V?

of two-committments for contempt for every three witnesses and

much sharp (and sometines profane) cross firing between the self appointed councilors for defence and prosecution. The accused pleaded guilty but seemed to be rather proud of his place in the spot light and hammered away pleading al1.sorts of unlikely and

_unrelated circumstances in extenuation, but on summing up he was

adjudged guilty and sentenced to fourteen days in the police barracks at Moosomin. On being asked if he had anything to say as to why this sentence should not be imposed, the prisoner at the bar turned to his Worship and asked "be that right William"?, "be I got to serve fourteen days for stealing that ere gun?“. On being assured that such was the case he said "Well, I'll do it and all as I've got to say is ”Goard help you when I gets out”.

On the prisoner presenting himself at the barracks for

' incarceration the officer in charge refused to admit him Saying

that the J. P. who tried the case was without jurisdiction and as the gun in question was of no possible value and had been returned he considered that the demands of justice had been met, and ad— vised all present to_"beat it off home“, and get on with our plow- ing, this we did, the pursuer and the pursued riding in the waggon with the J. P.

(Extract from Diary)

Received summons to act on Jury at sitting of District Court to be held at Cannington Manor, District Court Judge (later Chief Justice) Whelmore residing.

On’presentin£ myself for jury service as above, was empannelled on the case of'3mith vs Jones. This case which arose out of the alleged shooting of a horse, appeared to be one of general interest, and was freely discussed by friends and supporters of both parties, before Court opened.

According to facts that seemed to be established by this discussion, the horse in question, a small poney, was thought too old and decript to be worth wintering, had been turn- ed out to shift for itself, and in the course of its foraging had broken through the fence and was feeding at a stack of hay owned by the defendant, he, being filled with more or less just indignation, shot the pnney, killing it instantly, No objection was taken to this by anyone, for two or three months when Smith learning thst shooting a horse was an indictable offence and having some other trivial quarrel with Jones entered action with a claim for damages. Considerable indignation was expresses at the action of the complainant, popular opinion, as expressed, seeming to consider the act of shooting the horse to have been one of mercy, not entailing any financial loss to the owner as, undoubtedky, it would have died before spring anyway.

So the case was called Jury empannelled, the defendant pleading “not guilty" though owning up to the act. Witnesses were called and the case went merrily on. The Judge in summing up charged strongly for conviction.

On the Jury retiring for consultation, Mr. McDirmid

(later M.P.P.) on being chosen foreman said, "look here fellows

I don't know much about acting on Jury's but I think I do know justice when I see it“. “I'm for acquittal. It don't seem fair to me to make Bill liable to fourteen years for shooting a worth less poney that should be dead anyway‘. That young Judge is feeling chesty, and will give the limit, so this is the verdict -

I think we should hand in, I wrote it out before I came into Court: