THE TE AWAITE TRAGEDY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13206, 13 February 1905, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE TE AWAITE TRAGEDY

COMMENCEMENT OP THE TRIAL. WELLINGTON, February 6. The trial of James William Ellis, alias John M'Kenwe, charged with the murder of Leonard Reeve Oollinson, at Te Awaite, on February 26, 1904, began before Mr Justice Dcntiiston to-day. Mr Myers (Crown •Prosecutor) appeared for tho Crown, and Mr Wilford defended. The Crown Prosecutor detailed the circumstances connected with the murder. He said tho stag-shooting season had not commenced on February 26, aud no one had any license from tho manager of To Awaite to go on the station and shoot. No one but scrubcuttdi's or people about tho station had any right or any lawful business to be on the station, and certainly no one had any right to bo shooting on the station. He mcntionod this in view ot some visionary theory that might bo raised that someone was shooting about the station. Thore was no game to be found within a quarter of a inile of the scone of the murder, and, even if there wore poachers about, it was clear that in this case there was nothing to shoot at unless tho game was two-legged. Tho circumstances were such that they must come to tho conclusion that Oollinson was shot by a man with intent to deliberate and wilful murder. Tho Crown case would depend on what was generally called circumstantial evidence. Nine out often easis before the court aud 99 out of 100 murdor eases were, and must l>e, decided on such evidence alone. They sometimes heard a man say that ho could not convict for any murdor unless someone could como and say, "I saw him do it." He assured the jury that was a very wroiig attitude. Murders' were not committed in tho presence of a number of people. A murderer did not call people to come and see him do it. If ho did, there was a good deal in support of tho plea of insanity. A murderer geno/ally wCnt about his work secretly, quietly, and craftily, taking good care that he should, not be seen. Some judges preferred circumstantial evidence, and a jury never refused to convict merely bccause tho evidence was such. Circumstantial evidence was to deposo to 2 and 2. It was for tho jury to themselves make I out of this, instead of the witness writing that figure on the blackboard. Ho instanced the Boaher case. As to motive, Collinson had—or accused thought ho hod—got accused dismissed from To Awaite Station. In addition, Collinson had safd unpleasant things about, somo previous episode in conncction with prisoner, and what Collinson had said was repeated to prisoner. Mr Myers explained to the jury that the fact that accused might havo had an unpleasant episode in his life was not anything against him at all; but if accused had such an opisodo, arid maybe was tryjng to live it down, it would be very annoying to him, to say the least, if he found another referring to the episode, it might be to do him harm. It would he shown that it angered accused, and that lie uttered serious threats against Collinson, which would form an important feature of . tho caso. Counsel proceeded-to put a supposititious case. Let- them imagine the following matters concerning two men, A and B; — If they found A uttering serious threats against B, saying he would "do for". B, and so on; saying B wanted "a bullet through l)is skull." If they found a motive for this in Hie effect, on A's mind of actions which lie believed B had done to injure him. . Ifaftcr. uttering threats A's acts were; consistent with an intention to oarry them out. > If, shortly after, .Ji was suddenly shot through the:heart. If, prior to this,' A had been seen hovering round the locality of BY work, but keeping carefully out of view in a lonoly, deflate track.. If A was seen a few hours before the murder within a few hundred yards of the scene. If thby found-that no'one elfe was seen in the locality. If, immediately after the murder, A cleared out and lived the life of an outlaw for nine months'or more, stealing his .means of subistence, except, possibly, meat,. wliioliJie <iliot. If they found that A was armed when arrested with a; loaded rifle arid- with a revolver loaded ill all.,its.six, chambers, the revolver slung just inside. hisicoat with the holster undone (the revolver being of no use to

anyone in-the bush unless for purposes of; self-defence). If,.they found that A obtained tho rifle more or less surreptitiously, very .shortly before the murder. If they found that the rifle was capablo of inflicting, the injury that cawed death. If they' found cartridges on A that fitted the riflo and thai; wero similar to tho cartridges with whioh/tho wound must have Been inflicted, to what conclusion, as reasonable men, could they come? What case could be stronger? This supposititious caso was the one they had to try. . After reviewing the ease the Crown Prosecutor proceeded to call ovidonco. The first witness was Reginald 'P. Grevillc, who produced a locality plan which ho had prepared from _ data supplied. His evidence in dolail was interrupted by a discussion on the question of the expedieiiey of the jury visiting the locality. His Honor, in putting the matter to tho,jury, said it was entirely a question for themselves. All arrangements had been made, and if they thought it necessary to view the sceno of the murder every facility would •e given them for doing so and every arrangement made for their convenience. The Jury, after consultation, announced that tlioy preferred to visit the locality. They left by this afternoon's Wairarapa train, accompanied by the Registrar of tho Supremo Oourt and two constables, and Mr Greville (surveyor), Messrs Wilford and Myers and Detective BrOberg will also bo of tho party. The conclusion of the trial will be found in another portion of this issue.