Arizona republican., 1902-04-15
MCANN ACQUITTED
The Court as Jury Entertained Req
 sonable Doubt.

In the case of Marion McCarr, charged with unllwfuIIy branding heifer in Cottonwood basin the defendant was acquitted in Jus tice Burnetts court yesterday The defendant had been ar rested on the complaint of Logan Nor ris, who runs cattle on the same range md who claimed that the calf had been previously branded by him. The case, though it apparently involved only a calf. was watched with great interest by cattlemen. IL was tried without q jury last Thursday and taken under advisement. The justice explained at great length why he must find the de- iendant not guilty.
 The evidence was reviewed by the court as follows:
 An analysis of the testimony n this case discioses that L. F. Morris in August, 1901, branded white hcifer in Cottonwood basin. His brand is q 1 half circle one lie ear-inarked this heiIer. under half crop on right ear and over slope in left ear. | witness Ray Tompzlins. was present when he calf Was branded and ear marked In March of this year q nephew Of Norris found the heifer branded with l combination J. f. put on over the half circle one. Other witnesses testi- fed to seeing the calf freshly branded soon after March 15. and some of them had noticed q Wattle or dew lap on tha nose, mark of all defendants cattle '' The court continues i1is review of the testimony: These constitute the sal tent points brought out by the prose- rution, reinforced by testimony a- b statements made by defendant about branding the white calf and some tes- timony to the effect t!2at defendants 8 brand had been found on the cattle 1f ether owners in years gone by. The defendant saw the white calf, the corpus delicti in this case, about January 10, 1902. With Miguel Busta- mente he branded it J. F. on left hiD md put his increase mark On the ears. de swe2rs that there was no other mark on her at the time This testi- nony is corroborated by Bustamcnto. diram Linville, Jake Linyille and Will | am Linville. The defendant swear5 I4e las not seen the heifer since.
 | The prosecution exhibited white l 1eifer at the court room door. The de- | tendant and his witnesses swear it is not the cottonwood basin heifer and inc 1 defendant denies that the marks and l brands on the calf or exhibit are his. l Norris, J. N. Cartwright and ]. H. | 8urris swear that this is the same calf 1 md II. Collins testifss to having | bought cattle from the defendant with
 he same brand, but with different l gar marks.
 The mind O: the court has under
 zone all of the mutations possible in 1 eaching 9 conclusion in this case Taking the calf at the door as some
 what of a guide, the conviction forces itself on the courts mind that if q 1 nan from Boston had maturea tho
 dea of making this animal his own he
 night have marked and branded it as
 his animal Was marked and branded
 )ut sucn nSrzinE and branding would | leVer hove fooled even 2 teaderfooi | cowboy. This defendant has certainly | marked and branded a white calf il
 Cottonwood basin. He says ha hes. I;ur | when il comes before this court sittiue
 tt the same time as q court and ju~3
 O decide that the defendant rrar-;ec | nd branded the white calf shown ;.'
 he Gcor and with intenc t0 falcnou !.
 .onvert t to his own use the Cou1t i.
 )ound u give the deseniant the bcna
 it Oi any reasonable doubt that may
 ind lodgnent in the mind of the aver
 ;ge juror. That 4a-l!:r is i1 tha min,
 )i the court and it will rot down, II,
 matter to which point Of the case tht
 mind may turn
 The testimony of the witnesses 10
 he prosecution are taken up afta
 which the court procea.!- "s ini.ons c'
 the subject of reasonable doubt: ''Tner
 s no testimony on the part of the p-os
 aeuticn showing that the defendan
 branded any animal. Two white teif
 ITS are before the court, one in pc9soi
 md the other on various hoars2y p-oai
 One white heifer is alleged by the ter
 'itory and produced. One white heife