CHAISE OF ATTEMPTING- TO PROCURE MURDER. CHRISTCHURCH, November 19.

Otago Witness, Issue 2436, 21 November 1900, Page 51

CHAISE OF ATTEMPTING- TO PROCURE MURDER. CHRISTCHURCH, November 19.

The case against Henry Vincent Styche, charged with having, on or about June 4, 1900, attempted to procure one Geoffrey Sherbourne Clayton, medical practitioner, to murder one Elizabeth Styche, was commenced at the Supreme Court to-day. Mr T. W. Stringer conducted the case for tie Crown, and Messrs T. I. Joynt and G. Harper appeared for accused. Mr Stringer, in opening the case for the prosecution, said the charge was preferred under section _ 169 of the Criminal Code, and the alleged attempt to procure .murder was contained in certain typewritten anonymous letters which had been addressed to Dr Clayton from time to time through the post. The first letter was received on June 4, anu in it the writer referred to a lady continually sick and ailing, who had said she would jisst as soon die as remain in such a bad state of health. She had so far refused to see a doctor, and the writer of the letter said that if Dr Clayton was called in to attend that lady, and she did not recover, £200 in bank notes would be posted to him, say, three months after her death. If the doctor agreed to the pioposal, he was to insert in the Christchurch Press an advertisement as follows : " Wanted to biry, good dogcart. Apply Medico, Press office."' i'hat letter was handed over to the police, but no steps

were taken in regard to inserting the ad- < vertisement, and on June 12 Dr Clayton received a second typewritten letter, signed " Unknown," as the first had been, in which the writer complained that the doctor had not yet inserted an advei'tisement. A suggestion was made as to how j the doctor should carry out the affair. The ■ writer said : " Tell the AVoman she must J go to bed for a week or two. You can then give her medicine that will not make her improve, and then call one evening and give her something that includes the power to send her to sleep for ever." That letter, said Mr Stringer, Dr Clayton also handed to the inspector of police, who had an advertisement insei-ted on June 16, and ' a few days later Dr Clayton received an- ' other undated typewritten letter, which '• contained some indication of the person ' aimed at — " a young woman living in a | south-east suburb of Christchurch." Dr ! Clayton, however, did not- know then who was referred to. He believed that the south-east suburb referred to the district in which he himself lived. Between the receipt of the first and third letters accused's wife had consulted Dr Clayton, who some time afterwards received a fourth anonymous document, a typewritten postcard, in which the writer said : " I saw \ Mrs S. at Opawa the other day, and she was looking none too well." That document clearly pointed to Mrs Styche, who '■ was the only patient Dr Clayton was at- ! tending at Opawa. Mr Stringer then dealt \ with the evidence as to authorship of these letters, stating that the peculiarities in the letters and in the machine which was in ) accused's office led to the conclusion that 1 accused was the writer of the letters. A ; peculiar coincidence was the fact that on j the morning of August 4, the day after - the interview had taken place between Dr I Clayton and the accused as to the letters, j this typewriter was severely damaged. Accused alleged that the injuries had been accidentally caused by a fall, but experts j would tell' them that in their opinion all the injuries could not have been accidentally caused. Dr Clayton was the first witness called, and he was cross-examined at some length by Mr Joynt. He said that as far as he

could observe, Mr and Mrs Styofoe were an affectionate couple. Accused did not, however, betray anxiety over his wife's condition. He was rather phlegmatic. When, he showed Styche the anonymous letters, he watched him narrowly, and considrsxl 1 that his manner indicated agitation rathtr than indignation. F. B. Sapsford, a typewriter expert, stated that in his opinion the anonymous letters produced had been written^ by th 6 machine now in court, which had been taken from Mr Rhodes's office, where accused was employed. Witness detailed tha peculiarities in the machine, all of which he said were present in the letters. He did not think it was possible that any othei machine could produce the same combination of peculiarities. When seized by the police the machine was badly damaged, but he did not think all the, injuries could have been caused by an accidental fall. Charles H. Gfilby, teacher of typewriting, gave similar evidence. The case will be continued at 10 a.m. next day.