THE KAIWHARA TRAGEDY

New Zealand Mail, Issue 914, 6 September 1889, Page 22

THE KAIWHARA TRAGEDY

THE CHARGES OF PERJURY AGAINST THE POLICE. The hearing of the charge preferred by Mrs Chemisfagainsfc Cliief-Detective Benjamin was resumed before Mr C. C. Graham, R.M., yesterday morning week. • The first witness called was Ellis George Low, a native of Wellington, and employed by Messrs Banmit-yne and Co. He was well acquainted with the la to Mr Hawkings’ property at Kaiwhara. Mr JeUicoe : Have you on any occasion recently been there ? Witness : Yes, sir. Mr Jellicoe : Do you remember calling upon me last Monday week, the 19th ? Witness : Yes, sir, I do. Mr Jellicoe : Were you then asked to do anything ? Witness : Yes ; I was asked to search a gully leading from Dymock’s house to the target; to search all water h lies or courses to see if I could find anything that had been left there. - Mr Jellicoe ; Did I say anything to you ? Witness : You said that if I was put to

• ®fty expense or any trouble you would see that I was paid for it. Mr Jellicoe : And in consequence you went out on Sunday last? Witness : Yes-. [A plan of th’6 property was here produced-, and oil it the witness pointed out the point at which he came upon the ■ ground, and subsequently the place where he spoke to a man named C Alins ; also the position of the creek where he found certain articles.] Witness said his route Pver the scene was by a track that faced the hills. Did nob go to HaWkings’ house, bub passed near there, and saw a man named Collins Who is employed by Mrs Hawkings. Collins asked him what he wanted, and cautioned him about-being on the property. Witness told Collins his errand, Mr Jellicoe: Did ho say in which direction you were to go in search of evi • dence ? Witness 1 When I told him why I came he said he did not think there would be anything likely to be found in that direction ; that if anything was found it would be more likely in the gullies on the other side. Mr J ellicoe : That would be on the way to Chemis’ house ? Witness : Yes. Mr Jellicoe: Did you go to the creek that runs from Dymock’s up to the butts ? Witness : Yes. Mr Jellicoe : From the creek running from the butts you discovered a creek running from Hawkings’ property into the main creek ? Witness : Yes. His Worship : Is that the goal you have been looking for for the last halfhour? Mr Jellicoe : We will get there directly, sir. Witness went on to say that at a point in the creek he found a waterfall about Bft or lOffc in depth, also another higher up of about the same description. Witness climbed up the bank at this fall to look about him, and before doing so looked about to see if there was anything in the bed of the creek. There were boulders about. Mr Jellicoe: Did you see anything lying on a boulder ? Witness : Yes ; I saw a shot pouch. Mr Jellicoe : Had you any great difficulty in seeing the shot-pouch to begin with ? Witness: No ; I saw the end of it sticking up. I did not see the leather. Mr J ellicoe : Had you bo disturb anything in order to see the shot-pouch ? Witness : No, I saw the end of it, the filling part. Mr Jellicoe : What did you do when you saw it. Witness : I picked it up. Continuing, Low said that before picking it up he saw nothing else. He next saw the blade of a knife. The knife was not lying fiat. Mr Jellicoe : How do you mean when you say you saw the blade of a knife. Witness: Give me a pen or pencil and I will show you. It was on its end like that (perpendicularly), with the blade sticking straight up. I took possession of the knife. He went on to state that he could not see the handle before taking possession of it,- There were reeds round it. A few minutes later on, rummaging about amongst the reeds, witness found a knife-sheath. It was entirely covered by leaves. He had to disturb the leaves to see the sheath. There were not many leaves over it. Mr Jellicoe : Do you mean to say that you could not see the shot-pouch itself because it was covered with leaves ? Witness : There were three or four inches of leaves over it. His Worship : Did it give you the idea that the leaves had been deposited there by the water, or had been thrown down to cover the articles ? Witness: No; they seemed to have fallen down in the ordinary course of things, from the thick overgrowth overhanging. His Worship : Had no water passed over these leaves at all ? Witness : No. Mr Jellicoe (producing shot-pouch from cardboard box): Do you know whether that is the shot-pouch ? Witness: I don’t think it is. Mr Jellicoe : Why don’t you think it is ? Witnest : Because it was a straight one. Mr Jellicoe: Did you notice whether the top of the one you picked up was brass or like this (iron) ? Witness examined the pouch minutely. That lookg.like the pouch. 1 would not swear it was not, Thei’e were black marks around it when I picked it up. I would not say it was, but I am under the impression that it was a straight one I found. His Worship : Was it dry or damp when you got it. Witness : It was damp. His Worship : That would accouut for the stains. Witness (again looking at the pouch) : This is the pouch, I believe. It was a little bit upset when I found it. His Worship : Is it your belief that that is the pouch. Witness : Yes ; I believe now that is the pouch. Mr Jellicoe (producing knife) : Is that the knife you found ? Witness : Yes. [The knife produced was an ordinary wooden-handlcd butcher’s knife, about long, and was sharpened to a point and ground on both sides. It was very

rusty, and presented the Appearance of having lalii ill water for some time.] Mr Jellicoe : How much of the knife was sticking up when you found — Witness : About two or three inches. Mr Jellicoe (producing sheath) : And is this the sheath ? Witness : Yes, that is the sheath. Witness, continuing, said that he took the articles first to his own house and after WAird to Mr Jellicoe’s house, where he handed them over to Mr G 1 ’scodine. Did not see Mr Jellicoe then. Witness wont out that morning with Mr Jellicoe, Mr GJascodine, and another person (Warder Riardon), and pointed out the place where he had found the articles and the position in which he discovered them. His Worship : Were they all found close together ? Witness : Within about a foot. His Worship : How was the sheath ? Witness : It was by itself. His Worship : Was the knife sufficiently close to suggest that it might have fallen 1 out of the sheath before It reached the ground if thrown from above. Try it for yourself and tell me if you think it possible that that could be done. Witness (here threw the knife sheathed from him, and in the fall they parted) : It was possible. His Worship : Did yoU think that going down head first it Would stick up in the way you saW it ? Witness : Yes. The witness further said that he had no difficulty in seeing the pouch and knife. He was about a couple of feet distant from the spot when he saw them. By Mr Bell :" The: overgrowth of trees joined across the creek. The articles found were about a foot from the water. There was no water showing, as it was covered with leaves, and running under them. It would take a very heavy flood to cover with water the place where the things were found. It had .not been suggested to witness that someone had placed the things recently where witness found them. He had heard a rumour, but not that Mr Bell or any of the police had put them there. Mr Dyer, a clerk in Baunatyne and Co.’s, had told him on Monday or Tuesday of the rumour that the things might have been put there as “a plant.” That,' he believed, was on Monday last. Did not understand that the drift of Mr Jellicoe’s questions to witness were to try and make it appear so. Mr J ellicoe : I simply asked for facts, and if you say that that is the result of the answers, I cannot help it. Cross-examination continued. No one asked witness to go over the creek where the things were found. He had searched (he creek before more than once. When witness found the articles he called over to him some six men who were at the butts. They were J. Holmes, A. Holmes, Hodges, Sedgewick, and others he could not recollect. He asked them to examine them so as to be able to say whether they had seen them before. Understood them all to say no, but could not swear that each man said so. He asked them in a general way. Would swear no one remarked that it was Hodges’ pouch. When witness was told of the rumour about the things being planted he said that such a thing was impossible ; that it was no plant. He still believed that. Had not the slightest doubt about it. When out at the spot that morning, Warder Reardon stated he had not been so far up. the creek as witness by some 30 yards. It was in consequence of a message he had from Mr J ellicoe late the previous night that he went out with him to Kaiwhara. John Coyle, a prison wa,rder, deposed that he went to Hawkings’ property on the 2nd August, and to the creek described by the previous witness. Mr Reardon was with him, and subsequently a Mr Foreman joined them. They . were searching for anything that might throw light on the murder. Went this morning with Mr Glascodine to a creek on the right-hand side running into the main creek on the right-hand sice going to Dymock’s. Went into the hollow of the fall Bft or 10ft. Went up that same creek on 2nd August and probed about with a stick. Witness followed the creek up to the fall and probed under boulders and about any likely place. Saw no shot bag on a boulder. Had there been one or a knife in such a position as described witness thought he would have seen it, as he was searching closely. Could not say that when making h ; s search he must have disturbed the rubbish that Low described as covering the sheath. By Mr Bell: On the 2nd August, when witness went out to make a search, Reardon was with him. They went up by the 7.15 train, and saw. Foreman, who afterward joined them walking up Hawkings’ road. " The party separated at the point where the small creek joins the main creek. Searched the gorse as well as they could. Might have missed seeing anything that was on the hill. They went all over it, and then witness alone went down the bed of the main and up again. He went last up the creek shown to him this morning by Glascodine. On the Court resuming after the luncheon adjournment, Mr Bell continued his examination of Coyle, who admitted that the search made by him was not a complete one. C. E. Glascodine, law clerk, deposed to receiving the articles from Low on Sunday, and handing them to the Go verm ment analyst on Tuesday ; also that he

took the pouch to Mr Tolly, gunsmith, on Tuesday. William Skey, Government analyst, deposed that he received the knife and sheath produced from Mr Glascodine last Tuesday morning. He had carefully examined the knife. It was a singleedged one, and looked like an ordinary butcher’s knife. Examined it very carefully for traces of blood but found none. He found oxide of iron rust on it. There was a good deal of rust on one side, hie removed the rust, but could not say. how long it had been in the water. He thought it might have been in the water for some Weeks* but could not swear how long. Could not say whether the water would affect the handle. The handle might have swollen a little, but not much. If the knife had been covered with blood and thrown in the creek the water might have washed the blood off. By the CoUrt: If the knife was thrown in tile Greek oil the date of Hawkings’ murder lie did not know whether the rains which have occurred since would have washed the blood off. Ebenezer Round* recalled* recollected the conversation he had with Timothy Dowd, Greaves* And Gibson about the shot-pouch. Did not tell them there was a picture on the shot-pouch while he was speaking to them. Gibson said there was a picture on the pouch. By Mr Skerrett: The shot-pouch which was produced in the Court on Wednesday was similar to the one which he bought. He never greased his shot, but a friend of his named Alfred Holmes greased his. The reason the shot was greased was to make it carry closer and not scatter. James Gibsoii* recalled : In answer to Mr Skerrett, he said he had not been speaking to anyone about the present ca.se. He had spoken to Mr Jeliicoe oil Wednesday night. He spoke to Dowd a 3 he was on his way to lunch yesterday, but he never mentioned about the case. He accompanied Mrs Chemis, Dowd, and Greaves to Kaiwhara on Wednesday night. They engaged in general conversation, but did nob mention the case. Could nob recollect what was said on the way home ; never mentioned anything about the case. He left them on the road between the hotel at Kaiwhara and Chemis’ house. A young man named Overend, employed at Luke’s foundry, had given the bullets in November last. He left some bullets at Chemis’ house one Sunday night as he was coming home. Could not say for certain how many he had left, bub he thought there were between seven and nine. At any rate there were more than seven. He was out shooting pigs on Chemis’ land the day he left the bullets. He had been out shooting pigs on Chemis’ land before. Did not recollect telling Mr Skerrett that he had been on Chemis’ land but once. Could not say the day he wont out shooting along with Greaves. Witness left some bullets with Chemis, as he had some more at ~ home. Knew he wanted them, as there were pigs about the place. Left his knife and sheath also, as he did not want to carry them home. The sheath, he believed, was made by a tradesman. Was often about Chemis’ house. Never saw a sheath there that he knew of. Had some knowledge of leather. Had not seen the sheath produced before. Mr Skerrett: Look at the knife now. Have you ever seen it before ? Witness: No; I never saw that knife before. Examination continued : Knew that Dowd had worked on the tannery premises at one time. Never possessed a gun of his own ; always borrowed one. By Mr Jellicoe : The last occasion on which he was at Chemis’ place shooting was some eight or nine months ago. Could not say positively if it was then that he left his knife and sheath. Got his knife and sheath back the night before Good Friday. Greaves fetched it. Did not give it to witness personally. Had asked Greaves to bring it down ; also asked him to bring down witness’ shot-pouch. Did not get the pouch back, and got no explanation from Greaves concerning it. Could not say for a fact whether he had at any time after leaving it at Chemis’ brought the pouch away. Could not remember whether he lent it to Chemis after the last occasion Round returned it. Only remembered Round borrowing it once. Had no recollection of lending the pouch to others. On the occasion that Greaves and Dowd asked for a description of Hodges’ shot pouch, both Round and witness said they‘could nob describe it. Round said it had a picture on it. Mr Bell : Did any one speak to you about the ' description of the pouch given by Round after you had given your own evidence yesterday ? Witness : I spoke to no one concerning the case. I spoke to no outsider. Mr Bell : Who was it ? s Witness hesitated, and Mr Bell exclaimed, “ Out with it, sir!” Witness : Well, Mr Fisher, if you want to know. Mr Bell : Who is Mr Fisher ? Witness : He is an expressman. Mr Bell : Did he come to you ? Witness : No, I went to see him. Mr Bell : Who asked you to go to him ? Witness : Nobody asked me. Saw Mr Fisher at the Court since. Did not ask Fisher to give information to anyone. Supposed Fisher only came there to look on. He only spoke to Fisher out of friendship. Could not say how the information about the picture got to Dowd. The picture was a gun and a hare or a rabbit on it, but could not cay if there was anything else. Would not swear one

way or the other that there was a picture on Hodges’ pouch. It ran in witness’ mind that there was. Had read in the Times that morning what Round said about the pouch, but would not swear that Round’s evidence was false. Round had described it to witness as having a picture on it. To men at Kaiwhara— Overend and Harris. Could state that it had a picture on it. By Mr J ellicoe : Picture or no picture, witness was unable to say whether or not he took the pouch away from Chemis’, or lent it to some one else. By the Court : If he left a pouch at Chemis’, it must have been the one he got from Hodges. He had no other pouch that he could have left. Frederick Greaves, recalled, was examined by Mr Bell, and said that Gibson had told witness some time before the shooting season that he (Gibson) had lent a shot-pouch to Chemis. Since he had given his evidence yesterday he had not conversed about the case with anyone interested in it. -About the same time that witness asked Gibson for the loan of a . shot-pouch lie took away from Chemis’ house Gibson’s sheath-knife. Did riot. get the slidt-pdueh. As far as witness could recollect he was told when there that the shot-pouch was not at Chemis’. Believed Chemis told him it was riot there. " The day after witness brought away the knife he saw Gibson, and told him he had brought down the knife, but that Chemis said that the shot pouch was not there. Could not be certain whether it was Chemis or Mrs Chemis that gave him the knife, nor could he say whether it was on the Thursday before Good Friday. Never saw a sheath or knife like those now produced in or about Chemis’ house* or anywhere else. Mr J ellicoe applied for a clear 24 hours’ adjournment to enable him to obtain particulars and subpoena witnesses to cleat up the discovery : of the articles by Mr Low. Mr Bell protested and complained that Mr J ellicoe had broken faith with him in connection 1 with an arrangement that had been come -to.-between them. He had no altetnatiyg but to assert his rights and ask lAa l 'Worship that the hearing of the cash'should proceed day by day until completed..^', His Worship decided .that this cour3e must be adhered to, and the Court adjourned at 5 o’clock until 10 30 the following morning. The case was continued on Friday. On his Worship taking his seat lie stated that he intended to adhere strictly to the rules relating to the relevancy of the evidence. He had found on looking up authorities that it was clearly laid down that the evidence given should be upon the issue of the case. He had come to the conclusion that a great deal of the evidence which had been given during the last two days was not relevant. In reply to Mr Jellicoe, his Worship said that he considered that the greater part of the evidence in reference to the articles found on Sunday was irrelevant. He could not see how this evidence could relate to the charge against Benjamin. Mr Jellicoe pointed out that his object in calling evidence with reference to those articles was to show that they had not been placed there by Chemis. Notwithstanding the ruling of the Court, he would tender evidence with regard to these articles, and if it was rejected his responsibility ended. He asked the Court to order that the clothifig worn by Hawkings should be produced. The garments had been in possession of the Government, and, notwithstanding this prosecution, they had ..been, returned to the police. 'A suggestion had been made that the cuts in the clothing had been made with a singla-edged instrument, and he wished to show that this was nor the case. He did not thiuk it right that his Worship shouldjflecide that the defence should be allowed to let the inference go forth that the articles belonged to Chemis without giving him an opportunity of disproving it. Mr Bell said that what Mr Jellicoe had said with reference to the clothing being handed over to the police was incorrect. , Mr Jellicoe again stated that he had been informe.d on the previous evening, by the Premier and another Minister, that the clothiDg had been returned to the police. Mr Graham asked Mr J ellicoe if he had applied to the police. Mr Jellicoe replied that he would ask the Court, to make an order for the production of the'clothes. Mr Graham said he could not make an order for anything that was not in his charge. He went on to say that he did not see what object anyone could have in keeping the clothes. Alter some further argument, it was decided to proceed with the evidence, his Worship intimating that he would rule whether it was relevant or not. Frederick Greaves, recalled, stated that he had never had a powder-flask of his own. If he had had one at his house it was Chemis’. Had not taken a flask to be mended. Had taken part of a flask to Mr Fink to be repaired. Mr Bell indignantly asked the witness what he meant by playing with him. The witness: I am not playing with you. Hi 3 Worship said chat the .witness was, not giving his evidence in a satisfactory way. \ . The witness, continuing, said that when

he made the statement few minutes before that he had not taken a flask to be mended, he had forgotten about taking part of the flask. He had taken “ a little concern inside the flask.” A rivet •wanted putting in. By Mr Jellicoe J He remembered Gibson asking him to get a knife and sheath which he (Gibson) had left at Chemis * Could not say whether it was Mr or Mrs Chemis who gave him the sheath and knife. Also asked for a shot-pouch belonging to Gibson, but he believed that Chemis said he had not got it. By the Court : The sheath was taken down from a shelf, and Mrs Chemis must have seen it when she was cleaning down. Carter Hodges was recalled, but his evidence was unimportant. Mr Jellicoe her e stated that he proposed to call evidence to show that the stabs in Hawkings* clothing could not have been caused by the knife found by Low. His Worship "ruled that the evidence would not be relevant to the case. E. G. Woodward, clerk to Mr Jellicoe, was called by counsel for the prosecution to contradict the statement of a previous witness. Mr Bell objected, and, after some argument, the evidence was not allowed. Mr Jellicoe said he would recall Chemis. Mr Bell objected to Chemis being recalled. He had already been examined, cross-examined, and re-examined, and if he was again brought into the Court it would be for him (Mr Bell) to examine him. Mr Jellicoe explained his reason for recalling Chemis, and said that it had been said the articles found by Low on Sunday last were once in Chemis’ possession. Chemis was the person therefore to explain this. The Court declined to allow Chemis to be again recalled. Mr Jellicoe : That is the case for the prosecution. Mr Bell asked his Worship what was the practice with regard to the addresses of counsel in a case of this kind. Mr Jellicoe argued that the present time was not the proper time to argue the question of addresses. Mr Bell contended that counsel for the prosecution had no right of reply. The learned counsel wanted to know when he was to address the Court for the defence. His Worship said that counsel for the prosecution must at the close of the prosecution address the Court on the evidence adduced and show his reasons for desiring a committal. At a quarter past 12 his Worship called upon Mr Jellicoe to address the Court on behalf of the prosecution. Mr Jellicoe said that as he had a lot of evidence to go into the would like to be allowed until 2 o’clock to consider the points of his address. His Worship thought the request a reasonable one, and the Court then adjourned until 2 p.m. On resuming at 2 o’clock Mr Bell said he had been requested to state that there was no foundation whatever for the statement made by the learned counsel for the prosecution on the previous day that he was asking for a remand with the sanction of the highest Administrative officer of the Colony. Mr Jellicoe said he would repeat what he had said on the previous day that he was quite sure that the head of the Administration of the Colony would sanction the request he was then making, if it was necessary. He was sure that if the Premier thought the remand was neces. sary it, would receive his sanction. Mr Bell repeated that he had been requested by the Premier to give the statement a denial. Mr Jellicoe then proceeded to address the Court, and submitted that the case he had opened at the outset-had been fully proved. He had had, he admitted, to contest against terrible odds, but notwithstanding this, he had been able to prove every word he had uttered in opening the case, and it was only necessary that he should prove a prima facie case. The learned counsel for the defence had endeavoured in various ways to draw a redherring across the scent, but all his efforts had failed, and the facts had been proved and established. The falsity of the evidence with regard to the paper was not only proved by the evidence of Chemis and his wife, but by every surrounding circumstance in the case. There was corroboration, he submitted, in every fact connected with the case, and he therefore saw no help for his Worship but to send the accused for trial. He had been anxious that there should be no suspicion whatever regarding the testimony of Mrs Chemis, and therefore before she had any opportunity of referring to the statement made by her husband to the Executive, and before she could have any information from Chemis, she gave her evidence in the case. Waß it possible under the circumstances that Chemis and his wife could have sworn falsely ; and his Worship must bear in mind that they had had no communication—no private interview ; and when they found Chemis’ evidence corroborated by the evidence of Mrs Chemis they could not have better proof of the truth than these circumstances. They had the evidence in regard to the paper borne out by these two people, between whom there could have been no collusion. The fact that Chemis was in possession of a wadcutter was, he submitted, cleariy proved by the evidence of Dybell, Daly, Dowd, and other witnesses. He then referred to the evidence of Dowd, Greaves, and other

witnesses as showing that the contained the wads, caps, and other articles, which the police had denied were there. Where, he asked, was the powder-flask on the Ist June ? If it was not in the house, why did not the police make some inquiries about it 1 The only reason, he contended, for the absence of any inquiry by the police as to whether Chemis used wad. 3 in his gun, Was because they knew that there were wads in the drawer; If the police had believed that Hawkings had been killed by a gunshot wound, why, he asked, did they not take away the gun and the revolver, for they were the only weapons consistent with that theory * He then referred to the condition of the bandbox, and the fact that the top of it had evidently been cut since it was examined by the Cabinet. He had no complaint to make against the Premier, but he thought that any person sitting in the Court when the vile suggestion was made that Mrs Chemis had tampered with it, and who kneW differently, would have informed him, especially if he was the Crown Solicitor; But no such statement was made to him (Mr Jellicoe). Mr Jellicoe then referred to the evidence of Mrs Chemis as showing what the house contained on the Ist June. He alluded to the testimony of several witnesses as to the quail, and he asked where did they think the quail were on the Saturday night? They must assume that the police had properly searched the house, and beyond that they had the evidence that Benjamin looked into the tin, and that, he thought, proved the falsity of the accused’s evidence. Referring to the wads, he said they could not have been manufactured for this case, because they were handed to Mr Bunny, who was defending Chemis for the Italian Consul, by Mrs Chemis before the trial in the Supreme Court, and he had kept them until after Chemis was convicted, and then they were handed over to the Executive Couucil. As to the discrepancies in the evidence of Chemis and his wife with regard to the contents of the drawer, he said it was only natural that such slight discrepancies would arise in any household, and it was these discrepancies which proved the truth of their evidence. As to the movements of Chemis on his return from work on the 31st May, he.pointed out that the evidence of Chemis and his wife agreed as to every little detail. The counsel for the defence had suggested that this was a malicious prosecution, . not by Mrs Chemis, but by Mr Jellicoe —he was the man who was going to get the police out of the place. He had never suggested any such thing, and no person except one with a diseased brain would have made such a suggestion. The Court should bear in mind that Mrs Chemi3 had told Benjamin that if she had to sell the last article she possessed she would have justice' done, and would prosecute him. With regard to Mrs Richardson’s evidence, he said that he believed that she was innocent of any collusion with the police, but he asserted that she had been the dupe of Colonel Hume to do detective business. She was to take down all the answers from Mrs Chemis and tell them to him. She probably would not understand them, but he would. That was the little game that was being played. Mr Bell, interrupting Mr Jellicoe, said it had not been proved, and it was wellknown by those who made the statement that Colonel Hume was not connected with the police, nor could it be pioved that lie was taking any steps in the interests of the police, and he (Mr Bell) had had grave cause to complain of the steps taken by Colonel Hume. Continuing his address, Mr Jellicoe referred to the evidence of Mr Richardson. He said that no . doubt Ministers of the Crown thought it very good fun to amuse themselves with exhibits of the Court and to interfere with them by experiment so far as to change their appearance. These exhibits, he might say, would again be called for, and how were they to deal with them after the manner in which they had been treated? They had heard of the coat of the victim of the Kaiwhara tragedy being made the subject of experiments at the hands of Ministers, who slashed at the tails of it with the stiletto found in Chemis’ house, and also how they had attacked a Ministerial rug. These proceedings might be funny, but they were not edifying, and were not what might be expected under such circumstances. The evidence of Coyle, the prison warder, who had on the 2nd of August searched the creek where the articles were found by Low, was dwelt upon. The witness had said that he thoroughly searched the place, and saw nothing. It had been asked by Mr Bell in his cross-examination of Low whether Low had suspected or heard that hs (Mr Bell) had gone out in disguise and “ planted ” the articles where they were found. Suggestions of tricks of this kind had all along come from the other side, and now, continued Mr Jellicoe, raising his voice to its highest pitch, “I will ask, ‘ Who cut the bandbox?’” - (Loud laughter.) Counsel submitted that the paper theory against Chemis was not conclusive. The evidence that the shotpouch found by Lowe, whether Hodges’ shot-pouch or not, was not conclusive to show that the pouch was iu Chemis’ house at Easter last, and its identity with the shot-pouch that had belonged to Hodges was very incomplete. The falsity of Benjamin’s evidence, he submitted, was proved not only by the witnesses he had called but by surrounding circumstances, arid he “hoped his Worship

would not shrink from committing tins man to tslb his trial, in order that tins matter might be fully investigated. _ His Worship : 1 am floi satisfied m my own mind at present that theta' a to go before a jury—l do not say tne-e is not—-but I will take time to consider the voluminous evidence produced, _ an after considering it will give my decision. The ease is therefore adjourned until Mdnday morning; . Mr Bell : 1 understand your Worship will wait until Monday before Calling upon me to show cause why Bsnjarrinx should not be committed for trial. s His Worship said that Was so, and the Court then adjourned. The hearing of the charge of perjury against Chief Detective Benjamin was resumed before Mr C. C. Graham, R.M., on Monday morning, when his Worship gave his decision as to whether he would call upon the defence. His Worship said he had put his decision in writing. He then read as follows I have gone carefully through all the evidence that has been adduced in this case, not without a full sense of the serious responsibility which has been thrown upon me, and have carefully sifted out the grain from the chaff, by which latter I mean all the irrelevant evidence which can by no means be deemed to have any relation to the issues which I have to consider. The case, as presented by the prosecution, has only one aspect, and that is that a base and cruel conspiracy has been entered into by the defendant, with Inspector Thompson and Detective Campbell, backed by wilful and corrupt perjury, to hang an innocent man, with no other apparent motive than to shield themselves from the possible obloquy of having failed to bring the perpetrators of a cruel murder to justice ; while on the other hand there is the motive of tlie desire of Chemis, his wife, her brother, and brother-in-law, to shield the former from the consequences of his conviction of the said murder. I have come to the conclusion that the evidence is not such as woull justify me in casting such a slur upon the character of the defendant as would be implied by my referring the matter for the consideration of a jury. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that the evidence is not such as would lead to a conviction before any jury, and I, therefore, dismiss the case.” Mr J elliCoe said he had to call the attention of his Worship to the Vexatious Indictment Act, 1870. The third section Avas as follows “ Where any charge or complaint shall be made before any Justice of the Peace that any person has committed any of the offences in the last preceding section (one of the offences, Mr Jellicoe explained, being that of perjury) mentioned within the jurisdiction of such Justice, and such Justice shall refuse to commit or to bail the person charged with such offence to be tried for same, then, in case the prosecutor shall desire to prefer an indictment respecting the said offence, it shall be lawful for the said Justice, and he is hereby required to take the recognizance of such prosecutor to prosecute the said charge or complaint, and to transmit such recognizance, information, and depositions (if any) to the Court in which such indictment ought to be preferred in the same manner as such Justice Avould have done in case if he had committed the prisoner charged to be tried for such offence.” Addressing Mrs Chemis. he said —“The magistrate has dismissed the information.” Mrs Chemis said she would insist upon the case going to the Supreme Court. Mr Jellicoe then applied for Mrs Chemis, in the terms of the section he had quoted, that his Worship should transmit the recognisances and depositions to the Court in order that an indictment might be preferred against the defendant. Mr Bell submitted that it was for the prosecutrix to enter into her own recognisances, and his Worship was only required to accept the recognisances of the prosecutrix herself. Mrs Chemis : It was a cruel perjury. Mr Jellicoe said the recognisances would be tendered, and he understood that his Worship would accept them, and transmit the depositions to the Supreme Court. . His Worship said he had no option m the matter. Detective Campbell Avas then charged with having committed perjury in the folloAving evidence at the trial of Chemis : —“ I found in a drawer a quantity of newspapers. We found no gunpowder, or flask or gun caps. Everything was put into the handkerchief—an ordinary sized handkerchief —and from the front sittingroom only two pieces of paper.” Mr Jellicoe : After your Worship’s decision I can see that it is absolutely useless to tender evidence in this case, no matter how strong that evidence might be.' . . Ho evidence being offered, his Worship dismissed the case. Mr Bell said he would-ask his Worship to say that these men left the Court without a stain upon their characters. Mr Jellicoe : The case is to go to the Supreme Court. Mr Bell thought it Avas only right to his clients, who had suffered under the charge of the Avorst crime known to society, that he (his Worship) should express his opinion as to the manner in which they left the Court. His Worship thought he had expressed himself sufficiently strong enough in the

fudg.m ! ent lie h'act given, but, if there "was &?sy doubt, he -would say that in his opinion there was not the slightest ground to cast any sluf upon the character of the defendants. Subsequently, Mrs Chenlis entered into hef recognisance, in a sum ol LIOO, to prosecut'd Chief-Detective on a charge of perjury at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. Bankruptcy Couot.-A sitting of the Bankruptcy Court will beheld on Monday nestfc; The following is the business to be transacted j—Applications for discharge j. j. 1 ngraifl, E. H. Trueman, F. T. Hardiiig, Willie Gdergd, J, BoPthby. Applications to close aud fix discharge in the estates of G. Gv YV. BeaoK, Henry Sundgreu. William Waggery J and the Official Assignee will apply to be released from the foliowitig estate r—R. FreemafJ, R. Barlow, A. B. Jacksch, Q. T.- Farmer, Lucy Carver, Sophia M. Jariseii, C.* 11. Dement, W. Hooke, W. Mitchell, G. Siha'ft, 3 L. Whitley, W. Packard, J. A. Carson, L. Perschbacher, W. Weaver, W. F. Barnes, C. Simmonds, jun., T. Fitzpatrick, J. Martin, F. A. Finch, F. Ansdell, A. Williams, H. H. Travers, A. G. Price, F. J. Preston, J. L. Kimbell, G. Boothby, Chew and Parkin, Bryant and Chamness, J. Smith, W. T. Garratt and J. A. Petherick.