KYEBURN MURDER.

Otago Witness, Issue 3889, 25 September 1928, Page 17

KYEBURN MURDER.

HARDIE TOi STAND TRIAL GREAT VARIETY OF EXHIBITS. EXPERT AND POLICE EVIDENCE. Th. 3 preliminary hearing o f the charge against William John Hardie of murdering Sho Leung Shum at the Kyeburn Buggings on July 17, which was adjourned at Naseby on September 6 was continued in the City Police Court oil FriDison > on the Bench. j • Adams appeared for the Ciown and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the accused’ Nineteen witnesses were heard at Naseby at the previous sitting, leaving 15 witnesses to be called for the .prosecution in •Dunedin.

Ihe usual stragghng crowd that half nils the back benches on the ordinarv court days was greatly reinforced yesterday morning, the attendance in the* court room being far in excess of the seating accommodation provided. Even the tedium of a long-drawn-out examination-in-chief was not sufficient to thin out the crowd, which increased in numbers before the court rose at lunch time. The accused took his place in the dock with an air that was in marked contrast to his almost indifferent demeanour of the first day’s proceedings. The terrific strain of the long depositions and the weeks of waiting in prison have had an undoubted effect on the iron composure and san" iroid which were the features of the im° pression he made on his first appearance in public after his arrest. The immense detail of the evidence can be gauged by the fact that when the first exhibit was produced in the court on Friday morning it was labelled “ E.E It was the thirty-first exhibit handed to the court by the Crown Prosecutor since the case began. All through the morning the stream of articles of all descriptions continued, and no one could be blamed for thinking at the end of the day that the magistrate’s table was the counter of a pawnbroker’s shop When the lust exhibit was produced in the evening the clerk of the court had commenceo his third passage through the alphabet in his search for a distinguishing mark. A; will be seen by the evidence, the case has a Robinson Crusoe flavour about it All the reference to footprints concerns a single print of a left foot. It has n< companions, either near it or anywhere else, on the claim.

Patrick M’Mahon, a labourer, of Linnburn Station, said he was employed at the Masonic Hotel, Naseby, at different times from April 27 to June 6, and when there he stayed at the Royal Hotel. H< remembered the day of Sue Fee’s arrival in the hotel, though he did not know his name at the time. Witness did not se the accused anywhere about the hotel during the night in question. May 24, bu he could not remember whether h e had noticed the accused earlier in the day. Sue Pee might have been showm some photographs at the hotel, but witness could not say. Hardie had shown witness some photographs in Naseby, bu; when and where witness was not*sure. The photographs included pictures of th accused’s mother and sister, but witness could not remember what the others were Bryan Lownsdowne Burns, a draughtsman in the Lands and Survey Department at Dunedin, produced plans which hr stated to be correct copies of the survey maps of the district. PHOTOGRAPHS OF FOOTPRINTS.

Constable John Bainbridge Kearton said that on July 20 he went to the scene of the murder and took a series of photo graphs, which he produced mounted t< gether for inspection. The subjects Were the deceased’s hut and its surround ings, with special reference to points where bloodstains, footprints, cartridges, and the broken sections of the rifle were found. Attention was also paid to th, approaches to deceased’s hut and claim. Witness explained that the burning of th< snow tussock as seen in some of the pic tures had taken place during the search for the rifle. Witness also produced photographs of footprints, one taken a the scene of the murder and the other taken in Dunedin, the subject being footprint made by the police in prepared ground with Hardie’s left foot. Th< various spots photographed by witness were pointed out to him by Detective Farquharson. IDENTIFICATION OF RIFLE. Philip . George, an artilleryman at the Central Battery, St. Kilda, gave evidence concerning the sale by himself of a rifle to Sho Leung Shum. It was a .22 Marlin repeater, with a distinctive shaped barrel. The broken rifle produced in court was identical in every Retail, with that he had sold to Shum. He could identify the rifle by a special swing swivel on the stock he had attached to it while it was in his possession. ARREST OF ACCUSED. Detective Robert Lean said ‘ that on July 18 he took possession of a sack swag at the Dunedin Railway Station. It had been taken off the Central Otago -train, and witness got it from the leftluggage office. Witness had boaruTd the train at Wingatui with Detective Jenvey to see if he could find the accused. Both the detectives made a search of the train 'after it left Wingatui, but they could not find him. The next day witness saw accused in Cumberland street. With Detective Roycroft he accosted Hardie, and said he wanted an interview with him. Hardie said,' What is it about?” Witness replied: “ It is something we cannot discuss in the street.” On being •sked accused said he would go to the 5

detective office. At the detective office witness showed Hardie the swag he had collected at the station, and the accused claimed it as his. Witness then told the accused in the .presence of Detective Roycroft that a Chinese had been shot and murdered at Kyeburn, and that he was suspected. Accused laughed, and said: “ I would not murder a Chinaman.” He also said he knew no Chinese. Witness then pointed out the seriousness of the suspicions, and told the accused he need say nothing unless he wanted to. Everything he said would be taken down in writing and used as evidence against him, but the accused said he was not afraid of saying anything. He had not killed anyone, and knew no Chinese in Central Otago. Accused then made a statement as to his movements on the day of the murder. In the course of his statement the accused pointed out to witness what clothes lie was wearing on the day of the murder. The clothing produced in court was identified by- witness, and a pair of boots produced were those which the accused said he had been wearing that day.' The accused handed over to witness a wallet containing four single pound notes and some photographs, exhibits. E, F, G, and H, produced in the Naseby proceedings. A receipt for gold, a card with a memorandum concerning the sale of some gold on July 18, and a luggage check from Ranfurly were also in the wallet. ' ’ In his statement the accused had said he was willing to stay at the detective office. At 5 p.m. the witness told Hardie that Sue Pee, the dead man’s mate, was on his way to Dunedin, and he replied “ The sooner the better.” Witness then said that Sue Pee might not arrive till morning. He then suggested that Hardie should 'spend the night at the station—not in a cell, and he agreed to do so.

Mr Hanlon: Yes, you were making sure of keeping him—quite voluntarily, of course.

The identification parade was held next day, and about 11.30 a.m. witness arrested the accused and charged him with the murder. Hardie was warned in the usual manner and then taken to the watch house and searched. Subinspector Fahey told Hardie he purposed showing Sue Pee certain photographs for identification purposes and accused replied, “He will do that all right. I know that Chinaman now. I showed him the photos in Naseby three weeks ago. Witness said he was in the subinspector’s office later when the Chinaman identified four photos of the Dunedin Exhibition. SWAG CHECKED NOT LEFT. At this stage Mr Hanlon addressed the Bench. He had not considered it necessary for the accused’s statement to be read, but now, in view of something the detective had said, he thought that in fairness to the accused the statement should be read to him. The statement was then read by witness, after which Mr Hanlon "asked whether it was correct, as the statement indicated, that the accused had left his rug in the train, later ringing up the station at Dunedin. Witness replied that it was quite true. Mr Hanlon: Then there is no truth in the statement that the accused cleared out andjeft his luggage in the train ? • , Witness: No, there is not. Mr Hanlon: Then where did you get his swag? Witness: From the checked luggage office. Mr Hanlon: Then it was checked, and not left in the train? Witness: That is so. •The magistrate: He could not get his luggage at Caversham if he had checked to Dunedin.

STATEMENT TO POLICE. In his statement the accused said, inter alia, that he left Allan Cain’s place at 3 p.m., when nobody was at home, for Naseby. He saw Constable Fox, and told him that he was i 11... He had then no intention of leaving for Dunedin. He had tea with Allan Cain, to whom he had shown about 2oz of gold, which Walter George had given him the previous day. He swore that on Tuesday ht neither saw nor spoke to any Chinaman. He had been to Kyeburn Diggings a long time ago, when he was working for the Hon. Robert Scott. He had never shown photographs to a Chinaman at Kyeburn or elsewhere. He had those photographs in his possession. On the night of July 17 he slept in his own hut and rode into Naseby the followin'* morning on Cain’s horse. Allan Cain motored him from Naseby to Ranfurly where Cain sold 2oz 2dwt 18gr of gold, the large piece being that amalgamated by Walter George, while he had himself blown the remainder. At Caversham the train had drawn out while he was talking to a man named Bill Hunter. He had stayed that night at 31 Lee street, where he often stayed. He did not remember seeing any police on the train. He had telephoned from Caversham for his rug, which- he had left in the train. Accused said he had heard in the train that a Chinaman had been shot at Kyeburn.- “I swear I was in no way connected with the shooting of the Chinaman. I am not in the least afraid of any Chinaman identifying me as the "old » near or tbc man given IDENTIFICATION PARADE. Sub-inspector Fahey gave evidence concerning the identification parade at Dunedin on the morning of July 19. There were 16 men in the parade, besides Hardie. .All were clean-shaven young men of accused’s stature, and about seven were clad in similar blue serge to that which Hardie .was wearing. When Hardie was brought into the yard wit-

ncss told him he could choose his position in the line, and could if he wished object to any man in the parade. Meanwhile Sue Pee and Miss Law, the interpreter, were not in a position to see the movements in the yard. When they were brought in witness asked Miss Law to tell Sue Pee to walk up in front of the men. If he saw the man who visited the hut on the previous Tuesday he was to walk up to him and put his hand on his shoulder. -After Miss Law had spoken to him Sue Pee stood rooted to the spot a few yards from the line, and in spite of repeated instructions he would not move. He said he was frightened to go forward. Witness, through the interpreter, assured Sue Pee there was no occasion for fear, but the Chinaman continued smoking stolidly without making any move. After some time, when witness had said they could not stay there all day, Miss Law said Sue Pee had recognised the man. but the man would not look at him. Sue Pee would not go near the man, but said he was standing with feet apart, looking up. He had a tie with red stripes ana was seventh in the row from the brick wall. Continued efforts to get Sue Pee to touch or even point out his man were of no avail, and finally Miss Law pointed out Hardie. Sue Pee would not look at the man. Witness then went on to give evidence concerning the arrest and charging of accused in the watchhouse and Hardie’s remarks in regard to the photos witness proposed, showing to Sue Pee. CHINESE NOT EVIDENCE. Eileen Law, a Chinese student residing at the Chinese Church Manse in Carrol streel, gave evidence of the identification parade which she attended in company with Sue Pee. She corroborated the evidence of the previous witness in regard to Sue Pee’s recognition of Hardie and his refusal to go near him. Mr Hanlon objected that this was not evidence, as the conversation was carried on in a language the accused did not understand. Counsel for the defence later insisted that Sue Pee’s statement. “ That is the. man,” spoken in Chinese, was not evidence. The objections were noted by the Bench. Witness then said Sue Pee nodded to signify recognition. The accused was the man Sue Pee had indicated to her. PLASTER CASTS TAKEN.

Constable Joseph Potts said he went to the scene of tlie murder on July 21. A search for footprints resulted in Acting-detective Taylor and himself finding a footprint on the edge of Shum’s claim. - This was covered up and preserved, and witness was present when the print was photographed on the following Monday. A plaster cast was also taken of the footprint, which was that of a left boot with nails in it. Another footprint made by the police close by was also reproduced in the cast, and witness identified both of the plaster casts produced by Mr Adams. Witness told .of the finding of the two sepal ate pieces of the broken rille in -different places and two cartridges and a bullet. The barrel and magazine were at the bottom of a gulch 100 yards from the hut, and the stock was found at the foot of a ridge on thb opposite side from that .where the barrel was lying. The cartridges, which were unused, were found on the top of the ridge between the two parts of the rifle. As each article was found Detective Farquharson took charge of it. . George Taylor, . acting-detective at Dunedin, corroborated the evidence given ' by the previous witness.

DETECTIVE FARQUHARSON’S EVIDENCE. Detective Bennet Farquharson said that on July 19 he went to Shum’s hut. He described the clothing deceased was wearing, and testified as to his thorough search for bullet marks in the hut. He found nothing. His search for cartridges and similar marks outside the hut was also fruitless. Sue Pee was at the hut that day. On examining the hill pointed out by Sue Pee witness found a bundle of firewood 690 paces from the hut. He also paced the distances between the well-defined blood marks and the hut. To the first of these it was 99 paces from the hut, to the second 333 to the third 433, to the fourth (two large patches) 476, to the fifth 503, and to the sixth 561 paces. The bloodstains on the track were not clearly defined as the path led over old workings arid snow tussock land. The distance from the hut to the claim was 1025 paces. Witness outlined the various searches rnnde on the claim, in the hut and in the vicinity. Witness searched the hut occupied by the accused on Mr Alan Cain’s property, which was 4.1 miles from Naseby. On the third day he was engaged with Taylor and Potts searching for footprints and the missing rifle. _The nature of the ground around the hut was such that footprints would not easily have been left-.. It was too grassy and tussocky. There were no footprints found on July 21. On the claim itself his attention was called to a footprint by Taylor and Potts. It was eight or nine feet from the edge of the claim, and it was on the top of an old water course. A great deal of witness’s evidence was in corroboration of that already given by other police officers and Naseby witnesses, particularly in regard to the finding of footprints, the parts of the rifle, cartridges and other exhibits. A great deal "of time was spent in the recapitulation of the evidence of various settlers and miners in the Kyeburn district who assisted witness in washing up claims and the securing of gold samples. It was all on the lines of evidence previousiy given at Naseby. The long list of exhibits was gone through and identified by the witness. Fresh exhibits of gold-XX, YY, ZZ and Al-were put in, and the collection of articles now numbered almost 60. Witness said that the addition of parts of another gun made it possible to shoot with the broken rifle, and tests were made with bullets of the same kind as those produced in evidence at Naseby by Dr Eudev Sheeps livers with a large bullock liver as a background, were used as a target at 12 feet to 15 feet when the rifle was tried out. A microscopic examination of the bullets,- which w-ere reeovered from the livers, revealed no trace °ii llfl Nor was tliere an Y noticeabie rifling on the bullets produced at the Naseby hearing by Dr Eudev. None of the deceased’s boots, produced, could made the impression seen at the’ ed e ° of the claim as they were all differently nailed.

EXPERT OPINION CHALLENGED. Charles Edward Hazard, a gunsmith of 38 y - ar !> ?*P, erience > testified to having examined .22 long rifle bullets at th e re 8 quest-of Detective Farquharson. H a also exammed the rifle. Rifl e and bullets were produced and identified, and witness was of opinion that the rifle could have fired the bullets produced. He estimated that the rifle had been fired within six weeks of his examining it, but he did not think it had been fired very soon before h examined it. The rifle was a very_much neglected weapon, the rifling of the barrel

b Ing almost entirely corroded away. He could find no easily identifiable rifling marks on the bullets produced in Naseby. but on tho.se fired into the livers there were distinct marks on some in certain places.

Mr Hanlon: When did vou examine the rifle ? Witness: Early in August. Mr Hanlon: Did you know then when the rifle was supposed to have been fired? Witness: Yes. Mr Hanlon: This expert evidence always amuses me. How do you tell from the fouling how long it was since the rifle was used ? Witness: I can’t exactly say. Mr Hanlon: Is it not the truth tliat you can’t tell at all—that it is impossible to say ? Witness: No, that is not true. Mr Hanlon: If I brought you samples of fouling from a rifle used six weeks ago and fouling from a rifle fired a month before, could you tell me which fouling was which? Witness: No. 1 could not swear to it. Mr Hanlon: If I brought you the fouling from two rifles could you tell me which rifle the fouling came from? Witness: If I cleaned out the rifle myself I could tell. Mr Hanion: Oh, yes, I suppose you could. Still, if you were shown a gun that was rusty when fired, how does your theory about the time since it was fired work ? This Chinaman knew nothing about keeping guns and allowed his rifle to get rusty. Now, how do you calculate the time since it was fired? Witness: By the amount of rust in the fouling. Mr Hanlon: But what about the rust there in the beginning? Witness : The shots would remove it. Mr Hanlon: Oh, I see. A few shot* will clean a gun of rust? Witness: Not all of it. Mr Hanlon: No, but there will be some left in the fouling, won’t there, to tell you the rifle was shot so many weeks . before. Witness: Yes, but the red rust will have been shot away. There followed an argument about rust colour and dampness in rifle fouling in which witness had to admit that there were many things he could not swear to. Mr Hanlon said, in answer to the Bench, that he did not want his crossexamination put into the depositions. He was quite satisfied that he had shown how valueless so-called expert evidence in respect to rifle barrels really was. EXPERT EVIDENCE. Expert evidence in regard to the pair of boots, the left one of which fitted the footprint reproduced in plaster, was given by James Robert Luff and Harry Edward Skinner, boot factory managers in Dunedin. This evidence was handed in in the form of signed reports to facilitate proceedings. Herbert Gardiner Black, a lecturer at the Otago University School of Mines, submitted reports of assays of gold and other investigations, which were also handed into court. Other expert evidence given by Henry Louis Patersou, a surveyor, was similarly disposed of. It dealt with comparisons of the left boot (produced) with the plaster cast (also produced). He found 45 nails that were visible in the cast, and the boot that coincided in both places to within 2.-25th.s of an inch. Thirty-four coincided to within l-25th of an inch. That concluded the evidence for the Crown. Mr Hanlon, reserved his defence, and the accused was committed fo# trial at the next sessions of Uk Siuywinji Court*