H.—l6b

40

footsteps I heard might not have been those of Constable Kemp. It is not an unusual thing to see a constable lying asleep on the floor of the mess-room. There are chairs and a table in the messroom, and the men's sleeping-room is on the opposite side of the passage. I did not call Sergeant Mackay's attention to Constable Durbridge lying on the floor, and the first report I made on the matter was when the Inspector asked me to report, about three weeks ago. I cannot now say how it was this particular question arose. I mean, whether the Inspector first mentioned it to me or Ito him. Ido not remember the sergeant telling me to go off at 5 a.m. when he left with Constable Kemp. J. S. Williams. Defence. Sergeant Edward Mackay states : — I made a report in answer to this charge on the 6th instant. The report now shown to me is the one made. [Eeport attached hereto.] Complaint No. 4. 1 beg to state that the allegation is absolutely untrue. I may say that had lat any time during any constable's hours of duty found him asleep, either at the station or elsewhere, I certainly would have reported him forthwith. I cannot understand why any person should concoct such a malicious falsehood. I desire to add nothing to that report, and submit the evidence has failed to substantiate any charge against me. Cross-examined by Inspector Macdonell. —l was not in the mess-room on the morning in question. The only portion of the building I entered was my own office. I did not call Constable Kemp. He was up and dressed, and just came out of the men's bedroom as I left my office. Questions by Commissioner. —l arranged with Constable Kemp the previous night to accompany me that morning up the Maitai Eiver to detect poaching. The time arranged was 4.45, or thereabouts. • E. Mackay.

Sergeant Mackay. Charge No. 5. —Taking Constable Kemp with him on a private matter (to look after an eelbasket) at 4.15 a.m. 19th November last, and thereby preventing the constable from taking up his duties at 4.45 a.m., 19th November, thus leaving the town without police protection. Finding. —The sergeant states that on the morning in question he proceeded up the Maitai Eiver to detect poaching, and not on a private matter. The evidence of Constable Williams (the only witness against the sergeant) cannot be considered of much weight unless corroborated. I therefore acquit the sergeant on this charge so far as it relates to taking the constable on a private matter. It was, however, improper of the sergeant to have taken the constable away on such a duty as this instead of sending him on his beat, and for this portion of the charge I convict and caution him. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 5. Joseph Swindell Williams states :— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] On the morning of the 19th November last I was due to come off night duty at 5 a.m. Shortly after 4 a.m. I was at the station putting out the lights, and Sergeant Mackay and Constable Kemp, who should have taken up day duty at 5 a.m. that date, left the station together. The sergeant said he was going to look after an eel-basket, or something about an eel-basket. I remained on duty until 5 a.m., and no constable came to relieve me. I did not see them return to the station. Examined by Sergeant Mackay.] You said something to me about an eel-basket as you stood on the verandah waiting for Constable Kemp. lam clear you said something about an eel-basket, but what I cannot now remember. J. S. Williams. Defence. Sergeant Edward Mackay states : — On the morning of the 19th November last I proceeded up the Maitai about 4.50 to endeavour to detect poaching in the Maitai Eiver. There had been complaints about poaching, and I had reason to believe both lime and dynamite were being used. We went, I think, about a mile and a half up the river, but could find nothing. We returned to the station at 5.45 a.m. It was a wet morning, and both of us had got our feet wet. I told Constable Kemp to change his socks and go on to his beat. I did not go up on a private matter. It was purely what I call police duty. Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] The reason I did not enter the matter in the diary at the time was because I did not think of it at the time. I did not think it necessary for such a trivial matter to be entered. By Commissioner.] The complaints were verbal. Mr. Andrews has complained to me about poaching in the Motueka Eiver, and the complaints about poaching by lime in the Maitai is common talk about the streets. lam not able just at this moment to name any particular individual who may have complained at that time. I now find that the secretary of the Nelson Acclimatisation Society wrote to Inspector Macdonell on 13th November, 1901, asking for the services of detectives to detect persons dynamiting trout and killing deer. This communication reached me about the 30th November, but I knew it was common talk about the town. Since the complaint there have been three convictions against poachers—one for having a live fawn in his possession, and the other two in connection with killing and possessing duck. Constable Kemp