MORE CHARGES

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 192, 27 May 1938, Page 5

MORE CHARGES

ALLEGED THEFT OF SHEEP. FATHER AND SON IN COURT. LONG EVIDENCE PRESENTED. A good deal of the sitting of the A sTi burton Magistrate’s Court to-day was taken up in the hearing of charges of the theft of sheep. The accused were father and son. Mr H. Morgan, S.M., was on the Bench. William Gordon Beaven (Mr L. A. Charles) was charged with having stolen three sheep, valued at £2 2s, the property of George Brand. Accused pleaded not guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily. Detective J. J. Halcrow, Christchurch, conducted the case for the police. Jack Brand, farm hand, Wakanui, said there were 121 lambs in a paddock on his father’s farm and a week later (March 15 last) he found 117 lambs in the paddock. He could not find the missing four. The fences were reasonably good for holding sheep. The ear mark of the lambs was examined by witness, Detective Halcrow and Constable Myers. Witness examined the three lamb skins produced and the marks on them he identified as identical with those on the sheep in the paddock.

Witness added that he did not know accused. To Mr Charles: He could not say that the ears marked on the skins in Court were on the same side of the head as those in the paddock. He was positive the sheep did not escape through the fences. None had escaped before or since that date. Driver of the Truck. Stanley Dudley Keats, of Ashburton, said that he was arrested on March 22 last and was charged with stealing three lambs from Brand. He had pointed out to Detective Halcrow and Constable Myers a paddock. Later he pleaded guilty to the charge stated, and two others, Clarence Burnaby and Maurice Roy Beaven, also pleaded guilty to the charge. At the Supreme Court they were admitted to two years’ probation. Witness said the three of them met at his home in Chalmers Avenue. Detective Halcrow: Was there any other person present? Witness: We had had some drink, and things are not too clear.

The question is quite clear. Will you answer it?—Well, there was someone else there. Who?—Gordon Beaven.

Witness said that the three men went away in his truck and rounded up the sheep in the paddock referred to. Three of the sheep were taken. Afterwards they returned to witnesss’ house where the lambs were taken to the wash house. Accused was then present. The lambs were killed and the meat was distributed among the four men present. It was about lO’ p.m. when the raid was made on the sheep. The skins were placed in a sack. Burnaby called next day to collect his share of the meat and later took the skins. Ihose produced were the skins taken from the lambs that were stolen. Tlie skins weie sold and 6s were placed on witness’s mantlepiece by Burnaby later. The lambs were taken so that the men could feed their families. Distribution of the Meat. To Mr Charles: They had all had liquor early in the evening. Accused arrived 'at the house about 9.45 p.m., and had Maurice Roy Beaven with him. Maurice Beaven had been there earlier in the evening. Witness had had a fair amount of liquor and his mind was not as clear as it might have been, but he thought accused was in the truck, though he was not positive. All the meat was taken in the morning but he could remember Burnaby only calling. There were seven or eight charges of sheep stealing in the previous case. To the Magistrate: He could not say how much beer he consumed that night. He provided most of what was consumed. There were a two-gallon jar and several bottles. He did not know if accused had any of the liquor. The other three consumed the two gallons and several bottles of beer.

the Magistrate: Did you have any trouble in catching the lambs P— No. Did you fall over very often after all this liquor ?—Yes, we did. Re-examined by Detective Halcrow, witness admitted signing a statement to the effect that he wanted to clear up the whole affair and that he was accompanied by accused when he went to the paddock. Detective Halcrow: Was that true? Witness: I can’t say from memory, now.

Did you read it through and say so in your own handwriting and say it was true?—Yes, I did. Could you have driven the truck if you had had all that liquor?—Yes, I could.

And you killed the lambs?—Yes. Would you say it was a first-class job?—No, it was not the best of jobs.

The Second Witness,

Clarence Burnaby, of 79 Wakanui Road, Ashburton, admitted the facts brought out in the early portion of the examination of the previous witness. He did not remember the evening at Keats’ house, but he knew he was there. , Who was there, apart from Keats family?—There were two, and may have been three. Who were they ?—Maurice Heaven and Keats.

Anyone else?—No one but the family.

Well, later on? On toward 10 o’clock.

Who was it?—Cordon Heaven arrived in his car. Witness added that he went with the others to the paddock to steal the lambs. There were four men presentwitness, Maurice Heaven, Keats and accused. Witness said all the men took part in the rounding up of the lambs. He thought accused was having a cup

of tea at the time the lambs were being skinned. As far as witness knew, everyone got some of tli© meat. The money from the sale of th 6 skins was spent in more liquor, - To Mr Charles: The skins produced had witness’s initials on them. Tho initials were placed on them a day or two after he sold the skins. The two Boavens arrived at tho house together, M. R. Beaven having been at the house earlier.

Maurice Roy Beaven, of 109 Alford Forest Road, Ashburton, said accused was his brother. Witness corroborated the statements already made regarding the stealing of the lambs, and his sentence on that and other charges. He went to Keats’ house early in the evening, riding his bicycle. Burnaby and Keats were there. He went to town after a few boors and later went back to Keats’ place, arriving about 9.30 oi 9.45. It was after that they went to tho paddock. And how many were in the truck? — As far as I can remember there were only, the four of us, I mean the three of us.

Who were they?—Stan Keats, Clarence Burnaby and myself. Anyone else?—l was pretty full at the time and I can’t say definitely, but I think my brother was there, too.

You are not sure?—l don’t know; I was pretty full. ' Tlie Magistrate: Come on, speak up! Was lie there?—l think he was.

In fact, you have a pretty vivid idea that lie was there?—Yes.

Round up in the Paddock.

Witness went on to say that tlie four men went into the paddock to round up the lambs. Accused was in the wash-house while the sheep were being killed and skinned. Accused was given some of the meat.

Detective Halcrow produced a statement signed by witness, admitting that he had previously not told all the truth, in that ho had not mentioned his brother, as he had wanted to protect him.

To Mr Charles: Accused was alone when he went to Keats’ house. Detective Halcrow detailed investigations he and Constable Myers had carried out into the sheep-stealing cases, and added that accused had made a statement to the effect that he had visited Keats’ house, with his brother. He had been at another house, listening to the wireless, on the night tho lambs were stolen. He denied ever being in Keats’ truck. He had never been with the other men when sheep were stolen.

To Mr Charles: The statement was replies given to questions * put by witness. It would certainly be difficult for an ordinary person to remember details of a night a month earlier, unless there were some special circumstances to make him remember. Corroborative evidence was given by Constable J. E. R. Myers. , A Complete Denial. Mr Charles said the defence was a complete denial of the charge. The only evidence against accused was that of three men who had been convicted of the theft of the lambs. The evidence of accomplices had to he closely scrutinised. When seen by the police on April 6, a month after the offence, it would have been very suspicious if' accused had been able to give a detailed account of his movements on the night of the theft. Accused was not one of the “gang,’’ as he was away from Ashburton while tho series of thefts was going on.

In the box, accused said that he was a friend of a man named Drummond who lived a few houses aAvay, and whom he visited A'ery often. He A\ r as visited by Detective HalcroAV and Constable Myers, avlio took him to the. police station, Avhere the question was discussed. They discussed it with you in quite a friendly manner?—l Avouldn’t say that!

Witness added that he had asked the detective to alter the statement in two places. He had listened to a radio presentation, “Inspector Scotty of Scotland Yard,” on three nights running, and he was at • Drummond’s place on the night of the sheep-stealing. He did not know anything about the offence. He denied that he had been to Keats’ house that night, as described by the three witnesses for the police. He did not go out in the truck with any of the three men, and he did not use his own car that night. After he left Drummond he walked homo with his (witness’s) father, who was also at Drummond’s. His brother was not in when witness arrived. He spoke to his other brother for a while and went to bed.

First Mention of Father, To Detective Halcrow: His memory was not bad. He had mentioned his father’s presence at Drummond’s to the police when interviewed. Ho denied Keats’ evidence. Js he a liar?—By his evidence he must be, or a drunk man. And is Burnaby a liar?—According to that lie must be. • 7 •' And your brother is a third liar, I suppose?—He must be. If you were not there that night, can you advance any reason why your brother should come forward and say this against you?—No. Are you on friendly terms with your brother? —I should be. " 1 I am asking you. Arc you?—Yes. Well, why, if you wore not there, should he say that you were? —i don’t know. Witness went on to say he was not very friendly with Keats, but he had had liquor at the place. To the Magistrate: No particular date was mentioned to him by the police, and he did not know why ho stressed his movements on the night in question. He was not asked about his father and that way why he did not mention him. Samuel Joseph Beaven, of Oxford Street, Ashburton, father of accused, said he had visited Drummond’s place frequently, sometimes three or four times a week. Accused had always been present on those occasions. He bad left the premises in company with his son (accused), but he could not fix any dates.

William Richardson Drummond, residing in Allen toil, said lie knew accused very well. Accused visited his

plaeo every day and Avas sometimes there all day. Beaven senior also visited Avitness’s place. Tho Avireless programmes were the main attraction. Accused Avas very interested in tho Scotland Yard broadcasts and the “Westward Ho” serial. The Scotland Yard talks Avero on Friday nights and Avitness did not think accused missed hearing any of the series. He always stopped till the end of the programmes. The two Heavens would leave together. Accused Avas at Avitness’s place on March 11, the date of the charge, arriving about 6.30 and leaving about 11 p.m. or shortly after. He did not have his car Avith him. To Detective Halcrow-: He admitted that he had said 'he could not swear that accused Avas at His place on any particular night. The “Inspector Scott” talks came on the air sometimes at 8 p.m. and sometimes at 9 p.m. and they lasted 40 to 45 minutes. Tlie Magistrate said that three Avitnesses avlio confessed to several thefts of sheep and some misstatements had at first been made as to avlio Avero implicated, subsequent statements being made to clear up the matter. These second statements had implicated accused, among these being ' a statement made bv accused’s brother. r

The evidence given by accused was not convincing. Drummond’s evidence Avas equally unconvincing. There Avas ample time after the hearing of the item mentioned for accused to get to Keats’s house at the time indicated by the others. It Avas evident that accused Avas with the others and ho must; be convicted. Mr Charles said his client had not been before the Court previously and be had not been concerned in the long series of thefts for which tho other men had been convicted.

Accused Avas placed on probation for two years. He Avas ordered to pay £1 3s Avitnesses’ expenses, and not to associate with Keats or Burnaby during that time. Another Charge Laid. 1 Samuel Joseph Beaven, father of accused in the previous case, was then charged Avith having stolen two sheep, the property of soriie person unknown. A plea of not guilty Avas entered through Mr Charles, who appeared on accused’s behalf. The offence Avas alleged to have taken place in the middle of 1936. Charles Kenneth Heddell, farm manager for R. D. Robinson, gave evidence regarding the placing in a paddock on Robinson’s farm of a. number of sheep, of the loss of some of the sheep in May, 1936, and of his havng pointed out to the police the paddock referred to. To Mr Charles: There was a good deal of traffic past the paddock during the day. Stanley Frederick Robert Scott said lie had been convicted, for the theft of the sheep referred to in the present charge. He had a truck in the middle of 1936. He was asked to take Keats to a place owned by Mr Wells, at Greenstreet, as he wanted to see a horse. Witness called at Keats’s house and picked up Keats and accused, both of Avhom were under the influence of liquor and wanted to drive. Witness AAould not alloAV this. They reached Wells’s place at dusk and the two others Trent in, Avitness staying 'to fix up the truck. On the 'Way home they decided to take some sheep out of a paddock. Witness said the three of them went into the paddock, rounded up the sheep there and they took two, placing them in the truck. They Avent toAvard Mitcham and the sheep were killed in a plantation. Witness saAv the police dig at that spot and find a sheep’s head (produced,) which had been buried by the party after the killing ( of the sheep. He kneAV that Avas the particular head because he recognised his own method of decapitation. To Mr Charles: He denied he was the ring-leader of the gang of sheepstealers, but he admitted that he had had 10 charges laid against him. It was on the Avay to Wells’s farm that accused suggested stealing two of tho lambs.

Mr Charles: Oh, it Avas BeaA r en suggested it? —Yes. But is that the fact? —Yes. But I wouldn’t have them on as I knew they were only store sheep. I knew there were better ones further down the road.

You would steal only the best, eli?

Witness added that the sheep were rounded up under the trees beside tne road. It was Beaven’s suggestion that the sheep should be killed in the plantation, which was about four miles from the paddock. Witness usually killed the sheep he stole, on the spot where he stole them. In this case, it was too close to the road. He had never killed sheep in that plantation before. The knife used was usually carried in' the truck. It was used on frequent other occasions. Witness had taken other sheep and killed them because lie and his family did not have anything to eat. The sheep were covered over by bags after they were put in the truck, said witness.

Mr Charles: So you had all these things, the rope, the knife and the bags ready for these sheep-stealing expeditions? Witness: You’ve got it all wrong. We were dealing in wcod and we had the rope to tie wood on the truck, and the bags to carry cones. .. ./But still you kept them in tiro truck as.being very handy? ' , Witness: Well, they were there, and they were u§ed. To the Magistrate: The sheep were taken to Keats’s house, where witness took the small one and the bigger one was shared by Keats and accused. Ho ,

did not see accused take the meat from the house.'

Stanley Dudley Keats gave evidence on similar lines as far as it related to the alleged movements of accused on the night in question.

(Proceeding.)