THE KAIWARRA MURDER.
The following further evidence was given yesterday afternoon: — Warder Covlc described, in answer to Mr Bell, how he' searched the creek, turning over stones, dead leaves, etc., with a stick. He traversed about fifty yards of the creek, and was (as near as he could say) about half an hour doing it. He was sure he must have seen the shot flask had it been uncovered even an inch.—By Mr Jellicoe: His instructions were to make a close search for anything that would throw light on the murder, and he obeyed instructions. He was out two days and a-half, Charles Edward Glascodyne, clerk in Mr Jellicoe’s office, deposed to receiving a knife and sheath and pouch from Lowe on Sunday. On Tuesday morning he handed the knife and sheath to Mr Skey. The pouch, which contained shot, he took to Tooley, gunsmith. He produced the shot, sealed up by the latter in a box. He visited the scene of the find that morning, along with Lowe, Coyle, and others. Lowe pointed out the position in which the articles had been found. ■ William Skey, Government analyst, had examined the knife and sheath handed him by Glascodyne for traces of blood, but found no indication whatever of the sort. The blade was cot double-edged, but was sharp at the point. There was a good deal of rust on it. It must have been in contact with water or damp for weeks. The handle might have swelled a little, but he could not aa y —By Mr Bell; If the knife had been covered with blood and put in water he thought it would still show traces unless it was running water, in which case the stains would probably have beenwashed away. Expoaore to long rains would havethesameeffect. —By the Court: Supposing the knife had been flung down bloodstained at the time of the murder, he thought the rains since then might have washed the blood off, but could not say for certain—in fact, he could not answer such a question. Ebenezer Hound (recalled): Never said anything about a picture on the shot-pouch when talking about it with Gibson, Dowd, and Greaves. —By Mr Skerrett; The pouch shown to him in Court yesterday was the same he borrowed from Gibson, He had no doubt about it. He did not grease his shot, but some people did. He knew Alfred Holmes did. He was quite sure Gibson said he had given the pouch to Chemis. He offered to buy witness another pouch, VVitness bought one on Thursday night before Easter, which was still in his possession. It had a picture on it. Gibson never asked him not to say be had not returned the shotpouch he had borrowed.—By the Court: He sometimes lent his shot-pouch to his friends, bet had never lent the one he borrowed from Gibson. James Gibson (recalled) said he gave some bullets to Chemis some time before November of last year. They were made for him by a young chap named James Overend. He left them with Chemis one Sunday night. He thought there were seven or nine, bnt could not swear to the number. He was pig-hunting on Gheznifl’a land that day He believed he left a knife and sheath along with the bullets of Chemis. He did not want to carry them home that night. He was often at Chemis’s house, but never saw the sheath there to his knowledge.f Witness was shown the sheath found by Lowe, but said that to the best 01 his belief he had never seen it before.]—He had never seen a knife like that produced in possession of either Dowd or Chemis. He could not say whether the sheath was made at either Kaiwarra or Ngahauranga tannery. Witness was a tanner by trade. Dowd once worked at the tannery bagging hides. Witness never sold a gun to Chemis. He never had a gun of his own. —Bv Mr Jellioce: He had got back his knife from Chemis the night before Good Friday. He could not say whether he had taken his pouch away from Chemis or not. He could not remember the last time he lent it to Round, He remembered a conversation between himself, Round, Greaves, and others on Monday flight about a shotnonch. Round said he believed there was a picture on his pouch. The others could hear him. He would insist, whatever Round might have said in Court, that ho did speak about the pouch as having a picture on it. Mr Harris could say there was a picture on it Bv the Court: Could not say whether the pouch be left at Chemia's was Hodges s or not. but if he left one there it must have been Hodges’s. He had no other pouch to leave. I Hodges in his evidence said there was no pfeture on his shot-pouch). Fred. Greaves (recalled) said that some time before the shooting season Gibson told him he thought ho bad left a shot flask at Cbemis’s house, but did not say it was Hodges’s. He had talked to no one after the first case until yesterday. Up was cer " tain he had never talked to Mrs Chemis and Dowd about this affair of the shot pouch, though he had been in their company and * liked about other matters. Mr Bell read from Mr Wiggs’s evidence on the previous C in whiob hj. said“ Gib»n told (fait he bad left a shot-pouch at Chemis §,
It was Hodges’s pouch.” Witness said he had been prevented yesterday from explaining the circumstances. He knew Hodges’s pouch Gibson had left at Chemis’s, but Gibson did not, ho thought, mention Hodges’s name. Gibson asked him to gat his knife from Chemis at the same time as he was getting the pouch. Chemis said he had not got the latter. —Mr Bell asked why he had not mentioned this yesterday.—Witness said ho had never been asked, and moreover had been lold to confine himself to the questions put to him.—Mr Bell asked witness whether he was telling the truth.—Witness said he was to the best of his belief.—Mr Bell: Are you a Catholic ? Mr Jellieoe : What’s the meaning of that ? I never beard a more preposterous question. —Witness said ho was not. He did not remember who gave him the knife at Chemis’s He did not look at the knife. It was in a sheath, and had a strap on it. He never saw any other sheath at Chemis’s, and never saw the knife produced or sheath at Chemis’s. He had never seen them till he came into Court; he was positive of that. Mr Jellieoe asked for an adjournment till Saturday. It had been suggested by counsel for the defence that the articles found on Sunday belonged to Chemis, and he was bound to bring evidence to upset this contention. Sufficient time had not been allowed to examine into the matter thoroughly, even to ascertain whether it was “a plant,” and he asked for twentyfour hours’ interval. Mr Bell protested against any further delay. His client had already lain long enough under the foul imputation. Mr Graham said they were not trying Chemis, and ho saw no necessity for further delay. The Court adjourned till to-morrow.
Permanent link to this item
THE KAIWARRA MURDER., Evening Star, Issue 7999, 30 August 1889
THE KAIWARRA MURDER. Evening Star, Issue 7999, 30 August 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.