SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 September 1915, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

SITTING AT NEW PLYMOUTH. LIGHT CRIMINAL CALENDAR A session of the Supreme Court was opened at the New Plymouth Courthouse at 11 o'clock yesterday morning. His Honor Mr. Justice Deniuston presided. Mr. H. E. Billing, Acting-Crown Prosecutor, prosecuted. HIS HONOR'S ADDRESS. The following Grand Jury was empanelled: Messrs Arthur Ambury, senr., J. Austin, J. Bennett, J. S. Connett, F. P. Corkill, G. A. Corney, R. 0. Ellis, R. H. George, B. Gilmour, J. Hayden, W. T. Hookham, F. S. Johns, Newton King, J. Little, E. May, D. K. Morrison, A. H. Palmer, W. J. Penn, Geo. "Ramson, 0. W. Sole, A. Veale, L. B. Webster and E. Whittle. Mr. King was chosen foreman. In addressing the Grand Jury, his Honor congratulated the district on the entire absence of serious crime, and this was a matter which was very creditable to the district. There was only one indictment to be considered, while the only other charge on the criminal calendar had been admitted by the accused, who was an old offender. It was particularly gratifying to find there was an entire absence of sexual cases, which he regretted to say had been somewhat too prevalent in New Zealand. Hi 3 Honor then referred to the charge of mischief and cattle stealing which was to be tried, and he expressed the opinion that the jury would not have any difficulty in deciding whether a true bill should be returned in this case or not. The Grand Jury then retired and after a short interval returned a true bill against Harry Brunsdon of mischief and cattle stealing. FORGER SENT TO PRISON. "MOST OF LIFE IN GAOL." George Evans appeared for sentence, having pleaded guilty to three charges of forgery, one Charge of uttering a forged cheque, and a charge of theft from a dwelling. The three offences of forgery were committed at Wangamu and the other two offences were committed at Eawera. Asked if he had anything to say, the prisoner said he was a hard-working man and had been working steadily since last Easter, and if given a chance this time he would do better in the future. Ha said he had been drinking heavily, and this was the cause of his fall. His Honor then read the prisoner's record, which showed that he had been convicted of forgery in 1903, and from that year until now the prisoner had been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for forgery comimitted in different parts of New Zealand. His Honor remarked that the prisoner had spent a considerable part of his life in gaol, and was now serving a sentence in the New Plymouth prison. In answer to his Honor the prisoner said he had been working for the Public Works Department at Wanganui. His Honor: You look a steady man, and it is a pity to see you spending your life by forgery. The forgeries have been well done and do not appear to be the work of a drunken man. It is impossible, in view of the circumstances and your record, for me to treat you leniently. Prisoner: I always work hard outside, and if you give me a chance I His Honor: No, I cannot give you a chance. It is painful to see a man like you of respectable appearance committing these offences. You i will be sentenced to two years' imprisonment, SHOOTING CATTLE. THE WAREA CASE FAILS. Harry Brunsdon was charged with committing mischief by destroying a cow, the property of George E. Julian, of Warea; (2) with stealing a cow valued at £25; (3) with receiving a skin knowing It to have been stolen; and (4) with destroying the brand of a cow, the property of George £. Julian. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr. J H. Quilliam and Mir. H. R. Billing prosecuted. The following jury was empanelled:— Messrs E. P. Lister, A. E. Lander, R. E. R. Davis, G. T. Bampton, C. Lonetataff, H. A. Calder, C. W. Maddock, W. F. Paul, H. Spurdle, C. H. Sampson, E. J. T. Marsh and W. Ambury. Mr. Ambury was chosen foreman. After the Crown Prosecutor had outlined the case he called,

George Ernest Julian, a dairy farmer residing at Warea, who said that he put fourteen cattle on to the property of a Maori known as Ti, whose land was near that of witness. He put some cattle on Ti's place on May 25 and some on May 29. Amongst these cattle was one named "Nigger," a Holstein. The cow was black, with white markings, while it was branded "R. 7.," on the right rump, and had a -slit in the right ear. Witness had inspected the cattle about every two weeks, but he had not seen Nigger. On June 29 witness found one of his cows wounded and when, on July 1, he went to bring "Nigger" home he found that the ITeast had been shot. The skin had been taken off, except over the head and tail, and the beast was wounded in the centre of fne forehead. Witness thought the eo"w had been shot from close quarters. Shots were found in the head. The cow was valued at £2~>. After the accused had been arrested lie went to see the witness and said: "I shot the cow all right. 1 am sorry, but 1 thought it was a wild cow. Why should I want to shoot a cow of yours? You arc the last in the world I would do an injury to. 1 thought it was a wild cow, or I would never have shot it." Witness then asked the accused why he shot the other cow, and the accused replied that lie knew nothing about the. other cow. Tiie accused further said he would pay for the cow l "whether he got a term ot not." Apart from the fact that wild cattle would run away from anyone, there was not much difference between wild cattle and farm cattle. His Honor: Holsteins don't run about the bush usually.

Continuing his evidence, witness said the accused had lived in the Warea road locality for about two years. Cross-examined by Mr. Quilliam, witness said the accused had only been Tn New Zealand about two years and for the greater part of that'time the accused had been working for witness' father. Witness had no difficulty in identifying the carcase as that belonging to his beast "Nigger." A new elmra wculd experience difficulty jp getting ibeut £h{ buii.

Thomas Julian, father of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. Cross-examined by Mr. Quilliam, witness said he had no difficulty whatever in identifying the carcase as that belonging to hia son's cow. There were hundreds of wild cattle in the National Park, and theTe was also a good number of wild cattle in Ti'a bush. Very frequently people in the Warea district had gone into the mountain reserve to shoot wild cattle; witness had himself received a permit from the Department to shoot wild cattle in the Mountain Reserve. The accused had been working for witness most of the time sine* the accused had been in New Zealand and witness always found the accused honest. The accused was a raw newchum and knew very little about the I country life in New Zealand.

To his Honor: A few years ago it was the practice of settlers to go out and shoot cattle in the Mountain Reserve. This had been done since the accused came to the district. The Commissioner of Crown Lands gave permits to settlers who wished to go and'shoot the cattle.

His Honor: If the practice still exists, the sooner it is discontinued the better.

. Constable O'Neill, stationed at Rahotu, stated that in company with G. E. Julian he interviewed the accused on July 2. In reply to questions, the accused said he had done some shooting and was last put about a fortnight ago. Witness then asked the accused if he had sold any hides lately, and the accused replied that he had sold twe horse hides, two calf hides, and one cow l.ide to a hide dealer. The accused said that the com hide he sold Wds a red hide. The accused said he had bought the hide, and when asked where he said: "I won't tell you, and I won't answer any more questions." Witness then took the accused to Mr. Tulloch, and Mr. Tulloch produced a black cow hide, which he said the accused had sold to him. The ccus/'l then denial Unit the bVfc. lulr was the one he sold to Mr. Tulloch, declaring he sold a red hide to him. At the same time George Julian identified the Mack hide as that of his cow which had been shot. The accused was then arrested, and when witness was escorting him to New Plymouth the accused said: "I am sorry for poor George. I did not know it was his cow I had shot. I shall certainly plead guilty to this charge." Percival Austin Putt, a farmer residing at Warea, gave evidence as to having seen the accused with a gun in the neighborhood where the cow was shot. Arthur M. Tulloch, a skin buyer, residing at Pungarehu, said he met the accused on the Warea road on July 1, and Brunsdon said he had a couple of hides for sale. Witness took the hides, one of which was a cow hide and the other a horse hide. The cow hide was black. Later, Constable O'Neill brought the accused to witness, and witness identified him a 9 the man from whom he had bought the hides. The accused then stated that the hide hj« sold witness was a red hide.

Edith Brunsdon, sister-in-law of the accused, remembered him bringing a. cow's tongue home one day—she could not remember the date—after he had been out shooting. The accused had a black cow hide and a bay horse hide in a shed at witness' place, and the hides were taken away by Mr. Tulloch. This closed the case for the prosecution. THE DEFENCE. After outlining the defence, Mr. Quilliani called the accused, who stated that he came to New Zealand from England three years ago. He came fliit to join his brother at Warea. For about two years he had been employed on Mr. Julian's farm cutting wood, but he had no other experience of the bush. Besides giving him employment, Mr. Julian had befriended him in many ways. Adjoining his property there was busj> where there were wild cattle. He had heard that settlers shot the wild cattle. One wet day in June the accused went shooting. He entered the busli near Ti's, and passed about twenty head of Ti's cattle. He went further into the bush, where lie saw a black cow. The cow made a rush through the scrub and accused followed. He did not recognise the cow as a Holstein. The cow rushed past the accused, and as she did so he shot her at close range. It was dark and-the accused did not see much of the cow. In the darkhe skinned the cow, and. though he had gone out for meat, he did not take any, as the cow was in calf. He removed the tongue, which he took home, and left the hide on the road. Next day the accused took the hide homo. Later the accused offered to sell Mr. Tulloch a cow hide and a hone hide. The accused thought the cow was a wild cow, and up to the time he saw the policeman he did not think he would be charged with shooting the cow. The evidence of Constable O'Neill was correct, and the reason he told the constable that the hide was a red one because he was frightened. Cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor, accused said he did not take much notice of the beast, because lip thought it was wild. The fact that this cow ran and the others lie saw did not made him think she was wild. As it was dark he did not notice the brand, and he could not say what he did with the piece with the brand on it. To his Honor: His brother was not surprised when the accused said he was going out to get some beef. His Honor: Is it your practice to keep the larder full in this way? Accused: No, but I had heard that settlers were in the habit of doing this. This closed the defence.

His Honor referred to flic count of mischief, and pointed out that the charge of mischief could not succeed unless it was shown that accused had set out to do harm to the owner of the cow. It had not been shown that he had deliberately set out to harm Mr. Julian. The accused went out to shoot a cow to get some beef, and this was an entirely different thing to going out to commit mischief. His Honor would not allow (he count of mischief to go to the jury. The only count that could go to the jury was the count of stealing the cow. It was no good puzzling the jury with all the counts set out in the charge. The jury would simply have to decide whether the accused stole the cow or rot.

In addressing the jury, Mr. Quillkm said there was an abundance of evidence that the shooting of wild cattle was prevalent in the district. The accused went out to shoot wild cattle, and the fact that he was the "newest of new claims" would account for him not knowing a Holstein from a wild cow. Further, the accused did not make the slightest attempt to hide his action. If Ihe accused honestly believed the animal was n wild cow and, further, believed that lie had a right to shoot wild eows, then the jury could not convict him. Counsel added that the practice of shooting wild cattle was an exceedingly dangerous one, and one that should be stopped. In summing up, his Honor said the accused stole the cow unless lie believed ho had a right to shoot it. The case was a peculiar one. The accused left home saying he was going shooting and would bring V\me some beef. The only way he could get beef was by shooting sows, and thera wm evidence that this

was a common way of getting beef in the district. It was an exceedingly bad practice. Poaching was very common at Home, where people believed they had a right to rabbits. It was a low moral standard. The wholb question in this case was: Did the accused honestly believe that he had a legal right to go out and shoot these cattle? The jury also had to consider whether the accused had> cut out the brand or not, for if he had done so it would show he was attempting to disguise his action. The jury would further have to consider the falsehood told by the accused to the poHce. His Honor added that he agreed with counsel that the practice of shooting wild cows was an extremely improper one.

THE VERDICT. The jury retired at 4.45 p.m. An hour later the jury returned, the foreman intimating that he wished to ask a question concerning the fourth indictment. His Honor: You have nothing to do with the indictments. You should never have got them, I removed the different indictments and brought the whole matter down to one question, i.e., Did the man steal the cow believing he had a legal right to do so? That is all you are asked to decide. . The Court then took possession of the indictments. The foreman said it was a question concerning the removal of the brand which he wished to ask. The jury considered the brand had been removed, but there was no evidence that the accused had removed it. His Honor said he only had a right to say that the removal of the brand was a question for the jury's consideration. About 6 o'clock the jury returned, and the foreman announced that a verdict of "Guilty" had been arrived at, but, he added, "the jury is of opinion that at j the time of shooting the cow the accused j believed it was a wild cow, and so was justified in his action in shooting it." His Honor: Well, I cannot call that a verdict of guilty. Do you 'believe that the accused believed he was legally entitled to shoot the cow? Do you believe that he believed he was doing an innocent action? It was a wrong thing to do, we all know, but do you think the accused thought he was doing a right thing? The foreman said the jury considered that as the man was a new arrival in the country and had heard of cows being shot in this way he did not think he was doing any harm. His Honor: That, gentlemen, is a verdict of not guilty. The accused was then discharged. CIVIL BUSINESS. Several civil cases set down for hearing were called on, and were adjourned by consent of the parties concerned. The Court then adjourned until 11 o'clock this morning, when a divorce petition will be heard, aud several matters will be taken in Chambers.