VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3866, 3 November 1928, Page 2

VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER.

IN KYEBURN MURDER. TRIAL. Dunedin, Last Night. The trial of William John Hardie, who is charged with having murdered Joe Leong Slium at Kyeburn on July 17, was concluded in the Supreme Court to-day before •Mr. Justice MacGregor and a jury of twelve. After a retirement of a little under two hours, the jury returned with a verdict of manslaughter and accused was remanded till next week for sentence.

His Honour commended the police for the manner in which they had conducted the case. A total of 35 witnesses were heard for the Crown but no witnesses were called for the defence and after counsel had addressed the jury, his Honour, in summing up, stressed the point that the evidence of Sue Pee, the principal witness for the Crown, was quite unshaken* The four main features of evidence that could*be taken as corroboration of Sue Fee’s evidence were (1) Hardic’s movements before the tragedy. (2) Footprints at the edge of the claim. (3) The sale of gold, with its peculiar characteristics. (4) The extraordinary: story of the exhibition photographs. There was no need for him to go into the evidence in detail but he would say there certainly was a substantial body of evidence in support of the view taken by the Crown. The evidence had been subjected to severe and able criticism by Mr. Hanlon and the jury must decide for itself how that evidence had been affected as the result. As to the possession of gold by Hardie, there was no doubt that the gold came from Shum’s claim and it seemed clear that accused had stolen it from Slium. His Honour proceeded to read extracts from Hardie’s statement to the police to demonstrate the unreliability of his story. There was he said, only one conclusion to come to in that connection, namely, that accused used these falsehoods in an endeavour to throw the police off the scent and to avert suspicion from himself. Regarding any suggestion that Sue Pee was the guilty man, his Honour said the jury had only to apply the test of motive to his case. Could the old man, lingering out his days on a gold claim, murder his employer on whom he was dependent? Then, was' his subsequent conduct consistent 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 he expected to do. To suggest that he was the culprit implied that his whole evidence was a fabrication. On the other hand, Hardie’s story was so contradictory as to make it unworthy of credence. What the jury must decide was whose story should be believed, Hardie’s or 'Sue Pee’s.