TOWN EDITION.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2210, 17 April 1880, Page 2

TOWN EDITION.

THE DUHEDIN MUItDEHS.

The trial of Butler for the Dunedin murders was resumed at ten o’clock in the Supreme Court yesterday. Frederick Mallard ...was the first witness called. He deposed ; I am an inspector of police, stationed at Dunedin. Before the prisoner left town on the morning of March 11 I had conversations with him. Amongst other matters he spoke of crime—of all the great crimes that had been committed recently—of Pearce’s and of the Australian crime (Scott’s), and said how easily it was to destroy all traces of crime by fire. He referred to the Octagon fire as an example of this—how easily it could be done; and he also said how easily all traces of murder could be destroyed by fire. He further “ Said supposing, now, you were to wake up some morning and find some brutal murder committed, you would at once put it down to me, would not you.” I said “Ho, Butler, certainly not; the first thing I should do would be to get facts, and most undoubtedly if they pointed to you, you would be looked after.” This conversation would be] subsequent to Feb. 23. I find I have a memorandum written on that date. The remainder of the witness’s examination-in-chicf was a repetition of the evidence previously given by him |at the Coroner’s and Magisterial enquiry. The witness was reading over notes of conversation with the prisoner when The prisoner said : Bo careful you read everything that is on that document.

His Honor said that prisoner would have an opportunity of looking at the document and of cross-examining upon it. (To Inspector Mallard) : You had bettor hand prisoner your notes, Mr Mallard, that .you have refreshed your memory with.

Cross-examined by the prisoner : Then rny hands were not much scratched ?—I think there were a good many scratches upon them. I think I have said so here.

You say you felt the difficulty of your position Aviicn you were in the lock-up at Waikouaiti. Then give me an idea of the peculiar difficulty of your position that you felt thrown upon you ? What I felt was this ; I though that by carrying on a conversation I was doing wrong, possibly ; but I felt that I was in charge of a very difficult case, and that t would go on with it as I had commenced, and leave it to 103- superiors to animadvert or otherwise upon my conduct.

I am asking a question. Did 3*oll, when 3'ou charged me with murder, give me any warning ?—I did not. His Honor : It is not necessary, "Witness: JS T o; it is not I had weighed up everything in 1113' mind on my way to the lockup, but by asking the questions 3*oll did you entirely altered the state of matters. Prisoner: I have always understood that if not actually nccessaiy it is at least usual for an arresting officer to give some such warning to the prisoner, more especially in a case where it involves life or death. I do not know whether it is a matter of necessity, but merely looking upon it as a matter of fair play and humanity I am asking information of 3*ourHonor. His |Honor: It is a matter of discretion. It may be desirable to do so ; but Ido not know that a constable is open to censure for directly or indirectly pul ting questions to the prisoner, and of course the more serious the crime the greater caution should be observed by the arresting constable.

Prisoner : In this case the crime is of the verv gravest nature, and it naturally follows that the censure is of the highest nature, and therefore the conduct of the officer is in the highest degree reprehensible.

You came and held a conversation wi th me ?—I did.

How long was it after that you made your memorandum ?—Well, I 'lay down and debated with uysclf for fully an hour ami a half whether I should make this memorandum at all, but I decided afterwards to do so.

His Honor: You need not go into that at all, because if your conduct was wrong in having a conversation with the prisoner your plain duty was to make a memorandum as soon as possible. Prisoner : Then yon did not make the memorandum as soon as possible. His Honor : You did a few hours afterward ?

Witness: Yes, as soon as I had made arrangements for accommodation for the night and other matters.

This is the memorandum? That is the memorandum. The memorandum you wrote to Waikouaiti ? —Y'cs.

This you wrote on the 15th of March ?

I wrote that at about two o’clock in the morning of the 16tb of March. Very well; you have got another memorandum there ? —I have.

When did you ■write it ? —Which ? That one open ? —I wrote this on the 24th of February, in my office at Dunedin. Prisoner: Hand it to me.

Is this the memorandum you read from at the preliminary investigation ? —That is the memorandum I produced. You say the clothes wore in your safe from the time they were taken from meP —Yes, except during the time the medical gentlemen had them. Always except those times ? —Yes, I locked them up each time. They hare been in your charge all the time ?—Yes.

No one has had them except you ? —I carry the key of the safe. No one has access to it but you?— No.

Prisoner (to witness): Hare any reports been made to you, as an officer of police, concerning me within the month previous to my arrest —from the 18th of February downwards. Witness : Will you be kind enough to put that question again ? Prisoner : I ask you if, from the 18th of February downwards, any reports have been made to you concerning mo ? Witness: If j r ou will specify the nature of the report, then I will answer the question. Prisoner . You know whether reports have been made or not.

His Honor: You moan, I understand, reports of any kind or any nature. You can answer “ Yes” or “No,” Mr Mallard.

Witness: Yes; I have had reports about you.

Prisoner: Well, what were they ? His Honor : I do not know whether this is relevent to the issue. Ido not think the witness should be called upon to answer the question. It cannot possibly affect your case. It is needlessly prolonging the inquiry. Of course you know your own case best, but it seems to me the answer could not do you any good. The answer may do j r ou a great deal of harm. You bad btt'er consider before you insist upon the question being put. The reports that ho has had have nothing to do with the case. The question legally is not admissible, but, at the same time, to a person in your position I hardly wish —I do not wish— to confine you, of course, within the strict limits. If 3 r ou wish the question to be asked I daresay the witness can answer it, but 3 r ou had better consider before 3 r ou put it. I think the effect of it will be to let in a quantity of hearsay evidence against 3'ourself.

Prisoner: Can I recall this witness again at any future time. His Honor: Yes, If you have any particular question to ask him, he can be recalled at a future time. If you are not prepared with that particular question now, and 3'ou think during the progress of the case yon see your way to ask it, he can be recalled for the purpose.

Prisoner : That will do.

Dr Brown repeated the evidence given hy him at the former inquiry, and being examined regarding the trousers, said: On the trousers produced he found four clusters or clots, similar to those on the coat and shirt, over the 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; tbey correspond with, those found on the coat, and the spots on the coat he had examined chemically and microscopically. Two chemical tests wore used. With the aid of the microscope witness saw the blood discs. Pieces had been cut out of the coat and shirt for chemical examination of the 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 lino and above the crutch—'llollo were below it. The height of Dewar’s bedstead and mat trass, after the mattrass had considerably sunk, was 2ft. lin. The man’s head on the pillow would be Sin. or bin. above that. It was 2ft. oin. from the lowest spot to the bottom of the trousers ; and from the highest spot on the trousers 2ft. Bin. One or two inches would be a fair allowance for the distance from the bottom of the trousers to the ground. The evidence of Mr Hocken and Dr Alexander was similar in every respect to what they gave at the prev ions inquiries. [By Thlegrai’ii.] Butler is addressing the jury at great length. He explains that Lis reason for leaving Dunedin on the Sunday morning of the murder was his belief that his arrest for Stamper's burglary on the previous morning had been planned. The Judge sums up after the adjournment.