BACKBLOCKS SENSATION

NZ Truth, Issue 1063, 8 April 1926, Page 7

BACKBLOCKS SENSATION

Shepherd's Alleged Theft of sheep and Cattle DLALS IN WOOL AND MUTTON

• (From "Truth's" Hastings Representative.) The arrest of Henry Woon, a well-known shepherd, who was m charge of William Richmond's farm at Te Mata, on charges of sheep and cattle stealing, created a sensation m the Hastings district: ->> '•■,. '

THERE were m all nine charges brought against Woonr Five of these : were for stealing 18 sheep, valued at £22 15s, the property of William Richmond, six sheep value.l at £3 12s, the property of Frederick Glendon White, and 13 sheep valued at £19 15s, sd, the property of some person unknown. . He was also charged on three counts with stealing, on various dates between April, 1925, and January, 1926, 15 head of cattle valued at £106 15g, the property, of Richmond. A further charge was that he stoic wool valued at £12, also the property of Richmond. " . Magistrate R. .W. .Dyer, was on the Bench; Detective Fitzgibbbn ■ prosecuting and' Mr. E.-J. ;W. HallejLt looking after the interests of .the accused. The sheep-stealing. cases were-' taken first, and m opening his case the detective mentioned that the accused hacl been m the employ of 'William Richmond, sheepfarmer; and. meat exporter, for sevenj years. The Te Mata property was under the: complete control :of Henry Woon. Some'islwo years ago Richmond found discrepancies m liis returns and after investigation discovered that there was a leakage at TeMata. . Recently the matter was reported to the police, and after inquiries it was found that . Woon had been selling sheep to.a neighbor, killingr and selling carcases to a butcher, and freezing sheep under an assumed name. ■'■■■ Interviewed ..by the detective, accused admitted that he had killed and sold sheep but that they were -strays and did not belong to him- ' self or to Richmond. • ' ' .' „ Th;C first' of a large number of .witnesses, was Alfred Weaver^ a , " wool scourer, who stated that bver^a certain period he had received 248 skins from •Te-Mata. . ;:.i. >„-.,: ■.• . ■ ; .'iyiliiam-ißichmorid was'vexamined at -greac- length; '•■V.-; : ~> : '■'■ " ', ■• , ■' • ABNORMAL SUPPLY" He stated that Woon was allowed to kill one sheep a wedk for himself and the men on the place, and he was allowed to kill cull sheep for dog food when necessary. During the past twelve months Woon had accounted .-for. 23 skins of sheep, so killed and the normal killings for that period should be from 80 to 90. The 248 skins received by Weaver would be an abnormal supply. In the event of stray sheep being found at Te Mata it was Woon's duty to bring them under the notice of witness. . Witness went on to say that he had put a number of lamb's on the rape, at Te Mata and on counting the lambs later there were only 46, when there should have been 105. ; , He called Woon's attention, to - this and- accused said he could not account for it. ...Mr., Hallett:. You have known of strange sheep being at Te Mata? — Yes. What is done with strange sheep? — Usually- the owner- is found. If they are unclaimed, they are usually sold and the money, given to a public.institution. ..'. Have you heard of a farmer treating such sheep as his own?— I can't say that. . J Do freezing companies get. many strange sheep? — Yes, they are usually kept m a special' paddock. How would strangers get to the freezing works? — Well, m a year like this there are almost as many sheep on the road as m the paddocks (laughter). In November some 3000 sheep were shorn at Te Mata?— Yes. In such a mob it would- be possible to miss branding some?— lt is possible, but it would be very careless and it, would be noticed m subsequent shearing operations. ' WHAT CRAWFORD SAW Interest m the case livened up considerably when Robert: Crawford, an employee of Richmond's, gave evidence- x •Robert proved a real "canny Scot," and absolutely refused to be bustled by the questions of the accused's lawyer. Crawford stated that on January 5 he was at Te Mata and about 6.30 a.m. he started to walk to Havelock. On the way he saw a butcher's van from Havelock turn into the woolshed at Te Mata. Witness continued walking and a little later was overtaken by the van and given a lift to Havelock North. At Havelock he saw five mutton carcases taken - from the van to - Hook's butcher's shop. . ■ On February 1, witness was again at Te Mata' and at this time he had received .certain instructions from Mr Richmond. . (Mr. Hallett objected to the instructions being detailed). Continuing, witness stated that as a result of the instructions he satisfied himself that sheep which •had been m the adjoining paddocks had disappeared. ' The next morning, just before daybreak, he went into the killing house and saw six carcases of mutton which had recently been killed. An hour or two later he heard a motor "vehicle approaching, so he watched from a distance and saw the butcher's van pull up at the slaughterhouse door. . Woon and the driver then started to load the carcases into the van, but after the first two 1 had been loader they .'heard another van passing down the road. , • Woon and the driver disappeared very quickly and after "the vehicle had passed went on loading again. ...

George Haarer, an employee . at Te Mata, said that he had assisted Woon m docking operations and expressed the opinion that some lamb's which had not been docked should have been. c On the evening of February 1, Woon mentioned that he intended to kill a sheep for "dog tucker," but the next morning witness saw a bundle of six fresh skins m the killing house. At least four of these were branded with the Richmond wineglass. On February 3 Woon told SvTfh ess that he had been to see Smith and the latter had stated that he had been visited byf the police. "Woon told me," said witness, "that Smith had given information to the police about buying 20 sheep from him." ' Woon said he had not sold the sheep, but that Smith had taken them and he and Woon had divided the profits. Mr. Hallett objected to the evidence' of this witness and _although the objection was noted it was allowed as showing system. A DEAL IN MUTTON. . Alfred Hook and Roy Ambrose Wellwood also gave evidence which Mr. Hallett objected to. The former detailed deals he had made with Woon. for the supply of mutton for his shop. Wellwood's evidence was that he had bought sheep from Woon and also sold them for him m his (Wellwood's) own name. . The cash was paid to Woon. Detective Fitzgibbon stated that he Interviewed Woon, who made and signed a statement to the that during the last two years he had not supplied anyone except Dunn and Crawford ' (two employees) with mutton. .. . . .._. , .... ■ He said. that he: had no sheep but that he- sometimes bought and sold / cattle and' had put cattle through Whakatu m Wellwood's name. He admitted selling sheep to Hpok, but stated that they were strangers which did not belong to himself or Richmond. , ) He had also sold cattle to Hook and accounted for the money to Richmond. He had accounted for 14 skins at Richmond's office and if 248 skins had been delivered to Weaver he could not account for it. ' , The charge of the theft of wool was then taken; . ' Detective Fitzgibbon stated that last year Mr. -Richmond found a shortage m wool and this year he was present at the operations. At the conclusion of the. shearing ' there was a bale of wool m the shed and Woon could not account ■ for it. A quantity of wool was set aside to be delivered to Weaver, but this was not delivered and it was afterwards found that Woon had sold it 'to Newrick, a wool buyer. Evidence on ,-these lines was given by W. Richmond, Alfred Weaver and James Newrick. . ... . ■ . The third day of the case was occupied with the hearing of the charge of the theft of ' three cows valued at £25, the property of William Richmond. . The other two cattle-stealing charges were adjourned sine die. In opening, the detective stated that the evidence would show that without right Woon had earmarked the cattle and put' them through ' the Whakatu freezing works m the name of Ambrose Wellwood. George H, aar e'r gave evidence that Woon took three-' cattle to the branding paddock and with an ear -mailer and knife defaced the existing ear marks. A piece was taken out of each ea>* and Woon buried the pieces m the ground. Later the witness recovered them. W. Richmond and Archie McConachie gave formal' evidence. * 'fFOR OTHER PEOPLE" Ambrose Wellwood related ho\r he had put cattle through the Whakatu works m his own name for Woon. His description tallied closely with that of George Haarer concerning the cattle on which the ear-marks were defaced. Alfred Hook detailed dealings m cattle he had mads with Woon, who said he was selling the cattle for other people. On one occasion he stated he was selling some cattle for Richmond. This concluded the evidence arid at this stage Mr. Hallett contended that there was rio evidence to justify committing accused on at least three charges — the cattle and wool thefts and the theft of White's sheep. In regard to the latter; the accused wan driving sheep on the road and picked up some strays. At the end of his journey he mentioned this fact, but had nothing more to do with them. ■ v v . In regard to the wo.ol and cattle the only evidence was of a sale and this was not' sufficient for a conviction. The prosecution- had riot proved that Woon did not own the wool and cattle and it was for the pro- ' secution to prove a sale by fraud and without color of right. Thhs > had not been done. ' ;. ;; • The Magistrate, however, held that a prima facie case had been established on each charge arid the accused, who pleaded riot guilty to all charges, was committed for ; trial at the" Napier Supreme Court.