THE MURDER OF MR THOMAS HAWKINGS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 906, 12 July 1889, Page 17

THE MURDER OF MR THOMAS HAWKINGS.

THE TRIAL OF LOUIS OHEMIS. The hearing of the charge of murder against Louiß Ohemis was resumed in the Supreme Court yesterday. James Alexander Nathaniel Salmon, clerk in. the employ of Messrs Chapman and Fitz Gerald, was called by Mr Bell lor the purpose of giving evidence with reference to the sheep transaction between Hawkings and Bowles. His Honor said he did not think it necessary that every suggestion made by the defence should be thoroughly gone into, and he did not think the evidence relevant. George Bowles, labourer, brother of Mrs Hawkings, employed at Stephens’ Mill at Carterton, stated that he was at a mill on Mr H. Bunny’s farm at Ahiarue, at the end of May last. Had conveyed some land to trustee (Mr J. Taylor) for the benefit of his wife and children. Witness was bankrupt in July, 1885. By Mr Bunny : Had not been good friends with Mr Hawkings for some considerable time. There was no disagreement over some sheep. If Charles Bowles had stated that the disagreement was over the sheep, he had said what was untrue. The disagreement was over some money matters. Had not sent 200 sheep down to Hawkings, but Hawkings had taken the sheep from witnes’ place. Never had any quarrel relating to those sheep. Had never wanted them back or any portion of Them. Had not made up his quarrel with Mr Hawings, ar-d he '.v s not in the habit of visiting the bouse. The dir.pute'occurred about Christmas, 1886. By Mr Bell : The question about the sheep was tried at Masterion, the Official Assignee beiqg the plaintiff and Mr Hawkings th& defendant. Mr Beil explained that the summons was to set as vie the a ale o£ the sheep to Hawkings 'im the" grounds suggested by the defence, Th© wit-

ness said he had gi fen evidence in the case, and the jury had found a verdict in favour of Hawkings. Mr Bell proceeded to question the witness further, as to whether Mr Taylor had ever resigned his trust. Mr Bunny objected, and his Honor considered that the question was not relevant. Thomas Harlen, milkman, deposed that, one Sunday in December last, Chemis had come to his house at Newtown for the purpose of borrowing witness’ lease of the land he had leased from Hawkings. He (Chemis) said he had a law job on with Hawkings, and the lease would be useful to him. Tucker was about the place. By Mr Bunny : Had leased some land from Hawkings at Khandallah some time ago. Was summoned twice for his rent by Hawkings. His (Hawkings’) sheep and cattle used to get through on to witness’ land, and he used to complain about it. He always paid the rent in a lawyer’s office, ' and it was then he made the complaint. By Mr Bell : Hawkings was right enough bo long as he (witness) paid his rent.

Thomas James Tolly, gunsmith, deposed that be had been engaged in gunsmithing for the last 3 5 years. If a muzzleloading gun were brought to him to ascertain whether it had been fired off he would put his finger in the barrels, and look at the nipple. If it had been recently fired off his finger would come ont b’aek. If the gun had been fired off some little time previously and not cleaned there would be rust in the barre’s. The gun would not rust so quickly in a cold, dry place as it would iu a warm or damp place. If you put your finger in one barrel of a gun and wiped out the deposit' the barrel would rust sooner than the other. The rust would show up in a couple of days. If a double-barrelled gun in a generally dirty condition was brought to him within four days of being discharged, he could tell which barrel had been discharged first. It would depend whether a wad or paper bad been used. To his Honor : If he found one barrel sooty and moist and the other dry and rough, he would certainly say that the two barrels had not last been fired on the same day. The fact that the gun had been kept in a dirty condicion would not prevent him from forming :an accurate opinion! to that effect. Witness continuing, said he wpuld not base his opinion upon the appearance of the barrel alone, tut he would put a rag down each barrel; and if it came out of one black, he should say it had been fired off within three or four days, and if rusty that one had not been fired off so recently. To his Honor : Should expect the gun to be rusty about two days after.the finger had been put in it. Witness here examined the gun, and stated that both barrels were rough. Supposing both barrels were rough when the gun was fired off, and after firing a person placed his fingers in one of the barrels he would expect that 1 the barrel in which the finger had beun placed would be rougher than the other. If there was verdigris around the nipple and a cap was put on it and the gun fired off, he did not think the verdigris would be removed. If the nipple were placed in the fire the verdigris would be burned off. It was impossible to form any opinion as to the date of firing from the appearance of the nipple after it had been placed in the fire. ; By Mr Bunny : If the gun had been discharged and the cap left on it, and the hammer down,, there would be verdigris on it in a few days. By Mr Bell: Dealers did not keep shot, mixed ; the different sizes were kept separate.

Margaret Cook, wife of Joseph Cook, of Kaiwhara, cross-examined, stated that she took milk from Ohemis, and she received her account monthly, but on no particular date. By Mr Bell : Did not know on what date she received the May account. It was either the 3rd or 4th of June. , (Left sitting.)