ONGARATO MURDER

Southland Times, Issue 19257, 22 June 1921, Page 5

ONGARATO MURDER

TRIAL OF TE KAHU. EASTER SUNDAY TRAGEDY. (Per United Press Association.) HAMILTON, June 21. At the Supreme Court, Hakaraia ie Kahu was charged with the murder of Patrick Richard Elliott at Ongaroto on March 26. The Court was packed. Accused, who was apparently unaffected, was represented by Messrs Hampson and Davys. Mr H. T. Gillies was Crown Prosecutor. Charles Barber Turner, Government surveyor, produced locality plans. He said the country around was fairly open, with manuka patches. Robert John Issell, detective-sergeant, identified photographs taken by himself of Te Kahu’s and Elliott’s whares, and a panoramic scene where the two men were last seen,, and also one showing the wound in Elliott’s body. The clothing produced was that taken from the body, the shirt and singlet containing large gaps through which the shot had penetrated. When the body was recovered a number of shot fell from the wound.

Constable Smith, a brother-in-law of deceased, said he was one of the search party. The body was recovered from the river. One of Elliott’s hip pockets was inside out when the body was taken from the water. Dr Herbert Bertram, who with Dr Price conducted the post mortem examination, said that except for a slight abrasion on the side of the head, which might have been caused after death by bumping against a rock, there was no other injury except the gunshot wound in the back of the neck It was a double wound such as would be caused by the two barrels of a fowling piece. There was a large number of shot in the wounds. The wounds were such as would cause instantaneous death. He did not think the wounds could have been selfinflicted. The other organs were normal. The shots must have been fired at close range. The cause of death was a gunshot wound in the back of the neck which smashed the vertebrae and 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 the lungs or stomach. To Mr Hampson: When he said the wound could not have been self-inflicted he meant that it could not have been deliberately self-inflicted. It was possible for deceased, when reaching for the gun behind him, to have accidentally discharged the weapon and shot himself. Counsel: Could it have been possible for Elliott to have walked into the river after the wound was inflicted?

Witness: Absolutely not. Replying to his Honour, witness said that 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 the person carrying him would have his clothes bloodstained.

Dr Maurice Price gave corroborative evidence concerning the post mortem. Eva Jones, wife of J. Jones, farmer, of Ongaroto, said that about midday on Easter Sunday Te Kahu and Elliott called at her house. They both had guns. Elliott asked to borrow a dog as they w’ere going down the river shooting and might see ducks. She noticed that Elliott was wearing a light navy blue coat, and she believed that Te Kahu was wearing khaki riding pants. Elliott asked her if she knew anything about pleurisy, as he had a pain under his right shoulder. She told him to paint it with iodine and said she would give him some if he called on his return. They then went towards the creek taking the dog. She did not see either of the men that day. The dog was at the door early the next morning. It was not necessary to pass the house on the return, as there was another way round. She heard dogs bark twice outside the dwelling, but she did not trouble to go out to see the the cause. In reply to Mr Hampson, witness said she was not prepared to say for certain what Te Kahu was wearing. Her dogs usually barked when disturbed.

Thomas Edward Bentley, contractor, Ongaroto, said he saw Elliott at 1 o’clock in the afternoon of Easter Sunday crossing the creek in company with the Maori. Martha Cook, wife of Rawson Cook, employed by Cox at Ongaroto, said she was out walking about 4 o’clock on Easter Sunday afternoon when she heard two shots fired in quick succession, practically simultaneously, in the direction of the river. She saw no one about.

Mr Hampson asked witness if she did not have visitors that afternoon, and was getting tea for them at 4 o’clock.

Witness excitedly protested that she was telling the truth. She said she knew nothing about any visitors, and would not answer any more questions about people not concerned in the case.

His Honour told witness to answer the questions.

Witness, to Mr Hampson: I told you exactly what happened. I haven’t made any mistakes. The case adjourned until to-morrow.