THE HAWERA SHOOTING CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 771, 10 December 1886, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE HAWERA SHOOTING CASE.

(UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION.) <£ Hawera, December 2,

The McLean-Iredale case has created great sensation in this district, where the parties have been long resident, and are well known. McLean is a carpenter by trade, a sober, hard-working man, who is described as being excitable and peculiar in his manner. He has been married for four or five years, his wife now being 22 years of age, and has no family. For some eighteen months they have resided on the property of Iredale Brothers, two single young men, who own a very nice dairy farm, and have a good reputation, being steady, quiet, and even reserved. On November 18, in consequence of a statement made to him by his wife, McLean, as alleged, went to Frederick Iredale, and challenged him with having forcibly had improper intimacy with Mrs McLean at different times, extending from about seven months ago till November 16tb, as a result of which she is enceinte. He gave Iredale two days to live. Iredale says that be denied the truth of the statement, and said that either McLean or his wife must be mad to make such a statement, and offered to go and confront Mrs McLean, when McLean said that, if he did, he should not leave the place alive. Further, it is alleged that the same afternoon McLean fired at Iredale, who was on horseback, at a distance first judged to be 60 or 70 yards off, but subsequently judged to be 46 yards off. The shot completely missed him, though McLean is a fair shot. Iredale was so frightened that he left the farm and did not return till next day. He did not go o ths p olioe, but the same evening (Thurs-

day, the 18th November) Joseph Iredale. who was returning from Wellington, was bailed up by McLean with the gun, V\ hen McLean saw that it was Joseph and not Frederick Iredale, he told him what be charged liis brother with, and said hehad fired at him but had missed him. He was sorry he had shot in the gun instead of ball, but now it was loaded with ball, and he intended to shoot Fred, whenever he caught him. Something to.the same effect was said by McLean to a laboring man who saw him near the Iredales’ house the same evening. Next day, at the instance of Joseph Iredale, McLean was arrested, and charged first, with being in unlawful possession of firearms, and next with attempted murder. A few days later informations were laid agaiust Frederick Iredale by McLean, charging him with rapeami perjury. Yesterday M cLean was committed for trial on the charge of attempt to murder. Then the information charging Iredale with rape on the 16th of November was withdrawn, it being alleged that counsel found that the evidence would not be sufficient to support the information. The charge of perjury was proceeded with. Perjury was assigned on two allegations the first, that he (Frederick Iredale) bad been guilty of improper intimacy with Mrs McLean, the second, that he had offered to withdraw the charge of attempted murder if Mrs McLean would withdraw her statement as to the improper intimacy. The hearing of this case lasted till midnight on Wednesday and during part of to-day. Mrs McLean swore positively that the events had occurred. McLean swore that Frederick Iredale had confessed to the intimacy, but said Mrs McLean was a consenting party. Mrs McLean and her mother swore that Iredale had offered to withdraw the charge against McLean if they would say ha was innocent. The suggestions of the defence were that the prosecutions were to clear McLean of his offence, and also to extort money; but the witness relied upon for the latter suggestion declared that the alleged conversation upon which the suggestion was based, never took place so far as she knew. Frederick Iredale was committed for trial.