The Murder of Mr T. Hawkings.
LOUIS CHEMIS POUND GUILTY. SENTENCED TO DEATH. The hearing of the charge of murder against Louis Chemis was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday week. Constable Carroll gave evidence as to proceeding to the scene of the murder on the night of the 31st May, and as to bringing the body of the murdered man into the morgue. He also deposed to finding several pieces of paper, cloth, etc. Several of the pieces were blackened and folded up. Took the pieces of cloth to the morgue to see if they corresponded with the clothes of the deceased. He kept the pieces of paper locked up in a box at his house in May-street until Jnne 5, when he showed them to Inspector Thomson, who told him to take them, to Mr Skey. Inspector Thomson did not touch them. Swore that the paper was not left at the police Btation, and was never out of his custody. When the pieces of paper were given back to him by Mr Skey on the 6th June, he handed them oyer to Mr Tasker. By Mr Bunny : Did not make a close examination of the cart on the night of the 31st May. When he examined the cart next day .he saw a small blood mark on one of the felloes of the wheel. It did not look as if a hand had been placed upon it. Some of the paper ha had found on the right-hand side of the road was blackened, but he could ' not say by what it was blackened. To hi 3 Honor : The paper did not seem as if it had been indented byshofc. To Mr Bunny : Saw a piece of paper on the left-hand side of the road. Did not take the piece of paper, as he did not think it was of any importance. Took the pieces into town, and showed them to Sergeant-Major Morice. After locking up the paper and tweed in his house, he did not open the box for the purpose of Beeing whether he could identify them. He could not identify any of the pieces of paper again. • Had kept them locked up until he was asked for them by the Inspector on the sth June. Had seen a dead hare on the road near the spot where Mr Hawkings’ body was found. Was present at the po3t-mortom examination at the morgue. The examination began about 11 o’clock. While the examination was going on, Detective Benjamin came to the door and asked what weapons had been used in murdering the deceased. Witness asked the doctor, who said that the deceased had been killed with a sharp instrument. Witness conveyed this information to Detective Benjamin. The doctor had not seen the gun-shot wound when Detective Benjamin called. Had shown the shot-marked paper to Dr Cahill at the morgue. The doctor said Hawkings with a sharp instrument. Later on ho found the gun-3hot wound, and then ho sent out a message by another constable, but Detective Benjamin was gone. Did not know what time it was, -but it was before 12 o’clock. Benjamin did not ask that any further information should be sent to him. Would swear positively that Dr Cahill had told him to tell Benjamin that the deceased had been killed with a sharp instrument. Left the morgue about 4 o’clock. Had the paper he had found in his pocket all that time. Was quite sure that he had not taken the papers out of his pocket. The hare he had seen on the road had been killed a day or two before. By Mr Bunny : Went up to Chemis’ house on the afternoon of the sth June, with Detectives Campbell and Benjamin, and Constable Healey. The revolver was taken from the house on that date. It was handed to Healey by Detective Benjamin. Did not hear Healey say that he was going to fire it off; and did not remember Mrs Chemi3 going up to him and preventing him from firing it. Mrs Chemis wanted to see how many barrels were loaded.
Constable Healey stated that ho had gone out to the scene of the murder on the Ist June with Constable Carroll. Witness found several pieces of newspaper and cloth and a coupls of small stones, which he handed over to Constable Carroll. Saw the brothers Dimock pick up several pieces of paper, which they gave to witness, who gave them, to Constable Carroll. To his Honor ; Some of the pieces w ere marked lead colour. By Mr Bunny: Had visited Chemis’ house on the sth June and taken a revolver away. The revolver, which was given to him by Detective Benjamin, had not the appearance o j having been fired off recently. Witness denied that he had suggested that the revolver should be fired off. Mr Bunny pointed out that Detective Benjamin had said in the Magistrate’s Court that he (Constable Healey) had said something about firing it off. The witness said that he had never said anything about firing it off, and Mrs Chemis had not prevented him from firing it off’. He had said, when it was handed to him, that it would be safer to carry it unloaded. The revolver waa found in a drawer. Went up to the bend in the road where Mr Hawking 3 was found on the 6th June, with Detectives Benjamin, Campbell and Constable Carroll. They dug up the roasl to see if they could find any bullets. Several shots were fired out of a revolver belonging to Detective Benjamin. They fired at a big
rock up the hill. To his Honor : They were only trying to see how far the revolver would carry. By Mr Bunny : They were not making any experiments in connection with the case. Detective Campbell and Constablo Carroll had nothing to do with the firing. They were not acting as marksmen. To his Honor : The revolver was fired at the rock for idle amusement. By Mr Bunny : Benjamin fired four shots, and witness two. They both hit the rock. While they were firing they stationed themselves on the right-hand side of the road. Mr Bunny : Where were you firing from ? Witness : On the right-haud side of the road ; we were firing at a rock up the hill. Mr Bunny : Will you swear you didn’t fire from the left hand side of the road? \Vitues3 : Yes. Mr Bunny : Will you swear, sir, that you didn’t stand in the gorse bushes on the left hand side of the road? Witness : Yes. Mr Bunnj 7 : None of the Bhots? Witness : None ; we stood in the same place all the time, and Detective Benjamin stood there also. Mr Bunny : And how about Campbell ? Witness : No ; Campbell didn’t touch it at all. Mr Bell : Now, Healey, you are stationed in town, are yon not., and hardly get out in the country ? Witness : Yes, it was the first time we were out. Mr Bell : And Detective Benjamin also ! Witness: Yes. Mr Ball: Benjamin said as soon as he had finished his work that he was going to have a shot with his rerevolver ? Witness : Yes.
ijohu Bell Thomsen, Inspector of Police, deposed to meeting Detectives ( Benjamin and Campbell at Kaiwhara on the afternoon of the Ist June, and proceeding to the scene of the murder. At the bend in the road >vifcness observed a number of small pieces of paper which appearsd to have been broken up by a discharge of powder. He also observed several pieces of newspaper in the gorse bushes on the left-hand side of the road. The pieces on the bush were larger than those he had found on the right aide of the road. Witness put the pieces of paper be had found into an envelope in the breast pocket of his coat, and he marked the word “ gorse ” on the envelope. Afterward they went to Chemis’ house, and on the way they were met by Detective Benjamin, who had returned from town with a search warrant. They found the prisoner chopping wood, and Benjamiu read the warrant (which authorised them to search for a pocketboolc), and Chemis replied “All right.” They searched Chemis’ clothes for bloodstains, but found none. On entering the house Chemis called to his wife that the police had come to search the place. Witness remained in the kitchen while the others searched the other rooms. Mrs Chemis remained in the kitchen. Shortly after going in Benjamin brought out a double-barrelled muzzle-loading gun. He (Benjamin) put his finger into one of the barrels, and on withdrawing his finger, which wa3 blackened with soot, ho said, u This looks as if it had been recently discharged.” A little while after Benjamin brought some articles in a white handkerchief. Witness opened the bundle and found it contained some fragments of torn newspaper and some documents. An ivory handled stiletto and a shot pouch were also brought and a revolver, which had a rusty appearance. Placed the fragments of newspaper into an envelope and then put it in his pocket. In a coat pocket hanging in the kitchen he found some torn fragments of newspaper. These he placed in an envelope by itself and marked the envelope. Did not take away the gun or the revolver. When he returned to the office that night ho marked the envelopes, and was perfectly certain the contents of any of them did not get mixed. Was about to lock them up in his press, bub he could not find the key, and a knock coming to his door he put the envelopes into his pockets again. Shortly afterward he went to the house of the Commissioner.of Police, Tinakori-road. When he returned to his office he found his keys and locked the envelopes up, having first passed an elastic band round them. A fe.v evenings after that he took the envelopes home to have a look at them. Took out some of the paper in the envelope marked “ Gorse,” and recognising the task before him, he put them back without making the least examination. Next day he obtained permission from the Commissioner of Police to have them examined by an expert, and on the sth June he took them to Mr Tasker. (Mr Tasker here produced the several pieces of paper, which were recognised by the witness.) By Mr Bunny : Upon a murder being reported there were certain rules to be observed. Had told Detective Benjamin about 10 o’clock on the Saturday after the murder to go to the morgue and get the result of the post - mortem. The latter returned about l o’clock with the information that the murder had been committed with a sharp instrument. Did not pretend to be able to identify a number of fragments of newspaper un'.as3 he marked them. He went out tu make inquiries—to conduct the inquiry. It was in his discretion as to who conducted the actual search. Mr Bunny : Why did not you, Inspector Thomson, go into the bedroom yourself, instead of sitting in the kitchen doing common policeman’s duty? Witness: They were both experienced officers, and as capable of conducting the search as I was myself. Mr Bunny : Was it not your duty, sir, to go into the room yourself ? Witness : In my judgment .1 considered it was just as well for the detectives to go in. Mr Bunny : The result was that
you had certain things brouehb to you that —except from hearsay—you know nothing about ? Witness : That could not be foreseen at the time. Mr Bunny : Do you now consider that you have made an error of judgment? No, I do not. Mr Bunny : Inspector Thompson, do you state that you told these detectives to bring out all these papers ? Witness : I told them to secure all pieces of torn paper. Mr Bunny : Why ? Witness : Because I had found 3omo fragments of torn paper on the bank, and I had a theory that there had been a gunshot wouud, although at that time I had no definite information to support it. Mr Bunny : It was a most extraordinary thing,, was it not, that if you had no notice whatever of a gunshot wound that you gave the officers instructions to gather all torn pieces of paper? Witness: I think not. Mr Bunny : And if you had no knowledge that there was then a gunshot wound, why did yon at that time give instructions to gather the paper 1 Witness : It was but a theory of my own. I had found, I tell you, a number of pieces of paper which appeared to me to have been torn by an explosion of gunpowder. Mr Bunny : Well, we had better have this question of the gunshot wound cleared up at once : Did you not tell Benjamin to go to the mwrgue in the morning and wait there until he got the result of the postmortem examination ? Did you get one or two messages ? Witness : One. Mr Bunny : And Benjamin told you lie left the morgue at 1 o’clock ? Witness : Yes, about 1 o’clock. Mr Bunny : And you swear that Benjamin told you he had been killed with stabs? Witness: By some sharp instrument —yes. Thera was no mention of a gunshot wound. Mr Bunny : And that was the solemessage you received ? Witness : That was the sole uiesssge I received. Mr Bunny : At all events you were under the impression before you started out from town that a gunshot wound would form an important feature in the case ? Witness : Before I started from town ? Certainly not! It was not till I found these pieces of paper in the gorse bush. Mr Bunny : Had you not been informed of some pieces of paper found that morning by Carroll? Witness : I don’t think that 1 was, Mr Bunny : Will you swear that, sir ? Witness : Yes. Mr Bunny: Inspector Thomson, is it not an invariable rule of the police force that when an officer comes in he makes a report to the officer in charge, and that report comes before you ? Wit ness : Yes ; but I don’t think I heard of this. Being farther examined, the witness said that Detective Campbell pointed out the spot to him. Campbell left for the scene of the murder at about 9 or 10 o’clock. Mr Bunny : But wa have heard that Detective Campbell did not get there till 12 or 1 o’clock. Witness : Oh no; it was about 9 or 10 o’clock. Mr Bunny : When the important search was taking place you were not present. Witness: No. The stiletto was in the same parcel as the papers. Immediately examined it. Did not remember sayinsr “ This thing is rusty ; but we will see better in the daylight.,” but it was quite possible that he did say so. As a matter of fact it was a little rusty, and there was a little verdigris on it close to the hilt. When Benjamin brought the gun out he put his finger in one of the barrels. Could not say if he put his linger in both barrels. When he withdrew his finger it was dirty. Did not take the gun away that night, because he did not think it was necessary. He had no knowledge at that time that Mr Hawkings had been shot. Mr Bunny : Then why did you take away the fragments of paper and the shot pouch. The wituess said he believed Detective Campbell brought the gun. Further questioned he said he could get the gun at any time if it- was desired. It was only a theory of his about the gunshot wound. Mr Bunny : Was it not because you were under the impression that the gun had not been fired recently ? Witness : Certainly not; I will swear it. Mr Bunny : And you, as Inspector of Police, conducting an inquiry in the house of a suspected person for the purpose of collecting evidence of all matters relating to a gunshot wound, take away the paper and shot pouch, and you don’t take away the guu ? Witness : The gun was not taken away. Mr Bunny : Was it not for the reason that it had not been recently fired? Witness: Certainly not. Mr Bunny : Did you give instructions for the gun to be left ? Witness : I don’t'think so ; it was left anyhow. It it wa3 an error of judgment I am responsible for it. The witness further sa:d that if he had thought the gun would have been an important feature in the case he would certainly have brought it away. To his Honor : It he had heard that the man had been shot he would have brought the gun away. His Honor : Well, why didn’t you taka it away next morning ? Witness : It was taken away next day, but I won’t be sure. Mr Ball pointed out that the gun was taken away on the following day. Mr Bunny : You did not look upon the gun as an important feature in the case that night l Witness : No, I did not. Mr Bunny : Bub you looked upon the papers as important? Witness : I had an idea that the paper would be important, seeing thaclhad a theory about the gunshot. Continuing, the wituess said that ha saw Dr Cahill on Saturday night, and showed him the stiletto, and he (Dr Cahill) asked that he should be allowed to use it next day when ha was concluding his postmortem examination. Don’t remember him asking for the gun. Could not say that he did ask for it. Did not- remember
the doctor saying tint witness ought to have brought the guu away, 1> ivas not in consequence of the conversation with the doctor that tlxe guu was sent for on the following day. They seatMor it on hearing that Mr Hawkings had been shot. Mr Bunny pointed out that Dr Cahill had stated in his evidence that when he asked for the gun the detectives told him that they had not brought it. away because it had not been recently discharged. Continuing, the witness said the pieces he had received from Benjamin he had put ia f#, an envelope. Did not examine them, and he had no means cf identifying them. Did not know what newspaper they belonged to. Was sure they were portions of a newspaper. Had a great many letters iri his pocket that day. Did not mark the envelopes then. When ho got back to his office, he read the evening papers, and then ho marked the envelopes. Did not think it was possible for him to have made a mistake, and he was perfectly certain that the contents of one envelope had not got mixed with the other. When he went to the Commissioner’s he told him what had taken place, but could not remember whether he told him he had the paper on liim. Was absolutely certain that he did not show him the contents of either of the three envelopes. Told the Commissioner he had found paper on the gorse bushes at the scene of the murder and also in prisoner’s house. Did not consider it was necessary or his duty to show him the pieces. Left the Commissioner about 9 o’clock. Witness explained how he left the pieces of paper in the envelopes with an elastic baud round them iu his press. Was perfectly sure he did not leave his keys there that evening. When 'he took the papers home he, on looking at them, recognised that it was too great a task for him, and in order to do the thing justice he decided not to make an examination. By his Honor : Could say conclusively that all the shreds of paper that came off the gorse were torn considerably. The pieces on the road were some about the size of a shilling and very irregular in shape. The pieces on the gorse were some of them larger. The pieces of paper found on the gorse and road could not possibly be mistaken or confounded with those that were found in the house, because the ones on the gorse showed distinctly the marks of the thorns through them, and the pieces found in the house - were all very large. The first time he heard anything of the Evening Post of the 23rd May was when Dr Cahill came into his office on the 6ch June, and told him he had found on one of the pieces the word “ Hudson” in the shipping column of that paper.The information wa3 sworn on the night of the 4th June. Between the Saturday night and that day he had other verbal information as to threats, &c., and the relation between the deceased and the prisoner [Mr Bunny here referred to an article which appeared in the Evening Press on that evening, in which that paper threatened that, if any failure of justice occurred, it would, use every endeavour to promote a strict inquiry], and ae.ked if it was not upon that, and that only*, that the information was laid ? To which Inspector Thomson answered, “ I moat emphatically deny that such was the case. That paragraph appearing on that night was merely a coincidence. I considered it simp'y as an attempttogoad on the police.” Mr Bunny : Will you swear ? Witness : P will swear that that paragraph did not influence me in the least degree, and I hope I shall never be so influenced. The steps had been taken before I saw the evening papers that night. I had decided with Mr Bell, Crown Prosecutor, to have an information laid that night, and I had not seen either of the evening papers. Mr Bunny : As a matter of fact had you searched any other house. Witness: Yes, another house was searched, that of the brother-in-law of the accused. O’Dowd’s house was searched. I don’t think any other house but O’Dowd’s was searched besides accused’s. Mr Bunny : Now, Inspector Thomson, don’t you know of your own knowledge that no other house was searched ? Witness : As far as I know no other house was searched? By Mr Bunny*: Don’t fence the question, sir ! Witness : I don’t fence the question. Mr Bunny : If any other house was searched you would have been officially informed. Witness : I think so. Mr Bunny : Do you know that, as a matter of departmental rale, you would have been informed ? Witness : It would have been a matter of neglect of duty. Mr Bunny: I think we may then safely arrive at the conclusion that at that time there had been search warrants issued. Witness : So far as I know. Mr Bunny : So the police confined their suspicions to one quarter. Witness : No. On the contrary, I told them not to ignore any information they might receive, but to follow it up, atm they did so, and in many cases ran it to earth and found there was nothing in it. Mr Bunny : The information was not laid until 11 o’clock that night. Witness: After 10, about 5 or ten minutes. Further questioned, he said ha had been in the habit of conferring with the detectives, about the matter, and he had had frequent conversations with Detective Benjamin on the subject. It was not until after duo deliberation that the information was laid against the prisoner. If ha had felt justified in doing so he would have arrested him op Saturday night. Had never compared the pieces of paper with the detectives or anybody else. Had frequently to go down to his office at night, but he had.
not overlooked these papers. Mr Bunny t You say you never looked at them, at all ? WimeE3 ; Certainly, no —1 keptcarefully apart. He had not been tins habit of seeing the newspaper reporters iia reference to information they desired, about the case. Ho had frequently tocomplain of members of his staff givinginformation to the press reporters. Ha did not know that lie had given the reporters any information about the caseh. Mr Tusker was a clerk in the police department in the Commissioner’s office, bub in no way had anything to do with the details of a ease such as this. Mr Bunny : Had you given any of the detectives instructions at any time to S rfe revolver shots. Witness: No ; I waa quite surprised to hear it. It- was m Court I first heard it. It came out ltu your cross-examination, Mr Bunny. Me Bell: You have been asked why you gavej information to reporters. Can you say, Mr Thomson, if any information in this case was ever withheld from the solicitors* in the case. Witness: No, never. Me* Bunny here admitted that all information! he believed had been laid before him as soon os obtained. Mr Bell: You have at no> time examined this paper. Witness: I have seen it twice in your presence, but I havt> never touched it. Mr Bell : And you were present when Mr Tasker examined it? Witness: Yes. Mr Bell : Were you present when Mr Bunny examined it s No, I was not. Mr Bell : Oh ! I only asked you because I thought , you wem there. IVIr Bell z vV&s th,o ni&trter againas Mr O’Dowd thoroughly investigated * Witness ; Yes it wa?. Mr Bell :Is theru any doubt remaining in the minds of the police about this other search ? Witness : So far as O’Dowd is concerned —no, not now ; he had at first. At this stage (6.30 p.m.) the Court adjourned until next day.
The trial wa* resumed on Friday,
The foreman of the jury said it was the* wish of the jury that they should have n description of the clothes worn by the accused on the 31st May. His Honor said the proper person to describe the clothes would bo the carter who had given him a ride in his cart. Mr Beil said the question had already been asked.
His Honor said the person who had sold the prisoner the Evening Post, aud the men who were working on the road, could give them a description of the accused’s clothes.
Mr Bell ' said he would recall tho witnesses who had seen Chemis late on the 31st May. Chief-Detective Benjamin deposed th&fc it was about 12 o’clock on the Ist Jun 9 when Constable Carroll informed him afe the morgue that Hawkings had been killed with a sharp instrument. He also deposed to proceeding to the prisoner’s house in company with Inspector Thomson and Detective Campbell. In the bedroom he saw a gun hanging up, and when he was about to take it down the prisoner said he had fired it off at some quail a few days ago. On placing his finger in one of the barrels he found it was black and wet. /When the stiletto was taken out of' its sheath t.ho accused said, “ That has not been out of its sheath for sir months.” To his Honor : Did not take particular notice of th* pieces of paper found iu the house. Could not describe them, except that they were pieces about five or six inches square. Saw Inspector Thomson put the pieces in an envelope, i Hail found a shot-pouch, but no gunpowder <>v shot. No reference was made to Hawkings’ death iu the prisoner’s presence. Went up to Chemis’ house on the Sunday and took the gun. Witness also gave evidence as to arresting the prisoner, who stated that “it was all d d lies, that he would not be there long, and that ha wished he had better clothes to go iu.” Had searched the house again that evening, and found some more pieces of paper, which he handed to Mr Tasker. Hal gone out to the scene of the murder on rhe afternoon of the sth with Deteciiva Campbell arid Constable Healey, and a number of shots were fired out of a revolver taken out by witness. The firing had nothing to do with the present case. By Mr Bunny : Healey had not expressed a wish to fire off the revolver. Healey said that it would ba safer to carry the revolver unloaded, bub he (witness) did not think he had any intentio i of firing it off. It wa3 a careless observation. By Mr Bell : A man name i S fcepheu Green had bron ght him some piece » of paper on the 17th of June, and, he had handed them to Mr Taskee on the following day. By Mr Bunny : Y7ent to the morgue on the Saturday o; Ms own accord, but he informed the Inspector that he was going. When the doctor sent out word at the morgue tba-3 the wounds had been caused by a sharp instrument, witness took that as conclusive. Swore positively that when he visited Chemis’ house he was not aware that there was a gunshot wound. Had picked up the pieces of paper because ho was told to do so by th» Inspector. The accused had not shown him some quail at the back of the house. Thera were dynamite fuses and caps in the drawer in the accused’s room. The drawer was locked, and in it wore thu stiileto, revolver and bullets; aud a number of private papers. Could not say the* sheath of the stiileto had tt coating o*i? class <.r fie would have seen it.. Con hi swear he saw no wad-cutter in the house. Did not remain her Dr Cahill asking to sea the gun, and it was not at Ills (De> Cahill’s) suggestion that the gun was sent}
tfor. When the police heard that the deceased had been shot they proceeded to the house and seized the gun. Prisoner gave every facility for the search in his house. Asked the accused if he had come straight home from his work on the Friday, and he replied, “Yea, and I did not go out again that night.” To Mr Bell: Had not observed any dust on his hands after handling the stilleto. To his HonGr ; Had had considerable experience with firearms, and he was able to say, after having placed his finger in one of the barrels of the gun that it was his -opinion that it had been fired off a fe*v days before. Inspector Thomson, recalled, stated, in answer to Mr Bunny, that he did not think he had received a report from Constable O’Farrell, of Johnsonville, about a man being seen running up the Ngauranga line on the morning after the murder. The first he heard of it was from the witness Lee. By Mr Bell—After hearing Lee give his evidence witness had caused inquiries to be made, and the two tradesmen whom Lee had stated had come down the road were found, but neither of them had seen the man.
The Foreman said the jury would like the Inspector to describe the coat found in the prisoner’s house from which he (the Inspector) had taken the pieces of paper.
The witness said he believed it was a dark blue coat.
, Mr Bell said the paper found in the 1 prisoner’s coat had no connection with the paper found in the wound or on the ground, and was not very important. Detective Campbell gave evidence to finding some small pieces of newspaper at the bend in the road on the Ist June. On returning to the Detective Office he put the fragments of paper into an envelope. Witness described the part he had taken in the search at the prisoner’s house. Had not'found any gunpowder or cans. Had kept the envelope containing the pieces of paper found at Chemis’ houss- in his possession until the sth dune, when he handed them over to Mr Skey. On receiving them back next day he took them to Mr Tasker. By Mr Bunny : When he went out to the scene of the murder he was not aware of the gunshot wound. On reading the account of the occurrence in the morning paper, and that it was suggested that there had been foul play, witness suggested to Chief Detective Benjamin that it would be advisable for them to go out and make inquiries. Remembered the witness Green giving him a piece of paper with the name of Cook or Bowden written on it. H;»d seen a Mr Bowden at Mr Cook’s shop in Molesworth-street, and ha was informed that the paper was evidently piece of a parcel which had been sent out from the shop. Did not know until now that Mr Bowden was Hawkings’ half-brother. William Skey, recalled, stated that he had received some pieces of paper from the last witness on>the 9th June.
Detective Campbell, recalled after the luncheon adjournment, produced a piece of newspaper with the word “Bowden ” written across it.
William Bowden, assistant at Mr Cook’s grocery shop, Molesworth-street, stated that a fellow employd named Russell had written his , (witness’) name on the piece of paper produced. It was a piece of a parcel seut to his house. He could not account- for the paper getting on the road. He might have dropped it on the road when he visited Hawkings. Had been cn bad terms with Hawkings, but they had made it up on the death of his (witness’) father. By Mr Bunny : Had known Chemis a great many years, and had always lound him a quiet respectable man. Had always respected him. Had spoken very little to Chemis about the murder. Had spoken to Mrs Chemis about the murder, and Chemis being in custody. It was a general conversation. Had expressed a a wish that he would like to go up to the gaol and see him (Chernia) if he had time. Had still the same friendly feeling toward Chemis until he saw any reason for altering it. George Lee, recalled, stated that he did not temember the colour of the trousers the prisoner wore when he (witness) gave him the ride in the cart. Could not tell what colour the coat was.
Joseph Mackay, recalled, stated that he did not remember what clothes the prisoner wore when he called for the Post on the afternoon of the 31st May. Did not take particular notice of his clothes. If the accused had changed his clothes he would have noticed it.
Richard Hermann, photographer stated that he had taken the views of the road leading to Hawkings’ (produced). David Ross, photographer, in the employ of the Govtrnmeu 1 -, stated that he had taken a photograph > f some documents brought to him by Mr Tasker. The documents were never out of Mr Tasker’s hands. Had also photographed portions < f the Evening Post in Mr Tasker’s possession. William fci.c-y, recalled, stated that having referred t.o Ms memorandum, he found that ho had received the paper from Detective Campbell, on the sth •Juno.
John Tasker, clerk in the Pulico Department, stated that he had at various times received bundles of papers from persons connected with the present, ease, and he had taken a note of ihu date of the receipt of the papers and the persons from whom he had received them. Witness then described his exhibits. “A” and “B’ were bundles of papers received from
Detective Benjamin on the 6th June. “ C ” was a piece of the Evening Post of November 17th, 1888, which he had taken from bundle “ A.” The box marked “D” contained pieces of the Post of May 28th received from Inspector Thomson in an envelope on the 6th June. The envelope was marked in Inspector Thomson’s handwriting, “Found in Louis Chemis’ coat.” “E” was a piece of the Post of the 28th May received from Detective marked as having been received from Constable Carroll. This piece fitted with the piece marked “ D.” “F” was several pieces of the Post of May 23rd received from Inspector Thomson on June s;h in an envelopo marked “Found in Chemis’ house.” The first piece he examined was portions of columns 1 and 2, page 2. The second piece was portion of the same paper of columns 1 and 2, page 4. The next was a small piece of the Post of the 12th November, 1888, and then there was a small piece of a pamphlet about the Langworthy case, and another piece which he was unable to identify. “G” wasalarge envelope received from Inspector Thomson on June 5, which contained pieces of the Post of November 17th, 1888, and two pieces of May’ 23rd, 1889. “H”wa3 eight or nine small pieces of the Post of May 23rd received from Constable Carroll on the 6th June. This was all the paper he had received from Carroll, and it was all of one date. The part he had pieced together on the top of the sheet produced was portion of column ], page 4, of the Post of May 23rd, and the three pieces at the bottom were portions of the shipping column of the same date, and page 1, column2. “I” wassm-dl pieces of the Post of November 17, JBBB, and May 23rd, 1889, received from Detective Campbell on June 6. There were also a few pieces in the pen-box produced which he had not been able to identify. This was all the paper he had received from Detective Campbell. “ J.” was some small fragments of paper received from Dr Cahill in a small wooden box about 2 o’clock on June 6th. The box contained a lot of small fragments of paper. Had pieced together as many of the pieces as possible. There were also some very small pieces, which he had not been able to identify. From the time the papers were handed to him he had had no communication with the Crown solicitors. “K ” and “G ” were papers received from Detective Benjamin on the Bth and 18th June respectively. Had made a chart of a copy of the Post of May 23rd, showing where the various exhibits appeared to have fitted. s Had followed the edges minutely. . Mr Bell proposed to put in a number of the copies of the chart. Mr Bunny objected to the chart being put in before the witness had given evidence as to the comparison of the pieces. i
In reply to his Honor, the witness said that he had marked a copy of the Post of the 23rd May. He had not put the pieces on the newspaper and marked it in that way. Mr Bunny said he would prefer that the witness should give his evidence first, and hand the plans in afterward.
His Honor said if Mr Bunny liked to interpose and examine the witness as to the accuracy, of his work he could do so. After further discussion his Honor agreed to allow the charts to be put in.
Examination continued : The piece marked “6” was handed to him by Inspector Thomson as coming from Chemis’ house. In the first line there was a division of the letters “ g ” and “ r” in the word “ Grafton,” in the second there were the letters “ ka ” of the word “ Wanalca,” and in the third line thtj letters “ha” and part of the letter “ fi ” of Rotomahana,” and at the bottom there was the letter “ N ” of “Napier.?’ The piece marked “1” was given to him by Constable Carroll. That fragment contained tho continuation of the word “ Napier,” and the letters “ ora ” of the word “ from.” . The letters and i the edge 3 of the paper coincided where the pieces joined. No. 2 was a piece of paper received from Constable Carroll, which fitted on to piece No. 1. The words j“ Westport,” “Onehunga,” and “from ’’ were divided. Piece “ 2 ” connected with “ 6.” It cut off the lettor “F” and the letter “L” in the next line. Belov.] that again it went through the word “South,” and then it cut off the letter “ h ” in the word “South” in the next line. There were two pieces which fitted intp No. 6, and Nos 3 and 4 fitted, on to 1 ?ynd 2. Taking the pieces that were given him by Dr Cahill ho showed that they-were the top ■ if the shipping column of tho Evening Post. The lowest right-hand corner edges of No. 5 fitted in to No. 1, because on “ J ” a portion of the letter “ F ” is found, and on the piece marked 1 the other part of the letter is left with the remaining letters “mm” of the word “ from.” On No. 1 also are the letters “ Oneliun,” and the “ ga ” in the word Onehunga is missing. On the line under the divided word “from” the word “ Picton ” has the <v t ” cut. The parts marked 7,8, and 9 were charts of pieces given the witness by Detective Campbell. Witness then produced a chart of tiie 4th page of the Evening Post of Thursday, May 23rd. The pieces marked on it wore given him by Constable Carroll. He been able to precisely identify all the pieces in each case. They were portions of the report of the Petone Borough Council and the shipping column
already mentioned. He applied Borne gum to piece together the minute pieces of . “J,” but in no way altered the condition of the documents as they wereotiginally given to him or in the arrangement. By Mr Bunny : Had not had experience in piecing newspapers like this before. Was the junior ot five in his department. Received instructions from Major Gudgeon to examine the papers on the 24 th June. By his Honor : Had had no particular training at this sort of work By Mr Bunny : Was brought up in the shipping line. Gave no receipt for the papers nor made any list or record, except marking the envelope. Inspector Thomson gave him the first exhibit about 4 o’clock on the sth June. The next exhibit was brought on the following day by Detectives Benjamin and Campbell and Constable Carroll. He was told to compare certain papers picked up on the ground and in the house, and see if they agreed. The Commissioner told him to do so, and did not mention any-portion. This was on the 4th of June. Would swear he had no indication given him by anyone as to any portions of the paper he would probably find the other portions fit. The Commissioner did not tell witness that Inspector Thomson was communicating with him. Ho received the last exhibit on 18th June. He commenced his examination on the morning of tho 6th. Ho first of all took tho paper out of the different envelopes and put them ©n to pieces'of paper, one at a time. He gummed and pinned the pieces of paper. Did not remove any of the pieces of paper off anyone paper except for the purpose of examination aud comparison. Never had them all opened out together, but he put them into separate pigeon-holes, as he had done with them. It was about the 20th of last month when he completed his examination. On the first occasion when Mr Bunny and the Crown Solicitor came to his office during the examination, witness thought he had Dr. Cahill’s exhibit completed, except where it showed flireadmarks. After that lie came across the piece with letters “Kait ’ of the word “ Kaitangata ”on it. Had seen these two or three pieces which had been troubling him all through. He saw it was of different type to the shipping column, and he searched papers, and found the piece to belong to the Evening Post of May 31. It'was because it did not belong to the shipping column he searched the file of papers. Mr Bunny and the Crown Prosecutor would have heard about the piece, even although they had nob come to his office and seen it. Had not added anything to the piece. Eveu if they had not called at his office he .would not have considered his examination complete. When he saw the letters “kai,” and saw that it was in different type, he came to the conclusion I that it was nob a portion of the shipping J column. Had gone through the whole of the fragments since Mr Bell and Mr Bunny had made their visit, and he had found other pieces of paper. Had made a list of the exhibits on the second or third day of the examination. They were kept in separate sheets of paper and separate compartments. Had nothing to identify the paper by except the memoranda* attached to each, and the fact that he had put a pencil note of the date on each piece. Ho was careful when removing one' piece of paper from one exhibit and comparing it with another, to take care that he put the pieces back to the proper exhibit. After finding the pieces of the 23rd May, he received further exhibits from tho detectives, but he had not received any more pieces of the paper of the 23rd. Was quite sure that he had not made any mistake in putting down the dates on which he had received the exhibits. Was perfectly clear he received thb exhibits from Mr Thomson on the preceding day to the day on which Detective Benjamin gave him his exhibits.
Stephen Green, recalled, stated that he had received the piece of paper with the word “ Bowden ” on it f rom a little boy, who had found it where the other pieces were found.
Constable Carroll, recalled, deposed that he had assisted .in a search at the prisoner’s house on the sth June, and he had taken a piece of paper from a pair of trousers found in the house, and had handed the piece of paper over to Detective Benjamin. By Mr Bunny : Was quite sura the paper was found on the sth June.
Mr Bell said he proposed to recall Detective Benjamin, and prove that he had received the paper from Carroll and handed it over to Mr Tasker, and that would close the case for the Crown.
Detective Benjamin was called but did not answer.
In reply to his Honor Mr Tasker said he wa3 sure that the piece of paper produced was the only piece in the envelope he had received from Detective Benjamin.
Mr Bell then said he did not think it was necessary for him to keep the case for the Crown open any longer. Ho then pnt in a number of exhibits, and the case for the prosecution was closed. Mr Bunny stated that he did not intend to call evidence for the defence.
The Court then adjourned until 10 p’cloek next morning.
The hearing of the charge of murder against Louis Chemis was resumed in the Supreme Court on Saturday. Edwin Henry Bradford, Government Armourer, recalled at the request of his Honor, stated that when ho examined the left barrel of the gun on the 4th June it was very foul, and it looked as if it had
not been fired for some time. He did not think it w;ib possible that the barrel would be iu that state even though it was left in an habitually dirty condition and was fired four days before he saw it. The witness having had thp gun handed to him, said the nipple was full of white powder, which was not there when he examined it before.
Mr Bell said it was ridiculous to suggest that the gun had been tampered with, as it had remained in the possession of the Registrar of the Court. Further questioned by Mr Bell, the witness said if the vent was full when the gun was shown Jbo him in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, it would have been evidence that it had not been fired off lately. When he first examined the weapon he could see no difference in the breeches. If he had not felt either barrel at all but judged only from the appearance of the breeches, he could not have told whether both bari*els had not been fired off at the same time.
Dr Cahill, recalled at the request of his Honor, stated that the police evidence as to there being two messages sent out from the morgue was correct. To Mr Bunny : Both messages were sent out in the fore-, noon. To his Honor : When he saw the dagger on the Saturday uight there was nothing inconsistent with the idea that it had been used as the cause of death. If the dagger had been U3ed it must either have been cleaned on the spot, or taken home and promptly cleaned. If dug into the ground that would have left scratches on it, and if taken home and washed the verdigris would probably have been removed. To liis Honor: Unless you desiredjto take the verdigris off, the dagger could have beeu cleaned without removing the verdigris.
At the conclusion of Dr Cahill’s examination, Mr Bell proceeded to address the jury. In opening he pointed out to' them that nearly ali murder cases depended upon circumstantial evidence. That evidence, however, must be con-
clusive and leave no room for doubt before the jury would convic l , but unless juries would act upon circumstantial evidence the punishment for murder would no longer be imposed. It was admitted by the Crown that the only piece of clirect evidence which connected the prisoner with the murder wa3 the paper, and he proceeded to review the evidence on that point. There were the three pieces cf the shipping column of the Post ofjMay 23, which were pieced together by Mr Tasker, and the murderer, whoever he was, had loaded his gun with those pieces, and if they could find the balance of the paper thy would place their hands upon the murderer, unless the whole of it was found on the ground. With regard to the piece of the Post of the 31st May, he asked them to accept Dr Cahill’s explanation as satisfactory. The remaining piece had been found in the house of a man, and they must say that the gun of the murderer was loaded there. He pointed to the impossibility of the evidence being concocted, seeing that it did uot rely solely upon the police evidence, but on the testimoDyof independent witnesses. He pointed out that Constable Carroll, who had found pieces of paper on the day after the murder, was never on the ground with Inspector Thomson, and in ©rder to make Thomson’s piece of paper fit with Carroll’s and Campbell’s they mustarrivo at the conclusion that the three of them were engaged in a vile conspiracy to convict the prisoner. He then referred at some length to the finding of .the pieces of paper on the scene of the murder, the pieces in the house, and that found in the wound, pointing out that they were given in separate envelopes to Mr -Tasker, and that the letters of the separate fragments were divided in such a way as to admit of no possibility of doubt that they corresponded. He then referred to the othercircumstances which pointed to the prisoner. The place was well known to the prisoner and easily accessible to him, and itwas evident that the murder had been committed by someone who had a strong feeling against Hawkings ; and the nature of the wounds showed that the crime had not been committed by an Englishman. Mr Bunny objected to the Crown Prosecutor making any reference to the prisoner’s nationality. His Honor did not see that Mr Burny could object to it. Whether it would have any effect cn the jury was another matter.
Mr Bell said nobody was more anxious than he was that a subject of a foreign State should receive a fair trial. He then alluded to the possession of the stiletto by the prisoner. It was ouly a limited number of people who had such a weapon, and when they found that the wounds had been made with such an instrument they reduced the class from which they had to find the murderer. Not that the knife proved him to be guilty?; it showed that the deed was committed by one of a limited class, aud they must include the prisoner amongst the number. He next referred to the lawsuit between Hawkings and the accused, which was an action for the specific performance of a lease. With regard to this, they knew from the witness Durrell that Chemis was apprehensive of tho result. In referring to the loss of the pocketbook, he said that whoever the murderer v?as he thought he wouid get some benefit from the contents of the pocket-book. Then there was the double-barrelled gun ; aud the evidence of Tucker as to the prisoner’s threat, and Mr Bunny would no doubt have something to say about that.
Threats of the kind used were, he supposed, not uncommon, but it was a grave question when it was followed by the terrible fact that tho person threatened was found covered with wounds. Suggestions had been made by the defence as to the complicity of several members of the Hawkings family, which must have caused a great deal of pain ; but whatever they were worih it could not be denied that they had been met. He went on to say that if the Crown had not placed Chemis at the bar they would have been guilty of criminal negligence. What was there in the prisoner’s favour, with which lie had to deal as throwing discredit upon the witnesses for the Crown? First there vras the absence of marks of blood, but he pointed out, seeing the time the murderer hud, he (Mr Bell) would have been surprised to find any blood on him ; and the same remark applied with regatd to the pocketbook not being found in his possession. Thera was the evidence that the shot in the pouch did not correspond with the shot in the wound bub where, he asked, was the prisoner’s powder flask and caps ? Referring to the suggestion of the defence, that the gun was not taken away on the first occasion because it had not been recently fired, he pointed out that they had cross-examined witnesses as to whether they were not shown some quail iu the prisoner’s house, which they (the defence) said were shot by the prisoner a few days baf.ore. Alluding to the evidence as to whether both barrels had been fired off on the same day, he said it would make no difference if they found the gun had never been fired at all, seeing that there was the damning and overwhelming proof of the paper. Mr Bradford, the Government armourer, he said, was honest enough, but he was§«n enthusiast and a partizan, .and he had formed a theory of his own against that set up by the Crown. Referring to the evidence of Joseph and Lee, he said the jury would no doubt believe the former’s evidence as to seeing somebody with a gun, but he (Mr Bell) submitted that it wa3 very improbable that the person the witness had seen was the murderer. A 3 to Lee, he did not think his testimony worthy of any serious consideration. In concluding, he said it was no doubt a hardship that the prisoner could not place bis wife in the box, but he (Mr Bell) commented upon the fact that the prisoner’s children— one of whom was a girl nine years old, and a boy six years old—were nob called t® prove that their father was at home that night. Mr Bunny pointed out that the girl, who was the eldest, was only six years old.
In conclusion, Mr Bell asked the jury to discard the hints and suggestions that the Crown had scratched verdigris from the nipple and the dagger ; and that if they were of opinion that the paper carried them from the man’s body to tho prisoner’s house, then they must do their duty. ' Mr Bell concluded his address at 1.15 p.m., having spoken for two hours and a quarter. V Mr Bunny said he would like to address the jury that afternoon, and the Court then adjourned until 3 o’clock. On resuming, Mr Bunny said he proposed to call two' or three witnesses as to the character of the accused. William Alfred Fitzherbert stated that he was formerly engineer of the Hutt County Council, arid he had employed the prisoner. During the time the accused was employed by the Council, witness had formed a very high opinion as to his character. He was a good workman, and as for as he knew his moral character was good. The accused was promoted from an ordinary labourer to a foreman. By Mr Bell : Had never heard that the prisoner was a violent man, or that he had used threats to any one. Chemis was married about nine ox* ten years ago, but he did not know when his first child was born.
Wm. Bergin, settler, who had resided at Kaiwliara for the last : 35 years, stated that he had known Chemis for about ten or twelve years. Had formed a good opinion of the character of the prisouer, who had a good reputation as an honest, industrious, sober man. By Mr Bell: Had never heard of his being a violent man, or threatening anyone. Remembered when he was first married, but did not know when his first child was born.
Mr Bunny then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said it would be hi 3 duty to point out to them the weak points in the evidence which had been adduced against the prisoner. They must bear in mind that of all crimes the prisoner was charged with the most terrible, and it was tho duty of the Grown to prove his guilt, and not for him to prove his innocence. That a foul murder was committed on the 31st of May was un- v doubted, and a lot of statements were made—as they invariably were in caseH of this nature—which were highly prejudicial to the party accused ; and he begged of them to dismiss from their mind any opinions they had formed, any reports they had heard, before entering the box, and be guided solely by the evidence which had been put before them. It became specially necessary for him to do this, because he found the Crown Prosecutor, not only in his opening address but in his speech that day, referring to matter that he (Mr Bunny) said should be looked-upon as mere idle gossip, and not a matter which- should be allowed to weigh against the prisoner. And as to the prisoner being a foreigner, he felt sure they would disabuse their minds of any notions of that kind ; but, on the
Contrary-, they Wouid be more particular to sift the evidence td the tallest beyond all reasonable doubt as regarded the prisoner; Now, what was the evidence ? That murder had been committed was beyond doubt ; but it would be a question for them to consider whether a murder of this nature was committed by one man alone. It was supposed that the deceased was fired at from a double-barrelled gun, the charge entering the right shoulder, and after that he was found with innumerable stabs. Now, he put it to them whether it was not a matter for them to consider whether only one man was concerned in this crime. Of course if they were satisfied, as he had every confidence they would be, in the innocence of the prisoner, they would not have to give much consideration as to who committed the murder; but their sole duty was to consider the case as it applied to the prisoner. Let them consider the motive : There was the lawsuit. What was there in this lawsuit to make the prisoner feel malice toward the deceased ? He was served with the writ in December, and the case was heard in January, and it. was ordered to stand over for further argument. Now they had 'it in evidence that Hawkings had taken no action after January. There was nothing before them as to any words having passed between Hawkings and Chernis since the action, and as far as they were aware there was nothing to suppose that matters were not going to be satisfactorily settled. The plaintiff, he pointed out, had written a letter offering to compromise ; were those actions tending to enrage ? Quite the contrary. The prisoner was not at that time suffering in the slightest degree from the lawsuit. Ho had no reason whatever to be disturbed as regarded any action or contemplated action by the deceased. Therefore, as regarded the lawsuit, matters were the same up to the time of Mr Hawkings’ death. It had been attempted to show by the evidence of Mr Bolton that the prisoner showed hostile feeling by refusing to accept the writ. They knew that it was not a pleasure to receive writp, and if they were to consult the B dliff of the Resident Magistrate’s Court or the Sheriff of the Supreme Court they would be ' told that' those officials frequently received insults from persons who did not wish to be served. As to Mr Tucker’s evidence, they must consider it very carefully and very suspiciously. The witness admitted that he had paid no attention to the statement made by the prisoner at the time, and yet he came there after several months had elapsed, and gave in the first person the actual statement made. He would ask them in every sense of fair play to consider whether the witness could be positive as to the actual words used, and he pointed out that it was a common thing for people engaged in litigation to discuss with another the action of the opposite party. Referring again to the lawsuit, he said the prisoner could not gain anything by killing Hawkings. He would be in exactly the same position as before, for the action would still be pending over his head. Alluding to the evidence of the witness Durrell, he said they must have seen by the manner in which he gave his evidence that he had an undoubted bias against the prisoner. He was the only witness out of the whole of Kaiwhara who was called to prove that he got his account on the Ist of the month. They had the evidence of Mrs Cook, who said that she received her account up to the 6th. This evidence was called to show that the prisoner’s house was so disturbed on the 31st May that the account had to be made out afterward. It had been suggested that the prisoner would have an object in obtaining the contents of the pocketbook. There were a number of succession orders in it, and they were matters which could not in the slightest degree have affected the prisoner. Was there anything in that pocketbook of the slightest interest whatever to the prisoner? And he asked them to say in considering the whole case that the question of motive had absolutely failed. But what did they find on the other side ? Mr Hawkings had certainly had frequent quarrels with different people. He was a harsh landlord, and was trying to do a smart trick here and a smart trick there, and there was not the slightest doubt from the evidence that he had lawsuits with one and quarrels with another, so that he might be said to be a man who wa3 surrounded with people with whom he was at variance. Was the prisoner the only man who had a motive against the deceased ? He asked them to say that such a thing was untrue. Referring to Mrs Hawkings’ evidence, he said her answers about the sheep were unsatisfactory, and it was a remarkable thing that a woman living there for ten or twelve, years should deny that she had aneighbour named Nairn. These wereonly little matters, but lit was by such matters that’ he waß going to ask them to weigh the whole testimony of several of the witnesses. Of the other persons he had questioned her about there was one whom his learned friend had brought all the way from Foxton to prove that he was a friend, and he must have been a friend, and a very intimate friend. Having disposed of the evidence of motive, what other evidence had been brought forward ? He asked them to consider how prominently it had been put before them that Chemis had left off work earlier on the 31sfc May, when, a 3 a matter of fact he had left off later. There was no clear evidence, he submitted, that Hawkings had regular houre for going backward and forward,
for it Appealed that he went home at all hours; If the prisoner had contemplated killing Hawkings; why did he not take the loaded revolver, which could be more easily carried over the hills than the gun ? Was not this a strong fact in favour of the prisoner? As to the stiletto, they had proofs that ithadverdigri3 on the hilt to the extent of half an inch. He would ask them to use common sense in deciding whether that stiletto had inflicted the wounds, and they must not be led away by any professional theory. If that dagger had been used in making the larger wound he contended that the force of the blow would have sent it so far in that there would have been blood over the verdigris, or that the verdigris would have been removed. When the instrument was taken out of the drawer neither of the police officers who were present was able to swear that there was not dust on it. If that weapon had been used on the previous night, as the Crown suggested, would it have been found in’ that condition ? He then referred to the evidence of Mrs Hawkings and Bowles. The latter was quite unable to give any explanation about the gate, which was invariably kept open. (Mr Bell said that was not the evidence.) Mr Bunny said Bowles had found the gate open and was unable to account for it. Without imputing any motives he musi refer to the peculiarity in which they had gi /en their evidence, and he would leave the jury to draw what inferences they liked. What was Mrs Hawkings’ conduct ? She expressed no anxiety at her husband’s absence, and when Bowles wanted to go out and look for him, she prevented him. At 10 minutes to 8 Bowles went out to look for him, and he said he had found the cart opposite the empty bouse. He would ask them to consider the whole of his evidence about ,the cart. First Bowles said he didn’t know there was anything in it, then he said there were some pumpkins in it, and he thought when he did not see Hawkings there that he had gone back to look for a parcel which liad dropped out ; and this reason he (Mr Bunny) thought wa3 extremely weak. . After this he went down to Dimocks and remained there until 12.30. Why did he not go back to the house and see his wife ! No, ho preferred to go into somebody’s tent and stay there until 12.30. Then he went up to the house, but did not go in. He went into a lean-to, and sat on a bed and tried io go to sleep, but could not. Then as to Mrs Hawkings, up till 11 o’clock she had heard nothing of the matter. It was stated that she could not walk ; then why did not she send someone to ascertain where her husband was ? Her conduct was extraordinary. She stayed in the house and did not bother her head. He asked them to consider whether her conduct was that of a loving wife ; and also the peculiar conduct of Bowles. Was there not, he asked some strange mystery relating to the Hawkings household that night ? Referring to the gun, he said there was clear proof from the condition of the barrels that they had not both been fired off at the same time the last time the gun was fired. The Crown, he said, could have had chemical tests made as to whether both barrels had been fired off tlie same time, and this would have set the matter at rest. Now the police had it reported to them by Dr Cahill, at 11 o’clock on the night of the 31st May, that a murder had been committed. The doctor reported it to the senior officer at the police station. This was no idle report brought by anyone about town, but by the medical officer •who had visited the scene of the murder. The learned gentleman said it should have been the duty of the detectives to have been at Hawkings’ that night—undoubtedly they should have been on the scene ; they should have made inquiries ; they should have disturbed houses if necessary ; they should have taken immediate action that night. But they had it that Sergeant-Major Morice sent constables out the next morning. He had mentioned this in order that they should see that the police had very early warning that a murder had been committed. As to the action of the police afterward, it was slow and dilatory. The post-mortem examination was held in the morning, and then they searched two houses. There was no search of Hawkings’ house, and he submitted that it must be necessary sometimes to make inquiries at the place where the deceased person l’esided. They seem to have taken no action until late in the afternoon. He submitted that whatever Chief Detective Benjamin said to the contrary, he must have known that there was a gunshot wound as well as the stabs. Carroll had given out the Becond message at the morgue before 12 o’clock, and Benjamin did nob leave until 1 o’clock. As to Inspector Thomson requesting the detectives to pick upthe pieces of paper to establish a little theory of his own, that was all moonshine. It was Inspector Thomson’s duty to personally conduct the inquiry in the prisoner’s house, but in this instance they found him remaining out in the kitchen while the detectives were searching the other rooms, and then Inspector Thomson wanted to give evidence about what the other officers found, and about which, he could have known nothing. He actually wrote on an envelope that certain things came from certain rooms, when he could not state that they kad come from these rooms. Then he did not allow the officers, who could swear to what they had found, to keep these articles; but he took possession
of them. He made no mark of any kind by which he could identify any of the papers agaiu, and he asked the jury to notice this, that etfery other person who had found paper but the polide had had the wisdom and good sense to note and observe some mark on it. The importance of this went to the root of the whole case, and they would have to consider it in arriving at their verdict. The detectives received certain things in a bedroom. Thomson did not know that they received them there. They were taken out to him, and he took them away. He had marked the envelope containing the paper found in the gorse bush, and it was very peculiar that he should not have marked the other two envelopes. All the police officers had sworn positively that they had no knowledge of the contents of the envelopes ,j and he asked them to say that from the beginning of the case the police had controlled Mr Tasker’s actions. Mr Bunny here quoted from “ Taylor on Evidence,” to the effect that the testimony of policemen, and those engaged in the suppression of crime should usually be watched with care, not because they intentionally perverted the truth, but because their professional zeal, fed as it was by an habitual intercourse with the vicious, and by the frequent contemplation of human nature in its most revolting form, almost necessarily lead them to ascribe actions to the worst motives, and to give colouring to facts and conversation which were perhaps in themselves consistent with perfect rectitude.
Mr Bell said thi3 could not apply to Mr Tasker.
Mr Bunx.y, continuing, said he would ask the jury to say, with regard to the piece of paper of the 31st May, sent by Dr Cahill to Mr Tasker, that its presence in the mass of flesh was not satisfactorily explained by' the Crown, and they were bound to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt about it. When Mr Tasker found that piece of paper he did not bother about it because it was not a piece of the 23rd May, and lie (Mr Bunny) considered it was his (Tasker’s) duty to have removed every piece of papec. It was not the jury’s duty to say that one piece came out and the other did not, and he would ask them to say that if there was arty foreign substance there it had been removed. The doctor should clearly have established the fact that 110 had removed the foreign substance, but he kad not done so. and they must remember that an intact copy of the paper of the 31st had been found in the prisoner’s house. It was shown by Bowdens evdence how easily a piece of paper connecting the man with the crime might be found on the spot without his being able to account for it getting there. A piece of paper bearing his name was found on the scene, and he was perfectly innocent as to how it got there. Supposing the name on that paper hadbeen “Chemis” the police would have said that it was an absolute certainty that he was the murderer. It was easy, he said, for the paper to have been blown where it was found. There was an evident desire on the part of the police to keep that paper back ; for, why had not Detective Campbell mentioned it in the lower Court ? He then referred to the evidence that men had been seen about the place on the night of the murder. There was the evidence of Joseph and Lee, and the evidence of the former showed that there were people with guns about the neighbourhood. It was clearly the haunt of poachers, persons who had given Hawkings considerable trouble. When the murder was committed they found the city horrified, and the police knew that they had to secure somebody or else there would have been such an outcry that even Major Gudgeon would not have been safe in his position. The murder was committed on Friday and nothing Was done by Tuesday, and then they find the Evening Press publishing an .article to the effect that if any failure of justice occurred it would use every effort to promote a strict inquiry. He (Mr Bunny) said that when Inspector Thomson saw that he said—l must arrest Chemis at all hazards, and I must prove him guilty.” The police had added this fragment of evidence about the newspaper to the case, and they had taken the pieces to what he (Mr Bunny) called a hireling of the department. Ic was the Crown’s duty to have secured a person of very high standing, who could have had the assistance of a practical printer—to ascertain the particulars of these pieces of paper. The jury must remember that Mr Tasker had not given any receipt for these pieces of paper, and he contended that they could not be satisfied that the police had no connection with these exhibits. It was a most extraordinary thing that they all said they never looked at them. There was, he submitted, no particular instance connecting the prisoner with any of these pieces of paper. As to the suggestion of the Crown Prosecutor that the accused’s children should have been called, he would say, and he was sure everybody else would say, that it was unfair. How could they expect young children to come there and state whether their father was at home on a certain night two months ago. He pointed out to the jury that the prisoner had appeared at his work as usual on Saturday morning, and continued at his work until the Wednesday, when he was arrested, and there was no change in him—his demeanour was the same in every respect. This was not the first case in the Australian colonies of a man being tried on similar evidence, and he read a paragraph from a newspaper, stating that
an entirely innocent man had been hanged in Adelaide on similar evidence about 50 years ago ; the real murderer, who subsequently died in a lunatioasylum, confessing to the deed, and admitting that he had prepared the plant of the newspaper, gun, etc. His Honor said this could not be a relation of facts, but it might be looked upon as a relation of fiction. Mr Bunny,- in concluding, said the prisoner’s life rested on the jury’s verdict, and they all knew that in any criminal case if there was any reasonable doubt they must give the accused the benefit of it. He was going to ask them to say in this case that the evidence of the Crosvn had been so unsatisfactorily placed before them, and so bungled by the police, and that the dilatoriness shown by the police in thß first instanca had prevented them taking any other action as regarded the person who might be the murderer. He was sure they would weigh every point, and that they would come to the conclusion that the Crown had failed to prove the case against the prisoner, and they must remember that it rested with them by their verdict whether they sent an innocent man into eternity. His Honor said lie did not think it would be desirable for him to sum up then, as his summing up would be somewhat lengthy, and it would, of course, be late before the jury could retire. If they retired at 10 o’clock, and were not able to arrive at a decision before 12 o’clock they would not be able to give their verdict until Monday morning, and in consequence there might be a feeling of pressure. The Court then (5.45 p.tn.) adjourned until 10 o’clock on Monday morning.
. The hearing of the charge of murder against Louis Chemis was continued in the Supreme Court on Monday. His Honor summed up. He said it was necessary for them to consider the whole of the facts with an unbiassed mind. The crime was an atrocious one, and from the fact' that the prisoner at the bar belonged to a nation which, it was understood, used such a weapon as was undoubtedly used in murdering the deceased, there was a proneness to hastily conclude that there was some connection between the prisoner and the crime. Another reason why they should approach the consideration of the case with a judicial mind was the technicality of some of .the evidence. When it was put forward by the prosecution as the main ground against the prisoner that: a small piece of paper found ic the body of the murdered man fitted with apiece of paper found in the prisoner’s house, it appeared at first sight as being of a small and technical character, and it therefore required that they should approach the consideration of the evidence with a perfectly judicial mind—that was to say, that they must exercise their reasoning powers when considering the facts which were said to be proved. The question for them to consider was,' were they satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the, prisoner committed the crime. Probably when they came to consider the matter they would find many facts consistent with his guilt and many facts consistent with his innocence, and if that should be the case they could not convict him. In order, therefore, to convict the prisoner they must find that the facts were consistent with his guilt and inconsistent with his innocence. The first thing to be done was to consider what facts relied upon by the Crown were proved, and in order to do that they must consider whether the witnesses were credible ; and secondly, admitting their trustworthiness, did they prove the facts in support of which they were called ? The principal evidence again the prisoner was the evidence of police constables. Mr Bunny, in his careful and earnest address to them, had called their attention to the opinion of Taylor upon the evidence of policemen, and lie (his Honor) expressed the opinion that his remarks applied to the police when they were giving evidence of the opinions formed of the conduct of the person charged. The jury had seen them giving their evidence, and it was for them to say whether they sari any reason to think that they had maeje any misstatements, or wilfully misled jthem as regarded the prisoner. Now, the principal fact against the prisoner was that pieces of the Post of May 23' found in the wound and on the ground, and that afterward pieces fitting to them, were found in the prisoner’s house, and from that it was said that they must infer that the pieces were found in his possession. There miaht be some error, a,nd ic was for them to say, after examining the evidence, whether or not there was any error. Of course, he pointed out, if there had only been the pieces found on the ground, and the corresponding pieces in the wound, that would not connect the prisoner with the crime. It was necessary to pay great attention to the evidence of the constables, upon whose evidence the finding of the paper stood. It was necessary to see beyond all reasonable doubt whether the evidence was convincing and satisfactory, an 1 left /no room for doubt ; for although they may have said that the paper was found in the house, and no doubt they believed it, there might have been some mistake; His Honor referred to the evidence of the several officers engaged in the search at the ground and the prisoner’s home, and he said it would be for them to say whether Inspector Thomson had possibly allowed the pieces of paper to get mixed, and that the papers
he had found on tlie ground and placed in an envelope marked “ gorse,” could noic have been mistaken for those found in the. house. If they found that the pieces found on the scene and the pieces found; at the prisoner’s house fitted line for line* it was for them to say whether that, did not strengthen the fact against the prisoner. He also referred to the finding of the stiletto, and the cast bullets, and the gun, one barrel of which, from all appearances, had recently been fired. Thee; there was the shot pouch containing a. number of shot of two sizes, No. & and No. 4, the latter corresponding with those found in the wound. The Crown pointed out as a circumstance of suspicion that there was no powder or caps found in the house as oeing inconsistent with the alleged statement of the prisoner that he had fired the gun off at some quail a few days before-. They should consider whether this was a, circumstance which ought to be explained* and if not, could it be regarded as a circumstance against him. It was a matterwhich in all human experience could be explained by the prisoner, and if he couldl not do so did that raise the presumptioni of guilt against him ? At any rate the state of the gun showed that it must have been used within two or three days—perhaps 24 hours. Did they draw the inference that the vessels containing the caps and powder had been made away with ? They must also consider whether this feeling would nob have prompted him to secrete the gun and the dagger. It might be said that if he could not have produced the dagger that it would have told' against him. There was the difficulty as to the statement that both barrels of the gun had not been fired off on the same day ; and it -would be for them to say what conclusion they could arrive at on this point, or whether it was one of those circumstances from which no inference could be drawn. There was no evidences that another person was concerned in the murder, but, of course, it was possible that there was another person, and that; he had also fired a shot at the deceased. Referring to the dagger, he said it would have been an extraordinary thing if it was found in the possession of an Englishmen, but it was not .at all singular that an Italian should have such a weapon in his possession. The possession of the gua and dagger by the accused could not be looked upon as preparation for the crime. As to tlie bullets, was that a matter which called for an explanation from the prisoner?- Referring" to the evidence of motive, ho said it was shown by the prosecution that the result of the lawsuit was preying on the prisoner’s mind, and he referred to the evidence of Durrell and Tucker on this point. It might be that the jury had heard some rumours of ill-feeling between the prisoner and Hawkings. He need not tell them that any such rumours should not affect them in the slightest way. If there was any ill-feeling between tlie two men it ought to have been proved. If there was any real foundation that there was ill-feeling—so much so that Hawkings was afraid—one could hardly doubt that some proper evidence of it ought to have been adduced. The fact that no motive had been proved would be a circumstance in favour of tha prisoner. With regard to the question of motive, it would probably not be plunder, but it was revenge, He was certainly unable to see that there was anything to show, that the prisoner had any desire to obtain the pocket book ortho cheque book. As to the suggestion that the prisoner should have called bis eldest child, they must consider whether tha fact that she was not called was against the prisoner. He pointed out that if she had been called she might have given evidence that he was out that night, which would tell against him, when he might have been out for the purpose of milking the cows. Why should the ' prisoner call evidence which, although it was true, might have lent strength to the case for the prosecution ? Referring to the explanation of Dr Cahill as to the presence of the piece of the Post of May 31st.in'the mass of flesh, he said it was for them to consider whether it was satisfactory,' and, if not, what bearing it had on the case. It was a question whether that piece of paper was or was not connected with the wrapper in which the mass had been placed. His Honor said he could not get the drift of the questions put to Mrs Hawkings, Bowles, and Leddin by the counsel for the defence, but it was evidently with regard to motive. The jury must also consider the evidence of Joseph as to seeing a man with a gun on the hills on the night of the murder. Mr Bunny had drawn their attention to a piece of paper riitli the name of “Bowden” on it, and had said that if the name was “ Chemis ” the prosecution would have said, that was conclusive that he was the murderer. The prosecution, his Honor said, did not say that. What they said was that if the piece of paper in the wound was so connected with the piece of paper found in the house, and on the ground, that they were all one piece of paper. Mr Bunny had also put it to them that Chemis, if 110 was the murderer, would have taken the revolver instead of the gun, and that, of course, was another matter for them to consider. They might , assume that the weapon was fib for use. They had the evidence of Mr Tasker that he had been very careful, not to mix the pieces of paper given to him. Mr Devine pointed out that his Honor had not mentioned that inspector Thorn*
son liad taken the papers to his house, and that no search had been made for prisoner’s powder flask. His Honor said no question had been put to the prisoner as to the absence of the flask, and no search had been made. Having referred to the other points, he said it would be the duty of the jury to consider what facts had been sufficiently proved, and whether these facts led them to an inference of the prisoner’3 guilt. In order to convict the prisoner that inference must be a rational conclusion, bearing in mind that no human tribunal could expect to have absolute certainty, but they must bring themselves to a conclusion without any reasonable doubt. If they, however, had any doubt they must give the prisoner the benefit of it. The jury, having received copies of the Post of May 23rd and 31st, retired to consider their verdict at 1 o’clock, and they returned at 5.10. His Honor having taken his seat, the Registrar asked the foreman of the jury if they had agreed upon their verdict ? The Foreman : Yes. The Registrar : How'say you, do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty ? The Foreman : Guilty. The Usher : All manner of persons are strictly commanded to keep silence while the judgment of death is pronounced by the Court on the prisoner at the bar, on pain of fine and imprisonment. [His Honor then put on the black cap.] The Registrar : Louis Chemis, you have been found guilty of murder. Have you anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be passed upon you ? The prisoner in a loud clear voice then addressed his Honor as follows :—“ Yes, I would like to say a few words. I reckon that the detectives treated me too bad. They say they never found any powder flask in my place. It was right alongside the pouch with the shot, and with one hand they could have picked up both. They say they never saw any quail. There •were three or four in a tin. Detective Benjamin was near to them himself. I can prove by the blacksmith at Kaiwliara that I got a wad punch from him. I can get the same man to prove that I brought him the wad puuch since the Ist April. I never use paper at all in my gun. I hope your Honor will see to-morrow whether I am telling you a lie or telling you the truth. About these bullets, Jamie Gibson gave them to me last winter when I took over this place from Hawkings. He gave me about ten of them to shoot pigs. The bullets were no good. They were too small for my gun. I hope your Honor will prove this by calling Jamie Gibson to-morrow morning. The detectives say they never saw any wad punch—it was right alongside the pouch. I reckon they treated me too bad. lam willing to die now or any time. I will go on the scafiold to-morrow morning. I am innocent of this crime. lam sorry for my wife and little children ; for myself I care nothing.” Hi 3 Honor, who was deeply affected, his voice being tremulous with emotion, and scarcely audible, addressiug the prisoner at that bar said:—l don’t feel it necessary to say more than this : that the few words you have uttered with regard to the police will go far to confirm in the minds of most people the fact of your guilt. I don’t believe that the police officers are such that they would conspire in your death. It is not for me to express any opinion of concurrence in the verdict which the jury, after a most patient hearing, have returned. The px-osecutiou has been most careful, and, as I believe, most fair. The defence has been able, and no point which could. be made in your favour has been lost. The sentence of the Court is that you be taken hence to the place whence you came, 'and there be hanged by the neck until you be dead. Remove the prisoner. The prisoner: Thank you, your Honor. Chemis was then removed.
The jury wore then discharged. Subsequently the prisoner was again placed in the dock, it having appeared that his Honor had omitted a portion of the formal sentence. His Honor again went through the form of sentencing the prisoner, explaining that he did' so in order “that there might be no semblance of any error.” The prisoner was then removed, and the Court adjourned.
THE SCENE IN COURT. (by our special reporter.) A trial for murder has a great fascination for a certain class of people. Those who delight in the blood-curdling stories of fiction, or the unhealthy romance c-f the ultra-sensational writers, are bound, if possible, to be present on such occasions. The recent trial in the Supreme Court was no exception to the rule. Day after cay the Court has been ei’owded, and when the qlimax was reached, the Court was simply packed. The gallery set apart for the fair sex was filled with curious females. As soon as the Court opened on Monday morning these sensation-mongers tool: their places, evidently prepared to sit out all the horrors of a fellow creature being condemned to death. There were females of all ages, from the gigglingtittering girl, who looked upon the scene as a broad farce, to the elderly matron prepared to applaud or weep hysterically as the occasion necessitated. There were a score of married women, most of them fashionably dressed, who
apparently looked upon the proceedings as a dramatic effort got up expressly for their amusement. There were ladies of uncertain ages, whose tongues were scarcely still for a moment, criticising the crowd spread bolow them. Some of these females, to make the weary time of waiting pass more pleasantly, brought with them the yellow-back novel, the morning paper, or fancy work to employ their restless fingers. On nearly every face was the same look—a dislike of the humdrum domestic life at home, and a craving for unhealthy excitement of some: kind. They chattered, and pushed and crowded each other on the seats, and at the risk of overbalancing themselves crained their heads over the ledge of the gallery to get a glimpse of any fresh excitement below. There was considerable attention paid to the summing up of the Chief Justice, and when the jury retired at 1 o’clock to consider their verdict, a lively buzz of rapid conversation arose from all quarters of the crowded court, the lower part of which was packed with the male sex. The hours sped on, 2,3, 4 o’clock was sounded, and weariness of flesh was seen on every side. Mrs Chemis, wife of the prisoner, sat in Court with some of her friends. She tried to appear cheerful, as if con 0 dent that no jury would convict her husband. At times she smiled and chatted gaily to those around her. Time sped on, and about 4.30 the dusk of the evening crept on, and the Courthciuse became gloomy and dingy. But still no sign of the jury’s return. Time was hanging wearily on everyone’s hands. Down by the barristers’ table a collection of photographs of the scene of the murder passed from hand to hand, raising judgments of a Solon-like character from the habitues of the Court. The 1 females upstairs were restless when a new excitement was caused by the usher with a gigantic fishing rod apparatus attempting to light the sunlight in the centre of <£he roof. He applied the lighted taper time after time, but the gaslight was not forthcoming. The crowd relished thp experiment, and got excited over the attempt. Simmers - of merriment arose at each fresh trial, and when at length the gas caught the flame the crowd felt half inclined to break out in applause. A faint ‘ £ encore ”,„was heard, but the speaker was half-hearted, and his words did not l’each far. Five o’clock struck, and it was rumoured that the jury had disagreed ; but ten minutes later excitement reached fever heat. When the jury slowly and solemnly entered their box a deep hush Settled down upon the Court. The restless females suddenly became quiet. Although it was not then actually known what the verdict would be, an intuitive instinct seemed to settle on the majority of the spectators that the dread sentence of death would be pronounced. His Honor the Chief Justice took his seat with a slow and serious air. The Registrar asked the usual formula of the jury, and then came a silence still as death. 1 Every lip was on the quiver, every eye and ear strained, and fingers clenched as the foreman, with pallid cheek and grim, stern sense of duty written upon his face, breathed—for ' he hardly spoke—the word “ Guilty. ” Then a suddensobsounded throughout the Court. It was a vast sigh—not a sigh as of relief, but a sound of surprise and horror. All eyes were then concentrated upon the prisoner at the bar ; but not by a move did Chemis betray his position. There was perhaps just a trifle more firmnes.4 in his eye, a little more blanching of the cheek, and his fingers clenched more firmly the front of the box in which he stood, but there were few signs of agitation outwardly. At the worl “Guilty!” Mrs Cheipis gave one loud sob and fell forward on her face on the desk in front of her. It was a sob as if all hope was abandoned 5 it was the deep sigh of despair. She was led out of the Court, and then her grief gave way and her cries and moans sounded throughout the Court, causing many a throat to feel a strange sense of fullness, and in more than one eye the tear-drop glistened. The Chief Justice assumed the sombre cap of death and proceeded to pass the final sentence. His head was bowed and his hands were clasped in front of him. He spoke with emotion, and evidently felt the seriousness of the scene. His voice faltered and sank in power, and the last part of the sentence was well niglf inaudible. The prisoner received the awful sentence quite unmoved. He addressed the Judge with a very slight Italian accent; and but for the half dramatic move of the hands one would scarcely take him for a foreigner. He denied his guilt, but said li6 was ready to die at once. For his own life he did not care ; and then, with a touch of pathos in his voice, 'and just the slightest quaver of his lips, he spoke of his wife and children. Then men’s throats again became husky, and stalwart feet shuffled uneasily on the floor. Chemis soon recovered himself, and finished his speech in bold! and clear tone 3. Then the scene eijided —the prisoner was taken to the cells below, the Judge retired, and the crowd of spectators were glad to escape into the open air. The trial was over, and Chemis Jiad been condemned to death. A PETITION. Mr N. Fernandes, in connection with several other citizens who are of opinion that the verdict passed upon Louis Chemis was not warranted by the evidence, have drawn up a petition to the Governor, praying that the sentence may he commuted. The petition was open for signature at the
shop' of Mr Feruandos, Lambton-quay, end has been numerously signed. Copies of the petition have been sent to various parts of the town and to several country districts, and it is expeoted that within a day or two these petitions will ! « largely signed. The text of the petition is as follows :
To His Excellency the Right Honourable William Hillicr, Earl of Onslow, K.C. ivi.G., Governor of New Zealand.
May it please your Excellency—We, the undersigned, subjocts of Her Most Gracious Majesty Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and its dependencies, do most burnblyfand respectfully beseech your Excellency to listen to our prayer, which we now make on behalf of a fellow-subject, an Italian by birth, named Louis Chemis, who has just been convicted of the murder of a man named Thomas Hawkings. The condemned man up to the timß of the present unfortunate occurrence had lived in the immediate neighbourhood of Welling, ton for a period of upward of 15 years. During that period he had conducted himself as a true and loving subject of her Majesty. He had earned the respect and confidence of his fellow men ; he had earned promotion in his employment by bis steadiness of habits, moral character, industry, and trustworthiness. He bore the reputation of a true aud loving husband and father, and for his social qualities was generally held in high esteem by all his neighbours. This man is now condemned to die tho death of a felon by the hand of the common hangman. Your Excellency, we humbly pray you to review the case.
We know that the man has been condemned according to British law. We know that this law is just. We know that this law is firm, and that in convicting the accused those concerned have only done what they considered their duty ; but, your Excellency, whilst the British law is just, whilst the British law is firm, we know also that the British law is merciful. The law says >. t'. is man is to die, but the same law which ! Bays this says alio that the Crown may extend the blessing of mercy at discretion. The evidence upon which tho condemned man was couvioted was wholly circumstantial, and we venture to suggest to your Excellency that it was circumstantial evidence of the most narrow "class. The whole of. the surroundings are ,ao enveloped in. doubt—the doubt is apparently so strong—that we feel that if the sentence of the Court be carried into effect, this man's life may possibly be sacrificed. Had the man Chemis arrived in his present position step by stop in crime, we, her Majesty’s law-abiding subjects, would ha*e paused before preparing our petition in his behalf; but it is not so, and as the law says that whilst meting cnit justice the Crown may exercise the prerogative of mercy at discretion, we humbly petition your Excellency to take his case into your merciful consideration, an.l extend the clemency of the Crown to this unfortunate man, Louis Chemis. We feel sure that time will unfold the mystery, will remove the doubt surrounding the case, and reveal the true murderer, whomsoever he may be ; but in the meantime we again most humbly and respectfully solicit your-Excellency’s merciful consideration for our prayer, and humbly trust that our petition may not have been made in vain. And your petitioners will ever pray.
On Tuesday morning Mr Jellicoe, at the request of Mrs Chemis, visited the condemned man at the Gaol, and had an interview with him. Chemis made a statement with regard to his case, which was put in wiiting, and at once placed before the Minister of Justice by Mr Jellicoe.
It is rumoured that some fresh evidence has been collected which will probably throw some new light upon the case. / The following correspondence has taken place :
Wellington, July 16bh, 1889. Sir, —Re Louis Chemis. —Referring to my interview with you to-day I have now the honour to send you a copy of the prisoner Chemis’ statement to me at the gaol this morning. I am instructed to act on his behalf, and I now apply that you immediately direct an inquiry to be held into the matter referred to in the statement. I am prepared, with witnesses, to substantially corroborate every detail of that statement. On the 2nd inst, and before his trial, the prisoner made practically the same statement to Mr Glaseodine, my managing clork ; Mr John Dowd and Mr John Dowd, tho younger, and Mr J. H. Pagni (the young Italian mentioned by Chemis fin his statement), will be able to prove that he, at Chemis’ request, retained my services for the defence. I applied this morning to see the prisoner professionally, and tbis Mr Garvey refused, and my interview took place in the presence of two warders, who verified the prisoner’s statement. I find upon inquiry that the prisoner has a mass of evidence which ought to be investigated, and as I am anxious to place the whole of that evidence befoie you, I must ask that you will bo good enough to give directions enabling me to interview Chemis in private. Before the trial I was informed by the Crown Prosecutor that Mr Garvey, the gaoler, had given him a statement of his reasons for saying the prisoner was guilty. I ask that the propriety of this may also be inquired into ; and as the matter is of the utmost urgency, I beg you will give it your immediate attention. —I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, E. G. Jellicok. To the Hon. the Minister of Justice.
Statement of Louis Cbemia to Mr Jellicoe, made the 16th day of July, 18S9, in the presence of Warder Millington. —Mr George Fisher came to me at the gaol and said, “ Well, you want a lawyer,” and I said yes. He said who do you want '! I said I mentioned Mr Jellicoe to a young Italian who came last night. He said, no doubt Jellicoe is a good man, but it’s the Judges we must look to. I understood by him that the Judges did net like you. He said, “I’ll see that we get a good man for you.” Mr Garvey was present. Mr Garvey said Mr Bunny is a good in»u and took u good many men out of gaol. Fisher went out and said, I’ll see. He mentioned Buckley’s name to Mr Garvey, and Mr Gafvey said no. He
went away. I saw Bunny about two hours afterwards here. Ho said Mr Fi3her has engaged me, and then I explained my case to him. Mr Bunny telephoned to me%one night. Warder Millington came to me and said he was coming to see me to-morrow, hut I did not see him for four or five days afterwards. I was anxious to see him, but he never oame. John Dowd came up to me one morning (2nd July). Warder Millington came and said Dowd wanted me to write down a few lines to Mr Jellicoe. I said I don’t know what to write, but I like to see him himself. About din er time, and a little before Dowd came the second time, Garvey came to my cell and said, “ What about all this lawyer’s affair. Mind whatever you do, because Bunny is doing his best for you. He ain’t sick, aud has only a bit of a cold, and is working his best for you at home, 1 know ; and he has got a good bit of evidence now from the doctor and everybody. If you get anyone else now it will be your own ruination.” I said, “If he is too sick to attend ? They tell me he is bad.” “No, he is not too sick,” he said ; “ if he was too sick he would let you know himself. Don’t you run away with the idea he would see your case like nob looked into proper. You know what I’ll do for you now? I shall telegraph up to him and ask him whether he is able to attend to your case next Monday. If he is not able, then of course you can engage Mr Jellicoe, or whoever you like ; but mind, whatever you do, you do not engage Jellicoe now or it will be your own ruination.” I promised him I would not until I had an answer from Mr Bunny. He left me then. I then went out and saw Dowd and Jelliooe’s clerk I said “I cannot engage Mr Jellicoe now before 1 get an answer from Mr Bunuy. It will be my ruination ; I have just been bold so.” But I did not say who told me, as I believe I said, “No, to-morrow morning if the man tells me he is not able to defend me, I shall telegraph to Mr Jellicoe ; and Jack said, “You’ll get an answer right enough that he will defend you, but God knows what way he will defend you.” That evening Garvey came to me and said I have a telegram already. The man is well aud able to come and defend you next Monday. . Bunny said ic telegram, “I am quite well, and ready to defend Chemis on Monday.” Next morniDg Garvey came to me with a letter. Millington was present. Jack said, when talking to me, you do not hear anything inside here, but we hear a lot cutside, and Mr Jcllicoo’s clerk said you had better take your friend’s advice. A copy of the letter referred to is hereto annexed. [copy.] “2nd July, 18S9. Mr Louis Chemis, ,H.M. Prison, Wellington.—l have just heard that some evil-disposed person has been informing you that I am too ill to conduct your case Such a statement is a base lie. lam quite ready now to take your case at any moment. I was in town to-day, bub thought it would be better to see you to morrow. Regarding the witnesses, it is not desirable that they should be subpoenaed until the last moment, as the police will at once know who they are. Everything else is ready, and I have been working at home for the last several days about your case. Have no fear but that I will be well, strong, and ready on Monday, not only to defend you but to get you off. —Yours truly, “C. E. Bunny.”
Mr Jellicoe has received the following letter from the Minister of Justice : “Wellington, July 17th, 1889. —Sir, —-I am instructed by Mr Fergus to acknowledge the reoeipt of your letter of yesterday’s date with reference to tho case of Louise Chemis, and in reply to inform you that no reason is seen for any departure from the practise as regards interviews with prisoners under sentence of death. No objection will, however, be offered to your seeing the prisoner under proper restrictions, and any statement or evidence which you may be able to forward will receive the most careful consideration of the Government. The allegations which yon make regarding the Gaoler will bo strict y inquired into.—l have the honour to be. Sir, your obedient servant, F. WaldeGKAVE, Private Secretary.”
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZMAIL18890719.2.79
Bibliographic details
New Zealand Mail, Issue 907, 19 July 1889, Page 21
Word Count
18,544The Murder of Mr T. Hawkings. New Zealand Mail, Issue 907, 19 July 1889, Page 21
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.