Murder Trial.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1921, Page 1

Murder Trial.

TRIAL OF TE KAHU. [si TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION! HAMILTON, June 21. ‘ At the Supreme Court, Hakaraia, 1« Kahn was charged with the murder of Patrick Richard Elliott at Ongaroto on March 26th. The Court was packed. Accused apparently was unaffected. Ho was represented by Mr Hampson and Mr Davys. Mr Gillies was Crown Prosecutor. Charles Barber Turner, Government surveyor, proved the locality plans being put in. The country around was fairly open, with manuka patches. Robert John Issell, Detcctive-Sergt., identified photographs taken by himself of To Kalin’s and Elliott’s whares, and of a panoramanie scene where the two men were last seen, also one showing the wound on Elliott’s body The clothing produced was that taken from the body. The shirt and singlet contained large gaps, through which shot had penetrated. When th body was recovered, numbers of shot fell from the wound. Constable Smith, brother-in-law of deceased, said he was on 0 of the search party The bodv recovered from the river was that of Elliott. The hip pocket of the trousers was inside out when the body was taken from the water. , Dr Herbert Rerthem, who, with Dr Price, conducted the post mortem, said that except for slight abrasion on the side of the head, which might have been caused after death, by humping against a. rock, there was no other injury except a gun-shot wound in the hack of the neck. Tt was a double wound such as would he caused by the two barrels of a fowling piece.. There was a large number of shot in the wound. The wounds were such as to cause instantaneous death. There were sufficient to kill. He did not think they could have been self-inflicted. The other organs were normal. The shots must have been fired at close range. The cause of death was a gunshot wound in the hack of the neck, which smashed the vertibrae 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 Hampton; When bo said the wound was not self-inflicted, be meant it was not deliberately self-inflicted. It would be possible for deceased, when reaching for a- gun behind, accidentally to discharge the weapon and shoot himself. Counsel: Would 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 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, if was almost certain llio person carrying him would have his clothes blood-stained.

Dr Maurice Price gave corroborative evidence as to the post mortem. Eva Jones (wife of J. Jones, farmer, Ongaroto) said that about mid-day on Easter Sunday, Te Kahu and Elliott called at her house. Both had guns. Elliott asked if lie could borrow a dog, as he was going down the river shooting, and might see some clucks. She noticed Elliott was wearing a ligm

navy blue coat, and believed Te Kahu was wearing khaki riding pants. She told Elliott to take the gun dog. Elliott asked her if she knew anything about pleurisy, as he had a pain under the right shoulder. She told him' to paint it with iodine, and said she would give him some if lie called on his return. They then went towards the creek, taking the dog. She did not see cither men that day. The dog was at the door, early next morning. It was not necessary to pass the house on the return, as there was another way round. She heard the dogs bark twice outside the dwelling, but did not trouble to go out to see 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 be saw Elliott at one o’clock on the afternoon of Easter Sunday, crossing a creek in company with a Maori.

Martha Cook, wife of Rawson Cook, employed by Mr Cox, of Ongaroto, eaid she was out walking about four o’clock on Easter Sunday afternoon, whea she heard shots fired in quick succession, practically simultaneously, in the direction of the river. She saw no one about.

Mr Hampson asked witness if she di not have visitors that afternoon and was getting tea fo r them at four 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 this case. His Honour told witness to answer the questions. Witness (to Mr Hampson) said: “I told you exactly what happened. T haven’t made any mistakes.” The case was adjourned till to-mor-