THE WAIHI TRAGEDY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 93, 14 December 1912, Page 5

THE WAIHI TRAGEDY.

THE INQUEST ON EVANS

(Per. Press Association.) Waihi, December 13

The enquiry into the circumstances in connection with the death of Evans as the result of injuries received on the occasion of the disturbances at the Waihi Miners’ Union Hall, on November 12, was resumed to-day, before Mr. Wallnutt, Coroner. Mr. J. R. London appeared Idi* hhA the deceased, and Mr. Selwyn Mays on behalf of the Crown. A number of witnesses were recalled and cross-ex-amined by Mr. Lundon.

Walter Edmund Harvey, undei cross-examination, denied having a re volver in his possession at Karanga hake on November 10, and at Waihi on November 12.

Ernest E. Canham, president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, deposed to having attended the postmortem examination of the body of Evans by Drs. Savage and Bull, on the evening of November 15. There was no sign of a blow on the back of the head, but what was left of the left ear was crushed into the skull. From the left ear round to the right brow there was one continuous bruise, evidently caused by the one blow. There were six to eight abrasions on the lower part of the face, and the nose was dislocated.

At this stage Mr. Lundon was proceeding to question witness concerning a conversation said to have taken place with Harvey during the luncheon adjournment, in the course of which the latter was alleged to have stated that he had a revolver in his possession at Karangahake on November 10, when Mr. Mays objected, contending that the conversation was confidential.

Mr. Lundon recalled Harvey, who denied having informed the previous witness or a man named Lark that be had had a revolver in his possession on the date mentioned. The examination of Canham was then resumed, and he stated that Harvey had, in conversation, mentioned that he (Harvey) had a revolver at Karangahake on November 10, but if he acknowledged its possession he would be put up for perjury. Continuing, Canham said that be had already deposed that there was no signs of injury on the back or top of the head.

Mr. Mays: Did you examine the inside of the scalp after it had been turned back? Witness; No. Did you examine the outside of the skull after the scalp was removed ? Witness: No. Did you examine the dura mater (that is, the inner lining of the skull) to see the blood films? Witness; No. Mr. Mays: Then why have you the temerity to come Tien; and say that there were no signs of injury to the top and back of the head? Witness: 1 stood aside and watched what the doctors did, but ] didn’t examine the scalp or skull, and didn’t do any of the “butcherv work.”