ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING

Evening Star, Issue 19319, 4 August 1926, Page 6

ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING

THE BEAUMONT STATION CASE M'LENNAN BEFORE SUPREME COURT A charge of stealing 493 sheep on divers dates between January, 1925, and January, 1926, was brought against John William M'Lennan in the Supreme Court this morning. There were also charges of receiving the sheep, knowing them to have been dishonestly acquired, and charges of : theft and receiving in respect to 489 fleeces. Mr A. C. Ha/nlon appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. In opening the case the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said the charges of receiving in respect to the sheep and the fleeces were alternative to those of theft, upon which the Crown invited the jury to convict. The number of sheep alleged to have been stolen was 493,, but with respect to fleeces the number mentioned was 489. The reason was that; when the stolen sheep were received, four were found , to still have their fleeces on their backs. The sheep were the property of Messrs Kain brothers, the proprietors of the Beaumont sheep station. Tlio accused wsa also a sheep farmer of Miller’s Flat, and the boundary of his farm in one place adjoined the Beaumont run. About four miles of the boundary between the two places was marked by the south branch of the Teviot Creek, across which at low water it was possible for sheep to go from one rpn to another. It was u common thing in isheep runs where the boundaries were long for the dividing line to be marked by some natural feature, the owners relying upon recovering (stragglers in the ordinary course. On the Beaumont Station 17,000 to 18,000 sheep were carried. M'Lennan’s place was smaller. From time to time sheep on a run were mustered for shearing, dipping, and other purposes, and on those occasions it was always possible to pick out stragglers and send them to their owner. It was generally found that there was a considerable number of stragglers in a muster, and they were returned to the owner. Learned counsel emphasised the seriousness of the crime of sheep stealing, which, he said, was looked upon as one or the worst breaches of the fundamental laws of the farming community. There were marks on sheep which were somewhat regulated by statute. In the present case the charges arose out of a muster of accused’s sheep, which was carried out under instructions of the Government inspector. Accused’s brand was not upon the head of the sheep, where it would be put if the sheep belonged to a neighbor, but upon tire side, where the mark would bo put if ■the sheep belonged to him. The evidence would show that accused maintained a claim to the ownership of the sheep. The brand was put on a sbeep immediately after shearing, and did not serve to identify it for a longer period than from one shearing to another. It was mot necessary, counsel pointed out, to prove that a ma.n went on to another place and removed sheep to make him guilty of theft. Mr Adams, whose address lasted for nearly an hour and a-half, quoted extensively from the evidence, and handed to the jury samples of various earmarks on the sheep concerned in the case. He pointed out that all through accused claimed that the sheep were his own. All the sheep had been identified_ by their earmarks, and all showed either the Beaumont or Rao’s Junction earmark.

Most of tho sheep concerned were now at Burnside. Fifty of them were in the precincts of tho court, and, if the jury desired, inspection could be made of them. Accused had said he bought the sheep from a Mr Connolly, of Oamaru, but learned counsel asked how it could be possible for this Mr Connolly to got together a mob of Sheep having tho earmarks of sheep which had been purchased by the Beaumont Station. That could hardly happen by chance. THE EVIDENCE.

At the request of Mr Hanlon all witnesses were asked to leave tho court.

Walter Findlay Murray, station manager of Ormaglade Station, said accused shore his sheep at Ormaglade in 1924-25, shearing his stragglers in February, 1925. Witness noticed the latter sheep had the Beaumont brand. Thors would he about seventy of these. Witness drew tho attention' of accused to the Beaumont sheep, and accused said he wanted to get even with them, as they had shorn some of his.

To Mr Hanlon witness said that probably he had made a mistake in not telling the Beaumont manager of the Beaumont sheep accused was shearing, but he wanted to watch accused himself.

Richard Nicholas Snow, manager of Beaumont Station, said ho had been in that position for .4J years. Kano Brothers had been owners for six years. The station comprised 69,900 acres. From 15,000 to 20,000 sheep were carried on tho place. After allowing for a 7 per cent, death rate they should have had 17,062 sheep after the last shearing. There was, however, a shortage of 2,038. He did not know at the time of anything to account for the shortage. He knew accused. Between Beaumont Station and accused’s place there was four miles of boundary, which was unfenced, the boundary being marked by the Teviot Stream. Stragglers from M'Lennan’s run had come on to Beaumont Station, and M'Lonnan had returned stragglers to them. Some stragglers from M’Lennan’s had com© in February of this year. It was usual to notify a neighbor of tho purchase of sheep having the same earmark as those of that neighbor. He identified the sheep in tho case by the Beaumont earmark, which had been defaced. He bad since found that the registered earmark for Beaumont was somewhat different from that which had been in use. Witness was present when the muster of accused’s she.ep was carried out under tho supervision of the stock inspector. The case was proceeding at the luncheon adjournment.