A SHEEP CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXX, Issue 58, 24 October 1914, Page 2

A SHEEP CASE.

ALECED THEFTS OUT EAST. Reginald Gerva&e Hamerton appear, ©fl Bit the Court yeiiterdatf moaning to answer a charge ol having, on or about September 25th, at Puniwhakiiu. stolon One ewe, valued at £1 Sis 6d, the property of Henry Benjamin "VVfli'thhigboll And another. Mi" Stanford appeared for accused. Philip Henry Beere; inspector of stock and registrar of brands for the: Stratford district, gave evidence tllrit the* ear-mark registered for 'Mrs

Hamortou was a cut shaped like a •.vine-glass wilth a broken stem, to lie placed on the top of the left ear for males and on the top of the right en- for temnlos. The car-mark issued to Worthington and M alone wift m the shape of a triangle, to he placed on the bottom of the left ear ;\>r females. Witness put in diagrams illustrating both markings.

| Henry Benjamin Worthington, sheep-farmer, Puniwhakau, said his property adjoined that of accused's. He remembered Tuesday, October 6th, 1914, when he visited accused's sheepyard. Constable McCowan and later on the. accused and Joseph Young were with him. He found a ewe which ho claimed ns his. and identified !ie.ewe by his own mark and by the x act .that the ewe had been machine crutched. Accused does not mnchinecrutch his sheep; he considered his ar mark had been interfered with by a piece being taken out of the point of the V, Hamerton's own ear mark had alsoi been placed on the r-heep. A small piece had been taken out of the point of the right ear, and a point had been taken off the other ear. All the marks other than his own brand appeared to have been recently done. He was well acquaintc d with Hamerton's ear mark. He now ilentified the ear-marker used by accused, on his sheep. His mark had been altered by a piece being taken out of the point of the V. which appeared to have been freshly done showing a scab at the time. About three .parts of his old registered mark was showing, and was itn old mark. He had never sold ewes to accused. When accused' came to the yards, witness claimed the ewe, and accused asked now he stood in the matter. Witness replied it was in the hands of the nolice. When Constable McCowan mght the ewe he asked accused: 'Why did you mirk it?" and accused replied "In mistake." Accused said the small nicks on the ear were put on lay himself to distinguish the sheep a-om other sheep, over which he had trouble with Mr Young. There was another mark on the ewe, a daub of red paint on the wool. He had marked about 70 of his culled ewes with, red paint, generally on the back. The sheep in question was not a culled ewe, and he would not have painted it red if it had been on his place. There was no cross-examination. Joseph Young, sheep farmer, at Puniwhakau, said that his farm atl-

joined that of accused, and he was fairly well acquainted with the oar marks .of accused's sheep and Mr Worthington's. He wn.s present at the accused's sheep yards on the Gtli October, 1914, and saw the ewe claimed by Mr .Worthington, which he examined and found an ear mark recently done was Hamerton's ear mark. He found two or three other nicks on one ear, and one nick on another ear, and also a. mark on the bottom Side of one ear, which had been there sonie time, had been interfered with. The' alteration to the. old mark had been freshly done. Fully half the old mark was left.

Alexander McCowaii, police constable, stationed at Stratford, said on the 6th October, 1914, he was present at accused's sheep yards at Puni-

whakau. Mr Wbrthington picked out a* .ewe from amongst accused's sheep and claimed it as his. _He examined the sheep's ear and found that it had a mark recently inserted inside an old mark. Two small nicks were taken out of the left ear and a small nick out of the tip of the right ear. Mr orthington said to accused : This is my ewo with your mark on it. The accused examined the ear and said: "This is my mark alright; I must have put it there by mistake." Witness asked accused why he had taken the nicks out of the ear and inserted his ear mark inside another ear mark, and he replied he had put his ear mark over the top of another to get it iu.. Accused said ho thought it was Barrett's mark, and that he know that Joseph Young had the right to claim all sheep with Barrett's mark on, and he thought when it came shearing time that Young "would be claiming this sheep. Witness asked if he had been in the habit of putting his car mark over the top of old ones and ho said he had to do it tu get it in. Witness took possession of the sheep, and brought it to Young's place, and was now produced at the Courthouse. On October 7th, in company with ac-

cused, witness visited a shearing shed and found six skins, some with oars cut off. Witness asked if ears were on them all, and he replied: "Oh no, I was through them all the other day and tool: the ears off and legs off ready for Newton King's sale." Witness pointed out to accused some had legs on, and he said lie could not make out how they had boon left on. The skins were produced. There was no cross-examination.

Donald McKay Smith, sheep farmer at Taurakawa, said he knew Mr Worthington's ear mark, because ho had shorn sheep at Mr Worthington's the last two seasons; he had soon the sheep claimed by .Mr Worthington ; had examined the ear marks, and found that the side of the ear mark nearest the head to a certain distance up re-

sembfed Mr Worfliingtoft'ri oar nnirk Ud knew accused's our mark, but was Hot well acquainted with it, Thd oar mark on the top of the ear resembles accused's ear mark. The .mark, he snid, looked as if it had neon altered. It appeared as if part of Mr Worthingtdn's ear mark had been removed. Sergeant William MeNeely, p-iIK-a sergeant, stationed at Stratford, said; On the 10th October, 1914, 1 urrestecl the accused at Taurakawa, and charged him with the theft of 1 Mr Worthington's ewe. Accused undo no reply. The same afternoon at Puniwhakau in the house occupied by accused at the back door, I found '.'.i-J

:>ar marker produced. Accused pleaded "Not guilty." Reginald Gervase Hamerton was further charged that, on the 20th September, 1914, at Puniwhakau, he did steal one sheep valued at- one pound, the property of Joseph Young. | Philip Henry Reerc, inspector of stock, Stratford, said the ear marker produced would make a similar mark to Mr Young's registered ear ma.-K. The representation of a sheep's head produced and marked was marked with Joseph Young's registered ear marker as for males. Joseph Young, sheep farmer, at Puniwhakau, said his farm adjoined that of accused. The ear mark produced he identified as his registered ear mark. The representation of a sheep's head produced had his ear mark for male sheep. Witness -.vas mustering his sheep- on 3rd October last which he remembered well, as he had'occasion to go along the boundary fence to get to the paddock in which he wished to muster. When be got to !he top of a, ridge he noticed a sheep on Hamerton's side of: the fence which had a red mark on' it. Witness gave a shout, and the sheep ran up to the fence and got through into his place. Witness noticed several of accused's sheep amongst his own. Some time in the afternoon accused came down the road and asked if there >vere any of his sheep amongst witness'. Witness told him there were. Accused asked him to leave them in the yard for him, and he would get them next morning. When witness had finished "dagging," he drafted the she-p and made two lots of his own sheep and a third lot witness drafted out as accused's. In drafting, one slvvp

witness thought was accused's ran into his lot and witness could not r&tcli it at the drafting #> te - When he had finished, witness caught the sheep and put it hack with Hamertbn's lot and he then noticed it had a recent ear mark put on the front side of the ear and a third of the ear cut of altogether. ■On examining it closely witness could distinguish that iiis mark had heen on the ear, part of it still remaining. The mark on the top of the ear did resemble Hamerton's mark. There was a very small mark on the top of: the other ear, the left ear. Witness could not say how long it had heen there. The scar where the piece of the right ear imd been removed was quitp fresh. The

jsheep bad its tail cut off, done quite fresh, the scab being still on the tail. None of liis sheep had red marks on dmilar to the one in question. This sheep witness had let go with its tail on, and as it was a very fat lamb he pimply ear marked and castrated it, and on account of its size and bng tail it was noticeable about the farm. i'he accused came to witness' yard on Tuesday, 6th October. Witness asked aim it it was.his sheep; he caught it, .mil said it lnid been freshly ear marked and did not think it wis. Afterwards on examining the ears closely said he did not think it was. On asking him whose he. thought it

was, he examined the ears very closely, and said the mark on the lelfc ear was like the sheep lie had bought. Asking him what sort of sheep Miey

were, accused said six and eight-tool n ewes, the same as this. Witness asked whose sheep ho thought it was. Accused said he did not know at present, but that if the sheep had fiomo in at shearing time.or when the ma«k had healed he wuold certainly claim it. Witnes asked if he was quite certain he did not ear mark it, End he replied he was quite certain as ho had not ear marked any sheep since June. Constable McCowan was present daring this conversation, and accused's brother also. When asked by fchh constable whose sheep he thought it was, accused said he did not know.. Asked by the constable if he had cut the tail of any sheep lately, witness replied he had cut the tail of one. Asked when, accused said he could not remember without looking at Ins diary, but that he had cut off the tail of a iamb at the back. When asked if the sheep in question was a larai), he, on looking at its mouth, said "Yes it is." Accused never notified witness he was going to muster sheep for any purpose. Cross-examined: The mark on the ear is a very bad imitation of Ramerton's ear mark. The accused when the sheep was shown to him refused to claim it.

. i Alexander McCowail deposed sail he was a police constable at Straford. On the 6th October, 1911 he was «"t Mr Young's yard, Puniwhakau, and accused and Mr Young were also there. Ml Young told the accused that some of the sheep which were in the yard were missing. Accused examined the ewe (the subject of this charge) and its ears, and said it was very much like his but said, "1 will not claim it as mine." Young said: Whose sheep do

you think it is? and accused said Jie did not know. If it came in at shearing time with the mark healed, lie would certainly claim it as his. Ho released the sheep then, and said it was very much like the one he had from Whangn, with a nick out of the ear. Young said t.j him : How old

was the sheep you got from Whanga ? and accused said six to eight-tooth ewes, the same as this. Witness caught the sheep again and Young said: This is a lamb, and witness then said: So it is. When asked if he had been ear-marking sheep recently, accused said: Xot since June or July. Witness asked accused if he had cut the tall off of any sheep recently and lie replied, no. Witness said: Are you sure about that, and he then said: Yes, but lie had cut the tail off a lamb up the gully near the.boundary fence. Witness asked if it was a' ewe or a wether he had cut the tail off. Accused said, a ewe. You said it was a lamb you cut the tail of up the gully. This is a lamb wo are talking about, and as the tail is recently cut, and it is marked in the, same position in the ear as ear > marked in your ewes. Witness ex-' amined the sheep's ears and found a piece.had been cut off the tip of the right; ear leaving part on. Witness examined the tail, and found a scab on, as having been recently cut. He also noticed a red mark on the side of the sheep similar to' some of acThe sheep were produced at the Courthouse. 'Witness added: He asked how long it was since the tail had been cut off the lamb, find he replied he was not quite sure; it was at least six months ago. Donald Mackay Smith, sheep farme" Taurakawa, said he was acquainted with Young's ear marks, because he helped to shear his sheep, and had examined the sheep produced at the Court that morning.. There was, witness said, some pieces like a small V at the end of the left ear cut, and there was also a nick on the right ear resembling Hamerton's mark. A portion of the right ear had been removed. Witness had occasion to go to accused's place recently to get a pick he lent him. It was about the 29th September. Acciised had a small yard adjoining the wool-shed, and there were about twenty or more sheep in the yard. By Mr Stanford: The mark on the right ear which resembled Mr Hamerton's was a poor resemblance.

Henry James Worfchington, sheep farmer, Puniwhakau, said he examined the sheep claimed by Mr'Young, and found it had been recently oar marked, .Which was a mark he took to be Hamerton's, the tip of the ear had been cut off, the right one which was badly done. At the bottom of the right ear, which was freshly done, he found an old mark which looked like a portion of Mr Young's ear mark. There was also a small piece taken out of the top, and some red paint on it. • '

Seregant McNeely, Stratford, &«id that on the 10th October he arrested the accused at Taurakawa on the charge of stealing Mr Young's sheep. Accused made no reply. On the same'day, at accused's house, at Puniwhakau, he found the ear marker whicli ha 3 been produced in Court. Reginald Gervasle Hamerton was further charged that he did,' between the Ist April and 9th October, 1914, at Puniwhakau; steal four ewes; and three lambs, valued at five pounds two shillings from William Ward. Philip H, Eere, stock inspector, *fAt ford, produced the register of brands showing William Ward's ear mark. The ear marker, as produced,/makes a mark similar to the registered mark of William Ward.' This mark is for females. William Ward, . sheep farmer, at Makahu, identified ear markers; (produced) as his ear markers, and said in addition to his ear mark he made an age mark to tell the age of the ewes. He first commenced to use ear marks in 1912 on ewes. Never used it on other sheep. He remembered the 7th October, 1914, and went to accused's sheep yards Jit Puniwhakau. Mr Hamerton was with him, ; and found the ewe which ho claimed as his, identified it by his registered mark, and also age mark. He asked accused to raddle the sheep's face so that he would know' it again. He visited the yard next day, and accused's sheep were not in the yards but were turned out. Accused said: I cannot understand how it is I marked that ewe as mine. Accused said he did not know witness had an age mark. Witness took part in mustering accused's sheep, and on the Bth Octolier he mustered in one paddock where this ewe was supposed to be, i also on 9th and 10th he mustered.! Witness examined each lot of sheep as yarded, and did not see the sheep 'seen. on the 7th October. Witness, after completing the mastering on Saturday, 10th, asked accused where the sheep- were, and he said he did not know. He examined the sheep on Friday, the 9th, and found .two ewes. When he picked out the first one he asked accused where he got this sheep from, and accused replied "he did not know. Witness claimed the second sheep as his, and pointed out the registered ear mark and age mark. Witness found that both ear marks on'both sheep had been altered. Witness never sold sheep with his age mark to anyone. Accused did not notify witness that he was going to muster. Witness assisted to muster more of Hamerton's sheep on the afternoon of Friday and examined the sheep when yarded, and found two more ewes claimed to be witness'. The ->ar marks of these had been altered similar to the other two, and witness found an altered mark similar to the accused's. Witness also found three lambs with these ewes. The lambs did not havo witness' ear mark on but only accused's mark. No remarks were made about the second two sheep. After claiming the first two sheep, accused said" he did not want witness to bo there the same time as Worthington and Joe Young. Accused said to him: If you take"thes» »heep away, how do I stand with you. replied: It is in the hands of

the police. Prior to 7th October last, witness had never looked through ac.cused'_s : . ewes. When we ' picked oitt these ewes there were several other

persons present. ■ ~ Walter Reginald Brewer, sheep 'farmer, Makahu, said he was well acquainted with Mr Ward , and had ear marked sheep for him. ' He knew Ward had other marks be- | sides his registered mark. Age mark's were' put on in October, 1912. The 1 age mark put on was on the left ear underneath, and witness saw one of Ward's registered marks had been altered.

Joseph Young, sheep farmer, Puniwhakau, said Win. Ward's farm adjoins mine, and witness was acquainted with Ward's ear marking. Witness examined the four sheep claimed by fm. Ward from Earnerton. Three of the sheep have' two notches of Ward's, and the other notch is Hamerton's, on each of the three' sheep. The fourth sheep has Ward's ear mark and Hamerton's ea.r mark. In one ease at least, Hamerton's mark was put on the top of Ward's mark.- The other two sheep he had not examined closely. Alexander McCowan, police . constable, Stratford, said: On the gth October; 1914/ I was at accused's sheep yards at Puniwhakau-, and accused was present. I saw Ward pick out four sheep and three lambs which Ward claimed to be his. Witness heard Ward say to accused at Puniwhakau that these were his sheep with the ear mark on them. Accused made no reply. The lambs were marked with accused's ear mark. At Taurakawa. on the 10th October, after Ward had looked through a mob of sheep that were mustered at accused's place: Ward said to accused: That ewe is not here. Accused" said: Ido Sol see it; I don't know where she' is. Witness took possession of the four ewes an'di three lambs. William McNeely, police sergeant, stationed, at Stratford, said: On the 10th October, 1914 at Taurakawa, I arrested accused on' a charge of stealing four sheep and three lambs, the property of William Ward. The accused made no reply. On the same day at Puniwhakau at the back of accused's house ' I found the ear marker produced. The accused pleaded "not guilty" in each of the- three cases and was committed for trial at the next Supreme Court to be held at New Plymouth, bail being allowed, one hundred pounds on accused's own recognizances and two other sureties of one hundred' arid fifty pounds' each.