THE KAIWARRA MURDER.

Otago Witness, Issue 972, 5 September 1889, Page 8

THE KAIWARRA MURDER.

CHARGE OF PERJURY.

Wellington, August 22.

At the Police Court this morning the crossexamination of Mrs Chemis was resumed. Witness said there were nine bullets put in an envelope by Inspector Thomson; she counted them many a time. Mr Bell endeavoured to ascertain how many times, without success, and his endeavours led to a lively skirmish with Mr Jellicoe, who objected to the way that the witness was being treated, and what he called the " ghastly smiles " with which Mr Bell glared on Mrs Chemis.

Witness resumed : On the morning of June 1 she went to the drawer to place in ib the money which her husband had received for milk.

Mr Bell here wanted to know if she had the milk book with her, and she said it was at home. Mr Bell asked to have it produced, but Mr Jellicoe objected to any "so-called officer of justice " visiting Mrs Chemis house unless he or some member of the family were present.

Mr Bell said this was making a court of justice a machine for slander.

Mr Jellicoe said it would come out presently that articles had been tampered wifch while in the possession of the police. Eventually he agreed to let his own' clerk go for the book.

Witness said that her husband never had more than one stiletto. She must have known if he had. When Detective Benjamin looked into the tin containing the quail neither she nor her husband drew his attention to the quail. She saw her husband shoot quail from the back door — two on the Wednesday and two on the Thursday morning. Each time he killed the two with one barrel and did not fire the second.

Mr Bell spent some time in trying to extract from the witness how long she took to cook the quail, but without success. He then appealed bo the resident magistrate to get an answer to his question, but Mr Qrabain also failed. Mr Bell then accused the witness of deliberately .evading his questions, and got the same answer which he already had a dozen times— namely : " That it took her from about the time that the man Greaves entered the house till dinner time."

Witness continued : Both she and her husband were on friendly terms with M.rs Hawkins. Her husband never had a row with Hawkins. She had had reason to complain of the conduct of Hawkins' children, and wrote a letter to him some time after Christmas complaining of their beating her own children, but ib was not an offensive letter. [It was produced and read. It accused the children of learning their father's habits, and threatened to take them to court for interfering with witness' children.] She did not consider this offensive. On the evening of Friday, May 31 (the day of the murder), it was her husband who turned out the cows into a paddock. Before doiug so he pulled some mangolds oub of the garden and cub up a caskful. He also fetched in his horse before he came in to tea, put it in the stable, cleaned, and fed it. It would then be about 6 o'clock, as near as the could remember, when her husband came home. She asked him what time it was, and he said after 5.

Mr Bell asked what time it took to go from the house to the foot of the road.

Witness could not say, and persisted that she could not tell. In answer to further questions, she said that it was Mr Jellicoe who first advised her to lay this information when he saw the things in the drawer. That was two days after the conviction. On June 5, when the police came to arrest her husband, Detective Benjamin asked her to come into the bedroom and see what was done, but in spite of that his evidence as to the articles in the drawer was false.

Mrs Jellicoe deposed that the bandbox produced was not in the same condition as when first brought to her husband's hoo^e. A piece had been cut off the top, which formerly was straight. Cross-examined : She said she had not heard her husband say that he would have every policeman and detective out of Wellington.

Mr R. S. Hankin, editor of the Press, corroborated the evidence as to the condition of the box. He said he had written a number of articles on *he subject of Chemis case, and had had frequent communications with Mr Jellicoe, but not with the prosecution. The information on which the articles were written waa drawn from public sources and what Mr Jellicoe had told him. Mr Jellicoe had expressed the opinion to witness, before this information' was laid, that Dectective Benjamin's evidence with regard to the wadcutters, wads, and caps, was false, but he said nothing aboat Inspector Thompson and Detective Campbell. i On resuming after lunch the bandbox formed the subject' of investigation. Mr Jellicoe said it was not in the same state now as when it left his house, and had evidently been tampered with. A piece had been oat off

round the rim, and he noticed, that yesterday Mr Bell suggested this piece had, been used" to make wads with since Chemis conviction. .

Mrs Chemis, recalled, was re-examined by Mr Jellicoe. v She said she was responsible for thid prosecution, and was' paying for it. She had told Benjamin she would prosecute him' if she had to sell the last stitch of her clothes.

Mr Jellicoe asked her if she would time the distance from her house to the road with a watch for the satisfaction of Mr Bell, but the latter said he did not want it done. His object in pressing for a, reply was a very different one to what Mr Jellicoe thought. A cask was produced and sworn to which her husband'had filled with' mangolds on the, evening of the murder. He first washed and then cut them up with the chopper produced. She was in - the cowshed when he came home, but did notice the time. She asked hini shortly afterwards; and he said ]it.was after 5. Her husband never left the premises from the time he passed her at' the cowshed till they went to tea, which was> near 6 io'clock — at any rate nearer 6 than any other hour. The gun was hanging in the bedroom all the time. After tea her husband read the papers. In answer to further questions witness Baid she still Bwore no fragments of newspaper were brought in the handkerchief to Inspector Thomson on the day the police fir6t came to search. She usually kept the rightharid drawer, in which the caps and wads were, locked to prevent the children . getting at . them Tho 'documents examined by the police were in the lefthand drawer, aad the key of the other drawer was there on Tuesday. This week Mrs Richardson, wife of the Minister of Lands, called at her house with a notebook and pencil. She said that she was Mrs Richardson.

Mrs Richardson was next called. Mr Bell stated that this was a breach of faith. Mr Jellicoe bad promised that the lady should not be called. Mr Jellicoe said he had consented on condition Mr Bell finished his cross-examination of Mrs Chemisj'but he now understood Mr Bell declined to do this at once.

Augusta Richardson said she was the wife of Mr G. F. Richardson, Miuister of Lauda. On Sunday afternoon she went to Mrs Chemis house, accompanied by two of her daughters, She went of her own accord. No one sent her. She talked with Mrs Chemis about the newspapers found by the police in the house, and wrote down two dates, June and May 23, nothing more. Witness' object was to enquire into Mrs Chemis condition, and see if she could help her in any way. It was her usual practice to carry a note book. She asked Mrs Chemis if she had paid any of her lawyers' bills. The two dates were those of the two newspapers. The conversation with Mrs Chemis was of a general nature. By Mr Bell : ' Was not requested by any police officer to go out, but Colonel Hume knew she was going out, and a*ked her to find out anything she could about evidence likely to clear up the murder. Much amusement was caused when, in answer to Mr Bell, witness said she had taken an active part in getting up a petition in favour of Chemis, and was in fact a member of what counsel described as the Chemis faction. She was greatly surprised to hear that she was supposed to be on the side of the police. Witness said she believed Chemis to be innocent, and it was not likely, therefore, she was going to try and get evidence for the police in this case. What she intended to do was in 1 Chemis interest and not in that of the police. She was trying to prove hi? innocence; she was not thinking of the police or the perjury caßes iv any way. She did not know till now she had been held up to opprobrium by counsel for the prosecution as one who had tried to get evidence for the police.

By Mr Jellicoe: Knew Colonel Hume was making inquiries on behalf of the Government. He remarked that he thought Mrs Chemis would talk more freely to her, being a woman, than to anyone else, he suggested witness should take particular notice of what Mrs Chemis said, and make a note of anything she thought important. She saw him on her return at her house, and told him what had taken place at Chemis. By the Court : Colonel Hume knew witness was a believer in Chemis innocence.

Evidence was next called as to the money in Hawkins' possession on the day of the murder, the object being understood from the remarks of counsel te show that the money alleged by Mrs Chemis to have been in the tin in the drawer could not have been Hawkins'.

Mr Bell said on the day the search was made the police had a warrant to look for a pocket book supposed to contain £6, or &1 in notes, and could not possibly have known at the time what came out afterwards as to Hawkins' money being banked.

John Daly corroborated Dybell'a evidence as to the purchase of a wad cutter for Chemis on April 13.

The court then adjourned till Monday morning. Considerable interest is being taken in the case, and several members of Parliament were present during the day. The Premier h&a been present from the beginning of the proceedings. August 26. The Hon. G. F. Richardson said be had fitted the wads taken from the box produced into Chemis gun, and found that they fitted very well. He also drove a dagger through the skirt of Hawkins' coat three or four times to see what sort of cuts it made, and tried it once or twice on a thick rug ; also, on thick paper. He saw the band-box produced in the Cabinet room, but did not know who cut off the piece round the edge.

The Premier, who was in court, was recalled, no objection being taken to this, though he had heard the evidence of the other witnesses. He said that the band-box was not in the same state as when he received it, but he had not noticed it when first giving evidence. He could not explain how it came to be cut. He had inquired about it, but found out nothing. The exhibits had been kept locked in the Cabinet room till Chemis case was settled, but werj not locked up after that. Chemis deposed that Benjamin came to his house on June 1 with a search warrant, looking for a pocket book stolen from Hawkins. Witness was searched, aad his clothes and hands minutely inspected. Questioned as to whether he was wearing the same clothes the previous day, he replied, "Yes, and for a week before." Witness related the search made by the police. The gun was not out of the bedroom the day before. One of the drawers was locked, and the key was handed by witness to Campbell to enable him to search. It was usually kept in a drawer, which was locked, to prevent the children getting at it, as dynamite caps were kept there. Benjamin took papers, such as bills, letters, &c, from the drawer, but no newspapers. There were none there. The powder flask was alongside the shot poucb, and anybody could see it. When Detective Campbell found the stiletto he remarked, " There is some dust on it." The stiletto had not been out of its sheath for six months. Detective Campbell examined the box of dynamite caps and put it back in the same place. Benjamin was standing by at the time. The powder flask waa lying by the side of the shot flask. There was also in the drawer a tin of blasting powder which he had ground up himself. In another tin money was kept. He took some oat that day at dinner time— a

sovereign and a few shillings. ' He did not think he left any in. The police looked at everything io the drawer. Witness corroborated DyvilFs evidence $s to the purchase of a wad cutter. fle out the wads with it which were in the corner of the drawer. Wifenes3 mentioned other articles id the drawer, confirming his wife's, evidence in this respect. He believed the wads were lying loose in the drawer. He had had no opportunity since his arrest of talking with his wife about these things. He did noti know 'whether she had yet given her evidence. He had used his gun to shoot quail on Wednesday and Thursday morning that week. They were in a tin on Saturday, June Ist, on a shelf in the kitchen. Detective Benjamin. took down the tiu and looked in, but said nothing. There were some 'bullets in the drawer which he had obtained from a man named Gibson, of Kaiwarra. He got them because there were some wild pigs on the land he had from Hawkins. He used some, but they were too small for his guv. There ! were no fragments of newspaper in the bundle defendant took out of tho bedroom to Inspector 'Thomson.- He had the quail for dinner on Sunday. The police left the revolver on the shelf, near the tin containing the quail and the documents lying on the table. He pub both back. He kept a revolver like everybody else because he was living in a bad place. It had been loaded •about 18 months or two years. The police took ,away the gun on Sunday morning, aud he told ■them he wished they had taken it on the prejvious evening as there were people about and he did not like to be suspected. Benjamin then said, " Were you anywhere lasb Friday night ?" "Witness answered "No; eveiy night when I come home I have an hour or an hour aud a-half's work before me." Wiine&s described his actions on the evening of the murder. He knocked off work about 4.30, and wore the same clothes as he was arrested in. He arrived at his gate at about 10 minutes or a quarter to 5. Saw his wife in the cowshed. He roped up the calf so that Mrs Chemis might milk its mother. ,He went to the hay loft and took down a handful of hay and a caskful of mangolds. He did iiob leave the premises that uighfe, nor did he use a gun, stiletto, o.r shot pouch. . By Mr Bell : Was in Kaiwarra on Saturday morning, June 1. He delivered milkasmual that morning. He did not think he collected any money that morning, but could not be sure. He could not swear one way or the other.

Mr Bell asked him to collect his thoughts, but witness said it was so long ago he could uot now be sure. He was told on his rounds by Jack Mack that Hawkins had been killed, but did not understand he had been murdered. Charles (Jollins told witness Hawkins was hurt, and Dr Cahill had come up in a hurry. He went home and had breakfast and returned to work, being at Kaiwarra about 8 o'clock. He did not hear that Hawkins had been murdered till the afternoon. No, he was wrong ; it was in the morning, before dinner. He remembered now the barmaid at the Rainbow Hotel told him and Mr Coulter that there had been foul play. He could not say whether he told his wife at dinner time ; he could not remember. He reached home <|>n Saturday about half an hour or threequarters of an hour before the police arrived. He did not remember whether he spoke to his wife. He was outside the house chopping firewood when the police came. After looking over his clothes they went outside because there would be more light there. Asked as to who lit the lamp, witness first said he thought he did himself, but afterwards could not be sure. He was certain no candles were lit when they went outside ; he lit them when they came in. (Mrs Chemis had explicitly stated that her husband was not taken oub for the sake of light. She also said Benjamin lit the lamp himself.) There, were no fragments of paper in the handkerchief taken out to Inspector Thomson. ! Mr Bell asked why, when called upon by the judge to say why sentence should not be passed Upon him. Chemis did not mention this. Witness said that, in such a dreadful position, he only spoke what first came into his mouth. He could not ssy why he did not mention tho p| aper in his statement to the Governor. ; Mr Bell : I invite you to explain it now. ( Witness : I must have forgotten it. The evidence of Dyvell and others was read to him during his interview with Mr Jellicoe in prison. These were the witnesses Mr Bunny had suppcenaed at his request to give evidence iv the Supreme Court. He did not? tell Ben j unin when looking at the gun that he had quail in the house, but when looking at the tin he believed tie said ' l them is quail ; I fired the gun "as his wife was in the kitchen at the time. He also mentioned it again on Sunday, and drew the attention of Benjamin and Campbell to the fact. He had pointed out the quail to them Plucked the quail close to the fire, and threw the feathers in it, but did not show the birds to th« police when they were there on Sunday. It was quite a usual thitg to kill two quail with one shot. He had killed five or six, and his brother John once killed nine with one shoi. He had killed two rabbits with one shot. He got 12 bullets from Gibson and fired off three. As they did not fit his gun he used to put paper on top as when loading with shot. He was sure he did not wrap paper round the bullet. The police left one bullet behind when they went away. With reference to the money in the tin box, to the hest of his belief he took out all there was, and thefe was none iv it when the police were searching. — [Mrs Chemis deposed there was £7 or £8 in it.] — Had a sheath knife, bub was not accustomed to carry it. Had had the stiletto since the waterworks were finished. He last took ib out six months ago and put some salad oil on it, as it was rusting. The stiletto was sharp at the poiut, and never bent. If ib was bent now he could not account for it. [The stiletto was produced and shown to prisoner, who expressed surprise at tho point being bent, and tried to straighten it with his teeth, but was of course promptly stopped.] He said it was not so when he last saw it. He saw the police take a handkerchief into the parlour. He did not see any fragments of a newspaper put into it there. No newspaper was taken out of the children's room, in fact he saw no paper taken out at all except what was taken out of his own pockets, at any rate not so far as he could see, and he saw pretty well every thing that was done. He could say positively they could not have picked up four or five pieces in the children's room. He could not remember whether he went out with his gun on the Queen's Birthday. He did lend his gun and some ammunition one day to Greaves and John Dowd. Himself and Greaves all used the gun.

Mr Bell pressed witness as to whether he was out- himself on May 24, but Chemis could not remember. He had net bought shot for a long time. He had a leg of mutton for dinner on Sunday. (Mrs Chemis deposed it was beef.) He did not have quail for tea. He ate one for dinner, and supposed the family ate the rest. He did not see the quail on the table afc tea. There was no one with them. (Mrs Chemiß had said she gave John Dowd, her brother-in-law, one of the quail for tea.) In answer to further questions, Chemis said he had seen Hawkins while the lawsuit between them was pending. He spoke to him, but never threatened him. Hawkins summoned him for some surveying, and one morning witness met him and told him he would let him off for £50. Witness told him he was always wanting money. " You blooming devil, you are neve? satisfied^' were words he

used. On another occasion, about four months ago, he told Hawkins he did not want his children to beat witness' ; he might just as well give witness a slap himself, and not take re* venge on the children. Hawkins said he was quite mistaken, it was not his children who had done it.

August 27.

Cherais appeared in court shaven and cropped, wearing th« convict dress. Hs gave his evidence in English, which he spoke fairly well. August 27. The cross-examination of Chemis was resumed this morning. The right baud drawer contained no newspapers ; only bills, Italian letters, and documents. He replaced a number of articles iv the drawer after the police had made the fcearch. When Inspector Thomson took the stiletto from the sheath he remarked : " The thing is rusty ; we will see it better by daylight." In re-examination he said that bis statement to the Governor was written iv the Italian language, aud he was uot aware who trauslated it. He had not bad a private interview with Mr Jellicoe .before that statement was made. At the instance of the gaoler be only put down the more important particulars ; it was not a full statement. He knew nothing of the present case, nor what they were investigating. After ho was informed that Hawkins had met with foul play he fully expected the houses in the neighbourhood of the scene of the unirder would be searched by the police. He did not' understand the evidence given at the trial by Mr Tasker respecting the pieces of paper ; therefore in his statement to the Govtrnor he had not mentioned auything about the fragments of newspapers in the evidence produced before the Governor. There was no newspaper in the handkerchief when it was handed by Detectives Benjamin aud Campbell to Inspector Thomson ; in fact, the latter said " There it nothing we wanb from there. These are only letters, bills, aud documents." If anyone used his shot poucb be would know whether his shob was greased. He had had a powder flask for four or 'five years ; it was repaired a week or fortnight before the death of Hawkins. Dowd was at witness' house on the Sunday after the murder.

Robert Dybell was recalled and questioned as to his being frequently in the company of Dowd about the time. He replied that Dowd passed his shop almost every day, and generally dropped in. He denied that he had been in Dowd's company collecting evidence in Chemis favour. Dowd was not present when witness made his statement to Mrs Chemis.

John Dowd, brother of Mrs Chemis, said thafe he frequently went out shooting with Chemis gun, which was kept hanging in the bedroom. He took shot pouch, powder flask, caps, and wads from the right drawer. The last time he used the gun was ou the Sunday before the murder.

After lunch, John Dowd, continuing his evidence, said that when he went out shooting on Sunday, the 26th May, he took caps and wads with him. He got the caps and wads from the drawer. Some wads were loose, and there were also some in a box. The wads were made out of a piece of bandbox; He took the wads out of a box similar to the one projduced. After he had been shooting on the 26th "May he put back in the drawer the shot, caps, and flask. He was not sure whether he put back the wads. He Sid not get a shot that morning. He loaded the right-hand barrel, and discharged it before taking it into the house. When he returned, the flask, paps, and shot there were also (in the drawer a wad punch, a tin of blasting ' powder, a dagger, some dynamite caps, some fuse, a cocoa tin, and some other articles, which he did not take notice of. The first time he saw the wad punch was before Easter. It was Sunday, the sth, or Sunday, the 12fch May, when he took from the drawer the wads, caps, shot, pouch, and powder flask. The wads which he then took were similar to those which he used on the 26th May. No one was with him on that occasion. When he came back he returned the powder, caps, and shot to the drawer, but not the wads. He recollected Sunday, the 2nd Juno. He heard aboufe 10.30 that morning Ibat Chenm' house had been searched. On the mmc day Greaves' house where he was living \> as searched by Benjamin and Campbell. On the afternoon of Sunday he went up to Chemis house. He left Greaves' house a little after- 3, but could not say how long he took to walk to Chemis place. He got there between 3 and 4. He did Dot see Chemis when he arrived at the house, but believed he was about the shed. Mrs Chemis told him something about the detectives, and in consequence of what she told him he went to the right-hand top drawer and examined what was in it. He found in it a revolver and powder flask, a wad cutter, some dynamite caps, a tin of ground blasting powder, some gun caps, some fuse, and 6ome revolver cartridges. The wads he saw were in a box. There might have been some wads loose in the drawer. The drawer was not clean. Witness had tea at Mrs Chemis. He was given some pieces of quail which Mrs Chemis said bad been left over from dinner. He was at Chemis on the day of the arrest. Witness was sent to town to see Mr Jellicoe. He asked Mrs Chemis for some money. She went into the bedroom, and from the right hand drawer she took some money, which was in a cocoa tin. On his way to town he met Benjamin, Campbell, and two constables going in the direction of Ngahauranga. At the police station he was told that Mr Devine, solicitor, had seen Chemis, so he did not go to Mr Jellicoe's. When he returned to Cherais' house ha found that the revolver had gone. Witness worked with Chemis, and at onetime lived with him for 18 months. That was over 12 months ago. Unless Chemis and witness were working close to their home they usually took their lunch with them. The lunch was wrapped in a paper. The paper they sometimes took back home, and at other times it was thrown away. To witness' knowledge Chemis did not; carry a sheath knife.

Cross-examined by Mr Bell : Was only living at Mrs Chemis now to oblige her and advise her in her present trouble. He was not aware that Timothy Dowd, his cousin, had a gun. Timothy Dowd was living at Kaiwarra in May last with an* other cousin named John Dowd. He did nofc know if the latter had a gun on the occasions when witness went out shooting. There might have been a second box of caps in the drawer, but he did not examine it carefully. On June 2 he examined most of the articles in the right drawer. Some were examined carefully, and others passed over. Among those carefully examined were the powder flask and the revolver. He saw the wad cntter,but could not swear to having examined it carefully. Mrs Chemis told witness that the police had taken away the gun and shot pouch. That was his reason for examining the powder flask carefully. He was surprised the police had not taken away the other things belonging to the gun. Witness was positive that he returned the powder flask to the right-hand drawer on May 26. The wad cutter was there then. Witness saw the drawer before and after the visit of the police to Chemis house on Jane 5. Mrs Chemis left some money in a tin. There were some notes, bat how many witness coald not say. He thought there were more than oner. He never saw a lease in the right-hand drawer ; it might; have been covered by the other articles, and so might other documents. Questioned about being

at tea at Chemia' house on June 2, he said he did not see Chemis, and had tea by himself. It was here shown to witness that in im affidavit to the Governor he said that on Sunday, June 2, he had "tea with Louis Chumia and my sister." Asked to explain the discrepancy, witness said he might have been mistaken in his affidavit. What he aaid to-day was true. When witness discharged the gun he was within a quarter of a mile of Chemis house. He was positive he did not leave the right-hand barrel of the gun loaded.

Timothy Dowd, labourer, was next called, and corroborated the evidence of his cousin, John Dowd, in respect to going shooting on the Sunday before Hawkins was murdered. His cousin obtained the gun from Chemis. They saw nothing to shoot, and just before returning to Chemis house fired off the right barrel, which was the only one loaded. The court adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until tomorrow morning. August 28. Frederick Greaves was the first witness examined. His evidence was mainly in the direction of proving that the powder flask, shot, caps, and wads were in the drawer before the date of Hawkins' death, and also on the day of Chemis arrest. He also swore to seeing four quail at Chemis on June 2. In cross-examination he gave a description of Chemis shot pouch, which •was ac ordinary pocket one.

Hodges, the owner of the pouch found, and Gibson, were called, and deposed that the former had lent a shot pouch with a peculiar iron top and embossed picture on the side to Gibson, who lent it to several people, including Chemis — to the latter about a year ago, he thought.

Carter Hedges (recalled) Baid he had never examined his shot pouch carefully, merely handled it. Witness was shown the shot pouch in the blue box, and said, though he could not swear positively, to the best of his belief it was his. He formed that opinion by the iron top. His had an iron top, and although he had handled a good many pouches he never saw another with a top like it. The general appearance of the pouch was likehis. — Cross-examined : There was no mark on his pouch by which he could identify ifc. The one produced corresponded in every respect with his. That was 60 far as he could see-

James Gibson (cross-examined by Mr Skerrett at considerable 1< ngth) said ho. did not think it was his duty to tell the police that he had left a pouch ac Chemis bouse. He knew the police had taken one, but he did not think it worth while to tell them there was a second one. He did not think the pouch produced iv the blue box was the one he left at Chuinis 7 .

Ebenezer Round stated that on the Wednesday bsfore Good Friday he went to Gibson for Hodge's pouch. Gibson said, " I cannot lend the flask, as I gave it to Louis Chemis when I returned the gun."

Mrs Chemis (recalled) said she had never seen a shot flask in her house except the one taken away by the police. She never saw the flask produced in her house or husband's possession. — Cross-examined : She never saw her husband with a sheath knife. There was a knife which was handed to Mr Jellicoe which had been in use in her house for some time. Beyond the stiletto there was never a knife in her house with both edges sharpened. It could not have been in her house without her seeing it. Chemis never took a knife with him pig-hunting.

John Dowd (recalled) said he never saw a second shot flask at Chemis. He did not think it could be there without his seeing it. He never saw a knife at Chemis with both sides sharpened. At 6 p.m. the court adjourned until 11 next morning. August 29. The pnrjury case was resumed this morning. Ellis George Lowe, a storeman at Wellington, said that he had been asked by Mr Jellicoe to search the gully behind Dymock's and the target, also the waterholes and creeks, i Mr Jellicoe said if witness was put to any expense hie would be paid. He was out last Sunday ami saw an employe of Mrs Hawkins named Collins. He told him he was searching for evidence in the Hawkins murder case. Collins said if he wanted to find anything he should go on the lower side, that would be in the direction of Chemis. Witness went that way, and found a creek runniug from the direction of Hawkins' house to the main creek. He went up ! that creek and found two falls with about Bft arops. At the foot of one he found the top of a shot pouch sticking up. He had not disturbed anything to see the pouch. ~A further search revealed a knife with the blade pointing upwards. This was partly covered with leaves, which he thought; had fallen from the growth overhead, and had not been placed there inteutionally. He also found a sheath, but there were not many leaves over it. The pouch produced he believed to be the one he had found. At first he thought it was not, but after considpration, aud looking at a black mark on it, he thought it was. The knife (which was an ordinary sheath knife, only sharpened on both sides) and the sheath he identified as those found by him. He first took the articles home and then to Mr Jellicoe'fl. He was out at the scene of the discovery this morning with Mr Jellicoe, his clerk, and the warder of the gaol. He pointed out to them the spot where the articles were found. He thought that the articles had been thrown from above. He was within a couple of feet of them when he discovered them. — Cross-examined: He said that he had been much upset by the discovery. He could see no water at the spot where the articles were found, but it; was running under the leaves. The spot would not be covered with water in the winter unless there had been very heavy floods. He had been told that the articles were put there to catch him, but he did not believe it. He was confident that it was a genuine find. He was not told to go up the creek where he found them, nor did he tell anyone that he was going. He showed the articles to a number of men he met in the neighbourhood, and asked them if they had seen the articles before. They replied that they had not. He hid searched the hills before, and found nothing. Re-examined : He said that the reason of being upset was that he had been bothered with a dream since the night of Chemis being committed for trial. He was looking for the things with which the murder had been committed, but the spot where he found these articles was not the place indicated in his dream.

Warder Doyle deposed that, in company with Reardon and a man named Foreman, he searched the cr,eek and hill on August 2. If a knife and pouch had been there then he thought he must have seen them. — Cross-examined: He could not say that he had searched thoroughly, but the creek was dry and easy to examine. "Warder Coyle described, in answer to Mr Bell, how he searched the creek, turning over stones, dead leaves, &c., with a stiok. He traversed about 50yds of the creek, and was as near as he could say about half an hour doing it. He was sure he must have seen the shot flask had it been uncovered even an inch.

By Mr Jellicoe : Hisinstruotions were to make a close search for anything that would throw light on the murder, and he obeyed instructions. He was out two days and a-half. ' William Skey, Government analyst, examined the knife and sheath, for traces

of blood, but found no indication whatever of the sort. The blade was not double-edged, but was sharp at the point. There was a good deal of rust on it. It mast have been in contact with water or damp for weeks. The handle might have swelled a little, but he could not say. ' By Mr Bell : If the knife had been covered with blood and put in water he thought it would still show traces unless it was running water, in which case the Btains would probably have been washed away. Exposure to long rains would have the same effect. — By the Court : Supposing the knife had been flung down bloodstained at the time of the murder, he thought the rains since then might have washed the blood off, but could not say for certain — in fact, he could not answer such a question.

Ebenezer Bound, recalled indentified the pouch as the one he had borrowed from Gibson. He was quite sure Gibson said he had given the pouch to Chemis. James Gibson (recalled) said he gave some bullets to Chemis some time before November of last year. They were made for him by a young chap named James Overend. He left them with Chemis one Sunday night. He thought there were seven or nine, but sould not swear to the number. He was pig hunting on Chemis land that day. He believed he left a knife and sheath along with the bullets of Chemis. He did not want to carry them home that night. He was often at Chemis house, but never saw the sheath there to his knowledge. — [Witness was shown the sheath found by Lowe, but said that to the best of his belief he had never Been it before.]— He had never seen a knife like that produced in possession of either Dowd or Chemis. — By Mr Jellicoe : He had got back his knife from Chemis the night before Good Friday. He could not say whether he had taken his pouch away from Chemis or not. He could not remember the last time he lent it to Round. He remembered a conversation between himself, Round, Greaves, and others on Monday night about a shot pouch. Round said he believed there was a picture on his pouch. The others could hear him. He would insist, whatever Round might have said in court, that he did speak about the pouch as having a picture ou it. Mr Harris could say there was a picture on it. By the Court : Could not say whether the pouch he left at Chemis was Hodges' or not, but if he left one there it must have been Hodges'. He had no other pouch to leave. ( Hodges in his evidence &aid there was no picture on his shot pouch.)

Fred. Greaves, recalled, said that some tjims before the shooting season Gibson told him he thought he had left a shot fln&k at Chorms' house, but did not say it was Hodges'. He knew Hodges' pouch Gibson had left at Oheinis', but Gibson did not, he thought, mention Hodgeb' name. Gibson asked him to get his kuife from Chemia at the same time as he was getting the pouch. Chemis said he had not got the Matter. He did not remember who gave him the knife at Chemis. He did not look at the lenife. Ifc was in a sheath and had a strap on it. He never saw any other sheath at Chemis, and never saw the knife produced or sheath at Chemis. He had never seen them till he came into court ; he was positive of that. Mr Jtllicoe asked for an adjournment till Saturday. Ife had been suggested by counsel for the defence tha 1 , the articles found on Sunday belonged to Chemis, and hd was bound to bring evi'iotica to upset this contention. Sufficient timt; bad not been allowtd to examine into the matter thoroughly, even to ascertain whether it was " a plant," aud he asked for 24 hours' interval.

Mr Bell protested against any further delay. His client had already lain long enough under the foul imputation.

Mr Graham said they were not trying Chemis, and he saw no necessity for further delay. The court adjourned till next day. August 30. Frederick Greaves was recalled, and said he never had a powder flask of his own ; he always used Chemis. lie was asked by Gibson to bring down the latter's shot pouch and sheathknife from Chemis. He went for the articles, and received the knife and sheath, but Chemis c aid that he had not got the shot pouch. That would be just before the opening of the shooting season. He would not swear whether Mr or Mrs Chemis gave him the knife. m Mr Jellicoe said he proposed to chow that the knife found on Sunday could hot have produced tbo cuts made in the clothes of Hawkins.

Mr Bell objected to any evidence of that nature unless there was evidence that the knife had been traced into the possession of Chemis. The bench upheld the objection. After further unimportant evidence, Mr JelHcoe intimated that the case for the prosecution was closed, and that be would address the bench in the afternoon. This afternoon Mr Jellicoe, in a two-hours' address, reviewed ab great length the evidence r Jduced in the case of perjury preferred against Detective Benjamin. His speech dealt mainly with evidence bearing on Benjamin's evidence at Ohemis' trial, and the inferences suggested by the defence as to the motive of the present investigation. In connection wi*li the evidence as to fragments of papers which the police said they had taken out of the bedroom, he contended that the falsity of that had been fully proved by the evidence not only of two persons, but by every surrounding circumstance. It was very clear that Mrs Chemis on no occasion had a private interview with her husband, and the bench found these statements agreed. There could be no better evidence of the truth of it. There could not possibly have been any collusion between them. As to the powder flask, abundant evidence had been called which proved that Ohemis had a powder flaßk both before and after the murder, and also that it was in the drawer. The police had set up a paper theory, but why had they not asked Chemis if he used wads or paper in loadiug his gun? He thought the absence of such a question showed that the police had seen the wads in the drawer. Again, supposing their theory to be correct, why did they not ask for the powder flask after securing the shot* pouch? Again, if the paper theory had been Btarted by the police, why were the gun and revolver, the only two weapons in the house consistent with their theory, allowed to remain until the Sunday ? If such articles as these were left behind, was it not reasonable to assume that the poHce would also leave behind a powder flask, wad cutter, caps, &c. ? Reference was nest made to the quail, and counsel submitted that evidence established the truth of Chemia' statement that on the day prior to the murder he had shot the quail which were in the tin into which Benjamin looked. It was, Mr Jellicoe said, easily seen that if Benjamin had admitted the presence of quail, it would have accounted for the recent firing of the gun. The evidence, he said, of Chemis and wife on this point was fully corroborated, as was also the possession of a wad cutter by Chemis. It had, he continued, been suggested by the other side, that the powder flask, wad cutter, and caps had been placed in the drawer after the search by the police, but they had not had the courage to ask any witnesses for the prosecution if that was so. The slight discrepancies in the evidence of Chemfc

and wife as to the drawer in which the lease was kept proved, he thought, the truth of their evidence, inasmuch as had they been swearing falsely they, would have agreed as to what should be said. It was next suggested by the defence that this was a malicious prosecution prompted by him (Mr Jellicoe), and inadditioa it was hinted that he had declared he would have all the police and detectives out of the country. With regard to the latter he could not say whether it would be a difficult or easy task, but at all events he did not intend to try it, nor had he ever thought of such. As to the prosecution, it had_ only been undertaken after careful consideration of the whole case and the evidence likely to be brought forth. He regretted that the Government had not explained who cut the bandbox after being placed in their possession, and although Ministers had been experimenting with the stiletto in the tail of Hawkins' coat, it may be said to be possible that these exhibits would be required again, and should have remained in the same condition as when before the Supreme Court. Referring to the recently discovered shot pouch and knife, he felt sure the bench was satisfied they were not at the spot found on August 2. Then whose were they, and who placed them there ? These were questions requiring explanation. He had been "refused an adjournment to enable him to secure evidence on the point, so at a later period he might be compelled to apply to the higher court in order that the articles should be open to public inspection, so that the owner could be found. There were, he thought, other people who could identify them. In concluding, Mr Jellicoo said he had little doubt that the bench would come to a decision that sufficient evidence had been adduced to send the case to a jury. In reply to Mr Bell, Mr Graham, R.M., said at the present moment he was not prepared to say whether there was a case to answer or not. Voluminous evidence had been taker>, and ifc would take some time to go through ifc. On Monday he would state whether ifc was necesaary for Mr Bell to 6how cause why Benjamin should not be committed for trial.

September 2. Mr Graham, Assistant R.M , dismissed the charge of perjury against Detective Benjamin, without calling on Mr Bell for the defence. He said : " I have gone carefully through all the evidence adduced in this case, not without a full sense of the serious responsibility which has been thrown upon me, and have cart-fully sifted all th« grain from the chaff, by which latter observation I mean all irrelevant evidence which can by no moans be deemed to have any relation lo the isMitia. I have to consider the case as presenteJ by the prosecution. Ife has only tuc aspect, ar.d that is that a base and cruel conspiracy bas been entered into by the defendant with Inspector Thomson and Detective Campbell, backed by wilful and corrupt perjury, to hang an innoceufc man, with no other apparent motive than to shield themselves from the possible obloquy of having failed to bring the perpetrator of a cruel murder to justice; while, on the other hand there is the motive of the desire of Chemis, his wife, her brother, and brother-in-law to shield the former from the cousequences of his conviction of the said murder. I have come to the conclusion that the evidence is not such as would justify me in casting such a slur upon the character of the defendant as would be implied by my referring the master for tbe consideration of a jury. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that the evidence is not such as would lead to his conviction before any jury. I will, therefore, dismiss the case."

Mr Jellicoe applied to have Mrs Chemis bound over under tne Vexatious Indictment Act to prosecute Detective Benjamin before the Grand Jury. The application was granted.

The case against Detective Campbell wa3 then called on, whereupon Mr Jellicoo said it was absolutely useless for him to tender evidence, no matter how strong, in view of the magistrate's decision. The case was accordingly dismissed.

Mr Bell asked Mr Graham to say whether there was any stain on the character of the defendants in these cases.

Mr Graham said he thought he had already expressed his opinion sufficiently strong, but he would cay again that he thought that tbero was not the slightest ground for casting any tlur whatever on their characters.