MURDER CHARGE FAILS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 261, 3 November 1928, Page 10

MURDER CHARGE FAILS.

SHOOTING OF CHINAMAN. VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.

HARDIE REMANDED FOR SENTENCE

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

DUNEDIN, Friday.

William John Hardie, charged with having murdered Joe Leong Shun at Keyburn on July 17, was found guilty of manslaughter. In all, 35 witnesses were heard for the Crown. No witnesses were called for the defence, and after the Crown Prosecutor and Mr. A. C. Hanlon had addressed the jury, Mr. Justice Macgregor summed up.

His Honor stressed the point that the evidence of Sue Pee, the principal witness for the Crown, was quite unshaken. Four main features of the evidence that .could be taken as corroboration of Sue Pee's evidence were: (1) Hardie's movements before and after the tragedy; (2) footprints at the edge of the claim; (3) the sale of gold with its. peculiar characteristics; (4) the extraordinary story of the exhibition of photographs. There was no need for him to go into the evidence in detail, continued the judge, but he would say there certainly was a substantial body of evidence to support the Crown view. As to the possession of gold by Hardie, there was no doubt that the gold came from Shun's claim, and it seemed clear that accused had stolen it from Shun.

His Honor proceeded to read extracts from Hardie's statement to the police to demonstrate the unreliability of his story. There was, he said, only one conclusion to come to in that connection, namely, that accused used these falsehoods in an endeavour to throw the police off the scent and to avert suspicion from himself.

Regarding any suggestion that Sue Pee was the guilty man, his Honor said the jury had only to apply the test of motive to his case. Could that old man, lingering out his days on a gold claim, murder his employer on whom he was dependent? Then was his subsequent conduct consistent with that of a guil*y or innocent person? He had set out for help on a cold dark night and had done everything that an innocent man might be expected- to do. To suggest th~t he was the -culprit implied that his who!e evidence was a fabrication. On

the other hand, Hardie's story was so contradictory as to make it unworthy of credence. What the jury must decide was whose story should be believed Hardie's or Sue Pee's. After a retirement of a little under two hours the jury returned with a verdict of manslaughter. Accused was remanded until next week for sentence. His Honor commended the police for the manner in which they had conducted the case.