ALLEGED SHEEPSTEALING.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15490, 18 January 1916, Page 4

ALLEGED SHEEPSTEALING.

WEST EYRETON FARMER charged.

COMMITTED for. trial. u tho Oxford Magistrate's Court yeterday, beforo Mr T. A. B. Bailey, SM. nml Messrs J. O'Halloran, and R H * Parish, J.P.'s, James Patrick Rodgers, of "West Eyre ton, farmer, was charged' that on or about November Tth* 3 1915. ho did steal 01 eheep and jambs, tho property of Marmaduko John Dixon, to the vaiuo of £34 10s. Mr Cassidv appeared for the accused, and Chicf-Detectivc Herbert conducted tho case for the Crown. Finlay Mackenzie, Government Stock Inspector for the Christchurch district including Oxford, gave evidence .is to the registered brands and earmarks of tho accuscd, and c£ M. J. John Dixon, sheep farmer. West Eyreton, stated that the accused's property adjoined his for a distance of about 80 chains, tho fenco between being a six-wiro and standard fcnce in cood order. Tho accused could not leave his property on the west sido without going through witness's property. In consequcuco of something ho had heard he had gone to the Warren shearing sheds on November 28th. and there met the accuscd with a flock of sheep ready for shearing. A man named Candy and James Brown were also there. Accused told witness that he had had a box u:> with his own and witness's sheep. Ho told accused that ho should have warned witness that he was going to traverse his country, and received a reply that he had sent a boy ahead to clear the road. While he was talking at the sheds he noticed that a lamb with accused's earmark was being suckled by one of witness's ewes. Witness caught the ewe, and Jame* Brown caught the lamb. He drew Brown's attention to the fact that tho earmark of the ewe had been tampered with. The accused was theu present, ard also when, later, witness called Candy's attention to tho fact that many other sheen had had their earmarks tampered with. They put tho ewe and the lamb mentioned over the fence, and they at once claimed each other. Witness had his suspicions . aroused, and returned to Oxford for Constable Leahy, who proceeded to tho Warren sheds and took possession of all the sheep at the yards. Next day witness returned with his brother, 11. O. I>ixon, and picked out 61 sheep which he claimed as his own, 17 of which were wet ewes, some of which had had their ears tampered with, one, especially, quite recently. After drafting the ewes they proceeded to mother tho lambs, and some of the lambs which claimed witness's ewes as mothers bore the accused's earmarks. Some of tho lambs following witness's ewes had not been tailed, and wcro without earmarks. It was quite possible that accused may have picked un these sheep on his way. Witness found in nearly every case, his wool brand on the sheep. On one sheep lie found accused's woolbrand, which had been put there about twelve months ago. The earmark had not been tampered with, but tho sheep bore the Worlingham earmark, which was peculiarly distinctive. Witness also found a wether hogget bearing accused's brand, the earmark having been tampered with, and accused's earmark applied. At three points blood was visibio on the earmark ; with ono exception tho sheep were his property. The exception was a ram which lived in tho country through which accused would drivo his sheep. This sheep was not marked or tailed, and ho claimed it because it was bred and reared on his property. The majority of the lambs mothered by ■witness s brother's and witness's ewes were marked with the accused's earmark. Tho tampering with the ears had been done at Various times. There was a mci'ino dry cwo with witness's brand on. the earmark having been recently

tampered with. Ho had a rough muster on November 25th for the purpose of shearing, just beforo the accused passed through. If accuscd's sheen had been boxed with witness's, any lambs ho picked up would have either witness's earmark or none. On December 4th he held another muster, in companv with his shepherd (Stevenson), accused, and Candy. He found a woolly sheep and 'a shorn one which both belonged to accuscd. He found fivo lambs bearing accused's earmark, and lie drew accused's attention to two of them; but he did not claim them. He valued the sheen at 10s each and the lambs at os each. The five sheep snecially referred to he identified as the ones in a "en outside the court. Richard Orme Dixon, sheep farmer, East Eyreton, gave evidence as to having gone to tho Warren sheds on Monday, November 29tli. He saw there a number of sheep which had been brought there by accused. Ho assisted in the drafting of the sheep—the subject of tho charge. At Oxford on December Bth they nicked out five ewe-s, four of which had had their earmarks tampered with. One was an old. Worlingham ewe with the accused's brand on. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness in relation to the tampering with the earmarks of the five sheep specially mentioned, and also p« to tho mothering of lambs with accused's earmark with several of tins 17 wet ewes of his brother's, which they had found amongst accused s flock- . John Edward Stevenson, shepherd, in the employment of 31. J. Dixon, said that on January 13th lie saw five sheep, tho earmarks of four of which had been tampered with: the other was a Worlincham cwg of M. »T. T)ixon s, be-uing accused's brand. Mr Dixon had not sold any of these sheep, He described the five sheep mentioned, identified thetn as tho ones outside tno court, and asserted that they wore the property of M. J. Dixon. Mr Cassidy: Explain what marks you saw on the carts of tho five sheep on January 13tli. Witness showed a lack of descriptive ability, and Chief-Detective Herbert asked that the sheep be brought into C °Mr Cassidv objected, and tho Magistrate ruled this to l>e unnecessary. Witness proceeded to describe the earmarks in general terms. ;md the Magistrate allowed lum to refer to some notes which lie made at the tune of his inspection. Witness was also allowed io inspect the sheep outside the C °Cvril Vivian Curties. of Kirwce, farm bind who was in the employ of aceuscd on November 27th last, -when accused left with his sheen for the Warren shearing-shed, said he cleared the road for the sheep. Constable Michael Leahy gave evidence as to takincr charge of tho sheep at the Warren shearing-sheds on NoI \-ember 28th. He was present next dav ' when M. J. Dixon drafted and claimed the 61 sheen, the subject of the charge beforo the Court. The sheep bad been in his possession ever since. The accused was present when the sheep were drafted, and, on being asked, he did not claim anv of them. Detectivc-Sercreant Hunt said that on December Sth the fivo sheen produced were claimed bv M. J. Dixon, and on December 14th thev were shown to accused, who was asked if he had anvthintr to say, and he renlied "Nothing." In the casc the Worlingham ewe he said "Bran-ied at home, no i brand at shed, Worlingham ewe." The accused pleaded not guilty, and I was committed'to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed, self in i £100 and one surety of £100.