SUPREME COURT, NAPIER.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3260, 13 December 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, NAPIER.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 12

(Before Hia Honor Sir Justice Richmond.) CATTLE- STJG AI,I NG. Hetikia Mutu was indicted on the charge of stealing a heifer, the properly of Messrs Haig and Somerville Bros., near Awanui, ia March last. The prieononer pleaded not guilty. Mr M. R< Miller was chosen foreman of the jury. Mr J. Gγ. Baker acted as interpreter. George John White deposed that he was manager for Somerville and Haig, and was so in March last. Witness sold cattle to them in March last year. There »vere 29 head altogether. Witness had bought them from Mr E. Walker, of Te Awanui. Mr Walker had other cattle besides these. All the large cattle were branded EW, bat some o< the calves were not branded at all. Witness branded thtm JH conjoined. About tbiee months after buying them he sold them to Somerville and Haig. There were two twin heifers among the mob which were branded with the others. The twins were very much alike —brindle, with a little white. The horns were just protruding when lie sold them. He saw one of the heifers about three weeks before the date on which the present charge arose. They were on a portion of the Makareka run. On the 18th of March, in consequence ot information he received, he went down with Mr Haig and Mr Arthur Somerville to the native settlement, about 2i miles from witness's bouse. The haivga was called Wai-o-ranga. On arriving there he observed t*o beasts in a yard close to the whares. Witness immediately recognised one of them as the property of Somerville and Haig. It was one of the twin heifers, The prisoner was standing at the fence, and witness told him that the animal was not his (prisoner's), but that he had stolen it. 1 he prisoner said it belonged to him. Witness went into the yard and showed the prisoner the brands. There were other marks on the heifer then, as if done roughly with wire, and it was was also freshly earmarked. He had no doubt as to its being the same heifer.

The old brand was visible} thougb indistinct. The other native looked over the fence and said " That's hia brand j it's the pakeha's beast" The prisoner said "I have made a mistake." He also said to a boy who was with witness that he would kill the beast if be catlght it down his way again. Subsequently witness had the heifer removed to Messrs Porter aud M'Lean'e run adjoining. Witness bad the entire Charge of Messrs .Somerville arid Ftaig's rtlO. Me flevef authorised anyone to remove the heifer ia question from the run. The evidence of W. S. Haig and Allaa M'Lean having been taken, Sergeant David M'Guire, of Inrercargill, deposed that in March last he was stationed at Awanui. On March 16th he saw the heifer in question in one of Somerville's yard- , . It was branded JH conjoiaed, with EW on the off rump. There was also some Maori brand on the off shoulder. Witness knew the heifer, aud of bis own knowledge was aware that it was bred by Mr K. Walker of Awantlij where witness was stationed. It was one of twin heifers. Subsequently witness received a warrant and arrested prisoner at Tupiroa on March 25th. In the morning, with the assistance of some other naiives outside, the prisoner made his escape. Subsequently, on June 17th, through the instrumentality of Major Ropata, the prisoner gave himself up. Search was made for him in the interval. The natives had threatened to shoot the police if they went out after ibe prisoner, who was concealed in the bush. The jury retired and found the prisoner guilty, and His Honor awarded a sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labor.

THIS DAT. His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m. BEGINA V. BENDLE. Frederick Day Rendle was put forward, charged under section 40 of the Poet Office Act, with embezzling a letter, the property of the Postmaster-General of New Zealand, on the 24th of February last. Mr Cotterill, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr Reed appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. All witnesses were, on Vac application of Mr Bees, ordered out of Court. John Grubb, being sworn, said : I am chief postmaster at Napier, and have been since 1873, except for about four months during 1875. I know the prisoner. Hβ was employed in the Napier post office from April, 1879, to August 23 last, first as letter carrier, and tben as senior letter carrier and assistant clerk. He was also caretaker of the building. His duties in February last were to assist the mail clerk in the morning, remain on duty to 11 a.m., then again assisting the clerk-in-charge to 5 o'clock, and remaining until the work of the evening was cleared away. He had charge of the key of the building during night, and lived on the premises. He frequently assisting in receiving and sorting mails, and cancelling stamps. The five stamps produced having writing thereon are cancelled in the manner usual in small country offices where a defacing stamp is not supplied. I recognise the handwriting on the sfampe produced. It is the writing of Mrs Tuxford, wife of the Petane postmaster. She was in the habit of occasionally acting for her husband prior to March last, when Mr Tuxford gave the office up. Tae stamps produced are a portion of the mail which was despatched from Petane on February 23rd or 24th last. The prisoner signed the post office way-bill (produced) as having received the Petane mail from the mail contractor on those dates. The initials F. D. tt. written thereon are those of the prisoner. At this stage His Honor said he could not see how the prisoner was to be proceeded against on a charge of embezzlement, seeing that the letter was taken whilst in the hands of the officers of the Crown. He did not wish, however, to stop the case on that account, but thought it best to mention this technical difficulty which might arise as the case proceeded. Mr Cotterill said in answer to His Honor, that his (Mr CotterilFe) view of the case was that stopping a letter while in transit from one postmaster to another wa9 embezzlement. Albert Tuxford, being sworn, said : I was postmaster at Petane from the year 1875 or 1876 until March last. My wife usually assisted me in making up mails, &c. The means employed for defacing stamps on letters leaving the Petane office was to write the word " Petane," and the date across them. I recognise the writing on the stamps produced aa that of ray wife, except in one instance. I believe the three stamps, which are stuck together, belonged to an English letter. [Mr Kees objected to the witness expressing this opinion.] The stamps were cancelled mostly when the mails were being made up, and at times aa the letters came in. The stamps bearing date 23rd February, 1881, minht have been despatched either on that clay or the day following. Tlie mails left Petane at 12 30 noon on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays in February last. A mail was despatched on the forenoon of the 24th February. Sarah Anue Tuxford, being sworn, said: I am the wife of Mr Tuxford, the previous witness. During the time my husband was postmaster I assisted him in making up mails and receiving letters. I cancelled letters by writing "Petane" and the date across the stamps. I did this immediately after receiving letters, and having put them in a pigeon hole sent them per first mail afterwards to Napier. The stamps proproduced bear my handwriting to the heat of my knowledge. The mails were despatched on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. John Grubb, recalled by Mr Cotterill: An English m<iil was despatched from Napier on the 25th February. Constable Foster gave evidence of seeing the prisoner at the lock-up on the 24th August last, where he had been brought the night before. The prisoner asked if I would do him a favor. I said yes. He then gave me a purse, and requested I should give it to his wife. (Purse produced). I vvas also to tell her to burn it. Prisoner said for me not to look at it, as there was something in it might give him years. I subsequently opened ir, and found it contained stamps stuck on pieces of paper resembling portions of envelopes. There was also stuff which looked like chewed stamps. I gave the purse to Detective Grace in the same condition as when the prisoner handed it to me. Detective Grace recollected having arrested the prisoner on Tuesday 23rd August last. Constable Foeter gave him a purse the following day. Hβ examined the contents, and banded it over to Sergeant Mahon. It contained postage stamps and chewed paper. The five stamps produced were among the lot. There was no writing on the other stauip?. I counted up the total number of stamps contained in the purse. There were 170 stamps in all. I searched the prisoner myself. He denied hayiDg a

purse. I could not find a purse Upon him. By Mr Rees: I understood the prisoner had been searched previous to v my searching him. Mr Rees here asked whether it would not be better, before the case went to the jury, to decide the question of embezzle V ment. It could only be embezzlement when a letter which contained something of value was taken. Hie Honor said the distinction between and larceny was a difficult One to arrive at. Mr Rees no doubt wished him to stop the case before going to the jury on its facts, but he could not clearly see his way to that eour.-e. Mr Rees said he would be quite willing to let the case go before the jury as it stood, but in the case of its breaking down he would ask that the indictment be not altered to one of larceny, but tbe case quashed, so that his client should not have to run the gauntlet again for the same offence. Hia Honor said he could not clearly see his way to stop the case now. He had been searching authorities on the matter. He would let it go to the jury on its merits. Counsel on both sides having addressed the jury at considerable length, His Honor summed up, after which tbe jury retired to consider their verdict. The principal points of defence in Mr Rees , address were that no proof had been adduced to show that his client embezzled a letter at all, and that it was absurd to imagine a man running the risk of getting six years' imprisonment for tbe sake of appropriating a few defaced and valueless stamps. The jury, after a short retirement, returned into Court with a verdict of " not guilty."