KYEBURN MURDER

Hokitika Guardian, 3 November 1928, Page 3

KYEBURN MURDER

JURY’S VERDICT.

ONE OF MANSLAUGHTER

vßy Telegraph—Press Association)

DUNEDIN. November ! 2 . The trial of William John Hardie, charged with having murdered <Jo< Leong Shun, at Kyehurn, on July 17th was concluded in the Supreme Court to-day, before Air Justice AlaeGregoi and a jury. Air F. B. Adams conducted the casefor the Crown, and Air A. C. Hanior appeared for the accused. A total oif 35 witnesses were heard for the Crown. No witnesses were called for the de fence.

JUDGE SUMS UP

After counsel had addressed the jury, his Honour summed up. He stressed the point that the evidence of Sue Pee, the principal witness for theCrown, was quite unshaken. Four main features of evidence could he taken as a corroboration olf Sue Pec’s evidence. There were: Hnrdie’s movements before and after the tragedy; (2) the footprints at the edge of the claim ; (3) the sale of gold with its peculiar characteristics; Mi the extraordinary story of the Exhilv tion photographs, There was no nee for him to go into the evidence in detail. hut lie would say that there certainly was a substantial body of O’ i deuce in support oif the view taken b; the Crown. The evidence had hem subjected to severe and able criticism by Mr Hanlon, and the jury must de aide for themselves how that evidence had been affected as a result. As L' the possession of gold by Hardie, there was no doubt that the gold came from Sluim's claim, and it seemed clear that the accused had stolen it from Slium.

His Honour proceeded to read ex tracts from Hardie’s statements to t’e police to demonstrate the unreliabilit v of his story. There was, lie said, on!’ one conclusion to come to in that con nection, namely, that the accused used these falsehoods in an endeavour to throw the police off the scent and P avert suspicion from himself. Regarding any suggestion that Sue Pee was the guilty man. his Honour said that the jury had only to apply Ihe test of motive to his case. Would (hat old man. lingering out his days in the gold claim, murder his employer, on whom he was dependent? Then, was his subsequent conduct consisteid 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 he expected to do. To suggest that h° was the culprit implied that his whoh evidence was a fabrication. On the other hand, Hardie’s story was so con tradictory as to make it unworthy of credence. AVliat the jury must decide was: Whoso story should be believed : Hardie’s or Sue Pee’s?

After a retirement of a little under two hours, the jury returned with a verdict rtf manslaughter. The accused was remanded till next week for sentence: His Honour commended the police for the manner in which they had con ducted the case.