Sheep Prosecution.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 540, 1 July 1880, Page 2

Sheep Prosecution.

At the Carlyle R.M. Court on Tuesday, before Captain Wray, a summons was heard against Messrs C. and E. Symes, Whenukura and Manutahi, for alleged failure to make reasonable exertions to clean 2,200 sheep on their Manutahi farm, within 6 months after receiving an order to do so. The case was peculiar. The defendants had been previously summoned or the same offence, ’but’ the case* then broke down through a technical difficuly in proving that the Sheep Inspector’s order reached the defendants, or either of them. Their .counsel declared in.Cpurt-tliat the order had. not been received, and one defendant swore in the box that he knew nothing of the order. Fresh evidence of the existence of that order transpired after the hearing in Court, and upon that fresh evidence the present information was laid. Mr. Barleyman prosecuted, . and Mr Hamerton defended.

W. Mackenzie, Sheep Inspector, deposed : I visited the defendants’ flock at Manutahi on the 17th July, 1879, and found them infected. I made an order in writing that they were to clean the sheep within six months. Ido not know how the order came into the defendants’hands. Mr E. F. Symes said the order had been received. Ido not know whether both the brothers were cognisant that the order had been received. I asked Mr Symes, at the house on the 21st May last, in presence of his brother, “ Have you still got the order to clean the Manutahi flock ?” He said yes. After the last case was disposed of in the Court, Mr Edward Symes said he would tell me something that would astonish me. I said, “ Either now or never.” The two brothers and I went into the Albion Hotel, and Mr Edward Symes admitted that he had the order to. clean the Manutahi flock, and that it was pinned to a leaf of the diary belonging to the firm. Isaid, “ This evidence may not ho brought against you again, but I will sec Mr Barleyman to-morrow. 1 afterwards saw the order, on the 29th May, the day following the Court case, when I went to inspect their flock at Whcnuakura. I said to Mr E. Symes that I would give him afresh order to clean the sheep on that farm, I said, “ You admitted to me last night that you had the order to clean the Manutahi flock.” I opened this block book, and said“ If you have that order, it will ho numbered 2,269, corresponding with the number in this book. He opened his diary and said, “ Yes, correct.” I then said, “The numbe.i of the order for the Whennakura flock should 2,260.” lie said, “'Yes, that is correct.” I saw both those orders pinned iuthcdiaiy which he showed me. The date of tho Manutahi order was July 17th. Those sheep were still infected on the 15th of January, this year. The defendants had not made reasonable exertions to clean their sheep.

By Mr Hamerton : I saw the orders pinned to a Lett’s diary, a large one. The two brothers were not in a room with Mr McCarthy before I entered the hotel with them. 1 did not ask, “ May I come in if I am not intruding.” I did not ask any such thing. I did not begin the conversation by insulting or blackguarding Mr Charles Symcs. I did not state to him that lie had a very convenient memory. His brother did not interfere and say he would not have his brother insulted. Mr Edward Syines did not state to me then that his brother had never seen the , dialer. I did not state to Mr Sj'inos that if he would not defend the next action I would state to the Court that he had done his utmost to clean the sheep. I did say to him, at the farm, that the best thing he could do would be not to defend the action, as it would be only throwing money away, I was told by one of tbe defendants that tbe notice was written m bis own house. I did sa3 r at the previous hearing of this case that 1 posted it to him. That was to the best of my belief. When I was at Mr Symes’s house I had some whiskey, but I bad not four glasses. Mr Hamerton : Your memory is defective. Witness : It must be your brain that is affected. ; Did you say, " I give you my word as a gentleman that you shall not hear of this again ?” Witness : No, I did not use ?ny words to that effect. Did you tell him the case was done with ? Witness: No. Did he say to you,“ Well, on your word as a gentleman only I will show you the orders ?” Witness: No. Did you repeat to him, two or three times .before you left, - that tbe case was done with, and he would hear no more aboMtit? Witness : No. Did you write a letter ? AVituees: Yes, I wrote the following letter on the 31st May:—“ Gentlemen, when the orders under Section 23 of ‘The Sheep Act, 1878,’were shown to me on the 29th May, at your house, situated at Whcnuakura block, I said it might not be brought before you as evidence, but that I would see Mr Barleyrnan, Crown prose-

cutor, to-morrow. I have since seen Mr Barleyman, and the case now rests in his hands.” Mr Hainerton : Is not that letter the result of what Mr Barleyman told yon to do ? them know that the 'case'‘ was in Mr Barleyman’s hands. Mr Hainerton-:—What reason have you for saying the defendants have not made reasonable exertions to clean their sheep ? Witness: They must have left infected sheeft dnisome part of the land wheri -they, dipped. They did not muster properly before dipping the flock. Docs not the infection remain on the furze, and fern, arid fences ? Witness : Yes, it must do so. i>Did |you jkill a sheep ;in the dip at Whenuaknra during' your recent visit to Messrs Symes’s farm ? Witness : Some sheep were being dipped for boiling down, and I found that one that had been through .the-dip was still had!}' infected, the insects being alive by hundreds. I said that sheep must he put through fngain, and I clutched it under the dip'about three minutes. Mr ,K. Symes was mixing some strong stuff, and he poured it on the sheep’s hack. And it died ftoiri the effects of that, and not from The dipping I gave it. Mr Hainerton : Does not Cooper say 'that one minute is long enough for trie dip ? Witness : I am convinced that Cooper’s dip is.'worth nothing. I have been told by Mr Charles Symes that he had dipped the sheep at Manutahi; 18 or 19, times since I previously examined them. , Three dippings during that period would have been sufficient if done with proper stuff. This closed the evidence for the prosecution.

; Mr Ilamerton called witnesses for the defence. W. Charles Edmund Symes said : I reside at: the Mauutalii farm. Mr Mackenzie first visited tin’s farm in July last, I was dipping at the Mine, in arsenic, sulphur, and soft soap. The dip was hot, and and not cold, as Mr Mackenzie stated. I had dipped many times before that. I never told the Inspector I had dipped the sheep 18 or 19 times. I said 8 or 9 times. I have been accustomed to dip sheep during about twelve years. No conversation about orders ever took place between Mr Mackenzie and myself and brother previous to the last action, f stated at the last hearing, that I never saw or received an order from Mr Mackenzie supposed to have been dated in July last. I never told Mr Mackenzie that I hail received .one. After the last hearing of this" case I was in one of the small sittingrooms of the Albion Hotel, my brother ami Mr McCarthy 1 being there, and Mr Mackenzie looked in at the door and asked whether he would be intruding if ho came . ; ■ in.-". I don’t remember sneaking to Inin outside. One of us asked him to take a drink. He accused me of having a good memory, by which I. understood he meant that I bad told ah untruth in Court regarding the’order. I have been at Manutahi about six years, and have kept sheep all the time. The sheep have been .infected about throe years. I bad a clean certificate just before July last year. I have used more stringent means since last July than before. I have ridden over the nm for a week, myself .and men, to ascertain that all the 'sheep'were'in for the dip. I dipped the whole flock four times from July to January. Mr Mackenzie called in November. I was shearing, and did not dip thorn till January. He has never objected, to the manner in which I was treating the sheep. lie persuaded me to use lime and sulphur, and I did so in January. I candidly state that I have done all in my power to eradicate the disease. The scab insect , will live- on cabbage trees for months. So long as the insect is on the land no amount .of dipping will eradicate the disease. "1 do not keep a diary.- My brother has a private diary. Cross-examined by Mr Barlcyman : 1 have known scab insect live tbein ground, four months. The only effectual removal of scab is to.move sheep for at least six months. Our ground has hot been cleared of sheep for six: months. I cannot move sheep because no one would allow mo to put infected sheep on their land; ' I have not seen the order of the Sheep Inspector, and cannot say whether or not my brother received it. Never heard my brother mention it, I reduced the flock from 5000 to 2,200 and I have used all reasonable efforts to dear the run. A few of my sheep have strayed out of thefences. Mr Ball, aneighbour of mine, has sheep that are not clean but I never had any sheep mixed with Mr Ball’s. ' ;

By the Court :.Lam a partner with my brother in everything. Edward Francis Sym’es deposed : I reside at the Whenuakura farm, and so far ns I recollect I have been at Manutahi only once during the last six months. Before the hearing of last case, Mr Mackenzie was at Whenuakura one morning as I was milking, and said he had simply driven out to ask my brother the number of sheep on the Manutahi farm. My brother said be thought about 2,200. That was all that passed about the sheep. I am positive he he never mentioned any order, neither did’ -my brother. , r The Inspector-did : not leave. his'buggy. - T'saw him' again on the 28thafter the case at this Court. I and my brother were in a small room at the back of the Albion Hotel, with Mr McCarthy. Air Mackenzie partly opened the door and asked if he might come in. This was the ’ first tune T'Kad spokeh with iiiiri: after tlic rising of the court , lie said something to the effect that my; brother was a liar. I remonstrated, and said I could prove diffie-

rciitly. He become sharp. I said Leonid .some day prove that my liro'lhor was right. Ho, said I might as well do it at once, as tlio case was over. I (lien told him I could show, him the Orders. where he had left them. He gave me his word as a goiiilcman that no more would be heard of the matter. I saw him again the same evening I meant to boil sheep down, and dip them the following Monday. Ho. came instead on the Saturday previous and spent nearly the whole day. I had the sheep in the yard when ho came. Ho dined at my house. He asked me to show him the orders. That was in presence of my wife. I opened the diary and lie saw the orders. On leaving ho gave mo his word as a gentleman that the case was over and done with. Ho did not mention Mr Barleyman, nor did he say anything about bringing mo before him. I received a letter from him on Monday or Tuesday following. That was the first intimation I had of any further proceedings. The diary is a private one. My brother has no interest in or access to it. No one but Mr Mackenzie has seen the notices.

Cross-examined by Mr Barleyman : I presume the order pinned to the diary was the one loft mo by Mr Mackenzie in July. He then left it without remark, and I sat there while he wrote it. Ido not know the number of .the Manutahi flock in July last. By the Court ; I discovered the orders for the first time when the Inspector left them. I had not mentioned them to my brother. I presumed Mr Mackenzie would have informed him of them. F. O’S. McCarthy, called for the defence, objected to appearing without a snhpoenac. Ho, however, deposed : I was present at the last sheep case in this Court, and was in the Albion Hotel after the Court rose with the two defendants. We wont in together, and after a time Mr Mackenzie opened the room door, and asked if he might join us. He came in. I did not observe any hard words between the parlies. Mr Mackenzie and Mr C. Symes left the room together, on the.former’s request. This concluded the evidence for the defence, and Mr Hainerton addressed the Court, contending that the defendants had made reasonable exertions to clean their sheep contrary to the allegation in the summons. The Magistrate considered the offence proved, and inflicted the lowest penalty, od for each sheep infected at the time of inspection. Mr Mackenzie informed the Court that the number of sheep would not he 2,200, as he had given a permit for 500 to he removed for boiling down. . The Magistrate said this would reduce the number to 1,700, the aggregate penalty being T2l ss, and the costs would ho £2 9s. The Cuart would allow a case for appeal, if desired. THE SECOND CASE, The same defendants had been summoned for allowing rams to run with infected ewes on their Whenuaknra farm, but Mr Mackenzie expressed himself satisfied with the former conviction, and the second ease was withdrawn.