KYEBURN MURDER

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 289, 6 September 1928, Page 12

KYEBURN MURDER

HARDIE BEFORE MAGISTRATE PRELIMINARY HEARING BEGUN CHINESE WITNESS GIVES EVIDENCE Dominion Special Service. Naseby, September 5. The tiny country courthouse at Naseby was packed to the doors this afternoon when the preliminary hearing of the charge against William John Hardie of murdering Joe Shum at the Kyeburn diggings on July 17 was continued before Mr. H. J. Dixon, S.M. The accused, Sue Pee (the principal witness for the Crown), and officials of the Court arrived here to-day. Hardie paid the full price of notoriety .from the time he l,eft Dunedin on the Central Otago train till he took his place in the dock. At Dunedin there were plenty of eager eyes to follow his course down the platform, while at Ranfurly the station precincts were thronged with curious townsfolk. At the courthouse here there was an assemblage that has hot often been equalled since Naseby’s gold rush days, many of the anxious watchers having waited for hours. There were more than enough people to fill the courtroom half a dozen times. All through the afternoon scores cooled their heiis in the roadway. The Crown solicitor (Mr. F. B. Adams) prosecuted and Mr. A. C. Hanlon appeared for the defence. Accused Little Concerned. Hardie stepped into the dock with an almost jaunty air, and tlie first thing he did was to treat the crowded \ Court to a very close ami steady scrutiny. Throughout the afternoon he listened with apparent amusement to the evidence of Sue Pee, and took the merest interest in everything. His youth was accentuated by his nonchalance and his seeming indifference to the gravity of his position at present. When photographed on his way to Court he became annoyed and explained that if he could get hold of the camera he would smash it. Mr. Adams said he did not purpose outlining the circumstances of the case at that stage. The evidence wbuld make all the facts clear. Ho would like, however, to make a formal application for the amendment of deceased's name to Sho Leung Shum. This was granted. The first witness was Dr. Walter Syme Eudy, of Naseby, who said that he went to Shinn’s hut at the diggings with Constable Fox. There he found the dead man lying across the bed. He had.aparently been dead for about 12 hours. An examination of the body showed a bullet wound in the right elbow, anothe- at the lower end of the breastbone, and one on each side of the body below the ribs. There was also a superficial abrasion on the upper part of the breastbone which he considered had been caused by a bullet which had not penetrated. He removed the bullet from the elbow and handed it to Constable Fox. It. was similar to that produced by counsel. Witness considered that deceased had lived for some time after having been shot. One wound had been bandaged—that on the elbow. Witness said the only indication that the hut had been ransacked was a half-open drawer in the bedroom. Witness then gave details of the post-mortem conducted by himself on July 20. It was his opinion that death had been due to haemorrhage and shock, the result of bullet wounds. He had found no trace of disease in the body. Either of the abdominal wounds would have been sufficient to cause death. Rigor mortis had set in when he arrived, but the trunk of the body, which was covered by bedding, was still' warm. As .he was a very strong man deceased would probably have been able to walk a considerable distance after the first shock of the wounds had passed. Witness had been shown the spot where Shum was found by Sue Pee, and he considered that the injured man could have walked the distance from the hut to that spot and back. He knew so little about gunshot wounds that he would not like to express an opinion as to the range, but he thought that Shum had been ,shot at least twice while on the ground. He did not think it possible that three such wounds could have been self-inflicted. Objection to Question. In reply to a question from the Magistrate, witness said he <did not think immediate medical attention could have saved Shum. Mr. Hanlon objected to the witness being asked whether a person so wounded would have been justified in considering himself fatally wounded. Later, when the Magistrate asked the same question, counsel again protested, but the Court held that it was evidence. • Sue Pee, having taken the Chinese oath with the customary lighted match, gave his evidence with the assistance of an interpreter, Mr. Jackson, of Dunedin. He said he was a miner employed by Shum, whom he had known since the .Dunedin E.....>-

lion, and for whom he had worked fpr about seven weeks prior to July 17. Up to that time he had been n market ‘gardener in Dunedin. It took witness about a quarter of an hour to explain to Mr. Adams's satisfaction his movements on the day he arrived from Dunedin to work for Shum. He stayed at the Royal Hotel and spent the afternoon and evening in the parlour, speaking to no one but the hotel proprietress. He left for the diggings next morning, where hd commenced work. He shared Shum's hut, each having a room. He said that after dinner on July 17 he heard Shum's dog barking. Shum went out to the door. Witness heard someone say, “Are you Shum?”

Mr. Hanlon interrupted at this stage to ask whether the spirited conversation between the interpreter and witness was simply the question and answer with which the court was concerned. A minute later he objected to hearsay evidence and said witness should simply be asked, if accused was the man. Witness said that accused told Shum that there was a policeman at the foot of the hill, in a car, who had sent him up first. “Last week a young man was murdered about a mile from here and robbed of £2OO. Have you seen the man about here?” Accused then asked Shum if he had a gun. nnd when Shum said ves, he said. “Have you any bullets?" Shum’s answer was to fetch bullets from the bedroom and put them on the table. Meanwhile witness was getting the accused something to eat. Accused was very interested in the gun. and asked Shum to give him a pair of opera-glasses In inspect the gnu. Shum holding the butt of the gnu, and accused was looking down

the muzzle through the opera-glasses. When accused sat down to eat he placed the gun at his side. Accused spoke to witness, and said, among other commonplaces, that he hud seen witness m Naseby, but witness told him he did not know him. Witness had never seen the man before. At this stage pictures of the Exhibition were produced that had been in Shum’s hut. Witness said accused had several the same, though smaller. An Intelligent Witness. Mr. Hanlon suggested to the Magistrate that the witness did not need an interpreter, as he was answering, the questions most intelligeutly and anticipating the queries almost every time. llt was a farce and a humbug, said counsel. The Magistrate said that the witness certainly did appear to be anticipating the questions remarkably A minute later, when Mr. Adams asked the interpreter a question, witness answered without any translation. Ibis caused considerable merriment and a triumphant “There you are!” from Mr. Hanlon. ' Mr. Adams then proceeded to question Sue Pee direct, but it was explained by the interpreter that witness understood more English than he could speak. The answers were thereafter translated by the interpreter. Continuing, witness said be had again seen the pictures accused had at the police station. Certain pictures produced, he said, were the samp sort as accused had. After he had dinner, having been iu the hut for about an hour, accused took the gun and went to see the claim, asking Shum as he went out whether lie was making much gold. Sliutn replied that it was the snowy season, when not much gold was made. Shum then followed accused outside. Witness went over the hill about hall a mile from the hut to cut wood. In his return to the hut witness saw Shum. who said: “That man shot me. lam dying; hurry and go to the hotel and ask man to send cur to take me to d °Mr l ’Adams quoted authorities in favour of the admissibility of the statement, which was apparently made under a sense of impending death. . Mr. Hanlon said' he had no objections so long as Shum really said it. Witness said that when he saw Shum he was lying on the hill with his hand on his stomach, groaning in great pain. Shum was bleeding, and Ins dog was licking the blood from his clothes. Witness asked “which man shot you. and Shum replied : “The man you gave dinner He wanted me to give him £lOl or he would shoot me.” Shum also said that he had gone to the hut and given accused all his gold, after which accus ed shot him several times. Witness sup ported Shum to the hut and on the way Shum said : *“I am bleeding very much. Later he said: “I cannot walk any fur ther,” and he laid down on the grass and cried: “I must die, I musi die. My intestines are punctured, and 1 can feel the blood dripping into my stomach,” Shum eventually reached his bed room, where witness removed his boots. Shum urged him to go for help, but witness wanted to wait till dark because he was frightened. Shum said: “You needn t be afraid; the gun has been broken and thrown in the tussocks.” IV itness said the hut did not appear to be disturbed. Shum was conscious when witness left for Kveburn Hotel. He slept in the tussocks that night and arrived at the, hotel early the next morning. Shum had had four washups on the claim while Sue Pee was at the claim, the total quantity of gold obtained being about two ounces. Shum had sold no gold nor had he been to Ranfurly or Naseby while witness was working for him. Some Questions. Witness also gave evidence concerning the identification parade in Dunedin at which he had pointed out accused to the police. Cross-examined by Mr. Hanlon, witness said he had lived alone for 40 yeprs, at Waipori, having left there ten years ago. . Asked if it were true that oilier Chinamen would not live with him, he said, “No.” He had been good friends with them, he said. It was not true that he had been driven away from Waipori for threatening to shoot a man. The Magistrate told (lie interpreter to tell Sue Pee to stop chewing lollies. Whereupon witness held out a plug of tobacco, and said: “This no lolly; it tobacco.” Mr. Hanlon could not get Sue Pee to give the name of a single Chinese friend he had had at Waipori, except Pee Cum. a cousin. Witness evaded the question. “Too shrewd.” said Mr. Hanlon. Witness then admitted that twice lately he had been to the police station to go over the evidence he was to give. He had the evidence read to him each time. When questioned about guns, Sue Pee professed abysmnal' ignorance of such things. He did not know why Sum had a gun." That ended the evidence, and the examination of Sue Pee, which had occupied over two hours and a half of the Court’s time. Finding at Inquest. The adjourned inquest on Joe Leung Shum was concluded before the Coroner. Mr. George Reid, J.P., and a' jury of four. . I Dr. Eudy’s evidence before Mr. Dixon, was taken as given, and the jury returned a verdict that deceased met his death as a result of gunshot wounds inflicted by a person or persons unknown.