ALLEGED CATTLE STEALING.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 444, 2 March 1912, Page 5

ALLEGED CATTLE STEALING.

THE TANGiTU CASE. At the Supreme Court at Hamilton on Thursday, before his Honour, Mr Justico Edwards, five men, Frank O'Keefe, Nelson Fraei, E. T. Fraei, Robert Maxwell Wiley, and Alvin Wiley, of ages ranging very widelj*, were charged with stealing two head of cattle, the property of Frank Hurley, and three head of cattle, the property of Harold Houghton, at Mokauiti, on or about January 7th and Bth. Mr H. T. Gillies prusecuted on behalf of the Crown, Mr R. F. Singer (Auckland) representing accused. Peter .Baer, settler of Tangitu. said he met prisoners on January Stb, some of them riding, the others lead ing pack horses. He asked O'Keefe where he was going, and the latter replied "for meat." Witness enquired if there was any chance of getting a little, and O'Keefe said, "Yes; come along." O'Keefe told him he had shot a bull and a smaller anima l , while they also came across another beast, which O'Keefe said he had shot the day before. They turned it over, O'Keefe remarking that it bore no brand and that it must be a wild one. Witness noticed that the animal bore ear marks but said nothing While sitting on a gully with O'Keefe, young Wiley (one of the prisoners) and another man who was not present, came along the ridge carrying shoulders of meat. O'Keefe said, "Here is your meat; take it and go home." He and O'Keefe jorneyed on a distance and came across the other four prisoners cutting up a dead beast. The ears of the animal had been lopped off and a piece of hide cut from out of the rump. Near by were three other animals with ears off and rump hide removed. O'Keefe remarked to witness that if he (witness) "split," he had better luok after himself. Prisoners, after filling their bags with meat, left for home. O'Keefe later told witness that he would "do for him" if he gave him away. Cross-examined by Mr Singer, witness said he had been instructed by Mr Hurley to look out for cattle thieves, and it was with the view of seeing whether the meat for which prisoners were going was from wild or tame cattle, that he accompanied them. He denied that he had threatened to "get one on" to O'Keefe for his part in effecting the removal of witness' wife to the asylum. It was untrue that when he accompanied the party he remained behind after the others had left, and cut off the ears of the cattle in order to incriminate prisoners. John Coombridge, settler of Rangitau, said that on January 9th, he together with Northcote, Hurley and Baer, journeyed into the bush to the spot which prisoners had visited the previous day and there found the carcases of five dead cattle. The ear tips were removed and portions of the hide had been cut away. The ears were found some distance away. The previous day prisoners passed his place with pack horses laden with meat. Cross-examined, witness said there was no -attempt at concealment of the meat on the part of prisoners. Baer on one occasion told witness that he intended to get even with O'Keefe for the latter's part in the removal of his (Baer's) wife. He also remarked to witness, after the lower court proceedings, that he (witness) had given the show away.

Frederick Northcote corroborated last witness' evidence regarding the finding of the carcases. One bore the earmarks of a settler named Houghton, another bearing an inoculation brand on the neck. The remaining carcases were minus ears. These were found close by and bore Hurley's mark The ears had been thrown down as if in a hurry, and could easily have been burned in the fire which had apparently been kindled close by. It was thehabitof settlers in the district to shoot wild cattle.

Frank Hurley and Harold Houghton gave corroborative evidence also, and I stated that amongst the dead cattle | were animals belonging to them and which bore their ear marks. Cross-examined, Houghton said it would be almost impossible to know whether the cattle were wild or tame before shooting them. Constable Mathew said he interviewed the prisoners separately, four of whom stated that it was at O'Keefe's invitation that they went for the meat. O'Keefe admitted he had shot four cattle, adding that he had never in his life shot a beast with a mark on it. The animals he shot were all bulls, which charged them, making the party take to the trees. In opening the case for the defence, Mr Singer said that prisoners were all men of unblemished character, and they would state that they were only following the usual practice of settlers in the district, when on January 7th, they went wild cattle shooting. There was only one gun amongst the party, and they would tell the court that immediatly after shooting one animal, they were charged by a mob and had to take to the trees. The land upon which the animals were shot was native land, upon which there were hundreds of wild cattie, and if the beasts in question did belong to Hurley and Houghton they had no right to be on this land, and it was therefore a pure accident if they were shot along with the others. O'Keefe denied that ho was aware the cattle were tame and branded and stated that it was quite the usual thing for'the settlers to go out wile! cattle shooting. The reason he shot more cattle than was necessary for the party's immediate requirements, was because he and the other prisoners were etiarged by the aniamls and it was partially for self-protection that the animals were killed. Ernest Meredith, Crown lands ranger at Tangitu, said there was a large block of open country adjoining the Crown area, and he had known of wild cattle running there. There was plenty of cattle running wild with ear marks. He had often marked the pars of wild cattle himself.

His Honour took witness to task for what he termed mutilating wild cattle. Nelson Fraei said the reason for lighting the fire while cutting up the meat was in order to keep the mosquitoes off. He denied Mr Gillies' suggestion that it was to burn the rump hido and ears, but that Baer came along toy quickly and that they had to throw them down hurriedly. Ho was quite unaware at the timethat the cattle which were shot were tame. The remaining prisoners gave corroborative evidence, each asserting that he was unaware that the cattle were tame. Both counsel finally addressed. His Honour, in summing up said that Baer's evidence did not bear very materially upon the case. Prisoners were well" aware how the country lay, and almost surely that the owners of the cattle held property adjoining the native land upon which they were shot. Hurley had lost no less than 52 cattle in six months. The animals which were shot were indisputably the property of Hurley and Houghton, and if prisoners had only taken the trouble to look at the carcases they would have discovered this. The jury could scarcely believe that prisoners were nut aware of this. His Honour asked how it was possible for young settlers, such as Hurley and Houghton were, to get on while they were liable to have their cattle shot down in this fashion. If the jury believed that prisoners did not know the cattle were tame, and that kind of thing was to go unpunished, then it would be the death blow to honest farming in such a district. Regarding two of the prisoners, Wiley junr., whose age was but 16, and his father, the position was somewhat different, as the boy was young and had probably been led into the affair, while the father's story that he accepted the meat on the assertion that the cattle were wild he not being present at the time they were shot, might be considered feasible. In such case they should acquit both father and son. After being locKed up for over four hours the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty against Wiley and his son, and failed to agree regarding the three prisoners. The jury was discharged and another trial ordered of O'Keefe and the two Fraeis. At the conclusion of the second trial Nelson Fraei was discharged the jury disagreeing with respect to tte other two accused. The Crown Solicitor intimated he would not press or a further trial, and the prisoners were released.