SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A PUKEKURA FARMER.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2768, 10 April 1890, Page 2

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A PUKEKURA FARMER.

At the Cambridge Court on Tuesday, before Mes-irs A. Clements and T. Wells, J.P.'s., William Voaper, of Pukekura, was charged that he did on the Ist day of April, 1890, wilfully and feloniously kill one red and white heifer, of the value »f £3, branded with two dots on the back and one dot on the shoulder, the property of Richard Reynolds, of Pukerimu, with intent to steal and carry away the carcase. . The information was sworn by John Bridgman. Constable Brenmin conducted the prosecution, and- Mr W. M. Hay defended the accused. The Court met at noon, and the evidence was at on>;e proceeded with as follows :— Richard Reynolds deposed : I am a farmer residing at Pakeriinu. I know the hecused. 1 know a certaiti heifer, the subject of this prosecution ; it was my property, and! I value it at £3. At the end of November I gave it into John Bridgman's charge. , Before doing so I branded it with three dots; one on the back, just behind tlje shoulder, another near the root of the tail,'. and the other on the side of the shoulder. The beast was ear-marked, a half moon out of top side of the left ear, and a V outof top of right ear, and a slit underneath it. The right horn was marked near i*s root, similar to my brand, which I cut with a knife. I branded two beasts at the same time. (Mr Hay here objected to evidence being given regarding any other beast, which the Bench upheld). I never authorised the accused to take the beast; it was a red and white one, mostly red. (Skin, horn and ears produced). Witness identified thn hide and the left ear, but said the horns did not belong to the beast* Cross-examined by Mr Hay: I marked the right horn near its root. This was a short-horn beast and its horns would not grow long. The mark was only sufficiently deep to show distinctly. The horn did not bloed when I marked it. I purchased the animal from Mr Hunter, about 15 months before, and it was continually under my eye until the end of November. The witness then admitted that he might not have seen the benst for a week at a time, »nd also that he had during the above period been in Australia for a month. I have had a deal of experience with cattle. I don't think cattle-dealers are very liable to make mistakes, but I have heard of two persons claiming the same beast. I have known two beasts so nearly alike that it would be extremely difficult to tell the difference between them without some special mark. Mr Trewin and my brother had a difficulty about a beast, which I am told, they both claimed, bnt 'as far as I can understand it < was a misunderstanding as to: which beaet Mr Trewin gave in exchange, and not from any similarity. My brother received a lawyer's letter about it and Mr Trewin was paid for it.

By the Bench: I recognised the skin by the brand I put on it.—Witness here pointed out the mark near the head and tail, but failed to find the one on the shoulder, he however swore to it by various marks of colour. The reason I did not put my usual brand upon this beast was that cattle had been missed from the Pukekura district, and I thought it was time it wa3 ■ stopped. Re-examined by Mr Hay: I lost a roan steer last autumn, it bore my usual brand. Constable. Brennan, John Bridgman and his son were present when I marked the heifer with the dots. I gave possession of the beast to Mr Bridgtnan to graze and look after it. I hace not yet paid Mr Bridgman for the grazing, but shall do ho if he makes a charge. I did it to try and put a stop to these cattle being missed. Bridgman and I had a conversation regarding this beast the day it was branded. I did not SHspect any particular person of stealing the cattle. I delivered two beasts to Mr Bridpman, but did not tell him to drive them into either Coiners', Hicks', Seabrooke's, or Vesper's paddock. I may have asked Mr Bridgman to put them on the Fukcikura run. This as far as I know is all that took place between Bridgman and myself. Mr Reynolds then asked permission to see the hide on a rail, as he could not locate the brands well while the hide was spread out on the floor. The Bench ruled that there was no necessity for further examination of the hide by Mr Reynolds. John Vosper sworn stated, I am brother to the accused. I remember the Ist April. There was a particular beast killed upon my farm that day. It was a red and white heifer, mostly red, aboat 3 years old. It was killed by my brother, with my assistance. It was got into the yard in the morning about 4.30 a.m. I held it while my brother knocked it down. We ekinned her in the ordinary way. My brother cut her up in the morning, he did not cut her down that njght. We left it that night on the gallows in the usual way. I think I should know the hide of the beast if I saw it (examines hide.). Ido notrecognisethe hide produced. To the best of my belief I remember the beast killed was a heifer, There is too much white about the hide produced. I don't recognise the horns. Ido not know where they came from. I could not swear whether I have ever seen that ear mark before, (ear produced.) I cannot say where the horns of the beast killed were put, (to the best of my belief, in a pigstye.) I assisted the police to look for the horns. Wβ could not find them. When we

kill a beast Mr Allen may take a portion. Mr Allen took a quarter of this beast. Mr Toby Hicks had a portion, and Mr Bridgman also had a portion. By Mr Hay : There wau no concealment about the way this beast was killed. I have assisted my brother to kill previoHsly. The same course was adopted in the killing of this beast as in previous cases. We usually throw the offal to the pigs. (Our pig paddock is large, about an acre ; it adjoins a swamp.) I remember the beast my brother killed upon this occasion. I remember her as a yearling, she was very wild, having been suckled by the cow. My brother lost her for 15 or 16 months and came home one day and said he had found her and had brought her back as far as our hill. I remember being at Seabrooke's place in January last. He told me there was a heifer there (at Seabrooke's) that he could not find an owner for, and he thought it was the one my brother had lost, and told me to tell my brother, which I did. My brother said that he had one of Seabrooke's on his place, so it was all right, tit for tat. To the best of ray belief the one that was killed on the Ist April is the one I knew as a heifer. When killing the heifer, my brother asked me if I recollected the beaat. and I told him it was the wild young heifer we lost as a yearling. After killing, the hide was left in the yard until Mr Brennan removed it on the evening of the sale, Wednesday the 2nd April. My brother asked me to salt it down. I don't know whether there were any brands on the hide. T salted it down and left it in the yard, I don't think the horns produced are the horns of the beast killed. I don't think they are the horns I put in a bag yesterday. I will swear that I put a pair of horns in a bag to bring to Cambridge last night. By Constable Brennan: I usually assist my brother te kill beasts. I think it is the usual custom to knock the horns off and skin the head. I think the underpart of the head is used. I remember the beast as a yearling. To the best of my belief it was bred on the farm. My brother used to have an old cow called " Pigeon." I did not trim tho hide, I only salted it. I cannot account for the loss of the horns.

Jno. Bridgeman deposed : I am a fanner, residing at Pukckura. I know the accused. He resides at Pukekura. I know the beast, the subject of this prosecution. It was handed over to me by Mr R. Reynolds on November 25th. I saw it previously branded by Mr Reynolds. Witness then described the brand. He afterwards examined the hide, and identified it by a white mark, but failed to find the dots. The horns produced, he said, did not belong to the heifer, but the ear produced did do so. The two beasts brought to me by Mr Reynolds were in my paddocks until December 7th, when they were turned out upon the Maori run. I last saw the heifer olive on March 29th It was then in Vospar's paddock. I missed the beast on April 2nd, and, upon making enquiries, found the accused had killed it. I then laid an information aeainst accused, and obtained a warrant. I was present on tha night when accused was arrested. I saw the hide lying on the grass, and identified it as that of the beast in question. I saw the head, which was skinned, but could not find the horns. The animal was a wellbred one. I never Rave accused authority to take or kill the beast. By Mr Hay: Mr Reynolds and I had had a conversation on this matter previously to the branding. I told him that I had missed a cow in a very strange way, and also that I had missed other cattle, and said I thought there must be some thief about. He asked why? I said because I had lost the cow from my turnip paddock, from among thirty-three others. My paddock adjoins the road, and also the run. He asked if I suspected anyone. I replied that I did. I then, together with Mr Reynolds, set about devising means to catch the thief.

I The accused and I are not on very friendly terms. Hr wanted me to clear a drain, ana I said I would go to Mount Eden first. I have lost eleven cattle during the last three ' years; six being out of my paddock during ' the last eight months. I have not heard that they were on. the Pukeknra run yesterl day. I heard that the heifer in question j was on Mr Seabrook'R farm during the J month of January. Seabrook has never asked me if I knew the owner. He said .' there was a heifer there belonging to someone, and he must get her out. I instructed my boys to drive the heifer from Seabrook'a about the 19th of March. I did not tell my son to drive it into Vosper's, nor did he do so. Vosner claimed the heifer; I believe before he killed it. I believe my Lord's prayer is the same as other people s, and contains the term " lead us not into temptation," but I also thought the thief should be caught. I asked Mr Reynolds for the cattle. Mine were not good enough for the butcher. It is possible for- owners of cattle to be mistaken; but I am sure I am not making a mistake about this hide. It is impossible for , me to be mis,taken regarding it. I can swear to the white mark and to the colour. The brands are there, but I can't find them. This charge is not laid purely out of animosity. James Bridgman, son of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence regarding the branding, and identified the skin and ear, but not the horns. He last saw the heifer alive on March 31st 'in accused's paddock along with other cattle. By Mr Hay: I don't remember what mark was upon the horn, but I could see they were cutting them. I never saw the horns produced until to-day. I am positive a mark made upon a horn would not grow out. I did not think it was my duty to tell Mr Seabrook that the heifer belonged to us. I went up to Vosper's on Sunday with my brothers. My brother Richard asked Mrs Vosper to sell them some meat I did not say we were expecting friends from Tβ Awamutu, but I believe my brother Richard said something about it The constable asked that John Bridgman might be recalled to give evidence about another beast. Mr Hay opposed the application and quoted Baron Alderson on a similar case. The Bench said they were desirous of keeping nothing back, but they could not admit evidence unless it bore very strongly upon the case before them. The next witness was then called. Richard Burdun Bridgman gave very similar evidence to that given by his brother. Hβ also stated that he heard on April 2iid that- Mr Vosper had killed a red heifer. On that day he and his brothers went to Vosper's to get some beef, there was no meat hanging on the gallows. They saw the hide produced, lying on the grass. Hβ went home and told his father. By Mr Hay : I was not in the porch of the Court to-day, but I have had a conversation with my father. He did not mention the case to me, but I heard him talking about it to another man. Neither my brother James nr.r my father mentioned anything about the hide, horns, or ears to me. I don't reckon to tell lies. I had a conversation with Mr Seabrook on March 18th about this particular, beast. I told him there was a heifer in our swamp that had come out of his paddock ; I said I thought I.would tell him, so that he would know where it was. He Raid it was not his ; it was Vosper's. I did not say " then it will be allright if I put it in his paddock." I saw Mr Vosper about'it the next morning, and he claimed it as his property, and said he would fetch it that day. I said allright. I knew the heifer was Reynolds', and did not lead either Vosper or Seabrook to believe it was not in iny father's charge. I was expecting Mr Rogers, of Te Awamutu, and his family that day, and accordingly went for meat, but 1 had another reason for going for meat. I look at_Mr Vo'sper's gallows regularly every morning; it is about 40 chains from my father's house. Constable Brennan gave evidence as to apprehending accused, finding the hide and searching for the horns, which, however, he could not find. Accused said if that is Mr Reynolds' beast I have killed, it is purely a mistake. I bought 18 head of cattle from the Maoris some time ago—lo steers and 2 heifers, and I thought this was one of tha heifers. The constable stated: I had* another search next morning, but could find no trace of either the horns or the right ear. I found the left ear and several scraps of skin in the pig-sty. Yesterday evening the accused brought the horns produced, and left them with me..

This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Hay then addressed the Court, and contended that (Ist) the thing must be the subject of larceny ; (2nd) that there must be a wilful wrongful taking; and (3rd) there must be a felonious intent. Without the latter the Bench, he contended, could not send the case for trial. Both Mr Bridgman and his son had stated that accused claimed the heifer some days before it was killed, and therefore there could not be the felonious intent. John Vosper thought it was his brother's heifer that had been lost, and although Mr Reynolds had bought it at Ohaupo, it might still be the same beast that Mr Vospor had lost, and therefore, although it was marked by Mr Reynolds, it was still the property of Vosper. The accused had done everything in connection with the killing, in an open manner, and there had not been the slightest attempt at concealment. He further contended that the skin had not been identified ; the brands that were put upon a beast by Mr Reynolds could not be found on the skin produced in Court. He did not think the Court would be fooled by the vain attempts to find the brands made by some of the witnesses. It was absurd to think that brands put .ipon a beast only last November, could have become so indistinct as not to be plainly visible upon the pelt at the present time. Mr Hay then quoted several cases that related to circumstantial evidence, and then dissected the evidence, and called special attention to the different spots upon the hide, at which the witnesses professod to find the spots or brands. Hβ contended that the hair upon the skin between the horns, and the hair upon the hide was so exactly alike, that he thought, the bench must be convinced that they belonged to one and the same beast, He then left the matter in the hands of the bench. The bench were of opinion that there was a charge to answer, and the usual caution have been read to -accused, he elected to call evidence. The bail was enlarged on the former bonds, and the Court was then adjourned until the 10th, at 10 a.m.