SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 39, 15 February 1905, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMQvAL SITTINGS. The Supreme Court criminal sessioni *ere continued yesterday before Hif Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. PERJURY. The hearing of the charge of perjurj preferred against Annie Thorne wa.< concluded after we went to press yester day. James Campbell also gave evidence for the defence, stating that he liac never .seen drink paid for at the shop though lie had himself received it foi nothing. Mrs. Thorne kept a restaur ant and beer was supplied with tin meals, but was not charged for. H< was in the house on the dates thai Witnesses for the prosecution allegec that they obtained liquor, and said thai no money could have passed without him seeing it. After further evidence foi he defence had been called the jury re tired at a-quarter to four, returning ai five o-clock with a verdict of guilty Senteuce was deferred until Friday morning, for the report of the proba tion officer. r

ALLEGED THEFT OF A COW. George Taylor Mitchell, for whom Mr. J. R. Reed appeared, pleaded not guilt \ to cattle stealing at Drury. Mr Tole m outhrung the case, said that the theft occurred at Drury on January 7 last. The cow, which belonged to Mr. W. 0. Ray, hotelkeeper at Drurv strayed into the roadway, and when someone was sent to fetch it at about nve o clock it could not be found The police were communicated wlith, and the cow was found in the possession of accused at Mount Roskill Prisoner went down the South-road on the day the cow was missed, driving three cow* but after passing Drury the number Had increased to four, one being the cow alleged to have been stolen. Wm. Gibson Ray gave evidence as to missing the cow and to identifying it at prisoner's place at Mount Roskill Accused said that he knew he had been doing wrong, but he hoped he would hZ J° -o T" f ° r !t Cross-examined by Mr. Reed, witness stated that further, accused had said that he was unable to get the cow from the others, and he also said something about advertis-

f C " chton and David Ryan stated that they saw the cow in question break away from the others which « C ™ 7t, Wa - S driving ' he went after it and brought it back driv mg it towards Auckland. ' Constable Sumyan said that when acT ed .;^ aS an-es ted he stated that he should have advertised, instead of look mg for an advertisement from the owner ot the cow. He also said that he had done wrong, and that he hoped he would not do "time." . The Court then adjourned till to-day TV hen the Court resumed at 10.30 a.m. to-day the case- for the defence was taken. Accused stated that on Nof,f t b^ U , f r° m Onewhero to his home at Mt. Hoskil], and that a cow attached itself to the herd at Drury H « tried to cut her out several times but she returned or the bull broke away with her. At Papakura when the cow left the herd the bull went with her and he had to drive her back. He told the neighbours that he had picked up a cow on the road, but did not advertiss. He did not ask anybody to assist in .cutting out the cow. Edward S. Cole, saddler, deposed to having seen accused cut out the cow and drive her fifty or sixty yards along- the road from the others. She rejoined the herd, however. Several witnesses were called to show that when they asked accused what he would take for the cow he had replied that the cow was not his, that she had come down from the Waikato. and that he intended to advertise for the owner if he could not otherwise find out to whom it Belonged. Enoch Wood stated that he had employed accused, who handled money daily, and was always strictly honourable. He bore an excellent name in the district His Honor, in summing up, said that if they believed the evidence of the witnesses to the effect that accused had refused to sell the cow, stating 'that she was not his. that they m.ust acquit. Unless accused took the cow with the intention of permanently appropriating her he was not a criminal, and if the evidence for the defence were true he did not intend to keep or sell her. After a few minutes retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged. ANOTHER PERJURY CHARGE. Andrew John Whiteside was charged with having committed perjury in a Supreme Court action on December 13 1904. Accused was sued for damages b} , an employee, Bruno Gernhoefer.. under the Employers Liability Act, in respect of injuries received through a belt breaking in a flaxmill. In his examination defendant swoTefcthat the belt had never broken before, and on this statement the case was founded. The plaintiff in that action was the first witness called. He stated that he saw accused mending the belt on the Saturday before the accident happened, when he said he was going to try to make it last a little longer. The belt which broke was to the left of the door. A native named Motu >stated that the left hand belt liad broken twice before the accident, and the right hand had not broken at all. Mick Motu, ajiother native, gave evidence of a contradictory nature, as to the circumstances surrounding the accident, saying first that he saw it, and when erossexamined that he was not at the mill on the day on which it occurred.