THE STOKE ORPHANAGE CASES. AN UNRELIABLE WITNESS.

Otago Witness, 5 December 1900, Page 44

THE STOKE ORPHANAGE CASES. AN UNRELIABLE WITNESS.

WELLINGTON, November 29. The Crown Prosecutor intimated this-j morning that he did not intend to proceed , with the remaining charges against Brother Rilian. The trial of Edouard Forrier (Brother Wybertus) oh a charge of indecent assault on William Hard wick, a former inmate of the Stoke School, but now confined at Burnham,' was then proceeded with before Mr Justice Edwards. In cross-examination Hardwick admitted discrepancies between the evidence now given and that given by him in the lower court. At the conclusion of the examination, Judge Edwards, in answer to the Crown Prosecutor, said that he would not hang a cat on such testimony. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Bell) tendered I no further witnesses, and i The jury, at his Honor's direction, re- j turned a verdict of "Not guilty." j November 30. i The second case against Brother Wyber- < tvs — that for the alleged indecent assault upon Thomas Owens — was begun before ( Judge Edwards this morning. Owens, in j cross-examination, admitted that he had • written friendly letters to Brothei Wyiber- ' tvs since he left the Stoke School ; also, t when pressed, he acknowledged that some of the boys had committed indecent acts ( on him, but he still persisted that was not • the cause of the invention of his charge j against Wybertus. Brother Wybertus gave evidence on his own behalf, absolutely denying the allegations by the principal witness for the CroAvn. Examined by Mr Skerrett, he said he was a Belgian, and was 46 years of age. He had been a Marist Brother for 26 years, during which time he had been engaged in the instruction of the young at Stoke. He conducted the tailoring class in the morning, and in the afternoon taught in the school. The storeroom was cleared up every Saturday morning. Sometimes one and sometimes two boys being sent there for the purpose. His duties frequently took him there. ' He denied the charge made against him by the boys, nor did he hear of any such charge before the commission sat, when the charge was made by a boy named Lynch, who admitted it was \ untrue.

Gross-examined by Mr Bell (Crown prosecutor), prisoner said he was in charge of punishment till the second week in January, 1395. He thought he had given Owens ordinary punishment in the class with a stick for ordinary offences. So far as punishment went, there was no reason why the boy should make a charge against him. Witness punished him once for steal- j ing bread. The letters Owens wrote to him did not show that he bore him any grudge. Immorality was suspected among the boys, but they had never been caught. He had never till tiiat day heard of their being punished for it. It was possible that he had never till that day heard of the case referred to between Owens and another !boy. He had never heard of their being punished. It was possible that it might have been done without his hearing of it. Some l»oys had been punished by Brother Kilian for flagrant indecencies. He was told so. It was spoken of amongst the Brothers. According to the evidence, there appeared to have been a good deal of indecency among the boys. He did not know of it, although he suspected it. Counsel ! said : You inculcated religion and enforced ! discipline ? Witness : Yes. Counsel : I And this Is the result : that all boys called are either liars or criminals of one kind oj. another. Can you account for that? Witness : It depends on what they were before. His Honor : They are oaly a small jpercenta^e of bpj^a. '

Witness, further cross-examined, said he knew other boys made similar charges against him. Mr Bell : And you say these 1 charges are untrue? Mr Skerrett objected to the question as being unfair. i His Honor said he should lay it down I that a prisoner giving evidence on his own ! behalf on one indictment was not to be I cross-examined upon the subject matter of other charges. Mr Bell (to the witness) : Then it is plain that these boys, educated by you, j continued to tell a series of separate lies I against you. — Yes. Mr Skerett: They came forward at one epoch. They were brought forward at one time when this man came to Nelson. I Mr Bell : Then that is the result of your I education of these boys? I Mi- Skerrett urged that it was unfair to : impute the failure of the system to the i prisoner. The same might be said of Burnham, or any other school. \ i His Honor: It is not a fact. It is merely comment. j Witness, in reply to further questioning j by Mr Bell, said he went to the storeroom 1 to see that the work was properly done by j the boys. He had been in the room alone ] with Owens — while they w^ere mending j music for instance. The door was shut, but that was necessitated by the fact that he -could not trust the boys sufficiently to leave it open, even while he was in there, because things could be taken even then without his seeing it. The door was also ] shut because it was in their way when^ they 1 were Avorking. It did not occur to him ; that his reason fox- being alone in the room with the boy might be suspected. This concluded the evidence. After hearing counsel, the jury retired, and in . 20 minutes returned with a verdict of i " Not guilty." { The same acused was next charged with j committing a common assault on William • Ross on May 1, 1894, and on Frank i M'Cormick on June 1, 1895. Ross's cvi- ' dence was that he was flogged for stealing { bread, that he received 30 or 40 strokes i with a supplejack on the bare skin, and i that for a month afterwards his clothes used to cling to the wounds. The case was not concluded when the court rose. December 1. J In the common assault case against Brother Wybertus several boys swore to the severe punishment of M'Cormack and Ross by Wybertus in 1895. Wybertus proved that he was relieved by another brother of his duties as a punishment by j the master in the tecond week of August, j 1895, and would not have been allowed to ' punish after that date. The Crown pi'ose- j cutor thereupon stated that he would not ' proceed further, and at the judge's direc- , tion a verdict of " Not guiity " was re- i turned. The other charges will be taken on Monday. • ' j December 3. I Brother Wybertus is being tried to-day ! on a- charge- of indecently assaulting Wil- , lianr J. Stacker on March 1, 1898. The jury ] were'unable to agree, and were discharged. I A new trial takes place next week.