CHARGE OF THEFT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20091, 10 November 1939, Page 5

CHARGE OF THEFT

MAORI FARM MANAGER SHEEP ALLEGEDLY SOLD MORTGAGE OVER STOCK

Charged with the theft of 20 sheep, the property of the proprietors of the Totaranui Native Block AG, Jerusalem, and subject to an instrument of security held by the Waiapu Farmers’ Co-operative Company. Limited, a

Maori labourer, Awherata Manners, alias Alfred Manuel, aged 32, appeared •yesterday afternoon and to-day before Mr. Justice Blair and jury in the Supreme Court.

The Crown prosecutor. Mr. F. Wrev Nolan, conducted the case, and Mr. A. A. Whitehead appeared for the accused. who pleaded not guilty.

The following jury was empanelled: Harry Newman, foreman, Albert Sirielt, William Church Mann. Frederick Harry Sell. John Ernest Markie . William Harding Maude, George Claude Corbett. Richard Frank Brett. Thomas Crosby. Herbert Oswald Lamont. George Edward Burrows, and Daniel O’Connell Jones.

Mr. Nolan explained that the 20 owners of the block had been formed into an incorporated company and that money had been advanced by the Waiapu Farmers’ Co-operative Company with tlie stock as security. It was alleged that 20 sheep had been sold by the accused, who was manager of the station, without the permission of tiie co-operative company.

Wiremu Tamihana’s evidence was read by the registrar, giving the names of the owners of the block and of the committee in charge. Dealings in Stock Malcolm Graham Thomson, an accountant in the employ of the Waiapu Farmers’ Co-operative Company, Limited, Tikitiki, produced an instrument of security held by his company over the stock on the block. All dealings in stock were required to be notified to his company. In March or April. 1938. there was a similar instance of stock being sold to the butcher and the witness had spoken to Manuel, objecting to his selling stock without consent, and telling him that in any case the proceeds from the sale of all stock had to be paid to witness’ company. In July, 1938, further stock was sold to tire butcher and the payment was made to the company when the butcher was approached by (lie witness.

The witness received information that further stock had been taken off the property on July 26 and reported the matter to the police. At the butcher’s yards he saw the 20 sheep belonging to the block. Permission had not been given for their sale, nor did the company get any proceeds from the deal with the butcher. Manuel was the manager of the block, and was paid on behalf of tire block committee by the Waiapu company.

To Mr. Whitehead, the witness said that if notice of the sale of the stock had been given to any other member of the company’s staff he should have been acquainted with the fact. The company had scores of incorporated blocks on tire books, and there were some that wore indebted to the company to a considerable amount.

When the sheep were taken the indebtedness of the block to the company was £320, and there should be about 900 sheep on the land. He would not have had any hesitation in making the complaint to tile police even if he knew that the proprietors of the block were liquidating some of their stock to meet their indebtedness

to the company. Re-examined by Mr. Nolan, witness said he had made it clear to Manuel that he would have to get permission before selling any stock belonging to tlie block. Butcher’s Purchase A butcher, Hubert Charles Beech, sen., Runtoria, said he had bought a lino of 20 sheep at 10s a head from Manuel. The sheep bore tlie earmark of ihc Totaranui AG Block, and Manuel said there would be no trouble over the deal.

Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead, tlie witness said there was no attempt at secrecy over the deal.

A labourer from Jerusalem. Sam Rogers, said he had helped Brown Tuhura muster the sheep on the block. Later in the day he was paid £1 by Manuel for the mustering work.

In reply to Mr. Whitehead, the witness said he was one of the owners of the Totaranui AG Block and he remembered the day when members of the committee agreed to sell some slice]) to get money for a langi, instructions being given to Manuel to carry out the deal. A farmer from Jerusalem, Pakamii Nihoniho, said he was a member of the committee of management of the block. There was a loan granted by the Native Trust, and this was taken over subsequently by the Waiapu Farmers’ Co-operative Company.

During the time he was manager, from 1927 to 1937, he told Mr. Whitehead, he had often sold sheep on the authority of the committee. He then saw that.the money was paid to the company. Interviews With Accused Constable J. W. Birch, Ruatoria, gave details of three interviews he had with the accused concerning the alleged theft of 20 sheep from the block. At first Manuel denied that there were any missing, but later admitted that 20 had been sold and that Nihoniho had told him he would replace the stock, and finally he made a further statement to the effect that the stock had been sold on the authority of the committee to get | funds for a langi. In April, 1938. the I witness interviewed the accused about the block and he said then that he knew of the loan owing to the company. This completed the case lor the Crown.

It was admitted by Mr. Nolan that a majority of the committee instructed Manuel in sell lho sheep, and that those members of the committee also partook of the food bought with 'hat money.

Mr, Whitehead said the major accusations of the Crown were admitted. There was no intention to defraud either the committee or the company. He claimed that the only thing thnl concerned a good Maori when he secured a loan was that everything was in order as long as the security he had would cover the value of the loan. If a small number of-stock was sold, as long as the security was not diminshed, the Maoris thought it legal. The circumstances of the case were not comparable with those of theft. Mr. Nolan said it was admitted that the 20 sheep were sold and the money spent for the purposes of the tangi.

Manuel knew of the mortgage and that it was his duty to pay the proceeds to the company after first having advised the company and secured its permission lor the sale of tmy stock. He drew attention to the untrue statements that had been made by Manuel. His Honour’s Summing lip Summing up, His Honour explained that the legal result of the block being an incorporated body was that although persons formed themselves into a company neither of those persons individually owned any of the property, the lav/ recognising only the incorporated body as a separate entity owing the interests. There were usually so many owners of native blocks that financial dealings had become cumbersome and it had facilitated the work of the blocks to have the owners incorporated into a company.

The committee in the ease had raised money on loan and its stock was covered by a instrument of security. Stock and station companies .assisted most of tlie farmers in New Zealand and the matter was of vital importance to the native farming community. If farmers were able to sell their stock indiscriminately it would mean that the securities would be greatly depreciated.

Although the case concerned only 20 •sheep it might have a very grave boomerang effect on oilier people if it were dismissed without careful consideration, continued His Honour.

it was for the jury to decide if the sheep had been stolen with intent to permanently deprive the owners, who were, in law, the Waiapu Company. By being sold to the butcher it seemed that the sheep were intended to disappear by being converted into mutton.

If a loan was made on stock all the animals on the land at the time of the loan were subject to security. It was an offence to sell any stock without the authority of the grantee of the loan even if the amount ol' the loan was still covered by the value of the stock remaining on the farm. The position was unaltered even if a small number of sheep was sold and the remaining stock were valued at twice the amount of the loan; everything was covered by the instrument of security.

(Proceeding.)