ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 11 September 1937, Page 2

ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING

1 CHARGES AGAINST TWO MEN DISMISSED . I ‘ [ 1 THE MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT I I ' 1 i [ The charges against Herbert Harold I j Rosanowski and Neil Royston Currin 1 of sheep stealing were dismissed by Mr ' T. E. Maunsell, S.M. in the Magistrate’s '[Court yesterday afternoon. The hearing of evidence was continued in the ’; afternoon. ; Detective J. McLeod prosecuted and . [Mr J. R. Kerr appeared for accused. , ! Harold Griffiths said that while i; shooting on Borlace’s property he • ! found a sheep skin of which he took i [possession. There were no ears on the ( skin. On 2nd August the accused called and asked for the skin which he [refused to give them and Rosanowski [ [said he would ring up the police. He "[identified a skin (produced) as the one Jhe found on Borlace’s property. , [ Cross-examined by Mr Kerr witness said he helped to kill a lamb of Bori lace’s at Rosanowski’s request, the ) latter stating that he had authority to i kill it. Harry C. Fitz-Simmons, of Lake Roto-iti, said he let Mr Griffiths put the - skin he found in his (witness’s) shed. 1 He knew Rosanowski and his Wife and Currin and knew them to be of good character. Detective J. McLeod gave evidence [ of interviewing Currin who made a , statement, which he read, in which : Currin stated that he killed a sheep for Rosanowski, who said that he had : permission to kill it. Witness also ; read a statement made by Rosanowski, who said that Borlace had given him permission to kill sheep for campers. He notified Borlace each time he killed a sheep. When Currin killed the sheep he did not remove the ears. Both the accused were very frank, ; said witness to Mr Kerr. Neither had previously been in trouble. Mr Kerr said that there could be no case against Currin. He was in the same position as Griffith and relied on the assurance of Rosanowski that he had permission to kill sheep. Counsel considered that their actions were straightforward. Detective McLeod said that the fact that Currin waited three days before , communicating with Borlace signified a guilty mind. He did not get into touch with Borlace until he found the skin was missing. Mr Kerr suggested that Borlace had some motive of his own in bringing the complaint and he accused Borlace of callousness, and a desire to get Rosanowski off the property. He submitted a doctor’s certificate as to Rosanowski’s condition. The Magistrate said it ’could not i affect his coming to a decision as to : accused’s guilt. The fact that Borlace had given ; Rosanowski half a lamb after the lat- ■ ter killed several was not compatible with Borlace’s statement that he had given no authority for killing sheep, said Mr Kerr. The delay in notifying Borlace of the killing of the sheep was due to their being at Rotoiti and it was not easy to get into touch with Borlace. Evidence was given by Neil R. Currin as to the killing of the sheep. He did not worry about the skin being missing as he thought dogs had taken it. It was only after the skin was found in Griffith’s shed that he rang Borlace. He believed that Rosanowski had authority to kill sheep. To Detective McLeod witness said he was sure he left the right ear on the skin. They had left the carcase till night before collecting it so that it could cool off. He did not know that meat would get fly-blown up there in winter. Mr Borlace did tell him that sheep had been killed by Rosanowski and he had been paid for them but was annoyed about it. The Magistrate said he was quite satisfied with Currin’s explanation and that he was innocent. The information against him was dismissed. Rosanowski gave evidence in which (he said he had killed sheep-of Borlace’s with his permission. Prior to this last transaction he had killed four sheep and three lambs, and had paid for them all. To the Magistrate he said he had Borlace’s permission to kill sheep when he needed them and he let Borlace know when he wrote to him. To Detective McLeod witness said there was no agreement about paying rent, but he identified a receipt given to Borlace for the yearly rental of land. Detective McLeod suggested that witness left it late before collecting the sheep so that he would not be seen, but witness denied this. Elizabeth J. Rosanowski, wife of the accused, said that she was present when the arrangement was made about killing sheep. Mr Borlace had said, “If you can sell sheep do so and I will allow you to kill them.” Her husband had killed four sheep and three lambs and the sheep in dispute. Mr Borlace had been paid for these. Their relations with Mr Borlace had always been friendly. The Magistrate said it was a matter of word against word. He w-as satisfied that accused had no authority to kill sheep but he might have imagined he did. The arrangements between them had been slipshod, and in the circumstances he proposed to give the accused the benefit of the doubt and dismiss tiie information.