STYCHE SENSATION.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 71, 27 March 1901, Page 2

STYCHE SENSATION.

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. the Appeal by mr joynt. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) Wellington, last night. The motion for a new trial in the case of Styche, convicted at Christchurch of attempting to procure the murder of his wife, is being heard by the Full Court of Appeal. The ground of the appeal is that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence. Mr Joynt, for accused, contended that there was a broad distinction between appeals iu civil and criminal cases, as in the latter there was a presumption of innocence which had to be displayed, and the evidence must bo beyond doubt. In this case the most that could bo said of the evidence was that it was suspicious, but not strongly suspicious. No part pointed conclusively to guilt. Ho commented on the absurdity of taking seriously a suggestion to a "medical man to commit murder for JS2OO, payable at three months, by some unknown person. No motive was shown, and accused was in very prosperous circumstances, and on good terms with his wife. Counsel is criticising the evidence in detail. Mr Joynt dwelt strongly on Styche’s behaviour at the interview with Dr Clayton on August 3rd, when the latter proposed to borrow money from the accused. Had Styche been guilty ho would only have been too glad to embrace the opportunity, but his conduct was perfectly straightforward, and entirely consistent with that of a man who had no motive for and did not want to lend money. As to the typewriter, an accidental fall was a much more reasonable explanation of the damage than a guilty desire to get rid of it, which would have been the height of foolishness. Counsel commented at length on the evidence of the typewriting experts, and denied that the Crown’s witnesses were entitled to be called experts. Even if the evidence was sufficient to prove that the letters were written with the accused’s machine, there was abundant testimony that it was accessible to anyone who desired to perpetrate a foolish joke. Summing up, from every point of view there was not sufficient evidence to justify a jury in bringing in a verdict of guilty. Mr Stringer, for the Crown, submitted that trial by jury was so essential a part of our criminal juisprudenco that the Court of Appeal would hesitiatc very much to interfere with the jury’s verdict iu such a case. He quoted cases in support,, and then went on to roview the evidence.