THE WEST FORT MURDER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 95, 18 May 1909, Page 2

THE WEST FORT MURDER.

Till': TRIAL OF CONNOLLY. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christehurch, Last Night. The trial of William Connolly for the murder of Ernest John Hourku at Westport on Bth -May, 1008, commenced before -Mr. Justice DeimUton in the Supreme Court. The prisoner was defended by Mr. A. K. Hani on (Duncdin) and Mr. Donnelly (Christehurch). Mr. Stringer, K.C., conducted the prosecution, and, in opening, laid stress oa Connolly's confession at Hokitika last September after he had been found guilty of perjury, the said perjury being in tiie statements by Connolly implicating llnllinen and Anderson as having been the perpetrators of the deed. Connolly, in his confession, had stated that the alone killed and robbed llourke, and that Hullmen and Anderson were innocent men. The counsel for the prosecution said the only possible 1 defence was that the confession was an untrue and a false confession. He intended to lead strong circumstantial evidence to show that Connolly was the man who did the deed. This'evidence alone would point with an almost unerring linger to Connolly as the man implicated, whether alone or witih others, whilst the confession, unless the ell'ect thereof was removed from the jury's mind, would make the conclusion irresistible. The evidence of Julius Shodick, licensed surveyor at Westport, dealt with the distances between certain hotels and the shed where Bourkc's body was found. William Murray, who was with Connolly on the night of the murder, gave evidence as to Connolly's movements. He was subjected to a searching crossexamination, tilie object of which was to create doubts as to the times when witness stated certain things had occurred. Witness stilted that several remarks made by him to Detective Mellveney at Westport. were wrongly recorded.

Mr Hanlon asked: The detective wrote dohvn something and read out something different?

Witness: Yes; there are two or three things different. Witness afterwards stated that the detective must have misunderstood what had been said.

Mary liowring, barmaid at the Q.C.E. Hotel, from whence Connolly and Bourke went out on (he night of tilie murder, ill cross-examination did not support, some evidence of Mary Elizabeth Avers, licensee of the hotel, who gave evidence Hint she had told Bourke to go to his lodgings and Connolly undertook to take him.

Johannnh Phillip* deposed that she had seen a' short man and a tall man, who limped, go towards McLaughlin's' shed, from wilience she heard a sound as of someone falling and of someone groaning. She saw neither men come out. Cross-examined closely as to why she did not come forward earlier with her evidence, she stated s'lie was in ill-healUh and was afraid that she would be unable to go through the trial. She. denied boing offered £ls or any -money if she gave evidence. Hugh Duncan and Constable Keenun gave evidence .regarding finding the body. The statements of the first-named,regard-ing the finding of footmarks leading from the middle of the shed to a gate at the back of the shed, were discounted in the cross-examination of Keenun, who stated that he and another constable made a careful search before. He also stated that he was accosted by a man when he wis taking Connolly to gaol 'for having broken a window. 'The man asked him to let Connolly go as his Steamer was' leaving at two o'clock ill the morning. This man, witness afterwards learned, was Halliuen. The Court adjourned.