HARD LABOUR FOR LIFE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 506, 8 November 1928, Page 1

HARD LABOUR FOR LIFE

Hardie Unmoved by Sentence

BRUTAL CRIME AT KYEBURN

Death of a Chinese Miner

(Special to THE SUN) DUNEDIN, To-day. WILLIAM JOHN HARDIE stepped briskly into the dock this morning; to receive his sentence for the manslaughter of the Chinese, Joe Shun, at Kyeburn Diggings. He listened intently to the remarks of his own counsel, the Crown Prosecutor, and the judge, and after hearing the penalty of his brutal crime left the court without showing any signs of emotion. He was sentenced to imprisonment, with hard labour, for life.

His features did not change throughout the eutire hearing, which took about 20 minutes, and which was marked by a significant silence on the part of the crowd in the court. The remarks of the well-known criminal lawyer, Mr. A. C. Hanlon, who put up such an able defence in the trial, were delivered in his usual precise and telling way. He pointed out that the Jury had taken a lenient new of the matter. The jurymen had hesitated to return a verdict of murder, entailing the death sentence, probably because they could not picture in their minds exactly what took place at the time the deceased was killed. While the crime was a serious one. meriting a severe penalty, he would express a desire that his Honour should inflict a penalty which, while protecting the public, acting as a deterrent to others, and punishing the prisoner, would not shut out all hope of Hardie being released some time in the future.The Grown Prosecutor, Mr. F. B. Adams, was scrupulously fair in his remarks, just as he had been right through the trial. While pointing out that it would be. hard to imagine a more heinous crime, or one more deserving of the maximum penalty, he told the court that Hardie was abnormal to some extent, and that this had

no doubt had something to do with the origin of the crime. MOTIVE TO STEAL GOLD “It is quite plain, from the evidence, that Hardie killed the unfortunate victim,” said his Honour. Mr. Justice MacGregor, “the motive apparently being to steal the gold. The jury, of course, has a right to convict of manslaughter, but on the same evidence I think it might equally have convicted him of murder. The penalty for murder, of course, would have been hanging. The penalty for manslaughter is provided for in section 191 of the Crimes Act, which says that any person who commits manslaughter is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life. After carefully considering the facts of this case, I find myself unable to inflict any less than the penalty which is provided for by the Act. There are no extenuating circumstances which I can see to lead one to inflict less than the maximum penalty. “If the prisoner shows signs of reforming, then no doubt it will be open to the Prisons Board to take such steps as it considers advisable in the way of releasing him or otherwise. The sentence is that- prisoner be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for life.” “SEEMED ABNORMAL” CROWN PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT BRUTAL CIRCUMSTANCES Press Association DUNEDIN, To-day. In sentencing Hardie, his Honour said it was quite plain that he killed the unfortunate victim in very brutal circumstances. He was a young man, 22 years of age, who had been in and out of industrial schools from an early age. He seemed to have been incorrigible, and dishonest, and had been convicted for forgery and uttering, and theft. Mr. A. Hanlon, prisoner’s counsel, previously intimated abandonment of his intention to get the judge to state a case for the Appeal Court with regard to the admissibility of the dying declaration of the Chinaman. Joe Leong Shun, a Chinese was fatally shot on his claim at Kyeburn Diggings on July 17. There was no actual spectator of the crime. The chief witness for the Crown was Sue Pee, a fellow-countryman of the murdered man, who lived with him on his claim. In his evidence Sue Pee stated that Hardie had arrived at the hut where he and Shun lived, shortly after dinner one day. Hardie said he was investigating a murder in the neighbourhood. He asked for and was given a gun and cartridges, and he and Shun went in the direction of the Chinese claim. Some time later v Pee was returning after chopping wood when he discovered Shun lying near the hut, groaning. The dying man said Hardie had shot him after stealing his gold, and told Pee to get a doctor. The gun had been broken and thrown away. Pee left for help, but. being frightened, slept that night in the tussocks, reaching town after daybreak. Hardie was arrested at Caversham, and later was identified by Pee in an identification parade at Dunedin. Thirty-five witnesses gave evidence for the Crown. The four main features of the case for the prosecution w r ere the unreliability of the statement in w T hich Hardie explained his movements before and after the tragedy; footprints, proved to be Hardie’s, found on the claim; gold sold by accused and proved by experts to have come from Shun’s claim; and the evidence by Sue Pee of Hardie’s visit. A verdict of manslaughter was returned after a retirement by the jury of two hours.