RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 139, 6 October 1870, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.)

Thursday, Sjept 29.

CHARGE OF SHOOTING AND WOUNDING A COW

John Goodman appeared on summons to answer to an information sworn against him by one John Buckhall, charging him with having unlawfully and maliciously shot and wounded a cow, the property of the informant, at Waitahuna, on the 30th August. Mr. Gooday asked for a short adjournment to enable him to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case for the prosecution. He had only just been retained, and knew nothing of the matter.

Mr. M'Coy, who appeared for the accused, opposed the application, on the ground that there had been plenty of timp to employ counsel, over a week having elapsed since the issue of the summons.

The Bench granted half an hour's adjournment, after the expiry of which time the case was proceeded with, and Mr. Gooday asked to be allowed to amend the information, so as to insert the 3rd of September instead of the 30th of August as the date of the offence.

Mr. M'Coy opposed the application. His client was charged with a very serious offence — a felony punishable by penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years, and not less than three. He had come prepared to answer the charge as laid, and it was not for the prosecution to trifle with so serious a matter, by continual alterations and amendments.

His Worship said he had power to amend, but that if it interfered with the defence, he wonM jrrant an adjournment.

Mr. M'Coy would not claim that ; he would rather proceed.

Mr. Gooday asked further to amend the information, so as to lay it under the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, and thus reduce the charge to one with which the Magistrate could deal, in the event of the charge being supported.

Mr. M'Coy opposed such an amendment. Already an adjournment and one amendment had been obtained by the prosecution, in order to bolster up their case. His client was quite willing to answer the graver charge ; and he contended that it was not competent for the Bench to allow so material an amendment.

His Worship supported Mr. M 'Coy's view, and the case was proceeded with.

Mr. Gooday stated the case, and the following evidence was taken :—: —

John Buckhall, of Waitahuna — Am owner of a red cow branded GJ. Gave £10 for the cow fifteen months ago. (Receipt produced, marked A.) Saw the cow on the 3rd September last about seven o'clock. The cow was quite health}'. 1 observed no injury. I saw her again about dinner time feeding on Goodman's fence. At one o'clock I went to work again, and soon after my wife came to me, complaining that the cow was hurt. At five o'clock in the evening I found the cow about 200 yards from Goodman's place. The cow was licking herself. I observed wounds on her — little round holes through the skin, and blood running out. I counted them that night, and found ten. The next night I counted more. (Some on the rump, some on the brand, and four in the teats, one in the mouth. The cow had calved shortly before, and has since diied up. The prisoner never threatened me to shoot my cow.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy — The cow had calved about two months before this occurrence. The feed is not good about my place. My cow, to my knowledge, is not in the habit of trespassing in people's gardens. This cow had been in milk two months previous to the 3rd of September. lam in the habit of turning out my cattle. I had two cows killed, one by falling down rocks, and one by falling in the creek. Accused and I are friendly. I may, in a lark, have said that I would never rest till I had given him seven years. I don't remember having said so.

By the Bench — I examined the wounds with her in the bail. I first noticed the wounds while driving her home. I was working about 400 or 500 yards from Goodman's garden. I could not hear the sound of a gun if fired in Goodman's garden ; the noise of water in the claim would prevent it. I did not hear the report of a gun that day.

Emma Buckhall, wife of last witness — I remember the 3rd of this month. I milked a red cow at half-past eight that morning. I observed no wounds on the cow. I saw John Goodman at one o'clock that day. He came to my house, and said that he had shot my cow ; and if I did not keep them out of Maori Gully, he would shoot them all. He 3aid he had fired at her three weeks ago, and that he had made a mistake ay;ain, and he had loaded and shot at her. He thought that now she would not return again. I then went to my husband. He brought the cow home about five o'clock. I examined the cow, and found she had a great many marks on her, with blood flowing from them. I did not count them.

By the Bench— The cow has since become dry. I heard the report of a gun that day about twelve o'clock. Soon after my husband got into the house. Prisoner was excited when he came to my house. My husband was with me when I heard the report of the gun. I did not mention it to him till the next day.

Wm. Kyzer — I was in Hibbard's store at Waitahuna, on the evening of the 3rd. Prisoner came in while I was there. Goodman took a handful of peas out of his pocket, and said, ' ' These are the sort of peas I use for Mr. Buckhall's cows. I only put five in the gun, and Mr. Buckhall says the five peas made eleven marks." I saw the cow th<j next day. I saw and felt marks on her. The marks were like a little scab. I can't say if blood had been running from them. I can't say what they would probably be produced by.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy - There were a good many people in the store. Saturday is a kind of holiday. There is generally pleutj of chaff going on. By the Benc# — I thought nothing of it. I don't know; 'whether it is usual at Waitahuna to shoot cows. Win. " Auld, baker, Waitahuna — Remember being in Hibbard's store one Saturday night. Don't know date.

There were a good many other people there at the same time. Goodman was there. I did not hear Goodman make any remark about Buckhall's cows. I did not hear him say he had shot at and wounded Buckhall's cow. I never told the police that he had said so. I saw Goodman produce peas. I heard him say, " I keep these peas for shooting cows." I saw Wni. Kyzer in the store. I was standing close by him. I could hear if I had listened. I was paying no attention. I was near enough to have heard, but paid no attention.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy —If these remarks had been made in a determined manner, I might have heard them There was plenty of chaff. The remark 1 heard about the peas was in a joking way. He was not excited, and did not look like a fellow confessing his crime.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

At this stage the Court adjourned for an hour.

Upon his Worship again taking his seat, Mr. M'Coy said that he had no longer any objection to the lesser charge being substituted for the graver offence.

This having been done, Mr. M'Coy, in opening the defence, commented on the weakness of the evidence which had been brought forward by the prosecution to substantiate the charge, the only thing against Goodman being his own assertion. He quoted lioscoe on evidence, to show that such assertions should be little regarded, and pointed out that this cow was con+inualy clambering over the fences of the neighbouring gardens, and that nothing was more natural than that Goodman, on hearing that it had been shot, should tell Mrs. Buckhall and others that he wus the person who shot at it, Avith a view to their forming the idea I lli;:t ha would nut let cattle trespass in his garden with impunity, and thus, by exciting their fears, induce them to send their cows elsewhere to feed. Mr. M'Coy also pointed out that it was extremely improbable that the prisoner would go about accusing himself of a felony if he had really perpetrated one. N^o one heard the shot but Mrs. Buckhall, who was, of course, an interested witness, as should the prisoner be acquitted, it would probably go hard with her husband for maliciously prosecuting him ; therefore her evidence was not very satisfactory. He had witnesses to prove that had a gun been fired on the day named, that they must have heard it, as they were close to the spot all day, but that they did not hear the report of any gun. He had a skilled witness who would prove that peas wonld not penetrate the hide of a cow unless fired from a short distance. Now, the marks (which, by" the way, did not present the appearance of a gunshot wound) were scattered all over the body of the cow. Therefore, had they been the result of wounds inflicted by pellets of any kind fired from a gun, that gun must have been discharged at a great distance— at a distance from which peas would be harmless. There were many ways in which the injuries to -the cow might be accounted for. Such as Uxo £d.ct that these fences were made up of stakes, old shovels, &c, as he would prove ; also that the country round was very rough, and Buckhall had sworn that he had two cows already killed by falling among the rocks and in the creek, so that it was not very wonderful that this brute of a cow should have got some abrasions while storming the neighbouring fences to gratify its illicit longing for cauliflowers and such produce. Mr. M'Coy commented on the indictiveness shown by the prosecutor, and commented on the fact that he did not dare to produce the cow to substantiate his account of the injuries. He also showed that the prisoner had been greatly prejudiced by the amending of the information at the last moment, as the defence had been prepared and witnesses summoned to refute the charge as laid originally, and there had been no time to subpoena witnesses to refute the amended information. He would, however, do the best he could with those present. He called Jesse Cooper, James Smith, and Alfred O'Keefe, whose evidence fully carried out his statement.

Llis Worship then summed up the case in an able manner, and fined the accused £2, and £3 for informant's loss, with the costs of Court, or one month's imprisonment. The fine was paid.