A STRAY SHEEP AND ITS WANDERINGS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4457, 23 August 1922, Page 1

A STRAY SHEEP AND ITS WANDERINGS.

ALLEGED THEFT OF WOOL A CONVICTION ENTERED. The shearing of a stray sheep, of whicl the Magistrate, Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., considered the value was 10s 01 15s, was the cause of a lengthy court case at the Paeroa Courthouse on Monday. The police took action against Jakob Bertelsen and James Steven Callingham for the 'theft of wool from the sheep in question. Mr Montague appeared for deefndants. and said he would be assisted by Mr Clendon. Senior-Sergeant OfGrady conducted the case for the police.

Charles Hudson, carrying on a carrier’s business in Paeroa, gave evidence that lie '.had a 5-iyear-old sheep running with Mr Simpson’s cow. He had the sheep for about three years. T,he sheep and a cow had been missing. He’ had heard that the sheep was ir Bertelsen’s paddock. Witness went to Bertelsen’s paddock and saw a tall old man they called Jack. Witness saw the sheep, which was shorn; and asked Jack who took the fleece off it. Jack had replied that he had done it under Bertelsen’s instructions. The fleece had been taken to the brewery by a carter under Bertelsen’s instructions. Witness had asked why the sheep Had been shorn and had got the answer that the sheep could not see. Witness said he had not shorn the sheep sines he had it,. Witness had informed the police. Bertelsen had said witness could take the sheep away. Witness had returned with the police and identified the sheep. Witness had found the fleece in a sack, and identified the fleece produced in court. Witness saw Constable McClinchy obtaining a statement from CaUinghom. Keys had met witness in the street and had .called at Witness’ house. Keys had asked Hudson to take the matter out of the hand of the police. Mr Montague raised an objection that the last statement was not .evidence.

Senior-Sergeant O'Grady read a letter fiom witness which stated that he (witness) believed the sheep had been shorn with good intentions to save the sheep’s life and that hp did not think there was any need for further action. Witness said the letter had been written before it had .been brought to him to be signed. Witness did not post it. He only signed it becausa he was being pestered. Witness had been making inquiries for the sheep for nearly a fortnight. Witness was offered money to desist with the court, proceedings. The cps.t pf the wool would be lOd per lb. It was found that there were 191 o of wool.

To Mr Montague: Witness said he had made inquiries for the sheep from Mr Pennell, the ranger. Witi ness’ place was securely fenced. He denied that the sheep was accustomed to roam about the road. Witness went past Bertelsen's property where ths sheep was found about once a week and had not seen the sheep before the date stated.

Questioned by His Worship, witness said he- had recognised the sheep by earmarks.

Constable McClinchy gave evidence of the identification of the sheep and of having obtained a statement from Caliingham, signed in the presence of the previous witness. Witness had also obtained a statement frpin. Bertelsen, who had refused’to sign the statement,. “He doesn’t sign statements to' the police,” added witness Witness had interviewed Keys, who had made a statement which was sighed W. D. Keys. The statemen: was that Keys had written the letter previously mentioned because Hudson said he did hot want any more trouble. THE DEFENCE. Mr Montague submitted that there was po case to answer, as there was np evidence pf theft. The sheep had. been shorn fpr its own protection. He maintained that the case should be dismissed as a trivial matter.

Senior-i Sergeant O’Grady said the shearing was only done as a disguise. His Worship said Callingham’s statement was against himself. He was not prepared to dismiss the case against Bertelsen at that stage. Mi- Montague, outlining .the case, said the sheep was shorn as a protection against itself, as it was covered. with briar and running with other cattle.

James Pennell, borough and comity ranger, remembered Bertelsen approaching him about a sheep while witness was going past the Bertlesen had said, “If you see anyone looking for a sheep, it’s afround my paddock.” Hudson had asked witness when after a stray cow if the sheep was not wit it, and got an answer in the negative. Hudson had never since asked witness about the sheep.

Witness, replying to Sergeant O’Grady, said he had not been asked by Bertelsen to impound the sheep. John Roach, a railway ganger, said he krew complainant, and since July he knew complainant had a sheep, after it trsepassed on the railway line. The sheep appeared to be dirty and shortsighted. To Sergeant O’Grady witness said, he had known nqthing of the case till he was approached by Constable McClinchy.

Frank Robinson, fireman on the raiway, said he had been invited oy Callingham tp go to Btertelsen’s place to .help to shear the sheep, on whicn the wool was long anc| matted. Wit-

ness considered it would be an ac:. et kindness to shear the sheep. AN ACT OF KINDNESS. John Callingham, employed by Bertelser., said the property was open to the public gaze, and that on or about July 5 last he had seen a sheep on Bertelsen’s property just inside the gate. About a couple pfj days after witness had said to Bertelsen, “what about that sheep?’’ Bertelsen had said that if anyone came for the sheep they could have it. Witness had shorn the sheep, apd later had sent the wool to the br,ewery. He had not told Bertelsen of the fact. Hudson had called at the place a week after it had been shorn. The wool had later been .taken from the brewery to the farm. The wool was badly matted and tangled. Tenpence per pound was rather a high value for the wool, which was of the lowest value. Witness, questioned by Sergeant O’Grady, said he was sure the sheep was driven into Bertelsen’s farm. Witness had suggested to Bertelsen that the sheep be shorn, and Bertelsen said it would be better shorn. Sergeant O’Grady : Why did you not band the sheep over to the poundkeeper ? Witness (pointing): Theres,’ the boss.. Sergeant O’Grady: Then you obey his (Bertelsen’s) instructions. Witness: Not His Worship: If you sent anything to the brewery no questions would be asked ? —No. Fred Robinson, carter, employed by Bertelsen, said that some time during July he, instructed by Callingham, took some wool to the brewery. Witness did not know what was in the bag. To Sergeant O’Grady witness said he was told it was wool that was in the bag. He put it upstairs with another bundle of Wool. Wi’iiam Leonard, labourer, employed by the Public Works Department, and residing in Rye Lane, said he had a cow grazing on Bertelsen’s property. He remembered some time in July a sheep grazing on Bertelsen’s property. The condition of the wool was filthy. The sheep appeared to be blind or stupid. He went to Bertelsen’s property each day, morpiug and evening.

Alfred Dynes Lawrence, slaughterman, Paeroa, said he had held a position in the local abbatoirs for the past 23 years. .Bertelsen had asked him ever the phone to ask the drovers if they had lost any sheep. He had killed sheep for Bertelsen, who would not take the hides and wool away because they were of no value. A flvc-year-qld ewe with the fleece would be worth 15s if it was poor.

Michael Quane, represntative of the Auckland “Star,” said 'he was‘ asked by Bertelsen if he would take an ad vertisement, which was given to witness. The advertisement was not .inserted because it was not complete. Replying to Sergeant O’Grady, witness said the notes fpr the advertisement were not recently written. His Worship: Do you think if a man In Paerba Jost a sheep he would advertise in the Auckland Star? It must be a very penetrating paper. Why did he not advertise in the local paper ? Witness said his paper had a good circulation. Jakob Bertelsen gave evidence of Caliingham telling him of the sheen running on the farm'. Witness di 1 not know the wool was in his possession a,t the Paeroa brewery. Witness had told Callingham that if anyone came for the sheep he could have it. Witness said that when he gave Quane the advertisement he thought Quane was representing both the local and Auckland paper.

Replying to Sergeant O'Grady, witness denied that the wool was worta anything to him. Witness denied insti'iicting Caliingham to shear ’he sheep. His Worship said it was a charge of theft of fleece only. The value could not be more than 10s or 15s. An employer was not responsible for the employee’s criminal actionis. Callingham admitted the sheep was no: his or his employer’s, and it was extremely dangerous to shear a sheep not belonging to him. The magistrate could not’ see what necessity there was to keep the fleece. If the reason for shearing the sheep was one of honesty, as Callingham. had led them to believe, why did he not display the fleece on the farjn ? The act of sending the fleece a,way to the brewery was not clear, and Callingham’s statement was' a clumsy one. He had made a statement to the police and had later called at the police station tp amend his statement. The statement implicated Bertelsen. The whole matter was rather trivial. He was satisfied of dishonesty on the part of Callingham. It would be sufficient warning tp Caliingham to pay the costs of the prosecution, 10s. An order was made for the restitution of the fleece to the owner.