NEED FOR BRANDS ON CATTLE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 157, 21 July 1937, Page 13

NEED FOR BRANDS ON CATTLE

Our Own Oorrespondent.)

DiiSculty of Proving Theft JUDGE'S C0MMENT

(From

BLENHEIM, July 10. The need for branding cattle, whorever possible, was emphasised in the (Supreme Court by the Ghief Justice, Sir Michael Myehs, when revhewing the eviidence in a case of alleged cattle stealing. He said he could quite understand that in a pastor;al district euch as Marlborough, a case of this kind was of very great importance for many reasons. It was important because there were many cases of alleg9d sheep and ca'ttle stealing and proof was somewhat difflcult. "Proof has not been made any more easy in this' case because of the lack of branding and earmarking of the stock. All know the object of registered marks and brands." • ■ It was not always possible for each new owner to place his njarks . on Btoek purchased, as it might bo that he was holding it only a short time. U;(h/ere wiere other praotical ffeasons against m'arking stock in certain circumstances, but he did mot see why a person who bred stock on hds property should not place at least an earmarh on it. In the case before the Court, there was an labsence of branding on both sidos and, what was more important stillt an absence of earmarking, That was what made the identification of animals more difficult. Failure to earmark made theft and dishonesty easier. Mentiondng ©vidence of a drover that it was a common practice to turn straying cattle into adjoining property to prevent them from mixing with another herd, his Honour said that if this wero so it was a deplorable practice and one entirely disregarding the rightB of the owner of the property into which the cattle were turned without permission. -