SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14971, 19 May 1914, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

ALLEGED SHEEP-STEALING

In the Supremo Court last week C R. Ciaythorno was found guilty upon a charge of stealing two sheep belonging to David Boyce. Yesterday, in tho same Court, he was placed upon trial lor the alleged theft ot six sheeo, valued at £7 10s, the property of Win* Atherton Parnham, a neighbour, of Broomiield. Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, and Mr S. CJ. Raymond. K.C., with him Mr W. J. Hunter, tor tne accused, who entered a plea of not guilty. THE CASE OPENED. Mr Macassey, in opening, said that Parnhmn, presecutor in this ease, bought his farm and 1300 sheep from Vaughan in May, l'Jli:. His earmarK was* a square "forebit" in vhe left oar for ewes, and his brand was a '•V"' under a segment of a circle. Accused purchased from Bowman, whoso ear-mark was a "fore-quarter,'' but he had no right to use this mark until July, 1913. shortly after the date ho agreed to sell to a man named Turner. Why, asked 31r Macassey, was accused so anxious to get his ear-mark registered on July 7th? He (counsel.) would suggest tna't it was lor the purpose ot hiding something. On account of suspicion being aroused a muster ot Craythorr.e's sheep was ordered for October 3rd, and four sheep were then claimed by I'arnbarn os his. Their earmarks had been altered, and the branrl of accused placed on them. On these two points tho Crown relied for conviction. At the muster accused was asked to explain the presence of theso six sheep, which had been sold by him to Turner with the rest of the properly. If he had come by them honestly he could have said so, but he made no proper explanation. Evidence was shown that the ear-mark had been altered fairly recently—prior to October 3rd, and he suggested that it had been altered to eliminate the "forebit." The remains of the "forebit," however, were apparent.

On October 7th accused wrote to Parnham denying that ho had taken the sheep, but he offered to pay for the sheep and save any bother. Later he went to Parnham's houso and offered to settle up, but Parnham 6aid ho was still a good many sheep short, and would not do anything then. Accused and his wife then got excited, and accused threatened to blow out his brains. It was important to note, also, added counsel, that the paddocks of Parnham and Craythorno adjoined. EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.

Wm. A. Parnham, farmer, .Broomfield, gave evidence supporting, counsel's outline of the case. He claimed tho sheep ho did at tho muster because they had his square "forebit" on the left ear and a "W forebit" on the right ear. He could see that his square "forebit" had been altered into a "forequarter." He thought that alteration had been made within tho past two or three months. Craythorne's brand was on tho shoulder of all the sheep. One of the Bheep claimed had originally been Craythorne's, but had passed to Vaiighan through HartneJl, and sold by him to Parnham. When found it was branded with accused's brand. - TWO HUNDRED SHEEP MISSING.

.Under directions from his Honour the sheep concerned were produced in Court, and the witness* explained to the jury tho alterations he detected in the earmarks. Witness declared that the alterations had been made within two or three months of October 3rd last. Tho "forequarter" in one case was much deeper than usual. At the muster when he had claimed the sheep, accused said he would pay for tho sheep". Witness refused, and. said he was a couple of hundred sheep out, and would not do anything until he had made further inquiries. Accused said that one of the sheep claimed had been procured from Mr Fairweather, who had neglected to earmark it. He subsequently received a letter offering to pay for the sheep, and also had an interview with Craythorne, who cariie to his house with his wife. Accused said he had come to see if he could settle about the sheep. Witness replied that he did not intend to do anything until Mr Munro had been seen and more inquiries were made about the lost sheep. Accused started to cry and asked for leniency. The wife of accused, who was present at this interview, also pleaded for leniency, said witness, and asked that Mr Munro should not be brought into the matter. Accused said that he would not let tho thing go to Court. He would sooner shoot himself. Iv cross-examination, witness said to Mr Raymond that when he took possession of Vaugjhan's sheep he took in 350 sheep of his own, of all of whose, earmarks ho was not sure, as one hundred comprised the leavings of various transactions. He knew that Vaughan had stocked up fully at various sales before selling the property to him. He had sold some sheep since buying the property, but had not kept any record. Although it was a practice with farmers to earmark purchased sheej>, they were carefulnot to deface the existing earmark. He had never heard of anyone altering a "forebit" into a "forequarter" in such a way, and he had always thought it was an offence to do so. He himself would liardly earmark if two marks were there already, but would rely upon the brand. OTHER WITNESSES.

Mabel Alice Parnham, wife of William A. Parnham, said that when accused came to see her husband he said ho had "squared" Mr Boyce and Mr Munro. Ho had paid Mr Munro's rare up to see the sheep, and he was quite satisfied with that. Her husband had said he wanted to enquiro into other sheep missing, and to see Mr Munro. Accused begged that should be kept out of it, and asked that his children should be considered. He (accused) declared the case would not go to Court, because he would shoot himself.

John Munro, stock inspector. Amberley, after giving technical evidence upon brands and earmarks, said that the sheep claimed by Parnham at the muster had Craythorne's brand upon them. Accused said he had probably sold the sheep with the rest to Turner. Accused had told witness that Parnham persisted in claiming the sheep, but when told he could challenge him, he said he would not on any account have the matter get into the" hands of the police. Accnsed added that if it were not for his wife and family ho would do away with himself. Accused asked witnes& what he thought of earmarks, and said he hoped witness would not think he had altered them. Witness replied that someone had altered them, and he drew attention to two which had been altered recently. The Court adjourned at o.'lo p.m. till 10 o'clock this morning.