were the sergeant's footsteps, but I am unable to say positively that the

H.—l6b

40

footsteps I heard might not have been those of Constable Kemp. It is not an unusual thing to see a constable lying asleep on the floor of the mess-room. There are chairs and a table in the messroom, and the men's sleeping-room is on the opposite side of the passage. I did not call Sergeant Mackay's attention to Constable Durbridge lying on the floor, and the first report I made on the matter was when the Inspector asked me to report, about three weeks ago. I cannot now say how it was this particular question arose. I mean, whether the Inspector first mentioned it to me or Ito him. Ido not remember the sergeant telling me to go off at 5 a.m. when he left with Constable Kemp. J. S. Williams. Defence. Sergeant Edward Mackay states : — I made a report in answer to this charge on the 6th instant. The report now shown to me is the one made. [Eeport attached hereto.] Complaint No. 4. 1 beg to state that the allegation is absolutely untrue. I may say that had lat any time during any constable's hours of duty found him asleep, either at the station or elsewhere, I certainly would have reported him forthwith. I cannot understand why any person should concoct such a malicious falsehood. I desire to add nothing to that report, and submit the evidence has failed to substantiate any charge against me. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell. —l was not in the mess-room on the morning in question. The only portion of the building I entered was my own office. I did not call Constable Kemp. He was up and dressed, and just came out of the men's bedroom as I left my office. Questions by Commissioner. —l arranged with Constable Kemp the previous night to accompany me that morning up the Maitai Eiver to detect poaching. The time arranged was 4.45, or thereabouts. • E. Mackay.

Sergeant Mackay. Charge No. 5. —Taking Constable Kemp with him on a private matter (to look after an eelbasket) at 4.15 a.m. 19th November last, and thereby preventing the constable from taking up his duties at 4.45 a.m., 19th November, thus leaving the town without police protection. Finding. —The sergeant states that on the morning in question he proceeded up the Maitai Eiver to detect poaching, and not on a private matter. The evidence of Constable Williams (the only witness against the sergeant) cannot be considered of much weight unless corroborated. I therefore acquit the sergeant on this charge so far as it relates to taking the constable on a private matter. It was, however, improper of the sergeant to have taken the constable away on such a duty as this instead of sending him on his beat, and for this portion of the charge I convict and caution him. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 5. Joseph Swindell Williams states :— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] On the morning of the 19th November last I was due to come off night duty at 5 a.m. Shortly after 4 a.m. I was at the station putting out the lights, and Sergeant Mackay and Constable Kemp, who should have taken up day duty at 5 a.m. that date, left the station together. The sergeant said he was going to look after an eel-basket, or something about an eel-basket. I remained on duty until 5 a.m., and no constable came to relieve me. I did not see them return to the station. Examined by Sergeant Mackay.] You said something to me about an eel-basket as you stood on the verandah waiting for Constable Kemp. lam clear you said something about an eel-basket, but what I cannot now remember. J. S. Williams. Defence. Sergeant Edward Mackay states : — On the morning of the 19th November last I proceeded up the Maitai about 4.50 to endeavour to detect poaching in the Maitai Eiver. There had been complaints about poaching, and I had reason to believe both lime and dynamite were being used. We went, I think, about a mile and a half up the river, but could find nothing. We returned to the station at 5.45 a.m. It was a wet morning, and both of us had got our feet wet. I told Constable Kemp to change his socks and go on to his beat. I did not go up on a private matter. It was purely what I call police duty. Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] The reason I did not enter the matter in the diary at the time was because I did not think of it at the time. I did not think it necessary for such a trivial matter to be entered. By Commissioner.] The complaints were verbal. Mr. Andrews has complained to me about poaching in the Motueka Eiver, and the complaints about poaching by lime in the Maitai is common talk about the streets. lam not able just at this moment to name any particular individual who may have complained at that time. I now find that the secretary of the Nelson Acclimatisation Society wrote to Inspector Macdonell on 13th November, 1901, asking for the services of detectives to detect persons dynamiting trout and killing deer. This communication reached me about the 30th November, but I knew it was common talk about the town. Since the complaint there have been three convictions against poachers—one for having a live fawn in his possession, and the other two in connection with killing and possessing duck. Constable Kemp

41

H.—l6b

and I were the witnesses in these cases. I cannot explain how Constable Williams could have got it into his mind about an eel-basket. I have not, to my recollection, laid eel-baskets about the river. I know that people do place such baskets in the river, and most people are aware of this. E. Mackay. Thomas S. C. Kemp, constable, states: — Examined by Sergeant Mackay.] I remember going up the Maitai Eiver with you one morning. Ido not remember the date. We left the station about 4.45 or 4.50 a.m. I had received instructions from you the previous night to go up the Maitai with a view of detecting poaching. I saw Constable Williams at the corner of the station as we were leaving; you and I went from the front door of the station to the corner of Harley Street together. I did not hear you mention anything to Constable Williams about an eel-basket. I was with you, and must have heard anything"of the kind had it been said. I heard you say to Constable Williams, " You come off at 5 a.m." I went up the Maitai Eiver with you. We went about a mile and a half, I should say, and returned about 5.45 a.m. Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] No one called me that morning. As near as I can say, I woke that morning about 4.30 a.m. Before leaving the station I never went into any room except the sleeping-room. I had a waterproof on. I got it in the sleeping-room. My boots were also in the sleeping-room. I did not hear any one walking about before I saw the sergeant. The sergeant was not waiting for me when I came out of my room. I was leaving the sleeping-room just as the sergeant came out of his office. The sergeant had a waterproof on. I cannot remember if the sergeant was buttoning the coat as he went on to the verandah. The sergeant was certainly notwaiting for me when I went outside. Nothing was said to me by the sergeant the night before about having set an eel-basket. I have not looked at the diary since the complaints were made. I have not talked the matter over with the sergeant since the complaints were made. The sergeant and I get along very well together now. If I did not get along very well with him before it was my own fault. There, has not been a great change within the lastsix months or so in the relationship between the sergeant and myself. I have never told Arthur Skinner, constable in Auckland, not to apply to come to Nelson on account of the harshness of the sergeant. I cannot remember the constable ever having expressed to me his intention to apply to come to Nelson on account of the climate. I have never asked any person to write to you with a view to getting me transferred to some other station on account of the treatment of Sergeant Mackay and my health. lam not aware of any man having written to you on my behalf. Not Constable Allan Cameron. I never told Allan Cameron that owing to my weak chest another constable wished to take my turn of night duty and the sergeant would not allow it. I have never made a similar complaint to any other constable at Nelson or Nelson Sub-district. I have never complained to any private persons in Nelson of the conduct of the sergeant. I did not complain to you on the street in Nelson last year of the conduct of the sergeant towards me. I do not remember the sergeant asking me on my arrival in Nelson what my religion was. It is untrue that I ever said the sergeant replied he was glad I was not of a certain religion, as if I had been of that religion I should get all the Micks in the place to help me. I never made such a statement to any one. Questioned-by Commissioner.] I heard the sergeant come to the station as I was dressing on the morning we went up the Maitai Eiver together. I heard the sergeant's gate open and his footsteps from his house on to the verandah into the office. From the bedroom you can very plainly hear people walking about the station. lam able to say from the footsteps that the sergeant on entering the station went direct to his office. I did not hear him go into any other room on the station. I should have heard him had he gone to any other room. I think, it would not have been possible for the sergeant to have gone into the mess-room from his office that morning without me hearing him. I think, if the sergeant had walked into the mess-room and made noise enough to have been heard by any persons outside the station, I, being in the bedroom, must also have heard him. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that the sergeant has ever made any inquiry of me about my religion. I am a Presbyterian. Some three months ago Constable Burrell and I had eel-baskets in the river. As a rule, the baskets are baited in the evening, and looked at again later on in the evening, and I have always removed them the same evening after they have been in the water a few hours. I have never attended to the baskets of a morning. I cannot say whether Constable Williams knew we had the baskets in the river or not. Thos. S. C. Kemp, Constable 915.

Sergeant Mackay. Charge No. 6. —lmproperly permitting Constable Kemp to keep a dog at the Nelson Policestation without permission, contrary to Eeguiation No. 123. Finding. —Eeguiation No. 123 ("No poultry, cows, horses, or other animals shall be kept by the police without permission "), forbidding the keeping of animals by the police without permission', had for years prior to my advent in the colony remained practically a dead-letter. At stations where Government forage is stored I have objected to the keeping on police premises of animals that could consume such forage. I have never objected to a dog being kept on the premises unless annoyance was caused thereby. In this case the facts are simple and undisputed: Constable Kemp, an unmarried man living on the station, purchased a collie dog to send down to his brother living near Oamaru. The vessel trading between Oamaru and Nelson appears to have missed one of her voyages, consequently the constable kept the dog on the station until she resumed her running. Constable Williams alleges that he was annoyed by the barking of the dog, and complained both to the sergeant and the constable (Kemp). Those officers deny that any such complaint was made, and I attach as much reliance to their denial as to Constable Williams's statement. At the worst there was perhaps a technical breach of the regulations on the part of the sergeant allowing the dog to

6—H. 16b,

42

H.—l6b

remain on the station without the permission of his Inspector or the Commissioner; but, taking all the circumstances into consideration, I do not think it is a matter calling for the inflicting of any punishment. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 6\ 17th March, 1902. Constable Swindell Williams states : — Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] The evidence given by me in the charge against Constable Kemp with reference to the dog being on the station is correct, except that, in my opinion, the dog was on the station far more than a fortnight. [Evidence read over.] I told the sergeant about being unable to get any sleep owing to the barking and howling of the dog. Cross-examined by Sergeant Mackay.] There was the iron fence and the wall of my house between where I was sleeping and where the dog was tied up. It was about 10 to 12 yards between where the dog was tied up and my bedroom. I complained to you once about the dog disturbing my sleep. The dog had been some time on the station before I complained. J. S. Williams. Defence. Sergeant Edward Mackay states : — I put in the report made by me on this matter on 6th instant. [Beport annexed.] Complaint No. 6. I beg to state that I noticed a dog chained up near the closet in the back yard of the station. I learned the dog belonged to Constable Kemp, and he informed me that the dog was to be shipped to Oamaru by first boat. The boat by which the dog was to have been sent missed a trip, or by some alteration in the running had not called at Nelson. Tne constable kept the dog chained up until the next steamer left, which was about ten days. Should the Commissioner not be satisfied with this explanation, I respectfully court the fullest inquiry by the Commissioner or by some uninterested tribunal. . E. Mackay, 210. To my knowledge, the constable never complained to me about the dog. Had he done so I should have ordered the dog's removal to the stable, where there was plenty of room. [No crossexamination.] E - Mackay.

Constables Burrell and Durbridge. Charge No. 1 (Constable Burrell) and Charge No. 3 (Constable Durbridge).—lmproperly taking into the single men's mess-room at the Nelson Police-station, in company with Constable Durbridge, two females named Smith and Kitching, about midnight on 18th July last. Finding.—The facts are not denied, but, as there is no suggestion that the females were other than respectable, or that they were taken into the station for an immoral or other improper purpose, the worst that can be said is that it was a very indiscreet act on the part of the constables to take them into the station at that hour of the night. It should, however, be borne in mind that these constables reside on the station, which is therefore their home for the time being, in addition to being the police-station. The open manner the constables went about the matter clearly shows they did not consider they were doing much wrong. The taking of females into a police-station late at night cannot, however, be tolerated, as, if it were, abuses would soon arise or improper motives would be imputed; therefore the constables are each reprimanded and cautioned to be more careful in future. J- B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 3 against Constable Durbridge, and Charge No. 1 against Constable Burrell. Joseph Swindell Williams, constable, states :— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I remember 18th July, 1901. I was on night duty at Nelson on No. 1 beat; Constable Burrell was on No. 2 beat. At about 12.20 a.m. on the date in question I was proceeding towards the police-station from the direction of the Government Buildings. I saw Constable Burrell enter the station by the front door, and almost immediately Constable Durbridge followed into the station, accompanied by two females named Smith and Kitching. I went to the passage of the station, and could hear the young women and the constables talking and laughing inside the mess-room. I then proceeded to the sergeant's residence, a few yards distant, called him up, and informed him what I had seen. The sergeant got up at once and went to the station; I followed him. The sergeant went into the mess-room, and remained a few seconds. He then left the mess-room and went into the passage, and called Constable Burrell out to him from the mess-room. They both went into the sergeant's office, and remained there together a little while. During the time they were in the sergeant's office I was in the station passage. After leaving the office the sergeant went on to the verandah in front of the station, and Constable Burrell returned to the mess-room. After a few minutes the two females and Constable . Durbridge left the station. Constable Burrell also left with them. Burrell was in uniform, and Durbridge in plain clothes. After leaving the station the constables and the females proceeded together along St. John's Lane. I saw no more of them until 1 a.m., when Constable Burrell came into the station on going off duty. I do not remember seeing Constable Durbridge again that night. • J- S. Williams. Cross-examined by Constable Durbridge.] I say it was 12.20 a.m. when you entered the station. I saw the time from the station clock and also my own watch. lam quite certain it was 12.20 a:m. lam quite certain it was Burrell the sergeant called into his office. I was standing in the passage

43

H.—Kin

at the time. I did not enter the mess-room. I was aware when I called the sergeant that you were in the mess-room. I knew you were keeping company with Miss Smith, and that Miss Kitching was related to Miss Smith in some way. As far as lam aware, the two females are respectable. Constable Burrell left the station with you and the females. I am sure Constable Burrell proceeded along the roadway with you. lam not quite certain if you proceeded along St. John's Lane or along Harley Street. I went into the station immediately you left, and therefore I did not see what became of you. I remained on the station a few minutes only, and then went away on my beat. I took down a note of the occurrence while I was in the station on this occasion. I made a report of the matter when I got up about midday. The report I made with the intention of handing to the sergeant I kept until, I believe, the rooms in my house were papered, and it then got destroyed. The report I handed to Inspector Macdonell is a copy of the report, with the exception of the few lines at the bottom. The report handed to the Inspector was made out on the 18th July, and was handed to the Inspector last month. I retained this report until I handed it to the Inspector. Cross-examined by Constable Burrell.] I am positive it was 12.20 a.m. and not 1.40 a.m. when I saw you enter the police-station with the females. I am sure it was you and not Constable Durbridge that the sergeant called into the office. I did not see you enter the sleeping-room. [No re-eaxmination.] J. S. W. Questions by the Commissioner.] The original report I made on this matter has been lost; the one I handed to the Inspector was made on the 18th July, and was taken from the original, with the exception of the lower portion. I previously stated that the report handed the Inspector was the original report. When I made that statement I had forgotten about having made two reports. I made some other memoranda at the time. The memorandum I produced on the 15th instant, but which I cannot now find. I made an entry in my memorandum book during the early morning of the 18th July. The memorandum now produced is the one I made, down to the words, "The sergeant said, 'We will attend to this affair in the morning.' " The words after those named were entered after I had spoken to the sergeant again on the matter later on in the afternoon of the 18th July. The entry in the memorandum book immediately preceding the entry referred to is as follows: "C. Eemnant, driving for Neil and Haddow, Vanguard Street." I did not know C. Eemnant until the Inspector spoke to me about him about three weeks ago. lam unable to state when I made the entry about C. Eemnant. I made the entry which follows it on the 18th July last year. J. S. Williams. Defence. Constable Frederick Henry Durbridge states :— On 7th March last I made a report in answer to this charge. I submit that report as my answer. [Eeport annexed.] Third Offence. I respectfully state that I was escorting Miss Smith, a young lady to whom I am engaged, and her cousin home from a Catholic social, and when near the police-station we met Constable Burrell, who was going off duty. We exchanged a few words, and in a joking way one of us proposed that the girls should join us for supper, not thinking that they would accept the invitation ; but, to our surprise, the girls took us at our word and came in. While in the station Sergeant Mackay came in and called me into his office, and rebuked me for having the girls there. I explained to him how it had happened ; assured him that they had only been in a few minutes, and the like would never happen again Both girls bear the best of characters, and are well known in Nelson, and I regret that through my innocent indiscretion the names of two such respectable girls should be called into question. F. H. Durbridge, Constable, No. 942. I do not desire to call any witness.—F. H. D. Questioned by Commissioner.] As near as I can remember, it was 1.40 am., or thereabouts, when we reached the police-station on the morning in question. I had leave from the sergeant to attend the social. Constable Burrell did not leave the station with the young women and myself that morning. lam not aware that Constable Burrell went out on to the verandah with us when we left the station. I left him in the mess-room, to the best of my knowledge. The sergeant called me into his office, and not Constable Burrell. lam still keeping company with Miss Smith. F. H. Durbridge. Constable Arthur Burrell says : — I made a report on this matter on 6th instant. I desire the report which is now produced, and which is wrongly dated as being 6th February instead of 6th instant, put in as my defence. [Eeport annexed.] A. B. Police-station, Nelson, 6th February, 1902. Report of Constable A. Burrell, No. 912, re Attached Correspondence. Complaint No. 1 : I respectfully state that I was on night duty in the month of July last, and in consequence of my doing extra duty during the day—attending the reception of returning troopers from South Africa, also on duty at the theatre in the evening—l was allowed to come off duty on this occasion at 2 a.m. the following morning. It was when coming off duty on this particular morning that I met Constable Durbridge near the police-station. He was in company with Miss Smith, a young lady to whom he is engaged, and her cousin, a Miss Kitching. They were on their way home from a Catholic social. Constable Durbridge and I exchanged a few words. I remarked that I was going off duty, said I was hungry, and intended having supper before going to bed. It was then suggested that we would all have a cup of cocoa together. The young women took us at our word, and we walked into the station together. When having our cocoa Sergeant Mackay walked in, and severely censured us for allowing the young women to

H.—l6b

44

come into the police-station, and cautioned us never to again allow a similar occurrence. This caution has been strictly adhered to, that being the last and only time women have entered the mess-room. The affair was done in all innocence, and at the time I was not aware that I was doing anything wrong. Both the young women are of good character, and are well known and respected in Nelson. I deeply regret having acted so indiscreetly, and realise how simply a bad meaning can be taken from an innocent action. I am fully prepared to give my assurance that a similar occurrence will never again take place by me while I am a member of the Police Force. Sergeant Mackay, in charge of Police, Nelson. Respectfully forwarded to the Inspector. I may say that I have always found Constable Burrell to be a sober, steady constable, attentive to his duties. Had I not found him so I would not have recommended his application of 27th December last for charge of an out-station.—E. Mackay, Sergeant No. 210. 7/3/02. I call no witnesses. [No cross-examination.]. —A. B. Questioned by Commissioner.] It is not correct that I came to the police-station at 12.20 a.m., as stated by Constable Williams. As near as I can now remember, it was about 1.45 a.m. when we reached the station. The sergeant called Constable Durbridge into his office, and not me. When Constable Durbridge and the females left the station I went straight to bed, and did not leave the station. lam fixing the time that I came off duty from my own recollection, and not from any entry made by myself or any other person in any book or diary. I cannot explain how it is that the diary shows me as being relieved at 1 a.m., whereas I came off at 1.45 a.m. I can only account for the discrepancy by supposing the sergeant made a mistake in entering 1 a.m. instead of 2 a.m., or that I mistook one hour for the other. lam unable to explain how it is the visitingbook also shows me as coming off duty at 1 a.m. when I came off at 1.45 a.m. Arthur Burrell, Constable 912..

New Zealand.—Police Department. From Inspector Macdonell, Grey. Eeceived 26/2/02. Subject: Complaint against Constables Burrell and Durbridge having two women in the police-station at midnight.

Police Office, Greymouth, 24th February, 1902. Be Constables Burrell and Durbridge having two young women (and not of the best repute) in the station at midnight, constable being off his beat at the time, and Sergeant Mackay failing to report such conduct. I beg to forward herewith copy of a report made by Constable Williams and handed to Sergeant Mackay in July last, and which the sergeant failed to forward to me. 1 never heard of the matter until my recent visit to Nelson. I did not mention the matter to Sergeant Mackay, not knowing what attitude the sergeant or the men may take up in their defence. lam quite prepared to hear a total denial that such a thing ever took place, and for that reason I think great caution is 'necessary. I think, if gone about carefully, admissions might be got from the girls themselves. Constable Durbridge has been keeping company with . She has disappeared, and it is suspected she is away to get rid of a trouble similar to . Whether this is so or not I cannot say, but the fact that her married sister will not tell where she is is suspicious. This is the present position, and, as before stated, caution is required to get at the truth. E. Macdonell, Inspector.

Police-station, Nelson, 18th July, 1901. On the 18th July, at 12.20 midnight, Constable Burrell, in company with Constable Durbridge, brought two women into the police-station, named Kate Smith, barmaid at the Royal Hotel, Bridge Street, and Miss Kitching, of Jones's boot-shop, Bridge Street. There was a lot of noise in the mess-room. I called the sergeant out of bed. He went into the mess-room and saw the women. He called Burrell into his office. Burrell was on duty at the time, and off his beat. When the sergeant came out of his office Burrell returned to the women. The sergeant stated that the women had been at the Roman Catholic ball, and they came to get some supper. The sergeant said, "We will attend to this affair in the morning." I made a report of the matter ; but the sergeant said, " Don't put in the report, as the Commissioner would only laugh at it." The Inspector of Police, Nelson. J. S. Williams, Constable No. 754.

Constable Burrell. Charge No. 2. —lmproperly leaving his beat without just cause, and going to the Nelson Police-station about 2.30 a.m. 14th instant. Finding. —Although, strictly speaking, this charge was not proved, inasmuch as the Inspector could not say who the men were, or even if they were policemen at all, whom he saw enter and leave the station on the night in question, still, the constable admits he left his beat and went to the station to get some tea. This appears to have been the practice at Nelson long before Sergeant Mackay went there (see Constable McGrath's evidence), and apparently the constable took it for granted he could do so without running the risk of punishment. lam of opinion the constable remained on the station much longer than sufficient time to get his tea, during which period his beat was left unattended, and therefore severely reprimand and caution him on this charge. The punishment would have been more severe had not the constable up to this time had a clear defaulter's sheet J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

45

H.—l6b

Charge No 2. 14th March, 1902. Inspector Ewen Macdonell states : — In consequence of something which came to my knowledge, I, on the night of the 13th ultimo, watched at the police-station, Nelson, from 1 a.m. 14th ultimo till about 4.30 a.m. I saw two men enter the police-station. I was not near enough to be able to say positively who they were or that they were policemen. Owing to a dog barking whenever I moved, I was unable to get close to the station. At about 4.20 a.m. I saw a similar two men leave the station and go away down either St. John or Harley Streets. I did not see them again. Cross-examined by Constable Burrell.] I did not go forward to see who the men were, because, in consequence of certain allegations, I desired to see if this going to the station was a solitary instance or a general thing as alleged. I am not sure whether or not the men I saw were policemen. E. Macdonell, Inspector. Sergeant Edward Mackay, stationed at Nelson, states : — Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I am in charge of Nelson Police-station. The Town of Nelson is divided into two beats, night duty, numbered 1 and 2. No. 1 beat takes in the policestation, and the man on that beat has to visit the police-station. The constable usually visits about 11.30 p.m., 1 a.m., 3 a.m., and when coming off duty at 5 a.m. It is customary for the constable on No. 1 beat to turn off all lights about the station as soon as it is daylight. No. 2 beat takes the lower or west side of Trafalgar Street. Trafalgar Street is the nearest point of No. 2 beat to the police-station. That is about three minutes' walk from the station. The man on No. 2 beat has no right to leave his beat and come to the station unless on some matter of duty. The men on both beats are directed to meet at the corner of Bridge and Trafalgar Streets at 11 p.m. I have never, to my knowledge, instructed the man on No. 1 beat to exercise any supervision over the man on No. 2. I have never issued instructions to the effect that I would hold the man on No. 1 beat responsible for the man on No. 2. beat. I find from the diary of duty on the 13th ultimo that Constable Burrell was on No. 2 beat from 9 p.m. 13th to 5 a.m. 14th, and Constable McGrath was on No. 1 beat between the same hours. The entries in the diary are in the handwriting, as far as I can see, of Constable Burrell, and signed by Constable Jeffries, who was in charge of the station during my absence at Collingwood. I left Nelson for Collingwood on the 10th ultimo, and returned to Nelson on the 15th ultimo. I believe I left for Collingwood on the 10th ultimo at 4 p.m. E. Mackay. Defence. Arthur Burrell, constable, stationed at Nelson, states: — At 2 a.m. on the morning of the 14th ultimo I left No. 2 beat at the corner opposite the Masonic Hotel, and came to the police-station by way of Hardy Street and Harley Street. When I came into the station Constable McGrath was signing the book in the passage. I went into the mess-room, lighted the gas, and put on a drop of water to make myself some tea. I drank my tea and left the station, and went direct back to my beat again. Constable McGrath left the station while I was having my tea. I remained in the station, I should say, about fifteen minutes in all. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] It was about 2.15 a.m. when I left the station. It was a chilly night. I cannot say whether or not it was bright or dark. I was not at the station again that morning until 5 a.m., when I came off duty. I say positively I was not in the station between 4 and 5 a.m. I did not see Constable McGrath put out the lamp outside the station just as it was getting daylight. Arthur Burrell, Constable 912. Constable Patrick McGrath states :— Examined by Constable Burrell.] I remember the early morning of 14th ultimo. I saw you in the police-station that morning. You came in for your tea. You were in the station about ten minutes after I arrived at the station. Ido not know how long you were there before I arrived. You passed me in Bridge Street on your way to your beat after you had left the station. That would be about fifteen minutes after I left you in the station. You were still at the station when I left. lam unable to say how long you were away from your beat, as you were at the station when I arrived there. I saw you at intervals that morning after you returned to your beat. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I reached the station about 2 a.m. that day. I generally sign the watch-house book at 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. I did not sign on this occasion. I looked at the clock when I went in. It was about 2 o'clock. I did not have a cup of tea. Constable Burrell was sitting at the table in the mess-kitchen. I remained about five or six minutes. It might be ten minutes. The constable (Burrell) was still sitting at the table when I left. When leaving the station I proceeded along St. John's Lane into Collingwood Street, into Bridge Street, thence into Trafalgar Street. Constable Burrell caught me up just as I was turning from Bridge Street into Trafalgar Street. I visited the station again about 4 a.m. No one came to the station with me then. No one called on me at the station that night so far as I saw. I left again immediately after looking around. As far as I remember, I put the light out that morning as usual when it »ot light. Constable Burrell was not with me when I put the light out that morning. I made no report that morning of having seen Constable Burrell on the station. I made no report until called on by the Inspector to do so the following day. I expect it would be right for me to report if I saw the man on No. 2 beat come to the station. I have never lately reported any man for neglect of duty who has been out with me. If Constable Burrell says I was signing the book when he entered the station he is not correct. Ido not remember that Constable Burrell and I came off duty together that morning. Be-examined by Constable Burrell.] I might have been standing at the table where the book is without the intention of signing the book. I was at the station when you arrived. I cannot remember seeing you with some water in the kettle while I was standing at the table where the book is kept.

H.—l6b

46

Questions by Commissioner.] I have been attached to this station about eight years. Ever since I have been at the station it has been the practice for the men living in the station to go to the station to get a cup of tea while on night duty. Ex-Constables McDonald and O'Brien and other old constables here in ex-Sergeant McArdle's time used to do so. I cannot say they did this every night, but it was the practice for them to do so. Patrick McGrath.

Constable Burrell. Charge No. 8. —Improperly leaving his beat without just cause, and going to the Nelson Policestation at 12.30 a.m. 15th instant, and remaining there until 1.20 a.m. Finding. —This is a similar case to the preceding one, and occurred on the following night. Here, again, I am of opinion the constable remained longer than necessary to prepare and take his tea, to say nothing of him having improperly left his beat unprotected. He is fined 2s. 6d. and cautioned for this second offence. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 3. 14th March, 1902. Inspector Ewen Macdonell, in charge of Westland District, says : — On the night of 14th ultimo I again watched at the Nelson Police-station and neighbourhood to see how the men were performing their duty. About 12.30 or 12.40 a.m. 15th ultimo I heard the footsteps of two men going into the police-station. I remained watching till 1.20 am., or thereabouts. I heard the footsteps of one man leaving the station. lat once went to the front of the station and saw Constable McGrath leaving the station. I spoke to the constable, and then entered the station, and found Constable Burrell sitting down at the table in the single men's mess-room with his shako off. I asked him what he was doing there, and he replied that he was there getting a cup of tea, and pointed to the gas-stove, which was lighted. He said. "I thought there was no harm." I said, " Don't you know a man was discharged for similar conduct at this station ? " and he said " Yes." I had in my mind at the time what I had heard about Constable Burrell; the remarks re the man being discharged occurred after we had got outside the station, and not inside. Cross-examined by Constable Burrell.] I said to you, "Constable Martin was discharged for similar conduct, and not for coming into the station." E. Macdonell, Inspector. Defence. Arthur Burrell, constable, states :— I went to the station from No. 2 beat at 12.30 a.m. 15th ultimo to take a cup of tea. I was just finishing my tea when Inspector Macdonell walked in. I left the station at 12.45 a.m., and not 1.20 a.m. as stated by the Inspector. The evidence of the Inspector, with exception as to the time, is correct. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I remember saying to you, " I have only been in the station a few minutes." Ido not remember pointing to the clock as I went out, and remarking, "It is how just 1.20 a.m." I remember looking at the clock as I went out, and that the time was 12.45 a.m. The clock was, as far as I know, correct time on that occasion. Arthur Burrell, Constable 912. Constable Patrick McGrath states :— Examined by Constable Burrell.] I remember the morning of the 15th ultimo. I saw you come to the police-station that night when you arrived. You came to the station about 12.35 a.m. I remember the Inspector coming to the station. You had been, I should think, about six minutes in the station when the Inspector came. I was outside the station when you went away on your beat. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] When Constable Burrell left the station to go on to his beat you were talking to me in front of the station. You spoke to Constable Burrell as he passed you. After going past you about 10 yards Constable Burrell answered back to you. I think you told the constable to get on to his beat at once. I think his reply was, " I am going, sir." That was all I heard outside. lam clear about what lam saying. You went into the men's kitchen. You were not five minutes in the kitchen. After leaving the kitchen you looked into the men's sleeping-room, and then you and I went and stood in the front of the station, and while we were standing there Constable Burrell passed out. You said to Constable Burrell as he passed that you knew that another man got the sack for leaving his beat and coming to the station, or for something similar. Constable Burrell was only five or six minutes in the station when you appeared. I was in the station about five or six minutes before Constable Burrell entered the station about 12.35 a.m., and you came in about five minutes later. I did not sign the attendance-book before going out that time. I generally sign the book at la.m. I signed the book after I returned to the station after going down the street with you. I signed the book as at 1 a.m., but it was 1.30 a.m. when I got back to the station by way of Bridge Street. We walked down the street leisurely. I should think it would take us about fifteen minutes to reach the Masonic Hotel. You said something about whether or not you could get into the hotel at that hour. I signed the book at 11.30 p.m. at the time shown therein. Be-examined by Constable Burrell.] I remember meeting you at the corner of Trafalgar and Bridge Streets, and we stood talking together a few minutes. I went up Bridge Street after leaving you. It was before returning to the station that I had the conversation with you. By Commissioner.] When Constable Burrell and I had the conversation we were standing in the middle of the street. We were together two or three minutes, and after parting I went straight back to the station. Patrick McGrath.

47

H.—l6b

Constable McGrath. Charge. —lmproperly remaining at the Nelson Police-station from 12.30 a.m. till 1.20 a.m. 15th instant while he should have been on duty. Finding. —Although it was the constable's duty to visit the police-station from time to time, I am of opinion that, although he might not have been on the station quite so long as named in the charge, and about which the Inspector was not very clear, still he remained longer on this occasion than was necessary for him to look round the place and sign the visiting-book, and under these circumstances I reprimand him and caution him not to remain so long in future. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge against Constable McGrath. Ewen Macdonell, Inspector, states :— 14th March, 1902. On night of 14th ultimo I placed myself in the vicinity of the police-station at Nelson. I took up my position some time before 11 p.m. Constable McGrath entered the station a few minutes after 11 p.m., and left again almost immediately. About 12.30 a.m., 15th ultimo, Constables McGrath and Burrell entered the police-station by the front door. I was not sufficiently near to see who the men were that entered. I then went closer to the door and continued to watch. No one entered or left the station by the front entrance until about 1.20 a.m., when Constable McGrath came out. I was then standing at the gate, about 8 yards from the front door. I called to him, and he turned to me. As soon as he recognised me he said in rather a loud tone of voice, " Good night, sir." I asked him where his mate was, and he said he was inside. I then went inside the station, and returned to the front passage a few minutes later. I called the constable into the station, and he came in and opened the men's sleeping-room door for me. I then left the station, and after seeing Constable Burrell leave the station proceeded to my hotel, Constable McGrath accompanying me to the hotel to, if necessary, show me the way to the back entrance. From the police-station to the hotel we walked at an ordinary slow pace, and at the most I do not think it took me more than six or seven minutes. I went up to my room immediately I got into the hotel, and then looked at my watch, and to the best of my recollection it was then 1.40 a.m. I made no note of the time at that period. It was 1.20 a.m. by the clock in the police-station when I was in the police-station ; Constable Burrell called my attention to the time. Examined by Constable McGrath.] I could not say it was you and Constable Burrell whom I saw enter the station about 12.30 a.m. I remained watching until you came out. I did not enter the station earlier because I wished to see how long you would remain, and I should not then have shown myself had I not been under the impression the other man was also about to come out. Questioned by Commissioner.] I did not tell either Constable McGrath or Constable Burrell that they would be placed on the report for being inside the station from 12.30 till 1.20 a.m. I directed each one to report in the morning why they had been in the station while they should have been outside on duty, but Ido not think I mentioned the period. At that time I had not made up my mind whether I would deal with them myself or submit the matter to the Commissioner. E. Macdonell, Inspector. Defence. Patrick McGrath, constable, stationed at Nelson, states :— I made a report in answer to this complaint by direction of the Inspector on 15th ultimo. The report now shown to me is the one I made. I tender that as evidence. What is stated therein is quite true. [Eeport annexed.] Police-station, Nelson, 15th February, 1902. Eeport of Constable P. McGrath, No. 505, re Constable Burrell leaving No. 2 beat on night duty and coming to the Police-station for supper : — I respectfully report that about 12.30 a.m. I visited the station, remaining a few minutes to have a look around. When Constable Burrell came to the station he informed me that he came to have supper. I replied, "Do not be long; get on your beat." I met Inspector Macdonell in John Street. The Inspector asked me what the other constable was doing in the station. I replied, " Having a cup of tea." The Inspector went into the station, and found Constable Burrell having his supper. On the previous night Constable Burrell also came in for supper, but did not remain long; went on his beat again. Patrick McGrath, Constable, No. 505. The Officer in Charge, Police-station, Nelson. I have nothing more to add, but desire to call Constable Burrell on my behalf. Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I signed the watch-house book that morning at 10 o'clock. I left the station with you and went to the hotel. It was before 1 a.m. when I left the station. After seeing you to the hotel I returned quickly to the station and signed the book, making it 1 a.m. instead of 1.30 a.m. Patrick McGrath, Constable. Arthur Burrell, constable, stationed at Nelson, states: — Examined by Constable McGrath.] I remember the morning of the 15th ultimo. I went to the police-station that morning. I entered by myself. You were in the station when I arrived. It was about 12.30 a.m. or a little later. You remained in the station about five minutes, as near as I can recollect. I saw you afterwards speaking to the Inspector in front of the station. [No cross-examination.] By Commissioner.] I remember the time because the Inspector came in and fixed it on my memory. Arthur Burrell, Constable No. 912.

New Zealand.—Police Department. From Inspector Macdoneil, Grey. ■ Eeceived 26/2/02. Subject: Complaints against Constables Burrell and McGrath, &o.

H.—l6b

48

Police Office, Crreymouth, 24th February, 1902. Be Constable Burrell being off his beat on the nights of the 13th and 14th instant, and Constable McGrath remaining too long in the station when visiting it on both nights, and failing to reportConstable Burrell for being off his beat. I beg to report that, it having been represented to me that the single men regularly leave their beats, that this has been brought under the sergeant's notice, and that it still went on as before. Several citizens mentioned to me that the single men are seldom seen on their beats while on night duty. Mr. Bannehr, editor and part owner of the Colonist newspaper, told me the same thing, and said that he one morning found one of them asleep in a doorway ; he does not know which of them, as he did not waken him. He looked for the other constable to draw his attention to him, but did not find one. He says he always sees Williams, McGrath, and Bird on their beats, but seldom Burrell, Durbridge, or Kemp. In consequence of these reports I decided to watch and see what was going on. Having reason to believe I was being watched, I on the 13th took my bag and left in a cab, saying I was going away for the night. I went to a quiet place in the suburbs, and remained there till 12.30 a.m. I then made my way carefully to the Government Buildings grounds and hid under trees in front of the station. I arrived there at 1 a.m. and remained there until 4.30 a.m. Constables McGrath and Burrell were on night duty. McGrath visits the station every two hours during the night. Both of them came in about half-past 2, and I did not see them leave until 4.20 a.m. I cleared out without showing myself that night. I could not get too near owing to a dog barking. The following night was wet and I slipped out early and watched. The same constables came in about 12,30 a.m. and remained in until 1.20 a.m., when McGrath left the station to go on his beat. Constable Burrell remained inside. I spoke to McGrath outside, and walked into the mess-room and found Burrell sitting down with his hat off and a fire burning. He jumped up on seeing me and went out on •his beat. I ordered both to report in the morning, and they did so. [Eeports attached.] I mentioned the matter to Sergeant Mackay when he returned from Collingwood. He said he did not watch them as he had full confidence in them. I questioned Constables Williams and Bird as to how the duty was done, &c, and I attach their reports. In my opinion, those three constables should be removed from Nelson as soon as possible, or if an inquiry is to be held it should not be held before Mr. Eobinson. Such an inquiry will last a long time. There are several other charges of assault, &c, yet to be reported. I will endeavour to forward them by next mail. E. Macdonell, Inspector.

Police-station, Nelson, 15th February, 1902. Eeport of Constable A. Burrell, No. 912, re leaving No. 2 beat and coming to the Police-station for supper : — I respectfully report that at 12.30 a.m. on date I came to the police-station for a cup of tea, and the night was cold and wet. While there Inspector Macdonell came in, and after a conversation with him he asked me to furnish him with a report re leaving No. 2 beat. I admit that it was an error of judgment on my part, and may add that it will not occur again. A. Burrell, Constable No. 912. The Officer in Charge, Police-station, Nelson.

Sir, — Police-station, Nelson, 19th November, 1901. I hope you will forgive me for the steps I have taken in this matter, but I cannot see any other way to stop the breaches of the Police Regulations that frequently occur while on night duty. I went on night duty at 9 p.m. on the 18th November, 1901, in company with Constable Durbridge. He left his beat a few minutes after 11 p.m. and entered the police-station, where I saw him at 11.45 p.m. asleep with his head resting on the kitchen table. I went out on my beat and returned at 1.15 a.m. on the 19th. He was in a similar position as when I first saw him. When I woke him he asked me the time. I told him 1.20 a.m. I went out, and returned at 3.20 a.m. He came out of his bedroom at 3.35 a.m. and remained in the station after I left it at 4.15 a.m. I returned to put out the lamps. Sergeant Mackay came out on the verandah from the station ; he was fastening a mackintosh ; it was raining; he took the coat from the mess-room. Durbridge was asleep on the floor when the sergeant entered and left. Constable Kemp joined the sergeant and they left the station together to look after an eel-basket, so the sergeant said. I remained in the station until 5.15 a.m., and was not relieved by Constable Kemp, which is a common occurrence with the single men. On the 20th Constable Durbridge left his beat at 10.45 p.m., in company with two men, and went on my beat in the direction of the station. He was there at 11.45 p.m.—asleep, as usual. On the 21st Durbridge came out of the Commercial Hotel at 12 p.m. I reported this constable to the sergeant on several occasions. The sergeant took no notice ; he only informed the men what I had done. They had plenty of sleep during the night and would rise early in the morning and walk up and down the cell passage, which is under the same roof—the noise would wake the soundest sleeper. Durbridge and Burrell used to go bawling about the mess-room and cell passage. lon several occasions went into the station at 8 a.m. and complained to the sergeant, but after I returned to bed the noise increased. I shifted my bed to an outhouse. Constable Kemp had a dog, which he tied to the fence. This dog used to howl all day, and it was impossible for me to sleep. On the 15th October, 1901, I complained to the sergeant, who was in the men's barrack-room at the time. Constable Kemp called me a liar, and said the dog was very quiet. The sergeant made no answer to my complaint. A few days before the Commissioner came to Nelson Constable Kemp met me on the street and asked for the lend of my baton. I said, "You can have it if you call at the house." When I visited the station at

49

H.—l6b

12 midday Constable Kemp said, " You did not get the baton for me." I said, " I will get it for you when I come off duty." He said, "You can stick it up your ass." Burrell was in the passage at the time. On several occasions I spoke to Durbridge for using obscene language in the mess-room within the hearing of my wife. The rest made use of bad language, but Durbridge is the worst. We have been unable to use the sitting-room for a long time. On the 16th October Durbridge kicked the wall of this room and knocked a vase off the mantelpiece ; this was at 8 a.m. Prisoner Walker, who was on bail and a lodger, was singing a song entitled " Just as the sun went down." I was on night duty at the time. J. S. Williams, Constable 754. The Inspector of Police.

Police-station, Nelson, 15th July, 1901. Eeport of Constable J. S. Williams re grievance : — I respectfully report that when I accepted to be transferred from Wellington to Nelson I understood from Sub-Inspector Mitchell that I was to proceed to Nelson to take up the duties of Constable Bird, who was appointed Gaoler. Constable Bird was doing plain-clothes duty at the time, but since my arrival in Nelson I have never been offered plain-clothes duty. Constable Burrell, No. 912, who was transferred from Dunedin to take up the duties of Constable Cullimore is doing the plain clothes-duty, and, as Constable Burrell is over three years my junior, I feel that I have been unfairly treated. J. S. Williams, Constable No. 754. Sergeant Mackay, in charge of Police-station, Nelson. Since I gave the sergeant a copy of this report I have done five or 'six weeks' plain-clothes duty.

Police Gaol, Nelson, 16th February, 1902. With reference to the present state of affairs in the Police Force stationed in the City of Nelson. I beg respectfully to state that I consider there is too much partiality and favouritism as between Sergeant Mackay and the single constables stationed in Nelson. For instance, if there is any important inquiries to be made, or any cases on hand, they are placed in the hands of the younger members of the Force here, and none of the other constables are supposed to know anything about them ; generally Constable Kemp or Constable Burrell, or sometimes both, are set to do the work, and other constables who have had more experience are ignored. I consider also the sergeant is too familiar with the single men, and makes himself too cheap to them, calling one Tom, another Fred, and the other Arthur when he speaks to them. Frequently he is in their bedroom with them, or in the kitchen, laughing, joking, or sky-larking with them, and in the daytime, when the men should be out on their beats, he lets them remain in the station, prepare and stay in to all their meals, sit and read the newspapers, smoke and loaf about, and instead of them being out on their beats they not infrequently put in more than half their time at the station. When they are supposed to be out on their beats they seldom or ever walk the beat, but put in the time gossiping, or away at some other part of the town. On a recent Saturday night I was on duty with Constable Burrell. There was a crowd of people about, as there usually is on a Saturday night. I was in Bridge Street and Constable Burrell in Trafalgar Street. Instead of walking along the footpath and keeping the traffic clear, Constable Burrell kept standing in the middle of the street, first at one crossing and then the other, at the intersections of Bridge and Hardy Streets. Sergeant Mackay walked around the block twice to my knowledge, and must have seen Constable Burrell standing in the middle of the street gossiping each time, but said nothing to him. Had it been myself I have no doubt he would have cautioned me. I have on more than one occasion, but not recently, felt it my duty to inform the sergeant of how the men were neglecting their duty by leaving their beats, and of the complaints I had frequently heard of the street-corners and footpaths not being kept clear by the police ; but, as the sergeant took no notice, I thought it of no use to tell him, more especially as I would only be making enemies of the men if they heard I was telling the sergeant of these things. This state of affairs has only obtained during the last twelve months or so, prior to which time the sergeant used to frequently visit the beats both by night and by day, and saw that things were kept fairly straight. Another thing I have to complain of is that the statutes are all kept in the sergeant's office, so that the constables have not the access to them. When I complained to the sergeant about this some time ago he told me I would have to buy copies for my own use, as he did not like every one fingering his statutes about. The result is that I have not seen any of the statutes of the last three years. The facts as above stated are all strictly true, and I am prepared to swear to any of them, if necessary. I could tell of many other things that have happened here during three years, but I refrain from doing so at the present, as I feel I have said enough already. John Bird, Constable No. 357. Inspector Macdonell, in charge Nelson and Westland District.

Constable Durbridge. Charge No. 1. —Improper conduct as a police-constable, ingoing with a number of other men to the Bush Tavern, Nelson, after closing-hours (about 11.40 p.m.) one Saturday about the end of last football season, and demanding and obtaining drink from the licensee for himself and companions. Finding. —Notwithstanding the conflict of evidence as to the time, I am of opinion that it was past 11 o'clock when the party reached the Bush Tavern, and that, finding the place closed, the constable, although not on duty, acted improperly in going with the others to obtain drink after

7—H. 16b.

H.—l6b

50

the place was closed. The evidence, I consider, shows that the constable was not the person who demanded or paid for the drinks. Had the constable been on duty the matter would have been more serious. It shows to me, however, that the constable has not a proper appreciation of his position of police constable. He is reprimanded and cautioned, and will perhaps be removed to some other station, where he had better not become quite so intimate with the persons amongst whom he has to perform police duty. The punishment in this case would have been more severe had it not been the first record against him. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 1. Edward Woodward, licensee of the Bush Tavern, Nelson, says,— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I know Constable Durbridge. I remember one Saturday night about the end of last football season I closed my licensed house at 11 p.m. After closing up I went outside. I went and stood on the footpath at the corner of the house. Mr. Wastney was with me. About 11.10 or 11.15 p.m. I heard some persons come round the corner of Tasman Street into Grove Street singing. This was going from the direction of the town toward " The Wood." I heard the voices of four or five men singing together. I went through the two gates into the yard at the back of the house. I locked the back gate, and the front gate has a spring, and closes itself. I went into the stable. Mr. Wastney went with me. A man jumped over the fence and went to the passage-door. He opened the door and went inside. The passage was then in darkness. I then followed into the passage. When I reached the passage the man I saw had struck a match, and from the light I could see it was Constable Durbridge. He was in plain clothes. I asked him what he was doing there, and while I was asking him the other men came into the passage. I asked them if they knew the time. One said, "It will be all right, give us a drink." I refused several times. They repeated their request for a drink, and I then gave them one drink each. None of them were much the worse for liquor. I think they had shandygaff or beer, I could not say which. They just had their drink and went away. They left by the gate, which had been opened, I think, by one of the other men. They had one drink only. Some of the party paid for the drink, Ido not know which. lam not sure if four or five came in. I made a statement to you some weeks ago and signed it. I remember that in that statement I fixed the time as from 11.15 to 11.30 p.m. Cross-examined by Mr. Maginnity.] I judged the time of closing by the clock in the bar. I am not aware that the clock has been regulated by the town time at any time. There might have been five persons come into the house, but I am not prepared to say there were more than four persons. I cannot say that one of the voices I heard coming from Tasman Street was that of Constable Durbridge. I cannot state which direction Constable Durbridge and his companions came from. They were perfectly civil and not troublesome. I cannot say which one said it would be all right if I gave them a drink. Ido not remember one of the men saying my clock was fast. The other men followed Constable Durbridge immediately into the passage. The only visible light in 'the house would have been the light in my bedroom, upstairs. It was about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour from the time I closed until Durbridge came into the passage. I am not able to state positively that my clock was not seven or ten minutes faster than the town time, or that it might not have been that much too slow. I was sure it was not much past 11 o'clock, or I should not have given the men the drink. Mr. Wastney was not staying at my house that night. I did not see any one enter the passage before the constable. The constable himself did not ask for any drink for himself or the others. Be-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I do not think I said to you that it was Constable Durbridge who first asked for the drink. If I did say so it was a mistake, as the men kept asking for a drink. I gave them the drink to get them away. Questioned by Commissioner.] The statement I made to the Inspector was made in the diningroom at my house. No third person was present. Ido not think any one came to the house to be served while the Inspector was present. I have not a very clear recollection of what passed when the Inspector visited me. The Inspector asked me certain questions and I answered them, and some part of the statement I made without being questioned. The men, in my opinion, were not the worse for drink. Nothing has occurred since the Inspector saw me to induce me to now state anything different to what I told him. Alfred Wastney, labourer, living at " The Sands," near Port Nelson, states :— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I remember being at the Bush Tavern Hotel one Saturday night about the end of last football season. I was at the house when it was closed up for the night. All lights about the house were put out. Mr. Woodward (the licensee) and I were out on the road together after the house closed. We might have been there a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes talking. I heard some persons coming up the road apparently in the direction of the Bush Tavern. I should think they were 200 yards or more away when we first heard them* Mr. Woodward and I went into the stable to get out of sight. To get to the stable we passed through two gates, and Mr. Woodward locked the back one after us. We waited in the stable a few minutes. The singing continued until the singers appeared to have got close to the house. I next heard some one trying the back gate, then one man got over the top of the gate. He passed into the back passage of the house. There was no light in the passage when he entered. Mr. Woodward followed the man in ; I remained in the stable. I noticed a light in the passage after Mr. Woodward arrived in the passage. Woodward said, " What the devil are you doing here ;do you know what time it is ? " The man replied, " Oh, it's all right, Ted ; give us a drink." The other men (three or four) then all followed into the passage. The time was then, as far as I can say, from- a quarter to half past 11. After the men entered I left the premises and went home.

51

H.—l6b

Cross-examined by Mr. Maginnity.] I was present when Mr. Woodward closed the bar. I did not notice the time of his clock when he closed the bar. I cannot say that I compared my watch with Woodward's clock. I took the voices to be from persons coming from town towards the Bush Tavern. lam not prepared to state that the men who came to the Bush Tavern were the same men whose voices I had previously heard singing. I did not see Constable Durbridge at all that night. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I do not know Constable Durbridge. Alfred Wastney. Defence. Frederick Henry Durbridge, constable, states: — Examined by Mr. Maginnity.] On the night in question I attended a football social held at the Masonic Hotel. A little after 10 p.m., in company with George Glover, Ernest Pratt, a Mr. King, a Mr. Coote, and Mr. Sowman, we proceeded along the Wakapuaka Eoad as far as Oldham's Creek, between three and four miles, where we left Mr. King and returned to town. We were all on bicycles. On the Nelson side of the cemetery, about a mile and a half from Nelson, one of the party said, "We will have a drink at the Bush Tavern." I remarked, " Very well, if it is not too late." I believe it was Sowman, who, on referring to his watch, said it wanted a quarter to 11. We proceeded to Bush Tavern, and on arrival entered by the side door. I believe Sowman was first and I second. Sowman said to Woodward, the. licensee, " Any show for a drink, Ted?" He replied, "Oh, yes; hurry up, it's just about 11." We had the drink and left the house. I did not pay for the drinks; I think Sowman did. Mr. Woodward is incorrect in saying there was no light. There was a small gas-jet burning in the passage. That showed from the road, and the side door was open. Sowman got over the gate and unfastened it. We all then entered. It was the first time I was ever in the house, and I have not been there since. Woodward came from the back somewhere. Sowman was inside the 'passage when Woodward arrived, and the others were all standing round the door. After leaving the Bush Tavern we proceeded about 200 yards, and there Glover and Sowman left me, Coote, and Pratt. We came along Grove Street and Collingwood Street to the Wakatu Hotel. The hotel was closed. We knocked at the side door, and Mr. Vause, the licensee, opened the door and admitted Coote, who boarded there. Pratt and I then bid Coote and Vause good-night, and the latter remarked it was about half-past 11. Pratt and I proceeded together to the end of Harley Street and there separated, I going to the police-station. I was perfectly sober. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] We were all on bicycles. We rode our bicycles until after leaving the Bush Tavern, and then all walked along together, chatting over the football season. The gate may have been locked ; I do not know, as I did not get over. The door we entered was at the side of the house, and not at the back. I have not called at Mr. Woodward's house since you saw him. I met him in the street, and asked him if he had made any statement to the Inspector. I thanked him and left him. I never made the remark, " Well, this is the last bullet." Questioned by the Commissioner.] Some four or five months ago Inspector Macdonell, when I was at Greymouth with a prisoner, asked me about things generally, and if I would like plainclothes duty at Greymouth. I said " Yes." When the Inspector was in Nelson a few weeks ago in connection with the Jubilee he again referred to plain-clothes duty for me, but said, as he was soon leaving the district, he would not now press the matter, but that he would have liked to have had me if he had remained. There was intoxicating drink at the football social. A man with much drink taken cannot ride a bicycle several miles at night. I believe some of us had been singing a football song while coming along the Wakapuaka Eoad. F. H. Durbridge. George Frederick Coulter Glover, storeman at Tasker and Levien's, merchants, Nelson, states :—- Examined by Mr. Maginnity.] I remember being at a football social at the end of last season. Constable Durbridge, Pratt, Sowman, Coote, a man who lives at Wakapuaka, and myself left the social about 10 p.m., and went along the Wakapuaka Eoad to somewhere about Oldham's Creek, about three miles and a half. The Wakapuaka man there left us, and we returned to Nelson. When nearing the Bush Tavern some one of the party suggested we should have a drink at the Bush Tavern. Durbridge said something about it being too late. Watches were produced, and it was found to be about a quarter to 11. We rode to the Bush Tavern, and saw a light there. I tried the side gate, but it was fastened inside. I believe it was Sowman jumped over the gate. Woodward, the licensee, then came out of the side door, as far as I remember. I said, "We want a drink, Ted." He said, " Oh, it's after 11." I replied, "It cannot be after 11; your clock must be wrong." Sowman said, "We don't make it after 11; we will have a drink and go." We had the drink, and Sowman paid for it. We then left. I lived in the vicinity, and after having the drink and getting outside I left the rest of the party and went home. Durbridge was perfectly sober. We were all perfectly sober. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] The gate Sowman got over was alongside the footpath. The gate is in a direct line, as far as I now remember, with the house. I live within a quarter of a mile from the Bush Tavern. I cannot say where the light was, but it was visible as we approached the house from the side. I would contradict any one who says there was no light visible downstairs at all. Be-examined by Mr. Maginnity.] Durbridge saw me for about three minutes this morning, and said he was in trouble, and wanted me to come to the station and state what I knew about the affair after we left the social. No other person has spoken to me about this matter since the occurrence until Constable Durbridge spoke to me this morning. I saw Mr. Maginnity this morning, and gave him a brief statement of what I knew about the matter. Questioned by Commissioner.] I have no interest in shielding Constable Durbridge or saying what is not true. lam not a friend of Constable Durbridge's, and have only met him in the football field and occasionally in the street. George F. C. Glover.

H.—l6b

52

Ernest John Pratt, warehouseman at Sclanders and Co., Nelson, states: — Examined by Mr. Maginnity.] I was at the football social at the end of last season. Durbridge, Glover, Coote, King, and myself left the social, as near as I can remember, about 10 p.m. We went as far as Oldham's Creek along the Wakapuaka Eoad on bicycles. King, who resides at Wakapuaka, went on, and the others turned back to Nelson. On the way back, when near the cemetery, some one remarked about getting a drink at the Bush Tavern. Sowman made some remark about the time, and some one looked at his watch and it was said to be a quarter to 11. We went on to the Bush Tavern. On the way Durbridge said something about there not being time to get the drink. I do not know how access was gained to the premises. I was out in the road and was called in by some one, and went through two gates. Ido not know who opened the gates. The door was at the back of the house. I heard some one ask Woodward if they could get a drink. That was while I was in the road. When I got inside the house the whole party were there. Ido not know who called for the drinks or who paid for them. We only had one drink and then left. Coote, Durbridge, and I went to Vause's; Coote was staying there. Coote was admitted by Vause; I did not notice any remark by Vause, except that he said "Good-night." It might then have been 11.15 or 11.30 p.m. ; I cannot say. I left Durbridge at the corner of Harley and Bridge Streets and went home. There was no disorder at the Bush Tavern. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] Ido not remember any singing. I was quite sober myself, and do not remember being otherwise than sober. The reason I did not enter with the others was because I was fixing up my bike-lamp. I might have been three or five minutes behind the others when they went on the hotel premises. I do not remember seeing any one getting over the gates. I cannot remember seeing any light inside the hotel as we approached. There was a light in a little room off the bar when I got into the passage of the hotel. We had our drink in this room. Be-examined by Mr. Maginnity.] I am not sure whether the door we entered by is on the side or the back of the house. E. J. Pratt. Frederick Babbers Vause, licensee of the Wakatu Hotel, Nelson, says : — Examined by Mr. Maginnity.] I know Constable Durbridge. I remember being called to the door one night at 11.20 p.m. by a Mr. Coote, who was lodging at my house. On arriving at the door I saw Mr. Coote, Constable Durbridge, and another young man named Pratt outside. I admitted Mr. Coote, and the others left after bidding Coote and myself " Good-night." I do not remember any remark being passed between Durbridge and myself. None of them were the worse for liquor; Mr. Coote was perfectly sober, and, as far as I could see, the others were likewise. I once kept the Bush Tavern. There are both a side and a back entrance to the house. To get to the back door from the road you have to pass through two gates. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] The side door is just inside the first gate ; the back gate is nearly 6 ft. high. A man standing inside the stable could see the back door, but could not see inside the passage. The side door would not be visible from the stable. I fix the time on this occasion by a remark I made to Mr. Coote at the time to the effect that it was twenty past 11. I could not state the time he came home on the night before or the night after. Be-examined by Mr. Maginnity.] Walking quietly from the Bush Tavern to my house would take from a quarter of an hour to twenty minutes. F. B. Vause.

New Zealand.—Police Department. From Inspector Macdonell, Grey. Eeceived 26/2/02. Subject : Misconduct of Constable Durbridge in the Bush Tavern, Nelson.

Police Office, Greymouth, 24th February, 1902. Re Constable Durbridge and several Half-drunk Footballers insisting on and getting Drink after Closing-time in Bush Tavern Hotel " The Wood," Nelson. The following is the evidence in the case :— Edward Woodward, licensee, Bush Tavern, says : " About the end of last football season, on a Saturday night, I closed the house at the usual hour. About half-past 111 went out to the road in front of my house. I was talking for a short time to one named Alfred Wastney, when we heard a noisy crowd coming from the direction of the town. They came along singing and shouting. I told Wastney to come round the back and we would lock the gate at the end of the house to keep them out. We did this, and went into the stable to keep out of sight and avoid annoyance. They came along, and, finding the gate locked, one of them jumped it and entered the house by the back door, and was in the dark. I followed him to see what he was doing. As I got in he struck a match, and I saw it was Constable Durbridge. He was in plain clothes. I asked him what he was doing there. He said it would be all right. They wanted a drink. I refused several times. While reasoning with him the rest came in, and would have a drink. Would not leave without it. At last, for peace's sake, and to get them away, I gave them one drink each. Some of them paid for it. I cannot say which of them. There were about half a dozen of them. They had had quite enough before they came to my place. I repeatedly told them it was after closing-time, &c, and that I could not give them a drink, but they persisted it was all right. This was the only time Constable Durbridge troubled me after hours for drink.—Edward Woodward." Alfred W T astney, labourer, at "The Sands," near Stoke, says:—"About three months ago, one Saturday night, fully 11.30 p.m., I was on the road in front of the Bush Tavern talking to Mr. Woodward, when we heard a noisy push coming towards us from the town. Woodward says, ' Here comes a rowdy push ; let us get in out of the way.' We went round the back ; he locked the gate, and went into the stable to watch. One of them jumped the gate and entered the house by the back door, and struck a light. Woodward followed him and said, ' What the devil are you

53

H.—l6b

doing here? you know what time it is.' The man replied, ' Oh, it is all right; I am on the randan or on the loose ; give us a drink,' &c. Woodward said it was after hours, and he could not do it ; then all the rest came in, and they clamoured for drink. I then left and saw no more. Next day Woodward told me it was Constable Durbridge jumped over the gate first, &c. The foregoing statement was read over to me, and I declare it is true. —Alfd. Wastney." I beg to add that neither of these men complained to me; some private citizens told me it was rumoured to be the case. I saw the witnesses about four miles apart. New Zealand Police, 26th February, 1902. Commissioner's Office, Wellington.

I am informed that Constable Durbridge went afterwards to Mr. Woodward and asked if I had been there, and on being told I was, he remarked, " That is about the last bullet." I did not hear what else had passed between them. I had no time to call back. E. Macdonell, Inspector. New Zealand Police, 26th February, 1902. Commissioner's Office, Wellington.

Constable Durbridge. Charge No. 2. —Being asleep at Nelson Police-station at 11.45 p.m. 18th November last; again at 1.15 a.m. 19th November; again at 4.15 a.m. same date; and again at 11.45 p.m. 20th November, when he should have been on duty. Finding. —This charge rests solely on the evidence of Constable Williams, whose uncorroborated statement it would be unsafe to accept, for the reason that reports and memoranda submitted by him as original and made at the time of the various occurrences were proved to have been made at subsequent dates. Under these circumstances I acquit the constable of the charge. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 2. Joseph Swindell Williams, constable, stationed at Nelson, stated in answer to Inspector Macdonell:— On 18th November last I was on No. 1 beat, night duty. Constable Durbridge was supposed to be on No. 2 beat. It is my duty while on No. 1 beat to visit the police-station from time to time. On the night in question I visited the station some time between 11 p.m. and midnight. Constable Durbridge was sitting near the table in the mess-room. His arm was lying on the table, and his head resting on his arm. He apparently was asleep. We did not speak to each other. I left the station, leaving him there. I again visited the station at 1.15. a.m. 19th. He was still in a similar position, and still appeared to be asleep. I woke him up, and he asked me the time. I told him it was 1.20 a.m. I left the station, leaving Durbridge in the mess-room. At 3.20 or 3.30 a.m. I returned to the station ; he was still sitting on the chair. I did not take much notice of him, and cannot say whether he was asleep or awake. I again left him in the station. .1 returned again about 4 or 4.15 a.m. ; he was then lying on the floor in the mess-room apparently asleep. I left him there. I did not see any more of him that morning. I cannot now remember any other specific date when I have seen this constable asleep in the station, and I have no memoranda made at the time from which I can refresh my memory. Cross-examined by Constable Durbridge.] It was on the night of the 18th November and the morning of the 19th that I saw you asleep in the station. It was between 11 p.m. and midnight when I first saw you. You were sitting near the table. I went just inside the door. I could not swear you were asleep, but you appeared to be. I did not call you. I spoke to you on my second visit to the station, and you answered me. You said, "What is the time?" and I told you. I did not tell you to go on your beat. I did not tell you to go on your beat at any time that night. I understood you to be under my supervision. I did not ask you if there was anything the matter with you. I did not tell you I would report you. I did not speak to the sergeant about this particular instance. I have never been quite certain whether I ought to report the constable under me or not. I took a note of it at the time. I made no report until the Inspector asked me for a report. I forgot about the night of the 19th November. lam not mistaken about the night of the 18th. I cannot remember how long we had been on night duty before the night of the 18th. I am not certain if the 18th was the first night we had gone on duty together. lam sure it was you I saw asleep. I would be very much surprised to hear you were not on night duty that night (the 18th November). We have always agreed very well on night duty. Always assisted one another in any matter willingly. I have not been implicated in any plot against you in which Constables Bird and Aldridge were concerned. I have never told any private individual in Nelson that Constable Aldridge was in the plot against you, and that he would have to come and give evidence also. When I gave the information to the Inspector I did not know the matter was going to be inquired into. I do not know that I gave the information to the Inspector in a confidential way. I cannot say the Inspector told me I would be all right in this matter. I cannot say. I cannot say the Inspector did not tell I should be all right if I gave him the information. I do not remember. Be-examined by Inspector Macdonell.] I had complained to the sergeant about the men coming into the station while on duty, but there seemed to be no notice taken of it. I knew of no plot against the single men here. Question by Commissioner.] Constable Aldridge and I were friendly when he was at this station. For some time past there has been unpleasantness between myself and Constable Burrell, and recently between Durbridge and myself. Kemp and I have never had any disagreement, but we have never been very friendly. For some time past the married men (Constables Bird, Aldridge, before he left, and myself) have not been getting on very well with the single men. I have

H.—l6b

54

always heard Constable McGrath, a married man, complain about the single men. I can only attribute the feeling to a belief that the sergeant was favouring the single men. I consider the single men have been differently treated, inasmuch as they have been in the habit of going on duty at 7 p.m. (to attend the theatres) and going off at 3 a.m. more often than the married men. I have done this duty a few times myself. I have not heard the question of alleged favouritism on the part of the sergeant towards the single men discussed by persons outside members of the Force. J. S. Williams. Defence. Constable Frederick Henry Durbridge states :— On the 18th November last I was on night duty with Constable Williams. I did not come on to the station that night after going on duty until relieved in the morning. I deny point blank that I was asleep on the station that night as stated by Constable Williams. No cross-examination. Question by Commissioner.] I am unable to suggest any reason why Constable Williams should have made false reports against me to the Inspector. Until the Inspector came to Nelson in connection with the provincial Jubilee celebrations we were on good terms. I was informed by the public that he had been telling the Inspector yarns, or informing on me and the other single men to the Inspector. Since then I have not been friendly towards him. I call no witnesses. F. H. Durbridge. Constable Williams recalled by Commissioner. I fix the date as being the 18th November last when I saw the constable asleep by a memorandum which I made on the morning of the 19th November [memorandum produced]. The memorandum is addressed to the Inspector of Police. A\ that time I had no intention of sending any memorandum to the Inspector. I never had any intention of sending any memorandum to the Inspector until after the Inspector asked me to do so. I still say the memorandum was written on the 19th November, and it was incorrect of me to say that I had. no intention of writing to the Inspector of Police until he spoke to me on the subject last month. I did intend writing to him at the time I made this memo. I changed my mind after writing the memorandum, and did not send it to him. J. S. Williams. Sir, — Police-station, Nelson, 19th November, 1901. I hope you will forgive me for the steps I have taken in this matter, but I cannot see any other way to stop breaches of the police regulations that frequently occur while on night duty. I went on night duty at 9 p.m. on the 18th November, 1901, in company with Constable Durbridge. He left his beat a few minutes after 11 p.m. and entered the police-station, where I saw him at 11.45 p.m. asleep with his head resting on the kitchen-table. I went out on my beat, and returned at 1.15 a.m. on the 19th. He was in a similar position as when I first saw him. When I woke him he asked me the time ; I told him 1.20 a.m. I went out and returned at 3.20 a.m. He came out of his bedroom and remained in the station after I left it at 4.15 a.m. I returned to put out the lamps. Sergeant Mackay came on to the verandah from the station ; he was fastening a mackintosh, as it was raining. He took the coat from the mess-room. Durbridge was asleep on the floor when the sergeant entered and left the room. Constable Kemp joined the sergeant, and they left the station together to look after an eel-basket, so the sergeant stated. The Inspector of Police.

Constable Kemp. Charge No. I. —Keeping a dog at the Nelson Police-station without permission, contrary to Eeguiation No. 123. Finding. —I have gone into the details of this case in the sixth charge against Sergeant Mackay, therefore do not here recapitulate them. A technical offence against a regulation (no poultry, cows, horses, or other animals shall be kept by the police without permission) which at no time has been rigidly enforced was committed by the constable. I, however, do not think it calls for any further punishment than an admonition—not to be recorded against the constable, who hitherto has a clean sheet. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 1. Joseph Swindell Williams states:— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] In October last Constable Kemp had a collie dog tied up in the police-station yard. I was much disturbed during the day by the dog's barking. I was on night duty at the time. I think the dog was tied up in the yard for a fortnight or more. So far as I remember, the dog was sent down south. The constable did not appear to be keeping it for his own pleasure. I spoke to the constable about the dog barking, and he said he was keeping it only till he could send it to his brother down south. Examined by Constable Kemp.] I am positive I complained to you while I was on nightduty. J. S. Williams. Defence. Constable Kemp states :— My report, dated 3rd instant, is a true account of the matter of this dog. [Eeport attached.] I have nothing further to state, except to deny that Constable Williams ever spoke to me about the dog. If he had complained I should certainly have had it removed. I have no witnesses to call. Examined by Constable Williams.] I do not remember you shifting the dog down by the closets. Ido not- think the dog was on the station more than about a fortnight. Thomas S. C. Kemp, Constable 915.

55

H.—l6b

Police-station, Nelson, 6th March, 1902. Report of Constable T. S. C. Kemp re Offences in Attached Memorandum No. 165. Offence No. I. —l respectfully report that about four months ago I bought a valuable sheepdog pup to send to my brother at Hampden, Otago, intending to ship him same day by the s.s. " Upolu," this being the only steamer that I could send him by without transhipment. Owing to the " Upolu's " running being altered I was unable to do as I intended. I brought the dog to the station and tied him behind the water-closet, which is distant from the nearest part of the station 35 yards. Sergeant Mackay informed me that I would not be allowed to keep a dog about the station. On explaining to him how I was situated, he agreed to allow the dog to remain tied up providing I shipped him by the first boat. This I did. Sergeant Mackay, in charge, Nelson.

Charge No. 2. —Highly improper conduct as a police constable in going behind the bar-counter at the Exchange Hotel, Nelson, against the wish of the barmaid, about the middle of January last, and supplying himself and friend with drink and cigars and refusing to pay for same when asked to do so. Finding.— -The evidence in this case discloses too much familiarity between the constable and the licensee and barmaid at the Exchange Hotel. Had the constable been on duty it would have been a much more serious matter. Ido not believe the constable had any intention of refusing to pay for the drink and cigars, or that he helped himself to them against the expressed wish of the barmaid or licensee. As a police constable he by this action was placing himself in a false position towards persons against whom he might at any time have to take proceedings. Under these circumstances, I severely reprimand and caution him, and the question of his removal to another station will be considered. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 2. Mrs. Harriett Witt, widow, licensee of the Exchange Hotel, Nelson, examined by Inspector Macdonell, states : — About three months ago I had a barmaid in my employ named Eva Sanford. She had been with me about a month or six weeks at that time. Miss Sanford was taken to the Nelson Hospital a week ago, and is still an inmate there. The doctor has not told me what she is suffering from, but I understand she is likely to be there two months. I remember seeing Constable Kemp in my hotel in plain clothes one night. I did not see Kemp come in. When I first saw him he was in the passage near the bar, and Mr. Oakey was with him. I am not aware that any person except Kemp and Mr. Oakey were present. I could not say if they had anything to drink. I was talking to Mr. Oakey, and I cannot now remember anything particular taking place. I cannot remember if they were smoking or not. I did not hear any dispute going on about any matter. I cannot remember any dispute between the barmaid and Kemp while I was there. lam unable to say how long they remained. It may have been a quarter of an hour and it may have been longer. I cannot remember seeing them leave, or if any others came in. I remember Constables Kemp and Durbridge coming to my house one night shortly afterwards about closing-time. They came in the back door. Neither of them made any reference to a previous dispute. I cannot now remember if either of them offered me any money on that occasion. Neither of them said anything about getting my license indorsed. They did not remain more than about two minutes, I should say. I think Constable Burrell was in uniform and Kemp in plain clothes. It was Burrell who was with Kemp, not Durbridge. I suppose they came in to see if things were all right. They found everything all right. I think they said something about the barmaid being in the bar. She was just leaving the bar when they came in. I cannot remember now exactly what was said ; it was so long ago. I remember you calling at my house to see the barmaid. After you had seen the barmaid you saw me. It was some time before midday. You had been talking to her in the room off the bar. She was attending to the bar at the time. You then asked me questions, and I was very nervous. I could not say five minutes afterwards what you had asked me. I really do not now remember what I did say to you. I'signed a statement. I signed the statement believing at that time that as you were the Inspector I was obliged to sign it. I do not remember telling you verbally any particulars before you commenced to write. Ido not remember you taking down a statement of mine. I remember signing something you had written. Ido not remember you reading over a statement which the barmaid had made. I do not now remember signing the following statement : " I heard the statement made by Miss Sanford and can corroborate it as being correct." Cross-examined by Mr. Maginnity.] I saw no skylarking on that particular night. By Commissioner.] I have no recollection of Constable Kemp or any other person having tendered me money in payment of drink or cigars had by Kemp and Oakey on the night in question. I do not consider Kemp or Oakey still owes me money for drink and cigars had on the night in question. If any such money was owing me it would be entered in my book, and there is no record of anything of the kind entered there. There has never been any such familiarity existing between Kemp and any person at my house to lead me to suppose he would obtain drink without payment. Harriett Witt. Ernest Oakey, engineer, Bridge Street, Nelson, examined by Inspector Macdonell, states: — I remember being in the Exchange Hotel, Nelson, some time before Christmas last, I believe, with Constable Kemp. It was in the evening, between 8 and 9.30. We did not go to the hotel together, but Ido not now recollect which went there first. Kemp and I had a drink together, but I cannot remember which one paid for it. I fancy Kemp " shouted " first. Ido not remember if

H.—l6b

I "shouted." After the first drink I think Constable Kemp invited me to have a second drink. Constable Kemp handed me a bottle containing gin. He took the bottle from a shelf inside the slide, before which we were standing. I helped myself with a drink from the bottle. 1 think Kemp had lemonade, or something of that kind. I then suggested we should have a cigar each. I caught hold of the barmaid's hand and said to Kemp in a joking manner, " I will hold the girl; you go and get the cigars." The licensee, Mrs. Witt, was sitting in the passage, near where I was standing. Kemp then reached through the slide, took up the cigar-box, and handed me a cigar. He took a cigar himself, and replaced the box. lam not quite certain if Kemp handed me the box or took a cigar out and handed it to me. After this Kemp went into an adjoining room and was there talking to Mrs. Witt, the licensee. Kemp left the hotel before I did ; and I believe Constable Burrell, who came in and asked for Kemp, left with Kemp. lam not quite clear upon the latter point. I remember you speaking to me one day last month. You asked me a lot of questions, which you put down. I suppose you took down my answers to those questions. Kemp did not ask the barmaid to " shout." Ido not now remember if I said in my first statement that Kemp asked the barmaid to " shout." I did not that night offer to pay for the drink and cigars rather than have any trouble. I told you when you spoke to me about the matter that rather than have any row I would pay myself. I have not at any time since the occurrence offered to pay Mrs. Witt or the barmaid. Examined by Mr. Maginnity.] The whole thing was a joke. There was no intention on my part to hold the barmaid while Constable Kemp stole the drink and cigars. I have only once before met Kemp in a hotel. Kemp did not actually go behind the bar, but reached through a slide. Mrs. Witt was present and saw all that occurred. She did not object. I can say that Constable Kemp " shouted" the second round. Neither the barmaid nor Mrs. Witt made any trouble about the payment of the drinks and cigars. The barmaid must have understood that the matter was a joke. Ido not now remember all that occurred. The barmaid did not seem angry. What I have stated to-day is a correct statement as far as I remember. By Commissioner.] When the Inspector first saw me I had not a clear recollection of what had taken place. Later on I gave the matter more consideration, and I then came to the conclusion that it was lemonade and not gin Kemp had on the occasion in question. The Inspector asked me when he first saw me if Kemp had gin, and supposing that the Inspector knew all about the matter I took it for granted it was gin Kemp had. On consideration I remembered it was either lemonade or soda-water the constable had, and when I saw the Inspector again I corrected the former statement, or told the Inspector the first statement was not correct. It was nothing I had heard from Kemp or any other person that caused me to correct the original statement, but entirely owing to having given the matter more careful consideration. Between the two interviews with the Inspector I saw Constable Kemp about matters relating to the factory in which lam concerned. Not a word passed between Kemp and myself about the occurrence at the Exchange Hotel on this occasion. The Inspector had asked me not to mention the matter to any one and I promised not to do so. I kept my word. When I stated to the Inspector that ■Kemp had gin it was in reply to a statement of the following nature as far as I remember : The Inspector said to me, " You were at the Exchange Hotel wdth Kemp. You had gin." I replied, " Yes." The Inspector then said, " And Kemp went behind the bar to get it." I replied, "No ; he took it from the lower shelf." The Inspector also said, " And Kemp had gin," and I replied, " Yes " ; but I think even then I expressed some doubt as to what he had. Ernest Oakey. Thomas S. C. Kemp, constable, stationed at Nelson, examined by Mr. Maginnity, states : — I remember being in the Exchange Hotel on the occasion referred to. It was a little after 8 p.m. Mrs. Witt sent a message that she wished to see me. The message was sent by Constable Burrell. I went there.in consequence. Mrs. Witt was not in on my arrival. I waited until she returned. Mr. Oakey, the last witness, came in while I was there. I had a drink with Mr. Oakey. He paid for that drink. I afterwards invited Mr. Oakey to have a drink with me. He agreed. The barmaid at that time was busy serving customers in front of the bar. I asked Oakey what he would take, and he replied, " A glas3 of gin." I reached through the slide and took down a bottle of gin, and I forget whether Oakey helped himself or if I helped him. I filled my own glass from a bottle of soda-water which was standing on the counter. Mrs. Witt, the licensee, had returned while we were having the first drink, and at the time I took the bottle of gin she was sitting in the passage alongside of Oakey. After finishing the second drink Oakey suggested we should have cigars. The barmaid said she would bet he could not get them. She was pretty strong. Oakey caught hold of her hand as she was resting at the slide and asked me to get the cigars. The cigar-box was on a shelf immediately inside the slide. I put my hand in and took two cigars from the box, handing one to Oakey and keeping the other myself. Oakey smoked his. I lighted mine and then threw it away. Ido not smoke. I then went into the barparlour with Mrs. Witt, and was still speaking to her when Constable Burrell came in. Before leaving I gave Mrs. Witt 2s. for the cigars and drink in Constable Burrell's presence. I told Mrs. Witt not to tell the barmaid, as I desired the latter to think we had not paid for the cigars and drink. Mrs. Witt said, " All right," and laughed. I have never booked drinks in a hotel in my life. Had the barmaid not challenged Oakey to get the cigars I should never have got the cigars as I did. The whole thing was a jest. Mrs. Witt did not interfere in any way. She was sitting in the passage, and apparently enjoyed the whole as a joke. This was the second occasion I was in the hotel since Mrs. Witt took the hotel, about six months ago. After paying Mrs. Witt I left the hotel in company with Constable Burrell. I never went behind the bar-counter at anytime. I had not been asked to pay for the drinks at that time; therefore could not have refused to do so. lam perfectly certain I handed the two-shilling-piece to Mrs. Witt. I have reported one

56

57

H.—l6b

licensee for breach of the licensing laws in Nelson, and he was convicted and license indorsed. I also had a case against a licensee in Auckland. lam not in the habit of frequenting hotels, and I court the fullest inquiry into my habits as regards temperance. I was perfectly sober that night. No cross-examination. Question by Commissioner.] Mrs. Witt's object in wanting to see me was to know from me where a lady who had been staying with her was : whether she had gone to her home in Eangiora or was still staying in Wellington. About a fortnight or three weeks after this occurrence Constable Burrell, who was on night duty, called me to accompany him into the hotel after 11 p.m. to see if there was any breach of the law going on, as voices were heard on the premises. We entered by the back. Four or five men were sitting around a table. Their glasses were empty. We called Mrs. Witt on one side and told her it looked bad leaving men who were not boarders on her premises after hours. There was no sign of a breach of the law, and we then left. The bar was closed and the lights out as far as I remember. The barmaid was standing opposite the bardoor as if she had just left the bar. It was then about 11.10 or 11.15 p.m. I was only twenty or twenty-five minutes in the hotel on the night of the occurrence with Oakey. Thos. S. C. Kemp, Constable 915. Arthur Burrell, constable, stationed at Nelson, examined by Mr. Maginnity, states :— I remember being at the Exchange Hotel with Constable Kemp some months ago, but I cannot say whether it was before or after Christmas. I went to the hotel after Kemp. I knew I should find him there. We had arranged to meet there. When I went in Kemp was in the bar-parlour with Mrs. Witt, the licensee. He remained a few minutes after I arrived. As I was standing at the bar-parlour door I saw Constable Kemp put a coin on the table before Mrs. Witt. I cannot say what the coin was. He said it was in payment for drinks, and asked Mrs. Witt not to tell the barmaid he had paid her. Mrs. Witt said, "Very well." I then walked out, and Kemp followed me. Mrs. Witt was not upset in any way. Kemp was perfectly sober. I was also sober. I am a total abstainer. About a fortnight after that I was on night duty. I met Kemp at the corner of Trafalgar and Bridge Streets. It was about a quarter after 11 p.m. I suggested to Constable Kemp that we should pay the house an official visit, as the house was closed and I could hear voices inside. Constable Williams was also present, and it was suggested Kemp and I should go to the back while Williams went to the front. We went to the back. On arriving at the back door Mrs. Witt was just in the act of letting out a man. We walked into the bar togethet. There were three men sitting at a table in the bar-parlour. The barmaid was just closing the slide of the bar. There were glasses on the table in front of the men, but no drink in them. We called Mrs. Witt on one side into a room adjoining the room in which the men were sitting. We asked her something about doing after-hours trading, and she said the last drinks had been served before 11 p.m. We then left the premises. I have not been to the hotel since with Kemp. No cross-examination. Questioned by Commissioner.] Mrs. Witt met me while I was coming from the railway-station on the day in question. She asked me to tell Kemp she wanted to see him. I promised to do so. I told Kemp what she had stated on reaching the station. Arthur Burrell, Constable 912. Joseph Swindell Williams, constable, stationed at Nelson, examined by Commissioner, states :— I remember Constables Burrell and Kemp going into the back of the Exchange Hotel on Saturday night, 18th January last. I fix the date from my memorandum-book. They asked me to stand at the front while they entered at the back. I did so. It was a little after 11 p.m. I understood they went in to see if there was any illegal trading going on. They were a few minutes in the hotel. J. S. Williams.

New Zealand. —Police Department. Eeceived, 26/2/02. From Inspector Macdonell, Grey. Subject : Misconduct of Constable Kemp in Exchange Hotel, Nelson. Police Office, Greymouth, 23rd February, 1902. Ec Misconduct on the Part of Constable Kemp in the Exchange Hotel, Nelson. It would appear that about the beginning or middle of last month a Mr. Oakey, an engineer, of Nelson, went to the Exchange Hotel about 8 p.m. Soon after or at the time Constable Kemp came in, and Oakey shouted for him. Kemp afterwards asked the barmaid to shout for them ; she refused, as they were not regular customers, whereon Kemp went behind the counter and gave Oakey a glass of gin, and took a shandy for himself. The barmaid requested him to pay for it, but he refused. Shortly after he went behind the bar again and took a sixpenny cigar for Mr. Oakey and another for himself. He refused to pay for these also. The barmaid and he had some words over it. It appears Oakey said he would pay sooner than have any trouble over it. The evidence in this case is as follows :— Eva Sanford, barmaid, Exchange Hotel, Nelson, says, — About perhaps two weeks before the Jubilee, one night, Kemp and another man came into the bar. The other man shouted for both. Shortly afterwards Kemp asked me to shout; I refused. He then went behind the bar or counter and gave a drink to the other man ; it was gin he gave him. He took a cigar for himself, and smoked it in the bar. He refused to pay. I remonstrated with him, but he simply laughed, and to this day has not paid. Burrell came in afterwards, but had nothing to do with this; he had a drink, but it was paid for. I think it was Mr. Oakey, engineer, he gave the drink to —I mean Kemp. They were in about an hour altogether. I would

B—H. 16b.

H.—l6b

58

not give him a drink because he was not a customer. I was very angry with him, but he would simply laugh at me. I told him he was trying to be funny, but he was simply silly. Mrs. Witt, the licensee, was witness to most of it. She was afraid to speak for fear she might suffer for it. She was not pleased, but did not say much. Some short time after this, one night at 11 p.m., we had some men in the house. Mrs. Witt was doing her utmost to get them out—she really does her very utmost to close at 11, and I have sometimes seen her crying when they would not go out for her; she was putting one man out at the back. I was waiting for my wages out of the till when Kemp and Burrell came in; it was five minutes after 11 p.m. Kemp talked a good deal to Mrs. Witt; something was said about the license getting indorsed, &c. He took Mrs. Witt into another room, and I believe accused her of telling he did not pay for the drinks and cigars, and offered to pay, &c. They then left—l mean the two constables. I am almost sure Kemp was in plain clothes ; Burrell was in uniform. Mrs. Witt was frightened she would get into trouble through my quarrelling with Kemp for not paying. We put this sudden visit down to that. I offered to go away and leave her service sooner than bring trouble on her in this way. The fact that Kemp did not pay got talked of somehow. I was several times asked if it was true, and I told no falsehood about it. Some people would ask, " Any cheap or free drinks here ? " I usually answered, "No more of that," &c. "We expect some trouble over the matter." Eva Sanford. Harriett Witt, widow, licensee of Exchange Hotel, says,— I heard the statement made by Miss Sanford, and I can corroborate it as being correct. Harriett Witt. These women were very busy when 1 called on them; they had to leave me every few minutes, so that I could not take everything down they said. Mrs. Witt is very frightened of the police, and most unwilling to give any statement. She, however, told me Kemp was angry when he came in with Burrell after 11 p.m., and accused her of telling people he did not pay, &c. He took her into another room, pulled out a pound-note, and then offered to pay. She did not accept it then. He also told her something about getting her license indorsed for having the barmaid in the bar when they came in. She says it was ten minutes after 11 p.m. then. She was doing all she could to get the men out. She was sorry the barmaid spoke to Kemp as she did. She hoped she would not get into trouble over the matter. I told her to be careful and she would get into no trouble. I told her that if any attempt was made to improperly trouble her to wire me and I would see she got fair play. I urged both women not to tell any one the object of my visit, and they promised not to do so. I next called on— Ernest Oakey, engineer, Bridge Street, Nelson ; he made the following statement: — About a month ago I was in the Exchange Hotel between 8 and 9 p.m. I met Constable Kemp there, or he came in after me. I shouted for him. He afterwards asked the barmaid to shout. She refused. He handed me a glass of gin. I think he had one himself. He also took a cigar for us both; he went behind the counter to get the cigars. He did not pay for either drinks or cigars ; he refused to do so. The barmaid had some words with him over it. Mrs. Witt was in the passage most of the time, and witnessed all that took place. I did not think much of it at the time. I think the worst feature in it is that they went back to frighten her afterwards. I offered to pay myself, so as to have no trouble over it. Ernest Oakey. This man promised not to tell any one I had spoken to him on the subject. I am, however, satisfied he told Kemp. I took his statement on the 13th. I was going along Bridge Street on Sunday, the 16th, when he came up to me and said he wished to correct his statement. I asked what it was. He said that he before said Kemp had shandy to drink ; he was now inclined to think he had lemonade. I said that was not much; was there anything else? He hesitated for a little, and then said, "I am now inclined to believe that Kemp offered to pay." I said, " No, he did not that night." He said, " Well, lam not at all sure, but lam now inclined to think so." I said, " Have you seen Kemp since?" He said, "No, I have not." I said, " Now, Mr. Oakey, be careful; do you say you have not been speaking to Kemp since ? " He replied, " Well, yes ; he was in the shop on factory duty once." I said, "Of course he was; I was sure of it; but you should stick to the truth." He said, "I do not like to get any one into trouble." I then left him. lam strongly of opinion that he told Kemp himself, and that every effort shall be made to square all the rest. lam satisfied that Burrell and Durbridge will stand or fall together. I should not be surprised if the barmaid clears out. E. Macdonell, Inspector. New Zealand Police, 26th February, 1902. Commissioner's Office, Wellington.

Telegram to the Commissioner of Police, Wellington. sth March, 1902. Re your wire of this day : I have heard of no disturbance or threats between Constables Williams and Durbridge. lam calling on both of them for reports, and will forward them as directed. E. Mackay, Sergeant.

Telegram to Sergeant Mackay, Police-station, Nelson. sth March, 1902. lam informed Constable Durbridge has been using threats towards Constable Williams. You will please procure reports from each of the constables at once, and forward them direct to Inspector Macdonell. I hold you responsible if any disturbance occurs between the men under you; and you should at once wire your Inspector if anything of the kind has occurred, so that effective measures can be taken. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner.

69

H.—l6b

Telegram to Inspector Macdonell, Greymouth. sth March, 1902. Re alleged threats by Constable Durbridge : You do not say if you have taken any steps to ascertain from Sergeant Mackay particulars of what has occurred ; you should have done so, and taken prompt action yourself. I have wired the sergeant telling him I hold him responsible for the men under him, and directed him to report to you particulars of anything of the nature indicated that may have occurred. Please submit to me forthwith Constable Williams's report and the information you have that Sergeant Mackay has tried to intimidate the constables. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner.

Urgent telegram to Commissioner of Police, Wellington. sth March, 1902. Constable Williams reports that Constable Durbridge challenged him out to fight on suspicion of having given me information re taking girl to station at night, and threatened him that if he opened his mouth at any inquiry he would severely assault him, &c. I fear a disturbance will take place, as the charges made would reach Nelson to-day. I think Durbridge should be suspended in the meantime. I believe the sergeant is also trying to intimidate Constables Williams and Bird. Constable McGrath is afraid to say anything. E. Macdonell, Inspector.

Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given; printing (1,375 copies), £%& ys.

By Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wei ngton.—l9o'2. Price Is. ad.)