69

I.—lβ

evidence of the police establishes the fact that lie was wearing, when arrested, the same clothing he was wearing on the Ist June. Moreover, the witness Caplin, called by the Crown, who had been working with Chemis on the day of the murder, had an opportunity of observing the clothing Chemis was then wearing. The police, no doubt, inquired as to the description of the clothing he was wearing ; and yet neither Caplin or any other Crown witness suggests that the prisoner was wearing on the day of the murder different clothing to that worn on the day of his arrest; and notwithstanding the Crown Prosecutor pressed very much at the trial this observation : " We do not even know whether there were any clothes in existence, or if there were where they were." But they might, at least, have made some inquiry. Then, says the learned counsel for the prosecution, " There was no powder found. Yet he had loaded his gun shortly before to fire at quail. Where is the powderflask ? Where that is will also be found the balance of No. 4 shot." I will deal with that observation later on. Mr. Bell says, on the next page (81), there is no evidence as to the prisoner's whereabouts at the time of the murder. "Evidence could have been given; it has been withheld." He then refers to the prisoner's children as of an age able to give evidence. He admits that neither Chemis nor his wife was able to give evidence. This statement no doubt prompted the prisoner's counsel not to ask Mrs. Chemis the age of the elder child. The Chairman : She was eight years old. Mr. Gully : Nine next birthday. Mr. Jellicoe :No doubt Mr. Bunny could have called the eldest child. She was in law a competent witness, but the Chief Justice, in his summing up, deals with Mr. Bell's remarks as to the absence of the children's evidence. "His Honour (I am reading from the newspaper report Mr. Bell produced) referred to the not calling of the child of nine years of age, who, it was suggested, would have been able to say that the prisoner was at home at a quarter to 6 o'clock. This murder must have been committed within a quarter or ten minutes to 6, and His Honour pointed out that if the child had been called and she had said, perhaps, that he went out to milk and was out, say, for half an hour or an hour, that would be taken as evidence against the prisoner. Therefore, why should the prisoner call evidence from his own family to show what was the truth and which might lend support to the prosecution?" That was the manner in which the learned Judge dismissed the suggestion of Mr. Bell. My learned friend, Mr. Gully, has had experience in the conduct of the defences of persons charged with crime. He will readily admit that the last word to the jury is in some cases considered an advantage, and for that reason a prisoner's counsel will frequently, if the case against a prisoner is weak, decline to call evidence and rely solely upon his address to the jury. Something of that kind may have influenced Mr. Bunny not to call evidence. Now, as to the gun, revolver, and powder-flask. They were not, as we have seen, at the time of the search on the Ist of June considered by the police of any importance. That was the reason the police assign for not bringing away the revolver or the gun. The Committee will bear in mind that the gun was afterwards " sent for," and the revolver " sent for," but not until after shot had been found in the body of the deceased ; then only was it thought necessary to obtain possession of the gun and the revolver. If at that time it was not considered that a weapon such as a gun or a revolver was of importance in the investigation of the case, was it likely that the powder-flask, or the wads, or the wad-cutter, or the caps would be looked upon by the police as of any importance ? Were either of these articles likely to assist the case of the police on the sth of June ? If, then, such articles were not likely to assist the case of the police, is there not good reason for inferring that the police did not specially notice them, and some reason for not bringing them away ? The wad-cutter would not have assisted the case for the police, for had they proved that wads were in Chemis's possession the fact would have destroyed the theory of the prosecution that Chemis used paper. If, on the other hand, the powder-flask, or the caps, or the wads were considered by the police to be of importance, how is it that no inquiry was made by them for articles of that description ? If they did not inquire, why assume that they searched for such articles ? If they did not search, what is there to support the suggestion of the Crown Prosecutor that " where the powderflask is will also be found the balance of the No. 4 shot?" Next consider whether Chemis had a powder-flask. On this point, apart from the evidence of Mrs. Chemis and the convict, you have the evidence of E. Dybell (page 96 of the Benjamin perjury depositions). During the cross-exami-nation of Chemis it came out that Dybell had put a spring on the powder-flask. Dybell was telephoned for by me. He came in at once, and on his oath said, " Yes, there is the spring I put on it some few weeks before the murder. Chemis paid me eighteenpence for putting it on." You have thus Chemis's possession of the powder-flask fully proved by Dybell. You have also Timothy Dowd's evidence at page 98. The Chairman : Dybell also gives evidence about the clothes on each day. Mr. Jellicoe : Timothy Dowd says he went shooting with his cousin, John Dowd, on the 26th May ; that they took the powder-flask with them, and they returned it to Chemis's house. Then you have the evidence of John Dowd (page 97) confirming the evidence of Timothy Dowd. On the 25th May he also took from the drawer and returned to the same drawer the powder-flask and the other articles mentioned by Timothy Dowd. Then you have the evidence of Frederick Greaves (page 99). The Chairman : Are you dealing with the evidence on the perjury charge ? Mr. Jellicoe : Speaking of the 19th of May, Greaves says that ho went out shooting ; that he took the powder-flask, caps, and wads from the drawer and returned them to the same place. You have the existence of the powder-flask prior to the 31st May established now. As to the wad-cutter, you have the evidence of William Denton, who sold it on the 13th of April; John George Denton, who produced the counterpart from stock ; you have the evidence of Eobert Dybell, who purchased the wad-cutter at Chemis's request; of John Day (page 43) who was present with Dybell; you have the evidence of Timothy Dowd and John Dowd, which I have already read, all establishing the existence of the wad-cutter in the prisoner's possession some time, before-the date of the murder. Had he wads ? The Premier says before the Magistrate that he compared the wads with the. gun. Bear in mind that the gun after the 2nd June was in the possession of the police. No one