35

H.—2

have to do street duty. Then the next return I got in showed that he was fit for a station, and I gave him one. 353. In regard to the question of leave : I think twelve days is the annual allowance which each member can claim ?—Yes. 354. What are the regulations in regard to sick-leave ? —We treat each case on its merits. I think if a man is laid up through his own fault he loses his pay. Eule 39 says, "When any member of the Force is in hospital the charge for accommodation and treatment will be deducted from his pay. If suffering from the effects of his own misconduct no pay will be allowed. In ordinary cases of sickness, in the country, members of the Force will have to provide themselves with medical attendance and medicines ; but in cases where illness has been occasioned by injuries or otherwise in the execution of duty a specia-l report of the circumstances is to be made to the When any member of the Force has been on the sick-list for more than twentyeight consecutive days, or more than four times during twelve months, a report must be made to the Commissioner." 355. Supposing a man were sick for, say, a month or two, you would have a report from his Inspector?— Every month. 356. Eecommending further leave of absence?—lt does not follow. The Inspector might report " So-and-so still sick;" and the chances are the papers would go back noted, " Please get medical report when man likely to return to duty." 357. Can you tell us from memory the circumstances connected with the promotion of Constable Mullaney from third-class to second-class ? When was he appointed ?—He was appointed to the Force about the end of 1884, or the beginning of 1885. He was promoted on the Ist November, 1892. 358. Was he senior in his rank at the time of his promotion ?—Oh no. He was either one of those men who had seven years' service with clean defaulter's sheet, or else he was a Clerk of Court. I got an order that all third-class constables who were acting as Clerks of Court were to be promoted to second-class. If he joined in 1885, and was promoted in 1892, I take it he was one of those men with seven years' service and clean sheets. 359. Were all constables who had seven years' service with clean sheets promoted ?—I think so. If I remember right I looked through the sheets myself. 360. When was Constable Thomas Mayne, now a detective, appointed to the Force?—He had been dismissed, and he was reappointed to the Force on the 28th June, 1890. 361. I should like to ask who recommended him?—l think he came from the Permanent Artillery. It appears from the papers that Constable Mayne was discharged at Napier on reduction; in consequence of reducing the Force, on the 31st July, 1880. 362. The Chairman.] There was no black mark against him ?—Apparently not. 363. Mr. Taylor.} Defaulter's sheet clean ?—No. He rejoined the Police Force on the 17th August, 1880. He was discharged at Dunedin on the 16th November, 1881; and rejoined the Armed Constabulary Force on the 2nd August, 1883. He was discharged on the reduction of the Force at Kawhia on the 13th November, 1884. He joined the Permanent Artillery on the Ist April, 1885, and was transferred to the police on the 28th June, 1890. 364. I want to get at the history of that man right through : he has been one of the most exceptionally treated men in the Force. Perhaps, Colonel Hume, you will tell us what this man's special history has been ?—I will give you the man's own history as written by himself. He was at a place called Waikaia when he wrote it. I may preface these remarks by stating that he was a bachelor in charge of a station, which was contrary to rules. There was only one room at Waikaia; and he was there pending a new station being built, when he was brought into town, and a married man put in charge. He was one of that batch of constables acting as Clerks of Court who were promoted. This is the man's own history:— Application of Third-class Constable Thomas Mayne, No. 579, for Compensation for Wrongful Discharge from the Force, Restoration of Past Services, <£c. The Inspector of Police, Dunedin. Police Station, Waikaia, 19th December, 1892. I beg- respectfully to bring under your notice that I first joined the Police Force on the Ist December, 1877, and was transferred to Hawke's Bay District in February, 1878, and appointed to the charge of Havelock station in September of that year. Shortly afterwards I returned to Napier, and was transferred to Kopua station in 1879, and promoted to the rank of second-class constable. In July, 1880, owing to retrenchment on the part of the Government, there was a reduction in the numbers of the Force, and I was discharged without reason and without compensation. I was appointed again on the 16th August, 1880, and assured by the then Commissioner (Colonel Header) that I would soon be promoted to my former rank and get as good a station as the one I had lost, so soon as the disturbances with the Maoris were at an end. I was then engaged with the troubles with the Maoris, and sent with a party in oharge of the Maori prisoners to Kipa Island, Lyttelton. After that I was transferred to Dunedin and Port Chalmers, and was again discharged on the 18th November, 1881, through no fault of my own, but simply through a misunderstanding between two sergeants—viz., John Bevin and Mr. J. Geerin, under the following circumstances: On the night of the Ist November, 1881, I was on duty in Princess Street, Dunedin. When passing tha Queen's Theatre about 10.30 p.m., I observed a crowd of people ruishing from the street into the vestibule. I followed them in, and found Sergeant Bevin holding a man, who he handed over to me, telling me to take him to the station and charge him with conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. This I did, and when returning to my beat I met Sergeant Bevin, who told me it would be necessary to obtain the evidence of a boy named Ouiss, and when proceeding to carry out this order I met Sergeant Geeiin and informed him of the occurrence, and also my instructions from Sergeant Bevin, as he (Geerin) was in oharge of the night-duty relief. Sergeant Geerin then told me that I was on no account to leave my beat, but to keep a sharp lo )k out for fire-i, and that he (Geerin) would see to getting the boy Ouiss to give evidence in the case next day. With this understanding I obeyed Sergeant Geerin's order. 1 waa then reported by Sergeant Bevin for neglecting to obtain the evidence of the witness Ouiss. When the matter came before the Inspeotor (Mr. Weldon), he informed me that he would recommend that I be discharged from the Force, with the result that three weeks later I was discharged. I then applied for an inquiry, which was granted, the Commissioner stating that there was really no charge preferred against me. At the inquiry which followed, before Mr. E. H. Carew, 8.M., it was held that I should have obeyed Sergeant Bevin, he being senior to Sergeant Geerin, However, between them I was discharged through no fault of my own. I got no redress. I knew not what I was disoharged for, nor did any person else know; yet I was discharged. I was again appointed in 1888, and sent with a detachment to Kawhia, to keep down disturbances with the Maoris, la November, 1881, there wa« another reduction