Truth SUBVERTING THE LAW.

NZ Truth, Issue 72, 8 December 1906, Page 4

Truth

SUBVERTING THE LAW.

Published Every Saturday Morning at Luke's Lane (off mannersstreet), Wellington, N.Z. Subscription (m advance), 13s. per annum. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1906.

THE MARTIN-O'KEEFE WAR. The charge of sheep-stealing, m which John O'Keefe, of Martinborough, was the defendant and Arthur Martin, of Otaraia station, the prosecutor, was heard last Thursday and Friday week, before His Honor the i Chief Justice and a jury of twelve and resulted m the prompt acquittal of the accused, who has since received the hearty congratulations of hundreds of Wellington friends, among whom he is looked upon as a cruelly persecuted man. The case was briefly reported last week, but is worthy of rurther -reference. It was rotten m the extreme and had it not bee 1 lunrheon hour and the jury desirous of escaping being drawn on another panel, they would not have been rut; . two minutes, and that m spite of tbe 1

fact that Sir Rol>ert Stioufc had summed up very adversely to the accused, though the evidence was absurdly flimsy and the whole trend of the case went to show that the prosecution was actuated by — to put it mildly— unneighborly feeling. Mr Skerrett, who defended O'Keefe, put the case to the jury . from, this point of view. He said : The proceedings were entirely brought a^iout by envy and covetousness. For many years the accused had been calumniated throughout the country side as a sheep and cattle-stealer. The case was similar to the story of Ahab and Naboth's vineyard. The rich man had acquired a large area of land, but he wanted more, just as Ahab had coveted the vineyard which he wanted as a garden for herbs. Here, m the Wanwrapa, O'Keefe had two or three hundred adres- of land surrounded, except on the river side, by Martin's property, and Martin haa hoped that O'Keefe would be obliged to sell his farm, and persistently persecuted him with that object. But the fact m this case was that both the properties — Martin's and O'Keefe's— were very imperfectly fenced, and the sheep belonging to the one man were often found on the land of the other. Consequently, had O'Keefe desired to steal ■ Martin's sheep, he had no need to go off his own land to carry out his intention. This view was amply borne out by the evidence, even that for the prosecution. The story of Henry Robin,json, manager of Martin's station, who was practically the principal witness, was that Mr O'Keefe went to him and asked pernwaeion to enter one of the Otaraia paddocks to recover his bull, which had "broken bounds." He got* leave to dp so, but when seen a little later he was driving some sheep as well as the bull and left them m the avenue that leads through Martin's property to O'Keefe's ;, which is surrounded qn three sidles by Martin's land. To drive the sheep toy the way lie did was to ensure being seen by some of Martin's people and as there were already several of the Otaraia sheep trespassing on O'Keefe's land it was absurd to think that. if a well-to-do man like O'Keefe wanted to steal Martin's sheep he would go m broad daylight to do so and that, too, after drawing the attention of Martin's manager and the witness Perry (who lusts after O'Keefe's fat lands and has made every effort to induce that gentleman to. sell to him) to his movements, as it was 'acknowledged he did. The accused's own statement as to the sheep was the more tenable. When he went after the bull he saw two of his own rams, which had also broken bounds, along with three of Martin's ewes. He tried to separate them but the ewes would not leave the rams so he drove the five along with his bull, and when he got them into the avenue, he rode on and opened the gate ait the far end and drove down to the others— which had been left at the gate abutting on the high road m full sight of any passer-by— some six other Martin ewes he had seuarated from his own flock .previously, leavinn: them there till he got his dinner, and then going, and cutting out the two rams and turning the ewes out on the road with the intention of driving them back, now they were rid of the. rains; to the paddock whence they had insisted on accompariving the rams. It was while doing "this that Robinson and Perry rode up and charged O'Keefe with stealing the nine ewes.. The public can gauge from these facts' whether the charge was a genuine one or made as stated by Mr Skerirett. It may be mentioned that there has been ill-feeline; between the parties for years and thajt this was the third time Martin had used the criminal law as a means of getting rid of O'Keefe, and as on both previous occasions' he signally failed, though he put him t 0 heavy expense, which will no doubt cause Martin some measure of satisfaction. Martin had also once been summoned by O'Keefe for assault. The man Robinson had also •reason to be inimical to O'Keefe, for the latter had had him before the Court on a charge of using threatening language and he then admitted having Said he would smash O'Keefe's head with his stirrup-iron. The Avhole root of the matter is that O'Keefe's land is coveted ; for not only is it far the best selection m the district, but it lies right m the heart of the big Martin property. It certainly must anoear to the ordinary, unbiassed observer that' the criminal law has been misused m all three cases against Mr O'Keefe and any future proceedings of such <■» nature, emanating. from' the same quarter, will be looked upon by the general public with the greatest suspicion.