The Chemis Case.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 4, Issue 39, 23 May 1893, Page 2

The Chemis Case.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir, —In your issue of the 16th inst, a letter appears signed “ Manapoa,” purporting to give reasons why the convict Ghemis was guilty of murdering Thomas Hawkins. Now, if they are the strongest points against him, and they will not stand the analysis of common-sense, or they have been refuted by further evidence and affidavits taken afterwards, then the poor fellow should long since have been set at liberty. First—As regards motive. The nationality of any prisoner should never influence the scales of justice, everything should be proved, or the benefit of any doubt should be doubly accorded to a foreighner. Secondly— How many times within “Manapoa’s” memory has he heard his own countrymen make use of expressions, which, if repeated in a Court of Daw, when they were under a charge of murder, would have strongly prejudiced any jury against them. Thirdly The learned Judge, after hearing all the evidence from Mrs Hawkins and others, summed up in these exact wordsExtract—'“ Referring to the evidence of motive he said. If there was any ill-feeling between the two men, it ought to have proved. If there was any real foundation that there was ill-feeling—so much so that Hawkins was afraid—one could hardly doubt that some proper evidence of it ought to have been adduced. The fact that no motive had heen proved would be a circumstance in favour of the prisoner. Fourthly—As regards the childrens evidence • (eldest girl, aged eight years, not nine). The Judge pointed out that if she had been called, she might have given evidence that her father was out that night, which would tell against him, when he might have been out for the purpose of milking the cows. Fifthly —The shot found in the wound was mixed No. 4 and 6, while that found in Ghemis 1 pouch was only No. 4, and no bullet was used, both barrels fired at Hawkins were loaded with shot, as paper found on “ Gorse,” proved and the broken pocket knife showed the indent of shot. Yet Ghemis had plenty of bullets, and as the murder, if committed by him, must have been premeditated, he would have naturally loaded with bullets. Sixthly—lt has been incontestibly proved that Ghemis had a wad cutter, and had been using wads for the past six weeks—no need to use paper when loading his gun to roll round shot, and it had only been fired out of one barrel. Seventhly— The police who found the stiletto, the surgeon who conducted the postmortem examination, and the Crown Prosecutor, each admit it was not the weapon used, and the cut in the paper collar, which the murdered man had on, clearly shows it was not a double-edged weapon which inflicted the wounds. Eightly—The pieces of paper said to be taken from his house were never marked as exhibits at the time, so it was never absolutely (proved they had been in Ghemis’ possession. Ninethly—The actual distance (measured by the Government Surveyor) from Ghemis’ house to where Hawkins was killed is exactly 44 chains 12 links (not a quarter of a mile), and over a hill 392 feet high. It was past 5 o’clock when Dee said good night to him, on the Kaiwara Road, some 10 chains below his house, and Hawkins was murdered on the, road from Dimock’s, at about 20 minutes to six that evening, Tenthly—The paper found in the wound was dated May 23rd, eight days old when the murder was committed, while the life of a newspaper in our homes is about 10 minutes, and even supposing a peace did fit with that found in Ghemis’ house, who can say it may not have been taken home, either by his wife or children as a wrapper round a parcel. Lastly—lf such flimsey evidence is sufficient to hang a man, or transport him for life, it is not safe for any person to live in his own house without having someone else living there who can prove an alibi.—l am, &c., Justice. [A printer’s error occurred in the previous letter. The signature should have been “Manaroa,” not “Manapoa.” — Ed., P.G. & M.A.]