Shepherd’s Troubles

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 86, 27 March 1926, Page 5

Shepherd’s Troubles

More Charges Preferred WOOL AND CATTLE SHORTAGES. LENGTHY EVIDENCE. The hearing of the five charges of sheep stealing, brought agai/ist Henry Woon shepherd, of Havelock North, was concluded in the Hastings Courthouse yesterday afternoon, before Air. R. W. Dyer, S.M. Alfred F. Hook continued: He was wanting mutton for his shop and so he bought the sheep. The ten sheep were killed on Te Alata, not all at once time. They were killed five at a time. The first lot was killed in the beginning of January. Witness could not get the sheep to the abattoir at the time, as they only killed at the abattoir three days a week and he was short of mutton so they were killed at Tb Mata. They were left at the station by Woon’s permission, as witness had no feed for them. The first five were killed the week after purchase. He rang Wood, or Airs. Woon, on the ’phone asking Woon to kill five sheep. The carcases came to his shop in a motor van. Witness sent an employee, Tom Cook, for them. They arrived early in the morning and they were put in his shop, heads, plucks, hearts and skins. Witness was at the shop on their arrival. Witness saw the skins, but he took no particular notice. He did not see another man on the van. The ten sheep were paid for. The cheque in payment (produced) was his. Witness got the second lot about February 3rd. Woon killed them at Te Alata. The five carcases were taken away by Tom Cook. Witness saw them come off the car. It was an off day at the abattor and so they were killed at Te Mata. To Afr. Hallett : The last lot arrived a little after 6 a.m. Roy Ambrose Wellwood deposed that he was a farmer. He knew Woon. He knew Richmond’s projJertv, known as “Wellwood’s block.” Witness’s father was farming the flat portion. He had sheep dealings with Woon, the last deal being in October, 1925. He bought eight sheep and five lambs at the Te. Alata station yards, £8 for the lot. Witness paid cash. Knew Richmond’s mark and brand. These sheep were not branded, and they hadn’t Richmond’s earmark. This was his last purchase from Woon. Witness sold sheep for Woon once, on August 19, 1925, at Stortford Lodge. (Mr. Hallett objected to all this evidence and the objection was noted). There were nine ewes and two wethers. Thev had no brand and the station earmark was not on them. The ewes were sold at 36/7 and the wethers for 36/-. Witness was taking some sheep to lie sal© and Woon asked him to .’ell h?s lot for him. They went through the auctioneers’ books in witness’s name. He paid Woon cash, less 3 per cent, yard fees. To Mr. Hallett : The sheep were sold in open market and there was the usual crowd of buyers present. There was nothing suspicious in Woou asking witness to sell. Witness acted in good faith. A man having nine sheep at Te Alata, and who wanted to sell at Stortford Lodge, would reasonably send them with a neighbour’s mob. There was nothing underhand in Woon’s action as far as he could see, and there was no attempt at concealment in any of witness’s dealings with Woon. Re-examined: Witness sold 16 sheep of his own that day. He asked Woon if lie would sell Woon’s sheep in his (witness’s) name and Woon said yes. Detective Fitzgibbon deposed that in consequence of a complaint from Afr. Richmond he made inquiries and, on February 27, he interviewed Woon, saying that there had been shortages and that he, being in a responsible position, should know something about them. He took a statement firom Wood, which he signed, after it had been read over to him. Witness read the statement, which was lengthy,, entering into explanatory details regarding his transactions.. The cattle were his own. The sheep sold to Hook were not his. nor Afr Richmond’s, but were strays, for which no owner could be found. All the sheep sold to Hook were killed at Te Alata. Besides being a shepherd he also dealt in stock. All the sheep he sold were strays. If 241 sheep skins were delivered at Weaver’s he could not account for the surplus. Later witness arrested accused on the pi-esent charge and he made no reply. This concluded the case for the prosecution and it was agreed that accused would not be asked to plead until all the charges were heard. CHARGE OF WOOL STEALING. Henry Woon, shepherd, Havelock North, was then charged with, on or about January 23, at Te Mata, stealing a quantity of wool, valued at £l2, the property of AV. Richmond. Detective Fitzgibbon conducted the prosecution and Mr. E. J. W. Hallett represented accused. Detective Fitzgibbon, in opening the case, said that the accused. Woon. was responsible for the shearing and for the wool baled and sent away. During the previous shearing there had been a considerable shortage and this year he took steps to be present at the shearing whenever he could. When the shearing was completed Air. Richmond found a bale of wool in the loft and he asked W oon to whom it belonged and Woon replied that he did not know but that it might belong to one of the neighbours. It should be explained that some neighbouring farmers shore at the Te Mata station. There were also locks and lambs’ wool about. The bale of wool disappeared and it would be shown that a bale of wool and locks had been sold to Air. Ncwrick, of Eastings, a wool buyer, for £l2. William Richmond, sheep!aimer and meat exporter, Hastings, deposed that, in consequence of suspicions of shortages of wool at Te Alata and Oakleigh in the previous year, he tried, personally. this year to find the leakage. He was present at the last Te Alata shearing for the greater part of the day on Friday, in the first week ol January. He saw all the wool for export and for Napier baled up. A lot of locks and second pieces and a small lot of lambs’ wool were left in temporarily filled bales and he gave instructions that they were to be taken to Weaver’s. He asked W oon about a bale in the loft, which W'oon said belong to one of the neighbours, which seemed quite possible, as the bale was branded with letters he could not recall. The bale was not there now and witness did not know where it was. There would be only the crutchings from 400 lambs in the lambs’ wool, but ho couldn’t give the weight. It would be possible for Woon to keep back some of the wool without witness’s knowledge. He could not say if any “strangers” were shorn last year; there should not have been. To Air. Hallett: Shearing finished on January Bth, but there was a later crutching of some 2000 lambs from Oakleigh. The Alaoris pressed the wool up to January £tli. and witness was present. ‘W. ?Jcßobbie generally shore his sheep at the station, lhe bale of wool in the loft was from some previous shearing of the season; it was about threequarters of a bale. Re-examined: On January Sth there should haoe been a good half-bale of second pieces, all the balance being locks and crutchings. To Mr. Hallett: Some of the second pieces might have been put m with the crutchings or locks, for convenience. He did not know- how the bale he mentioned was baled.

Alfred Weaver, wool scourer, showed an invoice of January 12 which disclosed no lambs’ wool or second pieces. To Air. Hallett: The invoice would be made out before the bales were opened up and the discription would be taken from that on the outside of the bale. Bales sometimes came in wrongly branded and the owner was informed. This lot was true to brand. He could not say if the crutchings of 400 lambs would fill a bale. There was a chance of “second pieces” being described as “locks” at times. Albyn Newrick, woolbuyer. Hast* ings, in his evidence, said ho knew Woon at Te Mata, but he did not know for whom he was working. He drove round the country buying wool, skins, hides, tallow and bottles. He bought wool from Woon more than once. The last purchase was on January 23, 1926, at the Te Alata woolshed. Mr. Woon said he had some woo! for sale and asked when witness could go out. Witness said he would go out that evening and he arrived about 7.30 or 8. It was twilight. Witness received wool from Woon that night—a bale of fleece and a part bale of locks bellies, fleeces •and a little bit of lambs’ wool. Woon gave a description of each bale, and witness offered £l2 for the lot, which was accepted. Witness paid £3 in cash at once and sent a cheque for the balance later, through his uncle, Mr. Leati: The previous purchase from Woon (Mr. Hallett objected) was a bale, on October 17. Woon approached him and witness went to Woon’s house at 7.30 a.in. on the 19th. Woon told him to pull over tu lhe shed and lie (Woon) rolled out a bale of crutchings on to witness’s lorry. They were owe and lambs’ crutchings. Witness paid him £lO cash, for 3001bs. He also purchased wool from Woon, on December 8, 1924, when ho went to Woon’s house, on his invitation, arriving at 7 p.m. AVitness asked AVoort if he had authority to sell the wool and Woon said the wool did not belong to the station and that he kept a few sheep of his own. AVitness bought a balg of locks, bellies and second pieces, for which witness paid £9, in cash he thought. . Cross-examined by Mr. Hallett: On the occasion of the purchase on January 23, it was witness who suggested that he (witness) should go out in the evening. Edwin Lean, brilliard-froom manager, Hastings, in his evidence, said an envelope had been given to him by Mr. Newrick on January 30th, which he was to give to Henrv AVoon. He handed the envelope to AVoon on that morning. He never saw the cheque until the police showed it to him. This concluded the case for the prosecution and accused was not asked to plead until the final charges, those of cattle-stealing, were heard on Saturday (this) morning, i

CHARGES OF CATTLE STEALING. At tho Hastings Courthouse this morning, before Mr. R. AV. Dyer, S.M., Henry AVoon, shepherd, Havelock North, was charged with (1) on or about January 11. 1926, at Te Mata, stealing three cows and one bullock, valued at £25 ,the property of W. ißchmond, (2) on or about April 8, 1925, at Havelock North, stealing five bead of cattle, valued at £3l 5/-, the property of AV. Richmond, (3) on or about May 26, 1925, at Te Mata, stealing seven head of cattle, valued at £45 10/-, the property of AV. Richmond. On the application of Detective Fitzgibbon ,the second and third charges were adjourned, as the police could not proceed* with them at present, and only the first charge, of theft _of three cattle, the property of Mr. Richmond, was proceeded with. Mr. E. J. AV. Hallett appeared for the defence. Detective Fitzgibbon detailed the facts for the prosecution. AVilliam Richmond, sheep farmer and meat exporter .deposed that the property opposite the Te Mata homestead was owned bv Mr. B. Chambers and there was no reason the Te Mata cattle should be put across the road to hill country In July, 1925, AVoon made a return of cattle, a verbal return over the telephone, and now recorded. The return was 79 cattle, including cattle of all ages. AVitness had to accept it as correct, but they were very short of cattle somewhere on Te Mata, Oakleigh and Brookfield’s The earmark was two forebits on the right ear for cows and on the left for buloeks, It might be the reverse, but that was the mark. It was the old Te Mata mark and was not his registered mark. Three pieces of ears of cattle were submitted to witness, who examined them and said that the original marks had been tampered with and defaced so that the catHe affected might have been anybody’s. The cattle were ail grown. It was not his practice to earmark grown cattle and ho did not think he instructed anyone to do it. There was no reason for removing Te Mata cattle to Sunderland’s property in January. AVoon had sold eattl© on witness’s instructions on two occasions in the last three years. The first was about November, 1924. and it involved 10 cattle from AVaimarama station, which were not witness’s own, but were being sold by him on account of AVaimarama. Woon sold eight at £8 a head and he accounted for £64. Later he sold another at £8 and.the other beast, having been proved in calf, would probably became witness’s own and was settled for. The next sale by AVoon was in October, 1925, consisting of two lame cows and a jioubtful bulloc*7 they were sold and witness received a cheque direct in settlement from Pipe, a butcher. The earniarker produced was uot the Te Mata earmark.

To Mr. Hallett: On these occasion* Woon accounted faithfully for the sales returns. Are you prepared to say that the bits of ears came oft your cattle?—No. but it is quite possible. They might have come off anybody’s. George Haarer. an employee at Te Mata, in his evidence, said that the number of cattle, oi all ages, including calves, on the station, was from 90 to 100. Witness, with Woon, put cattle from Te Mata on to Chambers’s property on ten or twelve occasions. They put one. or two or three at a tune. They were put in and taken out. He saw three cattle earmarked at Te Mata on uanuary 11th., two cows and a steer. Two cows came from the woolshed (paddock at the homestead and the steer from either Chambers’s paddock or from the station paddock on the Waimarama road. Witness assisted Woon to take the cattle to the branding yard. Woon then started earmarking one steer and two cows. He saw the ear marker (produced) on the occasion. The marker was in Woon’s hand, but he had a knife in his hand which he used also. The right ears of all the beasts were marked. The pieces (produced) came off the cows and the steer. Woon took the pieces and covered them with earth with his foot. Witness recovered them. After the earmarking they took the cattle, with two others from Chambers, straight away to Undercliff© (Sunderland’s) where they were placed on the riverbed paddock. On the following Saturday. witness and Woon went to Wellwood’s block and picked up two cows and brought thdm to Te Mata and put them in a paddock on Waimarama road, owned by Richmond. There were about 6<> or 70 rattle on “Wellwood’s block” that day. The rows were taken from the main lots. This was m the forenoon. In taking the cattle from Wellwood’s block to Te Mata, they would pass Sunderland’s. About 6 p.m. that day they went to Sunderland’s and took the cattle they had earmarked and put in there. Woon had to take down some wire fence «r wire netting to get them out through Field’s block on to the road.

Witness thought there was' no other reason for this than that it was the easiest way to get them out. The cattle were taken to the same paddock at T e Mata as they were taken from. Witness was working under Woon’s instructions. 'They took five or six cattle off Sunderland’s. The next day (Sunday) the cattle were shifted anil Woon told him that Wellwood was taking the cattle to the works. -Mr. Hallett: You say there were 90 to 100 cattle on Wellwood's block, dm you count them? No, it was just an estimate. Can you describe the steer?A half-bred Hereford, with no brand but it had an earmark. He could not so what the earmark was. it was a red steer, with red and white on the face. Now the cows—One as a purebred Hereford cow, rod, no brand, with an earmark on right ear, I cannot say what. It was four or five years old. T he other was a dark Jersey, no brnad and I cannot say if there was an earmark. What earmark did Woon put on the bullock?—! can’t saw What marks did he put on the cows?—l don’t know. Describe the other cows brought to To .Mata from Wellwood’s.—They were two half-bred dark Jerseys, no ’brand, but they were earmarked. I can’t say what earmark. 1 take it you cut those two particular cows out of the mob when you visited Wellwood’s block?—Yes. When did you get those pieces? After tea on the same day. Were there an yother bits of cow’s ears about?—No. Ambrose Wellwood, dairy farmer, deposed he farmed part of "Millwood’s block.’’ He understood Woon had been in charge of Te Mata and “Wellwood’s block,’’ but not witness’ part. He was a shareholder in Whakatu Freezing Works and he sometimes put his cattle through the works. When doing so he sometimes put cattle through for other persons. He put some through for M’oon. Some time in January-.last he put some through for M’oon, with his. He told witness he was hard up for feed and he asked witness to let his cattle in with those of witness. As far as he remembered, there were a steer, a cow. three heifers and a calf, making six in all. In taking cattle to M hakatu he would pass Te .Mata He got Woon’s cuttle from one of the le Mata homestead paddocks. Mitness cattle and Woon’s went through the works in witness’ name. Witness paid M oon £25 by the cheque (produced). He put through cattle for Moon on two other occasions ami he paid him by th e cheques (produced). t ’heqtie dated January 23rd., £.> 9/-, would he for a cow and calf, put through M’hakatu for Woon. The cheque £7, April 4th. 1925, was for cattle but he could not remember how many and he paid it to Woon. Mr Hallett: The Whakau Meat Morks will only take stock from shareholders.—Yes. And that was probably why M’oon asked to have the cattle put through in your name.—Yes. Witness then described the cattle he took in January, half or threequarter Hereford steer, red and white, no brand that he was aware of, and he did not notice the ear mark. The cow was a Hereford cross, about 5 years old. Couldn’t say if branded or earmarked. One of the heifers was a black Jersey cross, 3 years, the other two were 2-year-old half-bred Jerseys, half fawn. He had seen the black heifer before. It was Mr Woon’s heifer and he asked witness to put her in his paddock. Re-examined: He was led by Woon to believe the heifer was his. Witness knew the heifer for 18 months. It wa» running; on Mr Richmond’s hill property at the back of wtiness’s property. Archie McConachie, shepherd at Oakleigh, remembered, in June last, taking a line of calves to Tomoana. On June 1 he met Woon on the road, and took the calves from him. under Air Maxwell’s instructions. There wore 2D lacves and one cow, Mr Richmond property?, and they were delivered at Tomooana. There wer two cows and “ue calf in the mob, in addition to Richmond’s cattle. Woon asked if witness would deliver the cows and calf at the Whakatu Works (Mr Hallett objected to this evidence and th c objection was noted). Woon told him to deliver the cows and calf to Whakatu. for A. Wellwood, and witness did so. Alfred Hook, butcher, Havelocx North, sworn, said he had done business with Woon on several occasions and had purchased stock from him. (Mr Hallett objected). The cheque for £23, June 9, 1924, in favour of H. Woon and endorsed by Woon, represented his first dealing with Woon. Thc cheque was for cattle, purchased from Woon by witness. Witness could not remember the actual purchase. The cheque (produced) for £23 10s, June 21, J 924, in favour of H. Woon, was in payment for cattle, but he could not rememl or the number of cattle or the purchase. He saw all the cattle he purchased, at Te Mata. Most of the cattle he wore, when he inspected them, running on the hill country, opposite Te Mara' liomestead, but he did not know if it was Chambers’ or Richmond property. The cheque (produced'), November 8, 1924, £l7, in favour of 11. Woon with his endorsement, was in payment for two beasts at £6 10s each, and one at £4. The cheque (produced), December 10. 1924. £64* was for 8 beasts at £8 per head. They were bought on the Te Mata homestead and Woon told him they belonged to Mr Richmond. The cheque (produced) February 21, 1925, £4O, in favour of H. Woon and endorsed by him, was in payment for cattle, but he couldn’t say how many. As far as he knew they were running on the hill, opposite Te Mata homestead. Thc cheque (produced), August 22, 1925, £l, in favour of H. Woon and endorsed by him, was in payment for one bullock, bought from Woon, who told him it did not belong to him and that he was selling it for some one, he did not say who. The cheque (produced), October 24, 1925, £ll 2s 3d, in favour of H. Woon and endorsed by him, was signed by witness while he was in hospital. It was in payment for two head of cattle, one was condemned- The cattle were running on the hill ,and he could not say to whom they belonged. As far as witness knew, and he understood from Woon, that Woon was selling the cattle on behalf of some one else, but he did not say who, except in the case of Richmond’s lot. Richmond’s lot was the only lot he purchased on the flats. Mr. Hallett: Can you describe any of the cattle you bought in any way whatever?—l cannot describe them in any way whatever. Tins concluded the case tor the prosecution and the two remaining charges were adjourned sine die. COUNSEL’S ADDRESS. Mr. Hallett submitted that there was no evidence to justify a committal. Regarding White’s sheep Woon told McConachie thev had been picked up on the road and McConachie took delivery. When leaving, Woon jokingly said he hoped he would get a dividend out of the “strangers.” Was that prinia facie evidence of theft? In the case of the wool there was evidence of the sale of the wool by Woon, but there was no evidence of theft. It | must be proved that the wool did not | belong to Woon. It was the same with the cattle. It must be shown 1 that Woon sold them fraudulently and ; without colour of right. , . , Detective Fitzgibbon said White s ' case was a Clear case of theft. Woon knew White’s earmark and he show I*' . be able t.» detect it. as an experienced I -iie-i hr-J Hr taped McUonac-hitt s j