ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO PROCURE MURDER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11535, 21 November 1900, Page 5

ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO PROCURE MURDER.

EVIDENCE OF TYPEWRITER EXPERTS. THE DEFENCE. [BY telegraph.— ASSOCIATION.] , Christchurch, Tuesday. The case against Henry Vincent Styche, charged with having on or about June 4, 1900, at Christchurch, attempted to procure Geoffrey Sherbourne Clayton to murder one Elizabeth Styche, his wife, was continued at the Supreme Court to-day. Chas. H. Gilby, teacher of typewriting, who had given evidence the previous day, was cross-examined at some length by counsel for the defence. He said he based his opinion that the letter had been written by the machine now in Court ' principally on the work it turned out. The Remington was the machine most generally in us« in Christchurch, but he could not say how many were in the city. He made two copies of the anonymous letters received by Dr. Clayton, and had endeavoured to follow as closely as possible the original operator, hut the impressions in his copies were quite different from those in the original letters. That was due to one or two reasons. Either he had not struck quite in the same way as the original operator, or else the ribbon o the machine had become worn in the meantime. James Peacock, clerk in Mr. A. E. G. Rhodes' employ, gave evidence as to hearing a crash in the accused's room on the morning of August 4, and in a few minutes had been tolj by the accused that he ha l knocked the typewriter on to the floor. Wit ness identified the press copy of the letter which had been sent to the Remington Typewriter Company ordering the machine, and requesting that the stroke above the figur<: 3 in the keyboard should be made perpendicular instead of sloping as in the former machine. Inspector Ellisongave evidence corroborating that of Dr. Clayton in regard to the letter. In executing the search warrant hifound amongst the accused's papers a joint insurance policy on the lives of accused and his wife for £300, taken ovt on April 11, 1893. This closed the case for -he Crown. Mr. Harper briefly opened the case for the defence, and referred to the evidence which would be called. The defence would call an expert who had spent live years hi typewriter factories in England, and this witness would tell them that it was impossible to say that these original letters on which the whole question depended had been written by any particular machine. Two other experts would be called, men who had long experience as mechanical engineers. After referring to other points that would be brought Out in evidence, counsel said that no motive had been shown that would induce accused to write the letters, and upon the evidence brought forward by the Crown, and in light of that which would be given by the defence, there was no reason why the jury should say accused was the person who had written the letters.

Theodore Joy. typewriter repairing expert, in the employ of the New Zealand Typewriter Company, was the first witness called for the defence. He said ha had .or nearly five years been engaged solely by various typjv . ; tev companies in London, and claimed to have intimate knowledge of many makes of machines. He said that he considered all the injuries the machine now in Court had sustained might possibly Lave been caused by a fall to the floor. He would not from anything appearing in the original letters swea'r that they had been written on a Remington, and he disagreed with Alessrs. Gilby and Tapford in that respect. He had not been able to examine the original letters critically. The continuation of witness' examination was postponed till to-morrow in order to enable him to go through the letters. Two other experts will also be called tomorrow. Seven witnesses were called to prove that the domestic' relations-' of accused arid his wife had always been happy, and that they were an affectionate couple. Mr. A. E. G. Rhodes, accused's employer, said he had always reposed complete confidence in accused, and that confidence had been justified. The charwoman who cleans out Mr. Rhodes' offices stated that she had sometimes found the back door leading into' the buildings unlocked, and the glass door leading to the suite of offices was frequently unlocked. Alex. Johnston, a carpenter, who was working at the offices in January and Mar-:h last, stated that he had never found the swing doors leading to Mr. Rhodes' office upstairs locked when he went to work in the morning. At a-quarter to four p.m. the Court adjourned till ten a.m. to-morrow.