E. MACDONELL.j

35

L—lα,

100. You say here—these are your own words, repeated more than onee —" I sought them out. They simply answered my questions" ?—Exactly. Is it not the experience of every police officer that if he is told some one knows so-and-so, and some one else so-and-so, he goes to inquire unless the people come to him ? Very few people come and make statements from beginning to end. I make it a rule to question and requestion again, so that there will be no mistake about the statements made. I give them every opportunity to make true statements. 101. You allege that I shut this out? —I allege that you seemed to take the part of these men when they were put in a corner. 102. Now, since you allege that against me, I will ask you this : Was that the only occasion on which you have been dissatisfied with the decisions of tribunals before which you have taken cases?— No. 103. Do you remember the complaint made by the jury at Eeefton about you?— Yes. 104. Because they did not see eye to eye with you? —Nothing of the kind ; and I am surprised at you putting it in that way. 105. Which way would you put it? Did they not complain that you made remarks on their unfairness in dealing with a case ? —No, they did not. 106. What did they complain of ? Mr. B. McKenzie submitted that this was not a fair question. 107. What was the difference between yourself and the jury at Eeefton ?—They objected to some evidence. I tried again and again to explain the relevancy of the matter, and I ultimately said that I was told outside that a certain man's friends were on the jury, and that really what was taking place looked like it. 108. As a matter of fact, it comes back to this : that you were dissatisfied with the jury in the same way that you were dissatisfied with me ? —Oh, no, it is not exactly the same. 109. Because I did not pursue the case so far as you desired it to go : was that not so ? —No, it was not. I thought right through the cases that you had a leaning towards these men. I did, indeed. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones : Are you referring to the cases that we are dealing with now, or to a previous inquiry ? Commissioner Tunbridge : The cases we are dealing with now. (To witness:) 110. In the Eeefton case you say you were not satisfied with the action of the jury ? —ln that particular instance I was not. 111. 1 will pursue one or two other cases that occur to my mind to show that you frequently disagree with the decisions of tribunals before which you are engaged. Did you not express yourself very strongly on the decisions given by the Stipendiary Magistrate at Greymouth?—ln some brothel cases I did. I wished to take some further action, and I was not the only one. 112. You were very biassed in that case, were you not ?—I was not biassed; but I considered the Magistrate was peculiar in the brothel case, and pretty well every one in Greymouth said the same. I could give the same reply in reference to yourself in many cases. It is nothing unusual. Mr. Skerrett objected to this line of questioning, on the ground that it was a mere recrimination betweeen the Commissioner and the Inspector. Commissioner Tunbridge said he would not pursue it further, but would ask the witness a question with regard to charge No. 1 against Sergeant Mackay. Mr. Skerrett objected to this as being irrelevant, and some discussion took place as to the admissibility of any matters not referred to in the petition. The Committee considered this point in camera. On readmission of the witnesses, counsel, &c, — The Chairman said, The resolution that the Committee have arrived at is that the proceedings must be confined strictly to something that has a direct bearing on the petition. The Committee have also directed me to inform you that they will call such evidence afterwards as they deem necessary. I am also directed particularly to inform Commissioner Tunbridge that the Committee are not inquiring into his conduct in connection with the cases. The following is the resolution that has been arrived at: " That the Chairman inform Commissioner Tunbridge, Inspector Macdonell, and counsel for petitioners and the Crown, that the evidence must be strictly confined to such as has a direct bearing on the petition." We are not holding an investigation into the conduct of the police of the colony, but into these particular cases, and, so as to enable the Committee to arrive at a decision this session, it is necessary to be as brief as possible. The proceedings must therefore be confined to evidence strictly bearing upon the petition. 113. Commissioner Tunbridge.] Well, now, charge No. 2 against Sergeant Mackay has a bearing on the petition, inasmuch as it deals with the case of Eemnant, who accused the two constables of assault. The charge was, " Omitting to bring under the notice of his Inspector the fact that Charles Eemnant, of Vincent Street, Nelson, had complained to him of being assaulted by Constable Burrell about February, 1901 " ?—Yes. 114. You have never seen my finding on that charge?—l did not see it till I saw the file here. 115. My finding was, " The sergeant ought at least to have made an entry of this complaint in the diary, under the heading of ' Occurrences,' and it would have been better had he submitted a report to his Inspector. But the constable at the time of the alleged assault was not on duty, and the offence was a statutory one. Eemnant therefore had his remedy in the Magistrate's Court. Had the alleged assault been committed by the constable while on duty there would have been absolutely no excuse for the sergeant not reporting the matter. As the constable was not on duty at the time, the sergeant, in the exercise of his discretion, might not have considered it necessary to report the matter ; but I cannot accept that as a sufficient excuse, and therefore convict him of this charge, and caution him to be more careful in future. I think, under the circumstances, that is sufficient punishment." Now, do you think that is a reasonable finding or not?—l do in that case, but perhaps it is not as strong as I would like.