H.—l6b

54

always heard Constable McGrath, a married man, complain about the single men. I can only attribute the feeling to a belief that the sergeant was favouring the single men. I consider the single men have been differently treated, inasmuch as they have been in the habit of going on duty at 7 p.m. (to attend the theatres) and going off at 3 a.m. more often than the married men. I have done this duty a few times myself. I have not heard the question of alleged favouritism on the part of the sergeant towards the single men discussed by persons outside members of the Force. J. S. Williams. Defence. Constable Frederick Henry Durbridge states :— On the 18th November last I was on night duty with Constable Williams. I did not come on to the station that night after going on duty until relieved in the morning. I deny point blank that I was asleep on the station that night as stated by Constable Williams. No cross-examination. Question by Commissioner.] I am unable to suggest any reason why Constable Williams should have made false reports against me to the Inspector. Until the Inspector came to Nelson in connection with the provincial Jubilee celebrations we were on good terms. I was informed by the public that he had been telling the Inspector yarns, or informing on me and the other single men to the Inspector. Since then I have not been friendly towards him. I call no witnesses. F. H. Durbridge. Constable Williams recalled by Commissioner. I fix the date as being the 18th November last when I saw the constable asleep by a memorandum which I made on the morning of the 19th November [memorandum produced]. The memorandum is addressed to the Inspector of Police. A\ that time I had no intention of sending any memorandum to the Inspector. I never had any intention of sending any memorandum to the Inspector until after the Inspector asked me to do so. I still say the memorandum was written on the 19th November, and it was incorrect of me to say that I had. no intention of writing to the Inspector of Police until he spoke to me on the subject last month. I did intend writing to him at the time I made this memo. I changed my mind after writing the memorandum, and did not send it to him. J. S. Williams. Sir, — Police-station, Nelson, 19th November, 1901. I hope you will forgive me for the steps I have taken in this matter, but I cannot see any other way to stop breaches of the police regulations that frequently occur while on night duty. I went on night duty at 9 p.m. on the 18th November, 1901, in company with Constable Durbridge. He left his beat a few minutes after 11 p.m. and entered the police-station, where I saw him at 11.45 p.m. asleep with his head resting on the kitchen-table. I went out on my beat, and returned at 1.15 a.m. on the 19th. He was in a similar position as when I first saw him. When I woke him he asked me the time ; I told him 1.20 a.m. I went out and returned at 3.20 a.m. He came out of his bedroom and remained in the station after I left it at 4.15 a.m. I returned to put out the lamps. Sergeant Mackay came on to the verandah from the station ; he was fastening a mackintosh, as it was raining. He took the coat from the mess-room. Durbridge was asleep on the floor when the sergeant entered and left the room. Constable Kemp joined the sergeant, and they left the station together to look after an eel-basket, so the sergeant stated. The Inspector of Police.

Constable Kemp. Charge No. I. —Keeping a dog at the Nelson Police-station without permission, contrary to Eeguiation No. 123. Finding. —I have gone into the details of this case in the sixth charge against Sergeant Mackay, therefore do not here recapitulate them. A technical offence against a regulation (no poultry, cows, horses, or other animals shall be kept by the police without permission) which at no time has been rigidly enforced was committed by the constable. I, however, do not think it calls for any further punishment than an admonition—not to be recorded against the constable, who hitherto has a clean sheet. J. B. Tunbridge, Commissioner of Police.

Charge No. 1. Joseph Swindell Williams states:— Examined by Inspector Macdonell.] In October last Constable Kemp had a collie dog tied up in the police-station yard. I was much disturbed during the day by the dog's barking. I was on night duty at the time. I think the dog was tied up in the yard for a fortnight or more. So far as I remember, the dog was sent down south. The constable did not appear to be keeping it for his own pleasure. I spoke to the constable about the dog barking, and he said he was keeping it only till he could send it to his brother down south. Examined by Constable Kemp.] I am positive I complained to you while I was on nightduty. J. S. Williams. Defence. Constable Kemp states :— My report, dated 3rd instant, is a true account of the matter of this dog. [Eeport attached.] I have nothing further to state, except to deny that Constable Williams ever spoke to me about the dog. If he had complained I should certainly have had it removed. I have no witnesses to call. Examined by Constable Williams.] I do not remember you shifting the dog down by the closets. Ido not- think the dog was on the station more than about a fortnight. Thomas S. C. Kemp, Constable 915.