THE LILLYWHITE-BLATCH CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4258, 18 January 1901, Page 3

THE LILLYWHITE-BLATCH CASE

TWO ENHLISH witnesses. THEY VACILLATE AT FIB ST. BOTH SAY ACCLSKD IS BLATCiI. Yesterday's proce.a.*iigfx at the Magi-;-Iratn Court in r.he Klatch-Lill.vwhite 'case were. of a omowhat dramatic nnInre. Early in the morning the; t'V° police ivitnes-,es Him had just arrived from Colchester, England, were given an iulerview with Lillyivhite. 'J'tiese two men e.ai'li had an intimate knowledge of Klatch, extending over long periods ; Air .Vl;ir~.fi laid employed Blateh at times, and had keen in the habit of going on occasional excursions with him. The sergeant of police, was in llio habit of .see, mg him on six 'lays a week—so it was thought iu Wellington that, so soon as these men saw the accuser! Lillywh-ite Ihe vexed question as to whether he was or was not the man wanted would he immediately settled. The- two witnesses, however, hesitated when they had inspected the man, and failed to identify him, and the news having leaked out. before the can; eliine on in the Court, speculations were indulged in as to wind, amount of monetary compensation would be allowed the accused by lie Covernment. When the ease came lo a. bearing one witness was inclined lo think in a non-comndl tal kind of way lb.it accused was lihdeb ; the oilier was of opinion Chat accused might he Jtlate.ii. bid was not prepared |o say be was that person. At dinner time a barber and a photographer a cre requisil ioned, and after (be former bad operated on Lillywhite and the bitter bad taken bis photograph, he was again tendered for examination, (he English witnesses being preseii(:■ in Court all the afternoon. As a, result of their observations during that period they were each able co swear positively that (bo accused was Arthur lilateb. They arrived at their conclusions by slightly differing chains of reasoning, hid the conclusion was identical. Sergeant Frost was mainly influence'.! by the general appearance of the man, and also by trick's of speech which he considered (o tie indicative ol mi Essex origin. Mr .Marsh went, partly h.v the voice: he told the Court, that he had observed a great change, in Lilly white's tone of voice during the afternoon compared to (-hat which characterised it in the morning—a statement which considerably roused Mr Skerrett (Tilly, white’s counsel), who protested that the assertion of Ihe witness was based upon j an erroneous assumption. .This witness also went by the forehead and eyes ef < tic prisoner, in which ho saw a. resem- •; Idaiiee; lint lie admitted that there wore i discrepancies about him which in a measure disproved the supposition that lie ' was Klatch, Tile witness McMahon, who was called for the. defence, gave. , very positive evidence that it was he i who was in the house of the woman Dailey afc Otaki on the occasion on 1 Which the woman Archer alias Wong f lew, was said by the Mrs Bailey beforementioned to have been in company with the accused Lillyivhite. .Detective Nixon is to h" pul; in the box 10-day by the I Crown with a. view to disproving several of this witness’s statements. Accused, when in |,ho witness-box, gave an apparently straightforward account of his wandc'-ings.his narrative seeming to sup- i ply noth continuity rnd cohesion. iVIr Kell subjected accused to a careful cross-examination, but, beyond eliciting information which might possibly enable subsequent evidence to lie brought, with a view to impeaching accused’s credibility, I here was no taiif'ible result attained. The fort her hearing of the ease will be resinned at 11 o’clock this morning.

THE EVIDENCE. STORY OF THE PRISONED. Before .Mr IV. 11. Haselden, S.M.. Charles Lillywhite was charged that ho, being Arthur Blateh, did murder one AU'rod Welch at (.’olch ester, England, on tin) Bth December. 180;-!. .Mr Doll, ivith him Mr Myers, appeared for the Crown, and Mr .jaerrett, with him Air 11. Cooper, for the accused. The first witness tendered was Robert Frost, a sergeant of police attached to the Colchester Police Force. Mr Hell ; How long have you been in the Police Force.?—Nineteen years. Did you know* a man named Arthur Blateh,' who is charged with having ccmmitted the Colchester murder?—Yes. Had you frequent opportunities of seeing him?—l saw him on the recreation grounds, which he looked nicer, almost, every day. Cun you say what time Blateh left those grounds?—l think about two years ; I couldn’t say exactly. When did veu last see him?—l tnink in •1891 or 1892. • ' Did ho wear hair on his face at that time?—He was clean shavhn ; You have, I believe, a photograph of Bin tch ?—Yes. Just look at it first. Is it a good likeness of Rlatcli? —Yes; at the time it was taken. It is a fair likeness, but net a good one. Did vou see the'aceused before coming into Court ?—T saw Lillywhito tins morning in the police office, in the presence of Inspector Pender. Mr Skerrett and Mr Myers, two counsel. Will you describe what took place?—-I looked at Iho man now in the dock, and after a conversation which I had with him— What was your conversation with him P . I asked him if he came from Tacoma. He said “Yes.” I then asked him when lie left, lie replied “1894.” I then asked him if he knew Now York city. He said lie did not know much of it. That’s all the conversation I had with him. I think ho mentioned ho was in Tacoma when President Garfield was HintMr Skerrett: New York? Mr Bell: Did ho say New York or Tacoma? (The point was not elucidated) Mr Bell: Now, Sergeant, what do you sav about this man?—l see a resemblance; but I am not sure.—(After a pause)—Tho mere I see of the* man the more I think it’s him. Mr Bell : Was that your first improssien?—No; at first I thought it was not him : I thought he had too strong and rough a. voice- . When yen saw accused in tins Court lust now you saw him for the seconu time?—l did. ' Did you then cause a further communication to bo sent to me?—l did, sir. Do yon say there is a strong resemblance?—Yes. . . , . What, is your opinion? Is this man Blateh or is lie not?—l have come to the conclusion that he is Blateh. Te look at him .sideways and also full face, •ind to observe his ears more closelv than I did in the office—also his nostrils •in my opinion he is Blateh. You say yon always know Islatfih without a moustache? —Yes. Did vou know Drawbridge?—No, sir; I knew his father, hub I did not know 1 "what was the father?—Manager of a la>(>ai clothing department. Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett: You were selected to come out here through veur knowledge of Blatoh. Net. altogether, hub partly.

You say yon had frequently seen him ? Yes. You knew his name was Blatch?—Yes. How many times do yon think you saw him from the time he left the recreation ground ? —Sometimes once and sometimes twice a week. During voiir vryagf* out to Now land did”von doubt if you would be able to recognise Blatch?—! thought possibly I would not bo able to recognise him at once. . . T , , He came into the Inspectors room this morning and you subjected him to a. scrutiny without making any remark!' What did veil say after you came back to the room’after making the scrutiny? —'i’lic words I then said were, “I cannot swear that this is the man.” Mr Mvers suggest**!, I think, that conversation might assist you iu aiming at a conclusion ?—Yes ; someone suggested so. . You did havci a conversation with accused?—-Yes. Did you not, as a result cf that conversation, say that if Lillywhite were placed among a number of other men you would not pick him out as hearing a resemblance to Watch?—l don’t think I said that; I said I could not positively identify him. , Did you not say hei was a bigger framed man than Watch?—l said lie was a bigger man than Blateh was when at Home. Did yon not point cut his ears as being smaller than Klatcli’s? Acs; lint I had not looked sideways at them. (Photograph produced to witness.) Is not the ear of that ( photo larger than that of the accused? . ,Mr Haselden : But that is such a wretched photograph! Mr . Kkerrctt: Vos. (To witness). What do you mean about the nostril?— f. mean there was something abnormal about Blatch’s. , -i • t Do you say accused s nostril is distinctive?—l say it is more open than the 01 Tell"me Blateh’s personal eharactens- , tics? —In what way? Was he talkative?—l can t say par- : tieularly about that. He was talkative when J spoke to him. , ? i (Hatch was never measured, 1 think? Not to my knowledge. Did yen ever hoar that Watch was , marked with small-pox ?—J never heard Yon notice Bhitch has such marks? Ype- # . - , What colour of eyes did Blateh I have?—l can’t tell. „ How old was lie in 1893?—About thirty-six. Ho would In- about forty-one now? — 1

lie was a pale-complexioned man?—

i)o yon think this man is a pale-com-plexioned man?—[ don’t say. i)» you describe. this man ns a man of thin bmld ?—Wall, not exactly. There is a certain amount of fat on him, thunch. Was 151 at cl i a thin mail?—Yes, he was H in, bub lot exceptionally so. Had Watch a prominent mark? —Yes, .the Ailain’s apple in his throat was prominent. Had ho a frequent stoop?—Yes, ho bent slightly forward. Did you ever notice, him lame?—No, i couldn’t say so. Tell me on what you opinion as to accused being Blatch ?—I go by the general features. What particular features ?—Nose, forehead, ears and face. Rather like the Irishman’s objection to gnus, isn’t it—lock, stock and barrel.' What particular features? —The forehead and nose.

Do you nob admit that the forehead in the photo is unlike that in this man?—Oh, vesl I admit that. Was Blateh a labourer ?He was a handy man. Mow old was he when yon first knew him?—T can’t tell. Look at that photo. Is that like Blateh ?—No. Is it like accused? —No. It is a, photo of accused, though, and I think it is a good likeness, Sergeant. Isn’t that ainied-up nose in the police wood-cut more like mine than that of Hie man in the dock? Mr Haselden -inspected tho photo, and was of opinion that the turned-up appearance of the nose was duo to re-fraction-of light. Mr Skerrett.: Did you ever see Blateh so well dressed as that?—No! I have heard in Colchester, though, that Blateh was .usually well dressed when ho went away to London.

Did yon ever hear of Blateh as a musician—that ho played tho accordeou? — No, I can’t say that I have. I understand you are unable to swear that this man is Blateh?; —The more 1 seo of him the more I am inclined to swear that he is the mail. I can’t positively swear so, though. All you say now is that there is a strong resemblance?-—! say, now, that I think lie is Blateh.

Do you swear that this man is Blateh ? —I won’t swear positively that he is Blateh. ' This man. lias papers in ins pt ssession extending from 188 sup till the. present time in Wellington. Counsel then read a. letter written from British Columbia, to accused by a friend, and received at the Terrace Prison by accused since his incarceration. It was couched in a strain which inferred that the accused had a considerable local knowledge of Tacoma. Mr Skerrett pointed out that the letter he Had read was from one Selkirk, who had been in correspondence throughout the whole period hefoie-mentioned. 1 Re-examined by Air Bell : . Did you notice when yon came into Court anything about the Adam’s , apple in accused's throat? —I saw' it was prominent. Did yon say when you first came into Court that the forehead and the upper part of tho eyes were like those of Blateh ?—Yes.

And you think accused is Blateh?— Yes; the more I .sec. him th© more I think ho is Blateh.

Mr Haselden pointed out to the witness that tho prisoner was not on trial here. Witness was merely asked to take the responsibility of saying that the accused was Blateh, and in thcase accused would be sent for trial in s’nghind. In answer to a direct question from the Magistrate, . . Witness said he was reasonably certain accused was the man Blateh. Ho had noticed accused smile in a certain way during the morning that, was characteristic of Blateh. 4 Mr Haselden ; How long is it since yon last saw Blatoh ?—Eight or nine years. To Air 801 l : I knew the witness Drawbridge when he was in his father’s house at Colchester. I. have an impression that the witness Drawbridge had been out fishing with Blateh. I have heard Blateh speak of Drawbridge frequently. What do you stale, to tho Court as vour opinion now?—l think that, the accused is Blateh. Air Skerrett : You made a close scrutiny of Blateh P—Yes. After your scrutiny did yon not «iy accused was a bigger man than Blateh ? —Yes. Did you not infer by this that accused was not Blateh ?—Yes. I nd. )You expected you would he ah. 5 to recognise Hliiteh without difficulty Yes, I did.

Did yon notice any resemol.ince between accused’s voice and that cf Blateh P —Accused’s was louder and rougher. Would you have expected Bhich to develop into a public speaker :.:;d lake interest in such a subject as -iugie-lrx ? -.mi, I don’t think so. What has caused yon to alter yon? opinion as to accused’s identity •’ Mix smile especially, and also Ins forehead.

Is not his walk different? (Lillywhit? here walked up the Court-room) —Yes, it it is different.

Did you ever hear that Blateh had had snia’i-pox?—No. Mr Haselden : Supposing this man to be Blateh, do yon not think he a

most capable actor?—Acs, 1 would. Air Skerrett ; What was the principal pleasure pursuit of Blateh?—He we-, a fisherman and a bird-catcher. Mr Haselden : Did you ever know Inm to use a paint brush? —No. Air Skerrett: I understand you to >ny that you have only a suspicion that accused is Bhitch P—Yes. Air Haselden ; Do you assure.Py say that—that you have only a siispiei.it. ? Yes. The photograph of accused vtns here produced to witness, aud he was asked ; Is that a photo of Blateh ?—No. Isn’t it a photo of accused ?—Weil. I

can’t say that. _ , . But I’m putting it to you! It s his photo. Do you not see it is his?-I

can’t say that! Accused, who was here brought up L. uiiitoss for Ho-sor examination, examined witness himself, im'iuiring il witness know Blateh to take an interest in labour .matters and kindred subjects, or to sing and play ?—Witness answered in the negative, and accused thereupon volunteered to sing a song to enable him to mature his judgment. The Magistrate pointed out to witness that if he fell he had made a mistake it would be best lo at once say

so. . . Accused told witness that if he was in the habit of going fishing with Blatch he should he able to identify or definitely place him (the accused). A ouiet conversation between the two took place after which witness still professed his inability to definitely decide.

In answer to Mr Skerrett, witness said Blatch smoked a pipe. -He had a place worn in his teeth from holding the pipe. That mark was not observable in accused’s teeth.

Accused’s teeth were then, examined by Mr Haseldeu, who failed t° hid an/ indications of the mark mentioned by witness. Accused bad no trace on his teeth, such as that indicated. John Marsh, keeper of the Town Hall at Colchester, England, in. reply to .Mr Bell, said: I knew Blatch. He had no particular profession. I knew him when he was keeper of the recreation grounds, and used to visit him there. 1 was not his master: he was under the Corporation. Blatch had worked for me in the Town Hall. I last saw him when he left Colchester for London. It might have been a year or eighteen months or two years before the Colchester murder; I couldn’t say for certain. 1 did .not see him again after that. I went to the police station this morning and saw accused there. It was after the sergeant .saw him. After a careful inspection 1 spoke to accused, and he spoke to me. I then formed the opinion that there was a slight resemblance in the torehead and in the freckles on Ids face, but I failed to identify him as Blatch. Mr Bell: What is your opinion now about him?—Since 1 have been in

Court I have arrived at the conclusion that accused is Blntch himself. The accused, Charles Lilly white,, made an affirmation, ~the Magistrate saying, Giotto voce, that he supposed the accused had a right to do so. Accused said; I was born in Devonshire square, London, •about 1859 or 1860. I think the 13th of April was ray birthday. My father’s name was Richard Lillywhite. He. was a small "boss” painter. He had no shop; he was just a small contractor. I have a brother Isaac a painter. I believe he now has a restaurant at Leeds, in Yorkshire. He ,was alive about two years ago. I heard that from a cousin of mine.

Mr Skerrett read a letter from a daughter, of accused’s pister-in-law thanking accused for a monetary remittance, and giving intimate particulars of the family life- '

In answer to Mr Bell, accused said he had sent the money by Post Office order from the General Post Office, Wellingtons , The case was then adjourned until 2.30, there being an understanding that in the interim- accused should be clean shaven, in order that the witnesses might have every opportunity of settling the moot pdlnt as to accused’s identity. On the resumption ol the hearing of the ease at 2.30 p.m., tho accused—who had in the meantime been photographed, then clean shaved and again photographed—was put in the witness-box, and his examination continued. He wont on to refer to his other relations. There was a brother William, he said, lie and (his father died about five years ago, while I was in Wellington Hospi-1 tal. The eldest of the family was Richard, then came Isaac, William and my-1 self. My sister was the eldest of ali. She married a man named Sayers, who. after his marriage, learnt the painting with my father. I lived with my father fifteen years and a half. Then he went to live at 52. Rupert road, Holloway, North London. Afterwards, at seven, teen and a half years of age, I went to Rotherham, in Yorkshire, and worked there for a year with my brother-in-law. Then I wont to Sheffield, where I worked for a man named Bennett. It was the main street running from the market. Rogers,, the cutler,, lias a shop in the street. After-about five months I went to Derbyshire (I was then a little over eighteen), to Glossop. Denton, and various places, in the north of migland, and returned to my father's house in London at about twenty-one years of age. I finally left there when fwenty-six years old. For a year or so I lived with my father, then went to Barnsley, and subsequently returned to Lovyer Holloway. I remained in London all that time, and left for America on January; 25th, 1885. •I had my photo taken before , I left. (Photo produced.) I was about twentythree years old then. It; was taken in Hewston road, near Hanstead road. I had never heed to Colchester. It was the desire to do better that took me to America. I had made up my mind that England. was no place for a working man, especially a man with any “sand ’’ in him. I arrived in New Orleans in a steamer called the Explorer. The Exhibition was then on. I took a trip through Texas about seven weeks subsequently. and after a short time I went east to St. Louis, and ultimately to Chicago. I have three families of relatives in Chicago. My aunt (Caroline Cook) writes to me, from there. Two families nanfed'Farlie are there, relatives on my mother’s side,. I first met my aunt in London,, two,i years before I went to America- (Tile letters from: the aunt were produced. On© began Dear Charles”; another, “ Dear Sir.’ ? Accused said the latter letter appeared to he written by one of the children.) Warren. who writes to me from various places I first became acquainted with in England. Afterwards, I tntew him in America. (Mr Skerrett, put in a letter

from this correspondent addressed to Lillywhite at Tacoma, asking for par. fcicnlars of that town.) The billheads (produced) are in my handwriting. They are genuine billheads. The writing is similar to my present handwriting. The bills were ones which I never collected: 1 just kept copies of them. (Receipted (bills from a tradesman at Lo-s Angelos ‘were cnen tendered as an exhibit.) The !pocket-book (produced) I got in Tacoma from a tradesman named Dickson. The first page contains a note of introduction from a man named Spring, suggest- ■ ing me as a man to do some work. An [entry in this book (indicated) is a note of some money paid to my partner (Clark) as a disbursement on ray behalf for rent. The words of a song in the hook ("' Molly and I and the Baby ”) 1 cannot remember where I wrote—whether in Tacoma or in Wellington. (A letter from a girl named Aiiss Willoughby was read. Accused said she was a girl be used to "spark’’ with. He added : “I invited her to come out and ;parry me; but sue died instead. ) I first met William Clark in Cnicago in the fall of 1885. We worked together In that place for some months. I went I from Chicago to Los Angelos, and Clark went to Tacoma. I stopped at Yosemite House when I was in San Francisco. In 1889 1 received a letter from Tacoma sent by Clark, i only stayeu in San Francisco a little time ; I went from to vuriou?* British Oolunibitin towns and to Seattle. In July, 1894. I left for Tacoma. I knew a man named Mortimer. Me wa.s a plasterer. I received a letter from him dated March, 1890 When I went to Tacoma I took up some land in Kinsett County (ICO acres) The Government grant produced' is mine. 1 bad to live sixteen months on the land before 1 was entitled to the grant. That was on December 18th, 1893. Mr Skerrett; That is just about tho date of the murder! Accused ; The assessment return put in is mine. It was signed by mo before witnesses: The naturalisation papers produced are mine. One witness was Johnston. The other was a little Englishman whose name I have forgotten. X could not say if his name was John Mackin. To acquire the papers 1 had to give two years' previous notice; to satisfy the authorities that I had been five years resident in the United States, and "for one year in Washington. 1 belonged to the Painters and Decorators’ Brotherhood of America. The certificate produced is mine; It bears date of 15th April, 1893. I loft Tacoma on the 16th July, 1894, and went to Victoria (British Columbia), from whence I left by the s.s. Warrimoo for Auckland, via Sydney. In Sydney I called upon the American Consul (Colonel Bell). That was in August, 1894. Mr Skerrett put in papers to prove that accused was in Sydney at that time ’file proof was in the form, of a certificate from Colonel Bell stating that he was of opinion that the man who recently wrote from the Wellington Terraco Gaol to him was the man who waited upon him in Sydney in 1894. Ho judged from the knowledge of events which • the writer had. Mr Skerrett pointed out that the point was important, inasmuch as the witness Hewson had sworn positively that a man whom he considered to bo undoubtedly Blatch v.as in Hewson’s office in Wellington between January and February, 1894. ( Mr Skerrett then elicited from thej witness that after he came to Wellington he went to Christchurch and other places. Ho took a trip on foot with Selkirk—his friend whoso acquaintance he had made on the voyage from Vancouver. There was also a fellowvoyager named Elliott. Elliott stopped at Woodville. Selkirk and accused botn went to Christchurch. .Selkirk returned to Wellington after a few weeks. Witness said he returned} in November, 1895, anil stopped at 26, Taranaki street. Selkirk was living there. Stayed there about a year. Went to Wellington Hospital early in 1895, suffering from an overstraining of the muscles of the stomach. The letter produced "(address-

ed care of Wellington Hospital, bearing date of ■ 1895) was sent to him. (Tho letter went to establish that the writer .in. Tacoma, accused’s partner Clark, knew of Lillywhite’s presence in Wellington, , and his knowledge of .Tacoma. Reference was made to Lillywhite’s then recent departure for New' Zealand from Tacoma. A large number of other lid- 1 tors were put in to make a continuous record of accused’s movements. A let ter of December 11, 1897, said that tho land purchased by billy white was all right). Examination of Lillywhite continued : I was a. member of the Loyal Duke n{ Wellington Lodge in London for a lengthy period. I kept up my payments for two years after I went, to America. I sent the dues to my father, and he paid them in. In respect to the woman Archer, I absolutely deny that I ever visited her at Levii\ or Otaki'. Nor r.e.ve I written to her. I have on 1 y been once to Levin—six years ago To Mr Haselden : When I was in the hospital a man named Hbuching was on one side of me. The bed on the other side was vacant. What Ho>’- | kins said in Court about having had a conversation with me about the fire- ir. Tool cy street, London, was the finest piece of lying ever 1 heard. To Mr Bell; I remember Hopkins telling me he lived at Levin. He let e\ eryone know, that; he was like a talk ing machine. Hop Kins did not atten< to’me in any way. He spoke to me j; the hospital grounds when he'first earn' down. When he first came I was about on crutches. It was not. in answer to a question by me that Hopkins told rno he was from Levin. He volunteered the information. I do not* remember telling hini I might £0 to Levin. I positively say that I did not speak to Hopkins about a woman who was living there with a Chinaman. During the time I was laid up.l.sent money to my sister's-in-law. Could not- say what age I gave when I got to the hospital. M birthday was on the Ist April. I think my age is about 41. I travelled about seven years on the'west coast of America. I* went by train from Chicago to Los Angelos. We,.passed Kansas City en route. Then passed-Denver, Salt Lake City and Sacramento We did not. touch ’Frisco. I was two years-in Tcs Angelos, and I know the town well. The'country raises oranges, lemons, apples and walnuts—it is not a farming district. The. land I bought at Tacoma* I purchased with mouev I had earned at my trade. I took some hundred dollars* with me .to Tacoma. I had been there a year, or more when 1 bought the land. I left Los Angelos in ISSO. I repeat I know .no woman Archer in New Zealand, nor any woman named Mrs Wong Hew. I never stayed at Mrs Bailey’s house at Otaki. I bare admitted .that I was in Otaki in 1894. 1 stopped at a hotel. I never took any woman to any races at Otaki. I swear that the man who was in company with Hie woman- Archer- was not myse”. There is absolutely no reason why 1 should wish to conceal any knowledge of Mrs Archer, presuming I possessed anv. ■ ■■ i ' 1 ■> ' .

Mr 801 l raid lie had been puttin'* the foregoing onostiona with the view -i calling further evidence for the Crown. Mr Skerrett said he would .strenuously object to the Grown further detaining

Lillywhite in gaol while it worked up fresh evidence.

Charles McSTahon was then called in evidence by Mr tokerrett. He said: 1 i am a compositor by trade, but I now work at Oroua Bridge. When working on Brancepeth station I knew a woman named Margaret Archer. She was living with a Chinaman, ami was known as Mrs Wong Hew. Subsequently I knew her at Otaki. Took her to Otaki races about three years ago. It was the summer meeting. I remember her leaving Wellington for England on May 28th of last year. Previous to her departure we had a convivial gathering at Mrs Bailey’s house—on a Good Eriday night. I stopped with Mrs 'Archer there all night. On the Saturday 1 stayed at the hotel. On Sunday night I stopped at Quill’s. I had had a tiff with Margaret Archer, but it was not of long -on- ! tinuance. She saw me off by the 1.20 train for Palmerston on Monday afternoon. She was to catch the next morning’s train. I got a letter from Mrs Archer subsequently, from Colcheste". I would know it again—l would know her writing in ten thousand. The letter produced is mine. I lost it in the street. The man in the dock was not in Otaki on Good Friday. I have seen him in Mojorihanks street, Wellington. ''Part of the letter was read over to witness ami lie then mentioned a part that had not been read to him). I was living.m Sago’s lane, Tory street, when I lost the letter. I stopped nt‘ Mrs Bailey’s on the Saturday night mentioned on which i was in Otaki, and at the Central Hotel on Sunday night. We made up the 1 iif soon after it occurred

Cross-examined by Mr Bell; I went, to Otaki with Detective Nixon and Constable Hooke about three weeks age. When the police picked! me up I was talking with Mr Smith (Lil)ywhite’s late partner). I was stopping at his place for the Chrismas holidays. I went to stay at the place where Lillywhit© lived, in Majoribanks street, about the middle of November. In Otaki the detective took me to one Mrs Bailey, whom I di not know. It was the wrong Mrs Bailey. Mrs Wong Hew was not at that Mrs Bailey’s—she was with me at tka other Mrs Bailey’s.

Mr Bell obtained from witness an admission that he had been three times convicted of theft. Mr'Skerett objected to the Crown bringing out such a fact; one of the Crown witnesses, he said, was (similarly tainted, ibut the defence had* not mentioned the fact. After argument, Mr Bell mentioned a number of convictions recorded against the witness. Cross-examination continued: The Mrs Bailey at whose place I stopped lived down the Lower road. The police did not request me to /show them the house of the Mrs Bailey at whose place I stopped. Ido not remember any conversation with Nixon about Dyson’s evidence, j. I did not, tell Detective l)Jixoii ""that Dyson had undoubtedly made a mistake. -His evidence was top clear for any mistake.

Re-examined by Mr Skerrett j From the railway station we walked right into the township. I saw the woman Mrs Bailey standing at a gate. Nixon was with me. I was not asked to point out the house in which I slept on Good Friday night. The house at which I slept then is near the Maori pah—Jubilee Hotel way. I had never seen the Mrs Bailey I have mentioned until the Good Friday night. I repeat that the Mrs Bailey with whom I stayed was not the one the detective showed me. wie was fair and stout; the one I stopped with was dark. •,

Mr Skerrett pointed out'to the Court that the woman Bailey who was examined.in Court was dark,, and suggested that his * witnes’sjiyyas right nbouf" the ■ house and' wrong' l about the woman. .

• Sergeant Frost Was then put in the box a second time, and.‘said he was prepared to say positively that accused was Blatch, after having beard the accused-, give , evidence) and -having seen him with his beard off. - Witness had detected [the Essex dialect in several words. ■ ’ ■ ■ :: V

To Mr Skerrett: I was not certain of the accused’s identity -when T, first saw him. I did in - your presence and before Mr Myers say that accused was not the man. What now enables me to recognise the accused as Blatch is his features. I could not see Ibis features properly when he had thej'beard on. 1 do not recognise his . voice as Blatch’s. One phrase in which I recognised the Essex dialect was “That’s the only Archer as I ever know!” Previous to that he had been talking the'American dialect. I 'am not an Essex man. 1 do not know on which teeth in , BlatcH’s month the pipe fitted ; but I think some of the teeth are gone iii accused’s mouth. I attribute ho importance to his talking about America. I swear to the best of my belief the, man in the dock is Blatch; I will not swear absolutely. Mr Haselden: You would not hang him as Blatch ?—No.'

! Marsh was,then recalled.. He stated that-after seeing accused with his face shaven he was prepared to swear, accused was Blatch. He was sure—almost positive'. Accused’s voice, was, very much altered since ho spoke .first in the morning. He could now alihcst swear to his voice.

Mr Haselden: We are not going to send ft man to England, even for trial, on a mere supposition of a witness; 1 want a straight-out answer. —I am prepared to say that’s him. ■ You are prepared to say that in your opinion this Court should take the re; snonsibility of sending accused home as Blatch ?—'Yes.

Would you risk much property of your own on the issue?—Yes, I Would. Are you prepared to say, with all , human certainty that this is ■Blatch?— Yes. ' - A; '' ■„r > Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett ; I recognise accused chiefly by his voice. The long examination, gave me a good show. I heard no particular phrase that attracted my attention. It was the tone of the voice. The appearance of accused is that of Blatch; I swear, he is Blatch. I am sworn in as a-special constable, but that does not make me any more sure in my opinion,. In my sober and discreet opinion this man is Blatch. :Mr Skerrett: Is there any indication of Essex about his speech?—No; I noticed a touch of Cockney dialect., Mr Haselden?—Are yon a- native of Essex?—Yes.

George Drawbridge said he had formed no further opinion on the matter before the Court. He had no wish to abate any statement he had madeiu evidence previously. He still recognised the accused as Blatch. Being shaved made the accused more like Blatch. He had been store all along of accused’s identity with Blatch, and. he was just gs.-positive now Mr Haselden consulted the photographs again, and was of opinion that the man in the -dock. ,was of- .much more refined appearance than the; man shown in .'them. He must haye..t’’improved of late years in appearance if-he was the same man. The curve of the .nostril in accused seemed to hfe different to that shown in the photograph. ■, __ , ■■ ‘Mr Bell demnrred, and saig he would like to address the jury ,on that point. . 5 Mr Bell then addressed the Court, saying he proposed to ask lency- the Governor next mornlng r to endorse the English warrant, after which he would apply to his . Worship " for _ a commitment, i He proposed to .'tender Detective Nixon to controvert certain statements of witness- McMahon.

The case was then'adjourned (at p.m) until 11 o'clock this morning.