PELORUS GUARDIAN TUESDAY, 21st. MARCH, 1893. A PLEA FOR JUSTICE.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 4, Issue 22, 21 March 1893, Page 2

PELORUS GUARDIAN TUESDAY, 21st. MARCH, 1893. A PLEA FOR JUSTICE.

The Case of Louis Chemis. As promised in our last we now publis the extracts from two leaders which appeared in the Evening Post, referring to the murder of one Thomas Hawkins over three years ago, showing—First, the straightforward decision and honest conviction given by the writer on July 16, 1889, when all the facts were fresh in his memory, and life or death was involved in the issues. Secondly, the reversed opinion recorded on January 11, 1893, by the same editor, when party feeling had overruled his better nature. We now ask our readers to carefully read, study, and compare the articles, then draw their own conclusions what reasons must have influenced the writer of them to care so little for his own reputation. Extracts from leader in the Evening Post, of 16fch July, 1889.) Intense astonishment is the prevailing feeling with which the verdict of the jury in the Kaiwarra murder case has .’been received by the public. It was entirely unexpected, for although a general impression has prevailed that Chemis was really the perpetrator of the crime, very few thought that any twelve men would, on the evidence, return a verdict of Guilty. The evidence ioas purely circumstantial, and the chain of circumstances had some very weak links indeed. Amongst the weakest was the one forged by the police, connecting the pieces of paper found in the wound in Hawkins’ body with the others alleged to be found in Chemis’ house. To those who, outside the jury box, followed the evidence most closely, it certainly appeared that here there was a most fatal flaw in the welding. Were the pieces of paper which fitted in with those taken from the wound actually found in the possession of Chemis, or might it not have been possible that they were really found near where the murder was committed ? In the latter case there would be nothing to connect Chemis with the crime. The police seem to have dealt with the various pieces of paper in a very careless and rude way. Each piece as it was found should” have been carefully marked for identification, the exact spot were it was found noted, and the greatest precautions should have been adopted in regard to ther subsequent custody until produced in Court. Instead of this some were bundled into a handkerchief, without note or sign by which they could be identified cr the place they came from determined, others were sorted into envelopes, and all were carried about in pockets, locked up in presses, passed from hand to hand, or generally dealt with in such a manner as to render it impossible to follow their history with any absolute certainty, and to throw considerable doubt on their identity. Thus what might have formed the very strongest evidence was greatly weakened in its force and involved in not unreasonable doubt; yet this was the most important, in fact, almost the only evidence to directly connect Chemis with the murder. No one would have been surprised if the jury had given the prisoner the benefit of the doubt arising from the negligence of the police in regard to the identification and custody of these pieces of paper. In fact everyone expected that they would do so. We regret having to write severely of the action of the police, but public duty leaves us no alternative. If the real criminal has been brought to justice, they do not deserve any credit; whereas if the wrong man has by any chance been convicted, a most terrible responsibility rests upon them. . . . The extraordinary delays which took place on all hands, however, combined to render it impossible to do more than establish a weak circumstantial Fortunately the whole case will have to undergo the careful revision of the Executive Council and His Excellency the Governor, and if, on impartial review, they see any element of doubt as to the convict’s guilt, any serious flaw the chain of circumstances against him, or any reasonable explanation oi the facts consistent with his innocence, we may rest assured that the capital sentence will be commuted, so that if any error has been committed, its future rectification may not be rendered absolutely impossible should further evidence be forthcoming, either directly bearing on the action of Chemis in the matter, or implicating someone else as the author of the crime. Note, —The italics in the above are ours.

(Extracts from leader in the Evening Post, of Uth January, 18930 Mr G. H. Mills, the Chairman of the Committeee, took up the case with great energy. < , . .• An immense amount of evidence was taken. . , . Mills capped his presumption and indiscretion by declaring in the House his beljef (liat pheipia was

wrongly convicted. ... Mr Mills has, since the session, continued in various ways to agitate the question, and has actually appealed to Ministers to act on the evidence taken before the Committee. We are exceedingly glad to learn that Ministers have had the good sense to refuse to do anything of the kind. The Minister of Justice, Mr Gadman, has written to Mr Mills informing him that Ministers see no reason to advise His Excellency the Governor to interfere with the sentence upon Chemis. With this decision we thoroughly agree. We are intimately acquainted with all the circumstances of the case against Chemis, and the evidence upon which he was convicted, and we entertain no doubt whatever as to the justice of his conviction. When the crime was committed and Chemis was arrested, we entertained very grave doubts as to whether he really was the murderer, but a more familiar acquaintance with the facts entirely dispelled these doubts. The facts, as presented to the jury, constituted one of the strongest cases of circumstantial evidence which could possibly be constructed, and although Chemis was most ably defended, the chain of circumstances indicating him as the murderer was not weakened in any material point or degree. The jury had no doubt on the subject, and no reason for doubt. Chemis was, in fact, very lucky to secure a com mutation of the capital sentence. To release him now would be an act of intolerable injustice to the community'. , . . It is altogether too late to re-open the case, unless fresh and conclusive direct evidence to upset the previously arrived at decision can be produced. It is utterly impossible now, after such a lapse of time, to present all the facts and circumstances of the case as they were brought out before the jury, leading it to the conclusion that Chemis was guilty. No .tribunal now could be so competent to pronounce a faithful verdict as that before which Chemis was tried and convicted.

Now. what are we to think of an editor on such a leading paper who wantonly and with malice aforethought has, after publishing the first outspoken manly leader, had the cool impudence, the arrogant assumption, and the presumptuous self-conceit to take upon himself the high position of a veritable Daniel come to judgment, and stultify bis former opinion by further vilifying an unfortunate person who, we maintain, is paying the penalty for another man’s crime. Yec, this is the person who professes to jealously guard the administration of Justice from even the precincts of a Parliamentary Committee, and then arrogates to himself the functions of a Criminal Court of Appeal—a terribly lobsided one—by declaring, without further investigation or any enquiry, that this unfortunate Italian, who may be an alien in a foreign land, is guilty and therefore, from the nature of the crime, a murderer of the deepest dye, and to release him now would be an act of intollerable injustice. Now, we ask the editor to kindly explain how it was, after writing the first article stating the verdict was entirely unexpected and very few thought that any twelve men would, on the evidence, return a verdict of Guilty, he has, in spite of all the further evidence establishing the man’s innocence, now come to the conclusion that he entertains no reasonable doubt as to the justice of Chemis’ conviction. Then, after stating the evidence was purely circumstantial with some very weak links and a fatal flaw in the welding, and everyone (which included the editor) expected they would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt; bow is it he now says the facts as presented to the jury constitute one of the strongest cases of circumstantial evidence which could possibly be constructed, the jury had no doubt on the subject and no reason for doubt. Then, he says, “ Fortunately the whole case will have to undergo the careful revision of the Executive Council and His Excellency the Governor, as it was eminently one for consideration in a Court of Criminal Appeal, and if, on impartial review, they see any element of doubt as to the convict’s guilt, or any reasonable explanation of the facts consistent with his innocence, we may rest assured the capital punishment will be commuted,” woich was done. Now be declares, “ That no tribunal could be so competent to pronounce a faithful verdict aa that before which Chemis was tried and convicted.” We proclaim far and wide that Louis Chemis is not the man who murdered Thomas Hawkins and these are some of the reasons for our solemn statement : Louis Chemis had been a peaceful, quiet, sober, and industrious citizen for over twelve years working for the Hutt County Council. He was married and living happily with his wife and five children at the tjrae Thomas Hawkins was murdered. He had saved jponey, joined the Foresters, and was, fpr 9 ipau, in prosperous circumstances. He was last seen op the day the murder was committed leisurely walking up to his home about five o’clock with pick and shovel pn his shoulder,

and it was almost impossible for him to have gone home, taken his gun through the bush over a hill 300 feet high, round by the butts in the dark, and intercepted Hawkins in about half-an-hour after Chemis parted with Lee. Mrs Chemis and the eldest girl both solemnly swear that he never left his home that night. If Louis Chemis was the murderer he with his wife must be born actors as well, to show no signs of guilt or trepedation, for, with murder intent and premeditated, all day he continues steadily at work, wastes precious time helping his mate to load a cart,, going for his butcher’s meat, then for his paper, when he could not tell but what Hawkins would return from town at any moment and all such planning would be futile, and his wife is quite jocular when the police went to search the house. When first Chemis and his house were searched by the police he was wearing the same clothes as he had on the previous day, and not one solitary spot of blood could be found on them after presumably stabbing a man to death twenty-one times in the dark. Chemis had a revolver and steletto in the house, both suitable weapons for committing the crime. Now, the Committee are positive, and the Crown Prosecutor, and tne surgeon who conducted the post mortem examination, admit neither of those weapons were used. Hawkins had been shot twice, but the evidence in the Supreme Court proved only one barrel of Chemis’ gun had been recently fired, and the slmfc in the wound did not correspond with the shot in his pouch. It was also clearly proved that for some two months before his arrest Chemis had been using wads instead of paper. The motive alleged for the murder, was that Chemis declined to carry out a simple agreement. Hawkins sued him in the R M. Court, lost the case, then entered another action in the Supreme Court, and as all the evidence Hawkins couid produce had been taken five months before, but no decision recorded that plan was simply ridiculous, and therefore falls to the ground, besides Chemis told a witness sometime before the murder that he looked upon the case as settled, because Hawkins had resumed possession of the ground by putting cattle on it, and the Chief Justice, when summing up at the trial, says, “ The fact that no motive had been proved would be a circumstance in favour of the prisoner. The only flimsey evidence against Chemis was the statement made by the police that some paper was found in his house which fitted other pieces found at the scene oi the murder and taken from the wound in the body; but when we recollect these exhibits were not marked when found for future identification in any way—that Detective Campbell told the Committee he saw Inspector Thompson mark the envelopes in Chemis’ house and that that gentleman says he never marked them there—we can readily estimate what such evidence is worth, and we again fall back on the Chief Justice’s summing-up on this material point:— "The question for them to consider was were they satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prisoner committed the crime. Probably they would find many facts consistent with his guilt, and many facts consistent with his innocence, and if that should be the case they could not convict him. . . , The principal fact against the prisoner was that pieces of the Post of the 23rd of May were found in the wound and on the ground, and that afterwards pieces fitting to them were found in the prisoner’s house, and from that it was said that they must infer that the pieces were found in his possession. There might he some error, and it was for them to say, after examining the evidence, whether or not there was any error. Of course, he pointed out, if there had only been the pieces found on the ground, and the corresponding pieces in the wound, that would not connect the prisoner with the crime It was necessary to pay great attention to the evidence of the constables, upon whose evidence the finding of the paper stood. It was necessary to see beyond all reasonable doubt whether the evidence was convicting and satisfactory, and left no room for doubt, for, although they may have said that the paper was found in the house, and no doubt they believed it, there might have been some mistake.. His Honour referred to the evidence of the several officers engaged in the search at the ground and the prisoner’s home, and he said it would be for them to say whether Inspector Thompson had possibly allowed the pieces of paper to get mixed, and that the papers he had found on the ground and placed in an envelope marked "Gorse" could not have been mistaken for those found in the house. . . . It might be that the jury had heard some rumours of ill-feeling between the prisoner and Hawkins. He need not tell them that any such rumours should not affect them in the slightest way. If there was any ill-feeling between the two men it ought to have been proved. If there was any real foundation that there was much so that Hawkins was afraid—one could hardly doubt that some proper evidence of it ought to have been adduced. ... In order to convict the prisoner, they must bring themselves to a conclusion without any reasonable doubt. If, any, however, had any doubt they must give the prisoner the benefit ot it.” When sending in a report of the case to his Excellency the Governor the Chief Justice prefaces his remarks by writing this sentence, “ This statement is not intended to convey any conclusion of my own on the evidence as to the prisoner’s guilt. Ifow, we say emphatically the Crown never proved Ifouis Chemis gu||fcy of murdering Thomas Hawkins; that the verdict was not justified by the evidence ; that a great miscarriage of

justice has taken place; that the fundamental principle of English law ■ the prisoner shall have the benefit of the doubt—has not been accorded in this instance ; and we, on behalf of thousands who hold the same opinion, trust the power behind, the Throne will yet more thoroughly sift all the evidence and recommend the Governor to pardon this unforfcuate man.

In another column will be found an advertisement of sheep to be sold by the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency at their stock saie on the 23rd insfc. iVe are informed that these are some of the best of their class in the district. The flock is well known and was bred by the owner from imported sheep from Tasmania. We are told the regatta at Torea will be one of the most successful gatherings ever held there, several new boats are being rigged out specially for the occasion, so our old favourites will have to look to their laurels if they wish to catch the judge’s eye at the winning-post. The Mikado Minstrels, who are to giye a performance at Havelock next Saturday week, with a few friends, have arranged for the Waifcapu to make a special trip. We anticipate that about twenty will come by tho steamer, and as it is our object to encourage people to come here we hope to see our visitors receive a hearty welcome and that the minstrels will have a bumper bouse. It is expected the steamer will stay here till after the performance at Cullensville on Monday night, 3rd April, so it would be a good thing if arrangements could be made for the Waifcapu to make an excursion to the Kenepuru regatta, We are quite sura a large number would go from here if such an excursion could be arranged, and it would prove both profitable to the steamer'and pleasant to those who took advantage of the opportunity offered. In last Tuesday’s paper we stated that Messrs Hill Bros had got good gold at Waikakaho although they had not reached the bottom. Mr Alex. Hill wishes us to contradict the statement as he says they have not got a speck of gold up to the present and such a report might cause men to go on to the ground only to be disappointed. We would be sorry to mislead anyone, but our information was obtained from a reliable source, though it is evident our authority was misinformed. Mr Lowry Borck’s house, at Maori Bay, was destroyed by fire on Friday evening last. Mr Borck had lit a fire after coming from work, and when sitting down to tea he heard a roaring noise and on going outside found the roof in a blaze. The shingles, which were of red-pine, burned so rapidly that there was not much time to save anything, and Mr Borck being alone could do very little. Mr Borck, senr., who had observed the fire, went over in a boat as quickly as possible but the roof had fell in before he got there, The house was a new one and contained six rooms, and although it was insured for £IOO Mr Borck is a heavy loser, as that sum will not nearly cover his loss. The fire is supposed to have originated by a spark from the chimney alighting on the roof and getting between two of the shingles. A quiet smile came over the face of a friend of ours when we stated a short time ago that it was possible the whole of the Cheviot estate would be applied for before it was actually offered for sale. It will be seen by a telegram elsewhere that the estate is applied for six times over by people in this and other colonies, and what is more a good deal of cash has been also received. The Government have a grand opportunity in the disposal of this estate to set an example to the rest of the world, which, if properly carried out, will effect far more good to the masses than all the labour legislation passed for the last half century. In fact, it is impossible to have even the slightest idea of the good results which will follow in the wake of the State taking possession of this property and disposing of it in a proper manner. It is not generally known that the Scotch claim that St. Patrick was a Scotchman, but they do, and Mr McCallum neatly brought it out this morning in reply to His Honour. Judge Richmond wanted to put off tomorrow’s business as a convenience to the public and the bar, but Mr McCallum said he was prepared to go on. “ What part of the United Kingdom do you come from ? ” asked His Honour. ‘‘From the land of St. Patrick s birth, Scotland,” came the ready reply, amusing the bench as well as the public generally, and for a wonder the Judge did not have a reply ready. . J Owing to the continual illness of Mr Reynolds, the School Committee have resolved to close the school for a week and shorten the winter holidays for that period. The Ladies’ Guild have arrangements to provide a public tea on Easter Monday. The proceeds to, supplement a fund towards purchasing, a sulky for the Minister in charge of the parish, tq visit fcfie outlying districts,

The very pleasing news comes from Wanganui that the Falcon has been got off, and is now lying alongside the wharf, and is not making any water, showing that she must be a strongly built vessel. We congratulate Captain Green on being afloat again on this favourite vessel. We understand the Commissioner of Crown Lands has made arrangements with a most suitable man, Mr Charles Tee, to take charge of a party and commence the track from Henderson s Bay, Kenepuru, round to Torea. Have you seen the new rainpro<> “ Impervanas ” dress serges now showing at Te Aro House, Wellington.