The Glenwood post., 1920-10-09
HIGH COURT REVERSES
CATTLE RUsTLINa CASE

The Denver Post of last Monday
printed the following comment on a
supreme court decision rendered by
Chief Justice Gabbert on the Hopkins
cattle rustling case, twice tried in the
district court of Garfield county, and
familiar to the farmers and stockmcn
of this and adjoining counties:
Holding that it is not necessary for
the prosecution to prove ownership Of
stolen animals in trials for cattle steal
ing, the Colorado supreme court, in An
opinion by Chief Justice James E. Gar
rigues, Monday rendered a decision of
greatest Importance to the cattle in
dustry of the state. This decision will
make possible the conviction of cattle
thieves, who, after killing cattle, de-
stroy the hides SO that ownership of
the animals cannot be established
through the brands. The decision was
rendered in the case of ]. W. and G. A.
Hopkins, appealed from Garfield coun-
ty.
In rendering the decision, the court
upheld the salute enacted by the Colo
rado general assembly in 1891 in which
| it is specifically stated that any person
who shall steal or unlawfully kill cat
tie, the owner Of which is unknown,
shall be deemed guilty of larceny. 1t
also held good another statute, passed
in 1911, in which it is decreed "that
the fact Of selling, trading or offering
for sale or trade, without having exhib-
tied the hide according to law, shall
be sufficient to authorize conviction. -
Judge Garrigues, in commenting up
6n these statutes says:
"The identity of cattle upon the
open range generally depends upon the
brand. One purpose of the statute is
to protect this important industry from
thieves who might steal the cattle,
burn the hides before being apprehend-
ed, and go free by destroying all evil
dence Of ownership. One of the objects
of the statute in such cases is to en-
able a conviction to be reached when
warranted by the evidence where the
owner is unknown to the prosecution,
and for this reason it would be i'm
possible to acertain by direct evidence
whether the owner missed or knew that
he had lost any cattle.
"There can be no doubt of the JUS
tice of such a statute. 1t would be
outrageous to permit rustlers- to steal
cattle, destroy the evidence of owner
ship and then claim conviction could
not be had because there was no proof
that the unknown owner missed, or
knew that he had lost cattle"
]. w. and G. A. Hopkins, the de-
PENDANTS in the case, were charged with
having butchered two beeves not be-
longing to them on their ranch near
Glenwood Springs. They were acquit-
ted by order of the trial Judge on tn
ground that no proof had been submit
ted to show that the animals had been
stolen or that an unknown owner had
lost or missed any cattle.
Judge Garrigues, in his opinion, goes
deeply into the testimony adduced a.
the trial and reaches the conclusion
that the evidence rendered at the trial
tended strongly to show that the two
defendants had slaughtered the beevcs
unlawfully and that this evidence, un
explained by the defendants, was suf
ficient to have warranted the jury in
finding the men guilty.
The decision Of the court reverses til,
judgment of the district court acquit
ting the men, but the two defendant,
will go free. They cannot be tried
again on the same charge.