THE KYEBURN MURDER.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 22 September 1928, Page 7

THE KYEBURN MURDER.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL DUNEDIN, Last Night. A preliminary hearing of the charge against William John Hardie, of murdering Sho Leung Shum, at the Kyeburn diggings, on July 17th, which was adjourned at Naseby on September Gthj was continued in the City Police Court to-day. Mr H. J. Dixon being on the Bench. Mr F. B. Adams , appeared for the Grown and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the accused. ' Nineteen witnesses were heard at Naseby at the previous sitting, leaving

-15 - to be called for the prosecution at Dunedin. The Court was crowded. The accused took his place in the dock with an air that was in marked contrast to his almost indifferent demeanour of the first day’s proceedings. The strain of the long deposition and weeks of waiting in prison have had an’ undoubted effect on his iron composure and sang froid, which was the impression he made on his first appearance in public after his arrest. The immense detail of evidence can bo gauged by the fact that when the first exhibit was produced in Court yesterday morniug, it was labelled

“E.E," it being the thirty-first exhibit handed to the Court by the Crown Prosecutor since- the case began. Expert Evidence. Charles Edward Hazard, a gunsmith of 38■■years’’ experience, testified to having, examined the .22 long rifle bullets at the request of Detective Farquhurson. He had also examined the rifle. Witness was of opinion that the rifle eould have fired the bullets produced. Ho estimated that the rifle had been fired within six weeks of his examining it, but he did not think it had been fired very soon before he examined it. The rifle was a very much neglected weapon, the rifling of the barrel being almost entirely cor-

roded away. He could find no easily identifiable rifling marks on the bullets produced in Naseby but on those fired in Dunedin by way of a test, there were distinct marks on some in certain places. Witness’s expert opinion was challenged by Mr Hanlon, and a lengthy argument ensued. Expert evidence in regard to a pair of boots, the left one of which fitted the footprint reproduced in plaster, was given - by two' boot factory managers in Dunedin. This evidence was handed in in the form of sighed reports to facilitate the proceedings. The latter witness also dealt with machine and hand-nailed boots. Herbert Gardiner Black, lecturer at

Gtago University School of Mines, sntSl mitted reports of assays of y other investigations, which were am handed into Court. Other expert’ eviil dence given by Henry Louis surveyor, was similarly disposed of.'ißffl dealt with comparisons of the boot (produced) with the plaster easn (also produced). He found 45, nai|fl i'n the cast that were visible "in boot that coincided in both places/t<|l within 2-25ths of an inch and 34 coinfß cided to within l-25th *of an inch., Thill concluded the evidence for the Mr Hanlon. reserving hia dcfehcdfl Accused was committed for trial /<?xt sessions of the Supreme Cour£sl