MAORI’S TRIAL

Hokitika Guardian, 29 June 1932, Page 5

MAORI’S TRIAL

MURDER CHARGE

FATALITY AT WHANGAREI

(Per Press Association — Copyright.)

WHANGAREI,, June 28,

The hearing of the charge of murder against the Maori boy, Heta Fred Gardner, concluded to-day'. Dr. Gilmour. Pathologist, of Auckland Hospital, deposed that he., found human bloodstains on a pullover, black trousers, and hat, examined by him. Detective-Sergeant Robert, on 'stated that, after the accused was brought to the Police Station at mid-night, a statement was taken. This occupied till 4 a.m. Witness asked accused whether lie- was willing to tell all ho had done since- leaving F-emingYq find ako anything which lie had not told the constables. Gardner was told that his words would be written down and used in evidence. The accused made a long statement. 1 The statement was produced and wa-s objected, to by prisoner’s counsel.

Witness stated the statement was read over by Gardner, who then read it himself, before signing. Later, Gardner was -charged with the murder of Ore We, and he made lio reply. Counsel for the defence! “From yon: observation, has he appeared quite normal?”

Witness: “I am not oompetent to judge, but if what lie has told me is true, T would say it is not normal for a boy of his age to do such a flung!” Counsel: “Why did four policemen go out at eleven o’clock to arrest a boy of 16-£ years?”

Witness: “To present his escape.” Witness added: “We expected valuable- information from the boy, and were not prepared to risk los’ng him.”

Counsel: “Mr Whareumu’s house- is a European one. Why did you not interview him there?” Witness: “He- has a reputation, for moving about at nights, and was very hard to keep track of. I had no intention at any time of interviewing the boy at Whareumu’s.”

Counsel: “In other words, from the time you found the gun missing from the hut-, you inspected accused?”

Witness: “Yes, and expected that he could tell us more than had already been told us.” Counsel: “You did not tipill him that it was not necessary for him to say anything?” Witness: “No., hut I told him Hat he need not tell us unwillingly. The bov understood everything.” Counsel: “At no time did you advise the boy that he should be advis, •' bv WhareUmu or a solicitor ?”

Witness: “Not at that time.” Witnp&s added that up to the time the aecUiSied described the ins’do of the but. it -was just as reasonable to expect, that he might give the police information which would lead suspicion away from him, ns to expect that hie statemoot might implicate him. The accused, who' reserved his defence, was committed for trial at the Supreme Court at Auckland.