CHARGE OF SHEEPSTEALING.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXIV, Issue 248, 20 October 1900, Page 4

CHARGE OF SHEEPSTEALING.

THE CA IS DISMISSED. The hem-ing of ihe charge of slmling a sheep, the property ot t-amuel JiOKell, laid by tho I'oltce against John Marsh I Packer, was concluded in Uio Magistrate's Coin'i before Mr Robinson, fe.M., shortly after fuiiv o'clock yesterday ai'lcraooii. , The fallowing evidence {or tUo defence | was (a ken alter our report closed yesterdny: - in cross-exam inaton by r -ergt. Maokay, Iho defendant said blial. when the drafting of (lie sheep was being cariiud M\t on the ltstli ult. he identified one of Jickell's sheop, but he did not notice whether it had horns or not When ho gave the sheep to Close ho noticed that it had horns, but he did not know whether it was the one he had already identiliod as Jickell's. Austin 11. Bisloy gave evidence as to purchasing 00 sheep horn defendant j I JS were paid for, the odd one, a scrubber, being thrown in. Betore tho sheep wore drafted out nb tho yards witness understood duterdant to bo of opiniou that there were two of JickelVs sheep there, but nothing about this matter wa3 6aid after delivery. On the night before the sale defendant appeared to be anxious that Mr Jickell should bbo the eheep. btephen Packer, aged 15, son of defendant, said tiiat his father instructed ])im to leave the trap-load of sheep brought down by Mr Close at. Mr Jiekell's as there was one of Mr Jickell's sheep there. Henry Sowman stated that on the morning of the sale to Mr Bisley, deffendant called out to him to stopasheep. Witness could not stop it and it got away. Defendant never told witness that the sheep was .lidsell's. As witness passed the yards shortly before this he saw two sheep in a yard. The two following witnesses were called to testify to the character of tho defendant. MrThos. Field (Wilkiusi- Field) stated that he had kno.vn the defendant for about 20 /ears. Ho had always found him upright, and he was the last man in Nelson that witness would have expected to be the subject of such a charge as the present. Mr William Haddoiv said that he had various dealings with defendaut, and he could endorse the remarks of Mr Field. Mr Robinson said tho case was oae in which it >vould not be at all proper ta> convict. There had been a certain laxity on the pact of the defendant which .was objecti onablo in itsglf, but there was no evidence of criminal iateutiou. The defendant hud openly identified one of the sheep at tho yard as Mr Jickell's, and this ivas not consistent with any intention of wrong-doing. The fact that he instructed his sun to leave the sheep at Jickell'd paddock was also greatly in defendant'B favour. It was also proved that one of tho two sheep belonging to Mr Jickell, which wore yarded at the lime of the sale to Mr Bisley, hud then escaped, and the alteiation of tho item "one sheep" to "two sheep" in defendant's book at the time of Ins settlement with Mr Jickell could reasonably be assumed to have been done, as stated, on account of tho sheep delivered to Close, The charge was dismissed.