NOT GUILTY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 198, 22 July 1937, Page 2

NOT GUILTY

SUPREME COURT TRIAL. TURKEY CASE ENDS. A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, after a retirement of an hour and 20 minutes, at the conclusion of the case in which Cecil John Warn, John Vincent O’Reilly, Harry Byers, Jan Hamilton Byers and Noel Thomas Hannan, of Palmerston North, were charged with the theft, on February 28, at Hunterviile, of 24 turkeys valued at £l4 Bs, the property of James Bull, and also with receiving the turkeys, well knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. 3he case was heard by His Honour Mr Justice Ostler and a jury of 12. Mr G. Crossley appeared for Warn, Mr D. C. Cullinanc for O’Reilly, Mr J. M. Gordon for Hannan and Mr A. M. Ongley for H. and I. H. Byers. Mr H. R. Cooper, Crown solicitor, conducted the prosecution. When the ease was resumed after luncheon, the evidence lor the prosecution had been concluded and the one accused (Warn) giving evidence had concluded his cvidence-in-cliicf.

Cross-examined by Mr Cooper, witness said lie still believed that the turkeys were wild. He thought they had just gone wild just as tame pigs did. Witness could not name any person who had told him the turkeys were wild nor could lie give a definite tune when lie had been told. He had been told on a number of occasions'. No inquiries had been made as to whether the turkeys were wild or not, from houses in the vicinity oi the place where the turkeys were. Answering His Honour, witness said he had boon the guide of the party. Re-examined, witness said most ot the shooting had taken place on the bed of the Rangitikei River. This concluded the case for the defence. . , Addressing the jury-, Mr Crossley said it was not an ordinary criminal case and after further submissions His Honour said the whole point in the case was: Did the accused honestly believe that the turkeys were wild? Proceeding, Mr Crossley said hi= client’s actions, when he found that Mr Bull had objected to the turkeys being shot, had not been those of one who thought the turkeys had been stolen. Mr Cooper recalled to the minds ot the jury that Y arn had not recalled who had told him the turkeys were wild, or when lie had been told they were wild. .. , . For Hannan, Mr Gordon said Ins client had not actually shot any of the birds. Hannan had been assured the birds were wild. Mr Cullinane, for O Reilly, drew an analogy with pheasants. If Air Bull had bred pheasants 40 years ago and they had then gone wild, would they be wild pheasants now? There was no eiidence of guilty intent on the part oi O’Reilly. _ Air Onglev, for H. and I. H. Byers, said the issue was that the five men deliberately went out to take Nlr Bull s turkeys, or else they went out “to shoot wild turkeys.” The party had gone m a conspicuous and well-known van. There had been no attempts at secrecy at any time. His Honour said the whole case was within a small compass. Accused were charged with stealing the turkeys. Accused admitted taking the turkeys, but they could not be found guilty of there unless it was proved that they had had a dishonest mind. If there was any doubt about the Crown having proved its case, accused had to be given the benefit of the doubt. If accused had known that the turkeys had an owner then they lind committed theft, no matter how wild the birds were or how far they could fly. His Honour invited the jury to think of the Rangitikei district as it had been in the last 10 or 15 years—closely populated sheep country. Accused were not fools. If the jury know shooting turkeys in that area as theft, then they might be sure that accused had known it too. If tlie jury thought accused so simple that they were shooting tilings which did not' belong to anybody, then by all means the jury should let the accused off.

The jury retired at 3.40 p.m. and returned lit 5 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty, as stated. Accused were accordingly discharged.