Manslaughter

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 71, Issue 261, 3 November 1928, Page 9

Manslaughter

JURY S VERDICT IN THE KYEBURN CASE CROWN’S EVIDENCE UNSHAKEN [ Per Press Association ] DUNEDIN, Nov. 2. The trial of William Joim Hardie, charged with having murdered Joe Leong Shum at Kyebuin on July 17, was concluded in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice MacGregor and a jury. Mr F. B. Adams conducted the case for the Crown and Mr A, C. Hanlon appeared for accused. A total of 35 witnesses was heard for the Crown, but no witnesses were called lor the defence. After counsel had addicssed the jury, His Honour, in summing up, stressed the point that the evidence oi Sue Pee, principal witness lor the Crown, was quite unshaken. Tnc four main features of the evidence that could be taken as corroboration of Sue Pee’s evidence were; (1) Hardie’s movements before and after the tragedy; (2) footprints at the edge o’ toe claim; (3) the sale or the gold with its peculiar characteristics; (4) the extraordinary story of the exhibition photographs.

'lucre xvas no need for min to go into the evidence in detail, but he would say that there certainly was a substantial body of evidence m support of the view taken by the Crown. The evidence had been subjected to severe and able criticism by Mr Hanlon and the jury must decide for themselves how that evidence had been affected as a result.

As to the possession of the gold by Hardie, there was no doubt that the gold came from Whum’s claim, and it seemed clear that accused had stolen it from Bhum. His Honour proceeded to read extracts from Hardie's statement to the police, to demonstrate the unreliability of his story. There xvas, he said, onlv one conclusion to come to in that connection, namely, that accused used these falsehoods in an endeavour to throw the police off the scent and avert suspicion from himself. Regarding any suggestion that Sue Pee was the guilty man, His Honour said the Jury had only to apply the test of motive to his case. Could the old man, lingering out his days on a gold claim, murder fiis employer on whom he was dependent? Tnen, xvas his subsequent conduct consistent with that of a guilty or an innocent person ? He had set out for help on a cold dark night, and had done everything that an innocent man might be expected to do. To suggest that* he was the culprit, implied mat his whole evidence was a fabrication. On the other hand, Hardie’s story was so contradictory as to make it unworthy of credence. What the jury must decide was, xvhose story should bo believed: Hardie’s or hue Pee’s? After a retirement of a little under two hours, the jury returned xvith a verdict of manslaugnter. Accused was remanded till next week for sentence.

His Honour commended the police for the manner in which they had conducted the case.