ALLEGED CATTLE-STEALING.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 October 1922, Page 6

ALLEGED CATTLE-STEALING.

ONE INFORMATION DISMISSED. SOUTH TARANAKI CASE. The hearing of the alleged cattle stealing case against C. A. Slight, J. R. Slight, and William Charles Joseph, was continued at the Eltham Court on Saturday, before Mr. A.M. Mowlem, S.M. The charges were of stealing fifteen cows, the property of L. H. McSweeney and E. J. Hickey, at Tirimoana, on July 21, 1922. There was a further charge against the three men of attempting to defraud the King by endeavoring to sell for their own benefit a Jersey bull included in a bill of sale held by the Lands Department as security against loans. ‘The evidence for the prosecution was concluded on Friday night. Mr. Spratt, for the defence, contended that a prima facie case had not been made out against accused. There was no evidence to show that the bull in question had been removed from Slights’ farm. It was true that the bull had been found near the farm soon after Slights’ sale, but there was no evidence of removal. Assuming that the bull had been removed there was no evidence to show that it had been removed by the accused. The stock on the farm was addicted to wandering and he claimed that in the present case the bull had simply wandered away. Only a very short notice of the sale had been given to Slight Bros, and the inference was that they may have become careless and have known the bull was wandering. Knowing that they* were going to be sold up they did not trouble to retrieve it. Mr. Spratt did not think there was any positive duty under a bill of sale to go in search of wandering stock. Even if there was this was not what the accused were charged with. On the grounds of suspicion only no man was ever made to j account for his actions. The case against i Joseph was weaker still. He was seen driving cattle, but the bull in question was not identified a<s being amongst them. Joseph and James Slight had been seen driving certain cattle which ■were later impounded. No charge had been brought in respect to any cattle that the accused had been seen with. There was absolutely no evidence that after the bull had left the farm any of the accused had had anything to do with it. The fifteen cows were undoubtedly missing from McSweeney’s place on July 21. On the 23rd the eleven cows were found to have return? ed to McSweeney’s. On the same day four were found on the Tawhiti Road, and the constable and McSweeney were satisfied that this accounted for the fifteen stolen cows. There was certainf ly evidence that the cows had been removed through a gate which had been lifted off its hinges. Whomsoever removed them, there was no evidence that the accused had done so.

Counsel said the strongest point of rhe prosecution was that the eleven cows returned to McSweeney’s farm a few days after the alleged theft, included some of those concerned in the exchange of seventeen between McSweeney and the Slight Bros, and some of the fifteen alleged to have been stolen. The fact that these were mixed together and that the footmarks came from the direction of Slights’ farm was held to be evidence of the Slights’ guilt.

The accused pleaded not guilty. The Magistrate said that the evidence in the charge of the theft of fifteen cows disclosed suspicious circumstances, but the case against the accused was weak. He thought that it would be no injustice if the information was dismissed and this was accordingly done. On the second charge accused pleaded not guilty and were committed for trial at the sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth on November 28. FURTHER THEFT CHARGE. The charge against J. R. and C. A. Slight of stealing a Jersey bull valued at £3O. and a Jersey cow, valued at £2O. from J. R. Corrigan, was then proceeded with. Mr. Weston said that in December, 1921, Corrigan missed the animals from his farm on the Fraser Road. The loss was reported to the police, but nothing was discovered. At a later date Corrigan’s son was motoring along the road when he recognised in a paddock near the road the animals that were missing. It transpired that they had been sold by the Slight Bros, at their sale. Instead of selling the bull included in the bill of sale to the Crown, the Slight Bros, had sold the bull alleged to have been stolen from Corrigan. Evidence was heard on these lines. Addressing the Court. Mr. Spratt again submitted that no ease had been made out. The only evidence connecting the accused with the charge was the fact that they were in possession of the beasts for some time, but there was not a tittle of evidence of any attempt at conversion. The cattle had strayed on) to accused’s place and they had no idea to whom they belonged until they were claimed by Corrigan. The Magistrate said that a case had been made out by the Crown. There were many circumstances which needed explanation. Both accused pleaded not guilty and were committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed each aceus.?ed in his own recognisance of £lOO. and one surety of £2OO, or two of £lOO. x