THE CASE OF LOUIS CHEMIS.

Observer, Volume XVI, Issue 924, 26 September 1896, Page 7

THE CASE OF LOUIS CHEMIS.

Should He Have a New Trial ?

The fates are evidently determined that Louis Chemis shall remain in prison for the term of his natural iife. Last year he was buoyed-up with the hopes of a new trial on the murder charge on which he was convicted, but that hope proved a broken reed. This session he was again given reason to suppose" thac, by the passing of the Criminal Code Act Amendment Bill, he would at last gain the ardent desire of his heart, and that the case which has deprived him for seven loDg years of his freedom would be re-opened. And once more has he been disappointed. In the Legislative Council the Criminal Code Act Amendment Bill has been shelved for another three months, which will mean till next year's session. Verily, Chemis is experiencing that hope deferred which maketh the heart sick. How waß it that the Bill was shelved ? The answer is supplied by the debate in the Council, in which the bulk of the speakers plainly expressed themselves as convinced of Chemis guilt and as wholly opposed to the re-opening of his case. A notable exception to these gentlemen was the Hon. Mr Kelly, who said that after reading carefully the whole of the evidence ' he was amazed that any jury should convict this man of murder — simply amazed. There was no evidence, he thought, to justify such a verdict. First of all, there seemed to him an inadequate motive shown as to the cause of such a horrible cricue as this This man Chemis, as far as he was awa,re. had been for 12 years employed by the County Council. He was a man of industrious habits, Baying, and, as far as he "ould learn, a eood father and a good husband He had a testimonial from his employer of good character. The next circumstance in his favour was that he was working all day on the day of the murder. He was at his usual employment, and, after work, had gone home, arriving there at five o'clock, and according to the statement of the Judge, the murder must have been committeed about a quarter to six o'clock. It was proved in evidence that did not come out at the trial that he was at home at six, or nearly so.' Mr Kelly went on to say : ' But supposing he was not there at Bix, he had to prepare for this murder— he had to prepare his weapons, and so on, go over a hill some 400 ft high, in the dark, waylay his victim, accomplish his crime, and get back within about an hour. It seemed to him rather incredible that Buch a thing could be done. It was a mere matter of chance his knowing Hawkins could be there, Chemis having been at work all day, and it seemed in credible that Chemis, under these circumstances, should have committed the murder.' Then, in scathing terms, Mr Kelly denounced the way in which the police went to work, characterising their methods as ' not at all creditable to a detective force.' ' The carelessness and want of method shown by the police throughout,' said Mr Kelly, 'were something extraordinary. The mp,n was defenceless. The police searched his house, took his property

languish in gaol for years simply because of ' precedent,' and if he is guilty the new trial is not likely to assist him. In any case, in the name of justice, let him have his trial 1

— That genius often consists in an infinite capacity for taking drink. — That the most appropriate memorial to raise to a defunct legislator is a drinking fountain. ; — That it's about time Government ! did something to check the shameless quackery which exists in this Colony. Too many sham doctors. — That while Professor Seger was discussing learnedly on the ' Moon ' in the Museum the other night, the ' pale orb ' \va9 shining so ref algently that the wandering couples of lovers outside, we suspect, derived more enjoyment from it than, did the lecturer's audience. — That a leading London doctor is reported to have answered the qnestion 'Who should ride the bicycle?' thus briefly : — ' The active for rest ; the sedentary, for exercise ; the well, to keep so ; the invalid, to regain health.' So that it any person should be disposed to ask ' Who - shall not ride a bicycle ?' the obvious answer will.be 'Nobody,' and we have the matter pro and con in a nutshell.

I away, and no memorandum was given him or to any member of his family, or to any person acting on his behalf of the things that were taken away from him and afterwards produced at the trial.' In the discussion which followed, the Hon. Mr Arkwright gave utterance to some extraordinary sentiments. He said (as reported in Hansard) : ' For his part, he did not believe the man was innocent ; he believed he had committed the crime and had been justly convicted. But even if he did think he was innocent, he should still take exactly the same line and protest against this Bill. . . . Whether it was right or wrong, they would be establishing a most dangerous precedent if they passed this Bill.' According to this sort of thing, if Ghemis is innocent Mr Arkwright would keep him in gaol, branded as the perpetrator of a horrible murder, leave him to perish of a broken heart, to die by inches, to pay the penalty of a hideous crime which he never committed — sooner than establish a bad precedent.' How would Arkwright like to be in Chemis place, and, yearning for a chance to have his innocence made" manifest to. the world, to be told that to give him the opportunity he craved would be to ' establish a bad precedent ?' There does not seem to be any rational argument against the extending of a free trial to Chemis, except musty, fusty precedents. If he is really innocent, it is the cruelest of treatment to let him

*,/