THE SHEEP ACT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4856, 20 October 1894, Page 2

THE SHEEP ACT.

Alleged False Mums.

An : information laid by, Inspector Miller against John Burrows, sheep farmer at the Taratalu, for making on the 24th of May last, a falso return of the sheep owned by him, was heard before the S. M. (Mr T. Hutchison) at Masterton on Friday, Mr Bunny appearing for the prosecution, and Mr I i'ownall for tlio defence.

Mrßnuny stated the facts of the case, which in the opinion of the prosecution wore sufficient to call for a very substantial penalty being imposed. Mr Pownall, on behalf of Mr Burrows slated that his client did not own Green Corner section uponthc 31st inst, as laid out in the information against bun. Alfred Hurling, called, stated that ho was a settler residing in the' Carterton district. He bought the Brooklyn estate, consisting of 595 acresfromMr Burrows at £2,700, paying down £6OO in cash, the remainder to bo paid in billsat seven per cent, The stock then on tlio properly lie subsequently bought from Mr Burrows. After holding the properly for a period of six months he had to give it back to Mr Burrows. This was on the 18th of April, 1891. A document produced in Court,rcvcrting the . property of Mr Burrows, was sworn by the witness to have been written by Mr Burrows, in tlio presence of Mrs Burling and Mr Corlett, and denied by tlio counsel for tlio defence. Witness stated that he gave delivery of the property to Mr Burrows on the 27th of April. He mustered the sheep on the property, which numbered one thousand and ten, leaving three hundred and ten which Mr Burrows purchased with a bill payable to witness, Owing to sickness in the family lie was not able to leave Brooklyn for several days after the notice of delivery, though lie had no further control over the stock upon the property. "Witness made a return of the sheep disposed of by him to Mr Burrows, tlie defendant, as it is required by tlio Act to do so. [His Worship would not accept this as evidence against the defendant], Witness knew Green Corner estate, which joined Brooklyn. Knew that the defendant had stock on Iho estate nt Green Corner, which was in the occupation of Mr Diamond. The defendant drove stoek to Green Corner, bnt witness could not swear to whom they belonged. In answer to Mr Pownall, the witness stated that before tlio affairs of the estate wcro fully settled a lot of papers aud necessary documents which may have brought the time beyond the date the witness gave up possesion, which was on the 27th of April. The defendant would not pay the £3OO for the property and seven hundred sheep until the witness gave up delivery of them, though ho paid for tlio- three hundred remaining sheep at the time. Would swear that he had no sheep of his own on the property on the 10th of May following. The cattle and horses wcro removed from Brooklyn prior to the lGtli of May. Gave up possession oven though there was .fcliUO yet to be paid for the property.' Lost • £(itX) by tho transaction for the want of £75 to meet the interest. Mr Burrows allowed liim the use of a house and a small paddock, but no stock.

At this stage the Court adjourned. Ou the Court resuming, Alfred Hurling said ho was present when the slice)) were mustered. They were delivered to Mr Burrows on the 27th of April. Mr Uunws aud witness' father were present. There wero over 1000 sheep. They wore turned out again in the evening on the Brooklyn property by Mrßurrows'man. Had seen Mr Burrows on the property frequently afterwards, be. fore witness aud liis father left.

By Mr i'ownall: By seeing Mr Burrows working on Green Corner, considered he was the ownpr. The sheep wero delivered to Mr Burrows by his taking possession of them at tho yards. C. H, Cormack, agent for the Bank of New Zealand at Carterton, stated-that the p.n. produced was held by the Bank ou behalf of Alfred Burling. It was paid in by Mr Burrows tho day after the duo date.

I By Mr Powniill: Ou sth May a cheque for £3OO was lodged by Mr Wolters, Mr Burrows' agent, ana paid to Mr Burling. Walter Miller, Sheep Inspector, stated that flic return produced he had received from Mr Burrows, It had been altered since ho first received it. Jt bore date 24th May, mid should have been forwarded earlier. 'As first received it had in pencil: ''Alfred Burling owned Brooklyn on 13th of April," Ho had it returned for correction, when the document was sent back to witness in the state it now was, staling Hint Burling wns in pocscssioii oil the 30th instant. The return produced was signed byAlfred Burling, stating that Mr Burrows was the owner of the sheep. On the lltli June, witness caused a notice to be sent to Mr Burrows, threatening proceedings it sheep returns for 30th April were not sent in. A subsequent return was received giving a leturn of 790 sheep at Green Corner ou the 30th April. Oil the 2!) th September, Mr Burrows came to witness at Carterton, and spoke of the case. Burrows said that Burling owned the sheep and should make the return, but if he (defendant) had to make llio return and pay rates aud tines, he had better do so rather tlmu go lo Court. Witncssrcplied that the case was then in Court.

By Mr Pownall; Flock-owners some times made separate returns. This was the case for the informant.

For the defence Mr Pownall said that there was no proof that the return in question was the only return sent in by Mr Burrows, in accordance with the date specified in the Act. There wns also no penalty for a late return. The defence could not suggest for a moment that n return was sent in by the proper time for the Green Corner. He submitted that the return was not a return,but merely an excuse for not sending in a return. A further objection was tliat there was no falsifying as alleged in tho 'information. Tho excuse did not say Mr Burling was the " owner," but that Mr Burling was "in possession." It was not alleged that Mr Hurling was tho owner trn April 13lh, There was no evidence ofWilful falsification. His Woraiip said that so far as the case stood at present there was a breach) of section 47 shown.

Mr Uiiimy contended there ivas evidence of a false return having been made.

His Worship said with regard to information under section 71, lie agreed it was a serious offence, and it was all the more necessary that it should lie clearlv made out, His judgment would go 011 this that he did not tliink 31r Burrows sent in a return at all, as required by tho statute. He thought on the construction of the Ad, that something was required above the declaration, but in this case nothing had been written in tho schedule. The information under section 71 would therefore fail, and flic information would be dismissed. The information under section 71 for failing to send iu a return appeared to he upheld by the evidence. Mrl'ownall said lie admitted that a penalty must be imposed as far as the (irecn Corner properly was concerned, because the return had uot been sent iu at the proper time. Ho would merely call evidence in mitigation. John Burrows called, stated that lie left the property in the hands of a manager. He had been absent from the Colony for some time. Had nothing to do with the Green Corner property personally, and did not even know how many sheep were there. He had left" the mattes of sending in the return to his manager. .

Bv Mr Bunny: Had been to Australia three times lately. Sheep were runniiig at • darevillo occasionally, and it was in this way the manager had .probably made the mistake. Took delivery of the sheep from Burling about the 7th of May. •' . His Worship decided to inflict a lino of 10s and costs. 'J Mr I'owiiall asked for costii on the dismissed information. ■The Bench deoided not to grant the application. •,