JERSEY’ CATTLE MYSTERY.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1922, Page 8

JERSEY’ CATTLE MYSTERY.

SLIGHTS CONVICTED OF RECEIVING SENTENCE DEFERRED. After a retirement ‘of over three hours, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty against the Slight Bros, at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, on the charge of receiving a Jersey bull and a grade Jersey cow, knowing them to ’have been stolen. The two accused, Jafues Richard Slight and Charles Arnold Slight, were charged , with having stolen a Jersey bull valued at £3O and a grade Jersey cow valued at £2O, the property of J. R. ■Corrigan, and, secondly, with having received rhe cattle knowing them to have been stolen. They were acquitted on the first charge. The whole of the evidence was taken on Thursday, and yesterday morning was devoted to the addresses of counsel and the summing up by His Honor Mr~. Justice Chapman. Mr. C. H. Weeton (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the Crown, and Mr. F. C. .Spratt for the accused. Sentence was deferred until Monday. ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL. In his address to the jury, Mr. Spratt submitted that there was no evidence that that accused had done anything'to render it impossible for the bull and cow to be claimed by their owner. They had not altered the brands or done anything to hinder their recognition, and consequently they could not be accused of theft. If cattle or any other animals strayed on to a man’s place there was no legal obligation on his part to seek out the owner. He could let the straying beasts remain on his place for all eternity if he liked, and not be guilty of any crime; but if, however, he attempted to alter the appearance of ) the animals, or did anything to render it impossible for the oxyner to claim them. I then a crime would be committted. There ! was no such evidence in the present case. He also contended that the fact that the arrival of the strays had been mentioned to the witness Poole, and to his knowledge, to other neighbors at the time of their arrival, was a vindication of the charge of theft, a vindication which was strengthened by the fact that they were also reported to Barry, the supervisor of soldier settlers’ farms.

Regarding the sale of the bull, Mr. Spratt drew a picture of the state of mind of Arnold Slight at the sale, and remarked that, considering the fact that it was a forced sale, that the boys’ hopes of being allowed to go on to a cheaper farm had been dashed to the ground, and that the sale was going badly., he would be very “fed up.” The ranger had allowed a stray cow to be put up for sale after his attention had been drawn to the fact that it was a stray, and consequently, when the bull xyas put up, Charles Arnold allowed it to go. That, however, was not a positive act of theft. In his reply, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weston) went on the lines of his opening address, and put it to the jury: “Were the actions of the accused those of honest men?” He said he wished to correct the impression, which it had been said he had given, that it was the duty of the accused to let all the cattle on their property, whether it belonged to them or not, be sold at the time of the sale. Obviously, the Crown could not sell cattle not included in the security, and which did not belong to the accused. He traversed the evidence that cattle had been removed from the farm before the sale, that the accused had apparently taken no active steps to find the owner of the bull and cow when they could quite easily have notified the police that the animals had come on to their property, and that, when the police came to Powell’s place and had let it be known that they were investigating a charge of cattle thieving against James Slight, Slight had not made his presence known, although he was aware that the police were there. He further criticised the action of .Arnold Slight at the sale, and contended that if the jury considered thftt, in al! these circumstances, the part played by the brothers were not those of honest men, they must be convicted. THE SUMMING UP. In summing up, His Honor briefly referred to the law on the subject of theft, and mentioned that the accused were called on to answer alternative charges. In some cases a man could be found guilty of both stealing and receiving, but in the present case, if the jury decided to convict, the. conviction could be recorded on only one of the two charges. The question before the jury was whether the accused’s possession of the cattle shortly they were missed was»honest or dishonest, or did that possession become dishonest during the months which intervened before they were recovered. He referred to the evidence which the Crown had brought forward regarding other cattle wh.ch, it was stated, had strayed on to the accused’s farm in order to negative a defence of accident. One or two accidents might be disregarded, said H’s Honor, hut when more occurred their recurrence became suspicious. He also mentioned the refusal to give the police a statement, asking why any hpneft man should refuse to give information to the police, • also the way in which James Slight had kept in the background when the police were at Powell •? place. “Was the conduct of these men so sinister?” asked His Honor, “as to satisfy you that, when circumstances called for an explanation of their possession of the beasts, they failed to give it like honest men? The explanation they made was shuffling, and their communications to Corrigan were made only when the police were making inquiries.” The jury retired at 12.35, and returned at 3.50 p.m. with the verdict as stated.