MOTU RIVER MURDER TRIAL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2407, 21 March 1922, Page 2

MOTU RIVER MURDER TRIAL.

Gisborne, March At the Motu River murder trial today the first witness was Gordon Saxby, who gave evidence respecting the movements of the accused. He denied that he had given a message to anybody that the Natives should clean their guns. Constable Blakeley deposed to finding the body. A watch and chain were missing, he stated, but the bar of the chain was left in the waistcoat. Tisdall, a gunsmith, of Rotorua, in cross-examination, stated that he could not say to what type of cartridge the No. 5 shot found in Zambukka belonged. No. 5 shot was not a popular size in New Zealand. Detective McLeod .said that he obtained a statement from the accused. Counsel for accused objected. He

said that the statements were replies to a cross-examination through an interpreter. It was probable that accused gave lying answers. The Judge held that the statements were in order. Constable deposed that when Peeti, accused brother, was arrested, he (Peeti) said that it was through the actions of other people that he was “in'- this trouble.” The accused, Rutene, had not replied. _ Whare Matenga gave evidencS that the accused told him in gaol that he, (accused) shot Zambukka, stole £163 and a watch, and planted the body. Accused said also his brother had “turned on him.” Witness received no information about the case except from accused.

To counsel for accused: In his own case the Judge had not believed ( him. He admitted that at the age of 18 he was imprisoned fpr ten years for rape, and was then sent to gaol' / for two years for indecent assault. Subsequently he was given one month for theft, and he was now serving three years for assault..

NOT GUILTY. CONCLUSION OF TRIAL. \ \ s Gisborne, Last Night,

In the Motu River murder trial, no evidence was called for the defence. The Crown Prosecutor argued that it was a very carefully planned murder. He commented strongly on the statement of accused's brother, that arrangements were made between accused and his , father as to what should be said regarding the time accused left home on the day of the murder, and ' the concern the accused had about the murder. He suggested' that the accused would remove, as far as possible all traces of the crime. He stressed the accused’s statement, when giving a penny to Kobpn Eruiti, “on account of murdering this man.” The accused had failed to account for ! his*move- A , meuts at the time the Crown said? the murder was perpetrated. For the defence, Mr Burnard said that affirmatively the accused,, could not prove his innocence. No evidence had been given that accused had been seen in the actual vicinity of the murder. There were no finger-prints, and-no blood stains on the clothing. The evidence of the Native witnesses for the Crown was unreliable. There was grave doubt As to the time and date of the crime. If the case for the Crown was correct, the shot would have been heard at the time in question by at least two people not far distant. If the accused told other Natives to clean their guns, why did he not act on the advice himself? The incident of the penny was merely to get accused delivered from his trouble. The police had brought no evidence concerning the wads used in the cartridge. None of the proceeds of the robbery Had beenfotuui, on the accused. T Mr Justice Reed, in summing up, , held that the murder must have taken place about the time suggested by the Crown. If the accused had committed it, he must have changed his clothes after leaving home. The murder had possibly been committed by a stranger, but. the police had made exhaustive enquiries. The accused was the only person regarded by (lie Crown as having failed to properly account for his move-’ ments. There was no doubt that it was the accused who gave a message to .the. Natives to clean their guns. Although the accused left the house without a gun, it could be in l ' ferred that he handed one to his brother later in the afternoon. If the Crown were right that it was, a well-thought-out crime by the accused, it was unlikely that he would be. found with any of the stolen property. The jury' must return a verdict in the light of reason. After an absence of nearly two hours, a verdict of “not guilty” was returned.