THE STOKE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CASES.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXVIII, Issue 49, 6 December 1900, Page 20

THE STOKE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CASES.

At the Supreme Court, Wellington, on Thursday morning the Crown Prosecutor intimated that he did not intend to proceed with the remaining charges of common assault against Brother Kilian.

On the same day the trial of Edouard Forrier (Brother Wybertus) on a charge of indecent assault on William Hardwick, a former inmate of the Stoke School, but now confined at Burnham, was then proceeded with before Mr. Justice Edwards. The offence was alleged to have been committed in 1897, but no particular date could be fixed by Hardwiok. The only witness called by the Crown was the boy Hardwick himself. In cross-examination he stated that when he gave evidence before the Royal Commission he was working for Mrs. Holt. He told her that the boys who gave evidence at the Commission were telling a lot of lies. He also told her that he had nothing to complain of against the Brothers. Witness in reply to the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Bell) admitted having committed improprieties with other boys. Witness contradicted the evidence given by him in the Magistrate's Court, and explained that he did so because 'he had been thinking over the matter since.' His Honor said he supposed the jury had come to n conclusion. Personally he wonld not punibh a cat on the boy'e evidence. Mr. Bell said he had no further evidence to tender, and would be content with a verdict of not guilty. His Honor directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. This was accordingly done.

On Friday Brother Wybertus was charged with having committed an indecent assault on Thomas Owen^, in lh%. The defence was a oomplete denial of the charge. In his address to the jury, Mr. iSkerrett (counsel for the accused) said the charge was that certain events had happened four years ago. For four long years, according to the evidence for the prosecution, not a whisper of complaint was ever heard. That was the very acme of injustice and hardship. It was very like tying a man's hands behind his back and then setting him to fight an adversary. It had to be borne in mind that they did not know even the month or the day of the week on which the crime was eaid to have been committed. Neither was there any certainty about the year in which it was baid to have been done. The circumstances under which the charge was brought ought also to have consideration. As he had already pointed out there was no whisper of it for four years. The boy, it must be supposed, had chums at the school, but he did not breathe a word to any of them. Was there any reason why he should not ? Yet he said he did not mention it to a single boy during the whole time he remained at the school. He left the school, and he did not say a single word till a detective waited upon him. Now that w;*aa very curious time. It was a time of great excitement. It was a time when the boys of the school were encouraged in their resentment against the school and thoir anger against the maHters. There waa most congenial soil for the tree of falsehood. Vp sprang a series of falsehoods or exaggerations which were quite as wicked as falsehoods. And up sprang the present charge. It had to bo remembered that the school was a prison for these boys. They had the same hatred of a prison that anyone would have who was placed in confinement. They were always struggling to get free. Brother Wybertus, moreover, occupied a position in which he was likely to incur the resentment of the boys. For some years he was the disciplinarian of the school. A whipping-master was never popular with those who were whipped, or likely to be whipped. It was, in the circumstances, not unlikely that he should be made the subject of charges. The jury had to remember that thin institution was a school for neglected boys, most of whom were sent to it by magistrates. They were herded together, and it was not in the least surprising that they should be found to be unsatisfactory and untrustworthy in character. They were witnesses without home training or home influences. Iv their early life they had been neglected. They had mixed with all sorts and descriptions of boys. Waß it at all surprising that there should be found among boys who came from the school some who had grave faults Buch as untruthfulness, lack of moral character, lack of that courage which would keep a boy straight when he was tempted to go wrong, and lack of that high principle which would prevent a boy Irom standing up and conoocting a story for the purpose of being made much of and posing as a hero in the eyes of his friends ? The excitement of a case like thiß was the very Bort of excitement which in all ages had given rise to false accusations and led people to te) 1 lies whioh were marked by thi! most complete detail. He put it to the jury that from the knowledge which boys at the school had of indecent practices, and the hatred or dislike of a master, it was a very short step to the invention of a story of the kind told against the prisoner. If the boy Owens were an innocent boy. a boy who knew nothing of these practices, the case might be different. Counsel submitted that a boy who had been treated as Owens eaid he was would never have written the letters he did to the accused — letters in which he spoke of having received kind treatment from him, in which he also said he waß Bure hia younger brother would be safe with him.

His Honor, in summing up, said the case for the Crown depended upon the evidence of the witness Owens. In regard to him his Honor said the boy's evidence disclosed serious discrepancies. An evil boy introduced into an institution of this sort waß far more likely to do ill to its morals than a teacher, however evilly-disposed the latter might be. It was on this account that the importance of classifying neglected children was becoming bo widely recognised, and it was also on this account that the lack of classification in this school had borne such bad results. This matter of the Stoke school had not been treated by the public as being simply between the country and the accused persons. It had been treated by the publio as being a matter between the country and the denomination to which the accused belonged. The jury, after 20 minutes' retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty. Brother Wybertus was next oharged with having committed a common assault on William Ross on May 1, 1894, and on Frank McCormiok on June 1, 1895. Boss's evidence was that he was flogged for stealing bread. In cross-examination witness remembered Lynch's case. He knew that Lynch eaid the allegations made in it were untrue. He heard that Lynch said that because Maher gave him a shilling. (Laughter). He had not, to his knowledge, baid in a Nelson Hotel, speaking of the brothers, 'I will crucify the .' In reply to a question by his Honor, witness stated that he might have said something like it. In reply to further questions by Mr. Skerrett, the witness admitted that he had run away from one employer and Btolen money from another. McCormick deposed that he was flogged by Brother Wybertus for running away. He ran away twice. Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett : The flogging in question was inflicted about six months before he left the bchool. He could not explain why he said in the Magistrate's Court that it was twelve or eighteen months before he If ft. Neither could he explain why he said there that he got eighteen cuts. He could not say now exactly how many cuts he got. He could not recollect the number. He had made a statement to Mr. Rout. Had been ' shouted ' for (treated) by many persons in Nelson. Mr. Rout might have ' Bhouted ' for him. He had addressed a public meeting in Nelson in regard to the Stoke Industrial School and made a few personal remarks. One of hia remarks was : ' I have thrown off the yoke of Papacy.' He had not narrated this punishment for six years. Brother Wybertus gave evidence in his own defence. He ceased to be disciplinarian at the school in the second week of 1895. Thrashing on the bare back was discontinued then. Witness had objected to it in February, 1891. At that time witness, under instructions from Brother Loetus, punished six boys who had run away. The boys received ten cuts each. The cuts were given over the trousers. The punishment was inflicted in front of all the boys. As a result the boys took a resentment towards witness. There waa no punishment of this kind after the beginning of 1895. Witness remembered the stealing of bread by Ross. It happened in 1893, It was reported by the baker. Six boys were concerned, and they were punished. Witness gave them Bix strokes on the bare body. Witness had uever given a boy more than 12 strokes on the bare body. Only two boys received that many. The scale was six strokes for the first time of running away, eight for the second, and 12 for the third. McCormick ran away on January 5, 1896.

Mr. Bell at this stage said that in view of the evidence of the boys as to dates be thought it would be unsafe for the jury to po any further. His Honor said to the juryj ury the Crown was content that they should return a verdict of not guilty. He directed them accordingly.

The foreman, after consulting with members of the jury, said they would like to consider it. His Honor (to the jury) : Of course, you have a plain duty. It has been established to the satisfaction of the Crown Prosecutor, and I suppose to every one, that it is quite impossible that the prisoner could have done what he is charged with in the indict* ment.

Mr. Bell said it was clear from the evidence that the occurrences could not have happened about the time stated. His Honor (to the jury) : You cannot find the prisoner guilty because you think he has committed an assault. You must find him guilty on the evidence of witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses in this case cannot be supported. They have made a mistake. It is quite impossible these things could have taken place as they described. I cannot understand what you want. Do you want to spend the whole afternoon over it, after the intimation from the Crown which has been given ?

Mr. Bell paid that after the evidence which had been given aa to dates, he did not think it safe to go further with the case.

A verdict of not guilty was formally returned.

On Monday Brother Wybertus was tried on a charge of indecently assaulting a lad named Gucker. The jury were unable to agree, and a new trial will take plaoe next week.