Cross-examined by Mr. Reeks, wit ness in reply to counsel's query' as to why "Mr. Robertson had considered the conduct of Mr. Tong. a lawyer, unprofessional. said that Mr. Tong had not been telling the*truth and that Mr, Robertson had taxed him with this.
He also agreed to Mr. Reek's contention that the personal diary of a detective is only seen by comparatively less important senior officers. He denied that he had seen the motorcar diary immediately the complaint was laid against Mr, Kelly, but agreed that this would have been possible. "He also said that if Mr. Kelly had wanted to conceal his trip 0 the Takao Road address, he would not have had to enter the trip on the motorcar diary.
Tu referring to the crime diary once gain, witness agreed that could be written in sections and that it may cover any number of days. Hf the final crime diary. contained things done initially but which until then had been omitted, no inference against the detective would be made, Witness also agreed to the fact that the crimes of which the Chinese repondents had been found guilty. were very serious. In referring to the punishment meted out to these Chinese detectives, Mr Mason stated that they had been dismissed from the force and that their losses were from between $300 to $500 each.
In answering Mr. Recks further, witness said that eight other foreiga detectives were on duty with him on March 31, and he refused to deny the possibility that of the 12 to 15 cases handied by the detectives. on that day, eight might have had to pass through Mr. Kelly.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.