Man Faces Charge of Slaying Chinese

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 499, 31 October 1928, Page 11

Man Faces Charge of Slaying Chinese

KYEBURN CRIME CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE Press Association DUNEDIN, Tuesday. William John Hardie pleaded not guilty in the Supreme Court to the charge of murdering Joe Leong Shun at Kyeburn Diggings on July 17. Mr. Justice MacGregor, addressing the Grand Jury, said it was fairly clear that the Chinaman was murdered for his gold, which disappeared. The only question was whether the evidence was sufficient to point to Hardie as being the murderer. Sue Pee,, who lived with Shun, said that after dinner on July 17 accused, a perfect stranger, called at the hut and said something about a murder which had recently taken place. The Chinaman treated Hardie hospitably. The man, according to Pee, asked if Shun had a gun. and an old magazine rifle was produced, which he loaded. Accused asked if Shun was getting plenty of gold and went outside, ostensibly to look at the claim. Pee later went to chop wood and noticed Shun lying some distance away, groaning, and saying he was dying. Shun said the man who was there hau shot him, and asked Pee to go to the hotel for a doctor, but the latter was frightened. Shun told him not to be frightened as the man had broken up the gun and thrown it into the tussocks. Pee slept that night in the tussocks and reached tho hotel next morning. Some days later Pee identified Hardie at Dunedin as the man who called at the hut. Pee’s evidence was • lfrect prima facie evidence of murder against Hardie. His evidence did not stand alone, but was corroborated by other evidence. Hardie said he was in his own hut .Lt three o’clock on the afternoon of the 17th, but that statement was contradicted by Peo and another man who said he saw Hardie near Shun’s place on the morning of the murder. That was exceptionally important. Another contradiction was found in Hardie’s statement when in his wallet were found certain photos corresponding with some Pee said he had displayed in the hut. Hardie said he had received no gold from a Chinaman, but had got the gold* out of his own claim. Hardie did not have a miner’sright, and experts said the gold taken into Naseby by Hardie must have come out of Shun’s claim as the gold was different in colour dnd quality from gold In other parts of the district. A true bil was then returned. When Hardie was escorted into the dock he appeared nervous, but pleaded not guilty in a firm voice. Mr. A. C. Hanlon appeared for him. Before the Jury was empanelled, the Crown exercised 12 challenges and Mr. Hanlon three. Mr. F. Adams, Crown Prosecutor, in opening, said there had been a certain amount of sensationalism in public reports and on behalf of the Crown. He urged jurors to recognise nothing but what would now be produced in evidence. Shum had met his death by bullet wounds. Two of the four wounds could have caused death. There was no possibility of the defence proving self-defence. It was either murder or manslaughter. The Crown could not produce any actual spectator of the crime, but' there was evidence which took them very close to the time when the crime was committed, namely, that of Sue Pee, who was in the hut when Hardie arrived and saw deceased and Hardie leave together. Counsel proceeded to trace Hardie’s movements and emphasised the importance of knowing what chance Hardie had of getting gold, since he had two ounces in his possession when, arrested. The opening of Mr. Adams occupied three hours. He said there were 30 witnesses to be called for tho Crown. At the conclusion of Mr. Adams’s address evidence was given by two of the witnesses, after which the court adjourned until to-morrow morning. The jury w&s accommodated for the night under police guard at an hotel close to the court.

It is expected that the case will occupy four days. When the jury had been empanelled in the murder case the waiting jurors were discharged from further attendance, and for the remaining cases on the criminal list. A fresh jurjy panel has been summoned for Monday next.