Page 3 Advertisements Column 4

Lyttelton Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1013, 26 July 1862, Page 3

[advebtisement.] EAR-MARKING SHEEP. TO TEE EDITOR 01? THE LYTTEiTOU TIMES. Sir, —The renewal of the correspondence headed " Ear-Marking 1 " in your columns of the 11th ult., induces me to trouble you with this letter, with the request that you will give it publicity. Being unfortunately acquainted with the whole of the facts which led to the altercation between the Messrs. Rhodes and Kent) away, from having been managing for the former, and consequently aware of, and party to the transfer of certain sheep from the flock of the Messrs. Rhodes to that of the Messrs. Kennaway, under circumstances which demand for myself and others a more thorough explanation than has yet been given, and not approving of the mariner in which my name has been brought before the public in connection with this affair, I trust I may be entitled to your forbearance, and that of your readers, whilst I endeavour as briefly as possible to relate the facts as they occurred. Before proceeding, however, it is necessary to observe that the first dispute originated in 1860, from the Messrs. Kennaway obtaining a number of lambs, or unmarked sheep, from the Messrs. Rhodes, in a manner, and under circumstances which the sole object of this letter is to explain. A complaint was also (but not recently) preferred against the Messrs. Kennaway, charging them with .ear-marking sheep belonging to their neighbours, which was sought to be proved in the Timaru Court, by their having in their flock sheep bearing Messrs. Rhodes' ear-mark, as well as their own. The case was decided in favour of defendants, notwithstanding their admission that the sheep were not their property. It is not my intention, however, to trouble you with any remarks upon this latter case, not having been concerned in it, but I merely mention it to show that these two entirely distinct and separate cases have been so conlused in the letters that have already appeared, as to render the affair almost unintelligible to those unacquainted with the original facts. On the completion of the Government survey in 1860, a piece of country which had always been stocked by, and considered to be a part of the Messrs. Rhodes'. run, was found to belong to the Messrs. Kennaway. In October of that year, shortly after the determination of the boundaries, but previous to their being marked out, the Messrs. Kennaway told a man whom they saw shepherding for the Messrs. Rhodes upon the country above 'mentioned, that he was trespassing, and ordered him off. On being informed of this, I went to the Messrs. Kennaway's station in Burke's pass, to seek an explanation, and to inform them that I wished to master the country, as from a recent muster of the run of which it was a portion, several hundred sheep were missing. The Messrs. Kennaway refused to allow us to muster it alone, but said that they would do so in conjunction with us. I was anxious it should be done at once, but as they were about to begin shearing, it was agreed to be postponed for a few weeks, leaving them to appoint the time. About a fortnight or three weeks after this (I cannot be positive as to the precise dates, not having my journal or any memoranda at hand to refer to), I received a letter from the Messrs. Kennaway, naming a day for the muster. I made arrangements accordingly, deputing Mr. Hayter to superintend the muster, as having began sl.earing I could not possibly leave the station. On the evening of the day previous to Mr. Hayter's starting for the intended rendezvous (distant at least 80 miles), Mr. L. Kennaway called at the Levels, and stated that he insisted upon the sheep mustered being driven to his yards, at Burke's Pass, and to my astonishment claimed, moreover, the right of disposing of them, offering the Messrs. Rhodes for all ewes of theirs found, 50 per cent of lambs. I strongly objected, on account of distance, to the sheep being driven to his yards, and as to the disposal of them, said that he could have no right either in law or justice, to make such a proposal, and asked what was to become of the surplus lambs should there be 60 or 70 per cent. The only reply I could get to this simple and common sense question, although several time* put, was: — " Really, Mr, Nosworthy, if you press that question, I must waive the muster." I told him then, as I have since done, that all I wanted was to get Messrs. Rhodes' sheep with the lambs belonging to them, and would take no marked sheep whatever that did not bear their brand or earmark, and that if he would be satisfied with getting his on the same fair and usual terms, an agreement was unnecessary, and that selfish and unprincipled motives only could actuate him in proposing such unprecedented terms, it evidently being a scheme to obtain lambs that could not possibly belong to him. He persisted, however, in his demand, and being anxious about the missing sheep, and not knowing what the waiving of the muster might lead to, but being aware that it would give him the opportunity of mustering the country himself, and leave him free to dispose of the whole of the sheep in accordance with his much boasted honourable motives, which, judging from the specimen he had just given I more than distrusted, I acquiesced in his proposal, which was put by hun in writing in the form of a letter. The muster was completed, and not more than half-a-dozen marked sheep were found that did not bear Messrs. Rhodes' brand or ear-mark, and of that number only two or three bore that of the Messrs. Kennaway. In the face of this convincing proof, that few, if any of the lambs could belong to them, even supposing that their sheep had been there some years, which it is certain they had not, Mr. Acton, a partner of the Messrs. Kennaway, took, in virtue of this unfair arrangement, between 30 and 40 lambs as their share of the produce, to which they consider they were justly entitled. When at the Messrs. Kennaway's station nothing was said to lead me to suppose that any unfair advantage would be taken (although their having ordered our shepherd off without giving us any notice or opportunity of removing our sheep, did not look well, and, to say the least, was anything but gentlemanly ; nor, until the last moment, (as I have before stated), did Mr. L. Kennaway think proper to acquaint me with his plan for disposing of the lambs. Whether this was a design of his to prevent my communicating with Mr. Rhodes before accepting or refusing his terms, I kuow not, but it did effectually prevent my doing so. Had I consulted only my own inclination, I should have mustered the country immediately, independent of Mr. Kennaway, but the fear of involving my employers in a law suit, kept me from doing what justice, if not law, would have authorised. Mr. Rhodes was aware of, and I believed appreciated my motive for acting as I did, although in his letter he attributes my acceding to Mr. Kennaway's demand to inexperience. If by this Mr. Rhodes means to infer that I am not sufficiently versed in the practical modes of deception in which Mr. L Kennaway seems to excel, I can only say that I have no wish (even to obtain Mr. Rhodes' good opinion) to gain experience by becoming more intimately acquainted with them, but consider I should have been sadly deficient in common sense had I failed to detect Mr. Kennaway'B real motive. After the Messrs. Rhodes had demanded the lambs of the Messrs. Kennaway, they (the Messrs. Kennaway) came to me and stated that unpleasant reports were being circulated about themselves, 1 impugning their charac-ter, and that having succeeded in obtaining letters contra-