SHEEP STEALING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16551, 15 May 1914, Page 11

SHEEP STEALING.

,3HE NORTH CANTERBURY CASE

ACCUSED FOUND GUILTY.

THEFT OF TWO SHEEP.

SENTENCE DEFERRED.

At- the • Supreme Court yesterday 'the charge of sheep-stealing preferred against Charles It. Craythorne was continued before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston. Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, and Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr. J. W. Hunter, appeared for Craythorne. John R. Turner, who purchased Craythorne's farm, gave evidence to the effect that on the woolly ewe the

brand had been plucked or clipped out

The witness also gave evidence that the *" accused admitted having tampered with , the brands of two sheep. Craythorne told him he had not touched the car-

marks. The •meetings at Amberley and in Christchurch were also referred to. The witness produced letters from the accused, in one of which Craythorne asked for £SOO, which he said 1 he wanted to use to pay Boyce and Munro. The witness commenced to .refer to the meeting in Warner's, when his Honor interrupted by saying that it was clear that the accused had seen his solicitor, and it had been arranged that ho should surprise the gathering. It was a perfectly legitimate thing to do. It was decided, however, that the witness should proceed, and- the witness detailed what had occurred at the meeting, corroborating the statements made by previous witnesses. EXPERT EVIDENCE.

Thomas Scott Johnson, sheepfarmer at Waipara, said that he had-examined the' sheep referred to in the indictment, and he was sure that the earmark had been altered. The earlier two punchholes mark had been replaced by a forequarter, but there were still traces of the punch-hole's. In most cases more than a fore-quarter had been taken out of the car. The practico of putting in the purchaser's earmark depended on whether it could be done without interfering with the first mark. His Honor: If a man wanted to steal sheep, the natural thing for him to do would, be to alter the earmark so as to take it out—so as to hide it altogether. Witness: Yes. His Honor: Then you think that a man should never do that? Witness: Not without the special permission of the stock inspector, Thomas Retellick, sheepfarmer at

Waipara, gave similar evidence. James R. Maxwell, sheepfarmer at Amberley, also stated that he thought the original earmark had been punchholes, but it had been disfigured by taking out a forequarter. The forequarter was too large, too, and had evidently been made so as to remove traces of the holes.

Detective E. A. Regan gave evidence that the sheep produced at the Court were those which had been obtained at Amberley. This closed the case for the Crown.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. ,Mr Raymond opened the defence. He said that Craythorne would give an account of his flock during his occupancy of the farm, and it would show that his dealings had been perfectly legular. Two sheep had appeared prominently in the case, and they had been claimed by Craythorne. They had the forequarter mark, which Craythorne was using. Craythorne then quite improperly altered the brand on two sheep for the two, which he honestly thought had been wrongfully retained by Boyce. That Craythorri© had admitted all along. His Honor: Would you say that was not theft? L < Mr Raymond: I would not. His Honor: Then why don't you plead guilty? " Mr Raymond: Because we are charged with having stolen twelve. J His Honor: I think this is rather 1 late for such a statement. You realise I that there must be a. verdict of guilty in respect of two sheep. j Mr Raymond: "I am alive to the '■effect of the statement." The accused, he went on, admitted the alteration to the two sheep, but denied any theft in the case of the other ten. THE ACCUSED'S EVIDENCE.

j The accused in evidence said that he purchased his farm in 1911 as a going concern from Bowman, and no muster was made. His first muster was in De-

cember," and there were 1198 sheep. i Most of them bore the forequarter earmark on tho left ear, and were branded E 7. During his occupancy he purchased ten rams from Hartnett, 100 ewes from Gates, and two Border Leicester rams and 186 hoggets from A. Fairweather; total 298. He had sold seven pet sheep in April 1912, 97 ewes through the Farmers' Co-operative Association and 119 at -Amberley. He sold 80 skins, of which about 45 would be from lambs. That left 1228 as a balance he should have left in his flock, and he sold 1205 to Turner. In 1912, at the shearing at Boyce's place, one of the shearers told him he had shorn one of his ewes. He claimed it, and told Boyce. He took the ewe's lamb and going to Boyce told him that the lamb had two punch-holes in its ear. With Boyce's consent 'he put in the forequarter mark. That lamb was now the hoggett. On another occasion he claimed another ewe, but .ooyce refused to give it up. In the Svinter of 1913 he discovered another sheep with a forequarter mark, and went to Boyce, who said, "That is the same ewe you raised the question about last year." He replied that it was a half-bred, whereas the ewe claimed in the previous year had been a three-quarter-bred. Later he gave Boyce notice of a muster for crutching, and Boyce, sending across, ' got nine ewes and a rani. The following day witness came across two more, pne having a part of a brand and the other none. He put his own brand on, because he knew tjiat Boyce had two ewes of his. He did not alter the car-mark. On the following day he found another one of Boyce's ewes and sent it to him. In August he heard from Turner, who wanted him to looK at a ewe Boyce had claimed. Witness was ill and wrote to Stackhouso to see the ewe for him, and in September witness went to Boyce, telling him how he had branded the two sheep. Witness promised to compensate him if he had done wrong. Boyce said that he had put the matter into the hands of the stock inspector, but would see what he could do to hush it up. Before leaving witness remarked that he would rather have lost £IOOO than such a thing should have happened. On September 18 witness went to Amberley and saw Munro. He told Munro ■what he had done, and the stock inspector read out parts of the Stock Act and stated that he (Craythorne) had made himself liable to imprisonment. Munro went out to the post office with Boyce, and on returning put a stamp on the table. Then he said: " If you want this thing hushed up, you'd better get something substantial from Craythorne." Then Munro went out with Mrs Craythorne. Witness drew up the agreement. He suggested to Boyce that £SOO would be enough, but Boyce said that after Munro and Turner had had their shares there would be little left for him, so that it'should be £IOOO. Munro dictated the latter part of the agreement, but was not present when it was signed. Bowman's earmark was not transferred to him when he took over, but if he had used his own mark, slashes, in lambs they would have grown over unless put in deep. He had told Munro, who advised him to use Bowman's earmark, saying that ultimately the earmark would be transferred to him. Prior to going on to the

farm, he had had only three months | experience in sheepfarnimg, and lie registered the two slash earmark on Munro's suggestion, but never used it. Bowman went away to the JNortn island, and ultimately Munro got-Bow-man to cancel his fore-quarter marl*. Witness then took it over. The muster on October 3 was clean as far as no could see, and the second sheep he had branded, the horny ewe, was found, Boyce at the time claimed two more ewes and the hogget. At no time had he interfered with the earmarks of any of Boyce's sheep. Munro told him that if he paid certain expenses, and settled with the other men, he (Craythorne) would hear no more about the matter. Ho saw Boyce and asked how long he would have in which to find £IOOO, and arranged to have a fortnight. THE MEETING IN WARNER'S HOTEL. On October 7 he saw Turner and Boyce to settle matters, but was told by them that they could not because Parnham was " kicking up." He saw Parnham and arranged to have the meeting in Warner's Hotel with Boyce and Turner. Up to that time he had not seen his solicitor, but shortly before the meeting, about a week, he saw Bcswick after a consultation with Jameson, of the Farmers' Co-operative Association. On October 17 ho received a telegram from Munro asking him to meet him on the following morning at the train. He went, and Munro said that 'he had returned from a holiday to find that the business was not settled, and added that if it was not settled that day he would make a clean breast of the whole affair. Witness invited Munro to the meeting. He arranged the room for the ostensible purpose of paying over £IOOO, though ho did not intend to do it. Beswick and Clarkson entered the room by arrangement. In January Boyce commenced a civil action for the value of the sheep, but discontinued on February 9, witness having given notice of defence. He was not present at the muster in February, not having received any notice, and the present proceedings were commenced in March.

To Mr Macassey: Prior to going to the farm, he was at Vulcan Downs, Motunau, where he had a registered brand. He could not remember if he had an earmark. When he bought from Bowman he did not ask him to transfer his earmark. The sheep purchased from Fairweather in 1912 were originally witness's lambs. The last time he had put his earmark on would be in October, 1912. Ho did not sell to Turner until after tho fore-quarter earmark was registered to him.

Mr Macassey: You were very anxious to get it registered on July 7? Craythorne: I was always anxious. Mr Macassey: Did you not go down to Munro on July 7, taking your wife in your car, and urge him to register that earmark? Craythorne: I don't remember that date. Mr Macassey: And all the time you were using a mark that belonged to another man?

Craythorne: Mr Munro gave me permission to use it. Mr Macassey: Is it not a fact that Boyce never approached you for money ? Craythorne: I offered to pay him for the two sheep. Mr Macassey: But a thousand pounds is a lot to pay for two sheep. Craythorne: I offered compensation: not a*thousand pounds. Mr Macassey: Then why did you sign the agreement for a thousand pounds? Craythorne: They bluffed me into it. His Honor: You would not attempt to excuse their conduct any more than his? Mr Macassey: Only for the object of getting an admission. LIKE NAUGHTY SCHOOLBOYS.

Harry Joseph Beswick, solicitor of Christchurch, said that he saw Craythorne a few days prior to October 18. He had previously seen two officials of the Farmers' Co-operative Association. On October 18 witness went to Warner's Hotel, where he knew a meeting had been arranged. Ho did not arrange the meeting. He did not know the men other than Craythorne, but when he went in ho mentioned the names, though he mistook Turner for Boyce. He told them there would be no money paid, and that they had better get about their business. They went out like a lot of naughty schoolboys. His Honor: And you were the schoolmaster. You were supposed to have a rod. The only additional evidence we have is that these men looked like naughty schoolboysThe witness proceeded to say that later in the day he saw Boyce in his office, and asked him certain questions. His Honor: I am still at a loss to know why Mr Beswick was called. Mr Macassey: This is not evidence. Resuming the witness went on to refer to tho civil action commenced by Boyce, but was stopped by Mr Macassey, who urged that the evidence was not relevant.

His Honor: Of course not. You must feel, Mr Raymond, that it is not evidence. Too much has been made in this case of this affair. It has become too much like a trial of certain witnesses. FARMERS AND EARMARKS.

William H. Field, a sheep farjner, said that if the sheep had been taken dishonestly more care would have been taken. The alterations looked like those made by a man who did not trouble about concealment. Farmers often altered car-marks. It was against the law, but all farmers did it. .

His Honor: If your neighbour wanted to alter marks without your knowledge such a practice would be handy to him ?

Witness: He would ask permission. His Honor: But supposing he did not want you to know. What is the value of the ear-mark then. Witness: I don't know what value they are, but it would be difficult to get

on without altering the marks. Continuing, ho said that the fore-quarters on the sheep's ears were unusually large, but he had seen them/ as large on other sheep. Sizes of such marks varied a. lot. There were some of tho sheep at the Court which showed no sign of alteration.

EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER

William M'Millan, retired sheepfarmer, said that he had known Craythorne for twenty years, and lived next to him at Irwell for four years. PL's general reputation was that of a hardworking, honest man. THE WIFE'S EVIDENCE.

Daisy Isabel Craythorne, wife of the accused, stated that on September 18 she went with her husband to Munro's office at Amberley. Munro was alone when they arrived. She corroborated the accused's version of the early part of the meeting there with Boyce and Turner. She said that her husband did not write out any agreement while she was present. Her husband, when he went to the meeting, was not anxious to have a settlement. She did not plead for leniency.

Mr Macassey: Did your husband plead for leniency? , Witness: I've told you all I remember.

Mr Macassey: We have been told that both you and your husband pleaded for leniency. Witness: I never said a word. I have told you all I remember. A MATTER OF MEMORY.

Ernest Stackhouse, farmer at Amberley, stated that on August 13 he saw tho woolly sheep, and in the left ear was a fore-quarter. There was no sign of recent alteration. The brand had been tampered with. He was with Retellick, hut he did not remember saying to him that he would have nothing to do with the affair, and that "the dirty deserved to go over tho hill for it." He did see Munro, and told him that he had been to see the ewe. Mr Macassey: Did he ask you what you thought of it? Witness: I don't remember. ■ Mr Macassey: Didn't you say: "It looks bad?" Witness: It's so long ago; I don't remember. Mr Macassey: You don't remember. Didn't you say to Munro: "I have no sympathy. He ought to go over the hill for it?"

Witness: "You are asking me a difficult question. It's so long ago; I don't remember." Continuing, witness stated that lie was at the police station with other witnesses, and told the police his evidence was typed out and in the office of the solicitor for the defence.

This closed the case for the defence MR RAYMOND'S ADDRESS.

Mr Raymond submitted to the jury that the evidence disclosed that Craythorne had admitted altering the brands of two sheep, and that the agreement signed at Amberley on September 18 mentioned only the alteration of brands. There was no reference to ear-marks. He contended that Boyce was bargaining for as much money as he could get, the thousand pounds if possible. The agreement was at once lodged with Boyce's solicitor, and it was idle to suggest that it was obtained for the purpose of an admission. If it was an admission it was not likely that the prosecution would have waited six months. The letters written by Craythorne to Boyce showed that there was some financial arrangement on foot. Munro's own evidence showed that he know what the agreement contained. If the object was to obtain an admission the line of conduct would have been different. It was not the duty of a stock inspector to stand by for months* without doing anything and without reporting. The final situation was that Munro was present at Warner's when a chequebook was on the table, and Mr Beswick walked in. He asked the jury to note, that the agreement signed by Craythorne would have been an excellent document for pressure and that the number of stolen sheep increased as the likelihood of Boyce and the others getting their money receded. Ho suggested that the points had to be considered where the evidence of Boyce, Turner and Munro was concerned. If, as the Crown suggested, there had been a systematic thieving, Craythorne's transactions would have been quite different, but his dealings showed absolute regularity. , At the muster made in October, under the directions of the stock inspector, and it was a good muster, only five sheep were found when the searchers were there. Of those five two were the ewes referred to already, and the hogget which, he submitted, Craythorne had dealt with quite openly. The other two were also accounted for. Another muster was held in January but no additional sheep were found by Boyce, who then commenced a civil action, when it was apparent that the solicitor was entering into the affair and that Boyce would not get his money. Just before the police muster in February the civil proceedings were dropped. Craythorne was not present then and had been out of control of his farm for many months, but on the strength of the admission the criminal proceedings were opened in respect of ten other sheep, found and separated from the flock for the first time in Craythorne's absence. He invited the jury, if it returned a verdict of guilty, to do so with respect of the two sheep and to "make any observations about them it desired. MR MACASSEY'S ADDRESS. Mr Macassey said that it was no part l of Munro's "duty to report to the police, and the jury had to consider whether or not Craythorne was guilty of the charge preferred against him. Even if Boyce had been trying to make money out of the affair the prosecution was made by the Crown, and Boyce's actions had nothing to do with it. The accused had admitted interfering with two ewes, but he submitted that in respect of those two the case could have been proved up to the hilt without the admission. He submitted that none of the twelve sheep found could have come from Fairweather or Mount Brown, and he relied on the earmarks which completely proved the contention. Then Bowman had sworn that he had not sold the sheep to Craythorne. Ho thought that the jury could realise where the sheep had come from. Ho asked why Craythorne in July had rushed down to Amberley to get the tore-quarter registered. The accused was about to sell out and had at the time no sheep to earmark. Why did he want to register the ear-mark? Boyce had made no attempt to blackmail, but it was Craythorne who had gone pleading for a settlement. He submitted that if Craythorne had tampered with two sheep'only, and those as a right, it was preposterous to think that he would offer £IOOO. He offered that sum because he knew what was coming when the.muster was made. «Ji mraine up, Ms Honor said that it •was S thai the parties who had cot the agreement from Craythorne had done so in the hope of getting uua« advantage over him, bTwhE "Sgh be thl opinion held of their action, the Prosecution, was lit, +Jia Crown and tho behaviour Ti?„S men did not enter into, the retunied with res ider whethw or ,U 7 + i h L£• tS had been stolen, retired at 4.28 pm and sih?fi«fsy ** but . agreed on the theft of twoHis Honor W fjfe issue *» the jury to. den. 1 f . sent{ . nce . order to assist him i» t, &

He directed the jury to return a general verdict of guilty. After a further discussion the jury returned its verdict as guilty of the theft of two sheep, his Honor remarking that ho would enter it as a general verdict of guilty. It was stated that the second charge against Craythorne would bo heard on Monday and his Honor decided to defer sentence until after that charge was decided.

The prisoner was allowed bail, himself in £2OO nnd one surety of £-00.

Tho Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on the following day.