THE LITTLE RIVER SHEEP STEALING CASE.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume XX, Issue 1522, 13 February 1891, Page 3

THE LITTLE RIVER SHEEP STEALING CASE.

William Levi, a half caste Maori, for whom Mr Stringer appeared, was charged with this offence at the Chrietcbnrch R.M. Court. On December 24th, at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Chrietchurch, before Messrs Westenra and Toomer, Justices, he, a man named Crane and two others named James, were charged with stealing, and using for food, two sheep, valued at £1 10b, the property of Birdling Bros., at Little River. The charge against Levi was withdrawn, end he wae called as a witneee by the prosecution, but it wae alleged that the evidence he gave was very different to that which he was expected to give, and to a written statement | made to the police. He had described to . Constable Ryan and oihor witnesses how one of his mates had killed sheep, brought the caroaees to the camp, and hidden the ekins. It was alleged that he had taken the policeman and others to the places where the skins were hidden, and they were found as described. In his evidence tie swore that he had not made the verbal statement; that as to the writing, it was read over to him, but he did not understand the greater part of it. That he did not point out the places where the skins were hidden, and, further, that the constable had given him liquor ; he was then drunk, and in the witness box could Dot remember what questions had been aeked, or what answers he bad given. The oaee was dismissed solely, it Mas now alleged, on account of his failure to substantiate his former statements. The evidence at the present hearing was taken of Rev. J, W. Stack, who acted as interpreter, G. Bird, reporter, and R. Westenra, J.P., who deposed as to what bad been said in Court by the accused on December 24th, Mr Westenra adding that it wae chiefly by reason of the failure of Levi'e evidence that the case had been dismissed. Constable Ryan, G. W. Birdling, Frank O'Neill, and J. H. Parkinson deposed as to what the accused had said and as to his proceedings. For the defence Mr Stringer argued that the Court before -whom the original case was tried had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as the prosecution had been unable to fix the date of the larceny within the statutory time, viz., nix months. The Magistrate held the objection to be fatal, and dismissed the coce.