Supreme Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVII, Issue 8562, 17 August 1904, Page 2

Supreme Court.

(Before His Honor Judge Williams.) The chaa-ge of sheep stealing against John Howard Chalmers was continued. The case for tlio prosecution was concluded and Mr Crawford, after opening the ca-se for the defence, called Walter Sutherland, sheep farmer, at Kurow, who said there was nothing on tho crossbred skins which they could bo identified toy. He would 6ay the ears have not been interfered with. Tlio brand might have been blurred by passing through the fences, rubbing against rocks, etc. Ho could find live sheep in his own flock with the brands in the samo condition. These being skins of stragglers they were the more likely to be reduced to their present condition'. He did not think the little mark on tho oar was tho remains of a largo fork mark, and the back bit was not sufficient to be taken as a back bit. Ho knew Chapman's brand, and it was put on in all sorts of ways. That kind of crossbred was very common' at Kurow. The accu6od's ram. crossed with ewes carrying wool similar to that produced would produce a lamb of the same description as the skins in Court. Mrs Smith, a neighbor of Chapman's, has as ear mark a fork on the near ear and two back bits on the other oar. To Mr Creagh: Wills went to Simpson's land to see if there were rabbita there, but he believed he did not speak tho truth 011 that occasion. He would be surprised to hear that Mr Simpson admitted, before his death, that he was partly in the wrong. He did not think the ear marking would be plainer a month ago thani it was now ini spite of all the handling the skins had had. He did not think the wool on the skins had been cut off, but it had como off in getting through fences. Archibald M'lnnis, farmer, Strachans, being asked if ho bought sheep from accused and if accused told him anything, was not allowed to give tho conversation, his Honor ruling that it was not evidence Witness was allowed to say that ho bought the lambs and wanted more, but aocused said some were missing. He often had Chapman's stragglers and liad some now. Ho knew them by the ear marks. Looking at tlio remains of the ear mark on the skins produced he would say it was the Otekaike mark. He failed to see the remains of a fork. He would not consider the back bit an ear mark at all There was nothing in the wool that showed the skin belonged to a particular class of crossbred. Cross-examined by Mr Oreagh: Ho would not pit his experience of sheep against, that of Mr Chapman l . Looking at tlio ear on the skin, he considered it might be a pimplo that the witnesses said was the remains of a fork mark. The sheep of Chapman's he had was of the same class as the skins came oft'. He took delivery of accused's lambs at the end of March or the beginning of April this year. John Chalmers, son* of accused 12 years of age, said he remembered Mr Wills coming to the house and taking away tho skins. He remembered the conversation in tho house, and nearly all the family wero present. He told his father he had earmarked the 6kin B. Bo recognised the skin as one he ear-marked with a pocket knife. He did it while the skin was on a rail The knife belonged to his brother Malcolm. There was no ear-mark on at the time and he marked it for his father. The ear had no fork mark in l it. Wlicn ho cut the top off the pieces came away in two pieces, and lie let them, lie in the yard. He could not say how long the skin had been off when he did this.

To Mr Oreagh: Ho marked tho ear before the day Mr Wills took the skins away. Ho marked other skins in the samo way. He marked the ears with his father's earmark just for amusement. Ho had done this two or three times during the last two years. When ho marked the one ear he thought tlio proper mark would be on the other ear. A. M'lnnis, recalled, stated that he had bought rams from accused and raised lambs with similar wool to that in the two crossbred skins produced. He had known Chalmers for 18 years, and considered he had a good character. John Palmer, Kurow, stated that lie had expert knowledge as a wool-classer for over 40 years. Hs considered the skins in Court could not be identified 'by the wool on them. They could not be identified by the brands. The ears on skins were frequently attacked by- dogs and vermin. Looking at the skins, ho would not say an ear had been cut off. He could see no sign of previous ear-marking. He could see no sign of a fork. David Chalmers, son of accused, said his father branded his sheep with a wire brand, and it was much larger than tho wood brand in Court (letter N) which had at one time been used. He remembered a lamb being about with a black spot on its side, and the next time his father mustered it had Chapman's ear-mark on it, and it went to Chapman's, and they did not get it back again. To Mr Creagh: He had not been at home for 18 months, and his father might have been using the wood brand since he left home. James Phillips, farmer, Kurow, said that part of Chapman's 600-aere block was between his holding and Chalmers'. He found a good many of Chapman's sheep on his land at times. He sometimes found Chapman's brand on them—not often, though.