Very soon after the accident Mr. Davies, his daughter - not I think Delphine but her elder sister, who had been inside the house during the afternoon - and Barry Watson, and perhaps others, looked in the vicinity of the tree guard for the thing that had hit the plaintiff. The Davies thought they were looking for a piece of wire. That was how Barry had described the thing he had thrown, at all events it is what his mother had understood him to say. It would not be an altogether inapt description of the appearance of a piece of welding rod. It is noteworthy that in a record made by Doctor Slade, who attended the plaintiff in Adelaide, this appears: "Injury 21/1/57, query piece of wire thrown by boy and hit right eye". This note forms part of an entry in Doctor Slade's handwriting which, he being abroad, was tendered by Doctor Bray pursuant to the provisions of s. 340 of the Evidence Act of South Australia. This sentence is perhaps not admissible. It seems to be a record of hearsay. But it forms part of the entry tendered and is consistent with Mr. Davies' statement that the thing thrown had been first described as a piece of wire. Those searching did not find anything. Daylight was fading and the search could not be very thorough in the light only of the street lamps. It is perhaps surprising that if it was still there the dart was not found. The grass near the tree guard was short. But the adjacent roadway was surfaced with crushed bluestone, and Davies said he would not be surprised that a short piece of rod, if there, was not seen. He did not look again next day. Carol Moulton says that almost immediately after the plaintiff was hurt she had asked Barry what had become of the dart and that he said he had thrown it over the cliff. There is a cliff on the far side of the road, and, because of the vegetation and rock below, it would have been useless to look for anything thrown there. Barry was asked in the witness box about this. He says that he did in fact throw over the cliff the second piece of rod that he had. He says that some of the other children saw him do this. He says he did tell someone, he forgets whom, that he had done so. He denies that Carol asked him what he had done with the dart that hit the plaintiff or that he told her he had thrown it away. Asked in cross-examination why he threw away the one that he said he did he answered: "Seeing what the other one had done to Susan's eye, I wanted to get rid of it". The events occurred at a time of much confusion and concern. Barry was no doubt much troubled by what had happened. I think that it is possible that he picked up and threw away the thing that struck the plaintiff, and perhaps because he did not admit doing so at the time to those who were searching for it, he has come more or less to believe what he now asserts. I do not think he is deliberately untruthful. Indeed what he says may be quite true, although, if so, it is surprising that the thing that hit the plaintiff was never found. It does not seem to me to be a matter of critical importance either way. It was argued that if Barry threw it away an adverse inference should be drawn. It was said, as I understood the proposition, that I must treat him as having suppressed evidence against himself. I was referred to the observations in The Ophelia [1] , concerning spoliation of documents and to the cases referred to in Halsbury 3rd ed., vol. 18, p. 379. But it is I think a misinterpretation of the facts to suppose that Barry threw away the thing he did, whether it was the thing that hit the plaintiff or something else of a like kind, in order to suppress evidence. It seems to me to have been the natural reaction of a child, an instinct to get rid of the thing that has done harm. It is not only children who feel this urge. It had, as is well known, an influence in early law. Barry may have acted as he did from a feeling of guilt. But that is very far from saying that he hoped to hide or deny what he had done. And let it be assumed that what he threw away was the thing that had hit the plaintiff, what exactly is the inference to be drawn from its absence? It is said that I should infer that it was not a piece of welding rod such as Barry described but a larger instrument as the plaintiff and Carol Moulton said it was. Certainly I am deprived by its absence of corroboration or denial of Barry's description of it. But the size of the thing is not in any sense critical in the case. The thing that hit the plaintiff pierced her eye. A heavier instrument would not have called for greater caution.