SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1450, 9 October 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, October 8. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] BURGLARY. Walter Daniel Stanton was indicted for burglariously entering the dwelling house of Caroline Bradwell, and stealing therefrom a quantity of property. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded “Not Guilty.” The case for the Crown was that the prisoner went into the shop of Mrs Bradwell, and purchased a packet of envelopes. After the prisoner left, Mrs Bradwell went out, and on returning found that her shop had been entered, and two cash boxes stolen therefrom, containing stamps, stamped promissory notes, and adhesive stamps. Some time after this Detective Benjamin arrested the prisoner on a charge of being illegally on the premises of the Hon. W. Robinson. When he was arrested the constable had occasion to search the premises of the prisoner, and there found a quantity of stamps, a portion of which were identified by Mrs Bradwell as her property. Mr Duncan called evidence in support of the case for the Crown—viz., Mrs Bradwell, Miss Bailey, and Detective Benjamin. The Prisoner having called evidence for his defence and addressed the jury, His Honor summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor sentenced the prisoner to seven years’ penal servitude. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. this day. . Wednesday, October 9. The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. UNLAWFULLY KILLING CATTLE. James Belcher and Peter Sorenson were indicted for having unlawfully killed one cow, the property of G. R. Joblin. The prisoners, who were defended by Mr Joynt, pleaded “ Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. The case for the Crown was that the prosecutor, who resided at Little River, had lost a number of his sheep and cattle. In searching for them up one of the valleys a son of the prosecutor come upon the body of a sheep which had been mutilated, then that of a cow which had been shot, and then a calf. Constable Lamb, stationed at Little River, went with the prosecutor’s son, and made an examination of the carcases, also skinning the cow, the skin of which he produced in Court. Ultimately the constable went to the premises of the prisoner Sorenson, and told him he was suspected of killing a cow. The prisoner replied that they had shot a wild cow up the valley, and that he had some veal in the house. The constable then arrested the prisoner Sorenson and also Belcher. Constable Lamb, stationed at Little River, deposed to going up the valley with Maurice Joblin, and seeing the carcases of a sheep, a cow, and a calf. Ultimately he arrested the prisoneis. In the house of Belcher he discovered a calf skin, and the feet of a calf, and in the house of Sorenson the fore-quarters of a calf. On searching Belcher two pellets were found in Lis pocket, and a gun in each of the houses. The pellets found in the pockets of the prisoner Belcher fitted the guns found in the houses. On cross-examination by Mr Joynt the witness stated that no one went into Little River bush to shoot pigeons or wild pigs. He scraped the hair round the brand, as the salting of the hide had brought the hair over the brand. The brand produced fitted the brand on the skin. The reason the witness cut the hair from the brand was to allow the Magistrates at Akaroa to see it. Witness was surprised to find a cow which had been killed for twentyfour hours warm and with milk in her teats. Where the cow was found was in the bush, where the sun could not penetrate. He was tracking through the bush for nearly seven hours. The prisoner Sorenson told the witness when he arrested him that he had shot a wild cow and a calf up the valley, and that he had the veal. Belcher, the prisoner said, had got the other half. Witness said before the magistrate at Akaroa that prisoner was charged with shooting a cow and killing a calf, though in the depositions he was put down as saying that he charged prisoner with stealing. Witness found a portion of the hind quarters of a calf in Belcher’s house. Maurice James Joblin, son of the prosecutor, deposed to the main portion of the facts deposed to by the previous witness. The witness, with his brother, was in the bush on the date mentioned in the indictment, when they saw Sorenson coming down the valley. When the prisoner saw them he went sideways into the bush as if to avoid meeting them. He was then carrying something on his back which was afterwards found to be the fore quarter of a calf. They then marched quickly along the track, and saw Belcher and Sorenson together going through the bush. Belcher appeared to have a load on his back. After a wnile the two prisoners came out on the track farther down the valley. Belcher passed the time of day; he was carrying the hind quarters of a calf, and Sorenson was carrying a gun and fore quarter of a calf. They had one dog with them. Witness and his brother went up to where they saw prisoners go into the bush, and traced the footmarks which were downyrardp. They followed the footmarks for nearly three-quarters 0 f a m ii e up to a section pwned by a man named Jones, and round the gection into the bush again, where the footmarks and stains of blood were traceable. About seventeen chains from the open section they came upon the carcase of a sheep partly skinned. The head was cut off, and they did not find it till next morning, when they discovered that the ears had been cut off. After this they found a cow which witness repognised as belonging to his father, named Bud. The brand on that cow was JJ, had been used by them on some of fchpir cattle. The pow had been shot. Beyond this again they found three feet of a calf and a head. The cow was skinned, and the skin with the calves’ head and feet were taken down to the police station at Little River. [The witness identified the brand JJ on the hide produced.] Sorenson had been cautioned by witness not to shoot their cattle, as some persons had done. In cross-examination by Mr Joynt, the witness deposed that his father paid the rent for the run. All the run had not been taken up. The brands in use by his father for cattle were a cross and J. j. The cow killed was branded when she was about six months old. It must have been about six years since the pow was branded. They had had calves from the cow killed. He was not aware that they had the reputation of taking all the unbonded) cattle on the river and branding them with their brand. There were several persons of the name of Jones in Little River. His uncle had his cattle branded with a single J.

Norman Hubert Joblin, brother of the last witness, gave evidence corroborative of that given by Maurice Joblin. Witness identified the brand on the skin produced as being the one tjis father had in his possession. fn oroos-examination by Mr Joynt the ness stated that ho believed his father got the J. brand from his uncle. His father’s brands were a cross J.J. andH. The latter was used for Mr Hanley’s cattle, which were taken in to graze by witness’ father. J. A. Aschman deposed to having seen the two prisoners going past his house on the Sunday up the Little River Valley.J Charles Johnston, a bushman, deposed to seeing the prisoners coming down the valley with the carcase of a calf between them. Laoh had a gun. Witness said “ You have got a calf. 1 ' Belcher said “ Yes, the dog caught it."

In cross-examination by Mr Joynt, the witness deposed to looking at the hind leg of the carcase and seeing it bruised, as though the dog had had hold of it. George Russel Joblin identified the skin produced as that of a cow, his property, and the brand as his also. Witness knew the cow, her mother, and her grandmother. The name of the latter was Blossom, and was bought by witness from Messrs Deans atJßiccarton. Witness cautioned Belcher and Sorenson not go on his land shooting. In cross-examination by Mr Joynt, the witness deposed that all unbranded cattle he found in the bush on his land he claimed, unless’other parties made out a right to them. He knew of no other cattle branded JJ in Little River except those owned by him. Mr Joynt cross-examined the witness at some length as to the alleged of his having claimed various animals as his property, a claim which was disputed by others. This closed the case for the Crown. [Left sitting.J