THE CUMBERLAND STREET TRAGEDY.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1219, 13 March 1880, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE CUMBERLAND STREET TRAGEDY.

SUPItEME Cor 'RT _C:.I.\IINAI/<* SITTINGS. CHAIIGE AGAIN-r ROT ERT BUrLKI.." (T,c"orc his Honor Mr Ju.-tiee Williams and a (.:ou ! „, ) r l .fu-.- : ..> ttl'.ler was resumed at i-i a.ns. 01: t'ri--.:o. In-rector MaiUi'd. eeaaiiued by .Mr Hagglst, deoTtlx t i,a.ii...d.-o l ':v..v-::.Ei .u- with him at, lur o'lici:. He called on Eh- t:r-K oca-ion to E..'!i rue- he had been d.s-.a.ur'ed from an. I. f nave i-im Mil.Mil/in: a.-. t» vihat to do. If' .-a/'..! twice afterward.-, and upon She scoed visis i.c to'd me In- i-v.-! .-1 not g'-'t work. I s-c.gcsEed he should go .... the T ; - ; 5;} : ioA:.:viiu:il labour. v--t,"ri-.. used to if. I.u.i v-:-u:d nodo U. Amongst other u::i..t. i;- he 5,...:,.:._>' ci-in;.:. of howe:vv '■■ •'-•"-'- d..-.sf.--y rli t. :■ . ~( crime by i'.re. and re'.u-r'-d to the Octagon lire a. .-■: cample of how ea-iiiy ir. mriH Ij*j «! ■;'<', and also -ad ho-.v easily all tea.* of run'.!•:-•- eoul■! be ilasEr- d by iir l -'. He also said, '■.-•:;■;». a-iug. n-ov, "hri'i'tia! murder committed, you wo ;'.d .u .a..'e_put it ccr'.:.,..: . a..ft. T-.i: I'.V-t tiling i should .lo v.ould i.: to loo'-; for". -..;.iii.,u. facts :uid'ei.«Tini-r...n..5, and ra...t und i..:.r.. ■.;.>■. if they pointed to yen. yen would bo t-:olv.'il ;<.:'r..-i-. This, <•• .nvt,r- ation \a< su! ■ -c.uiei.t to the •::;:•<; of .-'ei.r-uary. and prior to ISIlh c>- March. On hear-in- ~; the arrest or! the prisoner, I pr-.cecled at nee t.. W.ti'...uair.i with Detective Henderson. (The renin, it.i re of tin; witness' evidence-in-..iii-a' »■. a rep. tl.l -■:: of what va-i -:hcn • •-- the insee-eor a; :lve mv. . ..i..-..-i ,■: i..:fo ■■■ tirj Vfiratiw -.viEr...-.-.-w;-,.-; r. :m-.i ■ 0,,:-,- l;i, noti:- o( the o'lVcr-r.tiori « hi :li h.b! r.iivi:u ; :.i' >: ir; thu iouli-iip :it W'iiikouaiti tiet'.vtjtn Hi i [I-'iior !-:-.i:l: Y'.-ii moan to sr.y yon i-kcl h!i:i tl<''<- ' l 'i.'.-':io:i . f.lr aft.:r you ruii! :-rr\..--»--4 liini n:i.! ri.:i.-.-.'il him '••i;:ii niurilor': it setrt..-i Eo i•■,■.to hi: ;•. ii.,!-.:y ;iir;.ri::il for a potiee-oaicur to '[:!-••.'r.ov jr.vlUrii: Vonr Flonor, thu conver-ation w:v- r..i'::.:ioo-.:ti r.v Mn: pri ™isr a.-!.i'i-- ute a tpi!>ti' -ri. [ (rir, ;,;;.: i!i';:i-tii".v of the p.>. itiori I »i< pUui.'i hi. a:i.l t;ioi!..-;.r. i.. i>''-f.. ii.ivin;." i!oi>: .tu, t.) n:.i.<a ttiU mutno-r:ir;il-iiii. a:i!'. loavo ir. to your Honor to iay v.-:;eE:ur I ha.i .lo i: -j ri-i-liS or wroii'.'. [i;> ii.j.or: Yoi: ip;:ti.' ri_-r-.f; in niacin-.- trie i::-.'.-' :■■. toiiiii; v-o-.'h. r.h.-vi •!:!;■.■'. ';:■ Eh : ;'o-::, Ysm ■■' ...r.'.jiii-wl tile co .vci-?.'.r.LOti hy a.->iviu ;' :■. 'i'i'J'ti.ni • iiiii...! Vo : i.'.. m :u"M.r,i _' mooi*\..ii. or r.iio i-aii.-t: <u'ji .E.oo'.—''■. <;o, ;:. .. .- or.jo you. (» wnuM havu hcci v.roii;;a^ihi. s t. ■...!, .. '.-'isi:." any oho.. 7ery>itjU.; the course of wton-j youEiail co;iiai<:nci;d Biii* yoi!- siii.i .so jiisi rtoir. Tha* I:oorats ofiir.Tori'.' tvihi.'h rnu -,vi;ri; in vou jolt it wu;:l.l h::;;.-u n;J. -■■ ' yaty.ii «•;:)!« 0.1 v.-ir.h ■ :. ;r t: ; ■•-W ■■■-■■.• a' ; y (■!iii.'i.'il »:o" '.v.feh !irir,l..;v .i-.i-t 1- : - ..,;o;" a uiihiift'iy';i.i\Ki':v ',:.'w''-'ii-'. >'oVy" ;j .i "ii.,l ;'..\; uuto';' l'r;.:oiicr : ! h.r. <' .u.v;iv ••. hibl-i's'/jt! -rv' ii : ! ." r . U '»!' .'. ECU ir.o.H-: tft i.< :>. i-.i.i.-.t'.r of .h-c r-v-. [r. M -.y hi: li.-i.-i./.i: '.... i-> I--:.: i ii-> ■■■■•<; ; .:;- -.-,- r..--.r, ;;. ...:.■ utai.:.-.' 1 ''"''■ ili-L iVa SliOll :!.-. pil^i'■!>:-. ttin It'.uo'- : Vo.niiil a. fo'-v hour, sfr.i.-r.var.!^'.' Y■.-.-.. a--, -"."ii • , v< ' ha.l n-.a.iv arrarv.,-. nn-nr.s f.>r iii.-romiii'iii.ition *:'r tiio i;i.;-iit, an 1 ot'r.-i----nuittcrs. soonof V - .\;'-..-r I hii.l .lv:h,iti:.l Mi.-.h is!.; cif f rail hour am! ii h.-.:.' .v.Hj.h.'i- t -h-.oiul uiiUt: Sho v->.-.-i ,-i-.iiiii::.i or n. -r. - W'ch. wlion vm liJ.-i.h'i! to make a. :norn-vrp,:nltirii. will yoti ho -.;'... 1.1 ciiouj, n.ov to ,[•: ~-rih.: uu:iui. !y T your ai-r.ii m.-t. i ivaru you to ii>.-M-i-iho ;ihi;. inioly i-pi>s..ii.-li: .your actioir—your uctti.T,- up. your turniri.thi.-. w ..y or th.if. -.vav~iiiif.il you lir.i.o-.--! your luem >- vamiuiii. I ::X)i. up troi-i tho roiu-h, a.-id out pen, ink, ami p."- i-i'. i? t 5 . Fi-oni the oilicii V—V»',ji:. the con.-itahlo l>ro;t_'fit it for u c. ami 1 jar. ilowu ami -.vroto wi-.at you ham u.-.v tliua. ITa.l ynu huuu to that <>m-:i: bofoca?—l.'o: T do not thiiili 1 had. You had not. been to thatotlice bofora '.' —t had made in.prh-u-s at the oiliei.- about the property fjarid on you, :i:i'! Show was tank you. -ir. if yon had been to the ol!Vo before that, eveiuii'.f '.— Yeu ; t had. t had been to the olliee bofore. For what purpose '.'—To see Constable To-.vr.acmJ and see whether he hait nia-le a eorreet ll,iot the proptrty found upon you. H-iw lone; were you in that office?— t do not thinlc I Sftt down in it.. ftow lon;r were you in it? —Only a few minutes. I want you to describe what you did in the otHoe while you were there, mimrtety.—t went to the oilieu, and while E wa.4 there the stationtnaater at Wiiiiumaiti came ami unid my coraniandinir officer. Superintendent VYeldon, was calling in, Dunedin for me. lam lulunir you to describe your actions.—l then went down to the railway station and Ah, but you are away from the office now, I ask you to describe your actions for the two or three minntes you were there. —£ asked Constable Townaend I am not askinir what you said, but what you did.— J am not aware that I did anything. His Efonoe: Weil, you had a conversation with Constable TownseniL Prisoner: Yorc are aware where yoa stood 3—Yes; just at the entrace, and about the office. 1 was not standing in one place ail the time. Did you put anythiHjf down, or take anything op?— 1 am not aware that t did, Welt, we will teure that for a moment. Yoa desired the officer to supply you with wrltinir materiala, and then you wrote the memorandum J—l did. That is. so ■%— Yen. ' This, is the memorandum?— That is the memorandum. The memorandum yoa wrote at Waffiooaiti I Yes. Ttua you wrote on the 15th of Harcn?—l wrote that

at about l o'clock on the moming of th l«h of March. Very well. You have got another memorandum there.'—! hive. When did vou write it ?—Which ? That one. i,»jn.—l wro'e tills on the ilrd of Februarr.lri mv ojnYe at Dunedin. "Vfafao.--.-r: lE.'.-.'! it to me. Ido not wish to read it «ar"fwnna':v evi.i-jr!<\-of the v.-riting. *- ,4 }Tl« Honor: What do vou want it for? I do not think it V.-..-S b-oked at or that it was referred to, so t'.it vou h-v-o r.-> ri -at to l-w's at it. (To Mr Mallard): Did vou look at if: Mr Mai:.-.ri; Y«--: to !i\- a date. !ii- \\ ■■- '.;•: V.irv -.. .!i :if you hooked at it to r-.-r'.-L-h i..iir m--rii-.ry the pri.-oner is "entitled, to sec *T:. ■ Pri- •-■-: H- :- looking at if at this moment. I ~-.:■-■ -.-. -.-.- -..'-..'■- a: The r: .v.■■.-"•<; of the jwiier. Mr M:-.!:,-rd : I shuuM like to r.ad it. Hi- lio-i-n-: N-\ no! There i- an end of it unless tf • priso ■■•:■ co---.•-:.ir.iir.vs on it, hut i: he does do so the v.-ho!- -. ill p.-oi..b:y hue to be read, if he leaves T:;e IV.-o;ee-: f- this the memorandum you read fro:-, at the pre-immarv investigation?— That is the Y-u -;iv ;;-.-■ c!'..f'i>> were in your s-.fe from tiie time fl .■-.- v....-".- r.,,';,u fi-.ni me':—V"-. except during the Jim" rho ;■... dl-.- v! geritU.-uier: had then. A!■.,..y.- t.--..-.-;•: at tko-e times?— Yes, I locked them The-, have !i.-ja in vour charge nil the time?— Y. s. _\'.> i-.:(._. J.-.s i,.id them except you ?—I carry the key <>i th..- -at'.-. No one '.:• access, to it but you ?—No one. Ar.-l vo". h v.e continual access to it ? lam sorry to a-k -ou .;-'. -fi'Ti- o:act-tain nature, but the evidence vog'hv. e gi'. en ha.-, overcome all ir.y delicacy ou tiiat point. P.:-or,or: Am I to understand, your Honor, that v,-Pne-se.- who .have 1-eeu previously examined are out of O ;;rt, eveent the medical men, of course? I'.'.- H-.r-or :'Ti.'-y are supposed to be out of Court; i ii-.; u rir.y are.—f- there any witness subji'tnaed, or vviw'r.:.- i. .-i before in this ca-e v.ho has not already been examin-.d, excepting the medical men—is there any -m-h witness in Court? Do you see any, prisoner : or do the police see any ? Mr Higgi't: There is only Detective Kain. His H.-fi'.r: I think all "the witne-sess who were examined before tiie Magistrate have been called, nve::' the medical witnesses, and except Detective Dam". [•ri--.r-.er : Yes. your Honor. ii'- Ho;, v.-; Well, I =uppo.-e IVLcctive E.-.in is not in Court ? .Mr Haggitt : No, your Honor. !'r:.-o:;e:-ieo uiruess): Have any report; been made to v...;. as an ofueer of police, concerning mo within th-" r.i nth i r.viius to "mv arrest—irom" tiie lSth of I-Vbi-:.-..ry,i..Vnvp.i-ds? £rr- Ffnr r: id • not know what the purport o: jour !-.-:-.rv"i rey h.-. but this i- j>:-t one point where you :■.-..-r.r a di- ov-.iiV-.-i: by u'-t being defended by coun- -■;-,; .-. 'if rue •■■'■■[.-•'■■■ of youriiue.-fion is. in the end, rh ie . ■■'. calling v. :de:.ee to"--howyour character or any- ?';•;• >n.-r : it i- not. your Honor. His :;-,: r : in- to'-hjv: your previous good conifi- H-.-i :■ : No .au...- ?■•■- a nu:e.-:>-n of that kind -.-.-.- -•:'. Th ■ o':. a- -i-ie t-.oi" bring evidence of a ............ ~....;,.,. -., ..;-.,-,-,»• s.rcvi.us ba.l ch'.r.ieter; but ::-- T -.. ."--,-• :';■-•: .-.'•: a ou ■-'ion of tiie kind no s-n-li .- .■:. .."■■ i. .-.I;-.;--;:.: -. ' The .[U-..-t:o:i, I understand, I',-;-..-: - : I ask you if. from the iith of Febroary .1 ...-,;-.■ :'.;■■■-. ;-.:-.y re-pe-rEs ha.-ee i.-een u.ade to you eou-v'.'ir-i ■- : r'y.i-: vid -r.-o-.-ify the nature of ti-.e remade or not. Hi.- Hon r: Y-e. n-.-.a-r. I :in.ler-ta-..1, reports of any kind or ani" nature.—You can ar.-'.ver "Yes" or v.',:-- s. : v.:.; ; i have had report- about you. t'.-isa:--r: ''.i->o.'fs hwe bee.! made to you de'rim.ur..',! to ::..'.' (WiE"e.-s par.-e-l.) Siirslv you ran- ;■■■■' E...'<e a lon - 'vvhiie to "think oivr s'ldi a tiling V."!t:."■., : V.'. "._. D-.-trimenta! to you? Well, you Hi -':fo : r: Weil", i will .admit :he answers as much ' 'l : ■■'■'■' -.'.':";■.-.'..'": a-:"' -ay'any particular-. If vou .-■ : i-.-:...- :-,- r > -a: :y :•• h-ear ou any partleii'.r.r m '.E'-.-r I -..-hi ...a-v. e.-y :u : but ! do not remember any to yon. ,:;:.-;- ,-.i \- ':.■■.;''■'. ■■■i:r-; \- then became a matter ■■:;.-,- a- an .'.-.;• o; the r o'c-e fr:"..i; Istii I'eii.-liarv .!>":•:::. ~rd-. _ [fi- it -ear: t.-l-Mi o kno-.v v.-lietiier that is relevant ir.ikd r:;.. a to ar,--.--.r th..- Nile ri-n. It cannot . ; .... ably r'.x'.e; y. i: c:v-e. It is i:e.ii!e-sly prolonging : : : in j"-.:!.-;.-. "-' c-iir-.- vou krio.v y.-ur own case lie.-:, b.n ir. '■. e:'i. to i:.: f bat fire answer could no: do you :-..;,; g-.0.i. Tiie a.:;-w- v r may do yoa a great deaiof harm Yo'ulir.d octte; uiasjidcr'tctotc-yov' -iusiii-ujioa the "(ptesslori King !•- f. Tlio reports that he lias had hart; r:o;l;l....- t-v ;!■> - nth lev in a i. :'a...r:.a Oi' hca-s iy c.i'ieuee against your- '..'.'■■----: 1 v. 1-1: '■■* 0'.:.:'.! an r.a.-v-er from I;:-t.-i-.r-■■• : Can i re----.'! ti-.is v.itnes.s aeain at any V.■■'.:.: 1 hi- ;:'.:-.■>. si-geivut warder a-, the Caol: in a:.: ~--:i-..._..-' ::■_, •"i.i.-y i took !i-..ui the I'l-l-oner the ; •;...-.. r.a: 'I.-...'. ! put tb.--i into a. over, .and from ■ th--:-.- t-:.v v ■ :v :a'-.eu fo Mr (.V.idv.eii'- o.iice an-t ;•:■:..■..■;•: f v., 1: to re-all him. You told me I ;';;'. ii .-.' -: Ye-s, if you re..:: torevad rum I suppose Pri... -a ■-: I e ■ -i-)t -ay :l-..-.t I .-h.-.'i reea!! him, hut I ■> -.-. ■;.■• iuiu : The pri-on-r ui-.-t m: on f.h.e Wed- .-■ -; ■■■■ :a ■••-.: '...-:..;--• tu.- murder, and ;:-'.td me for the 1.-a..'..; .'.os :,;;.-:,- ■•-■.,,; -oi.-.e under.:'.thing, i to'sd uiii: :;:at I ::a-i" -.;■ a r:> m.-'icy ?h.-:it me. but that ii he :■-. ■'. ni: on £.:•-; ■-iifrrd.iy nigh.: I would give liim some. v. :Ei.e-.H hi'.;':.' given e'v ideuce as to his endeavours to trace the rauruar. Mr rtaggiU said: i ..vaut you to go back to sonic invrview-." vvir.h the prisoner previous to trie 1:1 th ..iaieh. Do y..u remenihcr "(lis a-ktng you to find Wi'.r.e-.s: 'i'ru-.t wa-. M"i-.d-iy, the i'h Mirch, in the O '.-, ion. ii,; a-k-: -.! aie pre virus to th:.- to get him Vlr ftargitt : What kind did he say ? Witr-.e-.!. t tie .ail he r.aii a:: i.icr. uf writing a series of arci-a •• of a certain kind for the pap :rs, and a-ked me to introd ■;•'..- trru c»..ne or other r,i the editors or i>ro'n-ietoL"s id ti;e I> iiiedin papers. I introd'icetl him Co o ie. He pro.ni ei to supply that iierson with a-t.i'ee. A couple of night-" after this the prisoner arranged to me. ' Or: that 'occasion lie was to go with me, but, he did not come. I saw him the following .!...v, 1.-.-, ha- seemed very d-.-v-iuding. Then I asked him why he did no; keen- his appointment, and he said if, would be to.-, hard" for him. On Monday, the ar.h. he said ire -.vould be willing to do manna! labour —piek-and-shov.l work—and I s;»ke to a por.-on, who proml-cd to-get fiiui ••ve-rk. On the Monday night he told iu. he w-i-.s anxious to get a job, tint he wished to do well for hhn.-eif now, for if ho broke loose again he would he ore ef. the mast desperate tigers ever let loose in a community. Cross-examined : You say you met moafterdarkon Saturday night?— Which Saturday- night do you sjicak of? of the tilth March-—Yes, at a quarter to Son the WthWiiere did yon see me?—At ithe corner of St. D.ivid street and King street. Yoa s]>okc to me abreast of Gibson's shop. M:iy I ask what your Honor has on your notes as to where he met me t His Honor: Yes; I will find it in a moment. He said before at the corner of St. David street and George street. ...» Witness : It was in King street, your Honor, that I met him. Prisoner: The evidence is full of these little carelessnesses. How were you placed when we met?— Wnen I first saw you I was looking northwards. Yoti were looking northwards, and I was comingdown St. David street ?—You came out of St David street into Kins: street, and got as far a3 the lamppost, and turned suddenly round and walked back. Can yoa swear I did not come from up or down King street?:—l will swear when I first saw you you came out of St. David street. Was I going down St. David street ?—Yes; towards the lamp. If I had continued on that course would it hare taken me in the direction of the Scotia Hotel?—lt would have taken you down to the Scotia Hotel, and also to the scene of the murder. You were within six chains of where the murder was committed when I aawycro. . That was; at a quarter to 3 on Saturday evening 7 Yes.

Did you .--ce me first ?—Ye-; I tliink si. My impression was tliat you wanted to g-et away. You think that" I would have avoided you ii I could ?—I thought that was your intention at tho time. You thought that at the time I wanted to avoid vou ?—Ye?. In fact I wa-i rather surprised to see you there. Well, you thonjrht I wanted to avoid you. You have .-ouie reputation for sOiarpiiciS, I believe—l believe, to do yon justice, you de-erve it. K I had hec-n doin;,' anythni',' wronif, or to do anything v.oui.l vou have perceived the impressions ou me?— Well, f may tell you this: I did think so when I saw you. Tliat what?— That there was something wronir. Hot?— Your appearance seemed strange, and yoar actions attracted my attention very much more . than they had ever done. You were taken aback when I .stopped you. You seemed not to he able to answer my simple questions, and you seemed timid. I did not know what to think about you at the ttme. 1 .seemed afraid; seemed frightened. I trust the Jury wili take notes of this portion of the evidence. I seemed afraid—taken aback?— You seemed as if you wi.-hed to avoid me. As if I wished to avoid you ? Did I seem startled?— Yes ; a.s i;' you did not wish to see me. I suppose I am to conclude you suspected me?— I have' suspected vou ever since you came out of gaol. Did you suspect me particularly then ?—Well, I was a iittle more suspicious of you that night than previously ; but I suspected you ever since you came out of gaol. Was I wearing that green scarf that has been produced ?—That night ? Yes.—No; you were not. I was not wearing it?— You were not. I am certain you had no tie at all that night. Frequently I have seen you—more than three or four times—without a tear; on. Do you positively swear I had not the scarf - on that nightl-— Yed ; I swear positively—not at the time I saw you. That hat that has been produced is the one I was wearing ?—I believe so. It is so knocked about now I would not like to swear positively. Hut you have no reasonable doubt that it is the one? —I have no reasonable doubt. Did you report this threat of mine of being a desperate tiger to the police authorities?—l did not in writing, but verbally I did. To whom?—To my comrades, to Detectives Henderson and Walker, and also to Mr Mallard. They knew the threat you had made. When did you report it to Inspector Mallard ?—I could not say" positively whether it was after you had left Dunedin' to go to Kavensbouriie or not. I think it was. I would not he positive about the date, but it was after you made use of the tin eat. I'pon my word \ou seem to have a very slipshod way of doing certain things. You cannot tell the particular time of the day. If I male use of such a threat as this, the reporting of it would be an important duty. Do you know"when I became possessed of the revolver? —Only from hearsay; I do not know of my own knowledge. From hearsay?— The same night I was with you previous to seeing vou on Saturdav: on the Wednesday night. His Honor: You heard on the Wednesday night ? Witness: It is only hearsay on my part, your Honor —I cannot vouch for it. I'ri-oner: On the Wednesday previous to the murder?— Yes; on the Wednesday night, when you informed me you intended going to Ilavensbourne to work. Will I ask you for your authority for this ?—I heard ! it from one of the detective officers. i Have you any idea where he got his information ; from ?—Xo ; none whatever. ! You swear, then, from your observation, the soles ' were on mv boots?— Yea; I have no doubt about j that. ! Did you receive any instructions concerning me I lately—say within a week of the time of the murder? ' —No; none whatever, excepting what I had "received ! before—namely, that I was to keep you under surveillance as well as I possibly could. ! Ami you kept me pretty" well under surveillance? ! —I trie*! to do so. 1 And this chain, that you spoke to just now. I did ' not catch what you said. Was it brass or gold ?—lt : wis gold. I said it was brass at first, from the black- : ness of it, but I have since examined it, and I fmd it is ■ English gold. j And you spoke to the pencil-case, I think ?—Yes. j Clo'id?—No: it is not. You have given very particular evidence just now ' concerning the silk dress that was thrown over and over, and other tilings that were thrown over and over in thu drawers, although they appeared to have been arranged tidily before?— That is my impression; I said so. The" things were not in conformity with ' oth;-r partso: the house. ; Did vou give tills evidence on a previous occasion ? ' —I did. I'ri.-nner: I desire to call your Honor's attention to the deiiositions. His 'Toner: The der-o-itions before the Magistrate say nothing about a silk dress. "I'r.so.ierito witness): Did you say before that the drv.ver was turned over and over : I Witness-: 1 .-aid that it was taken down in evidence. ! I'ri-oner: This is giving tpiite a new feature to the ' ca-e. lie swears now to a state of evidence which is not iii tho dopo-itio-i.s, and I am pretty sure the Jury k.i-AV it is not to be found anywhere else. .Mr Haggitt: If your Honor will look at tile Coroner's depositions it is to be found there. : His Honor: 1 have not got them here. I Mr Ha.-giK : Here is a cony furnished by the Court. i_li.iijno--f' full eve:: ibejr I* gives-in cvidir.ee Lo-day. Pr.'.""n-f: T have received no copy of the Coroner's : irioulsi.i-.il, therefore the evidence is rpiite new to me. j His Honor: The details or the Coroner's depositions '■ .seem to be somewhat different from those of the Maj g;-Irate—much tiie same as has been given to-day. The Foreman of the Jury: The Jury wish to ask ' Detective Cain whether he examined the knives in the ! house, and whether they were all of the same deseripj tion. I Witness-; I examined them all, but there were j none of the same description as this knife pro- | ducid. .'■ir ilaggitt: That is not what the Jury want to know. J Witness: There were very few knives in the house. j There were one. white-handled and two or three black- | handled. j His Honor: When prisoner was searched was there j not r. pocket-knife found upon him? Mr ilaggitt: Yes, your Honor. ! H:-i Honor: Let that pocket-knife be produced. ' The Jury may wish to see that, and inferences might ■ probably lie drawn by the prisoner having' it.—Detective liain. do yon happen to know where the prisoner got the clothes from which he was wearing when arreted ? Witness;: On the Wednesday night previous to the murder being committed the prisoner told me he had got some' clothes from -Mr Caldwell to go to work in. Mr Ilaggitt: Mr Caldwell gave them to him, I believe. His Honor: I thought- the Crown might see its way to admit that the clothing had been in the possession of the- prisoner before. Witness : He told me that he had got the clothing from Mr Caldwell to go to work in, so that he might keep the things produced to-day for better use; that the clothing he was wearing at the time lie sp>'-:e to me v.as too good to wear at pick-and-siiovel work. His Honor: You have not spoken about a certain seat in the Dotanical Gardens. You know the seat that has been referred to? Wh.ne-s: Yes. His Honor: It commands a general view of Dunedm. The view to be obtained from there is not confined to this particular neighbourhood?—Tho view from there is not limited to the ncigiibourhood where the murder took place. Other portions of the city can he seen. You are aware that crimes have been committed from time to time in the city, are you not?— Yes. Can vou sav whether since prisoner has been arre-ied" there" have been any, and, if any, how in-itiv cases of housebreaking in the city and sub- : hs", the perpetrators of which have not been d: covered ? I do not want any particulars.—Yery fe-.v indeed have been reported, your Honor, since the prisoner was arrested, and one of the number is doubtful. Arc you quite certain of that ?—Yes, your Honor; there is one very doubtful. You sav there have been very few ?—Yes, since the p. Loner was arrested. There have been idle reports and rumours Hying about—such as persons getting on verandahs—but there is very little foundation for the majoritv of them. Mr Uaggi't: I suppose, as a matter of fact, things are reported now that never would have been reported before ?—There are. You state in answer to the prisoner that you kept him under surveillance as well as you could from the 20th February up to the 11th March?— Yes. Where washe living previous to the 11th March?— He wa3 living in tho Albion Hotel in Jlaclaggan street, on the night of March 11th, and for several nights previous to that. He was nine or ten days in King street, and he also took a room in the Douglas Hotel, but he never slept in it. Did you know he had removed to the Scotia ?—I did not. You found out he had ?—The first intimation I had of it was on the Sunday afternoon—the day of the murder. From a description you received, I suppose ?—From the description I received of a man who had been stopping at the Scotix Then you did not know where he lodged from the time he left the Albion ?—No. Where was it that, you got' him work?—At Ravensbourne, under the Harbour Board. And when ought he have gone to that work ?—On the Thursday morning. He did go down by the 6 o'clock train. And did you think he had gone to work there ?—I felt quite satisfied that he had gone to -work. The Foreman of the Jury: The Jury desire to inspect the house in Cumberland street. His Honor (to the Crown Solicitor): There is no reason why they should not. Mr Hag-girt: No; your Honor. His Honor: I am not at all sure whether, besides an inspection of the house—as I understood reliance was to be passed particularly on certain spots of blood on the door—that is the case, is it not ? Mr Haggitt: Yes, your Honor. His Honor: It would be as well that this door should be token oS its hinges and brought into

uouit. There would be no difficulty i;i doing th.is, I supno-e? Mr Haggitt: Not the slightest. His Honor : It seems to me one of the crucial points of tiie case, aud it would be as well if the .tun- had the door before them. (To the Jury) : Would it not be as well for yon to go now before lunch V Tiie Jury suggested after lunch. Hi-; Honor: I do not know. The only remaining; evidence is the medical evidence. The Foreman of the Jury: It will make no difference. His Honor: I think, perhaps, if you went at once it would be the best way. I think so. (To Prisoner): The Jury have asked to view the premises, prisoner. You" understand that in such a ease two constables take charge of the Jury, and the Sheriff sees that no one has any communication with them. Of course you will not be present, and the law does not allow the Crown to be present. The Jury will £0 themselves without communicating-with anybody, and care will be taken that no one at all has any communication with them. -i The Court adjourned at 12.30 to 2 p.m. On resuming;, Mr Haggitt said: I do not know whether the prisoner wants Mr Mallard to be out of Court now. I suppose it was onl.VjWhile Detective Bain was being; examined that he wished him to leave the Court. His Honor: I suppose that is so—while Detective Bain was being examined. Prisoner: Merely so. Dr Brown deposed that on - Sunday, the 14th of March last, he wont to the Hospital, and attended the deceased Elizabeth Dewar. He found the woman tossing-about in bed, and on examining; her he found three open wounds on the head and a bruise between the left eye and the left ear. One wound was situated three and a-half inches above the left ear, and another two and a-half inches above, and slig-htly behind the same ear, and another was immediately in front of the same ear, and nearly severed it from the head. The skull was broken, and the bones were pressing- upon the brain. Witness removed the depressed parts of tiie bone, after which the woman lay more quietly and breathed more easily. He saw her twice later* on in the day, and on one of the visits noticed a mark of a burn on her rig-ht foot, two or three burns above the rig-ht ankle, scratches over the right ankle, on the left calf, and outside the left knee. The woman died at half-past 12 on Monday morning', without reg'aining- consciousness. The woman's movements in the bed were violent, and she had to be held in bed by the attendants. Witness subsequently performed a post-mortem examination of the bodj'. The wounds could have been inflicted by the axe produced. The width of the axe corresponded exactly with the wounds situated above the ear. I Witness went to the house of James Dewar, | and there saw the body of the deceased James Dewar. There was a gaping- wound on the top of the deceased's head, through which the brain protruded, and his face was rather extensively covered with blood. The pillow was covered with blood, and the middle of the pillow was deeply depressed. (Witness described minutely the appearance of the deceased and of the bedding-.) Tiie walis of the room three or four days ago presented exactly the same appearance as when lie first saw them. There was a bed in one corner of the room in which Dewar lay, a chair between it and the door, and the axe lay on the floor of tiie house. A number of large spots of blood were on the wall, and over the head of the bed was a smear which might have been caused by the woman's hair being dragged across it. On the inner upper panel of the door there were some small species of blood, and on the lower part of the door there was a large surface smear of blood similar to that at the back of tiie bed, and caused by tlie woman's head coming in contact with it. The floor was in such a mess tiiat it could hardly be seen at all. From the appearance of the deceased, he judged that the man who had inflicted the blows had stood at the side of the bed and dealt the blows in a slanting position. One of the blows contained a distinct impression of the head of the- axe, and from this lie judged that the handle of the axe must have been j held about IS inches in front of the chair, and if a ! left-handed person he would stand near the chair; or J if the axe was used with the left hand first he would j stand in the same position. Probably all the blows j were delivered rapidly, the person who dealt them ] never moving from tiie position he had first taken up. j Witness believed the deceased was killed in his sleep. j Prisoner: He died instantaneously after he had got ; one blow ?—Yes. • Dr Brown continued: The specks of blood on the door, he believed, spurted back from under the axe. ! A blow given by the axe would cause small spots of ! blood to spurt backwards. The blows on the woman's ! head were not parallel—one was at an angle. He ; could not form an opinion from the wounds on tiie • woman's hand as to hew she was struck —the wounds ! were not parallel. He imagined that the woman had | her head raised when she received the first blow; when I sdie received the other? her head was on the pillow. ; The pillow where her head had been was deeply dei pressed. Tiie skull of the woman was much more I fractured than the man's. He accounted for this by j the fact that the woman's skull was much thicker i than the man's. Witness accounted for the blood on j the wall by the woman moving about after she had •: been struck. He did not think'it impossible that she j bad tin-own herscli out of bed, but she may have been i dragged to where she was afterwards found. He I omitted to mention that there were some small bruises ; on the right thigh, hip, and groin, as well as one on | the left arm ; but they were very slight. On examin- ; ing tiie white shirt and collar, the Crimean shirt, and j unJer-'hniiel of the prisoner, witness found blood spots on them. Mr Haggitt: Yfould your Honor allow the Jury to use a magmi'ying-glass in looking at the clothes ? His Honor: 1 can see no objection, although it might not help them much. Mr Ilaggitt: I can show your Honor that it will make a wonderful difference to use a magnifyinggiass. I do not know whether it is allowable "to use a magnifying-giass. His Honor : I do not see why you should not. The Jury may use anything to improve their eyesight. It is the same as a juror having defection of "sight using spectacles. 1 see no particular objection, and the Jury will then be able to see the exact position of the blood spot-. Witness continued that ho received the prisoners coat from Youngman, the Town Belt ranger. It was damp. One spot of blood was found on tiie left lappel of the c- .at, and another on the right. Another spot was found on the edge of the lining, on tiie right sleeve. His Honor : What was tiie size of the spots on the coat ": Witness : About the same size as those on the shirt. One on the left lappel was slightly larger than the others, being about the size of the heaoTof a match ; while the others were about the size of a pin's head. Dr brown repeated the evidence given by him at tiie former inquiry, and being examined regarding the trousers, said: On the trousers produced lie found four clusters or clots, similar to those on the coat and shirt, over tiie right pocket. Two other spots were found nearer the centre of the trousers. There were no marks of blood on the left side. Witness swore they were blood spots ; they corresponded with those found on the coat, and the spots on tiie coat he had examined chemically and microscopically. Two chemical tests were used. With the aid of the microscope witness saw the blood discs. Pieces had been cut out of tiie coat and shirt for chemical examination of tiie blood spots. The spots on the coat came there through fluid blood being propelled against it with considerable force, and on the shirt the same, except the stains at the back. Blood from direct contact with scratches on the hand would not have produced similar .spots; but the smears at the back of the trousers near the brace buttons might have been caused by that means. All the stains were in a line and above the crutch—none were below it. Tiie height of Dewar's bedstead and mattress, after the mattress had considerably sunk, was 2ft. lin. The man's head on tiie pillow would be about 3in. or 9in. above that. It was 2ft. sin. from the lowest spot to the bottom of the trousers; and from the highest spot on the trousers 2ft. Sin. One or two inches would be a fair allowance for the distance from the bottom of the trousers to the ground. Mr Haggitt: Assuming' the man to have been standing the distance you have said from the bed, would the lower portion of his legs have been protected by the bedstead from any blood which spread in that direction ?—Yes. Witness examined the spots on the door and architrave carefully with the naked eye and the small mag-nifying-glass. Some of them were in small clusters. He found the clusters in front of the shirt—one on the shoulder, one under the right armpit, and on the coat and trousers. He found the spots on the coat in clusters also; and one cluster up the left sleeve. Mr Ilaggitt: How do you account for these spots being there, and for blood being also found upon the coat ?—The man must have worn his coat, for blood was upon it, aud the coat had been unbuttoned. How would the spots get into the position described ?—lf the waistcoat was open those on the shirt could be easily accounted for, and if the coat was thrown back those on the left sleeve would have spurted up the sleeve, as the shirt appeared to have been unbuttoned. Those on the right shoulder were quite near the front of the shirt.Then, supposing the man's (waistcoat to have been opened, lifting the arms would have opened the coat sufficiently to allow blood to have got on the shirt where it appears ?—Yes. And with regard to these on the left sleeve. Supposing the blow to have been struck with the left hand foremosts j'ou would expect to find they had spurted there?— Yes. This concluded the examination-in-chief. The Prisoner said : Well, your Honor, I cmnot say that I am prepared to cross-examine the witness at present. You see I think that I have been treated with extreme treachery on the part of the prosecution. His Honor: Why ? Prisoner: In the preliminary investigation a few small spots here and there, altogether amounting to perhaps 20 spots; on the coat, for instance, two spots alone w r ere pointed out to me. The coat was sent down to me by the police at my particular request, in order that I might examine it to prepare for my defence, and two spots alone were pointed out to me. Of many of the spots pointed out now by Dr Brown I have not been informed, on the depositions or at my own request. I have only been informed of about one spot, for perhaps 10 in different places, where Dr Brown has spoken of now. As an example, I could take the coat. I have only been informed by the depositions and otherwise of two spots on the coat. Dr Browri:deposes now to I don't know how many. ' His Honor: How many do you say you found on the coat, Dr Brown ? Dr Brown: Five, I think, your Honor. '' Prisoner: If you will look at the depositions your Honor will find a certain number of spots mentioned,

a: :• 1 ■.: i..:. ■; • hem is doubtful. Ido not know if your dep >-'-.\ i":is correspond with mine. Hi Honor (on referring to his copy of the deposition: j: Vo-\ The doctor says that on each lining ■h re is a blood stain. He speaks to two spots definitely, and another that is doubtful. (To the witoes-): At the time of the preliminary investigation, i>r Brown, had you made the full examination? Witness: I have discovered two spots on the coat since. Prisoner: The police sent me "-down the clothes about a week ago with one of the detectives to point out tiie spots there were, and so forth ; and of all the spots that have been now sworn to by the witness, I suppose that not one-sixth, one-seventh, or one-tenth part were pointed out to me. I have not, accordingly, had time to prepare my defence. It is the very extreme of treachery. His Honor: I don't see how it could be avoided, because of course Dr Brown had not previously spoken of all the marks. He has acquired further knowledge since. Witness : Another thing is, that I was told by the Magistrate to be very brief. His Honor: But'l suppose you pointed out at the nroliminary investigation all the marks that you knew of? Witness : So far as I was allowed to. His Honor : I think if that was the ease—that your examination was curtailed—it is a very great pity, because it will be obvious to everybody that this is the most important part of the case. However, the circumstance that something else has been found since the magisterial inquiry cannot affect the question. Prisoner: But have I not a right to receive notice of any fresh evidence? His Honor : No. If there is a fresh witness to be examined you have a rig-ht to know. But if a witness has been examined and can make his evidence more complete, you are not entitled, so far as I am aware, to have knowledge of that. Prisoner : Not that the investigation be carried on in my presence ? His Honor : Of course witness carried on his investigation in your absence. You have no right to be present at tiie time Dr Brown made a chemical or microscop'cal examination of the coat. Prisoner: When he testified to it I should have thought I had a right to be present. His Honor: I don't see how it really places you in any difficulty, because the fact of there being one or two more blood spots makes very little difference. Prisoner: Very well, your Honor. Mr Haggitt: It can in no way alter the fact. His Honor: That is what I was saying. It can in no way alter the fact-that spots were found.—Ask the witness what questions you propose to ask him. Cross-examined by the Prisoner: — Do you describe these spots now as when you saw ! them first ?—Yes. i Do von think that the deceased, James Dewar, was : asleep* when he received the blows ?—Yes, from the ! position in which I found him. j And there was no evidence of a struggle ?—No. i And you judge from the number and character of the blows iiinicted that his death, and nothing else than his death, was determined on on the part of the ; murderer ?—Yes. I You think it probable Mrs Dewar might have been ' attacked when asleep ?—That is probable. i ' Then you think it is more probable that she was attacked in her sleep than otherwise ?—I should say the other way—it was more probable that when attacked her head was raised. : And vou judge from the blows that her death was i intended ?—I cannot say so positively for her blows. The blows were given with the intention of stunning . her. The blow behind ■ the ear was not so severe a blow as compared with the others. • Have vou any means of knowing which of these blows was received first?—l should imagine that at ; the back of the ear. It is in a different position to the others, and at a different angle. The others are more horizontal. ; I scarcely understand j'ou. In a line from her head towards her ear?— Yes. j Prisoner: Here is a bust.—Witness pointed out the place where the blows would have been on the ! head of the woman. ! You think the first blow would have produced un- : consciousness? —Yes. ! The skull was fractured. It must have been a severe : blow, then ?—Yes. j It would not have produced unconsciousness ?—Not nccessarilv. ! Were all the blows sufficient to have produced ; unconsciousness or not to have produced a stunning : effect?— Yes. I The other two would have produced unconsciousness ?—Any of them might have produced it—any of the blows she received. From the nature and the position and direction of the wounds, is the nature and position and direction in accordance with the theory that her husband had attacked her in her sleep ? In answering this question vou will recollect the amount of blood on the woman's "pillow.—The amount of blood was due to the wound which separated the ear. ! lam asking you if the nature and position and the direction of tiie wounds is in accord with the theory that the man attacked her in her sleep.—l have already stated I thought it probable she had her head raised," and if her head were raised she would not have been asleep. Were the blows struck by the person who committed the murder in one position'?— The person who inflicted the blows must have altered his position. Is there any reason, now, why he should not have alter his position ?—I don't know. Well, now, was there any reason why he should altered his position ?—I don't know, i Then it follows from all this that there was no neces- ' sitv at all to set up a theory that the woman sat up in , bed ?—I think it very probable-she sat up in bed. '■ Why?— Because o"f what I have told you already. I Either the woman's head altered its position or the i person inflicting the blows altered his. ! Prisoner: Between repulsion and dropping of blood, ! the angles being equal or nearly eoual, would there be ] any perceptible difference ? '. His Honor: In the stains or spots? ! Prisoner :In the appearance. I His Honor :In the appearance. ! Witness : Yes ; a drop can only fall at right angles !to the surface of the earth. A drop of blood proi pelled from the source of propulsion would likely | split up by the force that propelled it into a number j of small specks. j Prisoner: Surmosing the surface- was not at right ' angles ? j Witness :If the surface was not at right angles the j drop falling would have a long-tailed appearance — I oval-shaped, and spread out. j Well, supposing a- drop of blood propelled from a | distance of, sav,"three to live feet lodged in the front i of tiie clothes about tiie loins, and supposing, on the j other hand, a drop of blood should fall from the face I while shaving, would there be any perceptible differi ence ?—Yes. j Why ?—The blood falling from the face would produce an elongated • I beg your pardon. Suppose a person shaving is seated : "sunpose the ease of a drop of blood propelled from a distance of three to five feet, and suppose, on the other hand, a drop of Wood from the face while seated.—A person sitting shaving- would have the part of trousers stained with blood in a line perpendicular to the surface on which he was sitting, so that the drop falling would have a long mark. Well now, you see my arm, and now you see my chin (striking"an attitude)? —Yes. Well, if I were sitting, the loins of my trousers would lie much in the same line. Now if a drop of blood fell on my arm, would there be any difference if it were propelled ?—There would be a difference under the magnifying-glass. In the case of blood falling on the loins there would be a large clot. In the case of blood propelled from a distance a drop would be divided and subdivided; partly also from the fibres of the coat, so that it would be in a cluster. I have verified this by experiment. His Honor: Would not the coarse fibre of the trousers have a- similar effect in splitting up a drop of blood—a spurt of blood ? Witness: A drop of blood would not be subdivided in the same way falling. I understood "you to say that it would be subdivided by the fibre of the trousers ?—Divided by propulsion from a distance, and probably also by the fibre of the trousers; but a drop falling would not be so divided. Prisoner: If it fell two feet aud was propelled two feet, how could you possibly detect any difference ? Witness : Because it requires no force for a drop of blood to fall, and it requires very great force to propel from a distance. If I let this pencil (which prisoner had in his hand) drop, now, would it fall by the force of contraction ? Do you know of anj- other force bj' which it would go to the ground ?—You might throw it.. If the blood was shaking on my loins, would it not acquire as much force as if it were propelled ?—lf it was shaking. Well then, you cannot distinguish between the two? —I can, for I have made experiments. I am an expert. Are you giving evidence as an expert ? —I am answering your question. You saw me at the time of the police investigation ? —Yes. Did you notiee any scratches on my hands?— Yes. How long was that after my arrest?— The police investigation was on the 24th March, and I do not know what day you were arrested. Prisoner : I was arrested on the 14th; that would he 10 days. His Honor: You noticed the scratches on his hands 10 days afterwards. Witness: He showed me scratches on his hands at the time. Ten days after the occurrence ? —I think it was on the 24th March. Prisoner: Now if these scratched hands had touched or been applied to the clothes or had been shaken, is there any spot on ,my clothes that either one or other of these hypotheses will not.account for? — I do not think you can account for four spots on the sleeves in this way. The only spots that can be accounted for by contact of the hands are those on the back of the shirts. Well, some of them can be accounted for by mere contact. Will you mention any particular spot that might not be "accounted for by any of these three reasons? — On the right armpit and the left sleeve. His Honor : Are these the only ones ? Witness: No. . .- ... '-; His Honor:: The spots under the right armpit and on the left sleeve -cannot be accounted for in the way you have mentioned. Prisoner: .Under the right armpit and the left sleeve. They could not be accounted for by the shaking of th e hands ? Witness: No. Why ?—Because of your position. Because of my position ?—Yes. Then the blood being shaken from the hands could not reach there on account of my position. Under the ' rmpit?—Not the armpit.

Not the armpit; and the left sleeve?—No ; I believe they could not be accounted for. I cannot conceive these being accounted for in that way. Then another thing, doctor . Well now, we will say that ! am among these lawyer bushes, as they ave called. Well, possibly, pushing through the lawyer bushes . You can conceive a man passing through lawyer bushes?— Yes. I "think I better leave the question for the Jury to decide.—Scratches from these lawyer bushes do not bleed very much. You think, then, that the scratches on my hands would not account for the blood on the clothes ? No. You think not ?—No. If I were scratched much about the hands would that fact not account for all tho blood on my clothes ? —No. Prisoner: I would call your Honor's attention to the depositions. Kis Honor ; I have the depositions before me—" The scratches might have caused the blood on the clothes;". Witness : Iliad not then seen the trousers, and since that time I have discovered these spots on the left sleeve of the shirt. I was asked by the prisoner at the Gaol if these scratches might have causal the blood on the clothes. I thought it was possible, and still think so. Prisoner : I beg your Honor's pardon. His Honor : The witness can make an explanation. You have challenged his correctness, and he can make his statement. He says he has seen other spots which can be accounted for in that way. Mr Haggitt: And he has seen the trousers. His Honor : And has seen the trousers. Witness: What I said then was that the spots I examined at that time might have been caused by scratches, although I stated—l do not know whether it is in the depositions—that it was improbable. His Honor: I do not think that was stated, however. Prisoner : That was not stated. Witness: I know I distinctly stated so. Whether it was put in writing or not I do not now. At all events, I will refer your Honor to the Coroner's depositions. Prisoner : Then all the blood on my clothes at the time of tlie police inquiry may have been accounted for by the scratches on my hand ?—I thought so then. You think so now?—l would think it still possible but for one spot which I have since examined more carefully. Which is that ?—lt is the fourth on the shirt. I do not understand.—l was lead to examine that one moreearefully on account of the spots that I had discovered on the trousers, and another one also, on tho armpit, that I examined more carefully afterwards. (Prisoner here showed the doctor the shirt.) There was a spot on the left side, what is that (pointing to tho shirt)? A spot ?—That was a spot. Yes. Do you think that could probably be the result of the murder ?—I think the spots on the left sleeve. Do you think that spot could have been produced so? —At the police investigation I stated that I could not account for the spot that has been removed hero. Since then I have discovered this in a line with it, and I account for it by the bloo-i spurting up tho sleeve. His Honor : How high up ? Witness : Fourteen inches at the highest point. One spot is 4 inches up, another 7, another 11, and another 14, and one between 9 and 10V Could these have spurted up the sleeve ?—Yes ; the same as if it had been unbuttoned. The sleeve ?—The wristbands had been unbuttoned. You say the inside of the sleeves?— These blood spots are more visible on the inside. Thoy are visible on both sides, but more visible on the inside. How can you toll that they were spurted up the sleeve ?—Because they are more visible on the inside of the sleeve looking at them through the mag-nifying-glass. How can you tell that they were projected, and not applied? What is the difference?— Their minute character, and the.absence of anything like a smear. Is blood ever caused by fleabites ?—I don't think so, but they are too minute for that. Besides, there were two thick flannel shirts with sleeves worn. Prisoner: There were two thick flannel shirts worn underneath. Did you find any traces of blood on them ?—On the neck. And none on the arms ?—No. Prisoner : Well, your Honor, you see this evidence being so new to me it has confused me. I am not prepared to cross-examine the witness. At present I will discontinue the cross-examination till to-mor-row. His Honor : As to the blood, Dr Brown, you cannot tell, of course, whether it was human.blood or not ? Witness : It presented all the appearances of human blood. The appearances of the blood of all mammalian animals are similar ?—Yes. The blood of some animals is more similar to that of human beings than that of others. Of course the blood on tho shirt must have got on since it was washed last?— Yes. There is nothing- to tell how long the blood on the coat and trousers was on ?—No. You cannot tell how long it may have been on ? From a few hours to months. It may have been there for months ?—The clothes were so from the time they were found in the bush. If the blood stains had been old ones they would have yielded to the weather more readily than recent stains. The simple fact of their being exposed and damp would not have rendered them liable to be obliterated unless there had been some rubbing ?—No. Supposing it to be the case that the trousers in question had been put away for a considerable time, and then had been worn for about a month; supposing that had been the state of things, and you saw those stains upon them after exposure to the dampness, as they had been exposed up to the time they were found, could you say anything as to their age?— If they had been on the trousers for some months, and worn for a month, the wearing of them would have removed the blood spots. You say that?— The friction and rubbing would have dried it. Yes ; that is supposing that the stains on the clothes were exposed to the rubbing ?—Yes. Supposing the clothes had been put into your hands, nothing having been said at all about any murder, or anything of that kind, and you had been asked to see if there were any blood stains, and to give an opinion as to the probablewwa r in which those stains came there ; what opinion should you give ? —That the blood had been propelled against the clothes with considerable force. Does that apply to everything except what you call the smears ?—Except the smears. His Honor: That will do, Dr Brown. Mr Haggitt: Only one question. In your practice as a medical man you frequently got blood on your clothes. What did you find the best mode of removing it ?—Brushing- it after it had dried. Mr Haggitt: That will do, doctor. The Foreman : The Jury wish to know if there ave any witnesses who can testify to the shape of the waistcoat worn by the prisoner prior to the inurder. Mr Haggitt: The waistcoat has never been found. I do not know whether Detective Bain can speak to it. I am sure he is the only one likely to do so. His Honor (to Detective Bain) : Did you ever take notice of the waistcoat corresponding- to this suit ? Detective Bain : Yes ; it is an open vest. ■ His Honor: One like the prisoner is wearing, or one like .you are wearing ? Witness : It is an open vest, like prisoner is wearing now. Prisoner : I can produce tho waistcoat. It was taken from me in the Gaol tlie other day. I understood it was given to the police tho other day. His Honor : Let Detective Bain step forward. (To the detective) : Prisoner states this waistcoat was at the Gaol, and that it was taken from him there ? Witness : Yes; I received it from the governor of the Gaol. Mr Haggitt: What waistcoat ? Witness : One similar to this. Mr Haggitt: I was informed that the waistcoat had never been found. That was the information given to me. The Witness: This is the waistcoat (producing same). His Honor: That is what the Jury wished to know. Mr Haggitt: Was the prisoner wearing that when he was arrested ? Witness : I do not know; I was not present. His Honor : I presume he must have been wearing it. We had better have the constable who arrested him recalled. I suppose you will be able to show, Mr Haggitt, whether he was wearing that waistcoat when arrested ? It is a matter of great importance. Two or three constables have given evidence of what the prisoner was wearing when arrested, but the waistcoat has never been mentioned. Mr Haggitt: The fact of his having worn two waistcoats was not mentioned, nor the fact of a waistcoat having been found on him other than that he was wearing. His Honor: It is curious. Constable Townsend recalled, deposed that when he arrested prisoner he was wearing a waistcoat. Witness did not think it the same as the one just produced. Prisoner: I can put evidence in the box that I was wearing that vest, but it would place me at a great disadvantage at the close of my trial. Mr Haggitt: I will prove it for you. Detective Henderson: I went to Waikouaiti on thel evening of the 15th March, in company with Inspector i Mallard. I saw prisoner in a cell about S.liu at night. He was wearing the waistcoat now produced. Dr Brown, recalled. His Honor: Were the spots on the trousers and coat visible to an ordinary observer ? Witness: No, your Honor; not those on the trowsers I saw. There were some stains removed from the trousers, and I cannot speak of them. His Honor : The point of my question is this: From the spots you observed, do you suppose that a person who had been guilty of the crime would notice them, and take the trouble to make away with them —were they so noticeable that a person who had committed such a crime would brush them off as you suggested ? Mr Haggitt: If the counsel for the prisoner had asked such a question I should say it was a question for the Jury. His Honor: I will not put the question. You are right; it is a question for the Jury. I will simply put it this way: Were the spots so minute that an ordinary person would not have noticed them ? Witness: .They were. His Honor: As I understood you to say, they could not be seen without the aid of a magnifying-glass ? Witness: They could be seen unaided by the naked eye, but only by looking at them very carefully. There was one spot on the coat which was large. I think it was on the left lappel. His Honor: What size ? Witness : About the size of a pin's head. Dr Hocken was then examined. He had examined the shirt produced, and had found marks on it, which proved to be spots of blood. On the collar there was also a spot of blood. There were 14 or 15 spots on the shirt. Dr Alexander and witness examined the

trousers, on which was found Mood. Tho coat was also examined, and blood spots found on it. Cross-examined by the Prisoner : When you examined the coat, trousers, and shirt, did you know they had been examined before?— Yes. Dr Brown had examined them before. Did you before you examined them know that blood had been found on them ?—Yes; I know that blood had been found by Or Brown. Very well, then ; what was tho purpose of your examination ?—I suppose a confirmation' one. Still to find blood? Still to find blood. And to determino what that blood meant?— Simply to say whether it was blood or not. It was not part of your object, then, to dotomiino hiw it came there?—No ;at least that might crop up from the examination, hut tho examination was undertaken to see what these spots consisted of. Did you anticipate any such result?—As that there was blood there? Did you anticipate any result—did you anticipate—did you anticipate determining how they came thoro and what they meant?—l do not exactly understand the question. Did you expect to arrive at any opinion as to how they came there and what • they meant—whether murder or otherwise?—l should not draw any'eouclusion from the fact of finding blood there, if that is what you mean. His" Honor: No. I think the prisoner wants to know this : Did not yon start your investigation with the idea that tlie clothes had been worn by tho person ■ committing this murder?—l did. His Honor: You-did. That is what the prisoner wants to know. The Prisoner : I suppose you read tho papers giving accounts of tho police investigations and so forth ?—I did. I suppose you felt very strongly on the subject of the murder ?—Yes, I did. Mr Haggitt: I suppose your feelings did not induce you to see things through tho microscope which did not exist? —Certainly not. What you tell us is simply what you saw through tho microscope ?—Yes. Dr Alexander deposed that ho 'had examined tho waistcoat produced, as he examined the other clothes, and found nothing upon it. Mr Haggitt: I was the only person who was ignorant of tho existence of this waistcoat. ■ It was submitted to the medical men, examined, and nothing being found upon it, it was put on one side. Mr Mallard was ordered out of Court yesterday, and therefore I had no means of obtaining the exploitation. His Honor: However, the mystery of tho waistcoat is cleared up. Mr Haggitt: I fancy I said tho waistcoat had not been found. The real explanation is that Mr Mallard, who should have been beside me, was ordered out of Court. Examination resumed : Witness had examined the coat, shirt, waistcoat, and collar. The shirt was examined by witness on the 2Cith or 27th of March, and lie found some blood spots on it. There was a small patch of several minute spots, about two inches below tho collar-band on the front of tho shirt. On tho left sleeve, some inches below tho armpit, there was a single spot. In the other armpit (the right one) there was a cluster of small spots. Other places had been apparently examined, pieces having been cut out. He saw the shirt again on tho 13th of April, and found a number of spots about tho left sleeve. There were three spots four inches below the band inside; three also near tho band inside, and a small one five inches from the band ; a small one with a crust on it, or clot', inside, and another two inches below the buttonhole. On tho collar there was a single spot on the right siilb of it. Witness found one spot of blood on the'left-hand sido of the coat on the fold of the collar. This spot he cut out and examined with a microscope, which proved it to bo blood. Nothing was found by witness on tho under-flannel. Witness received the trousers on the 31st of March or Ist of April. They were thcnVet. Two days afterwards he examined them and fouifil a single spot of blood on the left sido near the crutch. Witness found all the spots with tho naked oyo, ami then examined them minutely. Nearly parallel with the spot on the left side, on tho right sido witness found five spots. On the lining behind there was a slight stain, which under the microscope gave the appearance of blood. Witness had been to the house where tho murder was committed, and examined tho house and the door. The wall at the upper part of the bed was splashed with blood, most of the spots showing an upward direction. The wall at the side of tho bed was also splashed, and there was alarge smear on it. On the door the spots were very small, and circular, and in one or two instances they were in little clusters. At the foot of the door there was a smear similar to that on the wall. Tlie spots in the clusters were very fine, and the clusters small; some spots on the shirt witness examined were similar to those on the door. He thought it most probable the spots on the door were thrown from tho weapon used, but they might have spurted from tho head of tho deceased. Mr Haggitt: Supposing the prisoner to have boon the murderer, and that he wore tho coat and trousers and shirt which you have examined, can you account for the blood spots—the blood which you' found on these several garments ? ' ' His Honor: Mr Haggitt, you had hotter say the wearer of the garments. Mr Haggitt: We know that the prisoner wore the garments. Witness : Tho spots found on tho clothes were such as .would be produced by the person engaged in committing the murder. Mr Haggitt: You see nothing inconsistent • His Honor: Really, Dr Alexander can hardly know tho pooition the person who committed this murder was in. Mr Haggitt: Nor does anyone know. The point o the question is as to the position of different spots of blood on the shirt. Some of those spots were found on the front of the shirt; others were in the avmpit, aad others were found up the sleeve. His Honor : Then ask him how ho explains that. I Mr Haggitt: That is what lam doing. (To tho witness) : How do you account for the position of the different spots on the shirts ? Witness : By the coat being open while tho weapon was being used. Witness continued : The spots on the trousers are within a lino of four inches in breadth. I have found none below that line. The inference I would draw is that the lower part of the legs was protected from the spray of blood which produced the' spots. The spots could not have been caused by scratched hands. There is an absence of smearing. Some of them are in very line spots and clusters, showing that the blood had been impelled on the shirt with some degree of force. There is a total absence of smearing on the coat and on tho shirt. Cross-examined by the Prisoner : Did you examine the house?— Yes, with reference to the blood spots I examined the house. You saw the blood spots on the door? -Yes. How low were they ?—They were down to the middle bar, ami I think some were below that. What would be tho distance from the floor to those ? —About a foot and a-half, or two feet and a-half. What is the distance from (lie middle bar to tho floor?—I suppose about three feet or three feet and a-half. Were there any spots on the floor ?—I did not see any; the lioor was wet. Were there any spots on tho chest of drawers ? There was one above the cheat of drawers, on tho wall. Did you examine the chest of drawers ?—Only casually. Did you notice any about the tabic?—l did not. Were there any spots that you imtioe.l on the middle part, towards tho outer edge of the door?—I noticed one spot about the middle of tlie- door. Was there any obstruction between the effusion bt blood and tho door—anything that would prevent blood from reaching the door?—No, 1 think not; I saw nothing. Was not a chair there? —A chair was there. Did you notice if there was any blood between the legs of the chair ?—1 did not examine it. How would you account for too manner in which the spots reached mo?— The manner in which the spots came on your clothes ? Yes, supposing I was the person who did the deed?— I think some of the large spots would have been thrown directly from the bleeding heads; other spots would have been thrown by the weapon when covered with blood. Which spots do you think would have boon driven directly from tho bleeding heads?—l think the larger spots—all tho spots on the trousers. His Honor : What was tho si/.o of the largest spots you found ?—The largest would be about the size of a small split pea; one on tiie coat and one on the trousers.about the same size. Those were the ones 1 cut out. Prisoner: Do you think the largo spots might have reached me from the bleeding heads ?—Yes. What spots might have reached me from tho weapon ? —I think the spots on the upper part of the clothing-. I think some of tho larger spots might also have fallen from the weapon. You say you think the larger spots might have reached me from the weapon. Now the finer spots?— The finer spots would be thrown from tho weapon Then, if I understand you, your right meaning is this : the larger spots would have proceeded directly from the heals of the deceased, and the finer spots would be thrown from the weapon?—Tho larger spots on the lower part of the body would be. Well, if the wounds upon the heads of tho deceased were inflicted by the axe, do you think the spots which are on the shirt could be accounted for by being thrown from the weapon ?—Yes. That is your evidenco?—lt is my opinion. His Honor: As to the spots on the shirt. Supposing a person sewing a button on a shirt happens to prick her finger and continues sewing, would the appearance presented by the shirt afterwards be anything like the blood on tho shirt the prisoner wore ? No, your Honor. There would not be those clusters of blood. His Honor: You say there were clusters of blood. What would they arise from ?—From the force with which the blood was thrown. His Honor: Supposing a person sowing a button on a shirt cuts her finger—not an improbable contingency —and then moves her hand about and continues to sew, -would that have the effect of throwing blood, such as this, from the finger on to the shirt? —I think not, your Honor, unless it were definitely spurted ■ on. .Mr Haggitt: I would call your Honor's attention to the fact that there are no buttons upon the front of the shirt. The blood is on the front of the shirt. His Honor: Are these buttons on the wristband 1 Mr Haggitt: Yes; but as Dr Brown called atton- • tion to the fact, they have not been usod. The Foreman: The Jury wish to ask tho samo question as your Honor put to Dr Brown—thoy wish' to know if the blood on the shirt was new. Witness: The blood had got on since it was washed.. last. The spots on the trousers and coat were little crusts.

Mr Haggitt: wilt v<«ir Hor.or a-k if the trovers could have pre-«rited t,b:\t m: !■} ■ >upposIngthey hail Iwn wran f'.r m:y eor:>iderabitf time, if Mood had been upon them? . , Witness: Xo. nor. f'.r any eon.-iderarne time. They might have for some time, bi: C I najuvA say howHi's Honor : A good brush would have removed it ? Witness*: A brush would have removed it at once—as soon ad the blood had dried, or as ?oon as the trousers had dried. When I saw them they were da m P.. . His Honor: How do yoa acconnt for the spot on the band of the shirt, which would have been covered by the collar? . Witness: That is one I have not yet examined. His Honor: We have had it on evidence that there was a spot on the collar-band. Mr Haggitt: That is the case for the prosecution. His Honor: I understand you wish to recall Dr Brown ? Prisoner: I can. I think, sufficiently deal with the evidence in my defence. His Honor: Then you do not wish to recall him ?

Prisoner: No. . ~.«_„ His Honor: Then that is the case for the Crown. (To the Prisoner): Do yoa intend to call any witnesses 1

Prisoner: No. your Honor. His Honor : ! shall certainty not sum trp this evenin" At this late hour I could not do justice to the case : bat I will leave it entirely at your option whether you make your defence now or to-morrow morning. Prisoner: Well, my defence win occupy a considerable time. His Honor: Ton can do as you like, but the case will not finish now. .... , Prisoner : I elect to-morrow. I wish to make one request, which ia only a matter of common justice, considering the great amount of new evidence that has been 'brought against me. I wish your Honor would direct that the clothes shall be brought to me to-night, and the spots of Mood pointed out to me, in order that t may thoroughly understand and know their positions. ....... - .v. His Honor : As a matter of fact there are pins tn the etothes (showing the position of the blood spots). Th« Prisoner: Oh, but your Honor, there are pins in but two ptaces only. His Honor : Would it he possible for one of the medical gentlemen to affix pins to show Prisoner: Your' Honor, if I might snggest, or, indeed, request, what stioutd be done, it is that one of the medical gentlemen should point out the spots to His Honor : That is a matter in the discretion of the Crown. Mr Haggitt: Dr Brown will do so. Prisoner: Well, as t have to prepare my defence to-night, will Dr Brown do so at once? Stc Haggitt: Yes: Dr Rrown will do it here as soon as the Court is cleared, your Honor. The Court then adjourned until 10 a clock next (Saturday) morning.

Satetrdat, April 17. (Before fits Honor Mr Justice "\Tilliam3 and a Jury.) Tlie> of the charge of mnxcler preferr?d ng-iin.-t Robert Butler waa_ continued to-day. Tho Court was crowded to txcess in every part. Hia Honor, ad dressing the Crown Prosecutor : D> von sum up the evidence, Mr Eag^ifct. The CtoETi Pro-routor : No, your Hr.nor. Hia Honor .- Now, pri-oner, is your time to nddreaj thu jary in your defence. Butler, after ?. ample of minutes* pjU3e, addressed the jury as follows in a clear, firm voicj, and with s-.v-.rwiy any interruptions, such aa he irude being to consult hia notea : Gentlemen of th* jury—This is a case wholly of ci.-samatai.ces which has been brought airaif.it rr.f m.'.lnlyby the fact that I was or:ce ""iK.fr.ru tjUtUy of a crime which at the time I frankly ackr.owlsdged. I say to you, gentlemen, that thei.fficsra of the pofcea started this inq-iiry with the evident conviction that I w\w th?" guilty party. This conviction g-itcii.g into th«:ir minds seem 3 to hava p raven re-1 ths in from following any other trail. No other clue has been followed on!:. It has not even been attempted to follow out any other clue. It has buen evidently assumed_ at once by th.s police that I was the guilty man. If not, then the murderer, out of the con fusion and diversion that have been caused by my arrest and trial—whatever the result of tliat may be—the guilty man may escape. You know that there 13 a sort of little fbh that generally escape 3 from it 3 enemies by the turmoil and mud raised by it in the'water around where it 13. I have said that this ca.3o is one wholly of circumstantial evidence. There is not one particle of direct evidence—it 13 entirely, purely, and as I have said in every particular circumstantial evidence. Now, nobody should be judged guilty of any crime on circumstantial evidence, unless the proof i 3 exceedingly strong. In almost all cases like this it is a matter of the greatest import. In a matter that involves life or death—a matter of the Jadt imfurt of me, and of not the last impori to yen, gentlemen of the jary—l B ay that in such a case as this if in no other case, the circumstances should be clear and distinct, without leaving any doubt whatever. Not only should there be a certainty in your minds th&t I am guilty, but there should ho the equal certainty that nobody else can fce guiliy. You must follow that up—not only must you be sure that I am guilty, bat he equally sure that no one clae can be guilty. Even at tai3 stage I a3k you the question —I ask you to put the question to > ourselves individually—think, can this be said of mt ; can this be said of this case? I ask yen to say whether, though certain circumstances have been twisted against mt», you can fairly and honestly, without the smallest sediment of doubt in your mind 3, say that the man who stands before you, whose life is in your handa, is guilty of the awful crime which is imputed to him. His Honor has expressed surprise, and ha 3 been good enough to express regret that 1 should have chosen to defend myself. It may have been unwise and imprudent. Since Hia Honor made that remark I have thought so, but I allowed my own knowledge of my innocence to be my surest confidence. I took my innocence for my strength. I wa3 not willing to leave my life in the hand 3 of any stranger. I was willing to incur all the disadvantages under which I was laying myself. I was willing also to enter on the case without any experience whatever of that peculiarly-acquired art of cross-exami-nation. I fear I have done wrong. If I had had the assistance of able counsel, much more light would have been thrown on the case than has been. In my own case I can see now that through want of dexterity and through want of presence of mind I have allowed circumstances to slip in which, had they been brought out clearly, would perhaps have placed rae in a more favorable view. It is because I took it for granted that you have no view of the case at present—yon are not like most of those who have listened here merely for curiosity, and not for criticism and judgment, as I am sure yon are doing—that I took in hand my own defence, trusting merely to my innocence. I said on a previous occasion, aa you have heard given in evidence, that I could not conceive how convicting evidence could be brought against an innocent man. That is why 1 trusted in my own powers as being quite sufficient for my support. I have had against me all the trained skill of an eminent counsel. I do not at all say or insinuate, or even think that that gentleman has taken unfair advantage of me. The case remains that, although I am not an utterly ignorant man, I am a thoroughly inexperienced one, and, therefore, so far as this matter is concerned, I may be said to be an ignorant man in having to ccmbat ski]}, ability, and knowledge which I have never encountered before. I think I before mentioned an old proverb which says that a " man who defends himself in a court of law has a fool for a client," and I tried to console myself with another reflection, that " thrice armed is he who has his quarrel just." Another proverb occurs to me now which is as apt as the others, " It is easier to attack than to defend"; and against this I will try to console myself with another old saying, which ia " God defend the right." Gentlemen, I shall endeavor to rest npon the force of truth alone.

When a crime so great as this occurs in a community small in point of cumbers, no one can remain indifferent; and this feeliDg applies not onlv to Dunedinbut ; to the whole Colony. Few groat crimes occur which give rise to other feelings than indignation—perhaps no greater feeling than curiosity. But that with which I am charged most have produced one of almost universal terror—certainly so far as the town is concerned. I can easily conceive that there are few families in Dunedin who have heard of this crime who have not trembled and said : "It might h.-.ve happened to ourselves." The foremost feeling in the community was rather of pity for the unfortunate victims who have met with such a fate, and as I have just remarked the feeling of dread or terror : on their own accounts. Now, gentlemen, ; terror ia the worst of pain, and I think its reaction is one of the moat dangerous maladies. Three thing 3 combine to render my position here before you to-day very dangerous; there are the two feelings I alluded to and my own utter isolation. If I succeed in my struggle for life, or whether I do not, there ib no one to care. On the other hand, Bociety is saying and doubtless believing that its most earnest | desire ia to see that justice should be done and the law vindicated and this crime atoned for. But let society beware that the innocent does not suffer in order to obtain a visible and jnstly called for retribution. There are some who are apt to imagine that they see the bolt of Nemesis, perhaps, through Divine providence, falling on the head of the—l will not say "guilty"— but the accused. Well, gentlemen, thi feeling does much to influence the decision of many people who are even intelligent. I say that you have to pines it with the rest of the evidence that has been given, and which, I believe, you will find to be equally trustworthy. And now, gentlemen, there are three thing 3 which I have a right to require of you : first, that yon consider the taking or the preserving of my life a matter of the most extreme importance; second, that you carefully look into your minds, and reject all private, or personal, or peculiar feelings or sympathies whatever; j third, that yon view this case and shape your verdict entirely and solely according to what ■ you heard here in this Court-house and what i you should hear. That is to say. you should j consider the evidence and nothing but the ! evidence. It would be hard indeed to I think that you should have come here without any knowledge of the crime or any opinion of the crime. Yon have read the 1 papers ; you have heard it commented on ; doubtless you have commented upon it yourselves ; doubtless before last Thursday you had formed an opinion; and had certain sentiments of your own in connection with this crime. I have a right to ask you to empty your minds completely of such. I think ic right to ask you to make your minds until the time comes for your deliberations a perfectly blank sheet of paper. There should not be a mark upon it. Let it ba perfectly clean ; and then, when the time cornea for your deliberation, fill it up with what you have heard hare and nowhere else. In speaking so deliberately and premeditatedly to you I am not presumptuous, fur consider the terrible position in which I am placed, and you must at once admit that I have a right to speak very strongly. My position is a very terrible one—no position can be woree ; in fact, no position can be so bad. There 13 one position leas awful than mine, however, and that position, gentlemen, 13 yours. I will now ju3t comment slightly upon a few remarks with which the learned Crown Prosecutor opened his case. I think if there one thing more common than another in the speeches of gentlemen in the position of Crown Prosecutor, it 13 that of begging the question. Nothing is more common than this, that he should state a thing, and endeavor to take for granted that it 13 perfectly true. The learned gentleman said that from the Leighton's I went to the Botanical Gardens. I ask him how does he know that I went there? What proof ha 3 he that I went there? I might have gone there late in the day; and, doubtless, I did so. He says it ia not known how I got to Blueskin. Well, if it be unknown how I went to Blueskin, I can only say it should be known. Certainly it is not my place, or rather I should say the police arenot likely to ferry out any item of information that is in favor of the accused. If that had been done in this case, perhaps the Crown Prosecutor would have been informed that along the road to Blueskin I was repeatedly seen, and that I called at many houses. There is no need, therefore, for him to say that how and when I went to Blneskin is unknown. He also told you that the seat in the garden, whereon I am supposed to have been seated, overlooked the house. This is not the case, as it has been shown to you in evidence that the seat does not overlook the house, and that no spot within many yards of it does so. This is another example of begging the question. He also said that while I wa3 in the Saratoga Hotel I overheard the remark of Mr Coleghan : " What a shocking murder that is that occurred this morning I" How could he or anybody else know that I overheard that remark ? Then it i 3 said I got away from the hotel as soon as possible. The first section of this statement ia begging the question, and the second ia not true. Perhaps I may as well mention to you now that the witness Donne saya I remained in the house for supper, and took it, and then departed. ' Therefore I do not see how I could have got away from the hotel as soon a3 possible. "Then, speaking as to the knife, the Crown Prosecutor said that it gave two or three clues. It did not belong to the house of the Dewars ; that the murderer evidently brought it with him. Why, a robber would not bring with him such an implement aa that. As an article of defence it is utterly useless. You will recollect, gentlemen, what the knife is like. As an article of defence it is utterly useless, and it is of no value as an instrument for house-break-ing. Now, I say that such an article aa this evidently brought by the murderer, speaks of a settled design to commit murder. Did he bring it intending to use it upon the sleeping people ? He would not bring it aa a means of offence or defence, orasa means of getting access to the house. There is a conclusion, gentlemen, which seema to my mind natural—horrible though it may be —and that conclusion is, that he brought it with the intention of cutting the throat 3 of bi3 victims, and that finding that they lay in a rather different position from what he expected, he changed his mind, left the knife, and went back and brought the axe with which he effected bis purpose. That course of events seems to me to be in perfect accordance with this theory, as I shall presently endeavor to show you. The Crown Prosecutor also said that, speaking of the shirt, I continued to wear it, " thinking no doubt there were no marks of blood on it; because he could hardly imagine that had I believed there was on the shirt such evidence as there was I should have not have continued to have worn it." I aay if the blood were bo conspicuous that the police when searching noticed it, is it at all likely I should have continued to wear it ? There was no difficulty to have removed the shirt that I was wearing, and did not trouble myself about the blood upou it which was bo conspicuous ; that I even did not trouble myself about it after my arrest when I was charged with the murder, and did not suppose any evidence would be brought against me; that I did not trouble myself to look after and wipe out the blood stains, when I

wns wearing the shirt two days in gaol, speaks much more eloquently tban Mr Haggitt's assertion. If I had abandoned the other clothes on account of the blood, to say I was ignorant of the far more conspicuous marks on the white Bbirt, seems absurd or supposes one a madman. Mr Haggitt promised you a narrative form. He did not carry that interesting idea out, I think ; but, so far as it went, it was scarcely so consistent as it might have been. He says that I entered the house with the idea of plunder only, but murder, if disturbed; that, while searching, Mrs Dewar awoke, and to avoid detection I struck Mr Dewar and Mrs Dewar. Now all this is begging the question again, and has not been proved. But the learned gentleman with a childishness —if he will excuse the remark—which seemed suprising in him, after assuming that I went into the house with the intention of plundering it, and having been surprised supplimented it by murder; when he had forgotten this no doubt, he says the murder was done from no other motive than a thirst for blood. In the latter assertion I think that the learned gentleman has hit the truth ; and I think I shall before I have done lay before you substantial reasons for you to come to that opinion. Two things have been done by the prosecution—first, the commission of the crimehas been proved ; and secondly, certain actions and movements of mine have been pointed out, together with the other circumstances connected with me. But between that crime on the one hand, and me on the other, there is a gap which has not been bridged over. The police have found a trail, and they have found me at ore end of it. Turn back now, and see if the trail leads to the sctne of the murder. I wish, and hope, to show that it does not. I say that the trial is a wrong one ; that it has been taken up in the middle—at a distance off from the unfortunate victims whose death is so horrible to me. I am at one end of the trail, but the victims are not at the other end, and there are suspicions and inferences ; and a few misapplied inferences are the limbs by which it is sought to bind me to a crime that has few parallels in the annals of New Zealand in its circumstances of cruel horror and atrocity. But, though an immense mass of evidence has been taken—though nearly thirty witnesses have been examiaed —the connecting link has not been found. You have heard all the evidence : all that can be said has been said ; all that the ability and acumen of a practised lawyer, whose profession, gentlemen, it is to make the moat of the least—has he, with all the information at his disposal, backed up by aH his skill and experience, made it perfectly certain that I am surely the man that must justly die for this horrible deed ? The whole dreadful apparition that I have to contend with stands before me and before you. It gives rae the idea of a skeleton in armor. I ask you if in that armor there is no imperfection—there is no rust there ia no rivet wanting? Even at this stage I say again that I do not think anybody who has listened here can say that a perfect certainty has arisen, and at least it has not in your minds, who, I repeat, I trust have listened with judgment and criticism. Before I review the evidence, let me briefly recapitulate the case as far as the counsel for the prosecution has laid it down. Between six and seven, en the morning of the murder, the accused is first seen. He is then in the same vicinity, or more correctly speaking, in the same part of the town. He is wearing his usual clothes, with his usual personal characteristics. His manner is said to be " worried, pale, frightened, trembling, excited, and restless," so much so that one witness soon after suspected him on hearing of the murder. Immediately afterwards he 18 seen to walk towards the street in which the murder took place, and to look earnestly in the direction of the tragedy. He then provides himself with pxovisions for a secret flight, and is next seen thirteen hours after thirteen miles away. He is now "weary arid listless, uneasy and thoughtful." On hearing the murder spoken of he_ starts, and show 3 signs that are afterwards taken for fear, and alarm suspicion. He leaves the house soon after, and is arrested on the evening of the following day a few miles further on; and when arrested he is found armed, prepared, and ready for a dangerous resistance before he could have known that his arrest was contemplated or intended. When charged with the murder he displays extreme agitation and incoherence, at one time defying the police to obtain evidence against him, and the next moment saying that he supposes he will be convicted. The clothe 3 that he had got rid of on the Sunday morning are subsequently found, and prove to be marked in many places with spots and stains of blood, and in a manner not accounted for by ordinary and every-day causes, but quite explainable by the theory that they were worn by the murderer. Boot nail marks are discovered on the window sill of the house whore the murder took place, and when the accused was arrested the outer soles of his boots had recently been removed. This is the case, gentlemen, as the prosecutor put it. I have not tried to put it weakly, or to deaden its force in any particular. I have recapitulated the points that have been urged in their simple elementary strength, passing by for the time the numerous fallacies and errors that I know to exist. The whole of this is contained in four heads, upon which you have been urged to find a verdict which will place me beyond the pale of humanity and deprive me of existence. These four points are—My being in the south (north) part of the town not long after the murder; the disturbance of my manner and my guilty appearance; my leaving Dunedin at a suspicious time and in a suspicious manner : the spots of blood upon my clothing. To the first I might fairly say, that towards seven o'clock in the morning and within the same radius from the scene of the tragedy scores of people might have been, and doubtless were, in the streets; to the second —that my manner wa3 disturbed —I may say that it is doubtful and contradicted, and in any case not necessarily and in itself referable to the mnrder; to the third part, I assert that has another explanation (applying equally to the other two), and the true reason ia the more natural and the more consistent with all my movements; for the fourth reason, at present I will be content to trust that when you, gentlemen of the jury, have examined the evidence as carefully as the doctors profess to have examined the blood spots, you will think it far more safe that you should trust your own senses and intelligence than to be led by the nose by the doctors —by the nose as wild Indians are led by their "medicine men." For the present I ask you, I repeat, to entirely suspend your opinion. My conduct, when viewed with reference to the murder—my conduct and movements when viewed with reference to the mnrder are suspicious, and unnatural, and inconsistent—suspicious, because the murderer might have done some things that I did; unnatural and inconsistent, because I did a number of things that it is hard to believe the murderer would have done if he were in his senses. "Well, I say viewed with reference to the murder my conduct was inconsistent and incomprehensible ; without reference to the murder I will show they were perfectly natural and easily understood. My leaving Dunedin and the circumstances connected with it are explained by the belief that my arrest had been planned for the burglary at the house of Mr Stamper on the previous day —the Saturday morning and by the

fact that I had known I was under the strict surveillance of the police. My conduct, which was suspicious at the most, is likely and natural when referred to this, which is the true cause of my leaving ; and as all my movements were governed by this fact, it will be found that everything I did has the evidence of this natural and enforced explanation ; and, outside of this, all my movements are doubtful and inconsistent. Wishing you to bear this in mind, I will now ask you to look through some of the evidence that has been given. The first stage of the evidence simply proves that a crime was committed, and the eleventh witness on the list is the first that points to me. This witness—Sarah Gillespie—has the first thing to say of me. She saw me at twenty-five minutes to 7 < n the fatal morning at the Scotia Hotel. This amounts to saying that she saw me at my lodgings ; I was there because my lodgings were tfiere. If my lodgings had not been there 1 would not have been there, and this accounts for my being in that part of the town at all. Why I was there so early will appear better in another place. The second thing she has to say is that I was wearied, excited, frightened, and very pale. Well, allowing for a moment that my conduct did not come up to Miss Gillespie's standard of ease and decorum, without inquiring what that standard might have been, I do not think it likely her experience and judgment and powers of observation are beyond the average, or that she is able to determine that my manner might mean any given emotion, such as fright, as she puts it, or hurry, or any given disturbance whatever. She admits that I was suffering from a very sore throat, or, in other words, a violent cold; that I complained of having had no breakfast, and spoke anxiously of catching a certain early train. Well, in the light or darkness of after events, all this might have been misinterpreted by one wiser than Miss Gillespie. Just as one on seeing a hole dug in the ground, and a little further on seeing a trowel lying, might come to the conclusion that the hole had been dug with the trowel: well, it might, and again it might not, and probably not, for holes are not dug with trowels—trowels are for other purposes—and holes are referable to other causes than trowels ; and there is such a thing as manufacturing a theory to fit the circumstances. Thirdly, she says that when she heard of the murder, immediately afterwards—much less than an hour—she suspected me of it. Whether her hearing of the murder within an hour after might not have begot or heightened her impression of my manner may be a question for you to consider; but the next two witnesses, who saw me almost simultaneously, positively assert that there was no disturbed appearance in my manner whatever. The witness Leighton, who was called immediately after the servant girl, says that I was quiet, and that there was no peculiarity in my manner, eyeept that I was quiet. The witness Wadsworth, who saw me almost simultaneously, says also that I was not disturbed in manner; that I was quiet, and did not appear frightened. Putting the evidence of the two witnesses, Sarah Gillespie and the boy Leighton together, it must appear at least doubtful if my manner was disturbed at all, or if at all more than natural to the causes mentioned, and without any reference to the murder. If Miss Gillespie spoke what she implicitly believed—and what she believed was true—then you will see at such a time and in such a place I had not sufficient strength, or mind, or will, or purpose to hold the least control over myself when I had such profound motives for pulling myself together and holding myself together while in her very observant presence. Although I gave way so completely in her presence, and though I was trembling—though I ran out of the house, though I was very excited, very pale, restless, disturbed, and so forth—a few minutes afterwards the next witness that saw me indicates that my manner was perfectly self-possessed and under control. Now, either I held complete mastery over myself or there was no disturbing influence in my mind whatever. Wadsworth wa3 then called and says that I stared at him and he stared at me, and I suppose that is why we stared at each other. He speaks of my throwing some stones at some vagrant dog. Well, gentlemen of the jury, that is scarcely an amusement that would suggest itself to a murderer fresh from the scene of his crime, while the blood of his victims was still warm almost within a stone's throw of it—it was scarcely an amusement that would suggest itself to such an one. He says I walked up Cumberland street, and looked for a minute, or nearly a minute, in the direction of the murder. Now, while the evidence of Leighton indicates that my manner was natural and selfpossessed, how can it be possibly thought that at the same time I should have lost so completely all control over myself as to have, in his presence, knowing that he was watching me as he says, walked deliberately and calmly up to the scene of the crime—almost standing beside my victims—and have carefully reconnoitred the place. To put this together with the theory that I had there, only a few minutes, as it were, before, have perpetrated a horrible and ghastly murder, may appear natural to small minds ; but to anyone that will look into it and examine it, nothing can be more inconsistent and unlikely. None but a superficial or small mind will persist in connecting the two things, and adduce my walking up Cumberland street as an evidence of guilt. There is more reason to look upon it as an evidence of innocence. It is only moths that fly into the fire, and only children and fools—only madmen and unmistakeable fools that will walk to the brink of a precipice that is crumbling beneath their feet. There is a sort of stock idea that a murderer is always compelled by some invisible force as it were to do some glaringly foolish thing that will bring him within the grasp of the law and the vengeance of God. Well, this is a vague kind of reasoning, if it is reasoning at all. The doings of men and their success are regulated by the amount of discretion and judgment that they possess, and without impugning or denying the existence of Providence. I say that this is a law and holds good in all cases, whether for evil or for good. It is a law universally true. Murderers, if they have the sense, and ability, and discretion to cover up their crime, will escape, do escape, and have escaped. There is another stock saying "That murder will out." Well, there are many people who, when they have gravely shaken their heads and said. " Oh, murder will out," consider they have done a great deal and gone a long way towards settling the question. Well, this, like many other stock formulas of Old World wisdom is not true. Without pointing to the many murderers in high places from Nimrod downwards —how many murders are there that the world has not heard of, and never will? How many a murdered man, for instance, lies among the gum-trees of Victoria, or in the old abandoned mining shafts on the diggings, who is missed by nobody, perhaps, but a pining wife at home, or helpless children, or an old mother ? But who were their murderers ? Where are they ? God knows, perhaps, but nobody else, and nobody ever will. These, gentlemen, are not the sentiments by which a case should be judged in such a place as this. Perhaps it is superfluous and ridiculous on my part to mention them, but such things do have weight in forming the opinion of some men. Then, how often, I ask you, has the lightning, not of justice, but of the law, fallen on the head of innocent men? Gentlemen of

the jury, I implore you—l require you—to remember this, in the name of justice, in the name of my life, in the name of the awful responsibility under which you _ are sitting there now—l was going to say in the name of God, but lam not given to cant. If the fact that I walked up to Cumberland street and looked in the direction of the tragedy be urged as an evidence of guilt, I have at least equal right to urge it as an evidence of innocence—for unless the canons of superstition be applied to the fact, and the rule that murderers are drawn to the scene of their crime by fascination, it is incredible that I should, in the presence of witnesses, go towards and examine the place in such a marked manner. But the reason of my walking up and looking about me is shown in the evidence. You recollect that the witness Leighton says that while he was in bed a rap came to the door ; that he got out of bed and dressed himself, and by the time he got to the door nobody was at the door, but going into the street and looking up he saw a maa some distance up the street. Nobody being at the door he went in again, and alaioat immediateiy afterwards the rap was repeated. "Well, now, this bears its own explanation. I went to the store to make a certain purchase and the people were In bed. I rapped, and there was no anßwer given within a reasonable period. I concluded that I could not be seived there, and walked a little further up the street—to the corner of the street —and looked about for another shop. Looking back I saw Leighton had answered the rap and come out. I returned again and made my purchases. What would a murde>er look towards the scene of a crime for ? To see if the fire had taken effect ? Well, hewouldhaveVnown that equally well without placing himself in such danger In a crowded locality such as that at that time in the morning; And when people were getting out of bed and moving about such a fire could not remain concealed; in fact, did not. as it appears. From the appearance of the photograph the fire must have been discovered almost immediately. The murderer would have known whether the fiie had taken effect or not by seeing or not seeing people running by the place, or by hearing or not hearing the fire-bell, or seeing or not seeing smoke without coming so close as he did. Perhaps it may be said he went there to see if the murder had bef.n discovered. Did he think it would not have been discovered? Did he think the victims would lie there for ever and that it would never be known ? Do you think he wouM not hear of it too soon? The evidence of the three witnesses, Sarah Gillespie, Leighton, and «' ads worth, contains nothing conclusive, scarcely even suggestive. What at most does it amount to ? First, that I was seen on the morning of the murder at my own lodgings, not in the v.cinity of tha murder ; second, that in the opinion of a young woman 1 hsd a disturbed and alarmed appearance; but in addition to her own contradiction she is positively contradicted by two men, and not merely by them but by the direct tone of the evidence. As to my looking down Cumberland street, it shows no reason why I should not Sirah Gillespie says I was trembling; that she saw me; that I ran out of the house. She says this—she swore that she had said it aft the previous investigation—that I was trembling when she saw me, and that I ran ou oof the house Wow she ventured the • emark " This is not the first time I have said it—this is the second time I have said it." His Honor at once showed that this was false. Then she has been, regardieis of her oath twice. On the first occasion when she swore to tell the tiuth, the whole truth, and did not, regardless of the oath ; and on the second occasion when she said she had iLade a statement on the former occasion.

His Honor : She used the word " trembling " at the Coroner's inquisition. Prisoner : It was the Police Court I referred to. His Honor : You asked her if she had used it on the previous occasion. Prisoner : It wa the Police Court I questioned her of. I said nothing of the Coroner's inquisition, but mentioned x,he Police Court. "Vv ell, in such an awful case as thi9, a witness should net dare to give his or her evidence in such a random, make-up manner as this. If he or she does, I scaicely see how you can trust the testimony. The best that can be said for her is that she speaks upon her oath iashly and carelessly. You cannot credit, I think, the account of my tre.'abJiug—which is a item introduced because, a few momenta afterwards, Leighton and Wadsworth saw me and I was not trembling. However much you may credit the reference to my rushing out of the house, she herself says that when I got out I stood at the corner. "Wadsworth sa?s I walked up the street casually, and the evidence shows that I loitered and lingered about the street. Then at one time she.says I was vesy pale. A little after she says I was not so pale as I generally was. ' She says, too, that when I came there I had my coat buttoned up I showed that this was not the case, bfCiuse there were no buttons on the coat; and not merely so, because if you were to examine the coat you would find it extremely improbable that the flips of the coat had been turned up at all; you will see no pins or marks of fastenings whatever. There is an element of suspicion, too, in Wadsworth's evidence. He swears to_ my looking towards the scene of the murder, iiis podtion, my position, and the scene of the murder were at right angles, and he wiihes you to believe that, standing here, he could see me looking in this direction, and does not know whether I was looking in that (the opposite) direction or not. Now that is a very improbable thing, and, viewing it in connection with the other circumstances I have mentioned, the improbability is still further deepened. There is another witness, Constable Townshend. He found some fresh thing to say, and, like others, what now crops up ior the first time is extremely important. He says that I said I was glad I did not shoot him, for I already had enough upon my hands. I could put evidence Luto the box—l could gut evidence before you to show a third rendering, another rendering of this expression totally different. It reminds me of the old woman's stocking : she said one pair of stockings lasted her two years one year she knitted new feet into them, and the next year she knitted new legs on. JSow, if she had attempted to pronounce to you that there were two pair of stockings in the case, you would either have suspected her intelligence or truth. Well, gentlemen, there 3re old women of both sexes in the world, and I think you have no more right to suspect the old woman of the stockings than you have to su pect Constable Towcshend. Bear in mind, too, the evidence he gave in connection with the waistcoat. He said yesterday very positively—although not absolutely, he left himself a sort of margin to wriggle about in—he said this was the waistcoat I was wearing when he arrested me, and that this [the one produced], I did not wear when he arrested me. Another police officer then stepped into the box and swore positively that that was the vest I was wearing when arrested. Constable Townshend was the arresting constable ; he searched me, and he swears he saw the marks of bloou on me, and he has not intelligence enough to know what waistcoat I was wearing. He should know everything, especially about articles of clothing where the clothing is examined and marks of blood are upon them. I have heard the remark made that anybody would do for a policeman—some policemen really verify it. There are three other witnesses, all policemen- Inspector Mallard, Constable Townshend, and Constable Colborne. Now, gentlemen, 1 particularly call your attention to the items of evidence that were given by them. Inspector ai all aid says that his notes embody the whole of th e conversation. His Honor used this form of expression: he said "Those netes embody the whole conversation," and Inspector Mallard said " Yes " Now, Inspector iviallard being cross-examined, said "No" to this question. Was Stamper's affair mentioned to me 1 I asked Inspector Mallard if Stamper's affair was mentioned to me. Now, you will recollect the emphatic way in which he pronounced the no —" No !" I repeated the question in another form, ''Did you not say 'and there Is Stamper's affair, too'?" "No, I did not." Constable Oolborne comes into the box a little later, and I asked him the question, and he said, in quite a natural manner, "Yes, I think that was mentioned." Another point: I asked Inspector Mallard whether I did not say to him I did not sej how convicting evidence could be brought against an innocent man. "i»o, you did not say so." That,:gentlemen, was his answer. Constable Townshend came into the box afterwards. I asked him the same question, " Yes, you did say bo" was his reply.

A third point : I asked Inspector Mallard " Did I mai> e any remarks about the Octagon fire?" "No, you did not; you did some da-.s after—or befoie, I forget which —in my office;" but, speaking on this occasion, " No." How in that ? Constable Townshend, when answering the same question, says "Yes, you did." Another point: Inspector Mallard positively says, and from his notes too, that I was first charged with the murder; that I was not charged with anything before the murder. Constable Cclborne as positively and as persistently—for I put the question to him several times - says I was first charged with shooting, and was not first charged with the murder. Yet Inspector Mallard says the whole conversation was embodied in his notes. I have before on another occasion complained of Inspector Mallard's uufair and incomplete rendering of the words that were used. I complained very bitterly that he had given a garbled and unfair account of what I had said. He had so used and mixed up the couversation as to lead the public—and the public from whom my jury would be drawn —as to lead them astray. I complain now, as I complained before, that he selected here and there a phrase, pieced the half of one sentence to the half of auother, suppressed this and insinuated that, and gave to what was really said a totally unfair rendering These po.nts prove that jou cannot depend on his notes, and his notes are his evidence Ha says that his notes embody the whole conversation, and a;e a fair rendering of what took place. The evidence of his two witnesses proves clearly and distinctly that it was no such thing. Constables Townshend and Colborne between them show this, and show that I had got good reason for my complaint. They swear that things were said that he with great emphasis swears not, and the two between them at least throw considerable doubt on Mallard's faithful rendering of what was said, especially of what was said by me. Now, there is another fact that bears with extreme strength upon this point. You recollect the strictures—well, you recollect the remarks passed upon Intpector Mallard's conduct—that hu conduct was unusual and wroag. Sou recollect Inspector Mallard, with chaiming candor, said he was doing wrong, that he knew he was doii g wrong, but went on doiDg it; that he alto knew he w;.s doing wrong in a way calculated to injure me, and went on doing it to the end. Yes, that is perfectly true; his unfairness and ill-will towards me have been clearly shown by the way he has garbled the statements I made, and by his own admission of his wro- g-doing—his wrong-doing with the evident view with the effect of inju ing me. He, an officer of the police, charged With the discipline of other po:icemen, doing wroDg in the presence of ta se policemen, setting them an. example. Under the circumstances, is it too much to ask that you reject the evidence of Mallard altogether? Just consider all that has passed on the part of Inspector Mallard I ask you, gentlemen, to consider the circumstances ; consider the stake that is involved ; consider the extreme care that should be u* ed in i uoh cases as this, especially by experienced policemen, who should know eveiy thing- I ask ycu if it is too much to reject the evidence of Mallard altogether, that you lay no value at all u.uou anything in his evidence which telh against me, for he has shown manifest ill-will towards me, and ha a sworn things that are false? I ask you ag«in, is it too mucn to :>&k you to reject the evidence t-f Inspector Mallard altogether : remember, I am strugg.ing for my life, and have toit e right to comment strongly on the eviJecce. If I comment too strorg y you havu your own m>.moiy of what passed to go by and to judge Remembering that your judgment is one of life and death ; will you allow recklessw itnesses and contradictory evidence to wuigh with you in your awfuily responsible position ? If a man gets into that box and gives youreckless evidence - if he speaks carelessly iu such a matter as this, he does me a wro* g, but does he not do you a wrong too ? Does he not place you in extreme peril—:n danger of going through the remainder of your lives with perhaps the. burden of an innocent man's life upon your hands. Not for my sake alone, I implore you, but for your own takes, 1 ask you to reject the evidence of these policemen. It is a monstrous thiog that men should be put in peril of life by witnesses who now for the first time bring forward the really important items of evidence. The just and humane laws ui»der which we are living - which are made for your piotection as well as mine, for the protection of everybody—the e laws have a principle, I should think; if they have justice and the l-.w we separatd. Jasticc I should think would have a principle that whan a = acjus.td person, especially when he is one life is in danger, should not be taken by surprise. You have had several instances yesterday and the day befoie of the extreme nature of the surprises that have been sprung upon me. I think it will not be out of place in me to make a few remarks that may bs of some uso to you in forming your judgment of the evidence. It Ins occurred to me to make thee remarks by the style of the evidence offered by certain people here. I was about to say to you that the policemen have, and cannot help it, a bent—a direction of mind. The law says that a man is innocent until he shall be pronwnced guiity by a jury. But in reading or observing men, you cannot have failed to sea that the bent of a policeman is to believe in the untried prisoner's guilt. Their office is to seek for evidence of his crime, and to view every circumstance ks possibly helping detection. I'hey stait with the assumption that the accused is guilty, and their office is to find matariai to support that assumption—just as the iearned gentleman there assumes my guilt and uses the material supplied to him by the police. In proof of that assertion, if proof were needed, I refer to the evidence already given by the police What action or word of mine have they not pinned to the theory of my guiit ? For instance, Constable Townsend finds in ray possession this piece of paper. Well, it is one of a wide clas3 of objects to him- it is a thiDg he does not undeistand. if, under any other circumstances, he had found it, he would scratch his head, and then give up the subject as too profound for him. But in this case he looks at It with the eye of a policeman aud consequently he pronounces it to be a mask. Well, a child will take a stick, get on it, and pronounce it to be a horse, and he does so because he wants to believe it is a horse. I tui;;k the simi e applies to the constable. [The prisoner here described to the jury the mode of using the mask, whijh, he showed, was the key to a secret means of conveying information, the blanks being filled up by words known to the possessor of the counterpart ] There is another I diss particularly liable to a bent; at all events I to exaggerate, and that is woman. Need I I attempt to prove that ? Therefore I ask you to ; beware of the testimony of Sarah Gillespie, and i of the three policemen. First, as to the police- ■ men, because from their manner, or rather from | their profession, they are like reeds—if you lean on them there is a chance that they will I tend ta let you down; secondly, because their evidence is co; fused and contradictory—one swearing distinctly to something which the others deny. Take, for instance, the evidence of Inspector Mallard, which of itself shows the thing I have already described. [ The prisoner here again reviewed the evidence given by Mr Mallard.] I ask you to beware of the girl Gillespie's evidence, even although it is truthful In the main. I should be sorry t» deny it; but we know that women are specially apt to exaggerate. She gives evidence here that she did not give In the Police Court, and 1 the constable?, as I have pointed out to you, directly contradicted each other. Then in the name of common sense, in the name of rigid justice, in the name of your responsibility for the life of a man, I ask for the rejection of that evidence. I submit to you that you cannot safely trust the evidence of either Inspector Mallard, Constables Coulbourne and Townshend, of Sarah Gillespie, or of the witness Donne. [Prisoner here criticised tne manner in which Mr Donne gave his evidence, and charged him with using words the meaning of which he did not understand, and giving ridiculous depositions ] If this dreadful crime had not been committed, nearly the whole of the evidence that has been given here in this case you might have heard employed against me on another chaige if the police could have succeeded In raking up a seetion of the same witnesses- my manner, my leaving Duuedin, my disguise, all would have been as readily proved against me. ■J he blood spots nobody would have troubled themselves about, although I think I oan show they would have been there the same. I have before said that the whole ol my movements were governed by the fact that I believe my arrest had been planned, and was pending,

for the biiTglary at the house of Mr Stamper on the Saturday morning. Having committed this offer.ee, the town was no longer safe to mo ; I was known to the police ; 1 was under their immediate surveillance if they wanted me; I could not have long avoided thorn in a small place like this. My mit d was finally made up to leave Dunedin on the Saturday night by not meeting, as you observed, Detective Bain. I mtt him suddenly; he said I could not avoid him. He looked at me suspiciously, and asked me to meet him a little later. I omoluded that he fancied he had lulled toy suspicions for the presentthat he intended to take me later He would not arrest me then because I was armed, and I had reason to believe that he knew I was armed, and he has told you sinoe that ho knew of it, having been informed by ore of hi* brother officers—but then he was not prepared to interfere with one sin zle-hauded After that it was unsafe for me to go t j my lodgings where I wai going when I met him. i remained mo>tly in the streets till late. It was »■ rough and rai'.y night, as no doubt mvi y of you will remember i dared not go to the and I did not know many other places No, I remained in the ttreets tin pietty lute, and I drank rather more than was good for me. At abiut elev.?n o'ol o ! i I siou'd say I turned aside io. Geo ge str; et on siccount r f a heavy shower, but I scarcely knew wheiv, beL g more than half drunk, and remained there until the moT.ing, when I found myself in a brick building a little below the octagon, on the King street side, from where at about six o'«l«ok I went to the Scotia Hotel to receive my things and to carry out my previous iuteition a of going up-country. I went there so early bcu.iuse I supposed at that time I should be less likely than at any other to encounter Detective Bain or any other enemy at th»t place. It was natural that I should not bo altogether at my ease on this point, and that fact would account for any alarm in my manner, supposing suoh to have existed. Here is the reason for my alarmed demeanor, for my disguise, ar.d f ;r my movements at the Scotia, aiid for leaving Dunedin, and for everything that has been ureed aaainst me, save and except the blood spots Tnere are numerous inconsistencies in my conduct, if you conmot it with tlse murder. First, it Is altogether inconsistent with the theory that I planned and executed a murder of this soit h.o soon aftor my conversion with Bain, intha immediate neighborhood of my own »o;guigs. lhat idta is almost toe-edible. Then it is eq ally unliktly that if I would have done tuch a d-ed in the immediate neighborhood of my own lodging", bee use I must have known that such horror must have caused the stiictest inquiry to be made in the m ighborhood. acd that though I was a stronger \o the people in the neighborhood of this place, I was well Known to the police and w..uld have been pointed to and described eo that my capture would have been lendeied almost certain. As for the disguise I was said to have assumed it really wasnodirgufse at all. Itdidnotaisgniseme. Nrbody bad the slightest d«,ubt who I vas when rhev had seen me, if they had known me before. Wei, it is inconsistent with the theory of my b ing the murderer that I i-hould next have gone to a store i<> the immediate neighborhood going towards the crime, and should there have purchased provisions for speedy flight On the theory of the burglary tut re Is nothing inconsistent whatever, but rather likely. The fifth inconsistency I have already pointed out—that i", the fact of my looking down Cumberland street. Then it is a hard thing to suppose that I should hang about the place at all ai I seem to. l>ave done, if ( had such powerful motives (if this be true) for going awny from it as far as possible aud as soon as possible, My being there in such a manner points to the f;ct that I know of no reason why I should not bo there. Then my subsequent conduct was not inconsistent. I knew cr b litved the police were watching for me in town, but I had no reason to suppose I wa3 not Eafe out of town. Consequently I walked along the public road, avoided n body, entered places ol resort, took meals there ; in fact was traced iu this manner, and was overtaken by the police i>i the d-ntre of a public road, not car 115 to avoid them nnt, knowing they were police, they being in plain clothes. Wi 11, til's is glaringly inconsistent with the theory of the murder. The very wires beside which I was travelling would have told me, if I had ir.d cd to bo reminded that the crime was knowi already, and talked iibaut from Invercargill ti Auckland, I c..uld not but have known that every refcty township I appro; ched would have its policeman waiting like a upider to catch any buoh travel'eras myself. Icould but have J'liownthlp, Alter the luncheon adjournment tho prisoner continued his address to the jury. Ho explained to the jury, by marks made on the clothing ho wears to-day, the positions of tho blood stains and spots. All these marks ho accounted for by tho scratches on his hands The medical evidence had been presented with such nn air of pretension, that the jury should not allow themselves to ho unduly impressed with i'. The prosecution said that thoso bloiod-stains wore tho result of the murder. To nucha stai-tlinsr assertion as that the jury must require proof of the highest order, mid such proof wis not, compatible with mere circumstantial evidence. Wo givo in foil bis eonol'irtimr remarks :

I will just briefly summarise what 1 have said, mill leave the with yon and the Court Tim oifenco that I am charged With I deny now, ami I will deny it the day I die, be that very sumn or very fn>\ The police and prosecution have made the scenes and circumstances of one offence with which they have charged me, do duty as evidence in this case. The evidence isjnurely circutnslant'a' 01 nil points. A few misapplied inferences have seemed for a time to point in my direction If at any time any of you have thought you si.w a, light upon the cne, and that light Rhinitis: upon me, I n*k you what it was moat like—the light of the sun, the light of day, the light even of a farthing candle would lie useful ; or was it likej the light of the will o* the wisp, that can only lead astray. For every point that has been brought against me I have shown it is utterly and completely inconsistent with (ho theory of the murder. There is not a single thing which has been brought against mo which Iliavc not'pufcaside. There isnothingthatpoints in my direction. I cannot see how oven a suspicion can attach to me. A 'ot of intelligent professional men come here and try to put a rope round my neck with their—by making common sense topics a matter of oroiotmd, professional mystery and experience. A lot of policemen come here and show clearly and surely that they are tellincr—l was going to use a word that would scarcely chimcin with the dignity of the place. Kvory possible thing is in keeping with the one theory that I placed before you. while many are not in keeping at all with the theory of the murder. What the law may bo in such a case I do not know. What justice and common sense would dictate I do know, and I think you know. The prosecution has endeavored to show that I was in the neighborhood of 'ho murder un tho Sunday morning; that my actions were suspicious, and so'forth ; that on tho day of the murder I left Dunedin ; and that there was blood found on my clothes These few points that have been powerfully magnified, I think, have finished with tho most powerful point of all. I leave it to you, gentlemen. t<> say if the case for the prosecution has not been completely crushed anil set aside. I was taken by surprise in it. I was taken treacherously by surprise. I have not had time to propavo my defenco on the point. Still I leave it confidently iii your hands. My manner of being disturbed is much more than doubtful ; it is supported only by falsehoods and contradictions. My being in tho neighborhood of tho murder—of that I shall recall the fact that I was rot in the neighboihood of the murder, but in tho neighborhood of my own lodgings. I might havo looked down Cumberland street, which was at ono time a powerful sign of guilt; but if it is urged as a sign of guilt I can urge it as a reason of innocence. If I looked down Cumberland street it was because I knew of no reason why I should not look down that street. I have shown without reference to the murder that 1 had strong reasons for leaving Dunedin with altered appearance, although in this case the altered appearance did not amount to disguise. Nothing of tho sort. I have accounted for the spots of blood, shown how unlikely, how impossible it eould havo been that they had any connection at all with the murder. I have pointed out numerous inconsistencies In the case for the prosecution, which inconsistencies become natural and intelligible in the light of tho other theory. Finally, I havo shown how unlikely it is that the murder with all its mystery is tho work of a thief; that wo must look elsowhero for tho murder; that it has for its bottom and foundation, vindicti eness and malice; and I will now from horc point out the track to the police and put in their hands the course that they should havo taken before. I think that they have wnstcd a deal of valuahlo timo I have pointed out tho utter, tho complete absence of possible motive for tho commission of such a crime—nay, more, I havo shown powerful, overwhelming reasons which would havo prevented me from doing such a deed, even if, as a robber, I had entered the house at all. I will not detain you, gentlemen, by going into details, but I will leave it in your hands, confident that, as such details shall arise, my defecco upon them will arise in your memories. Finally, one word moro. I stand in a terrible position. So do you. See that in your way of disposing of mo you deliver yourselves of your responsibility. The prisoner concluded his address at exactly four o'clock, having spoken nearly six hours. The jury retired to consider their verdict at 6.6 p.m. [For continuation of our report, seo second page.]