THE KAIWARRA SENSATION.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 329, 25 July 1889, Page 2

THE KAIWARRA SENSATION.

STRANGE STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE LAWYERS START FIGHTING ON THEIR OWN ACCOUNT. A £5OOO LIBEL ACTION BY MR BELL. [most ova own oobbbsfondknt.] Wellington, yesterday. Much correspondence has been going on between Mr Jellicoe and the Government in regard to the Chemis case. Mr Jellicoe, as counsel for Chemis, wants a private interview with the prisoner, but he states that every obstacle has been placed in his way. He has now laid the matter before His Excellency the Governor. Wellington, last night.

A writ has been issued by Messrs Moorehouse, Edwards, and Martin, as solicitors for Mr H. D. Bell, Crown Solicitor, against Mr E, J. Jellicoe, claiming £5OOO damages for an alleged libel contained in notes of the interview between Mr Jellicoe and Louis Chemis, published in the Evening Post of the 22nd inst, The alleged libel is contained in a statement that a Urge portion of the evidence telling in favor of Chemis, whioh Mr Jellicoe had in his possession, was kept back by those who conducted the murderer's prosecution. Mrs Chemis has written to Mr Jellicoe, saying it is not true, as has been stated, that her husband is dissatisfied with Mr Jellicoe'a conduct, but is extremely thankful for what he is doing on her husband’s behalf.

The Kaiwarra murder case ought to lead to a universal regret that.we have not am mgs t us the Scotch system whioh enables Juries to return a verdict of “ Not Proven.” The evidence for the prosecution was clear as far as it went. A murder had been committed certainly, and as certainly for revenge. The weapons employed were probably a double-barrelled gun and a dagger of some kind, A double-barrelled gun had been found in the prisoner's house, and a dagger. In the body of the murdered man pieces of paper were found, whioh corresponded with pieces of paper found in the prisoner's house. Near the body were found other pieces whioh also corresponded with pieces of paper found in the prisoner's house. The prisoner, the owner of the weapons and the paper, was proved to have uttered threats against the murdered man. When spoken to about his gun he said he had used it some days before for shooting quail, but no quail were found by the police in his house. The prisoner was proved to have left his work before 4.30 on the evening of the murder, and to have ridden part of the way home on a dray. The murdertd man's watoh arid money were found on him, but papers relating to land transactions were missing, and the prisoner was engaged in a land transaction with him, about which there was a dispute. The case for the defence was that the gun had not been fired on the day of the murder, the Government armourer swearing positively that the two barrels could not have been fired on the the same day—this evidence not being in the least shaken ; that the shot found in the body was of ona size while the shot found in tbs shot pouch at the prisoner's house was of two sizes mixed; that the dagger was without a trace of blood, that the verdigris about the handle was undisturbed, that there was no scratch on the blade, that in short it could not have been used ; that the prisoner’s clothes and person were entirely free from blood; that other persons had disputes with the murdered man about land and other transactions ; that the behaviour of one person on the night of the murder, the person who found the body, was very mysterious and unaccountable; that a man with a gun and without a dog was seen at dusk on the night of the murder proceeding towards the scene of the murder, It may be added that none of the pieces of paper whioh fitted the pieces found in the body and near it were found in tbs clothes or on the person of the prisoner, though found In bis house, Therein this case of ths fitting of ths papers presents a marked contrast to other oases in which similar evidence has bsea held) and rightly held, to be fatal. The Grown met the evidence of the armourer by the suggestion that a wad had been used tor the cba-ge of shot, and that the bullet had been wrapped in paper to make it fit. But the only evi le.ioe in support of this contention was ths evidence of the gunsmith, who said that if a wad had been used in one barrel that barrel would be cleaner than the other if paper only had been used in it. There was no evidenoe of a bullet whioh did not fit, and if a wad had been used with the charge of shot how oame the wound inflicted by the shot to be full of paper ? Then the doctor swore that ths detective had at first said he did not think the gun had been recently discharged. And, later on, Inspector Thomson said he had not thought so either. The Crown met the evidenoe of the discrepancy of the shot by suggesting that all the No. 4 shot had been used by the prisoner. But this is entirely an assumption, Clearly the evidtmoe was against the prisoner's gun having

been used at all. Did the prisoner, if he committed the murder, use another gun ? The paper evidenoe implies that he did. But the flaw in that evidence is that none of the pieoes were found on the person or the clothes of the prisoner. Circumstantial evideno; is only conclusive for guilt when no other theory but that of guilt can account for them. But ia this case the theory is tenable that soma one, who had access to the prisoner’s house during ths eight days preceding the murder, took paper from his house for the purpose of loading his gun. The state of the dagger the C-own held to be immaterial, because, after it was placed in the wounds by Dr Cahill, all traces were easily removed from the blade without disturbing the verdigris st the handle. It is, however, one thing to put a weapon gently into a corpse ; quite another to drive it violehtlinto a living body several times when th blood is count ng through the veins and arteries, and the body is writhing and struggling in the shook of murder. It is more than doubtful whether the dagger was used any more than the gun, The contention of the defence, that a man having in his possession a revolver, as ths prisoner had, would not bo likely to fall back on the clumsy device of using a gun with bullet and shot, and a dagger to finish with acquires considerable force in view of the evidence abiut the gun and the dagger. The defence did not account for the disposal of the prisoner’s time after he rode homewards on that dray. The Crown Prosecutor, who conducted his case with the greatest fairness and straightforwardness, suggested the reason—viz , that his wife could not be called to give evidenoe in his behalf. But he thought that his children might hive been. Perhaps they might have been in a position to give evidence, perhaps not. Perhaps it occurred to the defending Counsel that the evidence of a man's children might not have been the most likely to convince a Jury. Perhaps the prisoner was absent from home in a perfectly innocent way; can any of us always account for every moment of our time ? It was suggested by the Crown that the man with the gun and without a dog seen on the evening of the murder could not have been the murderer, because murderers are not likely to allow themselves to be seen. But the history of nrirne abounds with instances of folly on the part of murderers who have betrayed themselves by behaviour whioh wise men in cold blood would consider unlikely. It is difficult to believe that a man of good character, proved good for a number of years, would commit a violent terrible murder of this kind on account of a law suit about a bit of land. In face of the evidence it is impossible to accept the conviction of Chemis. He let fail a threat, it is true. That ia a momentous circumstance against him. With the paper evidence it becomes stronger against him, But the fact that the paper was not found in his possession, and the evidenoe about the arms in his house make a gulf, which the law can only bridge at the risk of committing judicially a murder as great as that of Hawkins himself, The theory, that someone acquainted with the threat let fall by Chemis. and having a knowledge of his house and habits, took hie measures to direct suspicion upon him, is tenable as an alternative accounting for all the circumstances. The Judge declared that the remarks made by the prisoner after conviction strengthens the presumption of his guilt, That was an unfortunate remark not borne out by facts, and not by any means judicial In character. For a man to declare, under such circumstances, that the police have used him badly is the moat natural thing In the world, That the police did not make a proper search of the premises of the prisoner is one of the facts strongly brought out in the trial. What era we to think of the manner in whioh his duty is done by a police officer who amuses himself with revolver practice while engaged in the most important investgiation that can be committed to him ? Moreover, when a man is staggering under a verdict whioh dooms him to the scaffold, is he to be told that his wild words are to be weighed with scrupulous exactness ? Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, we regret that the Jury could not have given a verdict of “ Not Proven.” That is the only view that can be taken by any impartial man reading the reports, having a knowledge of what circumstantial evidenoe is, and understanding the limits within which it must be rigorously confined.— Lyttelton Times.