Untitled

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 284, 9 April 1889, Page 2

"THE MANUFACTURE OF CRIMES.'. The case against Mr Mossman, for alleged sheep stealing, was dismissed last evening, the jury taking little more than ten minutes to make up their minds on the subject. Our best comment on the decision is to simply reprint an article which appeared in tha Standabd on December Sth, 1888 “Could we discover the faintest mspn why tha man Mossman who was accused of sheep stealing, and was on Wednesday last committed for trial on that charge, should for the next four months be compelled to boar the stigma of the charge imputed to him, we should consider it our duty to refrain from any comment on the case at present, but a careful perusal of the evidence only confirms us in the opinion that it was not a case for criminal prosecution at all, and how the Justices could have thought there was sufficient evidence to put the accused On his trial for a felony, is utterly beyond our comprehension. Over and over again the Supremo Court Judges have drawn attention to the great number of oases that are sent to the Supreme Court when there has pot beep a prlma foots case made Out, and if ever there was a case coming under that description, we certainly think this is QUO, Of tic.«rsp, it i e

not for us to impute motives to anyone, and why the prosecution adopted a criminal rather than a civil proceeding, we can assign no reason. It does certainly seem strange that persons who have been neighbors for three years, the accused being the longest resident, should, on a dispute as to ownership arising, invoke the criminal law where a civil remedy would have settled everything. But what is still stranger is that no proof was adduced that the sheep in question were ever stolen. It is not even asserted that they left Herbert’s property. How this oan be called stealing is more than we can answer. No doubt, the circumstances were suspicious: the accused’s ear mark was upon the sheep. But still, even if we put out of the question the allegation that they were originally purchased by the accused from Stubbs, we submit that although no doubt it is some offence against the law, yet it is not a felony to brand a neighbour's sheep. It is of course quite possible that there is more in the ease than came out in Court, but it is only on what came out that we, and indeed the Justices themselves, oan base a judgment, And our opinion is that in the face of the paltry evidence offered to the Court, it was not justified in inflicting upon anyone the indignity of making him appear before the criminal bar of his country on this dreadful charge, and we say this in the interest of justice and lair play,"