A COAST CATTLE CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 152, 6 October 1910, Page 3

A COAST CATTLE CASE.

CONCERNING A feTEER. WHO OWNED IT? In the Magistrate's Court on Tuesday, before Mr. H. S. Fitzherbert, S.M., a ease was heard which has excited a good deal of interest for some time amongst farmers "down the coast." The trouble arose out of the shooting of a bullock by a party of young men in the lEgmont National Park in May last. Gill Brothers, farmers, Okato, claimed that the bullock was theirs, and they sought to recover its value, which was placed at £7, from Percy Julian, Olave Julian, Robert Warburtou and Percival Austin Putt, all residing in or near Okato. The statement of claim set out that defendants had shot the steer and converted it to their own use. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared, for the plaintiffs and Mr. Quilliam for the defendants. Plaintiff deposed that he had had between twenty and thirty years' experience in dealing with stock. He and his brother owned a leasehold section adjoining the Egmont .National Park. It was originally a bush section, and was still very rough. It abutted on the mountain. On Saturday, May 28, witness saw Olave Julian, "Bob" Warburton, Putt and Percy Julian going through witness' section in the direction of the mountain reserve. The nexv day, as he was leaving his section at dusk, he heard two rifle shots. On Monday night he met the four defendants in the middle of his own section. The) had packs, in one of which he saw meat. He spoke to them, asking where they had been to get the meat, and tolu tliem he was going t* put a stop to their going through his section, as they left the gates open. They replied that they had got the meat on the mountain. He replied, "All right; show me the hide or the ears." Olave Julian then began to abuse him, and they refused to give him any information, telling him to go and get it himself. He then said he would have to go to the police. Search was afterwards made for the beast, which was found by witness' brother. Over a week later witness went to the section with Constable Kelly, saw the dog carrying something, and found it to be the ear of the bullock. Then they came upon the beast. The hide was lying on the ground, with the forequarters on it. The tail, head and tongue and some other pieces were hanging on a tree near by. One ear had been mutilated and the other cut off. The animal belonged to witness and his brother. He had seen the animal on his section recently. If he had seen ii among two or three hundred cattle he could have picked it out as his. It was peculiarly marked, with a white streak down the back, and a white tail. 1 To Mr. Quilliam: His property adjoined the radius line of the Egmont National Park. The fence might be a little inside the boundary. i Mr. Quilliam: Now, if I suggest that yo"u have enclosed one mile and seven chains of the Egmont National Park within your fence, what do you say to that? Witness: How much? Mr. Quilliam: One mile and seven chains. Witness: I'd say it was untruthful. Mr. Quilliam: How much have you enclosed? Witness replied that he did not know,' but he would say about a chain. A few! moments later, however, he said it would be about half a chain. I Mr. Quilliam: How'much of the Egmont National iPark are you using for your owu? Witness: I've never measured it. Mr. Quilliam: How many acres? Witness: I could not say. Under further pressure, witness admitted that he had erected a fence' within the Egmont National Park, knowing that it was hot on the bound-, ary, but it was within half a chain of ( the boundary. .He had turned sheep and cattle into this portion. The beast in question was not shot on this portion. He admitted that he and others j had cattle in the reserve. He had a right to ask the men to show him the hide, because he found them in the middle of his property. They had to estab-j lish that the beast was theirs. ' Cross-examination continued: The beast had an extraordinary marking by) which it could be easily identified. The beast had met with no injury so far asj he knew. He last saw it about six months ago, and it bad no mark of

injury then. _ J Mr. Quilliam pointed out jthat wit-] 1 ness was very sure about being able tO ( < identify his animals, but lie would pro- : ceed to ask him questions that would show that witness was not always so i ready to -pick out his own cattle. At this branch of the examination witness ' stated that he had told Mrs. Judge that I ,' someone was stealing his cattle, and he, ; was going up with Constable Kelly be-| cause someone was shooting cflttle. He, did not say that someone was shooting) his cattle; he went up to see whether, it was so. It true that he tried to. get the police to take up the case. They went on with the case for a good while, and he accompanied them in interview-, in<r witnesses. He did so to try to get j the hide, not to work up a criminal j case against the defendants. After he, had got the hide the police dropped the case. When he found the beast he did not find a rifle near it, and did, not know, of his own knowledge, that; the rifle was there. When he first putj up the fence around his bush section there was no bush down, and he put. the fence through it, as he had cattle, that he wanted to turn into the section. He fenced near the boundary line, but not exactly on it; perhaps half a chain off. It was very hard to find the sur-| I vev pegs on the line. All the settlers j I had to put their fences away from the bush as falling trees smashed the fences. All along the reserve there was . this trouble. , . I Frank L. Gill, brother of the previous ( ■ witness, stated that on Jupe 8 last he went to the section with his brother, to look for the steer in question. Even-' tuallv, in the bush, he came across part of the carcase of a bullock. Alongside it were a rifle, a knife, a scabbard and a orindstone. He looked for the brand on" the hide, but was_ not successful, j The right ear was mutilated, the mutilation appearing frealily done. The left ear had disappeared entirely. Mr. Johnstone: Did you mutilate that ear? T Witness: Well, Mr. Johnstone, I am on mv oath, a*d I swear before the \lmitfhtv that I did not touch the beast: with" knife or instrument of any description. The ear is exactly as I found I"Methinks the lady doth protest too ' much." quoted Mr. Quilliam. To Mr Cmilliam: He did not recogi nise the hide as belonging to a beast of * i hi.3 II To Mr. Johnstone: He had not seen • \ the beast before. I Constable Wm. Kelly, stationed at II "Rahotu, gave evidence of going with '' Parli* Gill to the lattOT's bush section !') .n June 9. They had gone into the r tush some distance when the dog tnat

was following Mr. Gill camo running alongside with an ear in its mouth, it wad the left ear o/l a steer. Tuey afterwards came across the remains of a dead bullock, probably two or three hundred yards from where the dog was noticed with the ear. This ear was the eai that had been cut ori the bullock. The right ear had been mutilated. James Ducker, sawmiller and farmer, residing on the Newall Road, deposed I that about two years ago he was collect- | ing cattle from the reserve. One ot! the beasts they came across was one that "turned nasty," and would notlet him get near it. This beast was 1 marked with Gill Brothers' old ear-1 mark. He also saw another beast with i Gills' earmark. This one he drove into his own place, and then told Carlin Gill j where he could find it. Some time ago Constable Kelly showed him the hide, ears, etc., of a steer. These corresponded with the beast he had driven on to his place in earmarks and in the peculiar marking of the hide. This concluded the case for the plaintiffs. Mr. Quilliam, in opening the case for the defence, said that the action brought by the plaintiffs amounted to! nothing less than a deliberate charge of i theft. I Mr. Johnstone interpose that no such, thing w:is intended. His Worship pointed out that if what the plaintiffs alleged was true there was no doubt a serious crime had been committed.

Mr. Quilliam said that plaintiffs alleged that defendants had killed a beaai that belonged to the plaintiffs, and they' strongly suggested that defendants had' cut the ears off. j Thomas Julian, foreman of the Public Works Department, stated that his duties compelled him to spend much; time in the Egmont National Park, j He had purchased some cattle from Mr. Elwin. These bore Mr. El win's earmark, i but witness added his own, which wasl an L upside down. Elwin's earmark! was a slit in the ear. He put these j beasts on Mr. Limbrick's property, but I several got away. He had seen the j beast in question several times, and re- ; cognised it as his". The hide that was j outside the Court he had inspected, and was satisfied that the beast was his. On April 2, when on the mountain, he' followed the animal for about an horn | and a half, and he recognised his ear-! mark on it. When his sons went to the mountain on May 28 he authorised them to shoot it if they saw it. , He described the animal to them, and sev- 1 eral others belonging to him that he authorised them to shoot. To Mr. Johnstone: He bought the. i bullock about six or seven years ago. • The mark produced was his registered' earmark. He put it on all his cattle. His mark did not have an L on top of j the left ear. He did not use the whole of his registered earmark. Constable Hickman, with, whom he registered the mark, told him that it was mot compulsory to mark both ears, and so he marked only one ear. Samuel Percy Julian, son of the previous witness, said that on May 28 he and several others went to the mountain. His father gave them permission to shoot any of his beasts they came across. Near the moss line, a good way up the mountain, they came upon the beast in question. The animal had their father's earmark on one ear and a slit in the other. It had a white streak down the back, and a wliite tail. It also had a deep dent in the rump, from ( an old- injury. They camped under a tree near the animal all nighit, and the nest "day "packed" some of the meat out with them, leaving the rifle, etc., near the hide. He did not cut the j ears, and they were not cut when ht left. On the way out of the bush they met Carlin Gill, who wanted to see what they had got, and said he was going to put a stop to "it," and was going straight down to the police. Gill also said that they (the Julians) had no; cat/ tie there. Witness replied, "Excuse me, we have got cattle there, and this is a piece of one of them." Gill did not ask for the hide. Then Gill and Olave Julian had a row, after which they left Gill. To Mr. Johnstone: The split earmark ■was in the left ear of the animal. They did not go back'for the remainder of the beast because the weather was too rough. The rifle was not worth going back for. Robert Warburton, bush contractor, | gave corroborative evidence. He did not cut off the beast's ears, and saw no | one else do so. Percival Austin Putt, farmer, Warea Road, who formed one of the band who went up the mountain in May, gave evidence as to the markings of the animal and the encounter with Carlin Gill. Olave Julian gave further evidence in support. To Mr. Johnstone: He had been sued by Gill for taking pigs, and had paid up. He admitted it would be natural for Gill to feel suspicious after that. He had not cut the ears off, nor had anyone else in the party. Several of these witnesses spoke of the mark of an old injury to the animal, mentioned by Percy and said it was very pllain. Mr. Quilliam pointed out that Carlin Gill had said 1 there was no such mark on the steer. I There was marked diversity of opinion a 9 to which was the right and which the ' left. Two stock inspectors were called 'in, and after much deliberation gave, their decision on the matter, but afterwards reversed their previous decision. 1 Mr. Fitzherbert, in giving his judg- : ment, pointed out that if the evidence 'as to the dent in the bullock's back were true, it was not the Gills' animal. ' He did not suggest that defendants had I proved it was their animal, but from I (he evidence, he could not say whose 1 animal it was. Certainly the weight of I evidence was rather in favor of the ! beast being Julian's. Plaintiffs would have to take a nonsuit, and if they could get further evidence they could i brag the case again. ~ , Ao I Plaintiffs were then nonsuited, defendants being allowed counsels fee, i 1 £1 Is.