POLICE DISPUTE.

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19899, 30 May 1936, Page 9

POLICE DISPUTE.

_._.__._._._ 1 OHARGIS AGAINST MEMBERS. 1 AN APPLICATION DISMISSED. Tole ra u.—Press Association.) ,(3' I p GISBORNE, Friday. "Charges against members of the Police Force and consequent repercussions were ventilated before the acting-Chief Justice. Mr Justice Reed, in the Supreme Court this morning when application: was made for a writ‘ of prohibition and certiorari restraining the police board of inquiry from proceeding with the hearing. Outlining the position. the Crown Prosecutor. Mr F. W. Nolan. appearing for the Department, explained that in Aupzust last an inquiry was held by inspector Martin into charges against Constable iiendren. whose dismissal from the force was recommended by the inspector. llendren appealed and the board varied the recommendation by advising the reduction of Hendren's seniority. During the hearing of the appeal Constable Scandrett made a statement regardingr the com duct of Inspector Martin. and as a result hoth Scandrett and liendren appeared before Inspector Lander charged with making a false statement. The charges were held proved and dismissal was recommended. There has been considerable delay in hearing the issues and the appeal in the board was interrupted by the runnnrncement oi‘ the present proceedings. Hlo Honour and Counsel. .\ir l“ ’l‘. Burnard. for the constables, said they hari stated at the inquiry that Hwy s.i\\‘ inspector Martin in a car with .1 “onion and the whole question \-..i.~ whether the inspector or the consuihlos were to he believed. At the inquiry he had cross-examined with ihr object or discrediting the inspector‘s cridence. His Honour: “There is a limit to which cross-examination should go. 'ihe whole tone or your questions leaves the impression in my mind that you were attempting to do as much harm as possible to Martin. I don't know whether you were instructed to give the inapector what you could because he had prosecuted one of these men but that is the impression lett‘ in my mind. Mr Burnard denied that this was his intenion, and went on to refer to the‘ charge previously preferred against! the inspector of indecent exposure. ‘ )ir .\‘olan interjected that this Chill‘s’c had been withdrawn by the court at Mr Burnnrd‘s request, and Mr llurnnrd said it had been impossible to proceed as his witnesses had been inirrirrrtl with by representatives of ”in Police Ilepnrinwnl, .\l‘ler further argument the oppll—‘ cation was (liSlili-‘st‘ll. ‘