THE CHARGES AGAINST THE WELLINGTON POLICE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5493, 4 November 1878, Page 2

THE CHARGES AGAINST THE WELLINGTON POLICE.

The charges brought against the Wellington police by Mr. Barton, M. HU., as stated iu the report brought up by the committee, were:— 1. Abuse of their powers and cruelty to prisoners on arrest. 2. Neglect of duty iu prosecuting offeuco* and arbitrary assumption of discretionary powers. 3. Favoritism and partiality, in recommending and objecting to publicans’ licenses and in the general supervision of public-houses. 4. Laxity of discipline and breach of discipline. From the evidence laid on the table of the House aud ordered to be printed wo glean the following : The first case brought forward, under No. 1 class, was what may be tanned THE MANNERS-STREET LOCK-UP CASE. The allegation was that Mr. Piloier,' late Inspector of Nuisances, one Sunday morning, some two or three years ago, saw Constable * Buchanan illtreating a prisoneratthe Mannersstreet lock-up. Mr. Film r was called. He remembered speaking to Mr. Barton about the matter, but did not know when it occurred, and had no means of finding it out, hut believed it happened two or three years ago. He was at the Manners-street pound one morning. It might have been Sunday, bub he didn't recollect. HU sou c»rae to him aud said a policeman was beating a prisoner at the lock-up close by. He went immediately to see what was going on, aud found Buchanan beating a prisoner with a baton. Said: “You should not do that Buchanan,” aud Buchanan replied: “He flew at me like a tiger.” The man seemed very much afraid. Buchanan then left; off. Did not know the man. Never saw' him before. Did not try to find out his nam-*, and never made any complaint to the police or anybody else, but spoke, to the Mayor, Mr. Hutchison, about it. This evidence received no corroboration. Buchanan denied it entirely from beginning to end, aud Mr. W. Hutchison, on being called, denied that Pilraer had ever mentioned the occurrence to him in any shape or form. He gave Buchanan an excellent character, and believed Filmer was altogether mistaken. RICHARD JONES’ CASE. The allegation was that two years ago Richard Jones was walking along Ghuzneestreet one Sunday about noon assisting a companion to take home a third person who was very drunk. A policeman came up and said lie wanted Kells, and marched him off to the lock-up handcuffed. When there they illtreated him, aud refused to allow him bail because he would not tell the name of the person who had supplied the drink to him. Jones was put upon his oath (as all the witnesses seem to have been) and stated that the foregoing allegations were true. He was not drunk. Did not know the man who took him in charge. Did not make any complaint, because he did not want the matter mado public. Was iu the employ of a grocer named Kells carrying on business in Cuba-street at the time, and had just been down to the shop to do a little work, and was on his way home when this occurred. The drunken man was not takeu iu custody. His wrists were so badly hurt that he could not work for days. Kells, who had employed Joues, stated that lie had requested Joues to go the shop on the Sunday, aud saw him leave. He walked straight, aud was apparently sober, but a man ' with him was drunk. Jones next day told him that he had been locked up on Sunday. Witness said “ nonsense.” Jones said “Yes, it is a fact.” Witness replied, “You were not drunk?” Joues said, ‘‘No.” Jones’ wrists were chafed a good deal. Witness, from what he had subsequently heard, believed that Jones had been locked up to do him (Kells) an injury, He did not-understand much about the grocery business, and Jones did ; and he believed that parties who wanted to take ail unfair advantage of his want of knowledge wished to deprive him of the assistance of Joues, and for that reason made it right with the police to take him into custody. Had never complained to the police ou the subject, but once in conversation with a policeman said it was a pity Joaes had been so treated. The policeman did not know anything about it, hut said Jones must have done something or he would not have been taken in custody. There is auentiraabsenceof any corroborative testimony. Neither of the men who were with Joues were call 'd, both, it is stated, having left the colony, and he himself, though, as he says sober, failed to recollect any of the policemen who treated him badly, accounting for this by saying he was greatly excited at the time. As to his treatment in the cell, he stated he was handcuffed aud thrown on his back, bo that ho could not get up, but he was never tied to a ring (as Mr. Barton had alleged in the House.) JOHN VITET’S CASE. Vitey it seems was a Frenchman, a sailor, aud late one evening was arrested ou a charge of having insulted a female. He was no doubt greatly knocked about when he arrived at the gaol, and one Coleman, a man who was employed as a cook at the police station, is brought forward to prove that Vitey received injuries while being arrested. The arresting constable was not called, being at tbe Hot Springs, undergoing medical treatment for injuries received when arresting a sailor subsequently ; and Vitey was not to be found. Therefore nothing came of the case. It is a point in the constable’s favor that Vitey was known as a most violent man, who had given the police great trouble when arresting him. before; that he was on this occasion convicted and sentenced, and that he never made any complaint to the Bench o! the treatment he had received. GUNSTON*S CASE. In this case William Gvmston alleged that three others and himself were going down Manners-street one' day when Constable McWilliams and another constable were taking into custody a man named Burke. He considered Burke was being ill-treated, and he aud his mates stood watching the constables. There were about 100 persons present. They followed the constables and the man down to the police station, and when the constables had got Burke in, McWilliams rushed out aud took Gunstou and another man into custody for having hooted and bowled. McWilliams struck him on the face in the cell and knocked him down on the floor. He was kept in the cell from 4 o’clock in the afternoon till 9 o'clock, when he was bailed out. Next morning he was brought up on a charge of resisting the police in the execution of their duty, and the case-was dismissed, the ResLl u i Magistrate saying there evidently had been a mistake. He had not made any complaint to the Inspector of Police, but was going to say something in Court, when the magistrate said ; “ I cannot take that,” or something of that sort. He had told Mr. Allan, his solicitor, about the occurrence, but he had said nothing about it in Court. No corroborative evidence was tendered beyond the recordof Gnnston’s acquittal. Mr. Allan was subsequently called and declared he had no recollection of such circumstances being mentioned, aud if they had been mentioned he believed he would have remembered. Inspector Atchison ou being examined stated he knew nothing of the matter ; complaints had never been made to him. Tbe following colloquy then ensues between Mr. Barton and the Inspector : J3>j Mr. Barton. 3 Do you remember my making a statement at the theatre to the effect that* policeman. whom I called policeman X, had tied a man down, and that ho had then kicked him . I remember reading in the paper. . . Do yen remember an inquiry being demanded oy th« police with respect to ray -tatements .--Yes. I want to know this: Did you inquire as to whether such an inquiry did take place?—l paraded the men, and road tho Mayor's letter and memorandum I got from tho C •mraissiouer. I asked one and all U they had seen anything of the sort: and I spoke to some of the oldest officers iu the force, men who had been at the We'Ungton station for years, and they all said distinctly they had never seen anything or heard anything of tho kind. . . iron have seen Mr. Commissioner Shearman’s letter on the subject. He acknowledges that some such thing had o -currcd, but the man had left tho force. Who was the man he was alluding to?—Ho was alluding to sergeant Monaghan. Did yon discover that Monaghan did such a thing ? —No. Do you know where Commissioner Shearman mado that discovery!—No; I was surprised at tho letter. Did ho toll you ho was alluding to Monaghan ? No, ”ut 1 knew Monaghan was the only man who had left tho force. So far as your investigations were concerned, you got nothing ?—No. Did Mr. Shearman hold an Inquiry without your being present?—No, he held no inquiry at which I was present, and 1 do not know of any inquiry being held by him. I was at Wanganui when tho letter was published, and I knew ho referred to Monaghan, because bo was tho only man who had loft tho force. Did you know to whom I was referring when I spoke?—Yes. How!—Wo guessed. THE BINGS IN THE FLOOR. Sir. Barton and Mr. Barton, jtm., gave evidence as to the existence of rings attached to the floor of the Lambton-quay lock-up ; an<f Inspector Atchison gives the following information :—, . ' B‘i Mr. Swanson.] Are there rings in the floor of the cells ?—There arc. ‘ la it the custom to chain men down to these rings ? —Sometimes we get hold of madmen, and they are tied down to prevent them Injuring or destroying themselves, but that occurs very seldom. We had a man iu some time ago who. when tho constable went to the cell, lifted up a bucket and tried to strike him

down, -'uch ft man ought bo tied down. We have not us d the rings for years; but the man In charge of the station, who lias been in the force for sixteen years, can give more information on that point than I can. When were the rings put In ?—Years ago. There are Tings in both lock-ups 7—Yes. When a man comes in to the lock-up what happens. He is charged* and then searched and put in a coll. Is a report entered In the book ?—Yes, his name is entered in a book, by whom arrested, for what arrested, the hour of hi* arrival, and the property taken from him. That Is signed by the constable arresting, and countersigned by the man in charge of the lock-up at tho time. . , 0 It would bo all in tho hook to bo shown next day ? ~lf any of this ring business took place would that also bo put In tho book. If a man or woman was tied down would that appear in the book?—I never heard of a woman being tied rtowi. Or a man ?—Onlv in the cases I have mentioned. If it was done would it be reported ?—lt should bo. I generally visit tho station about 8 in th* evening, and then again about 12if I am down town. By the Chairman.] I suppose there are rules for tho guidance of the men. Vow, supposing a man was tied down to a ring* would that bo specially reported to you?—l think so. , . , . Is it a. rule that tho police are to be allowed to chain men down ?—The rule is that if they did they would make a report to the sergeant. Bu Mr. Swanson. J "Would not the books show; when men were tied down to the rings?—l do not think so. I only know of two occasions when men were chained down, and then for their own safety, Bathe Chairman ] Are the police numbered?—>o. That is, they are numbered, but do not carry their numbers. . . .. Would it not be better to have them numbered ? It would. 1 think the Government propose to do it. The first case arnone the second order of charges brought forward is pestbidge’s case. Mr. ‘Boardman, aejent for the South British Insurance Company, is produced by Mr. Barton as a witness, and his statement is to this effect : Tho Railway Hotel, opposite the railway station, was ono night burned down, and Mr. R. Bruce Wallace, agent for the National Insurance Company, told him (Boardman) that when {standing at the fire, Inspector Atchison came up to him (Wallace) and wanted to know what tho insurance companies would stand if the police hunted the matter up, Wallace also told him that Detective Farrell was determined to hunt the matter up, but that ■ Inspector Atchison was throwing every obstacle in tho way. Pestridgo was arrested, but got off owing to the principal witness not appearing when the case was called on before the Supremo Court, Mr. Barton, after beating about the bush for some time, insinuates (by asking questions) that the principal witness Ferguson was allowed by the police to get away, to suit tho purposes of Mace and Arkell* who had an insurance ovsr tho building burned down, Farrell on being called states distinctly that he was not in any wav thwarted by the Inspector, but on the contrary urged to go on. Mr Wallace altogether denies that ho ever told Mr. "BoardUnu what he alleged, but that on the contrary the insurance companies interested were thoroughly satisfied with the action of the police in this matter. He says : “I was perfectly pleased with the despatch used by the police. I thought at the time that as Gsvemment property .was involved—the railway station also having been burned—that was the reason why the police were so smart. At any rate the police did their duty.” Mr. Simpson, tho other insurance agent interested, takes a similar view ; and Mr. Izard, the Crown prosecutor, commends the energy and activity of the police, and lays tho blame of the witness Ferguson not turning up on the shoulders of the clerk to the Resident Magistrate, who forgot -to bind him over to appear at the sessions. Thus ends that case. quin's CASE. ■ Thq only other case which space will admit of our referring to in this issue is that of alleged incendiarism by Morton Quin, and wo give the evidence pretty well in extenso, because it is of more importance than any of the other cases mentioned so far ; indeed, the only one which seems to afford tangible ground for complaint. Mr. Boardman’s examination by the chairman brings out the following : Will you just state wHt you know about it?—A house at the corner of Quin and Dixon streets, belonging to Quin's father, was insured in ray office for £4OO. One morning I saw by the papers that there had been a fire there, and I went to the police. In consequence of what I heard, I bought a padlock and key and locked the place r»p, so that no one could get at it. Detective Farrell made a lot of inquiries and submitted a report to the Inspector of Police, and from the nature of that report I certainly thought there was quite enough evidence to show good cause for farther inquiry. The Inspector was at Wanganui at the time, but in two or three days’ time returned. After that I asked him at least half a dozen times what steps he was going to take. On* day he said he had not had time to look into the matter, bub he would take tho report homo on Sunday and see what It stated ; so be put me off f*r another week. But since then nothing whatever has been done. If yon hare that report before yon. you will see that there was quite sufficient evidence to justify further Inquiry, especially as Quin bore a bad character, and had been charged with embezzlement before. 1 am sure wa should have got a conviction If the matter had only been followed up. . . ■Were no steps taken?—None, except the inquiries which were made and submitted to the Inspector in the shape of a report. Will you state what you remember of the report?— The report stated that Detective Farrell was walking down tho street about balf-p ist 7 at night, when he saw a sudden blaze in the house. He broke open the door and ran into a little room used as an office by Morton Quin, and saw a lot of flame all over a table and on the floor. He stamped out the flames on the floor and smothered those on the tab’e. He found the place smelling stronglyof kerosene, and a number of papers about tho place saturated with kerosene. Morton Quin was a Forester, and was secretary or treasurer That night he should have brought up a report on financial matters to a meeting of the combined lodges of the North Island, but ho did not turn up *. and next dav, about 12 or X o’clock. he was found by Detective Farrell and Sergeant Smith in bed at the Melbourne Hotel. His shirt and wrists were smelling strong of kerosene, and he made statements entirely different from those made by his sis‘er as to where he had been tho previous night, bub I cannot now recollect what the discrepancies were. I know ono said he was in the house at the time, and tho other said he was notNo further action was taken?—No. This man should hare submitted his accounts to the Foresters this night, but ha did not, and never baa done yet ; in fact, Ibis said that the auditors found deficiencies, and that some one had to cash up the deficiency. My theory la, that Quin set fire to the place so that the papers connected with the Foresters' business should bo destroyed, so that it should not be found whether there wore any defalcations or not. He had previously been convicted of embezzlement, but the conviction was upset in the Court of Appeal on some technical ground. Do you know where he is now?—Ho is in Wellington. There is another point connected with the matter to which I would like to refer. When I could not get the police to move in the matter, I tried to get the coroner to hold an inquest, but it appearethcre is some defect in the Coroners Act. It simply sars that a coroner can hold an inquest on ships, buddings, or property destroyed or damaged; and the coroner would not hold an inquiry into this matter because tho house was not destroyed or materially damaged. 1 could get nothing done in the matter, and I had just to shut up In Quin's case, you spoke to Atchison about it yourself? ' h, a dozen times. . What was it you said to him ?—I asked him in the first,place if he had read the report. He said no, he had not had time. By the Chairman.] When was it you asked him that ? A day or two after bis return from Wanganui, after he might have seen tho report. By Mr. Barton.] Did you over speak to him again about that report?—Yes; and again ho said he had not had time. How long after was that ?—Two or three days after. He then promised to take H home on Sunday and read it. I saw him on the following Monday, and he said he had not read It. How long was it before you wrote to tho Minister of Justice?—l wrote to him on tho 18th February this year. By the Chairman.] In tho meantime did Atchison ever tell you he had read the report?— Well, I got so sick of the affair that I gave it up in dlsgnst. Frederick Cilarleb Smith, being duly sworn, was examined. By the Chairman ] You are Sergeant of Police, stationed at Wellington ?—I am. Do you remember the case of a fire on tho premises of a man named Morton Quin ?—I do. What do you know of the matter?—Farrell informed me of the fire and requested ido to go with him to view tho premises. I did so; but it is ao long ago that I now almost forget the exact position of affairs. Farrell drew up a report, and I asked Mr. Atchison If I should also report, but he said, “No; Farrell's would do." Did Farrell and you consult about the report ? . Wo "did. Did ycu consider the circumstance# suspicious?— They wore suspicious, certainly. Did you see Quin afterwards ?—Yes; we looked for Where did you And him ?—ln the Melbourne Hotel, In bed, . Did you examine him ?—Yes. Was there anything you noticed particularly?—lf I recollect properly there was a smell of kerosene about his clothes, particularly on his arm. F >rrell drew my attention to It, and I certainly observed It. After the report went In were any steps taken against Quin ?—Nono that I am aware ofr Was no further investigation made?—l believe there was some inquiry made about it. By whom ?—By Detective Farrell, lie continued to make Inquiries under tho orders of the Inspector. By Inspector Atchison.] Do you remember I had a conversation urging Farrell to Inquire about the alleged embezzlement ot tho Foresters’ money?— I dO. ; On several occasions I had conversations with Farrell regarding tho alleged embezzlement?—l remember two occasions in your office. Will you state what took place ?- I almost forget. Yon directed Farrell, In tho first Instance, to make Homo inquiry as to whether it was t no that Quin had anything 'o do with tho: societies, and on another occasion you directed him to follow it up. I forget what the precise, instruction# wore. By Mr. Barton .] Did Farrell follow it up?—Not that l am aware of- Ho never reported it to mo. Mr. Sutton, secretary to tho Foresters' Lodge, stated there were considerable embez-. zlem uts, but the extent of them was not yet known Inspector Atchison, replying to this evidence, in effect says : As soon as I came back from Wanganui, Farrell presented to me a . report about this fire. I read it, but I told Boardman X had not done so. I had a reason for that, X did read it, and said to Farrell, “ Bo far as this statement of tho sister Is concerned that ia worthies?. If ahe were put in the box she would at once go back from her statement. Wo cannot depend upon her; but if we can get evidence to show that these papers wore destroyed for a purpose, that there was defalcation in the accounts, it

will be all right, we can. proceed. You had better see if you can get that evidence. Repeatedly I spoke to Farrell and asked him about it; but I could never get anything from, him with respect to defalcations, and I did not like to take the matter out of Ins hands. Some weeks ago I made inquiries, but was told not a sixpence was wrong. The Chairman called attention to Mr. Sutton's evidence. The Inspector : I was not aware there was any embezzlement, Mr. Valentine told mo so, and if there had been any, I thought he would have heard of it.