SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2950, 23 November 1900, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Per Press Associate u

THE STOKE ORPHANAGE CASES.

WELLINGTON, November 22.

In the Stoke Orphanage case, Mr Wilford in opening for the defence said that Kilian, bring a schoolmaster, had under the law a right to use reasonable force in correcting boys under his charge Accused in giving evidence on his own behalf, said that he remembered the circumstances of the alleged assault on the boy Owens. A day or two prior to the occurrence he had punished the boy for disobedience in school. He gave him a few smacks on the hand with a supplejack. On the evening in question the boys were formed into ranks to go out. He noticed Owens talking and requested him to maintain silence. The boy answered him back, and witness boxed his ears. He kicked at witness, and witness slapped him again. The boy then threw himself on the ground and started screaming. Witness denied having punched Owens in the eye or kicked him. At the time there was a mutinous spirit in the school. By Mr Bell: Witness asked to be allowed to give evidence before the Commission, but the director of the school said that it was not necessary. He understood the reason he had been ordered to leave the Orphanage was that it was considered his conduct had not been satisfactory. Witness had never put boys in the cells; had never struck any boy with his fist, nor did he lose his temper with Owens. His Honour in summing up said that it was beyond doubt that at the time a strong spirit of insubordination existed in school, and it was before all things necessary that discipline should be maintained.' Accused did not seem to be a strong man, and Owen was a sturdy youth. He directed the jury to dismiss all prejudice from their minds, and reminded them that one of the growing evils of the day was insubordination of the young. The jury after a quarter of an hour’s retirement returned to court with a verdict of not guilty, and accused discharged. The Crown, Prosecutor stated that he would proceed with the charge of assault on Davis against the same accused next day. THE STYCHE CASE. ACCUSED FOUND GUILTY. CHRISTCHURCH, November 22> The hearing of the case against Henry Vincent-Stycuv, dunged with attempting to procure the muider of ks wife, was continued at the Supreme Court to-day, when counsel addressed the jury and His Honour summed up. Mr Joynt, in addressing the jury on behalf 'of the accused, spoke for an hour and a quarter. Counsel laid stress on, the position which the accused had held, pointing out that for seven years past he had been chief of the financial department of Mr A. E. G. Rhodes’ business, and that on his employer’s recent visit to England he had appointed accused a joint attorney and also given him separate power of attorney. These things, counsel thought, spoke more loudly and more emphatically in favour of Styche from the point of view of his honesty, trustfulness, ability, and good conduct, than anything else could have done. He contended that the whole of the evidence as to the capacity of accused, his honourable and straightforward. conduct and relations with his wife, gave the lie to the suggestion that the accused had written the letters. Counsel then criticised the evidence in detail.

Mr Stringer, speaking on behalf of the Crown, ■fjaid that counsel on the other, side had not suggested that the letters had been written as a hoax; but that the only other theory open to the jury was that they 'had been wiitten by some devilishminded person with the object of inculpating accused. They must consider whether that theory was consistent with the facts. Whoever that person was, he must have had a knowledge of accused’s affairs; he must have been familiar with the typewriter; and he must have had access to it cr been aware that the accused had been in the habit of using the machine that produced the results referred to. Such a thing was possible, but it was for the jury to consider whether it was reasonable or probable. A hundred possibilities might be suggested. His Honour, in summing up, said that it was not suggested that the letters were intended for a joke, because it was impossible to imagine that anyone would be guilty of such a particularly senseless and idiotic thing. As to the suggestion that the letters had been written with the object of injuring the accused, supposing that were so there must have been an opportunity to use accused’s typewriter for the purpose. The carpenter and the woman who cleaned out Mr Rhodes’ offices had told them that on numerous occasions the doors of the offices were left open, so that anyone had an opportunity of getting into the offices and using the typewriter. If, again, the letters had been written to injure the accused, that person must have had an intimate knowledge of the accused and his family affairs. The accused, however, had not to prove that he did not -write the letters; it was for the Crown to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he did write them. If the jury were confident that the letters had been produced by the machine, and that Styche had written them, there was no other verdict than that of guilty; but if they were not satisfied on either of those points, they should acquit him. His Honour asked them to put from their minds any rumours that they might have heard, as they might be quite satisfied that had there been anything in them counsel for the prosecution would have placed before the jury the inquiries that had been made in that direction.

The Jury retired at 1.12 p.m., and at 6.35 p.m. brought in a verdict of guilty. Mr Joynt asked for an opportunity of applying for leave to take the case to the Court of. Appeal on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

His Honour said that in order to give that opportunity he would defer passing sentence till 10 a.m. on Saturday,