THE STYCHE CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4317, 28 March 1901, Page 2

THE STYCHE CASE.

MOTION FOR NEW T TRIAL.

JUDGMENT RESERVED

In the Court of Appeal yesterday argument was concluded in the motion lor new trial of H. A. Styche, of Christchurch, who had been convicted of attempting to procure the murder of his wife.

Mr Joynt appeared to support the motion, and Mr Stringer, for the Crown, to oppose. Mr Stringer, continuing his address, submitted that the two vital questions in the case, namely, whether dr not the machine in question produced the typewritten letters, and whether the fall of the machine was accidental or purposeful, V-cre questions the answers to which depended on circumstantial evidence, and were essentially questions to be decided by a jury. The evidence largely preponderated in favour of the theory that the machine in question produced the letters. As to the injury to the machine, the most that could he said for the accused was that the evidence Inland against him was fairly balanced. W’iih reference to motive, ho admitted; that there was no proved motive. But motives wore of such an infinite kind that although the presence of .motive, where the evidence was incriminating, was satisfactory to have, still the absence of motive should not influence the Court. Men might have motives of their own which might influence them. Tlie workings of the human mind wore so varied that it was impossible to my what was .tli© motive for any particular action. The absence of proof of motive was not a strong circumstance. It had been said by Mr Joynt that tlie proposal made in tlie letters was an absurd one. The answer to that was that somebody, did make the proposal. • The Chief Justice : The way it was put by Mr Joynt was that it was an. absm'4 proposal for a smart business man to make.

Mr Stringer said he'thought that tho internal evidence of tho letters themselves went to indicate that they were written by a fairly smart person. The writer wrote like a-smart person. All tho indications were that a person of considerable intelligence wrote the let-' ters. If the Court were to interfere in a case pf this kind, it was difficult to see where tho thing would end, and any onso of circumstantial evidence, where witnesses were called 1 on both sides, would be subject to review by the Court of Appeal. That could never have been contemplated by tho Legislature. The only cases contemplated by tho Legislature as cases in whicli a new trial might be granted wore those presenting some remarkable features, where, for instance, a. jury perversely, and against the advice of the’presiding Judge, persisted in finding a verdict against the weight of evidence. Mr Joynt, in reply, said that, if this case was not one which fairly came within the purview of sootipn 416 of the Criminal Code Act, 1893. he could not conceive a case that would. It was undoubtedly a. case where there was a conflict of evidence—a strong conflict. The case was peculiarly one which ■ required the evidence to be strictly and clearly analysed, in order to see the bearing of one class of evidence upon another. It was almost impossible for a common jury to do the cas© justice. Mr Justice; -Conoliy: If you have a new trial you will again have a common jury, , ‘ 1

ill* Joynt: Wo Would apply for a special jury.,... Mr Stringer: You did not do that before. Mr Joynt: I think.it is to lie regretted that one side or Too other did not apply for a special jury. A discussion ensued as to the fall of tho machine. '■ ,'*f A member of the Bench asked whether any experiment had, been made as to how a typewriter would bo injured by a fall from a. table. Mr Jbynt; That would have been rather expensive. ' Mr Justice Dennietou said h© did not think so. considering what was at stake. ; 1 At 11.15 a.m. a constable carried into Court a large case- containing the typewriter. which had been sent up from Christchurch. Mr Justice Detmiston: Therei is your machine. Mr Joynt; It is 'not my machine; I disown it altogether. (Laughter.) The constable was directed to open the case. This was done outside, and the opened case was brought back into Court. When Mr Joynt had finished his reply, the machine was taken out of the case, and placed on one of the bar tables. Two or three questions were asked by members of the Bench, including a Question as to how Styche had described tne _ accldent by which ho said he knocked tlie machine off his office table. Mr Stringer said that if the Court would lure an cxperiment_ to ho made by Knocking the machine off the table on which it was now placed tho Crown had no objection. Mr Joynt: There are not the accessories. ... Mr Justice Dennistbn said it might b© necessary to get the consent of Mr H. Rhodes, tho owner of the machine. (Laughter.) ; Judgment was reserved.