61

L—lα.

E. MACDONELL.]

501. That is the feeling you referred to in your reply to the Commissioner when you said that you would not hold an inquiry because there was a feeling ?—Yes; I was sure that the same feeling that was started on that occasion would be roused again. 502. What made you sure about that? There were no indications of it, were there?—l should think so. I had no doubt at all that it would take place. There were indications of it. 503. What were the indications, because this was some considerable time after Sergeant Mackay had been charged with drunkenness ?—Yes ; but when this game served him well I had no doubt that he would play the same game again. 504. But can you satisfy the Committee that he did play the game in the first instance ?—I have no doubt about it in my own mind. 505. That is your opinion?— Yes; just so. 506. And upon that you would hang Sergeant Mackay ?—1 would not hang Sergeant Mackay. I had a very good opinion of him once. 507. What is your objection to the Stipendiary Magistrate at Nelson, Mr. Robinson, who held the inquiry into Sergeant Mackay's case ?—I had an idea that the people who visited the Commissioner might visit him. 508. And that he would be susceptible to influence ?—I do not know, but I thought it better that some outside man should conduct the inquiry. 509. Is that your experience of the Judicial Bench in Nelson, or New Zealand?—l have seen such things done. I have known one Magistrate who went to a place and had a notice stuck on his door for months and months forbidding any one to go to see him, on account of what he heard was taking place at the time of his predecessor. No one on any account was to see him in his office. 510. In reply to the Commissioner you told us that you do not consider the inquiry held by him was an exhaustive one ? —I said so. 511. You really conducted the inquiry as against the constables?—l asked questions. 512. Can you give any further reason than you have already given why it was not exhaustive ? You were not restricted to what witnesses you could call. You could call any evidence you liked ? —I suppose so. 513. And yet you say the inquiry was not exhaustive ?—I say that in my opinion it was not. 514. Whose fault was that ? —lt was not my fault. I thought that further investigation should be made before the thing started. All the witnesses were not seen. 515. But you were conducting the inquiry. Could you not bring your witnesses there?—l asked the questions when I was there. I was asked to do so, and I did so. 516. But the Commissioner did not prescribe what questions you should ask. He did stop you on one or two occasions when you asked questions you should not have asked ?—That is what you say. 517. Did he prescribe what questions you should ask?— No. 518. Did he limit the scope of your inquiry at all?—I was stopped from asking certain questions. 519. Is that why you say the inquiry was not exhaustive ?—No, it is not. I have told you already that I thought further investigation should have been made to verify matters beforehand, and that these men should have been seen separately before they could put their heads together if there was to be any chance of getting the truth from them. 520. Which men ?—The constables. 521. But most of the witnesses you called you did see separately before the complaints were made ?—Yes, but the constables themselves were not seen separately. 522. Then, you think the constables combined ?—I would depend more on anything they said if they had been seen separately before they could put their heads together. 523. Commissioner Tunbridge.] I would be pleased if the Inspector would refer to any of his reports in which he made the request ?—I did not make it in writing. I made it verbally in the hotel in Nelson. I told you that the inquiry was not as it should have been—that these men and other witnesses should have been seen before. 524. You said that at the time the inquiry was started ?—The night I arrived in Nelson. 525. Would that not be too late to have these men seen ? —I could not help that. 526. What I understood you to say was that you had made representations to me in the early stages of the case? —No, I did not mean that. 527. Mr. Maginnity .] I may say that I myself was somewhat misled in that direction. Then, Inspector, in conducting the investigation before the Commissioner you were in the position of calling whatever evidence you thought proper to call ? —Well, I called the witnesses. 528. You could have called more witnesses if you had liked ?—I do not know. There was one witness that I could not call—a woman in the hotel. She was a principal witness in one case. 529. That was in Kemp's case, which we are not dealing with. The witnesses were not all in the room together at the inquiry when one was being examined ? —No, I do not think so. 530. They were examined separately ?—Yes. 531. And you had the opportunity of cross-examining them ?—The witnesses were called. I conducted the examination in chief. 532. You had the opportunity of breaking down their evidence if you had found that it could be broken down ? —No. In some cases I was not allowed to confront them with statements they made and signed previously. 533. But if any one of them made a statement to the Commissioner you were able to corroborate that statement or otherwise by one of the other constables, were you not ? You had that privilege ?—I do not understand you. What instance are you referring to ? 534. Any one of these cases. You said it was not an exhaustive inquiry?—l said that I did not consider it an exhaustive inquiry.