ALLEGED MURDER.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9222, 26 May 1910, Page 5

ALLEGED MURDER.

THE TRIAL OF JOSEPH , POWELKA,

(Continued from page 2.)

The trial of Joseph Powelka for the murder of John Patrick Hacket Maguire was. continued this morning. There was again a crowded Court. Cecil John Hewlett, Clerk of Court (called), produced the exhibits put in at the inquest touching the death of Sergeant Maguire. Sidney John Tisdall, gunmaker, Lambton Quay, Wellington, he was an expert in the matter of small arms. The revolver (produced) was a hammerless (American make), Harrington and Richardson, makers, five-chambered, ,point 38 calibre. The cartridges (produced) were not the correct cartridges, but the revolver would carry them. They corresponded with the cartridges found by witness in the revolver previously. They were English make .380 calibre. Their weight was 134 grains. The revolver (produced) had been discharged, but had been in use very little. The second revolver (produced) was a six-chambered double-action • salf-ejecting hammer re- , volver, adapted to .32 calibre. When witness saw it last it was loaded in five chambers. The ammunition in the revolver was not the appropriate ammunition. It /was not a common ammunition. The revolver had been fired, but not very much used. Detective Quartermain's revolver (produced) would take .32 calibre long Colt, or .32 calibre L.C.F. The ammunition (produced) was .320 calibre English ammunition. It was not the appropriate ammunition. The bullet taken from the body of Sergeant Maguiro had been examined by witness. Its actual weight was 82 grain 6. Witness was convinced it was from a .32 calibre L.C.F. Colt cartridge, which was the ■ same kind of ammunition found in the eix-chambered revolver (Powelka's). The other bullet (produced) was from a .320 English cartridge, and corresponded with Detective Quartermain's cartridge. It , was the same calibre as the one found in Maguire s body, but was of' an entirely different type. The bullet found in Maguire's body corresponded with those in the six-chambered revolver in three points. The clothing produced (Maguire's) contained marks of a gunshot. That shot had been fired point blank—within eix inches of the victim's body. Revolvers of the calibre produced would not scorch or burn anything beyond six inches. Ho had had occasion to test the accuracy of that statement. To Mr Moore: When he last saw the two revolvers the six-chambered revolver was ' fully loaded and the fivechambered revolver had only four bullets in it. The bullet found in Maguire's body was different from the ones found in the five-chambered. The .32 calibre was a common type; the L.C.F. was uncommon, and his firm did nqt stock it. Other firms might. It was one of two sorts appropriate to Quartermain's. The L.C.F. was. 82 grains. There were dozens of varieties of .32 calibre bullets, mostly of different weights. A fired bullet would lose a little if it met Svith no opposition. It would probably lose half a grain. It would probably only lose the lubricant. If a bullet lost a full grain after meeting with no opposition witness would not be surprised. The bullets were made absolutely to weight. The box (produced) was L.C.F. Colts .32 calibre ammunition. The box stated the weight ae 83 grains, but in the catalogue it was 82 grains. In regard to the bullet found in Sergeant Maguire's body, witness did not know of any ammunition it could belong to but the L.C.F. Quartermain's revolver bullet was 80 grains. A loss of two or three grains in 80 would not be much if a great deal of opposition was met with. To Mr Loughnan: Witness had examined a cartridge given him by Detective Cassells. It was similar to those in the box produced by Mr Moore,, and had weighed 82£ ounces. Witness's firm carried on an extensive practice in ammunition. No other firms in New Zealand did so large a business. ,„ . The jury here requested that a bullet from each of the three sets of revolver cartridges be extracted by witness. His Honor said that a bullet from the five-chambered revolver (which had only four cartridges in it) would not assist the jury, because it was dissimilar in every way to the one found in Maguire's body. The other two—one from the six-chambered revolver and one from Quartermain's— were the important ones. However, they could have all three, tns Honor then made an order that Mr Tisdall extract the bullets in the luncheon adjournment in the presence of counsel for the prosecution and defence and the Farland was the next witness. She described the incident of the evening previous to the tragedy, when her house in Ferguson street was entered and a number of things stolen. lhe key of her back door was missing., lne key produced was the one she missed. She was certain of that. After she missed it she did not see it again till Detective Caesells brought it to her house some time afterwards Detective Cassells then took the lock from the door To Mr Moore: She rented the house from Mr Kidd and-got the keys from him. The key produced was the only one of its kind in the house. She had never lost it before On the night m question s"he took the front door key with her. The key was never left lying about She accounted for the key being in its rusty state by its having fallen the .floor one night when the rain came in under the door She had no private mark on it, nevertheless she was confident it was hers. Her recognition of it was solely from its general appearance. / Jane Farland, daughter of the previous witness, said she returned, earlier than her mother on the night m question. She had to get in the window of her bedroom. She was standing by her mother when the back door was locked earlier in the evening. When she returned she noticed the scullery was very untidv; also that her coat was missing ; also that her brother's loom had been entered, and a strange hat the bed The hat produced was the one. When her mother returned they went through tho house together, and discovered a lot of food missing. She found her coat on the floor with the sleeves pulled out. ~ , , To Mr Moore: She couldn't say whether the hat found by her in her brother's room was a boy's or a girls hat. Albert Robinson, drover, stated he was lodging with Mrs Farland on the 9th April (the. day preceding the tragedy). Ho had hie evening meal at the house that night and left about 6.30. The gveen cap produced was the one he left hanging up in his room at Mrs Farland'e house. He had ueed it last at 5 30 on the Saturday night, and had lett it in his bedroom. When he came home he missed the cap. To Mr Moore: He could not remember what sort of night it was when he went out. He wore a hard hat tteat night. He next saw the cap in the hands of the police. There were no private marks on the cap. He recognised it by its general appearance; he had had it some time, having bought it in DecemTo Mr Loughnan: He had no doubt whatever about the hat. He was euro it

was his. , To his Honor: Ho had never seen the hat found by Mise Farland before. John Kendall e-aid he was-a labourer, residing on Foxton line. He knew the accused; had worked with him eight or nine months. On the 2nd April, in the evening, he saw the accused at about a quarter to eleven, close to witness's own house. He spoke to witness and was within a foot of him. Hβ had two revolvers, one in each hand. They were shiny, bright revolvers. One wae fired off there. To Mr Moore: The man whom witness spoke to that night had his face covered —a piece of blouse over the upper part of hie face and a handkerchief on the lower part. Witness recognised him by his general appearance. He did not ca,ll him by name. There was a boy named Cook there that Witness did not know whether Cook heard the revolver shot. To Mr Loufrhnan : I m sure it was.accused who was there.

John Lane said he was residing from April 9th till April 13th in 184 Ferguson street, Palmerston North, near Mrs Farland's houee. The coat (produced) - was recognised by witness as his property. Hβ miesed_ it first on Wednesday afternoon, April 13th. Hβ had left it on the kitchen door some time previously. It was a coat he had discarded. He did

not notice that the coat had gone on Saturday, 9th. He left hie house on that night at 7 o'clock and returned about

ten. During that time no one was left at home. There was one window without a fastening. On the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th the house was occupied, and witness did not think the coat could have been missed before Tuesday night. His Honor here interposed that the matter was entirely irrelevant, and he did not know why witness had been called.

Mr Loughnan explained that he had conferred with counsel for the defence on the matter, and had brought the evidence to assist the defence. Mr Moore said he wished the evidence in because it would assist a contention he -would make later on. His Honor said in that case Mr Loughnan had acted in the spirit of fair play, in that he desired to keep nothing back that would assist the prisoner. Francis Slattery, butcher, living in Ferguson street, stated that on the Saturday night in question he noticed there had been a fire' in the back of the house. He found a bottle in the backyard. It was not in th? same position in which it was left. It was a bottle he knew, and its position on Sunday rooming satisfied him that it had been tampered with. He sent for the police, and Constable King removed it." Constable King stated that he received a bottle from Slattery. and handed it to Sub-Inspector O'Donovan. He noticed finger-prints on it. On April 7 witness saw accused near Pahiatua. Witness was

in company with Constable McLeod. He noticed accused was in possession of firearms. He had a revolver in his hands.

To Mr Moore: Accused/ did not at tempt to shoot.

Detective Quirke took accused's finger February 27. They contained signature. Edwin Walter Dinnie, jHger-print expert, said he received the bottle already produced. It was securely packed, so that nothing could touch it. He found marks on the bottle which indicated it had been held in an upside position in the right hand. Four of the marks were smudged and rendered practically useless for identification. Included in them were the thumb, forefinger, middle finger, and little finger. There were just a few ridges _of the middle finger decipherable. The ring finger impression was a good deal clearer, and was photographed and enlarged. Photos were produced of prisoner's ring finger print taken from Detective Quirke's impression, and photo of the ring finger print on the bottle. Witness was satisfied as to their identity, and was also satisfied that the ridges of the smudged middle finger-print were identical with accused's middle fingerprint. The red lines pointed out characteristic points in both photos. There were twelve points of similarity. That showed that beyond all doubt the impressions were identical.

To Mr Moore: The impression was a fair one. There was a lot of mud on the bottle, and one of the black streaks in the photo was a mud streak.

Mr Moore: You consider that without the shadow of doubt these prints are identical ? —I do.

You finger-print experts are not like the doctors, are they ? Give two opposite opinions on the one case? —No.

His Honor: Finger prints have now been reduced to an exact science. The points of resemblance arc matters of fact.

Witness: I have never yet heard of ;wo finger-print experts not agreeing.

Mr Moore: You examined some finger prints left at a Longburn store on March 27?— Yes.

Now do you know that I have witnesses to prove that they saw persons other than accused eating the goods supposed to have been stolen from the store? —I only know that the finger prints are identical with accused's. Hannah Wilson, mother-in-law of accused, said she saw him at her house at 9.30 on the morning of Saturday. April 9. He was in her house at Ashhurst, standing with his back to the fireplace. Ho was not wearing an ovcrooat and had no hat on.

To Mr Moore: She had recently changed the locks on her doors, but did not remember whether there were any keys hanging up in her shed. She did not miss any key. The key produced

;he one alleged to have been taken

from Mrs Farland's) may have been similar to one 6he had in her house, but she could not swear to it..

Mary Burton, wife of Frederick Burton, of Colyton, had known accused by sight for some time. She was in Ashhurst on Saturday, April 9, and saw accused jump the fence at Mrs Wilson's house and go away. He had no overcoat on. He disappeared .in the ecrub.

Herbert Thorpe, engineer, residing at Ashhurst, said he was at Mrs Wilson's house at 10.30 on the morning of April 9. He found the overcoat produced, and in the pockets were detonators and cartridges also produced. The coat was found under the bed.

Sidney Tisdall, recalled, said during the luncheon hour he had examined one of the bullets taken from Powelka's sixchambered revolver. The recorded weight on a chemist's scale was 84£ grains. The bullet taken from Detective Quartermain's cartridge had weighed 82& grains. The third bullet from the .38 calibre revolver had weighed 125£ grains. All the bullets were about two grains heavier than they should be, and witness felt inclined to doubt , the accuracy of the weights. He considered there should be another test , made.

His Honor: This is a very important point in the case, and I should require absolute tests to be made by scales beyond diepute. Witness said he weighed another bullet on- the scales, and it came out at 83 grains. . Mr Loughnan suggested the Bank scales might be used. Mr Moore: I don't know whether scales for weighing gold should be more accurate than scales for weighing poisons ! I always thought that chemist's scales should be extremely accurate. His Honor said he would adjourn the Court at 4 o'clock to enable the bullets to be again tested by proper and accurate scales and weights. It was absolutely essential in the interests of both sides that the tests should be beyond dispute, and a little delay for that purpose would do no harm. Mr Tisdall was then asked to stand down pending further tests.

(Left .sitting.)