ONGAROTO MURDER TRIAL

Otago Witness, Issue 3511, 28 June 1921, Page 37

ONGAROTO MURDER TRIAL

JURY DISAGREE

HAMILTON, June 21. In the Supreme Court, Hakaruia Te Kahu was charged with the murder of Patrick Richard Elliott- at Onguroto on March 26. The court was packed. Accused, who was apparently unaffected, was represented by Messrs liampson and Uavys. Mr Gillies was tlie Crown Prosecutor. Robert John Issell, detective sergeant, identified the photographs taken by lnmselt of Te Kalla’s and Elliott's whares, and a panorama of the scene-where the two men were last scon, also one showing the wound in Kiiiott’s body. The clothing produced was that taken from the body, the shirt and singlet containing large gaps, through which shot had penetrated. When tho body was recovered a number of shot fell from the wound. Constable Smith, brother-in-law of the deceased, said he was a- member of the search party who recovered the body from the river. The hip pocket of the trousers was inside out when the body was taken from the water. Hr Herbert Bertram, who, with Dr Price, conducted a post mortem, 6aid that except for a slight abrasion of the side of tne head, which might have been caused after death through bumping agaiii6t a rock, there was no other injury except a gunshot wound at the back of the neck. It was a double wound, such as would be caused by two barrels of a fowling piece. There was a large number of shot in the wound. The wounds were such as to cause instantaneous death. Ho did not think the wounds could have been self-inflicted. Hie other organs weie normal. The shots must have been fired at close range. Hie cause of death was a gunshot wound in the back of the neck which smashed the vertebra? and the spinal cord, causing instantaneous death. The man was dead, in witness’s opinion, before the body was put in the water. There was no water in tile lungs or the stomach. To Mr Hampson : When he said the wound was not self-inflicted lie meant it was not deliberately self -inflicted. It was possible for the deceased, when reaching for a gun behind, to have accidentally discharged the weapon and shot himself. Counsel: Would it have been possible foi Elliott to have walked into the river after the wound was inflicted? Witness: Absolutely not. Replying io his Honor, witness said the first shot would kill Elliott. There would be a good deal of bleeding from the wound, and if deceased were carried to the river it was almost certain that tlte person carrying him would liave his clothes bloodstained. Hi" Maurire Price gave corroborative evidence regarding the post mortem. Eva Jones, wife of J. Jones, farmer, Ongaroto. said that about midday on Easter Sunday Te Kahu and Elliott called at her house. Both had guns. Elliott asked to borrow a dog, as he was going down tho liver shooting, and might see ducks. She noticed that Elliott was wearing a light navy blue coat, and she believed Te Kahu "ms wearing khaki ridTng pants. She told Elliott to take the dog. Elliott asked her if she know anything about pleurisy, as be had a pain under his right shoulder. She fold him to paint it with iodine, and slie said she would gi' e him some if he called on his return. They then went towards the creek, taking the dog with them. She did not see cither of the men that day. The dog was at the door early next morning. It was not necessary for them to pass the house on their return, as there was another way round. She heard dogs bark twice outside the dwelling, but did not trouble to go out to see the cause. In reply to Mr Hampson, witness was Pot prepared to say for certain what To Kahu was wearing. Her dogs usually barked when disturbed. Thomas Edward Bentley. contractor, Ongaroto. said he saw Elliott at 1 o’clock on the afternoon of Easter Sunday crossing a creek in company with the Maori. Martha Cook, wife of Rawson Cook, employed by Mr C’ox at Ongaroto, said she was out walking abou 1 4 o’clock on Easter Sunday afternoon, when she heard two allots fired in quick succession—practically simultaneously—in the direction of the river. She saw no one about. Air Hampson asked witness if she did not have visitors that afternoon, and was getting tea for them about 4 o’clock. Witness excitedly protested that she was telling the truth, and said she knew nothing about any visitors, and would not answer more questions about people not concerned in this ease. His Honor told witness to answer the questions. Witness (to Mr Hampson) : I told you exactly what happened. I haven’t made any mistakes. i June 22. The trial of 11 ah aria Te Kahu for the murder of Patrick Richard Elliott on March 26 was continued in the Supreme Court today. Mrs Kerepaehi Ilamutana said site remembered her son killing a pig during Easter. On Easter »Sunday her son came home, and left again at night. She accompamed him outside, and saw a light burning in Elliott’s whare. Paul Te Iliko. surfaceman, employed by the Taupo Timber Company, said he belonged to the liver gang, consisting of the prisoner, Elliott, and himself. Elliott told To Kahu and witness that he would he back at work on Monday morning. Witness left Mokai at 4 o’clock on Sunday afternoon, and reached Ongaroto about 6, when he noticed both Elliott’s and To Kahu’s whares closed. lie called out: “ Dick, is anyone in?” hut got no reply. Hi saw neither of the two men that night. Next morning he went to flic whares, finding them both locked. lie called again early ori Tuesday morning, hut no one was in About 9 o’clock he saw Te Kahu in the whare with two Native women, Mere Ilamutana and Here Peka. Witness riske d Te Kahu where Elliott was. Prisoner replied that he left Elliott irt the whare ot. -Monday morning. Witness went to look for Klliott, but could find no trace of him. The following day be joined a search party, and found bloodstains along the river, on a Slone near the river, and a'ortg the track leading from ibis point through the ti-tree. Replying to Mr lla-cpson. witness said: The gang was a happy little party. Te Kahu and Elliott were very friendly, and frequently went shooting and fishing together. Witness was present in company with Ul'iolt at sports at Mokai on'Good Friday. Witness took part in a two-up school there on Saturday, but did not see El!i< itt playing two-up. Edward James M’Caffiey. caretaker of the Ongaroto bridge, said lie saw Elliott cut Easter Saturday evening standing out-

side his whare He saw Te Kahu on Monday morning crossing the bridge about 7 o’clock in the direction of Elliott's wliaro. Witness missed Elliott on Monday morning, and made inquiries without result. He saw Te riaku on Tuesday morning, and asked hitn where his mate was. Prisoner replied that he left Elliott in bed on Monday morning. lie said he returned very late on Sunday night, and left early on Monday morning. He also said he borrowed Elliott’s overcoat. Te Kahu mentioned that he had only one shot at a stag during the afternoon. He appeared quite normal, although he exhibited a little anxiety to get away. On Wednesday witness again asked prisoner if he had seen Elliott. He replied : No, although he had searched the river, and intended searching again. Shortly after the police arrived. In answer to Mr Gillies, witness said he \-as present when Detective Sweeney searched Te Kahu’s whare, when he discovered two empty cartridge boxes. He was also present when tho detective searched Elliott’s where, and took from a shelf an empty eartndgj ho.:, which the detective had placed their previously. To the Judge: Te Kahu told him on Sunday that they first went down the river and returned home. They then went up' the river to the rapids. Elliott was a steady workman and was well liked. Campbell Hamilton, a half caste, and a farmer, said he ‘was one of the search party on Tuesday. He found blood stains, foot prints, and a dead duck about half a mile below Cox’s place. He followed tho footprints, which led to the stream. There was a good deal of blood about. The bloodstains led to the river, where he saw more blood. A largo stone on the river edge was smeared with blood. Hie following day ho went out again, Te Kahu being among tile party. Constable Wright asked Te Kahu if he knew what the bloodstains were. He replied that ho did not know. The constable asked Te Kahu to lead the party along the track taken on Sunday. Te Kahu then took tho lead but did not stop when the spot where the bloodstains were first found was reached. Te Kahu was lending away from the river, and in answer to the conotable twice said that was the track taken cn Sunday. About half an hour later Te Kahu said to witness that had it not be?n for the bloodstains the policeman would not have known that “an occurrence” had taken (dace in the locality. His Honor, to interpreter: Is an occurrence an exact translation? —The interpreter: Well, happening or circumstance would be equivalent. Witness, continuing, said a few days later he had a conversation with Te Kahu whom lie asked whether any friends had given him money to change He replied "No.” Witness told Te Kahu that as there were several police officers in the locality, if he desired to eav anything, he had better tell witness. Te Ka.hu replied that he did not like to tell witness anything, liec&use police were present who could speak Maori. He asked Te Kahu whether he had received a £6 or £lO note from any friend. To Kahu answered that he had not, but he himself had obtained two £5 notes from Mokai, and they were his own money. Te. Kahu told him he went to Mokai on Monday morning, leaving Elliot in bed asleep. Wm. Alexander Gibbon, a mill hand, said that with others lie found Elliott’s body in the river. David Henry Sutton said he assisted to take the body from the Avater. There was a hole through the shirt and singlet where a shot had penetrated and a large jugged wound in the neck. The hip pocket of deceased’s trousers was turned inside out. John Munro Clark, clerk, employed by the Taupo-Totara Timber Company, said he paid Te Hiko and Te Kahu their wages on Good Friday. He also handed Elliott’s pay to Michael Brady, the permanent way foreman, to give Elliott. Witness kept ft record of all nole3 above the value of £l, and entered them opposite the names of tho payees. He paid Te Kahu one five-pound note (No. 348756), the remainder being £4 15a in smaller notes and silver. Elliott’s pay amounted to £lO ss, consisting of two £s'notes, the numbers of which were 486614 and 325986, and five shillings in silver. In February he paid Elliott one £lO note, the number of which was 025027. To his Honor: He was particularly careful, and accurately kept a record of the names and persons to whom he paid the notes. It was not possible for the two £5 notes in question to have got into the hands of anybody but Klliott by mistake. Michael Brady, foreman cf the permanent way, said ho was handed an envelope by the guard of the train, addressed to Klliott, together with a parcel. At the 39-mile peg he saw Elliott, and dropped the parcel and envelope, Elliott picking them up. Witness knew of the arrangement between Elliott and the Mokai Store whereby Te Kahu got certain goods. William MTndoe (surfaceman) said he heard Elliott tell Te Kahu and Te Hiko to be at work on Monday. Witness saw a letter and a parcel dropped from the train, and noticed Elliott pick them up. Sarah Ilerepika said she saw the prisoner at Mokai on Good Friday, when he stayed with her. At another Native’s house on Saturday he gave her £2. . She could not say whether he also gave her a pair of stockings. On Saturday prisoner left for Ongaroto, and returned early on Monday morning, leaving again for Ongaroto on Tuesday. She followed him. While at his whare Te Hiko called, and asked for Elliott, Prisoner replied t.liat he did not know his whereabouts. Prisoner accompanied her some part of tho afternoon, byt did not speak on any occasion of Elljott’s disappearance neither did site mention the matter to him the conversation she had with Te Hiko outside the prisoner’s whare regarding Elliott. Olive Norman, a bush hand at Mokai, said that on Easter Monday he took part in a two-uo school. Te Kahu was there. Ho asked him for change for a £lO note, which he took from a brown wallet, which witness noticed contained other notes. The £lO note was on the- Bank of New Zealand. Witness changed tho note at Putaruru. Feiitn Bocca, a storekeeper at Mokai. said that on Easter Monday morning prisoner bought a pair of boots, tendering a £5 note in payment. Witness next morning banked all his money at the Mokai Post Office. Frederick Caterer, assistant postmaster at Mokai, said ho remitted to the Chief Post Office at Hamilton on March 29 and 31 notes amongst which were two Bank of New Zealand £5 notes, the numbers of which were 325986 and 486614. Ho did not know bv whom they were handed in. June 23. The Ongaroto murder trial was continued to day.

Granville Olive Norman (recalled) was submitted to a rigorous cross-examination by Mr Hampson. He said he was quite positive that everything lie said yesterday was strictly correct. Mr Hampson: then why did you say yesterday you changed a £lO note for prisoner, giving 10 single notes, while in your sworn evidence in the lower court you said you gave one £5 note and five single notes? Witness: I swear I gave him 10 £1 notes. Under further cross-examination witness said 'ie Ka.iu was playing two-up on Monday morning, and asked to have a £lO note changed in order to join in the game. Counsel said it was strange that l’e Kahu should, want more smaller notes when he already had a number of smaller ones than the £io note in his wallet. Witness said he changed money for a number of people. Fie had £7O in his pocket, but had only one £lO note. He was winning pretty heavily that day. George Seymour, a half-caste .fireman at Mokai, said that Te Kahu on Good Friday morning tried to borrow 10s from him at Mokai. Witness replied that he had not the money on. him. That night prisoner and Sarah Herepeka went to the local hall, where a dance was proceeding. Prisoner astked the price of admission, and when told it was 3s, he said it was too much. His next recollection of Te Kahu was seeing him playing two-up on Monday afternoon, when he heard prisoner make a £5 bet, which he lost. Prisoner then took a £lO note out of his wallet and handed it to Clive Norman, and asked for change. Norman, so far as witness could see, handed prisoner 10 single notes in return. \\ itness noticed that Te Kahu had a wad of notes in his wallet. When he lost the £5 bet he said he had more to follow. To Mr Hampson: He was staying with Norman, but did not discuss .-during the night what transpired on Easter Monday. He did not know what evidence Norman was going to give, nor did Norman know what witness was going to say. He had known Sarah Herepeka for about two years. Mr Hampson: Were you an d Te Kahu not rivals for her favours? Witness: I knew her long before Te Kahu did. Robert Davis, a half-caste bushman, said he took part in a game of two-up. He saw Te Kahu betting. Witness won a bet of £3 from Te Kahu, who tendered a £5 note. He saw Te Kahu in a billiard room that night playing pool. He believed that prisoner cashed a few notes there. He did not know how much. Witness paid Beoca Hawker a £5 note for goods purchased. Mr Hampson: How much did you win on Easter Monday ? Witness: Seventy-five pounds. Joseph James Thornton, bushman at Mokai, gave evidence concerning the game of two-up and of the prisoner changing notes. Witness, when searching the river bank for Elliott’s body, picked up a couple of empty cartridge shells about 100 yards beyond the blood-stained ground. The shells lie found were those produced in court. Constable William Wright, of laupo, said that on March 29 he went to the scene of the tragedy with Hamilton, who pointed out certain blood stains on the river’s edge. The track to the river was through high ti-tree, on which were splashes of blood. He found traces of footprints and tue ground having been smoothed over. On Wednesday morning he saw r le Kahu, and asked him if he could account for Klliott s disappearance. Te Kahu said they had been shooting, and 3’eturned to their respective whares on Sunday . after dark. No accident had happened. Witness then went to Te Ivahu’s whare in company with prisoner. There he found the deceased’s overcoat. He asked where _he got it, and prisoner said he borrowed it from Elliott early on Monday, as he was going to Mokai, and it was cold. That was the last time he saw Elliott. W itness found four cartridges at Te Kahu s whare, also a bank book and a pair of trousers up the chimney on a bit of a shelf. The pair of trousers was smeared with a considerable quantity of dry blood stains. Asked to account for the blood. Te Kahu replied that he was out pig shooting some time before, and while putting a pig on a horse he got his trousers smeared. This was about 10 or 11 a.m. He held a post mortem on the dead duck found by Hamilton and extracted a number of shot' He found Elliott’s body, which was brought ashore by Oonstable Sutton and witness. The hip pocket of the trousers was turned inside out. When the body was turned over some pellets of shot fell out of the wound. On searching Elliott’s whare witness found £l6 16s in a box. The Whare did not appear to have been disturbed. The bed was made. Te Kahu’s whare was upset. There was no gun in Ellitt’s whare, bsi there was one in Te Kahu’s. To Mr Hampson: When he said there was a blood-stained pair of trousers on a shelf in the chimney he had not stated that it was an attempt at concealment. Detective-sergeant John Sweeney said he visited tho scene of the murder, and saw blood stains. He took the blood-stained stones, sticks, and trousers to the Government biologist at Auckland. He took a written statement Irom the accused, in which the prisoner said he went shooting with Elliott on Sunday afternoon. He did not fire any shots, but Elliott fired two shots at a shag. No more shots were fired that day. They returned by the northern route after dark, and went to their respective whares. Next morning early he went to Elliott’s whare and wakened Elliott. He borrowed an overcoat!, as it was cold, and he was going to Mokai. He was at Mokai on Good Friday, when he had £29,' including two £5 notes, the remainder being single, notes and silver. When Elliott returned on Sunday night he had a g-un with him. The prisoner could not account for tho gun not being in Elliott’s whare when searched. He Last cleaned the gun on March 27. He used it last on March 20, when it was discharged from both barrels. He could not account for tho bloodstains along the river bank or for tho dead duck. Tho bloodstains on his trousers were from a pig he had killed. Witness said that when with a search party on April 2 one of them picked up two empty cartridge cases. On April 4 he interrogated prisoner again, saving a. few points wanted clearing up. In the second statement prisoner said Elliott did not tell To Hiko and himself that) he wanted them back to work on Saturday and Monday. He denied giving a five-pound not to Nor matt, though ho admitted losing five pounds in a two-up school. He denied having a wallet, and said that between March 25 and 30 lie had

no money in his possession except that mentioned, in the previous statement. When in Mokai on March 25 he received his wages, amounting to £9 14s —one £5 note, four single notes, and the remainder in silver. He did not shoot a duck, nor did he know who did. He denied giving a £lO note to Norman or to anyone else, or that) he called upon anyone to change a £lO note. He knew that up to that time there was no trace of Elliotti, whom he thought was lost or gone somewhere. Prisoner added that it looked bad for him, as he was the last in Elliott’s company. He denied having done Elliott any injury or having robbed him. He also denied having said to Campbell that the Hamilton police would not have known anything bad they not found blood, or that he could not say anything then because the police understood Maori, and that/ lie had been told the pellets in the dead duck were similar to those in the cartridge used by him. Perhaps Eliott was using the same sized shot. Witness, continuing, said that) on April 2 he found an empty cartridge box in Elliott’s whare, and the following day ho saw a couple of empty cartridge boxes on the floor of Te Kahn's whare. He secured these latter, although he had no idea at) the time that Elliott had been killed by No. 3 shot. Tho two boxes in Te Kahu’s whare contained No. 3 shot. The box in Elliott’s whare contained No. 5 cartridges. To Mr Hampson: The reason why he cut off tho tops of the boxes was because they were easier to carry than the whole boxes. He did not regard the remaining portions as important. Questioned regarding the first statement obtained from Te Kahu, witness said Te Kahu understood and spoke English well. Te Kahu was not under arrest at the time, but under police surveillance. Prisoner volunteered the statement that “it looked bad for him as he was the last person seen with Elliott.” Constable Wright (recalled) said that on Wednesday afternoon, while walking towards the river, he asked Te Kahu if he could assist them in any way in throwing light on Elliott’s disappearance. Te Kahu replied he could not do so. Te Kahu understood English perfectly. William Tonks, Government analyst, said he received certain articles and examined them. Tlie stains on the trousers and the stones were blood stains. lie could not say whether tlie stains were human or animal blood. There was no known chemical method of determining that, and a chemical tost was not absolute. He carried out the examination with tlie utmost care. Frederic L. Armitage, Government bacteriologist, gave particulars of testing for human blood. He treated and tested the articles and found human blood in the blood stains. Tlie test was a definite and specific one. To Air Ilampscln : Tlie result of his tests was human blood in the proportion of one in a thousand, which was as great as could bo got in so weak, a solution as that used. It was possible to have tested foi pig’s blood on the trousers. He did not test for this result. It was possible that it might be pig's blood on the articles submitted. To Mr Mac Diarmid: He could definitely say that it was human blood. Witness added that he had performed the fixation of a complete test 3000 times. William Henry Hazard, gun expert, said he had examined tho double-barrelled gun handed him by the police on April 2. The gun had been used not more than 10 days before it was excmined. He was also handed four cartridges, which were gauge N'o. 12. No. 5 shot, C.A.C. make. The gnu took, No. 12 cartridges. The packet of pellets handed him by the police contained No. 5 shot, while the bottle sealed by Dr Bertram contained No. 3 shot, similar to tho four pellets handed him by Detective Issol. The pellets were damaged, apparently by striking bone. He was shown the garments taken from Elliott’s body. He could say that two shots had been fired into them. He did not think the shots had been fired at a greater distance than 9ft. It was impossible for the wearer of the garments to have fired the shots liixnseU unless he fixed the gun and fired it with a string. He would then have had to he close, in which case the garments would have been scorched. In his opinion the shots were fired practically simultaneously. On April 12 he was handed a couple of empty oartridge cases by the police, which appeared to have been fired not more than a fortnight previously. One. case showed a distinct swelling at the base, indicating a defective extractor. lie had made tests with the gun handed him, and in each ease the same defects were shown in the cases. In his opinion the two cartridges received from the police were fired from a gun in which he would not be surprised to find that either or both sides of the ejector were slightly worn. This concluded the evidence for the Crown. Mr Hampson intimated that no evidence would he called for the defence. June 24. In the Supremo Court the trial of Hakaraia Te Kahu for the murder of Patrick Richard Elliott at Ongaroto on March 26 was resumed. Accused was represented by Messrs Hainpson and Davys. Mr 11. T. Gillies was tiie Crown Prosecutor Mr Gillies, in addressing the jury, said it was clear from the evidence that Te Kahu was courting Sarah Herepeka and was hard up. He knew that Elliott received his pay ou Saturday, and on Sunday the two men wont out shooting. Elliott was never seen alive again. It had been proved that Elliott had died from a gunshot wound, and that the shot was formerly in Elliott’s or Te Kahu’s possession. The doctors’ evidence was absolutely conclusive that Elliott could not: have inflicted the wounds on himself, lie said the gun was discharged eight or nine feet away, which excluded the possibility of an accidental discharge by Elliott. It was impossible for the body to be more than 47 feet from the point where the bloodstains were found to the river. To Kahu, it was shown, was within a few yards of the spot where the bloodstains were .found. It was shown that a light was seen in Elliott’s whare on Sunday night, also that Te Kahu visited the whare between Sunday afternoon and Monday morning, as he was seen wearing Elliott's overcoat at Mokai. If Te Kahu left Elliott in bed, how was it To Hiko, when lie called at the whare before breakfast, did not find Elliott there. Beyond doubt the £lO note was paid to Elliott. It was also clear that To Kahu Jutd in his possession a £lO note in the two-up ring on Monday. Elliott owned a brown leather wallet. It had been proved that Te Kahn had a wallet on Monday, although the prisoner made a statement to the contrary.® 1 lit fore, it had been proved that while on Saturday To Kahu was short of money, on Monday he had plenty, including a £lO note <lllll two

£5 notes. Two £5 notes which were actually paid to Elliott were found passed into tlie Mokai Post Office. Counsel referred to prisoner’s statement to Campbell at Hamilton that ‘but for the bloodstains the police would not have known of an occurrence having taken place.” It had been proved that two cartridges were found 150 yards from the scene of the tragedy, which were fired from Te Kahn's gun. Tlie bacteriological test proved that tlie bloodstains were human blood. Tho police v. . re absolutely fair in their dealings i. lilt the case. Elliott’s gun it,ad been found. Had Elliott returned to the whare his gun would have been there, or it he had met with an accident, the gun would have been found. Counsel recapitulated the evidence of tha two up school, arid the prisoner's statement regaiding tile notes, which was contradicts 1 by olher witnesses. Mr Hampson, for tlie prisoner, said no evidence had beta brought that Elliott had a brown leather wallet, while the only two men who said they hud sc?n Te Kahu with a wallet were the heads of the two-up school. Counsel for the Crown had not proved that there were no pig stains on the accused man's trousers nor had ho proved that Te Kahu had passed the two £5 notes paid to Elliott into Ibe two-up ring. Mr Hampson discounted the evidence regarding the attempt at concealment by prisoner to hide tlie trousers in the chimney. The const*bio had etated that the trousers were placed in <juite a natural place on the shelf to dry, no attempt being* made at concealment. He claimed that the evidence was only circumstantial, and was very weak. Tho Crown had not put forward inefutable evidence that the murder could not have been committed by anyone but Te Kahu. There was no dispute that Elliott and To Kahu were good mates. There jvas no evidence to show that on Swndav Klliott was in possession of a considerable sum of money. There was only a few shillings to bis credit at the bank, as shown by his bank book, from which it was assumed that lie spent his money as ho got it. Front the evidence, all the money Klliott had on Sunday was £l2 ss. Did this evidence establish that Elliott was murdered? Against tlmt assumption was the extraordinary position of the woitnd. .Surely a man setting out deliberately to murder another wo'uld hardly shoot him in that position, which would have blown bis head off. It, was quite clear that the wound was not deli be lately self inflicted, but there was a possibility of it having been accidental. Te Kahu bad given it perfectly clear version of what happened on the Sunday afternoon. Te Kahu told the police on Wednesday that Elliott fired two shots at a shag. This was before he knew Mrs Cox had heard two shots simultaneously. The scene of the tragedy was commonly used as a track. There was not a scrap of evidence to show that the two specific notes were ever in Elliott’s possession. Tlie evidence in regard to the wallet at the two-up school was based entirely upon two discreditable witnesses. Norman and Seymour. The (Town failed absolutely to connect To Kahu with the two £5 notes paid into tho Mokai post office. With regard to the cartridges, it was shown that the boxes* found in To Kabu’s wliave had contained No. 5 shot, while the box in Elliott’s wliaro contained No. 3 shot, vet the jury m« asked to assume from tin’s that. Te Kahu borrowed two No. o cartridges for tho purpose of killing Elliott. Counsel criticised the action of Detective Sweeney in taking charge of the empty box in Elliott's whare, while doing nothing with the empty boxes on the floor in To Kabu’s whare until later on. when be returned and got the boxes as evidence against the prisoner. Ho then deliberately cut off the tops of the boxes, the inference being that tho Crown wanted to show the boxes had been recently purchased. If the No. 5 cartridges (the only ones Te Kahu had in. his possession) could not lave killed Elliott the Crown had deliberately destroyed tlie evidence. In regard to the bacteriological tests, the Crown should have taken every step to chock the tests. The jury had been deprived of even tlie evidence as to whet er there was pig’s blood on accused’s trousers, as stated by the prisoner, or in what proportion was the pig’s blood, if present, a;.d what was the proportion of human blond they contained. Te Kalui bed not made a single contradictory statenn nr. It might have been possible for Elliot* to have left liomo early 011 Monday for another slot, and had fallen in with somebody who kill, d bint accidentally, and then, losing bis head, threw the body into the river. In fact, there were innumerable possibilities as to how the unfortunate man met his death. If the jury was satisfied that it was possible for Elliott to have met bis death in some other wav, they would be justified in returning a verdict of not guilty. After the Judge had summed up the jury retired. After a retirement of four hours, the jury announced that no agreement was possible, and were thereupon discharged. A new trial has been ordered.