TRIAL FOR MURDER. THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED. AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 289, 11 August 1888, Page 3

TRIAL FOR MURDER. THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED. AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

The Supreme Court of Fiji was occupied for a whole week in hearing the charge of murder pi ef erred against a European named Brown and a Fijian named " Jimmy." The accused were charged with the murder of a trader named Henry Stuart, at Sabetto, | in the Ba district, on February 29th last. The prisoners were defended by Mr Garrick and Mr Thomas respectively. The case for the Crown depended upon the testimony of a Fijian named Eparama, alias Dick, who gave evidence at the magisterial inquiry in a measure indirectly implicating the accused in the crime charged. On the hearing of the case by the Supreme Court this witness deposed to having been present in the locality, in a yam house, on the morning the murder was alleged to i have been committed. He deposed that while in the yam house he heard a sound described as the gasp o£ a man being choked, that on hearing this Tie took up in his arms a' load of six yams, and went out o£ the yam house to the place whence the cry came. On doing so he saw Jimmy standing in the road and Brown in a large drain at the side of the road, that the man Brown had hold of Stewart by the arm endeavouring to drag him into the scrub, that Stewart was lying on his back at the time, and on witness looking at him he saw he was dead, and that his throat and face were discoloured as if he had been strangled. The other testimony consisted of an alleged confession by Brown to a man named Ilaini, a brother of Tui Sabetto. The defence relied on was that the witness Dick had given entirely different evidence before the magistrate, and that though the man had undoubtedly been murdered the accused were not the persons who perpetrated the crime. The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a unanimous verdict of " Not Guilty." It is hoped the Crown will not relax in their efforts to discover the perpetrators of this crime. The impression created by the evidence is that the witness Dick was shielding others whom he might have implicated. Commenting on the case., the " Fiji Times " sayt, : — So far, as Tui Sabeto and his household are concerned, the belief that the deceased had met his death at the hands of the two men accused, appears to have been a foregone conclusion. According to Tuis account, his wife struck the key-note of alarm by saying that the felt very anxious, and thafc she believed that the white men had killed Stuart, although it appears that, by some stiange coincidence, Tui Sabeto himself had previously had his suspicions aroused for the reason above stated. But this somewhat curious conjuction of impressions is marked by one or two incidents not often found in connection with such matters. The impression of foul play is strongly borne on the minds of Tui Sabeto and his wife ; strange to say, the principal witnesees for the prosecution are closely connected by ties ot biood and adoption with the very people whose predominant idea was that Stuart had been killed by the accused. Elami, Ihe man who alleged that Brown made the confession to him which would have marked the communicant as a lunatic, in addition to being a self-pro-claimed murderer, happens to be a brother of Tui Sabeto. Seruvaveli, who deposed to having seen Stuart proceeding towards the river at early dawn, and to have noticed Brown following him, is either brother or half-brother to the Tui ; while Diek — the man who swore that he heard the sounds of gurgling, and f-hortly afterwards saw both prisoners dragging the dead body ot the deceased to the place where it was subsequently found—is the adopted son of Tui Sabeto, and lives with him. A curious combination of circumstances which rarely presents itself in so remarkable a manner and when evidence is required to dovetail at a critical junctui'e At the hearing, the principal witness for the Crown stood, self-confessed, a perjurer. It was no part of the duty ot the jury to ascertain whether the man perjured himself before ohe Magistrate or before the Chief Justice. Perjurer he was acknowledged to be ; and with men's lives in the balance, the jury did well to disbelieve his evidence. Others also of the witnesses gave good cause to induce the belief that they perjured themselves. Of this there can be no doubt. Who suborned the evidence, is not made clear ; but suborned it most assuredly was. Until the entire matter be cleared up, a danger exists to which any person in the community may be exposed."