E. A. MAODONELL.]

93

I.—lα.

1031. And probably neither you nor myself would be here ?—Yes, that is probable. Only 1 cannot at the present time recall any particular breach of the regulations. Ido not dispute, however, that it has happened. From the day I landed in New Zealand to the present time I have never had a drink in a hotel after hours, unless when boarding in one. 1032. Very few of our regulations apply to drinking in hotels. Take some of the regulations, for instance. I will mention one or two of them, since you have said every officer who breaks the regulations is liable to dismissal. Here is one regulation : " Conversing with any person while on duty except on matters of duty, Regulation No. 54." Do you think there is a man who goes through the eight hours' duty and does not break that regulation ?—I do not think so. 1033. There is scarcely a tour on his beat where he does not break that regulation ? —That is so. 1034. I suppose you yourself have broken it ? —Yes. 1035. " Not saluting a commanding officer of Volunteers " : I suppose that is more honoured in the breach than in the observance ?—Yes. 1036. " No constable is to appear out of uniform without authority "? —Yes. 1037. Now, you have men under you in Napier : are they not daily appearing out of uniform without permission ? —When they are off duty. 1038. And that is the regulation you could get these men dismissed for any day ?—Oh, I do not think so. I look upon these regulations simply as a check. 1039. When you said all members of the Force are liable to dismissal for a breach of the regulations? —Just so. 1040. "Constables to remove orange-peel off a footpath" : it is a very necessary regulation, but you would not dismiss a man for not doing it ?—Oh, no. 1041. Now, in reply to Mr. Colvin you said that you considered the dismissal of the men was just, taking all the circumstances into consideration ?—I was very unwilling to say it. 1042. Taking all the circumstances into consideration now, did you mean the assaults as well as the breaches of regulations ?—Yes, all the complaints. 1043. Notwithstanding that these men were not being placed on their trial for the combined assault ? —No. 1044. Then, you would dismiss men for charges that they had never had an opportunity of refuting ? —No, I would not do that. 1045. You were taking all the circumstances into consideration, and some of these circumstances were charges of assault that the men had an opportunity of answering ? —Some of them ; but there are other circumstances. 1046. What are those other circumstances?—lf, in my opinion, they are inquired into they would look very serious. There was, for instance, other circumstances in connection with these young fellows—Neve's and Cox's cases. An attempt was made to get a man to tell an untruth— to perjure himself—and a letter was written by that man's son, who signed his father's name to it and sent it to me, and I received it as if it came from the man himself. It was a letter he had never written at all. All these things should have been inquired into, in my opinion. 1047. In Neve's and Cox's cases a letter obtained from whom?— From old Wilson's son, written by his son and signed by his son, and sent to us as if it was the old man's letter. 1048. What evidence have you of that?— The man's own evidence, that of Marmaduke Wilson, and to some extent corroborated by the Mayor of Nelson. 1049. Did you not hear these constables here denying, on what was equivalent to their oath, that that statement was obtained in no other manner than a voluntary one ?—No; I was not here, and did not hear it. 1050. You, then, have no evidence?—l have this evidence: that I am satisfied I have the man's signature in my book. lam satisfied he never wrote the letter, and lam satisfied it is not his signature. He told me that he never wrote the letter. 1051. This is the letter: " Waimea Eoad, 6th November, 1901.—This is to certify that I, Marmaduke Wilson, was present with Constable Burrell on the evening of the 25th October, when he had occasion to caution several youths for their bad behaviour. The constable did not make use of any obscene or abusive language. Their conduct to him was threatening and defiant. The boys of this locality have been the source of great annoyance to my daughter and myself for this last two months. About eight weeks ago the windows in my house were broken with these larrikins throwing stones, two large stones coming through the window into the room in which two of my infants were sleeping. Had these stones struck them I am sure it would have killed them. Since Constable Burrell censured these boys it has had a good effect, and I have not been troubled with them. I am prepared to give this statement in any Court of law.—l am, &c, Makmaduke Wilson." Have you Marmaduke Wilson's signature yourself?— Yes. 1052. Perhaps you will produce it ?—Yes. 1053. The Chairman.] The evidence was that he dictated the letter to his son ? —This is the question, and the important one : Does the report made by the constables say nothing about the son writing it at all ? Mr. Colvin: It was admitted that the son wrote it. 1054. The Chairman.'] It was stated here that the document was procured from Wilson. He dictated and his son wrote. That is Burrell's statement ?—But the report made in the first place, in my opinion, was misleading. 1055. Commissioner Tunbridge.] At any rate, you have no reason to doubt that that original statement was written by Marmaduke Wilson's son at his dictation ? —Oh, I certainly doubt it, because he told me that there was nothing in the letter that the son gave them contrary to what he gave me, and I looked upon this sort of thing, if true, as a most serious matter. That is, if this letter was sent to us as from the old man to mislead us and prevent any further inquiry.