THE POLICE COMMISSION

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2565, 28 July 1909, Page 5

THE POLICE COMMISSION

CONSTABLE CONNEL’S CHARGES

* (Per Press Association CHRISTCHURCH; July 27. The Police Commision opened here to-day. The Commissioner, Mr. Bishop, addressing Mr, Laurensdn, said that reference had been made to him in the course of evidence at Invercargill by a constable at one time stationed at Lyttelton. The secretary of the Commission had been instructed to give Mr. Lauren son the main heads of the statements to enable him, if he desired, to meet the allegations made ..'These came properly within the scope of the Commission, inasmuch as they referred to political interference and undue influence. He gave Mr. Laurens on to understand clearly that it was only because of Iris being a member of Parliament he was brought into the matter at all. „. Mr. Laurenson was represented by Mr,. Dougall, who examined the witnesses on Mr. Laurenson’s behalf. John Connol said that some time before the general election in 1905 Mr. Laurenson, at the Lyttelton police station, spoke regarding pilfering at the wharves. Previously written complaints bad been made by importers. Mr. Lauremon asked how lie was getting on with pilferers, and he said he had been speaking to Mr. Dinnie about witness. Witness left Lyttelton on March, 1906. The election was in the -previous December. Witness went on to say that the papers made much of his evidence at Invercargill, but for the most paid the wharf workers, he knew, were as decent fellow's as lie ever met. He did not think Mr. Laurenson meant to say they were thieves or pilferers, but lie did say they furnished their houses and found boots for their children.

The Commissioner said there could be no doubt about what witness said, as when he gave -evidence the Commissioner had realised the seriousness of the charges and pulled him up and told him that it was tantamount to accusing Mr. Laurenson of being privy to theft. After some cross-examination witness said it was suggested that lie should go away to an out-station, and Mr. Laurenson had previously been to the Minister and Mr. Dinnie trying to, get him away. He had to reply to the charges as the result of Mr Laurenson’s letter.

After a lengthy cross-examination, which considerably shook Connel’s original statement, Mr Dougall said it was obvious that Connel was entirely astray regarding the time of the conversations with Mr. Laurenson, and now he said these were purely casual. Mr. Laurenson would deny ever having made these remarks to Connel. It was impossible for him to associate himself in any way with a matter such as Connel alleged. The Commissioner would agree with him that the sting was taken out of the matter altogeher, as Connel now said he was not certain what inference he took from wliat he heard.

Mr Dinnie also gave evidence regarding the disrating of Connel, to the effect that Mr. Laurenson had nothing to do with it whatever, though he had complained to the Minister about inefficiency. Mr. Laurenson gave evidence on his own behalf. He said that no conversation of the kind referred to by Connel had ever taken place between them. He had never suggested to Connel that he was too active in his duties, or offered to got him a better position if he_ left Lyttelton. The letters he ’wrote to the Minister were written in consequence of complaints made to him. He had refused to forward anv complaints except written ones, and he had been very careful not to say a single word against Constable Connel. He - bad never in the slightest- degree suggested that any injury should be done to Connell. He was’ thunderstruck at the allegations made at Invercargill by Constable Connel. He had been on friendly terms with him, and would rather liave'done him a good turn than anything else. The complaints had come in before the election of December 6th., 1905. Witness had been in Wellington attending Parliament till five weeks before that election, so that he could not- have had the alleged conversation with Connel. As to Connel’s statement that the men making complaint were of bad character, he only knew that one had been twice convicted for drunkenness and one for bad language. W. Dinnie (Commissioner of Police), R. J. Gillies (Inspector of 6 Police Canterbury District), and Charles Rutledge (formerly sergeant of police at Lyttelton) gave evidence to the effect that they knew; of no instance of Mr. Laurenson having interfered with any member of the police force. Mr. Bishop, referring to the statements made by Connel concerning the wharf laborers, said that lie did not tiiu’k that Connel intended to say that they were a dishonest community. The way - in which the evidence was circulated was liable to cast a stigma on the general body of wharf laborers, but that’was not the impression left on liis mind. Connel was dealing with individuals among the wharf laborers. There was no impression on his mind that the general bodv of laborers were accused, and if they had been it would take more than the evidence of a disrated detective to convince him that they were dishonest. The Commission will resume to-mor-row.