TELEGRAMS

Hokitika Guardian, 25 June 1921, Page 3

TELEGRAMS

j MURDERTRIAL ! YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. , [BA TELEGRAPH—PER PRESS ASSOCIATION] 1 HAMILTON, June 24. j 'Continuing, Mr Gillies for the Crown, said the gun was discharged eight or nine feet away, which ex--1 eluded the possibility of its accidental ! discharge by Elliott. This was impos--1 sible, for the body was more than 47 feet away from the point where the j blood stains were found to the river. Te Kahn had shown he was within a few yards of the spot where the bloodstains were found. It was shown that a light was seen in Elliott’s whare on Sunday night, and also that Te Kahn visited the whare between the Sunday - afternon and Monday morning, as he was seen wearing Elliott’s overcoat at Mokai. If To Kalin had left Elliott in bed how was it that Te Hoko when ho called at the whare before breakfast, did not find Elliott there. Beyond doubt it was a £lO note that was paid to Elliott and it was also clear that To Kahn was in possession of a £lO note at the “two-up” ring on the Monday. Elliott had owned a brown leather wallet, and it had been proved that Te Kahn had the wallet on the Monday, although prisoner had made a statement to the contrary. Therefore, it had been proved that while on Saturday Te Kahu was short of money on the Monday he had plenty including a £lO note and two £5 notes. The two £5 notes which actually were paid to Elliott, were found to have been passed into Mokai Post Office. Counsel passed on to the prisoner’s statement to Campliell at Hamilton that but for the bloodstains the police would not have knowfi an occurrence had taken place. It had been proved that the two cartridges found 150 yard's from the scene of the tragedy had lieen fired out of Te Kahii’s gun. A bacteriological test bad proved that the bloodstains were human blood. The police had been absolutely fair in their dealings with the case/ ElHotjfc’s <g.un had never been found. Had Elliott returned to the whare the gun would have been tliere, or if. he had met with an. accident the gun would have been found. Counsel recapitulated the evidence about the “two up” school, the prisoner’s statement regarding the notes which had been contradicted lift* the other witnesses. Mr Hampson for the prisoner, said that no evidence had been brought that Elliott had a brown leather wallet j while only two men had said that they J had soon Te Kahu with the wallet at ' tlid “two-up” school. Counsel had not j proved that Te Kaliu had passed the j two £5 notes paid by Elliott into the “two-up” ring. Mr Hampson discount- j cd the evidence regarding the attempt j

at concealment by prisoner to hide trousers in a chimney. The constable had stated that the trousers were placed in quite a natural place, on a shelf to dry. No attempt had been made at concealment.

Mr Hampson, continuing, claimed the evidence was only circumstantial, and very weak. The Crown had not put forward irrefutable evidence that the murder could not have lieen committed by anyone lint Te Kahn. No dispute between Elliott and Te Kahn existed, they were good mates. There was no evidence to show that

on Sunday Elliott was in possession of a considerable of a sum of money. There were only a few shillings | in his bank liook-, from which it was to j be assumed he spent his money as be ygot it. From the evidence all the ' money Elliott had on the Sunday was £ls os. Did the evidence establish j that Elliott was murdered? Against, that assumption was the extraordinary : position of the wound. Surely a man setting out deliberately to murder a . man would hardly shoot him in that j position. He would halve blown his head off. It was quite clear the wound was not deliberately self inflicted, but there was a possibility it was acciden- I tal. Te Kaliu had given a perfectly clear version of what happened on the Sunday afternoon. Te Kahu told the j police on Wednesday, Elliott fired two shots at a shag. This was before he knew Alt’s Cox heard two shots simultaneously. Tlie scene of the tragedy was commonly used as a track. Nothing in the evidence went to show the two specific notes wore ever in Elliott’s possession. The- evidence in regard to the wallet at the “two up” school was based entirely upon two discreditable witnesses, Norman and Seymour. The Crown failed absolutely to connect Te Kaliu with the two £-i notes paid into the Alokni post office. With regard to the cartridges it was shown that the boxes found at IV Kalin’s whare had contained No shot while the box at Elliott’s contained No 3 shot. Yet the were asked to assume from this Te Kaliu borrowed two No 3 cartridges for the purpose of killing ! Counsel criticised the action of tivc Sweeney in taking charge of empty box in Elliott’s whare, doing nothing with the empty boxes <■ the floor of To Kahn’s whare until latM on when ho returned and got box® as evidence against the prisoner. Th<H lie deliberately cut off the tops of tfl boxes, the inference being that tIH Crown wanted to show the boxes well recently purchased. If No 5 cartridgl were the only ones Te Kahu had in hi possession, he could not have killol Elliott. The Crown deliberately troyeil evidence in regard to bacterological tests. The Crown should have taken every step to cheek the- tests. The jury had been deprived even of evidence as to whether pigs blood was on the trousers as stated by the prisoner or in what proportion there was pigs’ blood, if any present, and what was the j proportion of human blood they contained. Te Kahu had not made a single I contradictory statement. It might have . been nossible for Elliott to have left home early on the Monday for another shot and have fallen in with somebody . who killed him accidentally, and then losing bis bead, threw the body into the river. In fact there were innumerable possibilities as to how the unfortunate man met his death. If the jury were satisfied it was possible there was , * another way in which Elliott could I have met his death, they would be justii fied in returning a verdict of not guilty. The Judge summed up and the jury then retired,