THE NEWSTEAD MURDER.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 17, Issue 1025, 25 May 1871, Page 3

THE NEWSTEAD MURDER.

rather celebrated pase, which has .been frequently mentioned in the AusjUalian papers, bas at last been finally .disposed of, George Dyer having been tried at the Circuit Court at Castleniriine. The Argus thus summarises it; —The prisoner in this case had left the .Colony after the fatal occurrence, which took place so fai back as 1858. He was living in London, and at length, *tmg, ft* it seems, by remorse, he went to the police and surrendered himself as themurderer of his former nmje, Geo, Wil son. Subsequently he retracted his confession, and alleged that when fre made it he was mad, In this case, although there was corroborative evidence, the whole weight of the case for the prosecution rested on the confession, and the confession evidently disclosed a case only of manslaughter. It was to the effect that a quarrel had aiisen between the two men, who were miners, .about the quantity of gold that they had obtained; that Wilson drew his sheath knife upon the prisoner Dyer, ,and that Dyer, in self defence, caught up a spade," and with one blow killed his assailant, cutting his bead open He then dragged the body to a deep well, and threw it in. But the body which was found in the water-hole at the Mia Mia Cieek had its jaw fractured by a blow from the front, and had six or seven large holes in the back of the skull, made apparently by a driving pick, and by blows evidently given front behind. Thus thi>> part of the confession wps distinctly contradicted by clear and definite medical evidence, and although the fact of the Jailing remained, the mitigating circumstances in the affair were shown to be false. The jury, however, took, as the judge obsened, a most merciful view of the case, an,d brought in a verdict of manslaughter. The sen tence pronounced was eight years on the roads,

The correspondent of the New Zealand Herald, writes, under date Majp 11, as follows,: - Y<ou received from a correspondent a few particulars of the fatal occurrence at Papakura Valley. I am now able to forward you a few facta in connection wifck the enquiry held yesterday by C. Mellsop, Esq., R.M, The enquiry was held at the house of Hugh Hamilton, a settler at Papakura Valley. It appeared from the evidence that Mr and Mrs Smith, after putting the child to bed, about nine o'clock in the evening, put the lamp out, and left a mnall tire alight in the fireplace, and 4r.ew the door to without locking it, and then went down to the road, a distance of about twenty-five chains from the house, to meet a neighbor, who was bringing them some stores from Auckland. They remained waiting about an hour, and whilst in the act of re ceiving the stores, they saw the flames burst through the roof of the house.. They immediately ran towards the house, but before they got there the roof and walls had fallen in It was a sawn weather-boarded bouse, thatched with nikau. It was utterly impossible for them to render any assistance lo the unfortunate child, a small portion only of whose body was found the next morning, after the fire had gone out. The evidence taken clearly showed that the fire was purely accidental, and that no blame attached to any one, the probable .cau<>e .of the fire being that a spark might have ignited a bundle of dry tea-tree which had been placed in front of the fireplace for lighting the tire in the morning. Great sympathy is felt for Mi* and Mrs Smith, who are hard-working and industrious settlers, and who, besides their sad berea\ement, have lost everything except the clothes they had on at the time, besides J£7 in money. It is contemplated to rai«e a sum of money by subscription, to relieve Mi and Mrs Smith in their immediate wants, A somewhat uneommon case (particulars of which we glean from the Timaru Herald) has been decided by Mr Justice Ward at Timaru. v. Gammie —Claim £3B 10s, for the value of a horse belonging to plaintiff, which died through unskilful shoeing by defendant, a blacksmith. It appears that the defendant's man, Tate, pricked the horse in shoeing him, and although aware at; the time that he had done did not at once remove the nail, but allowed the horse to stand some time before he drew it. Afterwards he pulled out the nail, and put a nail head in the hole, telling plaintiff he could take the horse to work without risk: Plaintiff worked the horse for a day and a half, when he became so ill that a veterinary surgeon had to be called in to attend him, the horse afterwards died. The evidenee of the veterinary surgeon showed that death resulted from irritative fever, caused by the prick in the hoof. Mr Justice Ward, in giving his decision, said :—" He considered that although a certain amount of neglect had been proved, that it was not enough to disentitle plain tiff to recover. De fendant seemed to think very little of pricking and drawing blood from a horse; for his information and that of farriers in general, he would state that the fact of a hoiv-o being pricked js in itself prima facie evidence of carelessness, foe which the farrier is liable. He considered plaintiff's case to be made out, and should give judgment, for the value of the He was, however, not disposed to put plaintiff's value on the animal, but should give judgment for £26 Is (£25 being for the horse, and £l Is for the fee for attendance charged by the veterinary surgeon,) and costs. v