SOUTH CANTERBURY.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17470, 2 June 1922, Page 11

SOUTH CANTERBURY.

TIMARU NOTES. IMPORTANT to sheepownebs. A case cf Dominion-wide importance to sheerpowaers was heard at the Magistrate's Court, when the Court was occupied for between live and six hours hearing and deciding a dispute between two .sheep-farmers as to the ownership of four sheep. The plaintiff was Owen j Blackler, Hazel burn, with a second property at Rainclilt, and the defendant J. Andrews, sub-lessee of th© Tnna.ru Borough Council's reserve at /Rainclitf, which adjoins Bladder's property taere. ]\tr Ulrich appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Campbell for defendant. Plaintiff sued for the return of four sheep claimed by him, or their value, £5, and £5 as damages for the detention of the sheep. Plaintiff's case was that McPherson, defendant's manager at Raincliff, was ■removing to Hazelburn a mob of 2000 sheep along a road past defendant's yards, and defendant and two sons stopped the sheep at a gate in the road, picked out > four six-tooth ewes, and put them into the yard, claiming the shoep as theirs. At McPhoison ts request the sheep were held till Bladder went up next day. "When the sheep WC «i e , x j lrn > ne d both men claimed them Bladder becanse they bore his brand, Andrews because they bore his earmark. Mr Allen, who accompanied Mr Blackler, made a drawing of the earmarks. It was agreed that the sheep should be marked for further inspection, and later 011 W. H. Nicholson, secretary of the Canterbury Sheepowners' Union, was taken to see the sheep. A good deal of evidence was given about th© breeds and ages of the sheep, previous ownership, and variety of earmarks. I huntiff'w brand was three plain bars in red; defendant's "J.S." in black. Mr Campbell said the questi m really tvns whether sheep can be claimed on earmark or on brand. Mr I liieh quoted section 72 of the Stock Act to show that the brand is puma fade the first evidence of ownership, which could be supported by earmarks. Tho sheep in qluestion bore plaintiff's brand, but had earmarks resembling defendant's, two hick bits, but not of the same size. The brand iras the first mark to be considered, ilien the earmark, then sex, age, breed, and purchase. ■Mr Hnddlestoiie, Stock Inspector, gave evidence that brands were distinctive, becniso no brand was duplicated, but that earmarks were duplicated to a considerable extent. He had a list of half a dozen men in South Canterbury who were allotted the same earmark. Sheep had; not ears enough to carry distinctive marks for everybody. Is was customary to allot tho (same earmark to persons at a distance ironi one. another. The Department objected to a second earmark being put on, as the addition might make the earmark resemble one allotted.to some-! one else. A buyer might put a second bra ml on. Mr Campbell said this was the first time he had heard that doubling earmarks was objected to. itness. to- his Worship: It was a colnmou practice for neighbours to go j by earmarks rather than bv brand, as brands were frequently illegible at shearing. | Plaintiff stated that in 1919 ho bought 2600 m.s. hoggets from J. Connelly, bearing various earmarks, and these no put on Raincliff. Mr Nicholson stated that ho examined the four sheep in dispute. There was a fifth sheep, but it was not examined, as neither party claimed it. He looked to iho breed, tge, and sox of tho sheep as wel] as to tho brand and earmarks. He told defendant that if a man could claim on earmark only, against a registered the sheep industry.would b'e completely- upset. That remark had no effect on defendant's mind: he said lie would claim the sheep. The earmarks were apparently the Same as the mark allotted to defendant, but they were not all done by the same iron, or they had been carelessly made. If a man could claim sheep 'on earmark only the sheep industry could not be carried on; there must be a brand also. If ono | earmark were added to another, the j combination might be the mark of a third man, and this was the practice ; which led to confusion. The grounds I of claim to ownership were brand, ear-! mark, age of sheep, class of sheep, sex, j commonsense, and integrity between, ino parties. The Department was pow- J erless. In tho old days of large runs when earmarking was adopted, a small book liedd all the earmarks allotted in Canterbury, and the earmarks were then distinctive, as they were not duplicated. Now, sheepowners were so numerous that duplication was unavoidable. Tho Department would give a distinctive brand, but not a distinctive earmark. The earmark by itself therefore, was of much less value than the brand. j The Magistrate (Mr E. D. Mosley) in giving judgment, s;yd that the money •value of tho claim was small, only £lO- - case such as this however, was of great importance to tho sheep-farm-ing community generally. One could understand the reason why the parties did not com" to some arrangement; each honestly believed that he was in the right. On the evidence tendered he had formed a very decided opinion. The evidence of Mr Huddlestcne, the departmental witness, he had listened to with a good deal of interest. But the evidence which had impressed him mo3t was that of Mr Nicholson, an unbiassed witness, and the Court must place a good deal of reliance upon what he had said. '"lt appears to me," continued the Magistrate, "that tho conditions of the sheep industry have been graduuliv altering. The time has passed when the country was divided into big runs, I with stations miles apart, and earmarks, being ie-w, were distinctive evidence of ownership. Now, small sheep-farmers and dealers are numerous and sheep change hands daily—sometimes several times a day, at saloyaids. The consequence is that the value of earmarks, as distinctive marks, of ownership, has practically disappeared. I cannot see that the earmark is of any value at all. The only reliable mark is the registered brand of the owner. . . In this particular case the onus refets upon the defendant to prove ownership by earmark, against the plaintiff's claim to ownership by brand. The defendant has entirely failed to' satisfy -tne that he is the rightful owner of the four sheep. The plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the four sheep, or their value (£1 each). As for the claim for damages for detention of the sheep the parties had a genuine quarral and both agreed to harvo it threshed out in Court, the sheep being held by defendant meanwhile. Judgment was given for the return of the four sheep, or their value, and for £1 as damages for detention. Costs amounting to £3 10s were allowed to witnesses; the Gourt costs were £1 os and solictor's fee £1 6s. A certificate was given for Mr Nicholson's costs (30s) to be paid by plaintiff, but Mr Nicholson intimated that he would not claim costs.

WAIffiATE. That there is a dfetinct possibility of the South Canterbury Acclimatisation Society ''poaching, on our preserves," is. the opinion of the secretary of the Waimiite Acclimatisation Society (Mr F. T. B. Walker), The annual report of the Timaru bocty, as at March 31st, 1922 ; stated that ono opOssum license had been granted by the society; and Mr Walker expresses surprise to Jearn

that there are opossums in that district, believing that tho licenses must ha*e been issued in respect of probably tho Mt. Nimrod locality, which is in the Waimate Society's district. Some time ago the South Canterbury Society's raiiger_ secured the conviction of two men without licenses for poaching opossums at Mt Nimrod. The Waimate Society, on enquiry, ascertained that this far-away spot came within their boundary, and applied for a share of the_ fines, bnt the South Canterbury Society '-'evened up" by asking the Waimate Society to pay ranging f^es—-and so the matter lapsed. It is just possible, in the opinion of Mr Walker, that the South Canterbury Society have now come to regard Mt. Nimrod as their own; and, as he has not heard of onossums elsewhere in their district, be thinks that they must have been shot on Mt Nimrod. If this is the case, persons shooting in that area, even though they have a license from the South Canterbury Society, are liable to conviction for poaching by tho Waimate Society.