POLICE V. BAIN. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 1555, 27 August 1881, Page 14

POLICE V. BAIN. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — The above case was heard here before Slajc* Keddell, R.M., on the 16th and 17th iuet., resulting in the honourable acquittal of the accused. The evidence given by Sergeant-Major Moore and myself was vory conflicting. And although 1 believe that my statement will be accepted iti this district as readily as Mr Moore's, still, as the depositions taken in the above case will have a wider circulation, it is my desire that the conversation relative to the purchase of the heiter, not admibsible in evidence, should also bo widely circulated ; hence my choosing the Witness as ;t medium. On the 20th of July last, Se goantmujor Moore, and with him Constable Pool and Peter lio^d, of .Roxburgh, came to my place to examine a huit'ur 1 purchased of William Bain. After yarding mill examining the heifer, Mr Moore and I rode baulc towarks my hoiioe, slightly in advance of the others, when the following' con venation took place — MrMooie wiid, " It it ia a fair question, how much did you pay for her?" I replied, '• 1 purchased her along with live otUus." He then übked " what I would take for her." 1-aid ''It does not suit me to sell." This remark was ovci heard, and would, 1 think, lead an impartial hearer lo avrho at tho conclusion that Air Moore wanted to buy. Mr Moore again asked "what was her value?" I replied, "About £2 Us." He then said, " Will you take £3 for hurl" Before I answered him, ho explained to me that there was a possibility ot the heifer being done-away-with unknown to me, and it would be better if she became the property ot the police. I agreed to take it, and as 1 was going from home early the following morning, it WjS arranued that Constable Pool bhould come for the heifer on the 28th, pioviding he made up his mind to fro on with the case. At this point of converdation we met the accused, with whom Mr Moore walked, at some distance, until ariiving at my house, when he iallud me aside and told me the outlii c of what Bain had Miid, th it H.vm had got tho heifer from Harry M'Douall, iiiul bianded her himtelf with aPH; the brand ha i been destroyed. Mr Moore said it was one of those crooked eases which he could not look over, and it was finally arranged that Constable Pool should come for tho heifer on the 28th, that he should pay me for her. and that 1 should give him a receipt, no mention whatever being made that the heifer was to be returned. However, Constable Pool and Thomas Hij-gd (who wad hired by the police), removed the heifer, and also a cow (the cow was returntd the same day) on tlie 27th in my absence, < and without my permission, or an oidur from the Court, the legality of which 1 mean to test in the proper place. Mr Moore in his depositions baid, "Wo bargain whatever was entered into between me and Gideon A. binith on the 26th of July concerning the heifer ' ; but fun her on, in hifi, cross-examination, he said he was lesponsible to mo for £3 if the heifer was not returned. Even this admission on Mr Moore's part, 1 think, Mr Editor, bi ings it within the limits of a bargain. A civilian would recognise it as such, but seemingly it is not a bargain aveording to the definition of a sergeantmajor ot police. I am, &c,

Gideon A. Smith.

Roxburgh East, August 2^nd.