THE KNYVETT CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10235, 11 May 1911, Page 5

THE KNYVETT CASE.

EVIDENCE COMPLETED

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Last Night. The Knyvett re-trial was continued to-day. Colonel Wolfe said Ifliat when he arrived in Auckland No. 1 Company was in a bad state and Captain Hnyvett was responsible for most of the great improvement that followed. Knyvett was one of the keenest officers of the district, and witness thought the incident was due to Knyvett being in an excited mood when he returned from Wellington. Up to the time of tho incident witness had always found Knyvett subordinate.

Colonel Davies, Inspector-General, had highly commended Captain Knyvett forjfche manner in which he trained his company. Counsel for prisoner put in a testimonial, from Lieut. Col. Paterson expressing the highest approbation of Knyvett's effort to encourage volunteering in Auckland. Captain Davieson said that all the defenco had to do was to prove that the letter was not insubordinate or improper. Counsel detailed Captain Knyvett's career and said that the letter was worded in language which though oerhaps rough and crude, was simply in terms which Captain Knyvett would use in ordinary busings? life. Col. Paterson had not thought tho letter insubordinate.'.or..he. v"ujld have told Knyvett so in no light term*. Counsel continued that Knyvet had not r, guilty intent or used imnroner or insubordinate language. When Knyvett's comoany wanted to disband on Knyvett's dismissal, it vcnr. Knvvett alone, as a civilian, who asked and persuaded them to keep together. Counsel for the prosecution said that accused was not charged with preferring a; charge against » superior offiper, as any member of the defence force was allowed to do so. But the charge was that in preferring the charge" he did so in an insubordinate manner. Ignorance was no excuse for Mich ao tion, especially as officers are expected to know better. The. facts showed that Knyvett had been warned about the letter before ho forwarded it to the Minister of Defence. After Wolfe returned the letter to Knyvett with a warning letter, he endorsed it, "Noted and regret unable' to alter contents." which counsel contended was really an aggravation of the offence. The statement that Knyvett, on his return from Wellington, was in an exoitable mood, boro no weight, as three days later ho still refused to withdraw or alter the letter. Tho question of intent did tot enter into the case, but whether the letter was insubordinate in language or not. The Judge Advocate said the question of intent only entered into the case should a conviction be recorded. The Court then closed, and will consider its finding.