DISTRICT COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2222, 2 July 1891, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Timarxj—Tuesday, June 30th.

(Before His Honor Judge Ward.)

civil cases. pohn. Campbell v, Thomas Percival Wooding—claim £54, value of 84 sheep detained by defendant. Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr C. Perry with Mr Raymond for defendant. There was also a cross action, Wooding v.. Campbell—claim £23 4s, value of wool converted. It was arranged that only the main case should be tried, arid the smaller case be decided by the verdict of the jury on the larger one. i A special jury of four was sworn.— Messrs J. Ord (foreman), J, McKelvie, P. Sinclair, and Fred, C. Williams.

It will be remembered that the parties to these suits were some months ago respectively prosecutor and accused in a charge of sheep stealing. Cambell being charged with stealing the sheep in question from Wooding, and it was among the facts for the prosecution that Campbell shore these sheep while they were in his possession, and sold the wool. During the management of the criminal charge the sheep were taken possession of by the police, and placed by them in the custody of Wooding. The result of the trial was the acquittal of Cambell by the jury, and thereafter lie demanded the sheep from Wooding. The latter refused to give them up, declaring they were his notwithstanding the verdict of the jury in the’ criminal charge. Campbell therefore brought this civil suit • for their recovery, and while resisting this claim, Wooding brought a counter claim for the value of the wool taken by Campbell from what he (Wooding) alleges were his sheep. Mr Hay gave the plaintiffs history 1 of the sheep in question. In March, t 1890, plaintiff purchased at auction at Ashburton, from Mr Thomas, a line of 287 lambs, the culls of various flocks. These were driven to Woodbury by Peter Bain. After receiving them Campbell selected first one hundred of the best, and then a second hundred, to keep, and sold the rest, about 80. While picking out the best to keep Mr Campbell handled them all, and soon noticed that the best lambs bore a particular ear-mark, and thereafter used this mark as a basis of selection, and he found seventy or eighty had this mark. This ear-mark would be heard much of during the case; it was a “fore and back notch.” The 80 lambs, the worst of the line, were sold to Mr Postlethwaite. The 200 kept were branded with plaintiff’s brand, an anchor in red. Plaintiff had his own earmark, but it happened that the fore and back notch already on inany of the lambs was in the way of its application, so thnt he did not alter the earmark on these. Plaintiff’s father was present during the culling and branding, and he noticed that earmark particularly and remembered it well. The 200 lambs were put on good feed and did well. In September he sent these sheep to a farm on the Rangitata, and brought them back in November to shear. While being shorn the sheep were sometimes in a paddock opposite defendant’s house, and some of them were driven backwards and forwards past Wooding’s house to another farm of plaintiff’s, called the Sugarloaves. Three days after plaintiff’ finished shearing defendant and his sons came to him and asked if they might look through the sheep at the liomstead for some they had lost, and were given permission. They picked out of a mob of TIOO one black sheep, and claimed it by the earmark. Plaintiff told them he had several with that earmark. Then they claimed it by a spot or natural mark, and plaintiff said as they were positive about it he would allow it was theirs. A day or two later the Woodings were given an opportunity to look through otherportions of plaintiff’s flock, and picked out four which they claimed as theirs by the ear-mark. Plaintiff had’ some time before sold a line of 1500 hoggets to the N.Z.L. and M.A. Company, delivery to be taken after shearing. The defendant was still making enquiries about sheep he had lost (or said he had lost) when the purchasers sent men to take delivery. The line of 1500 was taken away to Newlands estate, and on the very day it happened, the defendant placed the matter of his lost sheep in the hands of the police. The sheep were followed to Newlands by the police, and 66 were picked out there being the disputed ear-mark. A muster was made of the sheep On plaintiff’s farms by . the police and 17 more were picked out, making 83 altogether bearing this ear-mark. These were taken charge of by the police, and left to graze on Wooding’s property. In due course the case against Campbell was heard; he was triedj and found not. guilty of stealing the sheep. He then applied for delivery of them, but defendant still asserted that they were his sheep and not plaintiff’s, and declined to give them up. This necessitated the present proceedings in order to obtain possession of them. From the conduct of the prosecution in the criminal charge, he inferred that evidence would be brought to show that the lambs bought by Campbell were of a different breed of sheep from those in dispute, and he (Mr Hay) would have to call evidence in anticipation of this, to show that the witnesses from the other side, as to the breed of the sheep, and

also as to the quality of the sheep, must have been mistaken. As to the quality of the lambs it would be shown that the culls of the line, which were sold to Mr Postlethwaite, had grown into very good sheep. As to the spots , by which some of the sheep had been . claimed, men accustomed .to sheep would give evidence that such spots were so common that any given one could be duplicated easily. Then evidence would be given that the sheep 4 although bearing a resemblance to Wooding’s, differed from ‘ them in being larger framed, taller sheep. At the trial a marked difference between ' the condition of the 66 sheep taken ' back from Newlands arid the‘conditioh of others fetched from Wooding’s to compare with them, was attributed to the effect of the journey to arid’from Newlands. Witness would now- say that the observed difference was much greater than could be due to a journey : of 20 miles or so. The . jury having heard the plaintiff and his witnesses would, Mr Hay thought, conclude that these were Campbell’s sheep, and that if Wooding had lost any he was in error in supposing these were those he had lost or any of them.

His Honor asked if the case could not be shortened by agreement of both sides as to principal facts. Were sheep bought by plaintiff at Ashburton with particular earmark ? If iso could not the rest' be. settled by expert evidence? All the evidence about" yardings, etc., would not be of much use, arid would not interest the jury. Mr Hay feared the case could not be dealt with in that 1 way. The evidence of John Campbell, the plaintiff, Archibald Campbell, his father, and Donald Macdonald, sheep farmer of Seacliffe and Geraldirie, was then taken, and it lasted up to 5.15 p.m., when the Court adjourned; It chiefly supported the stateirient of Mr Hay in his opening address. * The Court resumed its sifting yesterday morning. The hea,ring of the . plaintiffs case lasted till 12.30 p.m., the witnesses being Donald McLebd, Manager for Mr Postlethwaite; T. M. Jones, Clerk to Mr Thomas, Auctioneer, Ashburton; Janies Johnson, sheepdealer, Ashburton; John Munro, Geraldine, and P, Bain. Mr Raymond then opened "the 'case for the defence in an able speech. He said he would produce evidence to show that the sheep in dispute were Wooding’s, by proving their breed, their evenness, arid other peculiarities. He would now show that between the 83 now claimed by Campbell and the balance of his hoggets there was every appearance of similarity. He would call witness after witness of the highest standing in sheep-farmirig circles in South Canterbury, whose names were household words, and they Would say that the sheep were similarly bred, and peculiarly bred, and that they 1 j could not find their like if-‘ they searched the country over. Then he would.show that Mr Wooding’s ear mark was peculiar 4o him in that no one else had it. He would call Mr Rees, the Ashburtori Sheep Inspector, who would show, them that the owner mentioned by Campbell’s' witnesses had entirely different ear marks, and that: in the whole course of his experience at Ashburton he had never seen; the same ear mark as Wooding’s. Mr Rees had furnished Campbell with a list of flockowners having a back and fore notch. Why did Campbell not summon this witness instead of asserting, as he falsely did in his trial in the Supreme Court, that they were the same as Wooding’s ? Mr Rees would prove that this assertion was wickedly untrue. Mr Raymond then passed on to peculiarly marked sheep which had been found among the 83, and which Wooding and his family could identify beyond all possibility of doubt. He asked the jury to remember that when Campbell took the sheep they were branded witli Wooding’s brand. He shore them knowing them to be Wooding’s. He woilhl prove that Campbell ha d dodged Wooding -in the hitter’s investigation and manoeuvres to get the stolen sheep away as quickly as he could. He passed on then to the evidence at the Ashburton end. He would prove by Mr Standish, the Longbeach Manager, and Cameron his shepherd, that the sheep Campbell bought were tiny, weakly, crooked, little creatures, he scum of nearly 12,000. He would show that they were entirely of different breed from those which Campbell now asserted were his, that most of them had no ear mark and none Mr Wooding’s. He would call Kennington, the dealer, to corroborate these gentlemen. He would ask the jury to corroborate these statements with the vague generalities of Campbell’s witnessess, Campbell ’ had, he submitted, already committed one impudent larceny and he had now the audacity to attempt to commit a second one under shelter of this Court.

The examination of the plaintiff, T. P. Wooding, G. F. Lovegrove, T. Mitchell, C. N. OrbelJ, H. Ford, R. Thew, A. E. Cox, and J. Wooding lasted all the afternoon. It is expected that the case will be concluded to-day.