MISSING STUD SHEEP.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4434, 14 August 1901, Page 2

MISSING STUD SHEEP.

A MANAWATU CASE. ■ At the criminal sittings of the Supremo Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice, a charge of shccp-sleating preferred against fValter Richmond, of Glen Orona, was hoard. Mr Myers prosecuted, and Mr Moore (Palmerston North) appeared for the ac cuaed. Mr W. 13. Leos was foreman of the jury. Mr Myers, in opening the case for the Crown, S rtid the accused was a farmer. He had a small farm at Glen Orona, a few miles from Palmerston North. Mr Robert Cobb, the owner of the sheep which the accused was alleged to have stolen, resided at Palmerston North. He had different properties, one of which was at Orona bridge, near Glen Orona. One of the accused’s neighbours was another small farmer, named Charles Happing. It was submitted for the prosecution that when the sheep came into the possession of the accused he intend ed to steal thorn, and to deprive their owner of permanent possession of them. In April, 1900, Mr Cobb had a flock of about 180 stud sheep. They were Lincolns and Romneys. About 140 or 150 of them were Romneys which Mr Cobb had bought himself. The remaining thirty or forty were Lincolns which lie had .purchased at tho price of three guineas each from the New Zealand and Australian Land Company at Onniaru. When these sheep reached Palmerston North, the Lincolns and Romneys wore all placed together. Mr Cobb turned them out on his property at Orona bridge. He marked them with blue raddle, which would remain visible for about six months. In addition, the sheep had .ear-marks by which they could he more or less easily identified, quite apart from any distinctive features of the animals themselves. Mr Cobb did not put his own ear-mark on the sheep before lie turned them out. It was not necessary for him to- do so. Three months afterwards Mr Cobb mustered the sheep, and found that they were seventy short. Ho caused inquiries to be made from persons in the neighbourhood, and recovered forty-one of the _ sheep, which left twenty-nine still missing. Mr Cobb heard nothing of these twenty nine sheep and saw nothing of any of them until March of 1 the present year. These were the sheep mentioned in the indictment. While Mr Cobb was making inquiries he visited the accused’s farm, but did not go, round it. He made inquiries from someone on the place, hut lie could not, say that it was the accused. Ho also went to Hopping’s farm, where ho saw ten sheep, which he at once said cyere some of those ho had missed.. Tho sheep were in a- different condition to that in which they were in when they were missed. Nine out of the ten had the portion of tho ear which was marked cut off. Not onlv that, but they had a newear mark. This was the distinctive clover-leaf mark used by the accused, who admitted that it was made on the sheep by himself or in accordance wi til his instructions, under certain circum* stances. Mr Cobb wrote a letter to the accused, and on the following day re ceived a reply in which the accused said that if the sheep were Mr Cobb’s, he (the accused) was very pleased to have found their owner. Mr Myers submitted that the explanation given by tho accused m his letter was not the true one of his possession of the sheep. The accused sold -the ten sheep to Hopping for 11s each. At the time of the sale the accused stated that lie had bought them with other sheep at Feilding. In March, on hearing some rumours. Hopping had a talk with the accused, who repeated that he got the sheep at Feilding, but, after some conversation, said he got them on the main road. He also said he had killed and c aten some of the sheep that he - got on tho road. This might ho an explanation of what became of the balance of the twentynine. Hopping afterwards communicated with ,Mr Cobb. There was an unsigned letter, written by the accused to a third person named Hammond, who was in effect requested 'to tell Hopping, who was one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution, and who could not read, that lie had better he careful, because if he gave evidence which would harm the accused, he (Hopping) would him seif be prosecuted for having bought sheep which he knew to have been stolen. If the accused was innocent of the charge brought against him, why should he have written a letter of that sort?

The Crown witnesses wore Robert Cobb, Charles Hopping, Gerald Tolhurst, John Mudfcrd, Arthur Edwards, Paul Grimwold, Frank Bishop, Robert Hammond, and Norman Gorton. No evidence was called for the defence. '

Mr Moore,, in bis address ,to tire jury, said that evidently the boundaries of Mr Cobb’s property at Oroua bridge would not keep sheep in. At any rate a good many got astray. Some of them went along the main road. Some went into different persons’ places. Was it not a reasonable suggestion to say that some of them got into the accused’s place also ? At any rate, it seemed that only ten got into hi® place. Mr Cobb did not seem to bo. very clear about the former earmarks of the sheep. It was mostimpro» bable that the accused, /if lie had been guilty, would have gone to one of his neighbours and told him the whole tale. Hopping was hard of hearing. Counsel suggested that he'did not fully hear what the accused said —that what the accused really said was, ‘“Oh, yes, according to all accounts I drove these sheep into my place, and I have eaten some of them; _that is the yarn that is about.” There would be talk about the sheep in the neighbourhood, and that was probably what the accused said. It was said that he did not ask bis neighbours about the ownership of the sheep, but it had to be remembered that his neighbours were dairy farmers, who did not own sheen. If the accused had had any intention of stealing the sheep, he would' have sold them months before ho did, and not have kept them for nearly a year. It was most unlikely that the accused would cut the sheep’s ears to remove the ear marks, for he.Vwould have known that to be a fraudulent act. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the accused had no criminal intention at first, and that when a considerable time elapsed and no owner turned up, he came to the conclusion that the sheep had no owner. His Honor, in summing up, said that a man had no right to drive sheep off a

pnbh’c road with the intention of making them his own. It lie found the sheep straying on his huui, he had no rigid to take'permuuent possession of them, oup posing the accused found the sheep strav ing on las land, with raddle brands and ear marks on them, and saw chut they wore good sheep, was it not absurd to suggest that he could not have found their owner? All car marks were registered. The accused put his own ear mark on the s hecp. Why did he do that? It was for the'jury to say who removed the original ear marks. Thay had .seen the sheep, and it ms for them to say whether the original ear marks were not removed by the man who made the ear marks that were now on the sheep. What more potent evidence was there of theft than the removal of the ear marks? While the ear marks were on the sheep, their ,owner could easily have oeeu found. Theaccused's neighbour who found some of Mr Cobb’s sheep on his farm and advertised for the owner- took the proper and honest course. The only thing that would justify the accused in keeping sheep which strayed ’on to his land would he a genuine belief that their owner intendeu to abandon them. Could it bo thought for a moment that pedi gree sheep, which were ear-marked, would be abandoned? Did not the removal of one car-mark and the making of another show an intention to deprive the owner of jmssession of the sheep ? Was it like1-- That the accused, living four or five miles from Mr Cobb’s place, would no* hear that tlio .sheep) were missing? The jury might assume that he did not hear of it, but even if he did not, how was his conduct in regard to the ear marks to be explained? The sheep in question had been given up to Mr Cobb, and he had been paid for wool shorn from them. The jury found the accused guilty, but expressed the hope that his Donor would take a lenient vuTw of the. case.

A special issue, “Do you believe that the accused took the sheep oil the road meaning to keep them ?” was answcrd by the jury in the affirmative. The prisoner was remanded till Friday, to enable the probation officer to make a report in the meantime. The Court adjourned till this morning, when a ebargo of assault and robbery preferred against Albert Watkins, a Pal* merston North case, will be heal’d.