THE KAIWARRA MURDER.
WELLINGTON, July 9. Dr Cahill, in cross-examination, said he had noticed tears ia Hawkins’s trousers below the pocket, which ho thought were caused by substances which had been struck in the waistcoat pocket by the bullet flying downwards. Mr Bunny asked him if he adhered to that opinion, and on replying yes, the clothes were sent for. They were produced dirty, blood-stained, and ragged. The coat showed an enormous hole between the shoulders, where the charge of shot had entered, and the waistcoat was greatly torn where the bullet first fired is supposed to have struck on a penknife. Witness then traced the course of the shot through the clothes, and stuck to his theory that the tears in the trousers were caused by flying fragments of the penknife, and not, as Mr Bunny suggested, by a struggle. Witness continued that he did not think blood would have spurted out from the wounds any distance. There was no largo artery cut. It was, however, possible blood would have flowed freely from the wounds in the neck if they bad been made first. There is no spurting from the jugular vein—merely a steady flow of blood not more than three or four inches from the flesh at the moat. In most of the wounds the dagger itself would act ns a plug till withdrawn, and so prevent blood getting on to the hands of the murderer. In answer to His Honor, witness raid there were more cuts in the coat than in the body. From i his he foimed the opition that the murderer had been stabbing at deceaeed while he was in motion going down hill, and some of the strokes had only reached the clo';hes and not gone into the flesh. Witness was then closely questioned as to the dagger. Ho did not think the fact of verdigris being on it mattered, as the friction of the clothes would not have been sufficient to remove it. (The dagger was here measured, and found to bo GHn long.) Mr Bunny drew attention to the discrepancy between the length and that of the wound in the heart, but witness stated that owing to the compressibility of flesh a wound might easily be longer than the instrument which caused it. Ho had fitted the stiletto into some of the wounds and found it fitted fairly well. Any instrument, however, similar in shape and size might have produced such wounds. Questioned regarding the shot in the body and that found in the pouch in Chemis’s house, witness at first said they did not agree, but aftenvards explained that the shot in the
pouch was of two sizes and that in the body only one, and the latter might have been the same r,s the larger of the other. The only way to make certain would be to weigh them grain for grain. With reference to the mass of the shot taken from the wound, witness said ho had wrapped it in a piece of paper taken from his bag. He was under the impression he had carefully removed all the paper, but as he saw from Mr Tasker’s evidence in the Resident M agistrate’s
Court, a piece of the ‘ Post ’ of May 31 was found among that in the wound, it struck him a portion must have escaped his notice. It was saturated with blood, and he had to wet it to get it off, and some might have adhered unknown t > him. Counsel pressed witness very close on this point, and at last Dr Cahill said he could not swear that the fragments of May 31 were not among those in the wound as well as those of May 23. An animated discussion then followed as to how, supposing the May 31 fragments were really portion of the wrapping, witness could have overlooked them while removing the rest. Dr Cahill explained that they occupied very little space, and he must have failed to notice them; but counsel pointed out that the photograph showed them to be about the size of half a crown or more, and all forming a complete piece, and not several little dots of paper. Witness said the wrapper was composed of several thicknesses of paper, and it was only the inner one which adhered. He must have removed all the thicknesses except the inner one. Counsel said it was an extraordinary thing that Dr Cahill had remained in the belief that he had removed the whole of the wrapping until he learned from Mr Tasker’s evidence that there was other paper than that of May 23 in the wound. Dr Cahill said it was then it first struck him that, despite all bis care, portion of the wrapping might have got into Mr Tasker’s hands. From a further discussion it appeared that witness did not know the date of the paper he used for wrapping, and finally this portion of the examination concluded by his again saying he was not prepared to swear that the May 31 fragments were not a portion of the original contents of the gunshot wound. Witness said when he asked the police to let him see Chemis’s gun they said it had not been brought from the house, because it had not been recently discharged. Chemis had been examined in prison, but no marks of blood stains or wounds were found on him. Re-examined: Witness said he had voluntarily first made a statement regarding the possibility of the wrapping paper being mixed with the contents of the wound to the Crown Prosecutor, and had then at the latter’s instance informed Mr Bunny. William Dimock, bacon curer, who resided lear the scene of the murder, and from vhose slaughterhouse the first message was ielephoned in for a doctor on the night of .he' murder, was examined. He repeated ormerevidence, Cross-examined: Witness
said he was a tenant of Hawkins’s, and they usually got along fairly well together. Hawkins had on one occasion threatened to close the approaches to their slaughteryard unless witness and his brother kept the road in fair order. He denied that on hearing of Hawkins’s death he remarked: “ Now we will have the widow, and we shall have a decent landlord.” Re examined: There were several dogs at witness’s slaughteryard, but he did not hear them barking on the night of the murder ; therefore did not think that any stranger had gone up the road on that night. Victor Dimock, brother of the last witness, was next called. He described the position of the body, but said he did not touch it. He found the broken penknife on the road above where the body was discovered, Malcolm M'Callum, a youth, deposed to having seen several pieces of paper and rag hanging about the scrub in the vicinity of the murder. Donald M'Callum, brother of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence. Malcolm M'Callum (recalled and crossexamined by Mr Bunny) said he saw Chemis the morning after the murder, and asked him if he had heard about Hawkins. Prisoner replied that someone had told him of it at Eaiwarra. John Alfred Roche, ledgerkeeper at the Bank of New Zealand, deposed that Hawkins had paid in L 6 to his account on the morning of the murder, Michael Green, a laborer working on the road at Kaiwarra, deposed to having seen prisoner at work spreading metal on the road on the day of the murder close to the Rainbow Hotel. Prisoner knocked off work before witness, and walked towards Ngahauranga. Cross-examined by Mr Bunny; Prisoner knocked off work at 4 30. Charles Caplin gave corroborative evidence to that of the last witness, Robert M'Kay, storekeeper at Kaiwarra, deposed to knowing Hawkins and the prisoner. He supplied both with ‘ Evening Post’s ’on the date of the murder. Prisoner got his first. George Lee, a carter, residing at Ngahauranga, remembered the 31st May. Prisoner was spreading metal which witness brought. Prisoner rode part of the way home with witness after knocking off. Next morning at 5.30 witness saw a man running up the Ngahauranga line, By Mr Bunny: It was a strange thing to see a man running up the line that time in the morning. It was not light enough to see if the man carried a gun. He never stated that the man curried a gun. He did not at this time know Hawkins had been murdered. The Court rose at G p.m.
Permanent link to this item
THE KAIWARRA MURDER., Evening Star, Issue 7955, 10 July 1889
THE KAIWARRA MURDER. Evening Star, Issue 7955, 10 July 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.