THE DEFENCE.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14972, 20 May 1914, Page 4

THE DEFENCE.

evidence or accused C. E. Cravthorne, " p _ gave evidence relative to *ho> n »Xx. of hie property from clock he had carried upon it giving particulars relative to the dispute vnth Boyeo, accused related the claim made by Parnham at the'l? Accused denied that they were Parnban s, but Munro came to him and sa i d it would bo far bettor for accused o pay tor the sheep than to have a n? bother about them, especially a - ar raogements had been made to ci™ Boyco, £1000 for two sheep wS protested, and said he didn't sco that it was fair. Munro went and talked with Parnham, and on returning said it would be far bettor to settle* wi*h hia>, as Pajukam insijtcd they were lib On October 13th ho (aocused) and his wife visited Pnrnham. to see if he still claimed the feheen. Dealing with the s-heei> claimed accused taid that one was an eight-tooth sheep, and so it could not have been a hogget bought at HartncH'a sale, for then it would only have been a fourtooth sheep. Ho did not remember ever having seen this tboop ou his place and disclaimed responsibility for it. Ho had not altered the punch holes in its ear. Tho two four tooths with two forequarter earmarks had been hogeots purchased from Mr Fairweather The other sheep, claimed accused! had been earmarked by him in December, 1011, as he considered they were "bought sheep" left by Bowman. They were aniong the stragglers at his shearing then, and were not claimed by any of his neighbours. Selby, the 'shepherd, had claimed sheep for PHrnhani that ho had rot claimed for Vaughan, Parnham's predecessor.

In the course of a lengthy cmssexamination, accused said to Mr Macassey that he had not explained the presence of the s'-een on October 3rd bocause he was "too much troubled." \ccused denied that Mr Munro had offered a challenge. Accused denied ha vine cried at any time.

Wm. -McMillan and Geotfo Hanmer -rave evidence a s to tha good character ■>t accused.

Jno 0. Howson, as a sheep expert, :\\d that of six sheep, tho earmarks of wo had apparently been obliterated :i 'ittle. He thought if it was a ease tf 'heep-stealinc; more care would have? been exercised. Undoubtedly thorn been interference, but in his mini •hero had not been intention of theft because of the enre/efsress displavsd. His Honour: What about carelessness or accidental omissiou? If there 'lad been many sheep altered it would bo only by the failures and not by tho successful alterations that a thief could be detected.

Witness declared that these hyirks vere all old-standing—at least twelve norths old.

Win. Field, another expert, declared hat on small farms i|, was often tho :ase that new earmarks would bo put ■ipon sheep which already boro ear•:arks. • * /

A. C. Selby. recalled, declared that it was incorrect to say. ss accused had "aid, that he had claimed sheep for Parnham that-ho had left behind when taking away tho sheep belonging to VJKUghan. Tho jury returned at 9.10 p.m.. aftar tit absence of nearly three hours and a "i!f with a verdict of not guilty. His Honour deferred sentenco on the previous charge on which prisoner was found guilty till 10 o'clock this morn.nc. ,

Prisoner was allowed bail on the lamo conditions as previously.