ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16550, 14 May 1914, Page 8

ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING.

A NORTH CANTERBURY CASE.

PROCEEDINGS AT THE SUPREME COURT.

At the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston, Charles Richard Craythorne pleaded not guilty to. a charge of having, during July, 1913, at Broomfield, stolen twelve sheep valued at £ls, the property of David Boyce.

Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared for tho Crown and Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr J. H. Hunter, for tho accused. THE CASE FOR THE CROWN. In opening the prosecution, Mr Macassey said that sheep-stealing was recognised as one of the most serious crimes in the calendar. In the category of theft the only more serious offence was tho theft of a testamentary document. Sheep-stealing was difficult to detect and difficult to prove, but he thought he would advance evidence that would conclusively prove his case. It ■was to be remembered that Bowman sold his farm to Craythorne towards the end of 1911, and Boyce, a neighbour, who was the prosecutor, bought his property from Hartnell. Bowman's earmark was a fore-quarter cut out of the left ear, and Craythorne's was two slits, one in each ear. Bowman also had a brand of a "3" and a "C." Hartnell's earmark -was two punches in the left ear, and that he sold to Boyce. Craythorno did not take over Bowman's mark, although ho tried to do so. He ' sold to Turner in July, and when he mustered he did not inform Boyce, his neighbour. Twenty-four days before he handed over tho property to Turner, he secured the registration of Bowman's earmark, but at that time there were no lambs, so that he could not use the mark. He would show, however, that J Craythorne had used the earmark, and he suggested that the accused had adopted the fore-quarter mark to take out the two-punch holes of Boyce's mark. The jury would also be shown the sheep in which there were traces of the punch holes, and it would be noticed, too, that the fore-quarter was so large that it took nearly half the ear. There was one sheep described as a. woolly sheep because it was not shorn. That sheen had been bred by a man, M'Rae, and had his earmark. Boyce had acquired the sheep, and had found it later with tho forequarter earmark on the left ear. The wool on the rump had been plucked out, but there were traces of red paint, which was used, by Boyce for his brand, an inverted half-circle over a " 3.'' Craythorne used black paint for his brand.

Continuing, Mr Macassey said that in August Craythorne admitted to Boyce that "lie had altered the earmarks on two sheep and ho offered to pay £IOOO if there were no prosecution. Later in September a -meeting was held ir. Amberley at which an agreement .was entered into, Craythorne offering to pay £IOOO immediately the Stock Inspector, Munro, said that there would lie no prosecution. In October a muster of Turner's sheep was held, and six more with, defaced earmarks were found. Another meeting was held in Christchurch for the purpose of arranging matters, but it would be shown that Boyco was anxious only to get an admission from Craythorne. It was important to notice how Craythorno acquired his sheep. Bowman would swear positively that the sheep mentioned in the Indictment had never been his property, and he had not sold them to the accused. Craythorne stated that the only other places he had purchased sheep from were 'Mount Brown and Fairvveather, and their earmarks were known. D. BOYCE'S EVIDENCE.

David Boyce, occupier of the property known as the Ram's Paddock, Ainberley, said that the farm Craythorne occupied adjoined his. The accused sold out to John Turner, who was to tako possession on August 1, 1913. On August 8 ho went to Turner to get him to see a sheep ho had mustered on that day. He noticed the sheep because it had a red mark on the rump, which showed indications of having been plucked to'deface the brand. He thought, too, that the mark on the left ear had been altered. On the right ear was a double fore-bit, and on the left a small forequarter which showed a small portion of a circle, suggestive that a fore-bit had been altered. It was quite easy to see that the conversion was fairly recent, and probably had been made within six months of the time ho saw it. That sheep he recognised as one he had bought from R. Kinley, a dealer, at Rangiora. On the rump there were traces of his brand where the wool had been plucked. „ , On September 12 Crayvhorne came to his house at about 11 p.m. from Harewood Road, Papanui, . and said that ho had gone up to see about the sheep. He said: "Do you think I did it?" and witness replied: "It has been done." Craythorne repeated the question and when witness said that he was sure Craythorne had done it, the accused said: "I did it. I did two." He went on to say that lie had altered tho earmarks on account of some fuss over a_ewe Craythorne had claimed some time before. When asked why ho had tampered with the second one, Craythorne merely said: "I was wild." Tho accused asked witness to destroy the sheep because it might get him into a nasty fix. He had his wife and children to consider, and would give a thousand pounds to have the matter taken no further. Witness said that he did not consider it a matter of money, and Craythorne went on to say that he was considering his wife and children. He Avas finished and could easily blow out his brains. Witness informed the accused that he had brought tho affair under the notice of tho Inspector of Brands and others. On the following Sunday Craythorne visited him with his wife and pleaded with him to be merciful and think of their children. The next day the accused asked him to go to Ainberley to see Munro, but the inspector was not there. Witness, . however saw Munro on the Tuesday and arranged for him' to see Craythorne on tho Thursday following. The meeting took place, the accused and his wife, Turner, Munro and witness being present. Munro read out parts of the Stock Act showing Craythorne tho offences committed. Craythorne and his wife cried and pleaded for mercy, and. tho accused said that ho was prepared to pay anything to have the case settled. lie signed an agreement offering £IOOO to witness as compensation for defacing brands, on condition that Munro did not have to push tho case into Court. At the time tho agreement was drawn up, Munro and Mrs Craythorne were out of the room. Craythorne did not inform him of a muster when he delivered to Turner in August. In October, Turner's sheep were mustered, and a number of neighbours were present. Munro and Craythorne were also there. Four ewes, a horny ewe and ono hogget were found with their ears altered, and witness claimed thorn as his proporty. The impression given him was that part of the punch-holes had been left when the forequarter was taken out. Craythorne admitted at the time that he had altered the mark on the, horny ewe. ,< The' sheep had Craythorne's wool brand 00. "» black on the shoulder. &» the ca f of the hogget, a portion of one punchhole was distinctly visible. On October 8, ho received a letter; fromCraythorne, offering to pay £250, and stating that ho coild W Mtxnro with the money. The accused visited him again

on October'll, with Turner, to see why he had not answered the letter of October 8. • Later In October the meeting at Warner's Hotel took place, there being present Parnham, Turner, Munro, Craythorne and the witness. Munro referred to the letter of October 8, and said that ho would not be a party to anything if money passed. At that moment the door opened and

Mr Beswick, a solicitor, entered. He ordered them all to get out, and accused them of hatching a plot. The lawyer advised them to let the whole matter drop. Witness thought at first that tho whole business could be treated as a civil matter, but he was advised by his lawyer to place the affair in the hands of the police. He did so, and on February 20 another muster of Turner's sheep was made. This time ho claimed six more sheep on which tho earmarks had been altered, making twelve in all ho had claimed. At the witness's shearing in 1912, Craythorne had claimed a ewe, but it was not his. At that shearing Craythorne had helped, ■ doing the branding and keeping the tallies.

To Mr Raymond: When he took oyer sheep from Hartnell there was one with the ear marked with a fore-quarter. It had no punch holes, but the wool brand also convinced him it was one of Hartnell's lot. Hartnell told him that he

had purchased some sheep from Bowman, whose brand was a fore-quarter mark. REGISTRAR OF BRANDS.

John Munro. Inspector of Stock and Registrar of Brands in North Canterbury, gave evidence of the earmarks registered by Bowman, Craythorne, Hartnell and Boyce. When Craythorne purchased Bowman's property the latter's earmark was not transferred, although about three times later the accused asked if he could have it. Ultimately on July 7, 1913, Craythorno became the registered owner of the forequarter earmark once owned by Bowman. He stated that he examined a woolly ewe at Boyco's farm, and found that the earmark had been recently altered. There was a portion of longl- - cut which might have been an old fore-bit.

On September 8 he was present at the meeting in his office at Amberley. Craythorno admitted that he had not given notice 'of his intention to his neighbour to muster when delivering to Turner. When witness- mentioned that he had seen the woolly ewe and thought that the brands had been altered, both the accused and his wife commenced to talk excitedly, and he warned them that anything they said might be used as evidence against Craythorne. Craythorne admitted altering the earmarks of two sheep, and then both the accused and his wife commenced to cry hysterically. Mrs Craythorno said that she would see that her husband paid him handsomely if the matter did not get into the hands of the police. He told' them that on the accused's admission alone the case should go to the police, and that he would accept no payment from them under such circumstances. At that stage Boyce said: " If Munro wants to make any money out of it, there is £IOO or £l5O offered, by the Sheep-owners' Union, which he can get by giving evidence that will put Craythorno in gaol." Witness told those present that in view of wdiat he had heard,, a muster of all. the stock sold by Craythorne to Turner would take place. Then Boyce said that while he did not want any money, he thought that Craythorne should put his offer in writing. The accused asked for permission to us© the table, but witness told them to cease the conversation in his presence and he left tho office. He was called back a little while afterwards and Craythorne said ' 'he was giving Boyce an agreement 1 asked wdiat stamp was needed for an agreement. Witness gave him a shilling stamp for it. Witness informed Craythorne that any agreement given to Boyce could not finally settle the matter, because there were the other neighbours to be considered. He also said that outsiders were talking about the business. The muster was held on October 3. Craythorne said that he had altered the ear-mark on one hogget, which he was certain was liis property. Ho added that ho had used the fore-quarter because so many of his sheep were marked way. Witness then told tho accused that he had had no right to use that mark, which at tho time was registered in another name. He noticed that the quarters in the ears of some of the sheep were too large and there were traces of punch-holes. , THE MEETING IN WARNER'S HOTEL. The witness described the meeting at Warner's referred to by the previous witness. When they were in a private room, Craythorne went to the door and, putting his head out, spoke to an attendant, though on. returning to' the table said that he had been seeing if the door was securely fastened. Craythorne then pulled out a chequebook, but witness told him that he was present only because he wanted to make it clear that he was accepting no money. At that moment Mr Beswick, solicitor, entered with a man Clark, or Clarkson, of the Farmers' Co-operative. He said: "Turner, Parnham and Boyce:—Gentlemen, I presume. We know what you are up to. We know all about it. You are here to hatch a plot to do a man out of money." Witness jumped up and took' exception to the statement, but Mr Beswick told them all to go about their business, or they might land into serious trouble. Craythorne asked what he should do, and Mr Beswick told them all to go away and let there bo no more about the affair. That terminated the meeting. To Mr Raylmond: As soon as ho heard of the trouble he reported the matter to his department. He reported that there had been trouble about brands and ear-marks. He did not report tho matter to the police at all.

THE SHEEP CRAYTHORNE PURCHASED.

William J. Bowman said that the sheep which were the subject of the indictment were not sold by him to Craythorne. He sold about 1100 sheep to Craythorno and most of them had been bred by him. Ho did not muster when giving the accused delivery because it was not asked. He sold some sheep to Hartnell early in 1911, but he could not say how many.

Remington Kinley, sheep dealer at Rangiora, said that he sold 210 four and six-tooth owes and 55 two-tooth ewes to David Boyce by auction on September 3, 1912. Those sheep had been purchased from W. M'Rae, from Waikari. William W. M'Rae said that he sold the sheep to Kinley between July and September in 1912. Some of the sheep he bred himself and were marked with a " W" fore-bit in the right ear. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on the following day.