SUPREME COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 63, 24 February 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

NAPIER. (Before His Honor Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice.) After the luncheon adjournment yesterday afternoon, the first witness was Thomas Reed, whose evidence for the prosecution was the same as that already published in our columns.

! Cross-examined by Mr. Lusk: He that the altered ear-marks i drawn on the diagram were almost ! the same as those now on the ■ sheep, and he believed they belong-. 'ed to Mr. Morrison, and portions , were Mr. Holden’s. He did not , know Mr. Brabesson’s ear-mark. ’ Irr the first yard there were about [fifty sheep, and he carefully examined about thirty to thirty-five of them. In the second yard there [might have been about 400. I To Mr. Cornford: In the second yard he handled every sheep at I least once and some twice. I Charles Frederick Frederickson 'stated that he was a farmer residling at Norsewood, and had oeen jengaged in sheep-farming for the ; last twenty years. On the 14th of last month he examined the sheepin Mr. Holden’s yard. The lambs when gpjduhad just.. been weaned. These were*sold-oil 19th January, 1910. On the 14th of last month, in company with Constable -ffc; ' Leod, Mr. and two other [gentlemen, he saw' some sheep in ! Mr. Holden’s yard. He picked out 18 sheep which he had bred. All shore his ear-marks, although some • had been slightly tampered with, i Earmasks- were then traced by witness, showing his own marks and ' the alterations that* had been ‘ made. > He did not sell any sheep ■to Holden. I To Mr. Lusk: He had about 700 ■ lambs, and sold 400 to Mr. Hold-m. ■A hundred of those remaining were : also sold. He believed it passible, I but hardly probable, that a cull ‘ should, after being properly fed, take second or third prizes at the show.

Frederick Burton, a shepherd in Mr. Holden’s employ, sworn, paid he had been in the employ of Mr. Holden for about five years. He remembered Mr. Fredericksen selling some lambs early in last year. He took charge of them from the yards, and delivered them to Mr. Holden about 14 miles distant.. On Mr. Holden’s property there'were some sheep with Donald Morrison’s earmark. These sheep had been on Mr. Holden’s property for about twelve months. Some of them had green raddle on their faces. To Mr. Lusk: Some of these sheep bear both the earmarks of Mr. Fredericksen and Mr. Morrison.

; To His Honor: All the lambs . were earmarked as soon as Mr. I Holden had delivery of them. William Castles, a farmer at Wai- • topiro, stated that he had been a sheep farmer nearly all his life. /He bought, through Williams and i Kettle a large number of sheep. IHe sold some to Holden. The I sheepskin (produced) the witness .identified as one he had sold to j Mr. Holden. Witness identified it •by its earmark, by haematite stain }on its back, and also he believed it | was machine shorn. On the 20th | of this month witness went to Mr. | Holden, and examined a mob of iabout 400 sheep in the yard. Wit*ness saw a large number of ear- ■ marks that he could not recognise, [ and also some which he knew to : belong to Mr. Fredericksen, and , two that he knew he had sold to ■ Mr. Holden. Witness knew Mr | Holden’s earmark, but did not i know Morrison’s. Cross-exam : n f ‘d •by Mr. Lusk: The method of mark--1 ing sheep with haematite was a • fairly common one among dealers. ■ Machine shearing was very common jin this district, much more so now :than hand-shearing.

I Donald McLeod, a Police Constable, stationed at Ormondville. I gave similar evidence to that given 'at the previous trial in Ormondville. Cross-examined by Mr. Lusk : Witness examined the sheep in the accused’s yards, and i’.ter on in' the Court yard. He had ex. perience of sheep in South -Canterbury.

Mr. Lusk: They have some sneep there, have they? Constable Mcneod: Unfortunately, yes. Mr. Lusk: You say you examined the sheep. Constable McLeod: Yes. Mr. Lusq: How did you do it ? The Constable gave details. Mr. Lusk: Oh ’ I just wanted to know how you got on. I tried it, but was not successful, and found it a very difficult proceeding. David Munroe, a sheep dealer at Palmerston, remembered the 21st January, and on that date purchased 26 2-tooth sheep of mixed sexes. These were taken to witness’ property. Later on he sold, along with others, 325 to Mr. Easton, the balance he sold at the Palmerston saleyards to a man whom later he found to be Mr. Godfrey. He saw the sheep in the Court yard at Ormond ville.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lusk: He saw these sheep in the public saleyards and sold them by auction. There was a good attendance.

To His Honor: He made no special examination of the earmarks, but noticed that they were mixed.

Frederick Spenser Easton, a farmer and flaxmiller at Foxton gave similar evidence to that already given in the Lower Court. There were no questions for the defence. Richard Harcourt Godfrey gave the same evidence as that taken in the Lower Court.

C. J. Annett (for N.Z. Loan and Mercantile Co.), William James Dowsett (Dalgety and Co.), Thomas Octavius Kerr (for H.B. Farmers at Dannevirke), Harold P. Russell (for Williams and Kettle), gave formal evidence as to the transactions of accused with their respective firms. William Hill, a detective stationed at Napier, gave similar evidence to that already published in regard.- to the Ormondville Court. by Mr. Lusk: The castrated, sheep was bleeding at the purse-,- Witness thought that the operation mighfcibflve been performed a fortnight before, tn the detective’s qpinion the same ■ bit had been used on Holden’s and on Morrison’s- sheep in making . the earmarks.

wMcfcdUmet, recalled, stated that sheep-rputchased ffom Takapau would- be auction. On account bfr th#' absence of one of the witrtesses for I thfe ‘!Prbsecution, Mr. Rathbone, who is to arrive by the express train to-night, the case was postponed until 8 o’clock this evening, when this gentjpman’,.?, evidence will be taken. The Morrison >case continued at 8 p.m. r.; Leonard Charles Rathbone ; said he knew Holden' and Morrison. He knew Holden’s ear-mark but not Morrison’s or Fredericksen’s. He examined sheep in Holden’s yards —prdbably 20 altogether. The sheep appeared to be re-earmarked. They bore marks which appeared to have been interfered with. In some cases there was distinct evidence of previous marking, which could have been Mr. Holden’s. He saw sheep which appeared to bear a blend of Holden’s and Morrison’s ear-marks. To Mr. Lusk: In two cases there was quite enough of Holden’s earmark remaining to show that they had been re-marked. The only other mark like Holden’s “finger bit” was Messrs. Knight Bros. To His Honour: I could not say what ages the sheep were as he did not “mouth them.”

To Mr. Cornford: He had diagrams of different sheep examined which he produced and explained.

This concluded the case for' the Crown and the Court adjourned until 9.30 to-day.