ALLEGED MALICIOUS WOUNDING OF CATTLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9306, 8 March 1889, Page 6

ALLEGED MALICIOUS WOUNDING OF CATTLE.

THE CASE DISMISSED. ;j Yesterday morning, at the Police Court, Ah Chew, Ah Yum, Ah Choy, Ah Soy, Ah Ching, Ah Moon, Men Ken, and Ah Yup, natives of China, were charged before Messrs. W. Duncan and H. Wilding, J.P.'s, with maliciously wounding two cows, valued at £8, the property of William Freney, at Kingsland, on February 19. Mr. S. Hesketh appeared for the prisoners. \ Inspector Broham applied that Mr. T. Quoi bo sworn as interpreter in the case. Mr. Hesketh said he objected most strongly to Quoi acting in this position, because he believed he had been instrumental in the arrest of the prisoners, and had a strong feeling against them. He (Mr. Hesketh) had endeavoured to procure another interpreter, and had received a telegram from W. P. Sing, of Palmerston —who, ho understood, was thoroughly com{>etent —and he had stated that lis would eave on Friday, and requested that the case should be adjourned until he arrivod. A difficulty had also been experienced by him (Mr. Hesketh) in ascertaining what the defence was, as the interpreter who was assisting him could speak the English language only fairly. Mr. Broham said it was a thing unheard of that it should bo left for the defence to say who the interpreter for the Crown would be. Again, the Supreme Court sat on Monday, and if the case was to be sent there, it would have to be heard that day. Quoi wished to stand aloof from the present case, and it was against his will that he was there that day. He was the best Chinese interpreter in Auckland, and if they could not have him they might have to go to Otago, and nob secure as good a man.

Mr. Hesketh said they should go to London, or even to China, if it were necessary in tho interests of justice. Mr. Duncan said the best point raised by Mr. Hesketh was that he was not prepared, but they would hardly like to sustain the objection about Ah Quoi, and the case would therefore be proceeded with. Emily Freney, a little girl of twelve years, and daughter of tho complainant, deposed that on Tuesday, the 19th February, she saw the two cows milked between five and six p. m. Mr. Hesketh said that one of the prisoners did not know the language spoken to him by Quoi in interpreting, and did not know what he was charged with. Mr. Quoi said that he knew the prisoners, and they all spoke the Chinese language. Ah Citing, one of tho men, was asked whether he knew the language, when he replied that he could not understand what Quoi said. Mr. Quoi said this was " put-off, and that he knew very well what was said. Examination continued : After the cows were milked they were driven on to the common. They afterwards wont out to look for the cows, and between seven and eight o'clock they saw one of them standing a little way from the Chinamen's gardens. Witness then saw that tho cow had been cut on the shoulder and on the back, and also had a wound that looked like a stab. They found the other cow the next morning, lying in the creek, beside tho Chinamen s fence. She was then alive, but had several wounds, and had to be shot, so severe were her injuries. Cross-examined : Witness's father and mother examined the first cow when it was brought home. William Freney, carter, Kingsland, and the owner of the cows, deposed that when they found the first cow they did nob notice that she was injured, and her wounds were nob noticed until the next morning. She had been in the yard all night, and must therefore have been injured before she was driven from the common. When they found the other animal next morning she was frightfully mutilated, and appeared to have been wounded with an axe. The backbone was separated from tho hips, and he counted ten cuts, principally on the hindquarters, and some of them four or five inches long, and very deep. The cow was hauled out of the creek with the aid of the rope, and he believed that it was afterwards shot by order of Mr. Red gate. E. D. Halstoad, veterinary surgeon, deposed that on the 21st February he examined a dead cow, lying near the fence of the Chinamen's gardens at Kingsland. The animal was terribly mutilated. Witness described the injuries, and produced the hide, which was considerably cut and hacked. He examined the other cow, and found that it had several wounds and small punctures of the skin. Detective Hughes deposed to going to Archhill, and seeing the mutilated cow lying by the creok. tie had examined the Chinamen's fence about MO yards from where the cow lay. He saw the bottom rail of the fence had been broken, and fresh tracks of cattle having entered, and marks of cattle tracks in tho Chinamen's gardens, and freshly bitten cabbages. Near the creek running through the garden he found from a pint to about a quart of blood. This was about 84 yards from where the cow was found. Ho found further tracks of a cow going out of the gardens. After this examination of the locality, he went into the Chinamen's house, 62 yards from where he found the blood, and found a knife (produced) on the bench in the house. He pointed out to the Chinamen some slight stains of blood on it, and they said it had been used to cut meat. A few yards from the house in the garden he found the axe (produced), on the blade and handle of which were bloodstains. Ah Chow said, " What are you doing with my axe?" Witness showed it him, and took ib away. He had afterwards arrested the prisoners. The Court adjourned at one o'clock, and on resuming at two Mr. J. A. Pond, Colonial Analyst, was called, and deposed that on the 21st February Detective Hughes brought an axe to him, and he examined it for blood stains. He found several spots of blood on the blade and some on the handle. He examined these, and found that the spots of blood on the blade were nob quite dry, as if they were quite recent. The microscopic and chemical examinations both bore out the fact of the material being dried blood, and mammalian blood. On the edge of the blade were a few white and yellowish hairs, he could not say of what animal. '

Constable Dewes, stationed at Eden Terrace, gave corroborative evidence. Crossexamined by Mr. Hesketh : He had only seen traces of blood in the house nearest to where the cow was found.

Sou Mee, gardener, Jermyn-street, sworn by blowing out a lighted match, deposed that on the 19th February lie was at the Chinese garden at Archhill, about halfpast five, and between half-past six and seven he heard a lot of noise, and rushed out of the house and saw the prisoners chase the cow. [Witness identified each of tho prisoners.] He saw Ah Yuk with a long-handled shovol, Ah Ching had a garden fork, Men Kin had a garden fork, Ah Moon had a garden hoe. He saw them chase the cow up and down. It was in the garden at the time. They struck the cow with those weapons. One of the cows escaped, but the other did nob. He saw one cow go down the garden and the prisoners wiring into" it. Ho could not swear that any of the Chinese had an axe. About 14 or 15 chased the cow. He saw them strike both cows. Witness then went away. Cross-examinod : He had been at Archhill on the 19th, and not three days after. He had seen what he had described himself, and had nob repeated a story told to him.

Ah Noon, gardener, Archhill, sworn like the last witness, by blowing out a lighted match, deposed to remembering seeing two cows being in the Chinese gardens about sunset. He saw Ah Ching, Ah Yuk, Men Kin, and Ah Moon chasing them. He saw Ah Yuk use a long shovel, Ah Moon used a garden hoe, Ah Ching and Men Kin used garden forks. He saw them " wiring into" the cows, one of which got away, and the other was chased down to the creek. He could nob say that he saw anybody use the axe (produced). Cross-examined : The place did not belong to him, and he did not chase the cows. There was enough daylight for him to see the four men ha mentioned hitting bhe cow. This was all the evidence.. ,

Inspector Broham pointed out that all persons aiding and abetting in an offence of this kind were equally guilty, so in this case all those who had U3ed the garden tools were just as guilty as the person who had used the axe, although tho evidence did not show who had used it.

Tho Bench were of opinion that they would nob bo justified in sending tho case up to the superior Court, and accordingly dismissed it.