RDIE'S TRIAL ENDS.

Grey River Argus, 3 November 1928, Page 5

RDIE'S TRIAL ENDS.

V JURY’S VERDICT. I One of Manslaughter. « (Per Press Association). DUNEDIN. November 2. T'i'‘ trial of William John Hardit ch it <| with having murdered Jo at Kyeburn on July 17 1: in the Supremo Cour to-flay before M r Justice MarGrego and a jury. Mr F. B. Adams conducted the eas for' the Crown, and Mr A. C. J{«uiloj appeared for the accused. A total of 35 witnesses were hem for the Crown. No witnesses were called for the d'fence. JUDGE SUMS UP. Aft"r counsel had addressed tin jury his Honour summed up. He stresset the point that the evidence of Sue Lu the principal witness for the Crown was quite unshaken. Four main features of evidence that could be tak'ui as a corroboration of Site Poe’s evilienee. The c were: (I) Hardie’s move meats before and after the tragedy . (2) the footprints at the edge of -he claim; (3) the sale of gold, with its peculiar characteristics; (4) the extra ordinary story of the Exhibition photographs. There was no need for him to go into the cvidenh ( - in de ail. bur J-.e would say that there certainly wa* n substantial body of evidence in sup-

port of the view taken by the (Town. The idence had been subjected to sc\ ij ll| d, able criticism by Mr Han lon. .iTePtiie jury must dec; le for themsolve a how 'hat evidence had been aflec(< I as a result. As to the possession of gobi by Hardie, there was no doubt that the gold came from Shiim’s claim, and ii seemed clear that the accused had stolen it from Shiim. If is Honour proceeded to read ex tracts from Hardie’s; s’atemenf to th? police, to demonstrate the unreliability of his story. There was. he said, only one conclusion to come to in that connection, namely, that the accused used these falsehoods in an endeavour to 'brow the police off the scent and to avert suspicion from himself. Regarding any suggestion that Sue Pea was the guilty man, his Honour said that the jury had only to apply the test of motive to his case. Would tha' old man, lingering out, his days in the gold claim, murder his employer, on whom he was depend'oit? Then, was his subsequent conduct consistent with that of a guilty or an innocent person? ll e had set cut for help on a colil. dark night, and had done everything that an innocen' man might be exp ■ A 'IP do. To suggest that he was ; A culprit implied that his whole evidence was a fabrication. On the other hand, Hardie’s story was so contradictory a; to make it unworthy of credence. What the jury must decide was: Whose story should be believed. Hardie’s or Sue Pec’s? After a retirement of a little under two hours, the jury returned with a verdict of manslaugh'or. 'Die accused w,a,s remanded till next week for sentence.

His Honour commended the police for the manner in which they had conduct'Tn the case.