A SHEEP CASE.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1755, 4 October 1879, Page 4

A SHEEP CASE.

At tho Amberley Court on Thursday, before Messrs Wbitefoord, Eendall, Courage, and Broadfoot, Messrs Jones and Kent, of Hopefield station, Aruuri, wore summoned, on the information of the district inspootor, for allowing one infected sheep to Btray upon land for which they had not tho right of pasturage, contrary to tho Statute. Mr Edward Kent appeared for tho d6fenco, and said his partner, Mr James Jones, was at present absent, and the time between tho service of the summons and the hearing of the same had been too short to allow of his being informed of tho action taken in the matter.

The Bench here said if the defence required the case to be adjourned they -would bo prepared to adjourn tho same for a fortnight, but the defendant elected to have the chao proceeded with. In answer to tho Bench the defendant said the charge was not admitted. Reginald Poster, sworn, said ho was sheep inspector of the northern division of Canterbury, and having received information from Mr Holmes, he proceeded to St. Andrew's station, and examined tho said sheep in question. He found it to bo infected with scab. Had ascertained from Mr Pdeley, Bubinspector of the district, that tho car murks, viz., slit on off ear, and notch out of front of near ear, waa the defendants' registered ear mark, and had since proved that tho ear mark in queation corresponded with that used hy defendants. The dato upon which witness examined the sheep v/as the 6ih of S;ptember. He would call Mr Thomas Holmes. This witness, on being sworn, deposed—l am a sheep farmer. I found a sc:ibby sheep among my flock about the 27th August. Have barned since said sheep bore Messrs Jonoa and Kent's ear mark, which information I obtained from tho inspector. I subsequently ga.vo no'.ico to Mr Kent, and he afterwnrde camo and saw tho sheep which I had taken home. The defendant said ho could not deny that the ear mark corresponded with hia, but behoved he had not placed said mark there. <Ho (witness) believed that hiß boundary wa« about suven miles from that of Jones and Kent, but in a direct lino might bo only four miles. He understood there waa no other fl-ck iii tho neighborhood with an ear -mark similar to the ono in question. Defendant, upon seeing the sheep, said it was to be killed. Witness was quite oatuflcd the sheep was scabby. Had no glaets to examine it by, hut had seen it through Mr Foster's gLirn. In to defendant, ho said ho had lost severul sheep on tho rnnd while driving through Canterbury home. Somo ho hr.il not yet recovered.. All the aheep he brought from Canterbury wore old ohepp, hut this one wna a hogget, consequently could not hitve bean among this flock. Believed tho defendants used no wool braids, only the ear marks. Koboit Charle3 Paisley, sworn, said—Ho was inupscLor of the subdivision of the Amuri district. Tho defendant's car murk was as already describs-d by former witress. They did not woo! brand their sheep. The uitnese here.put in returns of tho number of sheep on the runs in hit district and a description of their marks. The defendant's sheep had been infected f>r seme time. Edward Kent said—l am a partner with James Jonf j. I was called by tho witness Holmes to sec a sheep in his p!es°su?n. The ear mark v/aa somewhat similar to ours, but was not exactly the same. Tho mark on the near car was r. ccc-ple'e PL-n-.ieirclc, as if dono with Bcmc machfco. Our notches are not liko that and aro deeper ; the mark of tho off ear does resemble curs. I murk all tho shoep myself, and with a knife. I put my ear marks deep in the centre. -This one waa not deep. Cannot positively swear it was not my aheep. A wire fence bour.dj our yyn from tho Waiau and tho rivo* ia very difficult to cross at onr place. Mr Foster, in answer to th* Bonch, said tho information was laid under the Asth seo«QD of the Sheep \<s, IS?s;