Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WHOSE CATTLE.

MYSTERY OF TWO JERSEYS. SOLDIER SETTLERS ON TRIAL. CASE IN SUPREME COURT. The question as to whether James Richard Slight and Charles Arnold Slight had stolen a Jersey bull and a gradt} Jersey cow, and whether they had received the animals, knowing them to have been stolen, occupied the attention of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth all day yesterday. The case was very and thirteen witnesses were called in support of the accusations against the accused. His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman was on the bench, and the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weston) conducted the case against the accused, for whom Mr. F. C. Spratt appeared. The right of challenging was freely exercised by both counsel as the jurymen were called. The accused were charged that, on December 5, 1821, at Fraser Road, near Hawera, they did steal one Jersey bull, valued at £3O, and one grade Jersey cow, valued at £2O, the property of J. R. Corrigan. There was a second count that they received the bull and cow well knowing that they had been dishonestly obtained.

The jury was comprised as follows:—• Messrs. E. ,W. Goodall, C. C. Lister, H. Sole, A. L. Hunter, R. A. Cocker, R. J. Daisley, C. S. Pyke, L. Ji. Fairhall, 1. Young, J. McNeill, A. Way, J. Drake. •Mr. McNeill was chosen foreman. IDENTIFYING CATTLE. In bis opening remarks the Crown Prosecutor referred to the ease with which farmers were able to identify cuttle and other animals. To the townsman, he said, all cattle appeared as so many counterparts, but to the farmer there was a difference in every beast, and people, who spent their lives among cattle, developed an extraordinary faculty for knowing the difference in stock, and had no difficulty in recognising animals even months after they had seen them. The case for the prosecution involved many places, persons, and at least two coincidences, which, it was alleged, strengthened the case against the accused. and led to the detection of the alleged theft. It was stated that Mr. J. R. Corrigan was the owner of several milking herds, and, in December, 1921, one of these herds was being milked iby Frank Lambert, at Fraser Road. Some years before the Slight family, including the two accused, had share-milked for Corrigan on this farm, leaving it in ]9lO. In December of last, year, after he had milked the herd. Lambert took the cows and the bull, mentioned in the charge, to the night paddock, which was securely fenced. The gate was also securely fastened. Next morning he went to get the herd and found that the bull and one cow were missing. Both the animals bore Corrigall’s ear-mark, notches on the top and front of the ear. The locs was reported to Mr. Corrigan, junior, who made inquiries throughout the district but without success.

THE SALE. The iseene now changed to the accused*' farm at Tirimoana, near Eltham. where the Government had put them on a leasehold property, and, to secure the advances made, had taken a bill of sale over the stock. Amongst this stock was a Jersey bull, which accused had purchased 'from the Government advance for £l5 10s, and this animal was, of course, included in the security. Mr. Weston pointed out the effect of a bill of sale over the stock, mentioning that the instrument covered all stock on a farm, their progeny, and any other stock brought on to the place. The accused failed to make a success of their affairs, and th* Government had stepped in, deciding to sell them up on July 21, 1922. The sale took place on the farm, and it was stated that the two accused were present before it started, but James disappeared, and left his brother to lend tone to the proceedings. This he was stated to have done by doing his best to prejudice the sale, damning any animal with any good points at all. with faint praise, while lie gave any one that had a flaw, the blackest of characters, so that, instead of losing only a- few pounds, the Government had lost rather heavily. A bull was put up ; and sold for 10s. During the sale he ■ also objected to some of the animals ! being sold. A little bull was brought 'in, and he said it belonged to Edward McSweenev, and the Crown Lands Ranger (Alfred Harry Featherston), who was present, agreed to it being with- ' drawn and also a young heifer, which a neighbor had given to another of the Slight brothers. When Arnold Slight objected to a Holstein cow being sold on the grounds that it did not belong to them. Featherston mode inquiries, but. not finding anyone on the spot who .knew anything more about the animal, he let it be sold on the understanding that, if the rightful owner came along, he would receive the money paid for it. By this time the question of the proprietary interests in the cattle was becoming rather a joke, and, when another bull was brought in, Featherston facetiously inquired if this animal belonged to the Slight brothers. Arnold replying: “That is all right!” That animal, the prosecution stated, was not the bull bought from the Government advance; it was Corrigan’s allegedly 1 stolen bull.

Changing scenes now succeeded each other with great rapidity. One Phillips, a neighbor, in the course of his work on his farm on the day after the sale, happened to look across to another neighbor’s farm, that of one Gallie, and noticed, in one of his paddocks, what appeared to him to be a strange herd of cattle. Callie’s property backed on to a blind road, which also provided one means of access to Slight’s property• Phillips next saw the cattle being driven down the road by a boy named Joseph, orfe cow, which he noticed particularly. breaking away from the mob as lie passed by. Later on in that day. the boy Joseph and James Slight appeared at the property of Arthur Powell, who lives on (he Mountain Road, with a mob of cattle, included in which were four cows bought by Powell at the sale. These cows were branded with the sale tar brand, but the rest of the mob was not. Slight inquired of Powell if he knew of anyone about who could give him grazing for hi* cattle, and Powell suggested that he should put them on a blind road running down the side of his place. That stock consisted of five cows and two bulls, a big one and a little one.

POLICE SEIZE CATTLE. Next day, in consequence of information received, the police arrived at Powell’s place, and took possession of the five cows and the little bull, driving them back to Eltham, and placing them in a paddock near the pound. In this same paddock was the bull which had beeii sold at the sale, the purchaser having in the meantime disposed of it to another man. By an extraordinary coincidence, Corrigan, junr.,, drove past the paddock in his car, and identified the bull there as his father’s property. Another coincidence followed in that the cows were also placed in this paddock, and a day or two afterwards, Corrigan again drove past. He noticed a cow lying down, and as it struck him as being familiar, be got out of his car, entered the paddock, and identified the animal as the missing cow.

The accused Arnold Slight, made a statement to the police concerning the cattle, and, apparently at. that time did not know that Corrigan had obtained possession of his bull and cow, because later, when this fact became known, he varied his statement with regard to the bull. On September 12 he was charged with the theft of the cattle, when he said that he could prove that they had come on to his place and were taken away by his brother, Jarnos, before the sale.’ On July 29 James Slight met the younger Corrigan in Hawera,-and told him that he had a bull and a cow belonging to him, which had been on their place foi the past 8 months. Corrigan inquired why he had not told him that before, and‘Slight replied that he had just discovered that the animals belonged to him. Corrigan then mentioned that he had obtained possession ot the animals. After Constable Townsend had recounted how he had seized the cattle at Powell’s place, he was cross-examined bv Mr. Spratt concerning his endeavors to obtain a statement from -lames Slight and one he had procured from Arnold Slight. He admitted that he had taken down only what he thought was relevant to the inquiries he was making regarding the alleged theft of cattle, and also that when, in company with Featherston, he had vfeited Slight’s place to look for dead cattle, he had not told them what he wag looking for or had given them an opportunity of accompanying him on his search. Corr-table Andrews. Hawera ’elated an interview be had had with James Slight in Union Street, Hawera, and stated that he had said to Slight: “You sold a bull at your sale belonging to J. R. Corrigan. What have you got to say about it?” Accused replied: “I will deal with the owner.’’ “Have you removed cattle from any other place,” queried the constable. I refuse to answer,” replied the accused. Accused was also •silent with regard to a question as to whether he had removed any cattle from hi? place before the sale. Alexander -lames Corrigan related how the lose of the bull and cow had been reported to him, his search for the missing beasts, and hi* subsequent discovery of them, within a few days of each other, in the paddock opposite the pound at Eltham. The bull had a wale paint mai’K on it, but there was no such mark on the cow. Later he met James' Slight, when he mentioned the cattle to witness, faying they had wandered on to his farm and had been there about oeven months. Slight said that they had not found out that the cattle had Corrigan’s earmark until a few days before. In the autumn ot last year he had traced some missing calves to place, but the Slights had notified the sharemilker that the calves were there.

Cross-examined, witness said that the brands on the bull and cow were not tampered with in any way. The brand on the bull was very faint.

THE STRAY’S REPORTED. Hattrick Barry, supervisor of the Diweharged Soldiers’ Settlement in Taranaki, said that on one of his inspections of Slight’s farm he had seen two bulls on the place, and the accused had told him that one of them and some cows had strayed on to the farm. They told him that they did not know to whom they belonged. In consequence of stock matters on the farm being rather complicated, he wrote to the brothers, stating that, before anyone was given possession of strayed cattle, the .person or persons claiming the beasts must make a declaration of ownership in writing, signed before a solicitor or justice of the peace. That instruction was issued by letter in duplicate, and one copy was signed for by Arnold Slight. In reply to Mr. Weston, witness said that his intention in writing the letter was to protect the Crown’s security over the advances made to the brothers to put them on the place. William Poole, sharemilker, Hawera, said that in December, 14)21, when he wag at Tirimoana, he noticed one day, while he was getting his cows in, a Jersey’ bull and a Jersey cow grazing on the road and moving towards Slight’s place. Next morning James Slight rang him up and asked if he had lost the cattle., as they had strayed on to his farm.

This was all the evidence called for the defence, and His Honor intimated that, as the hour was growing late and counsel’s addresses would probably be of some length, he would adjourn the hearing until this morning, at ten o’clock.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19221201.2.59

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, 1 December 1922, Page 7

Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,017

WHOSE CATTLE. Taranaki Daily News, 1 December 1922, Page 7

WHOSE CATTLE. Taranaki Daily News, 1 December 1922, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert