LOUIS CHEMIS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 10483, 22 October 1894, Page 3

LOUIS CHEMIS.

TO THE EDXTOE. Sib,— ■" Justice ” states in your paper that he and his friend--that political traitor. Sir Eofcert Stout—and thousands of others, believe that Louis Chemis is guilty of murder. Now, I question very much whether there are one thousand people in the whole colony who believe that he is guilty; but there are scores of thousands who believe him to be innocent. Tour correspondent says he has read a great deal about the case lately. If he has written the truth, I am surprised at the conclusions he has arrived at. I would rather think that he has not read much about the case, but simply pins his faith to one who has turned hio coat over and over again, and who will probably change it again as often ao he thinks it necessary. Now, I should like to ask "Justice” whether ha read that Louis Chemia had the misfortune to bo defended by a lawyer, who although clever and able when in good health, waa actually suffering to such an extent that ho utterly collapsed at the close of his defence and died four days .after; and then after the trial it came out that hia advocate had evidence in his own house or office which would have placed the prisoner in a far more favourable position had that evidence been forthcoming before the case waa submitted to the jury. Ponder this over: “From his seat in court on Saturday, July 13, 1889, Mr Charles Bunny, who defended Louis Chemis, waa carried to that bed in which the brave young advocate died on the following Wednesday,” and he never even heard the summing up of the case. I have the book of the trial before me, entitled " Murder will Out,” in which it states the extraordinary fact “ that the two Justices of the Peace, Messrs Nancarrow and George, who presided at the opening magisterial inquiry, both died before the verdict against Louis Cheuiis was recorded.” Again, I should like to ask whether “ Justice ” read that the late Sir Harry Atkinson and the whole of his Cabinet bad so many doubts about the guilt of tho unfortunate convict, that they recommended that the life sentence should bo commuted to that of penal servitude for life. It was all they could do, until a new trial was asked for. Now, remember this, there was not a single incident in connection with that crime which could claim the clemency of the Crown towards the prisoner, only that there were such strong doubts of him being the guilty person. It was n cold-blooded, cruel murder. The murdered man waa cut and stabbed about in a moat frightful manner and bled most profusely, and yet not one drop of blood waa found on Louis Chemis, who it was proved was wearing the same clothes when apprehended as he was wearing the day the foul deed was done. Nor was a particle of blood found on the stiletto which it was said the crime could have been done with. The shot found in the murdered man did not correspond with the shot which Louis Chemis used. Mr Bell, tho Crown Prosecutor, admitted that the only direct evidence which could be brought against the prisoner was the paper evidence, which people say thev would not hang a mangy dog on. I claim that Louis Chemis should have a new trial, on the ground that be did not have a fair trial in the first instance, owing to hie advocate— of whom everyone

sneaks well-being too dangerously ill to make the points he otherwise undoubtedly would have done. Again, it ia said that a thrill of astonishment wont through the whole Court, which was shared in by the country, when the verdict became known. If there .were such doubts of his guilt, should he not have had the benefitof those doubts ? Ido not know Louis Chemis, who, it is said, bore a most excellent character, nor do I know “Justice,” but I do believe in British fair play, and had r * Justice” been in the same unfortunate position as Louis Chemio, no doubt I should have pleaded as hard for him as I have done for the other poor brother in misfortune. Hoping that the people of this colony will demand that justice shall am.