POLICE INQUIRY.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 October 1920, Page 5

POLICE INQUIRY.

FURTHER EVIDENCE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Oct. 7. The inquiry into the allegations made against several Wellington police officers by ex-Detective-Sergeant M. Mason was resumed to-day. Mason gave evidence that he was intimidated by the presence of a HansaTd reporter in the Supreme Court, for he felt there was a conspiracy to trip him after his action in the Magistrate's Court in connection with the charge against two men of stealing sanitary plans belonging to the Petone Borough Council. He was humiliated by being superseded in the Supreme Court procedure, another officer being entrusted with the case in that court. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., opening the case for the defence, submitted that the charges were wanton and without foundation and unworthy of the tribunal set up to investigate them. Mr. Myers, for Mason, had stated that no personal attack was made on the three officers named, but that it was the police system which was attacked, but he, Mr. Skerrett, held it was obvious the complaints were nothing more nor less than charges of misconduct against those officers. Mr. Myers must have been de-i ceived as to the facts. It appeared that Mason had adopted an incurable bias that a'third man was 'the master thief, and that the accused, Miles and Millanty, were the dupes. There was no intention of intimidating Mason by the presence of a Hansard reporter in the Supreme Court. Inspector Mcllvcney gave evidence that he told Mason he did n"ot wish anyone to tell an untruth, and it was inmaterial to him who was prosecuted. He also told Mason that if there was evidence against the third man he, McIlveney, would prosecute hira, but at the time there was evidence only against Miles, and' Millants, and he would not allow the matter to drop. Wellington, Last Night. Inspector W B. Mcllveney, the first witness for the defence recounted his discussions with Mason of a preliminary report made by the latter. Witness said it appeared to him that Miles and Millanter would have to be prosecuted, to which Mason replied: "For -God's sake don't do that, sir. If you do my evidence will get them off." • At that time one of the men was in custody upon a charge of receiving stolen property. During conversation witness had pointed out to Mason the story of a surreptitious meeting of Miles and Millanter with a third man, which, if correct, was evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of Miles and Millanter. Witness stated he told Mason that if he had made any promise to the men he (witness) would respect it. Mason replied that he wa9 under no obligation. Witness stated that on account of the peculiar attitude taken up by Mason he referred the question of the prosecution of Miles and Millanter to Superintendent Norwood. Witness was informed by Detective-Sergeant Rawle that Mason intended making an attack on a superior officer, and was attempting to do so when cheeked by Rawle. Witness maintained there was nothing unusual in the Crown Solicitor's action in handing further inquiries ovar to another officer when the investigating officer was present. The Inspector also held Mason unduly delayed his investigations. Detective-Sergeant Rawle, who was acting chief detective at the time the Miles-Millanter case was before the Magistrate's 'Court gave evidence as to instructions received a3 to checking Mason in. case of an attempted attack on superiors. Witness _ objected to Mason expressing an opinion as to the innocence of Miles and Millanter. The objection was upheld by the Court, After Superintendent Norwood had given evidence the Commission reserved

its decision.