SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 413, 8 October 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Thursday, October 7. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston,) SHEEPSTEALING. William Jackson was indicted for having on the 14th September last stolen twentyfour ewes and thirty sheep, the property of George Marsh. The prisoner pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the defence. Mr B. Dewsbury was foreman of the petty j ury. The case for the Crown may be briefly summarised as follows; On the 28th August last, the prosecutor had 280 sheep in his paddock branded G with a stroke between an M. On the 29th September, Marsh, the prosecutor, missed fiftyfour sheep. After this, - from information received, the police went to the paddock of the prisoner, where, amongst other sheep, fifty-four were found bearing the brand of the prosecutor, in some cases partially obliterated. The evidence on the part of the Crown has recently been published, when the case was tried before the Resident Magistrate, At the close of the case for the Crown, Mr Williams called the following witnesses for the defence. John Thomas Matson —I am an auctioneer and stock salesman. I have had considerable experience in sheep. I have seen the three sheep now in Court. The brown brand on the sheep I believe to be a brand, but it is impossible to distinguish it; I am unable to do so. I think that the black brand was the last put on. Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—The black brand looks to me to be fresher than the other. It appears to me that the black brand has been placed on the sheep after the brown brand.

Frank Marchant —My farm adjoins the prisoner’s. I have had fourteen years’ experience of sheepfarming. Mr Jackson’s farm is about six hundred acres in extent. The fences of Jackson’s paddock have not been sheep-proof for some years. About a fortnight since I was driving some sheep past, and there was a large gap in the fence through which my sheep went to join those in the paddock. The fence had been in that condition for some years, the wire not being drawn tight, sheep could get through. There were no straining posts. Mr Prebble, Mr Stephenson, and myself went to the paddock on Friday last. The side near the wheat paddock is a very bad one. This fence was between the wheat paddock and the grass paddock. Several other witnesses were examined, their testimony all tending to prove that Jackson’s fences were not sheep-proof, and that it was a frequent occurrence for farmers to find stray sheep in their paddocks.

A witness named Win. Balmfortb, who had been overseer for Mr, B. Moorhouse for ten years, deposed that it would be impossible to get sheep| to jpass over the gate lying down as deposed by several witnesses. From his experience in branding sheep he should say that the black brand G M had been put on last.

William Judge deposed to having had large experience with sheep, and that he had known Mr Jackson’s farm for years. The fences were not sheep proof, and it was possible for sheep to get through in many places. He knew Jackson’s brand perfectly well, and the brown mark on the sheep now in Court was not in the least like it.

Jasper Pyne O’Oallaghan deposed to having had large experience in sheep. He had examined the sheep now in Court. From his experience ho should say that the brown mark was the first put on, He would never take the brand on the sheep now in Court to

be Jackson’s brand. It was an every day occurrence for a large number of sheep to stray together.

Mr Williams then addressed the jury for the defence at some length. Mr Duncan replied, and his Honor summed up.

The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of “Not guilty.” His Honor said that had more particular enquiries been made in this ease, the prosecution would probably have not taken place. The prisoner was then discharged. The Court adjourned at 5.30 p.m. to 10 a.m. this day. Friday, October 8. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Johnson.) His Honour took his seat at 10 a.m. postponement, Mr Joynt made application for the postponement of the trial of Regina v Mullins. He did so on the affidavit of Dr Guthrie that one John Elliot was admitted into the Christchurch hospital on the 2nd of October with a broken leg, and the affidavit of Henry Mullins that the evidence of John Elliot waa material to his case. He would read an affidavit from the said John Elliot, stating the evidence he was prepared to give, which was to the effect that a stranger stopping at the hotel had offered to sell him a pawn ticket,, and had also offered the pawn ticket in payment of his account at the hotel, and that ultimately the witness saw the prisoner buy it. His Honour said that as the affidavit read by Mr Joynt showed a prima facie case for postponement on the ground of inability of a material witness to attend, he would grant the application, the case to stand over until the next session of the Supreme Court, the witnesses to enter into fresh recognisances to appear. Mr Joynt applied that the bail might be renewed as at present. It was now two sureties of £IOO each, and the prisoner in £2OO. His Honour inquired if the Crown were satisfied with this amount of bail. Mr Duncan said that he was satisfied with the amount of the bail. Case postponed till next session, bail renewed. EMBEZZLEMENT. Christopher Walter Worger was indicted for having pn the 10th December, 1874, while acting as servant of the Canterbury Club Company, Limited, embezzled the sum of £2 ss, the property of the prosecutors. A second count charged him with having embezzled £1 Is on the 3rd March, and a third with having embezzled £1 on the 4th March. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. ■ .1 The case for the Crown was that the prisoner, who was steward of the Canterbury Club, had received from the billiard marker at the club, several sums of money on account of the Club Company. It was the duty of the marker to hand over to the steward every morning the money taken at the table the preceding evening, which was entered in a book and initialed by the steward as having received the money. This was done in the case of the amount charged in the indictment, but the prisoner had not accounted for it in any way. The Crown called the following evidence to support the indictment, viz— R. W. Hughes, the billiard marker at the Club, who deposed to handing the money received by him at the billiard-table to prisoner, who initialed the amount in a book. George Gattouby Stead gave evidence as to the duty of the billiard marker with reference to receipts at the billiard, table irt connection with the steward—the prisoner to pay the amount so received with other amounts into the Bank of New South Wales, to the company’s account, and also that no books contained any account of the sums mentioned in the indictment. Mr Duncan having addressed the jury,, Mr Joynt replied for the, defence, and his Honour summed up. The jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” His Honour asked Mr Duncan if he intended to proceed with the other cases against the prisoner. The verdict of the jury in this case was practically three and he would ask Mr Duncan if he thought it was not sufficient. Mr Stead said that if his Honor pleased he desired to say that, on behalf of the company, they did not wish to proceed. Mr Duncan said after consideration he did not intend to proceed further in the cases against the prisoner, and would therefore offer no evidence on the further indictments. His Honour then directed the jury to' return verdicts of “Not guilty” on all the indictments, which was done by the jury. His Honour asked Mr Joynt if he intended' to call witnesses as to character. Mr Joynt said that the prisoner was comparatively a new arrival, and therefore could hardly be expected to call evidence. Mr Stead said that the company had a very good character with the prisoner, and had always considered him an honest man. He had seen a memorandum from his late employer, asking him to come back, which looked as though he had held a high character. His Honor sentenced the prisoner to three years’ penal servitude on each conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. The Court then adjourned until Wednes* day, October 13th, at 11 a.m.