Police Court.

Southland Times, Issue 12328, 22 September 1892, Page 3

Police Court.

Wednesday, 21st Sept. (Before C. E. Rawson, Esq., R.M.) CIIAROK OF CATTLE STEALING. The hearing of the charge preferred against William Frisby of having killed a cow belonging to William Butler with intent^ to carry away the carcase was resumed. — Sergeant Macdonell stated that he did not intend to call further evidence for the prosecution. In reply to Mr Russell, his Worship said that unless evidence was called for the defence there was a prima facie case on the testimony already given. Mr Russell, before calling evidence, addressed the Court, stating that the question in be considered was with what intent did accused kill the animal. The only way to deal with that question was to take the complainant, Butler's, own estimate of the conduct of accused. No jury of sensible men would say from the facts that Frisby meant to steal the cow. It was perfectly clear from the evidence that Butler and hi 3 solicitor looked upon the" matter as one for settlement on a civil basis, and that when Frisby would not settle it by paying for the cow it was made a police case. It was manifest that if Frisby had the slightest consciousness of guilt he would have settled it for th? L 5 asked for. No man having such an opportunity would have refused it. He could have paid the L 5 and immediately sued Butler for damages for the trespass, and how could the prosecutor then come into Court wi;h this charge ? He would show that the animal had been on Corbitt's land for over two years. With regard to the advestisment intimating that unless the cow was removed it would be destroyed, and which had been Btated by the prosecution to be vague, and therefore misleading, he ex plained that Frisby had only been managing Corbitt's farm since December last, and did not insert the advertisement, so that if it was not as clear as it should have been he was not to blame. The animal, it was evident, was scarcely worth the killing, it was so poor, and the fact that Frisby used it went to show that he believed himself justified in killing it. He asked his Worship if he thought there was a case to answer. His Worship thought there was. Mr Russell : Even if the facts I have outlined are proved, would you still consider there is a case to answer ? His Worship : Yes. In the first place accused killed the cow knowing it was not his own, when the proper course was to have impounded it. It was both branded and ear-marked. The advertisement was misleading, as it simply said a " horned beast," no description of the brand or earmark being given. As to the presence of witnesses, that goes for nothing, for they might have been accomplices. 1 have no doubt the case is one for a jury to decide as to criminal intent. Mr Russell said in that case he would reBerve his defence. Sergeant Macdonell asked for substantial bail, and this was fixed at two sureties of LIOO each, or one of L2OO and accused himself in L2OO.