THE INQUEST AT WAIHI

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15175, 14 December 1912, Page 8

THE INQUEST AT WAIHI

AMATEUR MEDICAL OPINION.

PRIOR EVIDENCE DISCUSSED

CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATION.

[by telegraph.—OWN correspondent.] Waiki, Friday. The inquest touching the death of Frederick G. Evans, who died from injuries sustained during the disturbance between the workers and strikers on the mornfeg of November 12, was continued before Mr. W. M. Wallnutt, district Coroner, to-day. Mr. S. Mays appeared for the polSgo, and Mr. J. R. Lundon represented t© relatives of the deceased.

Herbert M. Kennedy, recalled, stated that after an interview with Commissioner Cullen, on November 11, the strikers decided to withdraw the pickets, the object being to eliminate the possibility of further trouble. A To Mr. Mays': The pickets w^idrawn. were those who had been ofl the streets. Witness was not aware that the pickets in the hall were armed. No instructions had been issued to the pickets concerning the carrying of firearms, and the union had no control over the men in this matter. Witness had not mad© any particular inquiry relative to the carrying of firearms. The Commissioner of Police had asked him if the men had firearms, and he replied that as far as he was aware they had not. They feared a raid on the hall.

Walter E. Harvey was examined at considerable length by Mr. Lundon, apparently with the object of testing the credibility of his previous statements. Ho denied having carried a revolver on November 12, or at any other time during the trouble, or that he had handled Evana roughly when the latter was on the ground on the morning of November 12. He was certain' that deceased fired the shot that wounded Constable Wade. % The Second Post-mortem. Ernest E. Canham, president of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, deposed to having attended- the . post-mor-tem examination on the body of Evans, at Auckland, by Doctors Savage and Bull, on November 15. There was no sign of a blow on the back of the head, but what remained of the left oar was crushed into the skull. From the left ear round to the right brow there was one continuous bruise, evidently caused by the one blow. There were six to eight abrasions on tho lower part of tho face, and the cartilage of the nose was dislocated. There was no sign of a blow, on the top or back of the head. A Previous Statement Disputed. At this juncture Mr. Lundon was proceeding to question witness concerning a conversation said to have taken place with Harvey during the luncheon adjournment, in the course of which the latter was alleged to have stated that he had & revol-" ver in his possession at Karangahake on November 11. Mr. Mays rose aad objected on the ground that tho conversation in question was confidential. Mr. Lundon then recalled Harvey, who denied having informed the previous witness or Mr. Lark that he had «a revolver in his possession on tho date in question. The examination of Canham was then resumed. He stated that Harvev had in the conversation mentioned said he had a revolver at Karangahake on November 11, but that if he acknowledged its possession he would bo put up for perjury. Mr. Lundon, who was present, then told Harvey that lie would bo given an opportunity of retracting and telling the truth to the Court during the afternoon, and also pointed out that there were half a dozen witnesses in Waihi who would swear that he had had the revolver. '

Conversation in the Street.

Value of the Medical Opinion.

To Mr. Mays: Harvey came to Mr. Lundon in the street and asked for advice on the position. Witness did not consider the incident was a trap. Mr. Mays here interjected, asking witness why the confidence of the position was betrayed. Witness replied that he did not think it had been betrayed.

Under further cross-examination. Canham said that he had already deposed that there were no signs of injliry on the back or top of the head. Mr. Mays: Did you examine the insido of the scalp after it had been turned back? Witness: No. Did vou examine the outside of the skull after the scalp had been removed? Witness: No.

Did you examine the inner lining of the skull to see blood films? Witness: No.

Mr. Mays: Then why have you the temerity to come here and say there were no signs of injury to the top and back of the head?

Witness: I stood aside and watched what the doctors did. but did not examine the scalp or the skull. The Court then . adjourned until tomorrow morning.