THREE SHEEP.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 224, 22 September 1925, Page 12

THREE SHEEP.

DISPUTE BETWEEN FARMERS.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

(By TelegrapU.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. The attention of his Honor Mr. Justice Herdman, was occupied at the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, hearing a dispute over the ownership of three sheep, when Ronald Charles Tapp, butcher, of Pukemiro, and Norman Leslie Tapp, farmer, Te Akau, for whom Mr. V. Rawson appeared, sued Harold Wilson, a farmer, of Waingaro, represented by Mr. E. H. Northcroft and Mr. N. Johnson, for the recovery of £4 10/, the value of three sheep, £3 5/, the value of the lambs, £3 10/, the value of the wool clips, and £100 general damages. There we're over 20 witnesses to be heard.

Mr. Rawson, in outlining the case for plaintiffs, said that Tapp brothers and Wilson, occupied adjacent farms at Waingaro. Their sheep'frequently got mixed', and there was a general exchange amongst tlie different owners at mustering time. A difference of opinion arose between the Tapps and Wilson, and during tlie estrangement the usual friendly arrangements for tlie exchange of sheep wore abandoned. At a sale of Wilson's sheep, subsequently, one of the Tapps identified three of them as belonging to him and his brother. He spoke to defendant on the matter, but the latter held out that the sheep were his. Counsel made it clear that it was not alleged that Wilson had stolen the sheep, and the ease was only brought to determine the identity of tiie sheep in question. After the evidence had proceeded some distance, his Honor remarked that tho ease was a very trumpery ono to bring before tho Supreme Court. He did not think it right that he should he asked to sit there for a couple of days in order lo determine the ownership of three, sheep. Mr. Rawson said the case had been moved into the Supreme Court by defendant. Mr. Norfhcroft said the case was no trumpery one, as plaintiffs, until that day, had asserted that defendant had stolen the sheep, and the matter was a very serious one for AVilson. His Honor: Assuming that a criminal charge were involved, could not the matter he dealt with by tho magistrate? Mr. Northcroft said that where a civil action involved a criminal charge, ; here was power to remove to the Supreme Court. His Honor said it seemed absurd that the time of the Supreme. Court should be occupied in settling the ownership of three sheep. Mr. Northcroft: Until to-day we were unaware that the criminal charge had been withdrawn. Plaintiffs, ho said, rushed off to the police in the first place. They were very disappointed when no criminal action was taken against plaintiff. Robert Alexander, Covcrnnirnt stork inspector, put in a number of sketches showing the earmarks of two of the ewes. Tho third ewe had escaped while it was in tbe custody of the police. In witness' opinion one of the earmarks was not that of Tapps' sheep. At the request of tlie parties, witness gave the Tapps and Wilson notice to muster their sheep. Two sheep in Wilson's flock were identified as Tapps, and these were handed over to Tapps without question. In answer in Mr. Northcroft, two shce.. which Wilson claimed were his, did not bear Tapps* earmarks. Witness slated that it often happenon that people bought sheep from a district at a distance, which had earmarks similar to those of their neighbours. He produced the earmarks of five fanners in the Waikato which corresponded in every respect. After hearing evidence, his Tlonor said there appeared to !-o a deliberate sug-, gestion on the Tapps' part that there had been tampering with their earmark. It was not a question of a bona fide mistake. The Tapps had withdrawn charges of criminality on the part of Wilson, and they said the disfiguring of the earmarks must have been done innocently. His Honor said l-.c had to make up liis mind whether they had been deliberate, and ho had to treat the case as though it were a criminal one. The onus was placed on the Tapps to prove their case. His Honor was satisfied they hud not discharged this onus. It was clear there had been no misconduct on Wilson's part, and that there was no civil liability.

His Honor added that when a criminal charge was made against a man it had to be proved up to the hilt. In giving judgment for defendant with costs, his Honor said tire whole proceedings had been misconceived, and should never have been brought on the evidence that he had heard.