ALLEGED WOOL THEFT

Evening Star, Issue 18852, 29 January 1925, Page 5

ALLEGED WOOL THEFT

LITTLE VALLEY STATION CASE.

INFORMATH)N DISMISSED.

Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M, was engaged in tiro Police Court practically all day yesterday hearing the charge against Douglas Elliot of on or about January 29, 1924, at Moa Creek, stealing 4081 b of merino wool and 4081 b of first quarter* bred wool, of a total value of £9O 2s, the property of Cassimar Joseph Spain. Chief-detective Lewis prosecuted, and Mr W. G. Hay appeared for accused. In tho afternoon evidence was given by Detective Fnrquharson, who stated that on July 8, 1924, ho interviewed the accused in the detective office. He took a statement from him, but lie refused to sign it. In that statement the accused made it. known that about two years agohe took info partnership his brother-in-law, Mr Thomas Nevill Tho run corn, sisted of 4,000 acres, and carried 2,405 shoep. Most of the sheep were crossbred, and a few were fine-wool sheep. HV mustered on May 10, and found about' eighty stragglers, a largo number of which belonged to Spain. On tho following Wednesday he took all the stragglers to Nevill’s yard(, and informed James Smart that he had the sheep. Tho latter examined them, and tho next day he took them away, that being the last he saw of them. Tho accused further stated that on May 25 Spain visited him in regard to the sheep. He informed Spain that the sheep had not been shorn on his place. Witness again interviewed tho accused on September last at his brother’s farm, Moa Creek, and asked for tho accused's wool returns. The accused handed witness some, but relumed two in his hand. When asked if that was all the wool ho had sold, tho

accused handed witness tho oilier two. On the first of these 3161 b of merino wool was shown. The accused said ho had obtained the wool from his own sheep. Witness asked him why lie put in his return that, tiie sheep were cross-bred?, and lie said ho always called them cross-bred?. The accused said ho had got the merinos from different mobs, which he had bought .on various occasions. Witnespointed <mt that if lie hud taken oil 3161 b of merino wool lie should have ninety to 100 merino sheep. The accused agreed to that statement, and said that mice tho previous year he had sold a number <d’ them. Wimu asked where he had got them, iliti accused stated that, about throe years ago ho had bought 400 Boat -Mr H. S. Black, and about eighteen mouths ago he; had bought two truck? from Mr Currie, and also two tracks at Ihe Middlmnarch sale. Accused stated that ho clul not keep a stock book. Witness asked him it ho was prepared to inn ko a statement explaining lion - he came by the, 8161 b of wool, and tho accused said he was not prepared to do so. Mr Hay, in addressing tho court-, contended that ti;-3 cam should bn dismissed.

In giving i-is decision, Air Bartholomew said that tin r videnc", taken altogether, vear, not suiliciently cogent to constitute a, jinma, law case. Accused had not been at nil candid in tho matter, nor had im gun a satisfying explanation. If the. case dep.-ndud on the comp|i't<jp.ess of accused'? <■:■.!,ia.nation, then the matter would certain v not have been at. nil satisfying. J; was obvious that it ar-i-used was responsible for 100 of tho sheep, then fle-vo was another 100 to account for. Tim Pea,! number of Mr Spain's sheep, whir 1 1 v.ere not shorn by him was '/ill, big ilm amount, of word stolen in the pre-e-it case was will) respect to s- me ninety or 100 sheep. The stock return? dal M "mnt for mm h, a? it was well known i’my were made out in 1 somewhat off ham! manner. The case was certainly not a pVamnf, mie, but for the reasons be bad given- there were toft many gaps in it-- • here was nothing of sufficient cogency shown against accused. The informntk n v r.u.'d bo dismissed and the, accused discharged.