WOOL-STEALING CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 198, 19 May 1936, Page 6

WOOL-STEALING CHARGE

Father and Son Acquitted TRIAL AT WANGANUI Dominion Special Service. Wanganui, May IS. Charles Uhtelom Forbes and Foster James Forbes, father aud son, of Taibajm and Huntcrvillc respectively, appeared on trial at the Supreme Court, Wanganui, to-day before Mr. Justice Smith on a charge that on or about November 29, 193-1, they stole certain wool, the property of Edward Clare Vowell, of liewa, near Feilding. They pleaded not guilty, and after evidence had been heard all day, the jury acquitted them. Accused were represented by Mr. A. M. Ongley. Mr. N. It. Bain appeared for the Crown. Edward Clare Vowell, farmer, said both accused were employed by him iu June to August, and they later worked for a neighbour, McLean, in whose woolshed witness shore his sheep. He had a total of 31 bales, including six of hogget wool and some loose fleeces. Some days after shearing he saw a bag of wool on Mangupipi Road, about two miles from the shed, which witness later identified as his.

Cross-examined, he said the wool found on the road was similar lo his, but it was bellied, not skirted. Henry Nott, manager of McLean’s farm, said accused had access to the woolshed. They had an old Ford truck with solid tires on the rear wheels.

To Mr. Ongley witness said accused’s lorry stood outside the shed for months. James William Cooper, carrier, said he found a bale of wool on Mangapipi Road. Accused’s lorry was at McLean’s shed when Vowell was shearing. It had no number plates. When the elder accused left in May, witness was asked not to say where he had gone. Cross-examined, witness said he once saw the younger accused trying to drive the lorry. Sale of Wool. John Lamberton, wool and hide dealer, Feilding, said on November 24, 1934, as a result of a telephone ring purporting to be from Palmerston North, an elderly and a young man the following morning brought wool to him in a truck. The wool was loose. lie bought it at 51d. and 4Jd. for fine and coarser pieces respectively. Accused said the wool came from Shannon. For 4601 b. he paid £9/11/6. Witness made a cheque payable to the name of “Ward” r.t accused’s request. A cheque was produced which witness identified, except that.the initials “A.C.” had been inserted before the name, aud were not in his handwriting. Accused gave witness a telephone number and address in Boundary Road, which witness could not trace. He recognised the two accused in an identification parade at Taihapc. Witness added that he went to the place of a man named Francis, where he recognised a truck as the one which brought tlie wool to him. Detective Janies Murray said in April last he interviewed Lamberton aud the elder accused at Taihape. The latter denied any knowledge of the wool and so did the younger accused. Both said they were satisfied with the parade. Both denied seeing Lamberton or the cheque. Inquiries had been made for A. C. Ward, who was untraceable. John Coratoii, ’Taihape, corroborated the detective’s evidence, and this closed the case for the Crown. Caso for Defence. Charles Chislom Forbes, the elder accused, detailed his movements about the time of the alleged theft, saying that at the middle of November he was employed on concrete work for the Feilding Borough Council. On the afternoon of November 28 he went to Waituna to McLean’s to settle for a scrub contract. Accused bicycled there and returned with one of McLean’s men by car. His lorry was not in running order on that date. Foster James Forbes corroborated his father’s evidence. Witness said he first drove the lorry ou December 12, when it went over a bank. A man named Woolridge had driven it before that. Thc firsttime he saw Lamberton was at the identification parade. To Mr. Bain, he said lie never saw wool in the lorry and had not seen his father for about a month after he left the contract at McLean’s. Mr. Bain: How did you know he was working for thc Feilding borough?—“He wrote and told me.” William Stringer, foreman of the Feilding Borough Council, said Forbes senior worked with witness. Accused started at the beginning of the week ending November 24 and finished each day at 4.30 p.m. It would have been impossible for him to have been away for an hour without having his time, docked. His Honour: It has been suggested that it was not this man who worked but his son. —“No, his son worked at a crusher.” To Mr, Bain witness said Forbes began work nn November 19, 1934, and ceased on December 15.

Do your records show he had any broken time at nil?—“He worked four hours one day. It was wet.” The jury retired for 15 minutes and returned a verdict of not guilty.