A 27-year-old man who was charged with stabbing his cousin with a penknife was found not guilty yesterday in Supreme Court.

Tio Tavaun Smith of Scenic Heights, Southampton left Supreme Court One a free man after a jury unanimously acquitted him of unlawfully wounding Richard Windfield ?Trees? Smith with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Before retiring to the jury room yesterday morning, Assistant Justice Archibald Warner summed up the case.

On the night of March 31, 2002 Smith admitted he was involved in several scuffles at the Southampton Rangers Club, one which involved Mr. ?Trees? Smith.

Smith?s girlfriend, Julie Robaine, testified and said Smith came home between 9.30 and 10.30 that evening with cuts and bruises.

But Mr. ?Trees? Smith claimed that Smith came out of the bushes at West Dale Road in Southampton just before 11 p.m. and jabbed him with a penknife as he sat in his usual spot.

Yesterday, Mr. Justice Warner told the jury that Mr. ?Trees? Smith said he identified his assailant because he knew the area and there was a street light on. He also told a Police officer involved in the case that he recognised Tio?s clothes. He said they were the same clothes he was wearing in the club.

Two other witnesses said they saw Mr. ?Trees? Smith?s assailant in dark clothes.

Mr. Justice Warner said witness Althea Watson said she saw someone attack a man outside of her home just before 11 p.m. She said the man that was kicking another man was wearing black.

Another witness, David ?Bird? Burchall, told the court that Smith came to him after the incident and told him he had attacked ?Trees?. He said this occurred after 11 p.m. and Smith was wearing dark sweat clothes and showed him the penknife.

Mr. Justice Warner reminded the jury that Mr. Burchall admitted it was ?possible he was intoxicated, maybe with alcohol and cocaine? the night of the incident.

Mr. Burchall also admitted he may have been confused about the circumstances surrounding the incident.

?The defense say Burchall?s evidence is unreliable and concocted,? Mr. Justice Warner said.

He added that it was a matter for the jury to decide the varying degrees of alcohol consumption. Several witnesses in the case claimed they were intoxicated, drunk or full hot.

The jury returned the verdict an hour after deliberation.