[stealing, cattle – Pittwater]

R. v. Quested

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Montagu J., 1 September 1840

Source: Hobart Town Advertiser, 4 September 1840[1]

            James Quested stood charged on the 15th day of May last, with stealing one heifer, the property of Bartholomew Rearden of the Green Hills, Pittwater.

            John Jewell, examined. - Went on the 26th of May last to search for two hides, the property of Mr. Parsons, to the house of the prisoner, and found in one of the prisoners’ rooms a quantity of salted beef, and in another room some rendered fat. Found afterwards in a water hole six pieces of hide concealed under the water, and kept down by a stone. The prisoner said that the beef was part of his own heifer that he killed. The prisoner said that the hide had been cut up for ropes; the prisoner shewed witness some rope made out of a light red hide; the pieces of hide found in the water hole were of a different colour to that of which the rope shewn by the prisoner to witness had been made. The meat found by witness had belonged either to a young steer or heifer.

By Mr. Horne. - The prisoner has a farm and cattle of his own; there are three rooms in the prisoners’ house.

            Bartholomew Reardon, examined. - Resides at the Green Hills, Pittwater. Missed in the month of May last one brindle and one dun coloured heifer; saw some pieces of hide at Richmond Police-office, which witness believes to be of the same colour as the hides of the missing brindle heifer; the brands had been removed. Witnesses’ heifers were branded on the hip.

            John Hall, examined. - Saw at the Richmond Police office a piece of hide like the brindle heifer lost by Mr. Reardon in May last; the hinder part of the hide had been destroyed. Mr. Reardon brands his cattle on the hip.

            By Mr. Horne. - Did not lose any stock before the cattle at present in question. Gave no information as to the loss of the cattle; did not tell his master he had a subpoena to go to Richmond. Told his master that the cattle were lost, but not till the month of June, before witness got his subpoena to go to Richmond, it might be a week before; knew what he was wanted for at Richmond. Went to his master’s house, and told him he (witness) was going to Richmond. Told his master he had lost the two best heifers, and that he (witness) was subpoened to Richmond. Told his master he had been looking for one of the heifers about two months, and for the other about a month. Had his subpoena with him at that time; told his master that he was summoned to Richmond; had no conversation with his master about what he (witness) was summoned to Richmond for. Witness had had his summons in his possession then for three or four days. Told his master that he had lost one heifer since the 18th of March, and the other in May. Has been a stockkeeper for many years; suspected the heifers were stolen, did not mention their loss to his master, at once because witness thought they might be on the run calving. After the heifer first missed had been absent about a month or two, witness did not report the loss because he thought she might be still on the run. Has known a man named Cross for the last eighteen years. The prisoner and witness each reside in different directions, about 3 miles from the residence of Cross.

The Solicitor General said he had no further evidence to adduce, and his Honor directed the Jury to acquit the prisoner.

The Solicitor General moved that the prisoner might be remanded until the end of the Session, there being another case against him - Remanded.