Court Tale About a Lost Sheep

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 274, 20 November 1935, Page 3

Court Tale About a Lost Sheep

DROYEK ALLEGES SLANDER AGAINST ASHHURST BUTCHER. “■You have taken one of my sheep. [What have you done with it?” “I am a sheep short and either you or Samuels has got it.” Because Edmund Richard Morris, butcher, of Ashhurst, was alleged to have made both these statements maliciously and falsely with the intention of conveying the meaning that Eric Israel Samuels, a drover, of Ashhurst, had committed'theft, the latter, took action in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., claiming a total of £ls damages, £7 10s for each statement.

In his evidence Samuels said that in August last ho bought a sheep at the Beil ding sale, but on delivery it had got mixed up with some of defendant’s. He wont and got it from defendant’s padcipck with defendant’s consent. Later Morris accused him of taking an animal that did not belong to him Dut witness denied the charge. However, defendant was not satisiied and demanded to see tffip skin. In tho presence of Constable Fischer'he took the skin along to Morris whereupon defendant said he did not want to see it as he had found the missiig sheep in his own paddock. Samuels said he had there and then asked for an apology in writing but Morris had refused to give it. The way defendant had acted looked as if he accused witness of stealing the sheep.

.Mrs Samuels recalled tho visit of Morns in connection with the sheep. He would take no explanation and insisted that plaintiff had taken the animal. She d|ew the -..inference that Morris was accusing her husband of stealing it. pldward Jllaude Gaisford, lorry drivof Ashhurst, said that when he took 23, sheep that Morris had bought and the one Samuels' had "bought at Feildmg, to Ashhurst, he put them all in a ■holding paddock together. Next morning Morris rang up saying one was missing and that either witness, Samuels or (iurrie Bros, (who owned the lorry) had it; He told Morris not to talk like that because, by his attitude, witness got the impression that Morris was accusing one of the three mentioned as having stolen it.

..Constable Fischer-stated that on receiving a 1 complaint by Morris he interviewed Samuels. The complaint was one oh theft. However, Samuels later produced the skin and Morris then stated that he had found the animal he had reported as stolen. *

The defence was that Morris was quite entitled to make thd inquiries he had done to protect his own private interests. Defendant was free from any motives so long as he had acted honestly',; If defendant was found guilty of an offence no person would be able to ■ m'ake complaints. There could he no accusation of theft in the words which formed the basis of.-the claim.

&n evidence defendant said that he l, : hd given Samuels permission to leave his hire sheep In the paddock where the lorry driver had put it and further permission that it could be killed there and t&’keh away dead. There was no permission given Samuels to take the animal away. When it was reported to him that one sheep was missing from hfs 23, ho went and saw Samuels about iEbut’at no stage had he accused plaiuifff of stealing,the .animal. Ail he ask-, <3 Samuels to do was to produce the skiß.-^'-'- 4 ' '" v ' -

To Hr Ongley (counsel for plaintiff): It was after ho had been to Constable Fischer with his complaint that he made a search of his own paddock and discovered the lost animal. What Constable Fischer had said about his laying a gharge of theft was not true nor had Gaisford been quite truthful in the witness bos.

To Mr Gordon (his own counsel): Had Samuels offered to get the skin right from the start, he would not have gone to the Police. Harry Yates told tho court that Samuels went to the paddock and mustered the sheep without so much as by your leave

Addressing tho Court, Mr Gordon pointed out that ' anybody mustering sheep on a property must get the authority of tho occupier and the penalty for not doing so was a heavy lino and even imprisonment. However, defendant had acted honestly in trying to find out what had happened to the missiug sheep. Mr Ongley, oh the other hand, said only one interpretation could be placed on defendant’s words and actions. He had refused to accept any explanations and had laid a charge of theft with the Police even before taking tho trouble to go and count his purchase for himself. Then ho had refused au apology.

The Magistrate: I can’t understand his attitude there.

His Worship added that tho statements could be taken as an implication of theft but not necessarily so. Morris was entitled to go and ask Samuels to produce the 3kin without any implication of theft. Morris was also entitled to ring up Gaisi'ord to find out what the latter had done because defendant knew that Samuels had taken, one sheep and if it was his, then Gaisford had probably delivered one animal short. Gaisford was really to blame for the whole matter by his laziness in not separating tho sheep when he delivered them. However, Samuels recognised that he would have to produce the skin and had done so. Morris, on his part, should have apologised. Judgment was entered for defendant, each party to pay his own costs.