POLICE ENQUIRY

Hokitika Guardian, 8 October 1920, Page 3

POLICE ENQUIRY

[PER FRESB ASSOCIATION.—COPYRIGHT.] WELLINGTON, October 7. In the Mason case Inspector W. B. Mcllveney, the first witness for the defence, recounted his discussions with Mason of a v preliminary report made by the. latter'. Witness said it appeared to him that Miles and Mallanta would have to be prosecuted, to which Mason replied: “Fey God’s sake don’t do that, sir. If you do my evidence will get thorn off.” At that time one of the men was in custody upon a charge of receiving stolen property. Durum the conversation witness bad pointed out to Mason the story' of the surreptitious meeting of Miles and Millanta, with a third man. If this was correct it was evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of Miles and Millanta. Witness stated that he told Mason that if he had made any promise to the men, he (witness) would respect it. Mason replied that he was undejr no obligation. Witness stated that on account of the peculiar attitude taken up by Mason lie referred the question of the prosecution of Milos and Millanta to Superintendent Norwood and Detective-Sergt. Rawle. Mason intended making an attack on his superior officer and was attempting to do so when checked by Sergeant Rawle. Witness maintained that there was nothing unusual in the Crown Solicitor’s action in handing further inquiries over to another officer. The present inspector also held that Mason unduly delayed his investigations. Detective-Sergeant Rawle, who was actinjg-Chief Detective at the time the Miles and Millanta ease was before the Magistrate’s Court, gave evidence as to instructions received as to cheeking Mason in case of an attempted attack on his superiors. Wit. ness objected to Mason expressing his opinion as to the innocence of Miles and Millanta, and the objection was upheld by the Court. Superintendent Norwood said that the file in connection with the Miles and Millanta case came under his notice and he approved of a recommendation of Inspector Mcllveney to prosecute these two men. Mr Skerrett: It is suggested that in February there was a move with a view to preventing this public inquiry. Is there any truth in this? Witness: None whatever. Did you approve of an inquiry? I asked for an inquiry myself, almost immediately after the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court.. To M|i- Macassey: Ho recollected having conferred with Him (counsel) prior to the Supreme Court sessions, and agreeing that it would be very unwise for Mason to go before a Grand Jury. This closed the case for the defence. The president announced the decision would be delivered later.