SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2645, 23 November 1904, Page 59

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS Monday, November 21.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at half-past 10 o'clock. GRAND JTJET. The following gentlemen composed the Grand Jury : —Thomas W. Whit son (foreman), William George John Arthur, Benjamin Throp, William Proudfoot Watson, Edward Withers, Joseph Braithwaite, George Crow, John Duthie, Philip Douglas Garside, Thomas Kew Harty, John Hercus, Richard Hudson, Joseph Hunter, Thomas Johns-tone, John Kemnitz, Thomas Maitland, Walter John Meek, and John Packer. his honoe's charge. His Honor charged the Grand Jury in the following terms : Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, — You will have to consider this morning charges against five persons who are accused of various offences. There is a case where a man is accused of stealing a sheep. The case for the prosecution against him, shortly, is that he and the prosecutor were neighbours, and that a sheep was found in the possession of a-ccused which the prosecutor identifies as his by the brand. The ftocused states +hat the skin was that of a .hogget of his own which he killed. There is evidence on the part of the prosecution that the skin is not that of a hogget at all. but is the skin of a. sheep which corresponds with that of a sheep which was grazing in a paddock adjacent to the accused's farm. The skin was the skin of a ewe. One of the ears on the skin was missing-. On the ear which remains tha ear-mark of the accused is visible, Lut the ea.r-rnark of the accused, o>n ewes, was on the other ear, and not on the remaining ear. Then there is a case where a person is accused of the offence 01 forgery. The case is one about which a great deal has appeared in the papers. Of couTse, your functicn is simply to look on the evidence before you and judge whether there is a prima facie cas« against the accused established by that evidence. The forgery consists m making a false document with the intent that it is to be acted upon. The false document which the accused in the present case is charged with making is a power of attorney raad-e by one Keenan. The power of attorney is signed by a mark and is purported to be attested by a witness. The case against the accused is that the signature was not the witness's signature, and that Keenan in making the power of attorney never put his mark to it. The document is a false decumert in either of those cases. If the person whose name appears on the power of attorney as the attesting witness did not in fact attest it, or if Keenan did not put his mark to it, the document is a, false document. That the document was intended to be acted upon appears from the fact that it was acted upon. There are three charges against a person for setting fire to premises on different occasions. He appears to have made an admission of his guilt to the police. There is a case of larceny of goods. Some time last year an office belonging to the Otago Harbour Board was broken into one night, and a box containing a number of articles of clothing and other goods was missing. Sorn-e time this year the police had occasion to visit the hotise of the accused in respect to something else, and they found on his premises a. number of the articles which had been contained in this box. He says that last year he picked up the box, and admits that he kept the articles. Even if that were so, if a man finds property, and after finding it has reasonable means of ascertaining the owner, and appropriates it to his own tise, he is stealing those articles. The only other case is a case of indecent assault upon a woman. The ca&e depends upon the evidence of the woman, and one of the witnesses for the prosecution appears to give evidence somewhat inconsistent with the evidence of the prosecutrix. However, you will have the evidence before you and be able to judge for yourselves. Your function, you will remember, gentlemen, is not to try a case out, but simply to ascertain whether, from ths evidence before you, a cf.se is made out which it is incumbent on the accused to answer. If you think- that is so you should find a true bill. Otherwise you should ignore the bill. If you will retirs to your room the bills will ba laid, before you.

TRUE BILLS In the folk wing cases the Grand Jury found Irus bills: — Robert Henry 'Whitton, slieopstealing; Thomas Beresfoid Matthews, arson (three charts) ; Alfred Henry Vernon King, forgery; and Louis Frank Patterson, breaking and entering. no Bti.T.l in .reid's c.vse. The Foieniait asked whether in the Grand Jury proceedings a majority carried the jury. His Honor replied that 12 must agree. The Foreman thereupon intimated that in the case of Henry Alfred Reid, charged with inoedent assault at Alexandra, the Grand Jury found no true bill. Reid was then brtvught up ancl discharged. BREAKING AND ENTERING. Henry Arthur Gibbs (17), who had pleaded "Guilty'" to a charge of breaking and entering Rcbert M'Kinlay's boot factory at Hillside, Dunedin, on or about the sth November last, was called on for sentence.

The Crown Prosecutor said that nothing was previously known against the lad. His father thought he might be able to send the lad to friends in Australia after a time if the opportunity were given; and he (Mr Fraser) would suggest that prisoner might be admitted to probation, and, if he conducted himself well, apply after a time for remission of the probation ierm.

His Honor, addressing the accused, said : I a.rn anxious that you should not go to gaol if it can be avoided. You will be admitted to probation, but you will remernbor that if you do not behave yourself you will be brought up for sentence and sent to gaol. Think well that your whole future life depends on your conduct in the next few months — whether you are to be a good man and an honest citizen or a gaol-bird." At your age you should think very seriously over it. You will he admitted to probation for a year. You will have to report yourself every week to the probation officer at the gaol at such times that the probation officer may appoint ; and you will have to pay during the first 23 weeks Is a week to the probation officer in part payment of the costs to which the country has been pul through your offence. You will take care that yon comply with those conditions. SHEEP-STEALING. ■Robert Benjamin Whitton (78) was charged that on or about the 2nd September, at StralhTaieri, he stole a sheep belonging to Dugald Matheson. On another count he was charged ■ruth, stealing tlie skin.

The Accused, who was defended by Mr Sim, pleaded " Not guilty." On Mr Sim's application, all witnesses were ordered to retire from the court.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Fraser) said the prosecutor in this case was a sheepfarmer at Strath-Taieri. Across the road was a property belonging to the accused, who was also a farmer. On the 2nd September one John Thomas Cahill, a skin and wool buyer, went to the accused's house to pick up skins. He bought four sheepskins and some rabbitskins, and it was one cf the sheepskins that was the foundation of the present prosecution. There would not be much conflict of evidence about brands in this case. Accused branded with a dot; prosecutor with two crosses, and a dot over them in the case of the breeding flock. The ear-marks were more important. Prosecutor marked with a fore-bit out of the near ear for ewes and Ihe reverse for wethers. Accused ear-marked with two punches and a back-bit out of the near ear for ewes and the opposite for wethers. The prosecutor was very positive that it was the skin of one of his shorn sheep. The accused said it was the skin of one of his own .hoggets; that he found the hogget in a dying condition -and cut i^s throat. It would be proved to the jury beyond question that the skin was not that of a hogget, but of a ewe that had been shorn the previous year. Being Matheson's skin, it ought to bear a fore-bit on the near ear. That ear was gone, and there was no saying what mark it bore; but the off ear bore signs of having been marked after death.

John Thomas Cahill. wool and skin buyer, gave evidence which corroborated the opening statement of the Crown Prosecutor.

Dugald Matheson, farmer, near Middlemarch, said his property was olose to accused.". He had a flock of 2260 'sheep at his place on the 30th April. The only sale he made was of 76 lambs and one ewe, which went to the Burnside yards. His wool brand was XX. His ear-mark was a single forebit— near ear for ewes, off ear for wethers. The whole of the ewes of the flock -were branded in black, and the whole of the wethers, in red ; drafts for sale also in red. His distinguishing brand for breeding purposes was a dot in front of the- crosses. Since July 12 this flock had been running in a paddock adjoining that of accused. On the 2nd September he passed accused's place, and saw Cahill loading skins on an express. He examined four skins. Three had no ears on. The skin produced, was one with the ears off. and was a skin bearing his brand. It was hi® skin, and belonged to a sheep in his home flock. The ear-marking was done shortly before death or after it. The ear that should bear his earmark was gone. He would say the ear-marking was done after death. He believed accused had the same class of sheep on his place. To Mr Sim: He showed' the skin to Thomson and Guild. They did not give evidence in the Police Court. He suggested they should be got as witnesses at the trial. He had been a neighbour of accused for six or seven years. He had had occasion to complain about accused's stock annoying him. The fences between the two places were not as good as tihey might be. At mustering times he had found accused's sheep among his own. The accused had returned sheep that he had found in his fleck. He could not remember saying that that had been done within the last 12 months, thoug-h accused might have done it. William G-eorgs Thomson, sheep-farmer. Bald Hill, said that the last witness had shown him a sheep's skin on the 3rd Sppteinber. The skin produced was the one. It was marked with XX and a dot in front. He would say that the skin belonged to one of Dugald Matheson's home -flock, and that i+ was the skin of a shorn ewe. He considered that the ear-mark was put on after death. If it had been done before death there would have been signs of bleeding. The cut was not healed; it was freshly done.

To Mr Sim : He was summoned to give evidence in the lower court, but did not attend, because the constable at Middlemarch told him not to. Matheson asked: him if he thought the brand on the skin was his (Matheson's). Looking at the skin at the present time he had no doubt as to the two X's and the dot.

Francis Leitch, wool 1 export for Messrs Murray, Roberts, andi Co., considered the skin produced was the skin of a shcrn sheep. He thought it was the skin of a ewe.

To Mr Sun: He had been asked about the brand by the police, but could not recognise any brand. He quite agreed that it was impossible to say -wha;t the brand was.

John Ernest P. Denny, wool expert, said he thought the skin was that of a. hogget. He thought it was "the skin of an unshorn sheep. After looking at it witness said it -was a veiy difficult skin to give an opinion on. He was of opinion it was a hogget's &kin.

To Mr Sim : It was almost impossible to s-ay what the brand was.

Andrew James Guild, sheep-farmer. Bald Hill, said he could tell that the brand on the skin before the court was two X's and! a. dot

before them He should say the skin belonged to Matheson. He would say the ear-mark had been put there since the sheep was killed, ajicl that the skin was that of a shorn isheep. To Mr Sim He did not give evidence Lefon the Police Court. Matheson had suggested thai, he should give evidence. When he first saw the skin the brand was much more legible. Dugald Matheson (recalled) said he had not killed any sheep with the class of skin before the court on his place.

Archibald Stewait, farmer, Middlemarch. said he had seen the brand in September, and it was two X's with a dot in front. It was then more distinct than now. He would sny the ear-marking had been done since the sheep was killed.

John M'Lennsm and James Davis, wool experts, gave evidence that the skm was that of a sheep that had been shorn, and both m cross-examination said they had previously expressed the opinion that the brand was indistinguishable. The court rose until 10.30 next morning. Accused was released on the same bail as bejore.