ALLEGED SHEEP DETENTION

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 216, 21 December 1910, Page 7

ALLEGED SHEEP DETENTION

♦ WIN FOR THE RED CROSS BRAND. "Do you mean that my client stole the sheep, then?'' was the rather startling question put to the plaintiff by opposing ] counsel in a case heard at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The answer was not a direct affirmative, hut it was of such a nature, bearing in the same direction, that all hands and the usher sat up and looked interested. The parties concerned were Fred William Oldham, of Mangorei, farmer, the plaintiff, and Harold Edward Tindall Ivey, of Frankley Road, farmer, the defendant, and the position, as- set out by the statement of claim showed that the plaintiff claimed the following chattels, viz., eight crossbred sheep (thre,e ewes with lambs), valued at 23s each, and five hoggets at IGs Cd, of the total value of £7 lis 6d, the property of the plaintiff, and detained by the defendant from November 20 until November 24, before which date the plaintiff demanded the said chattels from the defendant, who refused to deliver them. The plaintiff claimed possession of the said chattels, or £7 Ms 6d in case possession could not! be had, and £2 damages for their de- j tention. j Mr. J. B. Roy (Roy and Nicholson) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr., A. H. Johnstone (Malone, Anderson and Johnstone) for the defendant. All witnesses were ordered out of court, and the following evidence was led. PLAINTIFF'S CASE. Plaintiff said he had two farms, one on Upper Mangorei road, where he resided, and 100 acres* further up. Mr. Abraham owned' a section between plaintiff's and defendant's place. Plaintiff had some ewes on one of his sections, and defendant had some hoggets on the other side of Abraham's section. Plaintiff's sheep were branded with a red cross brand on the rump; the brand was hardly recognisable. The sheep got out on to the road, and into Abraham's section, and as there was no fence between Abraham's and Ivey's sections they had the run of Ivey's place. He counted eight of his sheep running there about Octobeiv He had no earmark on them. When the fence was completed between Abraham's and Ivey's he was able to count the sheep . more easily. He told Ivey about October that the sheep were on his place, and was asked if they were branded: "Yes, but not earmarked," witness re- ! plied. Defendant said, "Oh, then we will ; have no difficulty in picking them out, as my sheep are newly earmarked. I will let you know when I take the sheep away." Witness left it to defendant to return the sheep when he mustered them. , Defendant never doubted that they were witness's sheep. He got no notice, but found out that Ivey had taken the sheep : away at the latter end of November, and ' he remonstrated with Ivey for not tell- ; ing him they were being shifted. He said witness could look through his sheep, : but witness said there was not much chance of identifying the sheep, as they had been shorn. Ivey afterwards admitted he should have let witness know the : sheep were being removed. There was about a mile between their places. G. Mitchell and witness went through the sheep with Ivey, and he again acknowledged that he should have told when the sheep were being moved. Then witness made a demand for the return of the sheep or their value. To Mr. Johnstone: His memory was not the best in the world. What he said to Ivey was, "What have you done with my sheep?" He said, "You can have them if you can find them." That was practically the demand made. He did not see the sheep on the Frankley roadfa'rm on the Sunday, or the Mangorei road farm, but on the Wednesday before they were taken away. He could not identify the sheep now. Ivey offered to show him the hogget fleeces from the : bale. He did not think it would be worth while, as it was not likely the fleeces would be left exposed to his gaze, i He didn't exactly say Ivey stole the sheep. Witness did not give Ivey a written notice that he wanted a muster. John Abraham, farmer. Upper Mangorei road, said he noticed the ewes lambs particularly, because of the fact that Mr. Ivey had no lambs there that were docked. There was a red blurr mark on these sheep on the rump. He i noticed three or four of these sheep in the mob on the Sunday they were being shifted by Mr. Ivey, but did'not ask him , U he had any of Oldham's, as it was none of his business. , George Mitchell, farmer, Upper Mangorei, gave evidence as to putting some of plaintiff's sheep from the road into his pauJocks. He also saw three ewes and some hoggets with the same brand as on those on the road in Mr. Ivey's paddock. The brand was not easily reeog- ', nisable, but it corresponded with the brand on the sheep belonging to Mr. Oldham. To Mr. Johnstone: Any amount of people—he would himself' if he hadn't known the brand—would have taken it for a blurr. Harrv Ibbotson, a former employee of Mr. Oldham, said he knew the red cross brand of Mr. Oldham, and had noticed ' sheep with that brand in Mr. Ivey's sec- i tion. This closed the plaintiff's case. THE DEFENCE. Harold E. T. Ivey, the defendant, said that prior to the-20th November he had 80 hoggets and three ewes on 100 acres on Maneorei road. With the exception of about 40, all the sheep on the Frankley road property were shorn before the Sunday on which he took the sheep to Franklev road. John Daly, a neighbor, went with him and brought the sheep, which were shorn on the Monday and Tuesday morning. Those shorn previous to these were in another flock. He told Mr. Oldham he could look through the sheep if he wished, but Oldham didn't do so. Next day plaintiff returned with Mr. 'Mitchell and had a look round. Witness also told them thev could have a look at the fleeces, which were not pressed in the bale. He did not see any with a red brand on, and never had any sheep with that brand on. To Mr. Roy: The only conversation he had with Mr. Oldham in town was in connection with a mare of his, and he denied ha vine said anything to him about the sheep. Nothing was said about giving him notice, except that when he found there was .trouble he said he was sorry he had not given notice. He was quite certain he took no sheep away. His. Worship: Supposing they were quite certain you took his sheep, would you still swear you did not? —Yes. I noticed no sheep with any red mark on them among those I drove on the Sunday; if there were any they didn't belong to me. I suggested looking through the fleeces to see if Mr. Oldham's brand was on them. John Daly, farmer, Frankley road, gave corroborative evidence of driving the sheep and assisting at the shearing operations. Augustus Richards-Matthews, fanner, Oniata, said he had fourteen, years' exp°rience in both islands. He had shorn Mr. Ivey's sheep, commencing November 17, and finishing on November 22. There was none with a red brand on from the Mangorei flock. He shore 70 sheep on ] the Monday, but no ewes with lambs. Mr. Ivey and witness shore all the sheep between them. Charles Daniel Chant, farmer, Frankley road, gave evidence as to, putting Ivey's sheep into his paddock when Abraham and he were doijig the, fencing.

He did not notice any red brand on any of the sheep. To His Worship: I thought some of the sheep might have been Oldham's because they were big sheep. This closed the ease. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. After counsel had addressed the bench, His Worship delivered judgment, reviewing the evidence at length. He could not get away from the fact that on November 20, or at any rate shortly before that date, there were eight sheep of Oldham's on Ivey's. place; whether Ivey knew it or not, he did not know. His Worship believed that Ivey had promised to inform" plaintiff when he would shift the sheep, but he did not do so, and shore them and obliterated the mark. If he did it deliberately—and it looked like it—he could easily arrange about the fleeces. The offer to have a look at the fleeces was a bit of cunning on the part of defendant, as he knew they would not discover anything from that. There was no question in His Worship's mind that defendant had Oldham's sheep, and that they were there still, whether defendant knew it or not. His Worship held that plaintiff hadl proved Ms "case, i.e., that the sheep were on Ivey's place, and were there now. Judgment would be for £7 lis 6d, the value of the sheep, with costs. He could not allow anything for detention- of the sheep. The judgment would; be reduced to one shilling if the sheep were returned. within a week. The costs amounted to £4 10s 3d. I