I.—lβ

68

after the death of a plaintiff, can be revived by his representatives. The judgment would have to be given by the Judge in any case if the representatives of a deceased plaintiff require it. Here the judgment was never given. The representatives of Hawkings have evidently not been over sanguine as to the result, and consequently they have not revived the action or asked for the judgment, and none has been pronounced. Why then should it be assumed that if given it would not pass in Chemis's favour, or that he had anything to fear from it ? These observations, I think, effectually dispose of Mr. Bell's fifth point. Then as to the statement made to Durrell and Harlen. Mr. Bell has on this inquiry substantially admitted that had Holmes been called this part of the case for the prosecution would have been destroyed. He says the jury would have been entitled to draw a different inference if Holm.es had been called. Mr. Allen : Where is that ? Mr. Jeliicoe :It was in answer to me. I said to Bell, do you not think that if they had Holmes's evidence before them it would have destroyed the inference you asked them to draw from Durrell's. Holmes says that a week before the murder took place, there or thereabout, the suggestions of which Durrell speaks had ceased to exist. Mr. Bell answers, " I think it is probable that as far as Durrell's evidence had any weight, had Holmes been called, it might have made some difference." The next point has reference to the pocket-book. Mr. Bell says, there was " the fact that the pocket-book containing Native papers was the only thing missed. Mrs. Hawkings says the land let to Chemis was a sublease of a Native lease." The only evidence on that part of the case is that of Mrs. Hawkings (page 11, IT.-33), in her evidence at the trial in the Supreme Court. There is not another word throughout the whole of the evidence to support that statement. No description is given that would connect in any reasonable manner the " Native papers," if any, with the Native lease. The Chairman : Do you think that material, seeing that no pocket-book has been found. Mr. Jeliicoe : The suggestion is this : the deceased had a pocket-book ; in that pocket-book were Native papers; this man Chemis holds under a sublease from Hawkings of a Native lease ; that Chemis and Hawkings are in litigation respecting the sublease. The inference suggested is, that; Hawkings- was murdered that Chemis might obtain possession of these Native papers. The Chairman : No evidence has come before the Committee about this ; but I think we can form a clear opinion upon it. Mr. Jeliicoe : I do not know what conclusion you will arrive at, or what inferences you may draw; the point seems to me, however, made without foundation, and lam obliged to point to the reasons for the view I take. Hawkings was seen by Cook, Taylor, and McGee (Durrell, pages 9,10). Neither of these persons suggest that they saw him that day with a pocket-book or Native papers. There is no evidence that he was in possession of any specific Native papers at all, no evidence that such or such Native papers were in the pocket-book. We will assume that if the deceased, in fact, had any documents of importance, they would have been missed, and we should have had them . described in some way, and connected with the lease under which Chemis held his farm. The Chairman: Ido not think the Committee attach much weight to that, for these papers could not affect originals. Mr. Jeliicoe: lam pointing out the way the Crown left the case to the jury. It is for the Committee to consider whether there was any justification for the unfounded suggestions unduly pressed upon the jury by those who were conducting the case for the Crown. The next point, as to the bullets, I have dealt with already. Next, it is said that one barrel of the gun had a wadded charge and the other a charge of shot rammed down with paper. Now, I ask, first, what evidence was there to warrant the jury being asked to draw an inference against Chemis from any such circumstance ; and, secondly, what evidence was there that a wadded charge was, in fact, fired from one barrel and shot from the other ? Again, if Chemis had premeditated this murder, why should he have taken a double-barrelled gun, a difficult weapon to carry over hills, and one that could be easily seen, when he possessed such a very handy weapon as the revolver produced, a weapon which he kept loaded for the protection of his household in consequence of the lonely condition of the spot where he resided? " Last of all," says Mr. Bell, " but not least, there is the absolute absence of motive in any other person, as far as we can judge." Honourable members have only to look at the evidence of Mrs. Bowles, given as it is against her own relatives, for the answer to that allegation ; and bear in mind that a mother does not, except to prevent a grave injustice, come forward and volunteer her evidence as this old lady did against her son. An Hon. Member : Ron-in-law. Mr. Jeliicoe : No. George Bowles was her son and Mrs. Hawkings her daughter. The Chairman: But her evidence was to this effect: that Hawkings did say, "If George Bowles came upon his property he would shoot him down like a dog." Mr. Jeliicoe : But she was pointing to a motive in her son, and was stamping her daughter as a witness of untruth. It has been said those people were a "happy family," but this old woman absolutely establishes the contrary when she swears that Hawkings had threatened his wife that he would shoot her brother " down like a dog." Next, says Mr. Bell, "We do not know what clothes he was wearing, or whether these clothes are still in existence." Is there any doubt on that part of the case ? I would ask the Committee to look to the evidence of Mary Anne Holmes, a person in no way connected with the other witnesses of the same name. At page 43, Parliamentary Papers, (H.-33, 1889), at the bottom of the page she says [evidence read]. She proves that Chemis on the Ist June was wearing the same clothes he had on the evening and afternoon previously. The next witness is John Lambert, who saw Chemis outside the Eainbow Hotel in the afternoon of the 31st May, and he describes the clothing Chemis was wearing. The Committee will also bear in mind that since Chemis's arrest his clothing has been in possession of the police. [Evidence of Lambert read.] The Committee, therefore, have the distinct evidence of independent witnesses that the clothing Chemis wore on the day and day after the murder was the clothing he was wearing when arrested. You have also evidence of Chemis and his wife to the same effect. The