ALLEGED SHEEP-STEALING.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8274, 30 October 1906, Page 5

ALLEGED SHEEP-STEALING.

A LOWER VALLEY FARMER BEFORE THE COURT.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. (Special Reporter). At the Feathers'iou Magistrate's Court, yesterday, before Mr W. P. Janaen, 8. M., John O'Keete, a sheep-farmer of Ofcaraia who was arrested in Wellington, on October 18tb, was charged on the information of Robert Henry Robinson, with having on October 10th, 1906, at Otaraia. stolen nine sheep, valued at £7 13s, the property of Arthur Martin. Mr 0. A. Pownall, instructed by Mr J. W. Card, appeared for the informant, and Mr 0. P. Skerretfc appeared for the accused Mr Powuall, in outlining the oaee for the prosecution, said that the sheep comprised eight hoggets and one ewe. On October 10th last, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., acouaed oarne to a paddock belonging to Martin, when informant and Mr' Perry were dookiDg. Aocused asked per mission to lake a bull from an adjoining paddook near the Kuama hanga River, and shortly afterwards he passed along the road with the bull. Informant and his companion having completed docking passed along behind Q'Reefe's house, and from a sand hill they commanded a view of the neighbouring country. In one of Martin's paddocks on the opposite side of the road they eaw accused, with the help of dogs, driving sheep out or the gate. O'Keefe drove the sheep along the , Lower Valley Road, and up an avenue leading to his, own property, informant and hie" 1 companion came up, and saw accused trying to draft the sheep among bis own sheep in the paddock. Informant knew the sheep by Mr Martin's brand. Th« case for the prosecution, said Mr Pownall, was that accused, without any permission from Mr Martin, and dur ing Mr Martin's absence, took the sheep from Mr Martin's paddock, and tried to draft them among bis own.

Robert {lenry, Ri. binson, manager for Mr Martin, said that there were no sheep in nny of the pad* docks through which .O'Keefe passed to reach the Lower Valley Road. Witness, after the docking was finished, went to look for a Bhirt wbioh Perry bad Jos': from the saddle of his hor6e. He then saw accused drive the sheep out of the paddock and close ttie gates after him. There were 41 "killing" sheep in Mr Martin's paddook where accused took the sheep from. >There were no other sheep in the paddock, but those belonging to Mr Martin. From Mr Martin's g|ate to accused's avenue would be about half a mile, and wheu accused was driving the sheep along the road, he was unable to see witness Jand his companion. Accused drove the sheep through the gate leading to the avenue, and closed the gate behind him, leaving the sheep insid*. Accused then turned the bull through another gate about half way down the avenue into bis own pruperty. The next time witness saw accused he was coming up the avenue towards the road at a fair pace. Accused turned the sheep down towards his own property, and then turned around to speak to a lad named Balfour, who had com« up. After a few minutes conversation Balfour made off towards home, and accused drove the sheep down the avenue, the dogs being still with him. When he got to the j gate at the end of the avenue be put the sheep through the gate into his own property, ana then he drove them to the right into a plantation in front of his house. O'Keefe then left the sheep, and rode towards his woolshed. Witness and his companion rode down the avenue. Witness felt sure that accused saw him and his companion. Accused turned and galloped around behind the sheep, and tried to drive them in the direction of his own sheep, which he had in the paddock. The sheep belonging to Mr Martin were alow t > move, and accused could not mix them with his own sheep. He then came baok towards the gate, and tried to stop witness before he got through the gate. Witness got through the gate, and asked O'Keefe what be was going to do with the sheep. Accused said that he was going to dwtain them until be got two of his sheep that Martin had. Witness then saw that there were nine shodp belonging to Mr Martin. He knesv they were Mr Martin's sheep by the registered brand and ear mark. Witness was .quite sure that not one of the nine sheep be longed to acoused., The ear-mark and brand on the sheep had been used by Mr Martin for the past 12 months. When aooused said he was going to detain the sheep, witness said that he did not want them; he had other ways and means of getting them. Witness and his companion then left the aooused, and were about half-way down the avenue when accused called witness, who went'back. Acoused said that some of his oattle were on Martin's property, aud he could not- get them. Witness offered to gc and get the oattle after dinner, but. acoused said he had no time. Accused turned the nine sheep intD the avenue again, and then witness took possession of them, aud drove them baok to the paddook from where they had been taken. * By Mr Skerrett: On April 12th last, witness, under the direction of the Inspector of Stuck, got a muster of accused's stock. He examined all the stock he could get hold of, and found 32 of Mr Martin's sheep. Some time laler in the same month witness mustered Mr Martin's sheep aud handed back 84 of accused's sheep, which were running on Mr Martin's property. The fences between the two properties were very insecure. Subsequently aooused complained to witness that, he was six rams short. On August 11th aooused said that there were two of his ewes among Mr Martin's sheep. Witness could not find the sheep among Mr Martin's sheep. Witness denied having effected repairs to the fence along the river before the Magistrate visited the property. Witness denied that O'Keefe bad said that be bad taken two'jof his own rams from Martin's

property, and had brought the sheep along fco his plaoe with the lams and had then Boparated them. Accused said something about: his cattle being on Martin's property, and witness told him that he oould have thein after dinner, but it was no use taking them until the fenoes had been repaired. Accused said nothing abcut certain milking cows. Witness believed at the time that aooused had stolen the sheep, although be did not say anything to accused to that effect. Witness denied bearing O'Keefe any malice, although he was not the best of friends with j'Keefe. Oe admitted shootiug two of O'Keete'a dogs, but denied thrfatening to lay poison or to burn O'Keefe's place or force him to sell out. Witueas denied that He and Mr Martin had spoken about annoying O'Keefe until be would be forced to sell out to Perry. He also denied going to O'Keefe's house on Sunday, June 15tb, au.a suggesting to O'Keefe that he should lease his plaoe to him (witness 1 ). By MrPownall: Had it not been for Perry losing his siiirt witness would not have gone on to the sand hill nor would he have seed O'Keefe with the sheep at all. There was no boundary road by which accused's rams could get into Mr Martin's property; they would Have to get through two fences and cross the road. By Mr wkerrett: Oat of the nine sheep outside the Courthouse witness oould swear that the ewe and one hogget were among those tftat were taken from Mr Martin's paddook by O'Keefe. Victor Alfred Huddlestone, Registrar of Brands for the Carterton and Martinborough branding district, submitted copies of Arthur Martiu's brand and eartaark and John O'Keefe's brand and eaimark. By Mr Skerrett: Witness was present at iho muster of accused's sheep when fcucused objected to Robinson being present. Accused said something to ( tho efiPeofc that Robinson ha<J threatened his lite and bad given false evidence in Court, l

Arthur Martin, sheepfarmer, of Otarala, and owner of the sheep alleged to have been stolen, said that he bad not authorised accused or any other person to take sheep from any of his paddocks or use his registered earmark and brand. The sheep in the paddook from which the nine sheep had been taken were branded with witness* earmark and brand. There were no two-tooth rams in the paddock, whioh was not bounded on any side by accused's property. By Mr Skerrett: Witness said that he authorised tho present prosecution, and he would be responsible for it. A ( s far as hfe knew the boundary fence was a fairly good one. lhaka Apina said he bad been, employed by Mr Martin for about twenty years off and on. He knew Mr Mariin's sheep and earmark and brand. He met Robinson and Perry coming from O'Keefe's on October 10th. They were driving nine sheep—eight hoggets and a ewe. He knew that they were Mr Martin's sheep by the earmarks. Franois Edwiu Perry corroborated Robinson's evidence. By Mr Skerrett: Witness did not remember Robinson saying that he did not want th<* sheep when aocused told bim to take the sheep away from his £ paddook. Witness was not trying to buy O'Keefe's property; oh the other hand, O'Keefd was trying to sell his property to him. By Mr Pownall: Accused was not using dogs when he was going towards his woolshed after putting the sheep through the avenue gate. Witness was positive that accused was not driving sheep which he had oat out from the rest. He was riding straight towards tho woolshed. Erio Neville Balfour, employed by Mr ,Martin, said that on October JOth he was near the gate leading to O'Keefe's avenue. - Witness was speaking to O'Kflofe for a short time, and be saw some sheep ih the avenue. Aocused had three dogs with him. Acoused did not say anything to witness about sheep at all. Tbe conversation was only on general subjeots. By Mr Skerrett: Witness had never spoken to O'Keefe previously.

Robert Henry Kobinsop, recalled, said the gate leading from the paddock from which the sheep had been taken was perfectly seouxe against? sheep. The value of the hoggetß wan about 18s each, and the ewe about 30a. Mr Skerrett submitted that there was no case to seud to a jury. Taking the case for the prosecution, he said, the sheep were taken out of the paddook in broad daylight, and acoused had said that he would not give them back until bis cattle and a ewe, which were admittedly on Martin's property, were raturned. There wag no felony in aocused's action, and he submitted that it would bo unjust to commit the acoused for trial. Ho asked His Worship whether ho thought there was anything in the case on whioh any jury could eonviut. His Worship said that that whs not a matter for him to decide. Accused bad taken the sheey when there was no one about, and Mr, Jameg considered *hat there was a case for a v jury to decide. ■accused pleaded not guilty. He reserved his defence, and, was committed to the Supreme Court, Wellington, for trial. Bail was allowed in self £SO and one surety of £SO.