ALLEGED CATTLE STEALING.

Shannon News, 14 October 1921, Page 1

ALLEGED CATTLE STEALING.

♦ —. LEVIN RESIDENT CHARGED. CASE DISMISSED. i A sitting of tiie Levin Police Co-urt was held on. Wednesday before Messrs J. McLeavey and D. W. Matheson, when Charles Millen was charged that “On or about August 23, "1921,. at Levin, he did steal a heifer, value £iu, the property of Ernest Caske.” Accused pleaded not guilty, and was delended by Mr j. J. McGrath. Detective-Sergeant Quirke prosecuted. CLAIMANT IN THE BOX. Ernest Caske, farmer j Gladstone Road, Levin, stated that on August 23 he bought a Jersey heifer at the' Levin sale through the N.Z. Loan Copipany. He paid £8 5s for the beast. Witness produced the receipt for the purchase. The heifer was dark in colour, with a tendency to having a "bull” neck. The vendor was Mr Nicholas, farmer, of Kuku. Witness left the heifer m the yards for the night, and returned next morning about 7 o’clock with the ipterition of removing her/ The animal was missing.y There was onjy one gate between the pen where the heiier was and the road, and it was: partly open. Another heifer that was in. the same pen was also missing, but the third heifer that, was in the pen was there. He made •’ inquiries, and on September 13 sa'w his missing animal on the racecourse. He was ' alone at the time. Witness returned two days, later* in company with Mr George, the auctioneer, and a young man named Goodwin, who knew the animal. Witness had no conversation with accused on the course,/but on coming up the town witness and Mr George niet accused in the street., Accused said: ‘‘You are mad; the heifer does not belong to you.” With that accused walked away. Accused did not say anything, as to where, the beaist came from. Witness, saw the police tlie same day,' who accompanied witness and Mr George to the racecourse again. Accused was present. In going over the paddock they came across a 15-inonth black Jersey heifer, and accused said: “Dcr you claim that one, she has no earmarks on her. &he is a full sister to the one you are claiming.” Gomg on they came to some more cattle, including the one witness claimed. Accused pointed this animal out, and said, “That is one of the lour I trucked from Palmerston.” ■He pointed out the other three animals that came with this beast—two, cows and ope heiier. Accused also said the other live animals in the paddock trucked irom Wellington, aim another 'animal he bought locally made up the ten in the paddock. Accused then left. .The age of the animalwitness claimed was two years or two years and three months. There were no earmarks or visible brands on her. He had no doulit whatever the annual Was his. He had been dairying in me North Island 16 years, arid had five years’ experience with cattle in the South Island. He valued ihe amnia* at £lO or £l2. He gave no one'authority to remove the animal from the sale-yards. The animal was later taken possession of by the police.

Mr McGrath: Did you swear the information against the accused lor theft? . i ' v ■ '• Witness;. Yes. ■ Counsel: Where you saw the animat on the racecourse is quite an open place? Witness: Yes. There was no attempt made to hide the heiier. It me neasi was stolen it was a pretty open iheii. Witness spoke to a man on me course on the occasion of the hrst visa, li majjj; have been Fyffe. There was im discussion about the heifer. Witness was certain that accused said on the first occasion that heifer is a full sister to the one witness Was claiming. Mr McGrath: How do you ideutiiy this heifer? Witness: By her colour, condition, depth of body, and other characteristics of head and body. Counsel: She hasn’t changed he: colour since you bought her? Witness: Oh, no. (Laughter.) The animal was quiet in the yard, and was still quiet now in the paddock. Counsel: How often have you seen her? Witness said he saw her for the first time the day he bought her. She was sold about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. After buying her lie examined her well and took particular notice of her points. There was nothing unusuaT about the colour of the lieifer. If was quite possible that there were ; a large number of black Jersey heifers in the Wellington province like , the animal in question. To Detective Quirke: Mr George and

Constable Bagrie were present when accused made the remark about a heifer being a full sister to,the one witness claimed. Witness made a go.ou examination of the heiier when he purchased her. Witness claimed to identify an animal as readily as aiiy expert. 'Detective Quirke; Have you any doubt about her identification? Witness: None Whatever. / THE VENDOR’S EVIDENCE. Harry . Godfrey Nicholas, farmer, Kuku, slated that on August I 3 ne, sent two heifers to the Levin yards ..tobe sold through the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company. '. One was a dark Jersey and the other a. brindle. On September 24 he saw a dark Jersey heifer in a paddock near Levin, lie considered the heifer to be the one he

isold on August 23. He reared the heifer frbm a calf, and had no hesitation in identifying her as the one he saw. on this occasion. The animal had no brands or earmarks. He identified the heifer by her thick neck, rough coat and general appearance! She was a little over two years old, and should " have calved about October 8 or 10. Cross-Examined, witness said he could not swear whether he told anybody he had a doubt about the identification of the heifer. He now believed her to be the heifer he sold. Counsel: Suppose a man’s life depended on whether that heifer was stolen, would you be prepared to swear positively that she was the heifer? Witness: I would. ' Counsel: Then why did you previously say you had a doubt about it? Witness: I say I am not sure that I told anyone I had a doubt abcitut the heifer. ‘ . Counsel: Why did you ever have any doubt? \ 1 Witness: The heifer had sprung considerably since I last saw her.; '.. Counsel: Would that change s her appearance?. 1 Witness: \ in the hindquarters. To Detective Quirke: He had had about 25 years’ experience with stock. MOPE EVIDENCE OF ‘IDENTITY. Reginald Kerr Goodwill, farm labourer in the employ of Mr Nicholas, of Ktiku, said he remembered the heifers being sold at the Levin sale. Witness was present when the heifers were drafted, and had seen the heifers nearly every day of the six months he had been on the farm. He accompanied Mr George and Mr Caske to the racecourse, and identified a black .Ter; say heifer as the one that had been sold by Mr Nicholas oh August 23. There were no brands or earmarks on the .animal. He had seen the heifer again that day, and had no doubt about her identification by i her appearance and looks. 1 n Cross-examined, witness said he had not before seen a black Jersey like the .animal in question. There was something ''-uncommon about her, and that enabled him to identify her. Counsel: What is it that really enables you to identify her, then? Witness: By her‘ short, thick neck, short teats at back and longer in front, and by the date she came in. To Detective Quirke: There were other heifers at Mr Nicholas’s like the one in question, but he would have no difficulty in ' distinguishing this one from the others. • : « THE CATTLE AT THE COURSE. Raymond Vickers Brown, farmer, Bruce Road, Weraroa, saici -up to July last he held the lease of the land inside the Levin racecourse and occupied it until accused came to reside at the course. He/ remembered .accused bringing his'cattle to the course, and saw them there on many occasions. Accused brought two cows and a calf when he first went to Levin. On September 12 accused had a number of fresh cattle there. He knew the heifer, Mr Nicholas sold on August 23 last, and oh September 12 saw a dark Jersey heifer that resembled the one Nicholas had sold. He tvas bidding for this heifer at .the sale, and examined her well. Witness was npt prepared to say that this was the heifer Mr Nicholas sold, but was very much like her.

Counsel: All you can say now after making a .close examination is that •she is like the one that was sold? Witness: Yes. There is nothing to distinguish her -from the average Jersey heifer. It would be possible for the breeder to identify the heiler among any number of others; If accused had more cattle when he came to the course witness would have seen! them. “NEVER SAW THE HEIFER.”, Leslie Melville said he was employed by Mr Bevan, adjoining the Levin racecourse. He remembered accused coming to reside at the course. All the stock he saw accused bring to the course were two cows and a calf. He milked accused’s cows on one occasion two or three months ago. All the cattle were brought, up to get a heifer in. She \vas a Shorthorn and red in colour. Detective Quirke: Did you see a black Jersey hQifer there? Witness: Yes, on the course, hot round the liouse. Detective Quirke: How long has she been there? / Witness: Two or three months. There were several cattle there. He had certainly seen a dark Jersey on the racecourse. Detective Quirke: Are you prepared to. say wHfc owned the cattle you saw on the course? Witness: No. They may have been Bro\yji’s or Milne’s. )T(kMi’ McGrath: lie had never seen the b’eher which was the cause of the action, but. there was a black Jersey I there- about two months ago. Brown's I and i Milne's cattle were running toj geihtfr. [ ' OTHER EVIDENCE. Harry Stanway . George,, auctioneer to the; New Zealand Loan and Mercan-

tile Agency Company, said he remembered Ernest Caske buying a heifer on ' August 23 last, the vendor being Mr Nicholas. ,The heifer was sold by Mr Day under instructions from witness. Cross-examined, witness said, he closely examined the. heifer. Witness handled stock every day, and had {a good average knowledge of them. There were two or three peculiarities about the heifer. Detective Quirke: Do you think the breeder would be able to identify an animal like this? Witness: If he sees them practically every day, I think he would. William Thomson, stationmaster, Levin, produced documents showing that ' accused received two cows and one calf by rail from Longburn, and on July 19 five head of cattle from Petone... To Mr McGrath: Although there were only three cattle mentioned in the consignment, there may have been more. To Detective Quirke: The consignor of the stock must give the correct number. The Detective:' If the consignor sent a larger number than, stated, he would be committing an offence. Witness: He would. Detective Quirke: Do -you know of any other stock received by accused through the railway? Witness: No, only these two lots. Constable Bagrie, stated on September 15 he visited the racecourse with Caske, H. George and the accused, where he saw a heifer, the subject of this charge. Caske pointed out the Jersey heifer as the one he claimed. Accused claimed her as his and said he brought her from Awapuni with him. He also pointed to a 12 or 15months dark hedfer and said, “That’s her full sister; it’s a wonder he does not claim her too.” Witness asked accused how he? brought his cattle to Devin, and he replied that he trucked' them, and brought four-two cows 1 and two heifers. Accosted then pointed out other cattle, he brought up from Petone. • Witness asked accused who he could get to bear out the statement that the heifer belonged to him, 'and he said “There are 50 people about here who know, she is mine.’! He asked for the names of some, and accused named three people. On September 17, witness took possession of the heifer. There were three cows-, a two-iyear-old red and white heifer, two light-coloured Jersey heifers, and three dark-coloui'ed yearling, Jersey heifers — nine altogether., There was no similarity between the heifer. Caske claimed and the others. The heifer in dispute had calved on October 6. Cross-examined, witness said, accused had made no attempt so far as he knew to hide the. heifer., Accused was frank up to a certain point. When asked to explain matters, he made an excuse that he wanted'to ring up, and Went away. Leslie Broughton, labourer, said he was in accused’s ■ employ 1 for a short time after |he came here. Witness could not say what stock accused had, because the fences were down. The Court then adjourned. THE DEFENCE. Harry McDonald Essex, farmer, of Palmerston North, said lie. had an extensive knowledge pf cattle. I He examined the heiler during the Court’s adjournment, and found on* her markings that anyone who was< used to seeing this animal would not mistake. On the front of one teat there was a white circle about an inch wide, and on the other side a white patch about two inched in diameter. There was also a white mark running up the stomach Tl\ese markings were absolutely distinct. There were no- outstanding features to distinguish her. She was thick in the neck, but that was not uncommon. There was nothing unusual about her colour or condition to assist identification. To Detective Quirke: If he bred the heifer and had her in possession for two years lie would be prepared to identify her. If there was a distinct mark on the body like this animal had got he would remember it. Unless a heifer was springing her udder would not. be prominent. What he had said in evidence was his personal opinion as a fanner, and lie did not claim it had any more weight than the experience of any average farmer. Under similar circumstances to that of Mr Nicholas he would be prepared to identify the animal. He considered that both Nicholas and Goodwin were In a position to identify, and witness would not say they were wrong. To Mr McGrath: Anyone examining the heiler on September 15 should have .beeii aide to see the distinctive marks referred to by witness. .if these were not seen, the inference would be that the person who examined was not looking closely, or that it was a different animal. This concluded the evidence. INFORMATION DISMISSED.