THE WAIHI FATALITY.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 12856, 14 December 1912, Page 5

THE WAIHI FATALITY.

CONTINUATION OF INQUEST

(Per Press Association.)

WAIHI, Dec. 13.

The inquiry into the circumstances in connection with the death of Evans ■as the result of injuries received on the occasion of disturbances in the Waihi Miners' Union Hall on the 12th November, was resumed to-day (before Me Wallnutt, coroner. Mr J. R. Lundon appeared for the relatives of the deceased, and Mr Selwyri Mays on behalf of the Crown.

A number of witnesses were recalled and cross-examined bv OKlr Lundon.

Walter Edmund Harvey, under crossexamination, denied having a revolver in his possession at Karangahake on the 10th November and at iWaihi on 12th November.-

Ernest E. Ganham, president of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, deposed ito having attended the postmortem examination on the body of Evans by Drs. Savage and Bull on the evening of November 15th. There was no sign of a blow on the back of the head, but what was lefy of the left ear was bruised into the slcuiTl. From the left ear round to itihe right brow there was one continuous bruise, evidently caused by the one blow, inhere were six to eight abrasions on the lojwer part of the face, and the nose was dislocated.

At this stage Mr Lundon was proceeding to question the witness concerning a conversation said to have taken place with Harvey darning -the luncheon adjournment, in the ©burse of whidh the latter wag alleged' to have stated that he had a revolver in his possession at Karangahake on iNtovember 10th, when Mr Mays objected, contending that the conversation rwas confidential.

Mr Lund on recalled Harvey, who denied having informed'the previous witneiss of a man named Lark that he had had a revolver in his possession on the date mentioned

The examination of Qanham then resumed, and he stated that Harvey had in eoiiversaftian mentioned1 that he (Harvey) had a 'revolver at Karangafoake on the 10th November, ibut df he acknowledged its possession he would be put up ,for perjury. Continuing under cross-oxaminetion, Canham said he had .already deposed that .there were no signs of injury on the back or top of the head. -

Mr Mays: Did you examine tlhe inside of the soalp after -it had !beeai turned foack?

Witness: No T Did you examine the onts/ide of the skull after the scalp -was removed? Witness: No.

Did you .examine the dura ttmtar (that is, the "inner lining of the skull),, to sea the blood films?

Witness: No. „ Mr Mays: Then why have you the' temerity to come here and say. there were ,no signs of injury to the top amd back of the head?

\Vitnei3s: I stood (aside and watched what th'e doctors did. hv.+ I didn't ex-a.-nnno the spafe or sknil. and didti't do .any of the "butchery work "