THE BAUME CASE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 51, 24 November 1926, Page 12

THE BAUME CASE

ALLEGATIONS OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTERIAL INQUIRY

PRISON OFFICERS' EMPHATIC DENIALS The inquiry into the question of the alleged preferential treatment accorded to Sidney Erne Baume while under detention in the Terrace Prison, Wellington, awaiting transfer to a Borstal institution, was held at the Magistrate's Court in Wellington yesterday before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., who is also the visiting justice to the Wellington prisons.

Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, Crown Prosecutor, appeared on behalf of the Prisons Deportment, and Mr. R. Hardie Boys for Rev. Howard Elliott, who has made the charges of preferential treatment. Mr. Boys raised a preliminary object tion that the tribunal had no jurisdiction, and on the point being overruled intimated that he bad. been instructed by Mr. Elliott to withdraw from the case Magistrate’s Jurisdiction Questioned.

“I appear," said Mr. Boys, "under instructions from Mr. Howard Elliott, who has been served with formal notice of this inquiry, under the signature oi Your Worship'. The notice served upon my client does not require him to attend before this tribunal, and he has no intention of doing so, but has instructed me to attend upon his behalf, to protest against this inquiry proceeding, upon the grounds, and I submit, with all respect to Your Worship, that Your Worship has uo jurisdiction in the matter, and that there exists no statutory• warrant for the holding of such an inquiry as this is declared to be. My protest is therefore against the jurisdiction, and I desire to be heard upon this point before the inquiry proceeds to any fur ther stage in its deliberations. Tho grounds upon which I enter my protest on Mr. Elliott’s behalf are these-.— "First: According to the formal notice this inquiry is held at the instigation of the Hon. F. J. Rolleston, Minister of Justice; it is held under the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1303. and for the ■ purpose of investigating certain allegations made by my client. Now. sir, the whole purpose and effect of this inquiry is and must be to furnish to tho proper officer a report upon the allegations made; and I assume that the Minister, having ordered this inquiry, has intimated that the report, which Your Worship has been asked to frame, is to bo sent to him. Doubtless, reliance has been placed by the Minister upon the words contained in section 17, paragraph (e) of the Prisons Act of 1903, which lays down that the report in such an inquiry as this shall be made in writing by the visiting Justice (who in this case is Your Worship) to the Minister: the Minister, for the purposes of that Act, being the Minister of Justice. The Act of 1908 has, however, been amended, and I suggest in all earnestness that the effect of the amending legislation, has been overlooked by the Minister, for by the 1919 amendment, which provided for the appointment and duties of a Control-ler-General of Prisons, the word Minister as used in section 17 (e) of the principal Act is erased, and in its place arc substituted the words 'Controller-Gen-eral of Prisons? See section 8 (1) 1919 Amendment Act. Proceedings Farcical, In effect then as this inquiry has been ordered by the Minister of Justice, and , Your Worship’s report must consequently be made to the Minister. I submit that nowhere in our New Zealand statutes can authority be found for such an inquiry under the Prisons Act. With all respect therefore, my client declines to recognise Your Worship’s power or jurisdiction to hold this inquiry and protests against the inquiry proceeding. I submit sir, that tho only inquiry that can bo held under the Prisons Act to investigate the matter set forth in the notice is an inquiry, the report of ■which shall be forwarded to the Controller-General of Prisons. If, however, Your Worship holds that the jurisdiction exists and that this inquiry has authority to proceed and make its report to the Controller-General then I enter the further emphatic protest and submit that «nc!‘ a proceeding is incompatible with (he fundamental principles of British justice. Mr. Riddell; But suppose my report is to he made both To the 'Minister and the Controller-General ? Mr. Boys: Then. sir. in so far as the report is to bo made to the Minister. 1 submit that there is no statutory aufl’ority- for an inoniry. Ihe report of which is so made Tn so far as the rcnort is to bo made to the ControllerGeneral. I reiterate that such a course makes these proceedings farcical Whitewashing Prisons Department. "This is an inquiry into the treatment of baume, whilst in the Terrace Prison; the notice says so. The Government Department controlling prisons, must.. therefore, to-day, staud its trial concerning its administration of prison affairs and upon tho facts (if any) here n.Placed, must be judged. But by whom? By the departmental officer who is charged with the administration of prisons in New Zealand. In other words Your Worshop will be required to submit your report to Mr. Dallard as Controller-General of Prisons, who will, upon that report, determine what ho will do with himself in terms of Your Worship’s findings. 1 say, sir, and 1 say it advisedly, with full knowledge of the gravity, of my assertions, that, in such circumstances as I have outlined this inquiry can have one aim only and one result only, to whitewash the Prisons Department, whereas its logical and juvt purpose should be to deal with grave charges made against the departmental administrators of justice in this country, with which charges are invol vi d the judgments of at least three judais of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Again with respectful submission to Your Worship's rulings. I contend that for this inquiry to proceed, will meat' the enacting of a solemn farce, tho outer me of which must lie so apparent from ths start that the Justice Department of this country will be made the laughing stock of this Dominion. I desire to make a further submission: My learned friend Mr. Macassey is here representing various parties concerned; for a week or more evidence has been gathered and prepared and 1 assume ills ready to be adduced before A our Worship. To what end? To refute allegations allegedly made by my client. Allegations, sir, which are not before the Court, and will not be before the Court unless Your Worship takes judicial notice of newspaper reports, a thing which I respectfully submit Your Motship cannot do. On the 1-th ins an the Minister of Justice issued the following public statement: . "'lf Mr Elliott will produce his affidavits and formulate his charges in regard to this preferential treatment > Magisterial commission of inquiry win be set up at once.’’ , rj,„ "For reasons already stated to thr Tress. Mr. Elliott has declined to formulate charges for adjudication upon before this tribunal, and 1 contend therefore. that there are no charges o allegations before the Court in inspect of which anv inquiry can he made-

Royal Commission Asked For. "The evidence of the allegations must ueeessarilv be made bv the witnesses called bv my friend. Mr. dacassey Thev will give their own evidence and version of the allegations supposed to have been made, and having lui.ilt then man of straw, the Department can prove its case bv pulling to pieces again the bogey of its own creation

■ Before a properly-constituted tribunal, empowered to inquire into all ibe charges Mr. Elliott has made, either in the form of a Royal Commission or a Parliamentary Committee of both Houses, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. my client is willing to formulate his charges and suppoit them with evidence. It is admitted that his fundamental objection to this present inquiry is because its order of reference is limited to Baume’s treatment while in prison: it ignores inquiry into the events which led u.p to the release of Baume, and the other matters c-1 grave importance raised bv Mr. Elliott. But as the Minister has elected so to proceed, we enter this protest <-*> legal and logical grounds, submitting with every emphasis, yet all respect, that Your Worship has not Hie requisite jurisdiction to proceed, and that uo such jurisdiction exists. I will not detain the Court longer, save to urge that Your Worship give careful consideration to the legal aspect of the constitutional powers and duties of this Magisterial inquiry before it is allowed to develop into the screaming theatrical farce which can be its only result. Outcome of Inquiry Apparent. Mr Macassey: Does my friend object to tlie charges being investigated? Mr. Boys: I appear in protest against the jurisdiction under which this tribunal is set up. , .... The Magistrate: The inquiry is being held under section 17 of the Prisons Act. Do you mean to say that the prison officials have no right to say whether the assertions are true or not? Mr. Boys: I do not make any such assertion, but I submit that this inquiry is useless and the outcome must be apparent. The Magistrate: That does not affect this Court. Mr Macassey: This inquiry is into the alleged conduct of prison officials, and is hot concerned with tho Prisons Board. Mr. Boys: It is an inquiry into allegations 'made by my client as to the administration of the Prisons -Department. The Magistrate: I have nothing to do with that. All I have to do is to inquire whether certain allegations are true or otherwise. Mr. Boys: My client declines to recognise the Court’s jurisdiction. Tho Magistrate: The inquiry will proceed. The inquiry having been directed to proceed, Mr. Boys intimated that he would be taking' no further part in the proceedings and that there would be no cross-examination of witnesses, as his client declined to recognise the Court’s jurisdiction. Ho would remain in the Court as an interested spectator of the proceedings. Janies Courtayue. who said he was not a member of tho P.P.A., but belonged to the Protestant community, asked if he could he allowed to enter bis protest, on behalf of-Protestants who were not members of the P.P.A.. against the un-British tactics of the Rev. Howard Elliott. The Magistrate: J do not know that it is necessary to do that. You can be present and listen to the proceedings. Authority for Inquiry. "The authority for this inquiry,’’ said Mr. Macassey, “is section 17 of the Prisons Act, 1908. which authorises Your Worship in your capacity as a visiting Justice to the Terrace Gaol to hold an inquiry into any charges respecting the conduct of officers and the treatment of prisoners while in that gaol. The inquiry has been set up as. the result of charges publicly made by the Rev. Howard Elliott against the prisons officials in the Terrace Gaol that they, through improper influence, accorded preferential treatment to one Sidney Erue Baume while in the gaol. There have been no fewer than twelve specific charges either made by Mr. Elliott at a public meeting or subsequently made by him in the public Press. Smile may appear trivial in themselves, but the cumulative effect ot these twelve allegations, coupled with the assertion, that the preferential treatment was due to influence exercisd on tho officers of the Department, constitute a serious reflection on the integrity of those officers. It Is only common fairness ami justice to those who cannot defend themselves in the public Press that the charges be submitted to public investigation. Mr. Elliott has also publicly stated that the Controller-General, who refuted his charges, was deliberately trying to mislead the public, and fuither stated that he has sworn evidence to prove his charges. He has been notified that tins inquiry is to be held, and lie has publicly stated that he will not attend. This tribunal is not set up by the Government, but is provided for by the Prisons Act for the express purpose of meeting such charges as Mr. Elliott has made. It is a matter of the strongest possible comment that the man who made these chaises and publicly stated he had sworn evidence to prove them has not come forward to face this inquiry. There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this action of Mr. Elliott, which 1 think will be fullv borne out by the evidence ami that is that tile charges which he has made are absolutely and unequivocally untrue. 1 propose to put into the witness-box the superintendent of the Terrace Gaol, ami every prison officer who had to do with Baume during his detention ill the prison, and submit, these witnesses to Your Worship tor anv questions tl.at you may wish to ask. Fullest Inquiry Courted. “In regard to those charges which are laid as constituting a breueh ot inc prisons regulations, the answer is simple, viz., that Baume was a Borstal inmate, and that the ordinary prisons regulations did not apply. Again, it is a matter of the strongest possible comment that when this fact was pointed out., Mr. Elliott reasserted that he was quoting from the Borstal regulations, a statement which he must have known was contrary to fact. "The Department courts the fullest inquiry, and will put no obstacle in the way of the elucidation of any facts that may assist Your Worship in coming to a finding. It. is unfortunate that there is no one here to act as a prosecutor; but. that will not prevent a full and public investigation of everytjiing that bears in any way on the charges that have been made.

Specific Allegations and Replies Thereto.

“It is alleged that Baiiuie was treated preferentially and improperly in the foilowing respects:— “(1) That, Baiinie. whilst waiting I'm more than 18 hours for transfer, was allowed to wear his civilian clothes and keep other personal belongings in his cell, including his attache case containin®' his pyjamas, shaving gear, etc., in contravention of regulation 211. •iijeplv.—That Regulation 211 is a prison regulation under the Prisons Act, 190 S and lias no application to ofmnders ordered fur Boistal detention under the

Prevention of Crimes (Borstal Institutions) Act. 1924. Inmates in Borstal institutions are supplied with pyjamas bv tho Dpartment. If inmates possess pyjamas when received in a prison in transit to a Borstal institution, they are permitted to wear them. Baume had his own pyjamas. Baumo was not permitted to keep personal belongings, including attache ease, shaving .gyai, etc., in his cell after he was convicted. Borstal detainees are not required to surrender their civilian clothes until thev arrive at the Borstal institution unless their transfer is delayed tor a fairly lengthy period through some unavoidable reason, such as congestion nt tho Borstal Institution. . "2. That Baume was not required to parade with other prisoners. “Ileplv: This is especially required under Borstal Regulation 9 (2). Regulation 9 under the Prevention ot Grime (Borstal Institution) Establishments Act. tip; Gazette. Julv 23. 1925: "Whilst any person is so kept as pforesaul in any plison he shall so far as possible be kept apart from prisoners.’ “3 That Baume was not required to get up until after sunrise. "Reply: Baume was shown no preferential treatment in this respect. He was required to get up when similai inmates were required to do so. "4 That. Baume. after conviction, was allowed to have eatables other than those provided for in the Prisons hC Du''“Reply ■ The Prison Regulations do not a ppi v to Borstal detainees. Eggs were supplied under the written order of the prison medical officer (Dr. Hamilton Gilmer) Baume was in a nervous and i undown condition. He had missed several meals, he did not eat meat and eggs and milk were prescribed by the prisons doctor. This was not preferential treatment, as eggs, milk etc., are irequently supplied, even to haid labour prisoners on the medical officers instructions. , ... "5 That Baume was supplied with eg ? s and that such eggs were delivered to him in his cell by the chief waider. "Reply: Eggs were supplied under the medical officer’s orders, but the chief warder did not wait on Baume in his cell, and it is the usual practice for Borstal detainees when in prison waiting for transfer to be fed in their cells. "6 That Baume was kept by himself in the boys’ yard and allowed to sit in the sun. “Reply : Regulation 9 provides tor Borstal detainees 'to be kept by themselves, and he was quite entitled to choose a sunnv position in the yard. Baume was in no way treated differently or preferentially to any other Borstal detainee. , , , “7. That Baume was not put to work at the Terrace Prison 1 “Reply: It is not customary tor Borstal detainees to be put to work- at the prison where they are held pending transfer. “8. That Baume was not required to dress in ordinary prison garb. That seven or eight prisoners mder Borstal sentence at the Terrace Prison on November 4, 1928. were dressed in prison garb, and were placed at work. “Reply: Borstal detainees are not placed in ordinary prison garb whilst detained in a prison pending transfer to an institution. They hand in their civilian clothes on arrival at the institution. and are issued with the Borstal clothes.

"In reference to the seven or eight prisoners. There were actually only four prisoners under Borstal sentence at. the Terrace Prison on November 4, 1926. These were not dressed in the ordinary prison garb, but were dressed in hospital blues on account of their transfer being delayed through congestion at the Borstal institution. They were there for several weeks, were kept apart from the ordinary prisoners, and were required to clean the upstairs cell range which they occupied. To prevent them wearing out tlinir own civilian clothes while their transfer was delayed they were put in hospital blues. "9. That Baume was kept at the Terrace Prison nearly a fortnight after being sentenced. "Reply: Baume was sentenced late on Saturday, February 6. His transfer was order from head office on February 10, and he was received at Waikeria on February 12, that six days after sentence. The Supremo Court sittings concluded on February 9. Transfers are always-delayed until the conclusion of the sittings so that all prisoners for transfer can be escorted at tho one time. There were two others for transfer to Waikeria, but both were reformative detention prisoners. Baume was the only Borstal detainee.

“10. That Baume was not required to make bis bed. That another prisoner was detailed to make it for him.

“Reply: This is untrue. He made his own bed. Baume was required to tidy bls own cell and fold Ins own blankets in a similar manner to all other offenders.

“11. That Baume was allowed daily visits iu contravention of Kegulatiolis 262. 2113, and 264. It being alleged that such regulations the text of which has been quoted by Mr. Blliott as follows, apply to all prisons and Borstal institutions: Regulation 262 states: ‘That sentenced prisoners shall be permitted to receive a visit of not more than 30 minutes’ duration within ore week from date of their conviction.' ‘Regulation 263 states: ‘That three weeks from the date of conviction and once in every fortnight thereafter, sentenced prisoners may receive visits of not more than 30 minutes’ duration from near relatives.’ Regulation 264 stales: ‘That sentenced prisoners may be permitted to receive visits from persons other than near relatives once every • four weeks.’

“Reply: These regulations have no application to Borstal detainees. The Prevention of Crimes Act specially mentions that the Court may in lieu of passing a sentence of imprisonment make an order of detention ill a Borstal institution for a term of not less than two or more than live years. Baumo; therefore, was not under sentence of imprisonment, and the prisons regulations did not apply to him. Mr. Howard Elliott was well aii’are of this fact, because in his statement to the Press lie stated that lie had quoted from the regnlatioiis dated July 2.3. 1925, made under the Borstal Institutions Establishments Act of 1924. The regulations number only 27. Mr. Elliott, when he stated that he was quoting from the Borstal regulations, must have known that his statcincnts were false.

"12. That Baume. when proceeding on transfer to the Waikeria Borstal Institution near Te Awamutu, was permitted to have a well-filled hamper, the other prisoners on transfer having to be content with a wrapped up lunch of dry bread and meat. •'Reply: The escort ing officer was given a cardboard box containing sandwiches for the joiugiey, to be shared by the prisoners being transferred. It is not at all unusual to allow parents and relatives of any offenders on transfer to Borstal institution to provide them with a bag of fruit, sandwiches, or cigarettes for the journey. That a dippei of tea was brought into the carriage by the escort and served to (he throe prisoners, including Baume. in enamel mugs provided from the prison. The three prisoners under escort all had a share of the sandwiches on the journey, ami they arrived at Waikeria on February 12, and all travelled in the second-class cur*'"'jo'should perhaps mention that the underlying idea of Borstal treatment as provided for under the Prevention of Crimes Act. 1924, is a system of preventive detention as distinct from the penal svsteni of our ordinary prisons. The reformation and rehabilitation of the offender is the main consideration. Under the Borstal system detainees are allowed certain privileges such as being permitted to wear pyjamas, to dine in association, where they are provided with table cloths, etc., and other ordinary amenities of life which are calculated to have a socialising influence. "Mr. Elliott, stated that he had affidavits to support tils charge.. it has been publicly stated by the ControllerGeneral flint such affidavits were untrue and were made either maliciously or in ignorance. It is perfectly clear that ifsuch affidavits exist they wore made by some person or persons who did not appreciate the proper distinction made between Borstal detainees and ordinary sentenced prisoners. “This' distinction is not novel to New Zealand. The New Zealand Borstal system was founded on the lines of the English Borstal system, which was instituted in England in 1908 by Sir E. Ruggles-Brise. The following extract from an official report prepared by that gentleman and laid on the table of the House of Commons shows that in England also Borstal detainees have different treatment from ordinaiv prisoners: "All Borstal boys are strictly isolated from tho ordinary prisoners.'They are allowed special facilities in the way of reading, writing letters, and receiving visitors. Prisoners who are not educated up to a, certain 'standard receive two hours instruction daily, and can avail themselves of a splendid library of sneciallv selected books. They are supplied with these for reading while in cells. They receive a better diet than ordinary prisoners, and their coll accommodation is more comfortable. They have a recreation room in which they can amuse themselves at games of chess, draughts and dominoes. They are employed during -working hours in various trades, with competent officers to instruct them.’ ’’ An Egg Diet. Mr. Macassey than called the evidence of all the gaol officials under whoso charge Baume had been while confined in the Terrace Gaol, tho first being: Jeremiah Scanlon, the late superintendent of the Terrace Prison, who said that Baume was convicted on February (I, 1926, and on February 12 "’as transferred. under instructions from the Con-troller-General of Prisons, to Waikeria Prison, leaving Wellington by the Daylight Limited express train. During tho period Baume was at the Terrace Gaol he received no preferential treatment. The gaol authorities received no instructions from the Controller-eGneral to extend any special leniency to Baume. The medical" officer, Dr. Gilmer, had ordered Baume to have special food, such as eggs. (The medical certificate in the matter was produced to the Court, and stated the eggs were to be brought by Baume’s mother.) Baume made his own bed in accordance with tho usual custom, after being shown how to fold his blankets. Prisoners awaiting transfer to Borstal institutions wore never put into prison clothes, hut retained their own clothes until they reached the Borstal institution, when they changed into “hospital blues.’’ If thev had not their own pyjamas they were supplied with the .regulation ones. Tho Borstal regulations provided that detainees must be kept separate from ordinary prisoners, as far ns possible, while awaiting transfer. It was customary for such lads to be allowed to receive presents of food from parents and friends, and Baume had done so, chocolate food and eggs having been taken to tho prison bv his mother, Mrs. Kune also took some food to the gaol for Baume for the journev to Waikeria, and he, witness, agreed to receive it, providing tho other two prisoners, who were making (he journey the same day to Waikeria, were allowed to share it, which was quite a frequent practice. Preferential Treatment Denied. Mr. Macassey: Did Baume receive any treatment different from that accorded other prisoners in a similar position? —"I gave instructions that he was not to bo given any spec® treatment, which would not have been accorded to any other offender similarly placed.’’ Have the ordinary- prison regulalions anv special application to Borstal detainees?—“There wds a special Act passcd in 1924 dealing With those offenders, and .we worked on that.”

Continuing, witness stated that Baume was always called in the morning with the other prisoners, after sunrise. Breakfast was at 6.45. The Borstal regulations were strictly carried out. the underlying idea being to reform the youthful prisoners, if possible, at the start of their careers, and to endeavour to prevent them lapsing into confirmed criminals.

To the Magistrate, the witness declared that in the statements made by Mr. Howard Elliott, about the alleged differential treatment of Baume, no distinction had evidently been drawn between tbo treatment of an ordinary prisoner and a Borstal detainee.

William Robert Cook, chief warder, under whore direct supervision Baume had been while in tho Terrace prison, endorsed the previous evidence that Baume received no preferential consideration. Ho had been supplied with four or five eggs under medical instruction.

The Magistrate: Over what period were (be eggs supplied?—“lt - would depend ou the doctor’s orders. In some cases eggs are supplied tor a time.’’ Continuing, witness stated that Baume was required to fold his blankets and keep his cell tidy. Prisoners had to be shown tire process in the first place. Baumo was not supplied with a kit at the Terrace. When men were being transferred in a few days’ time they retained their ordinary clothes. It was usual for relatives to supply Borstal detainees with food, fruit, and cigarettes for the journey to the Borstal institution ; they were kept while awaiting transfer apart, where possible, from other prisoners. Parents, were not pievented from visiting their sons: it was nt the discretion of the superintendent. When the awakening bell rang at sunrise everv man in the prism! had to get. up Baume would not be required to parade with ordinary prisoners. 1 erraec Gaol, being under demolition, <lio not have the conveniences to earn- out the regulations in their entirety. A Box of Sandwiches. Peter S. Watters, another Terrace Prison officer, gave evidence as tn the issue of the stores. Except eggs. Baume received no special food. He wyi™ Baume and two others to Waikeria oil February 12, receiving from the superintendent a cardboard box containing "andwiches. which he understood had been sent in by Baume s mother tor the three men. Mr. and Airs. Ivane were nt Thorndon -station to see Baume off, but he received nothing from them there. On the journey tea was brought into the second-class carriage on two occasions, and was served in the prison enamelled mugs. . Waikerm was reached at 10.30 at night. It would he untrue to say that Baumo had a well-filled hamper while the other men had bread and cheese. Ezra Woodley, another warder troni the 'Terrace Prison, said he was in charge inside the prison during tho absence of Chief-Warder Cook on February 4, 5 and 6. Tie received no instructions to treat Baume differently to other men. It was a nsua practice for Borstal detainees to have their food in their cells. In their case parents were allowed to send along food to tlieir sons for the journev to the Borstal institution. After breakfast Baume went with other Borstal detainees to the bovs’ yard. He saw Baume every dav after his sentence. The Magistrate: Listen to (his extract: “Baumo was not required to make his bed, and another prisoner was detailed to make it for him.’’ What have you to say to that?—“That is untrue, Y'our Worship.” What about this: “Baume was not required to get up until after sunrise”? —“He got up with all the others and was nlneed in tho yard at 8 o’clock.” Arthur O. Bellamy, a warder at the Terrace prison, stated that ho escorted Baume during his trial to the Court and hack Io tho prison. Throughout the trial he was frenfoil exactly the same as other offenders, and no preferential treatment was extended him. He saw no special food supplied to him. Borstal detainees were not put into prison garb. If their clothes were changed while awaiting transfer Borstal detainees were put into “hospital blues.” Ho received no instructions to show Baume preferential treatment.

To the Magistrate: He was only two days at Terrace prison after Baume was sentenced, and could not say what treatment was extended to him before that time. The prisoners were called at 6.30 a.in., breakfast was a little later. Borstal prisoners did not parade with the others. Alexander Hayward, a Terrace prison warder, and also an officer at Waikeria, supported previous witnesses that Baume had not received any preferential treatment over other Borstal pri-oners. Charles Gibson, another Terrace warder, said ho hnd not scon an attache case, or other personal belongings, in Baume’s cell. Alexander Adamson, a temporary warder at. the Terrace, corroborated previous evidence (hat Baume was not treated exceptionally. John Downs, the present superintendent of the Terraco prison, was also called an examined as follows:— Mr. Macassey: There is an allegation bv Mr. Howard Elliott that on November 4 there were seven or eight Borstal prisoners in tho Terraco gaol who were dressed in prison garb, and at work. Is that correct ? —“No.” i The ILagistrate: Were there any Borstal detainees there at tho time?—“Two or three.” How do you account for that number bein o, stretched to seven or eight?—“My journals do not show it, and there can be no mistake; there were only three at the outside, and they were not dressed in prison garb. They were not made to work, but they had, of course, to keep themselves clean. There was some eon gestion in the- Borstal institutions at tho time and these three young fellows were kept here for a time. They wore tho hospital blues. I have only been six months at the Terrace, and have seen verv few visitors. The three men referred to had to clean their cells, and the landing on the top floor, but worn kept away from other prisoners and exercised in (heir own yard. Daniel Williamson, another Terrace wardcl', at present in hospital, sent in a signed statement that he received no instructions to treat Baume exceptionally.

“Some One Must Have Given Information.”

Mr. Scanlon was recalled and questioned about the attache case, and stated it was untrue that Baume had it in his cell. The case was kept in the gaol office. The Magistrate: Sonic one must have given some information to Mr. Howard Elliott.

Witness: It was not I. The attache ease was brought up to the priren by the lad’s mother with some clothing in it, including a suit of pyjamas. They were handed to Baume. On the evening before the transfer that case was taken down to the cell, and Baume’s dirty clothes were put into it and given to liis mother to take away. Warder Cook, in further examination, stated that, anything ordered by the doctor such as cgg< had to pass through his hands. He did not personally deliver any eggs to Baume in his coll. It was his duty to see that the doctor’s orders were carried out. Baume was no more to him than any other prisoner.

The witness said he might have delivered one egg to Baunie, but he had no recollection of doing so. An.y eggs t« it in would be taken to the kitchen and cooked—boiled. The warder would afterwards deliver them in the cell, and he, witness, would inquire if they had been delivered. It was usual for Borstal detainees to bo fed in their cells. The Magistrate: How many Borstal prisoners were there umber sentence on November 4 last? —“I do not know.” You did not see Mr. Howard Elliott there on November 2? —“No.” He could not have s®en them personally ?—“No.”

If anybody connected with the prison said there were seven or eight, it would be incorrect? —“Yes.” Mr. Macassey intimated that all the Terrace prison warders had been called, and that concluded his evidence.

The Magistrate: I do not propore to make any statement at the present time, but will make my report in due course. Mr. Boys: Will Your AVorsihip make clear the point as to whether or not you Intend to consider the protest I raised in respect to Y'our Worship’s jurisdiction ?

The Magistrate: T ruled that the Court had jurisdiction and that the inquiry should proceed.

The inquiry then terminated.