MURDER MYSTERY.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 September 1921, Page 5

MURDER MYSTERY.

FURTHER EVIDENCE. FEW NEW FACTS. I RELUCTANCE TO SPEAK. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Sept. 14. The inquest on Frank Jew was continued. Matthew Brodie gave evidence that he was in company with the deceased and others about 7 o’clock on Saturday night. Jew was pretty sober. Tom M’Mahon was under the influence of drink. Witness and Cordon tried to get Jew and M'Mahon to go home, but they would not, Jew was sitting on a step in a doorway, most of the time leaning against the wall. Jew said he would go to Newdick’s loft for a sleep.

Cross-examined witness said he thought he heard Jew say he would like to go to sleep on the section by the church. He heard Tom M'Mahon refuse to go to the section with him. When this question was repeated witness said he only thought he heard M'Mahon say so.

Counsel for Tom M’Mahofi raised the question of the admissibility of the •statements made by witness to the police. " The Magistrate remarked that there, had been extraordinary reluctance by some of the witnesses to say what they did know, though they had not shown actual hostility. He saw no reasons why a statement made two or three days after the tragedy should not be used to refresh their memories.

Witness, replying to a question, said that on the Sunday morning he f sked Tom M'Mahon how he had got home the previous night. M'Mahon stated that Jew left him at the tram terminus and took a ear. He could not understand why Cordon, who was present at that conversation, could have said that M'Mahon stated Jew left him at Gregory’s shop.

A. J. Dobbs wag examined at some length. His evidence was very similar to that of the previous witness. Auckland, Last Night.

At the Jew inquest a large number of other witnesses were examined to-day regarding deceased’s movements prior to his death, together with those of his companions.

At one stage His Worship remarked that there had been an extraordinary reluctance on the part of some witnesses to say what they did know. To some extent he was bound by the ordinary rules of evidence, but not to the extent that would apply in a criminal trial, and he did not think he should object to the way in which questions were put by counsel for the police. Although witnesses so far had not shown adtual hostility, there had been a good deal of reluctance to tell what they knew, and he saw no reason why statements taken two or three days after the event should not be used to refresh their memory.

Some of the witnesses were subjected to close cross-examination. The inquiry will be continued to-morrow.