Supreme Court

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 203, 4 February 1915, Page 7

Supreme Court

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS. SIIKKI' STEALING. The criminal sessions of tin: Supreme Court, were continued vesterdav before l!i:i Honor Mr Justice Edward*, when the. ease was resigned wliieh had been adjourned from the previous day, in which Beginald Oorvase Ilamerton, was charged with sheep-stealing, the counts he ing as follows-.—(1) On some date prior : to September 14th, I!H4, theft of cu« sheep, the property of Joseph Young: and about the sonic date, the attempted theft of one sheep, the property of Joseph Young; (2) about 25th Septeni her. lill-l, the theft of one ewe. the pr.i-pi-rtv of Henry I! W'orthington; and CI) 'between April Ist and !)th October, lf!14. theft of four ewes and three lambs, the property of William Ward. Henry B.' Wortbington, sheep farmer, residing at Puuiwhakau, deposed that he was a neighbor of J. Young, and also of the accused. He recollected going to accused's yards on October 3rd, where he examined a wether. He found that the sheep had been recently ear-marked, and that a piece of what appeared to be an old mark was left at the corner. This was the right ear. Nothing had been added. The portio,, taken off at the top was something Re Mr Hamcrton's ear-mark, though he could not swear to it. The new mark was like a large V, but was minus a wine-glass stem. Had this been there he would have said that it was Mr Hamerton's. There was a small V taken out of the point of the other car. Exhibit A nomewhat represented the earmark. He did not notice any red brand on the sheep. On October tith, he went to accused's yards in company with Constable Mefiowan. No one was at the yard when they arrived. He noticed a ewe that had been recently marked, and when Mr Hamerton came along, witness claimed the sheep. He identified this sheep by his ear-mark which had been tampered with. The sheep had also been machine crutehed, and only witness and another neighbor (not accused) had machines for crutehing. lie considered that a portion had been taken from the tip of his mark, and the ears were showing other fresh marks, viz. piece off the tip of each car and a piece off the top portion of the ear that he had marked himself, and a small nick alongside. A fresh earmark, which witness recognised at Hamerton's had been placed on the sheep, lie should say that it was two or throweeks' f-inec the earmark had been altered. His own ear-mark was an old. one which had been placed on when the sheep, now four rears old, was a lamb. He had never sold anv ewes to accused. When witness claimed the ewe, accused said that he did not know how he had come to make the mistake, and, in reply to a question, accused said be had put the marks on to distinguish tke sheep, as he had had some trouble with a neighbor. Young. Mr Spence here objected to the witness being lead. His Worship upheld the objection Witness, continuing, said that accused asked what witness intended to do. and he said the matter was In the hands of the police. There was also a red wool brand on the ewe. Witness always used black for marking after shearing or crutching. Accused used red. Witness had identified the ewe, which was now in the police yard. Cross-examined by Mr. Spence t Exhibit A showed too bluff and too much. Accused's mark was a semi-circle with a wine-glass stem, not a V. When docking, witness had put his mark on the wrong ear. He crutehed usually in June or July. Last year, he crutehed on Tuesday, Jivr..- Hltli, and did not see the sheep 'again until October fith. To an experienced man. it would not then be difficult to tell how the sheep was crutehed. He visited accused's place on October sth and October fith early in tlia morning. He went through the sheep oil October sth, but claimed none On Oct(ber fith, in the forenoon, he went with Constable McC.owan. and claimed a sheep. He could not remember if he went there by himself, and claimed no sheep. He thought that was o n the evening of the sth. Mr Young was not with him when he claimed the sheep. He had sold considerably through agents, and did not know where his slice]) had gone. Oeo. E. Hobbs had sold some of his sheep. He did not remember that he had claimed a sheep from a man wdio had bought it from a dealer. He had seen sheep he had sold come back to the vicinity. He remembered one ewe that was' on his property quite recently belonging to accused, with a V out of the ear. produced at the Court. He had also seen sheep on accused's property with a V on one ear, and a slit on the other, but not on the same ear as his. His earmark had bee n in use since lflOl Prior to last year, his earmarkers were apt to draw. A V was an easy mark to make with a knife. He had used his knife at odd times to make a V. ' Be-examincd: He did not claim the sheep referred to in cross-examination, because it was carrying a mark that 1113 sheep should not carry, though the sheep seemed familiar to him. Since October sth, the sheep hail returned to witness' property, and a few Sundays ago he had handed it back to accused, who claimed it.

William Ward, sheep farmer, residing at Makahu, recognised his ear mark. He also used an age mark, which in 1912 he put underneath the left ear. In 1913 he put it on top of the left ear. He used the age marks on ewes only. In 1914 his owes would have only. In y914 his ewes would have three ear 'marks on the right ear. On October 7th, knowing that accused had docked and had not given him notice, he inquired as to the reason. Accused said that his brothers had come from Patea, and he had not time to let him know. Witness replied that that was no excuse, as accused knew the law better than witness, and should have advised when docking. Witness then asked to he allowed to look through the ewes and lambs in the yard. Accused said: "After we've had a bit of dinner, I'll go over and look through the yards with you." After dinner', witness looked through the main body, but could see none of his sheep. He then saw two sheep in a pen, which had apparently run by the main mob. Witness said: "Hallo, there's one of my sheep there." Accused replied: "That was one of the line of hoggets I was telling you about that I bought from Fox Rogers with your oar-mark on." Witness said that liad never been bought from Rogers as a hogget, because, it had his ear-mark, and he had never sold Fox Rogers either lambs or hoggets. They caught the sheep and examined the ear-marks, when accused asked witness if he meant to say that the age marks were put on with the same machine as the ear-marks. Witness replied. "Exactly so, and nn ear export would say the same." Accused replied that lie did not know witness had an ear-mark, Witness said he, could bring Mr Brewer and Allan Waters to prove it was his ear-mark. Accused said he could not understand how he had made the mistake of marking the sheep as his. Witness said the. mistake had been made, and he claimed the sheep, which, witness said, In' could not take away, as the sheep had a lamb Accused said: "Xn." Witness asked Accused to ennie up the valley and look sit another sheep which he thought had his ear-mark. When a chain away from the sheep, witness asked accused about the ear-mark. v could not remember if accused re-

plied. Witness said he wished accused had let him know when he was docking, so that he could have had a, look through. Witness said as it was a hot day, he would not ask accused to muster that day, but asked him to advise witness when mustering that paddock, so that ho could look through the sheep. Accused agreed to this. Halfway down to the yards, accused said ilie reason he did not let witness know was because he did not want him to be there at the same time as W'orthingl'iii and Joe Young. Witness asked what difference would that make. Accused said: "I didn't want you to be there." Witness asked accused for some raddle which ho had forgotten to bring, and accused raddled the one sheep in the. yard on both cheeks, so that it could be seen well. In reply to a question, accused said that the dry sheep were on the other side of the road. Tie was going to take them up to llarvo\ 'a place, whose grass he had leased through New ton King. Witness said hit would look through these as they were being taker, away. He noticed a wether with his (witness') ear-mark on. and said to ac eused: "You've got your ear-mark on the other ear, where mine should l>e.' : Accused replied: "That's another of tin same line. I've sold most of thein, and have only a few left.'" Tn response to witness' request the sheep was raddled. The dry sheep were taken away. Witness asked that the ewes and lambs should be, kept in until next morning, as he did not know how to act, seeing how things were. Witness then rang up the police, and the sergeant said he would come out as soon as possible. To Mr Weston: He could still recognise his mark underneath accused's, though he would not say how long since the alteration had been made. Accused claimed the sheep at first. On October Bth, witness arrived at accused's place at about 10 a.m. and found that the sheep had been turned out. When the, sergeant came, he asked for that paddock to be mustered where the sheep with the raddled face was supposed to be, but the sheep could not be found. Accused said that he did not know where that sheep was. They mustered the next paddock on the ninth, and witness caught two sheep which he claimed. Acccused did not know how the sheep got there/but asked why witness had not claimed them when lie looked through the, sheep on a previous occasion, alluding to April 27th, when witness looked through the sheep for, the first time. Witness said that he did not know these sheep were in the vard as accused only told him thßt • the wethers were mustered. While at. lunch, accused came and asked witness: j "If you take these sheep away, how do T stand with you?" Witness replied: j "It is in the police's hands," and asked j where the two-tooths were. Accused re-1 plied, "On the other side of the road." j Accused's brother also said: 'You don't ( want to see the sheep on the other side . of the road." He further said that tliey j were not going to muster. In replv to accused's querv about the heat, witness | said he would not like them to muster j that day, but would like them to muster; in a few days, after the first shower. | The sergeant asked accused to mVistcr. I To Mr Weston: Accused said that lie j got the two sheep from Fox Boners, but. witness said they were his and clai:s-| ed them. j ''ontinuing, witness said it was ar-1 ranged to start mustering at 4 p.m . accused and witness going in one direction, and the sergeant, constable and one or two others in the other direction. Accused said: "There's another one of yours," and witness said, "Yes." On completing that muster, thev found two Cat witness claimed. One ear-mark j 1 ad been altered on the top. and there

was one that accused's earmark had been put in separate and not one of wit- j ness'. Three marks had been interfered j with. The constable, took charge of the i four ewes, and three lambs Three «fj them had lambs with accused's ear-mark i to them. j To Mr Weston: He had sold some; ewes to Mr Fox Bogers. There had been j cull lambs, which had been put out with j the intention of not marking. Thev j had been inadvertently aged marked.) and sent to Tutatawa. and sold on about January 30th to Fox Bogers, through j Webster, Pobson and Co. He had not ; mentioned the sale of these ewes in the j lower court, because he did not remember what date they were ear-marked. I

To Mr Sponec: He had given d-liv- j cry of those sheep to Mr Rogers. Tie"' | wore eight owes and 24fi wethers soM i through Webster, Dobson and Co. He; could remember selling 72 owes through ■; Newton King on April 28th. These j would not have his ago mark, as thov I were old ewes. Ho had forgotten (n mention the sale of the eight ewes with j his age mark in the lower court. IT» ] thought that ho had mentioned the name of Fox Rogers in the lower court. J Mr Spenee drew attention to an an- j parent inconsistency in the evidence given at the lower court when witness i had said that accused replied that lie got thorn from Fox Rogers. To Mr Sponcc: Witness had received I notice that accused would be showing! on a certain day if fine, but as the weather was showery, he did not see the j , sheep at all in January. He saw the sheep in April. Witness could not remember seeing the sheep on accused's place with a somewhat similar mark that had come from Hawke's Bay. "Wit- [ ness was not confusing the names of Rogers and Hobbs. On April 27th, witness saw two sheep which he thoug'it were his, but accused said that ho had bought them in a line from Mr Rogers. The ewe now On Mr Young's property was a different one to the one they had raddled on the face, because the first had a docked lamb and this had a tail when witness examined the sheep in the pen. On October 7th. accused gave witness three wethers with witness' ear-mark that had not been interfered with. Witness did not claim one wether that had a punch hole in the other ear. He had had no experience in sheep farming prior to going into that property five years ago last August. To Mr. Weston: The ewes he claimed had Mr Hamerton's mark over his. The sheep with the punch hole had earmarks similar to his, but he could not examine them, as ho only wanted to claim sheep j that he know were his—that he had ac- 1 tually reared. i Constable Alexander McCowan of Stratford, gave lengthy evidence regarding the visits paid to accused's property, most of which was corroborative of the evidence of ihe previous witness, ne stated that in reply to a question as to why he had put his earmark over the one accused had said that he had to do it to get his own mark in. Ho also deposed to finding six sheepskins in the shearing shed with the ears off, three of them with legs on, and three with legs off.

When the question of producing the skins was brought up, His Honor said that he could not see wliatbearing this had on the case. The jury could go outside and view them if they liked, but | the skins certainly should not be brought into court. The" jury did. not view them. To Mr Spence: He did not hear accused say that he had purchased the shcop from Mr Fox Rogers. Witness did not point out to accused the absurdity of his remark re the brand, when his mark should legally have gone on the top of the ear, where theTc was plenty of room and not underneath, where Worthington's w 7 as. Mr Donald McKay Smith, sheep farmer, at Taurakawa, deposed that he knew Mr Young's ear marks well, as he had helped to shear the sheep during the last thro* years. He gave corroborative evidence regarding the' alteration to the earmarks of the sheep alleged to have been stolen from Mr Younsr. To Mr Spruce: Xearly half of Mr Young's mark was left, and what was left bore a great resemblance. The mar

. .. ike top of the ear was a poor re:■;■..:;>.mice of Hamerton's mark. j '1 he luncheon adjournment was here I taken. I Walter Keginald Brewer, sheep farmer at Makahu, deposed tha.t he was ac-,i (luaintcd with Mr. Ward's ear-mark audi age-mark. lifsome cases this age-im'.rkl had not' been properly put in, and In ■ would not like to swear to it, but l.i " ear-marks were plain. The ear-marks on ' the four ewes mentioned had been altered. Senior-Sergeant McNeely, now stationed in llawera, but formerly of Stratford, deposed that on October lilt!), at Taurnkawa, he had arrested the accused on the three charges of sheep-stealing. Accused made no reply. Later on the same day witness found the car-marker (exhibit A) at accused's residence. This closed the case for the Crown: CASK Foil THE DIU'EXCE. After outlining the ease for the defence at some length, Mr. R. Spence placed the accused in the box. He st::ted that, with his two brothers, he manau'ed his mother's farm at Vuiiiwhakau since July, 1013 T. The farm consisted of about 800 acres. Previously he had lived at Tututawa, and while there he purchased some, sheep, previously sold by Worthington, from Mr. Barlcyman. He took half-a-dozen of these to Puniwhakau. In August, lill.'i, he, bought a lot of sheep from Young, Hobbs and Co., in Stratford, and on June 23rd,' 11)14, he bought two lots of ewes at Mr. King's sale, .Stratford. He bought 282 from Mr. Rogers—4, G, and fresh, full-mouthed ewes, and 41 from Mr. Kilsley. On the road home, about a mile from Stratford, two sheep came into the mob. Someone, from behind asked witness if they were, his. He noticed they both had black brands. About a mile further on he took a count, and found his tally to be right. He put these sheep down the Skinner road to graze, and Il'9 got away across the Ngaere Swamp, and to the back of Mangamingi. He took the first lot home, and eventually found the rest. He earmarked and crutched them, and put them out. He then noticed the two sheep with the black brand, so he put an extra nick in the ear of each. Mr. Bonner, of ( Skinner road, thought two of the, sheep j were his, and went through the mob. One of these two sheep—that claimed by Worthington—was crutched'. The other ewe with the same nick was outside the Court. On October 3rd witness was passing Young's, when the latter called out that two of his sheen were in the yard. Witness did not see the sheep, but next day got seven that were liis. On October sth Young again told him that two of witness' sheep were in his yards. Witness replied that he would get them after he had finished mustering. At 8 a.m. on the Oth Y T oun« told him that the two sheep were starving in his yard, so witness sent his brother Eustace for them. The man lie now knew to be Constable McCowan next came, and asked for witness, and" told him that his brother could' not manase the sheep, so witness went down. He saw six or seven sheep in the yard, and claimed them. The fences between Young's farm and his own were'not too good. Witness caught the two sheep first mentioned. One he claimed, but he said the other was not his, as the carmark was recent, and he had sot enrmarked anv since July Ist. That mark on top of the ear was not marked by his machine, nor by him. Witness said that he would not have claimed the sheep if it had come into his yard. Witness said to Young that he had never marked with a knife since he had been on flic farm. Constable McCowan asked witness if he had ever tailed any lambs. Witness replied "Yes," and instanced that lie had tailed a woolly ewe lamb at the bottom of the ridge in the back paddock. ITlie constable then turned the lamb up, and said this is one with the tail recently cut off. Tt was a wether. The constable said that the mark was witness', and requested him to claim it, which' he declined to do. Witness had never cut the tips off any sheep in this district, but had done so at Whenuakura, as part of a brand, when working for a farmer. He never y'- ■" red daub on anv sheep. He always used, his registred mark. On Saturday, October 3, he. notified Worthington that he would lie docking on October sth. On that date the latter looked through the sheep, and found none. The following morning he, came again, and again found none. The sheep now claimed was in the yard at the time, one of under a hundred. In the evening Worthington came again with Constable McCowan. who had previously been to the yard with Young: Young picked out the sheep that Worthington claimed. Constable McCowan asked why witness had put his earmarl.:' inside Worthington's, but witness denied having done so. Towards evening Worthington came with the constable, and claimed the ewe. Witness said-that she was his, and that he had bought her in a mob at Stratford. Constable McCowan asked why the nicks were put in the ear, to which witness replied that it was so as to know the ewe at shearing-time, as it had a mark like Barrett's underneath the ear. Young said he had the right to claim all sheep with Barrett's car-mark. It was .just on dark, and he, thought this was the sheep. Barrett's had two nicks, and the two with the black mark had one. To Constable McCowan witness said that he had at times to put his mark over another mark, so as to put his mark in its right place. He had not done so in this case. Witness' mark was on top of the car. Worthington said he claimed the, ewe, and witness said "So do I. How do we stand in the matter?" Worthington said it was in the hands of the police. He did not say that he must have made a mistake about the marking. The black daub was still showing faint on both sheep. At the time of docking he put a red daub on all ewes that had not lambed. He did not dishonestly mark any sheep. The sheep claimed by Ward had been bought from Mr. Rogers. Ward came over to witness' place on October 7th, when they were just at dinner. He mustered,' and Ward claimed one sheep. Witness said that it was one he had bought off Rogers. It was age-marked. They red-raddled that sheep, but it got away. He had since seen that sheep in Young's yard. He asked Young_ for the sheep, so that he could bring it into New Plymouth in connection with this case, but Young said he had no time to muster. Ward picked out three sheep on the Bth, but would not claim one. IThis latter witness had brought into town. In the afternoon they mustered across the other side, when Ward claimed two more sheep, and the ser-

gcant put them aside with the others, i Witness said that he had brought them from Rogers, hut Ward said he had ; never sold any with his age-mark on. , Witness never made any remark about • marking by mistake. Sergeant McNoely took the sheep away on Friday, October [ 9th. The red-raddled sheep would still , have been in the yard had Ward come ; early, as he promised, but when Ward ' did not come parly he turned them out, : as they had been in the yard some ; time. Tn replv to a question from wit- • ness as to what was to be done with ■ the sheep that both claimed, Ward said the matter was in the hands of the police. After mustering the dry sheep , in Harvey's paddock at Taurakawa, 1 where Ward claimed none of the sheep, . he was arrested. The four sheep were the same class and the same age as those i he bought oft Rogers. ) Accused was cross-examined by tlie Crown Prosecutor. To His Honor: He made it clear to 5 the constable and WortWngton that hi rk claimed the sheep,

I _ His Honor: Very well. They are peri juring themselves in. a very wicked manner: To Mr. IWoston: At the time Constable McCowan spoke to him, he thought they were referring to Barrett's sheep. He did not discover his .'mistake until he again saw the sheep :<; , Stratford. He was not in the habit of putting strange ear-marks or univgv tired private marks on sheep, so as t-~ come out on top in a dispute with a neighbor. As a rule, lie eut the ears oil' the sheep he killed when dressing the sheep, lie had started cutting the ears nil' eight years ago. The sheep he had in his yard in September, were some that he kept handy for killing for household use. George Edward Willis, sheep farmer, of Kohuratahi, deposed to having sold, in .Tune, 1014, through Webster, Bobson and Co., 302 4, fi", and full-mouthed ewes, which he hail bought from various owners. It was more than likely some of them would be marked with black. His ear-mark was a slit out of one ear and a V piece out of the bottom of the other ear. He hud often marked the wrong ear. He had identified some of the sheep in the possession of the accused as some he had sold. It was ; possible that his marker had failed on some occasions to put in the slit. He had once had an argument over the same thing with the neighbor who marked his sheep. It was possible for the slit to heal up completely. The V on some of the sheep, the subject of this charge, was the same as his own. and if the sheep were, in his paddock he would think thev were his. To Mr. Weston: When he found thnf lie was using his car-mark on tue Wrong ear, he did not alter it at once. on account of his sheep having so mitnv ear-marks already. He did not think the ear-mark had been altered by cutting a little out of the V, but had altered by contraction. Tt was not difficnlt for him to recognise his own earmark.

To Ilia Honor: He only identified liis own ear-mark. x > 'Reginald Dixon Rogers, a farmer and fjtock dealer, living at Tnglewood, dealing largely in slieep and stock throughont tlie Xorth Island, deposed tliat about 00,000 to 80,000 sheep passed through his hands in a year. Tie had several holding farms for his stock, and one of these, about 100 acres, was situated about two miles from Stratford, on the East road. Rejects and unsold sheep were put there, and the paddock was seldom clear of odds and ends of slieep. He recollected purchasing from Mr. Ward, in January, 1014, at Douglas, and also in March, 1014. through Newton King. This latter lot comprised 72 cast ewes out of the flocV. In all he bought 1000 at that sale for various owners, and drafted them out at Stratford. The fine wools were sent to Canterbury, and the rest, including thi! bulk of Ward's, to the farm. He also recollected buying a line 'rom Willis, of Whangamomoua. These were sold through Newton King at the Stratford saleyards. To Mr. Weston: It was possible for some of Ward's sheep to have remained on his farm'from January to June. Charles Frederick Osborne, drover, ot Stratford, remembered, on June 22nd, taking a line of 302 sheep fom George Willis, Whangamomona, to Mr. Rogers'' Stratford property. He tallied them in, and when he tallied them out next morning there were about 45 more than the original mob. To Mr. Weston: He did not attempt to ascertain what slieep lie bad picked up. James Bell Cameron Fawkner, a drover, residing at Stratford, deposed that he did a lot of droving for Mr. Rogers. Tn March, last year, he brought in a mob of sheep from Douglas to Stratford. They were drafted out. and 575 Romneys were sent to Canterbury, and the baiance of 401 went back to the holding farm. There were always some stragglers left on the farm, opposite which he lived.

TTo Mr. Weston: He brought 1020 sliecp from Douglas. These included some from Ward's. .The stragglers would vary from two or three to a dozen. It was possible for four or five sheep to stop in the paddock for months. He had known some stop for a long time, but had never timed them. Alfred Francis Morgan Syme, £ sheep farmer, r siding at Whcnuakura, with thirty vea-.,j' experience among sheep, deposed' that he had shorn 20,0fif) sheep per annum, and had considerable experience of ear-marks, lie had examined the sheep impounded by the police, once in company with Hobbs and Smith, one? with Hobbs and Besley, and once with all three. He had also, on November 17th, examined Hamerton's sheep on accused's farm. He had examined the ear-marks on the sheep claimed' by Young. There was a round cut out of the top of one ear, which he thought had been cut with a knife. Tt was similar to Hamerton's ear-mark, but without the stem. He did not see any similar- mark when he visited Hamerton's flock, and ho did not think it was Hamerton's mark at all. He did' not think it was possible to identify Young's mark from the little piece, of a mark alleged to have been left in the ear. When he saw the marks on November 3rd, none of them looked new. All looked to have been done at the same time, four or five months previously. Tie did net think the ear-mark of the sheep claimed by Worthmgton had been mutilated in any way. The V might have been made with a blunt instrument, which would give a round edge that would deceive any but the expert. If a sheep had been crutched in July, it would be impossible to tell in October whether it had been done by a machine or not. He had never seen so many ear-marks in his life before in one small flock as he saw at Hamerton's. This would be accounted for by buying small lots made up by dealers. He knew of several cases of duplication of earmarks, even in district. The V on the ear of tlie sheep claimed by IWorthington was the same as that in the sheep in accused's possession outside the Court, and if Worthington claimed one he should claim both. Only in one sheep was Ward's ear-mark and agemark consistent with the same punch. To Mr. Weston: It was a fact that sometimes when marks had been altered the hair could be seen in the old mark, but not in the new one. He noticed that some of the marks had apparently been singed. In Young's shtep be noted that the hair was not so wellgrown on the top, but he took no notice of this, as the thick part was at the top of the ear, and would take longer to heal. Tn Worthington's sheep* he should say all the marks were made some time before he examined them, so that no one could tell how long they had been put in. Hamerton's mark would obliterate the other mark if put on properly. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.