Supreme Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVII, Issue 8563, 18 August 1904, Page 2

Supreme Court.

(Before his Honor Judge Williams.) YESTERDAY. The -charge against J. H. Chalmers, of sheep-stealing was continued. J. H. Chalmers, the accused, said he remembered Inspector Wills coming to his place on July 2nd, and calling his attention to one of the skins. He said that one ear appeared to have been recently marked. Witness did not remember one being recently marked. Witness said, "I did not do it," and then, "Probably I might have done it." Witness asked when he might have done it, and witness said he might have done it when he was killing the sheep. 'He had marked the ears of handfed iambs when they were being killed, if they had not been previously marked, to identify the skin. He thought that was usual. He had no experience of sheep until going on to the farm. He had been a storekeeper. He told Wills he put them off the ground the morning previous to keep them out of the way of dogs. He questioned Wills' authority for taking away the skins. There was another 6kin—a merino—witness handed to Wills, saying that he might take that also. He did this bei cause he could not understand why Wills was taking the skins, and remarked that it was some of Chapman's work. The rea- , son he said Chapman- was because he had , had trouble with Chapman: all along. , Wills said it was not Chapman, and drove away to Kurow, and witness remained at ] home. This was on Saturday, and witness was worried about the skins being taken away, and his boy told him what he had done. Upon- that witness went to Wills and told him of this. He told Wills that his boys were in. the habit of amusing themselves in this way. Wills did not appear to think the explanation satisfactory. He asked him to show him the law in the matter, and Wills told him there were others in the same position as himself. Wills made out that the penalty under the Inspection Act was £SO, and read the clause. Witness then went home and worried about the matter, and went down again after dinner, and had a long interview. Witness asked what Wills meant by a "satisfactory explanation" and repeated what he had said about the boy and the dogs. Witness asked him if he wanted him to say they were Chapman's. Wills made no Teply, and witness went on to explain how Chapman had been persecuting him, and told Wills what a trouble Chapman's sheep were to him. They were destroying his crop so much that he had asked Chapman to come and take his sheep away. He told him that Chapman had informed the Council about the yards and gates, and showed Wills a letter he had received from Chapman's solicitor threatening action for libel. He told him the history of the persecutions he had received at Chapman's hands. Wills said, "If Chapman got you in a corner he would never let you go." He heard Wills deny this yesterday, but would say that it was true. Wills said he was prepared to withdraw if his informant would, and said he would see him. He also said he would do nothing until he let witness know, and that concluded the interview. Wills helped witness on with his coat and appeared very friendly. He denied saying he had killed Chapman's sheep. He never, killed the sheep. Wills' statement that witness said he killed Chapman's sheep to repay himself was incorrect. Wills came to witness' place on the sth of July, when witness was clearing out his cow-yard, but he never said a word about the cow-yard, and Wills' statement that he did was incorrect. He came and said that he was going to prosecute witness, and witness said, "You know what you said, and I can defend myself." Wills then drove away. He came to Oamaru to consult his solicitor and brought a skin off the willows with him. It was the general opinion that dogs and vermin defaced the ears of skins. The remains of the near ear-mark on the skin in Court were not his; he put that mark on the other ear for ewes. He told Detective Fitzgerald that his son Malcolm might have killed that sheep, and he believed now Malcolm killed it. In speaking of the ewe that returned, he was uncertain if he said two lambs or twin lambs. He was not sure if they were twins. He lost 60 lambs before he sold his crossbredsand they had been coming back from different parties since. He killed the ewe in the paddock, because it was too far away, and put the skin- on the fence, and afterwards found it partly consumed in the state ii was now produced in Court. He first heard of a charge of sheep-stealing on a Monday night. He could riot state the date. It was before the muster, and when the police were at -Kurow; Sergb. King and Detective Fitzgerald both told him that night when he came from town. That was the night before he went to Chapman. The police told him that he was charged with stealing Chapman's sheep. He went home and worried over it. He had been to town to settle things between himself and Chapman, and thought his troubles were over. He suffered, and got up at 1 o'clock and walked about. At 6 o'clock he went to Chapman's and saw a light, and saw Chapman go to, call the boys. He was not there when Chapman first came out. He was there to ask Chapman to come to town to explain. He told him all about the ewe and lambs, the same story he told to Detective Fitzgerald. Chapman questioned him. It was in Chapman's bedroom, and John Chapman came in after. Chapman showed an inclination to withdraw when witness; mentioned his wife and family. He said, however, that he could not withdraw, as the police had taken the matter up. He had had no food and felt faint. Chapman, told witness to

plead guilty, but witness took no notice. He. "went away thinking he might just as well have remained at home. His object in going was thinking that an explanation would be all that was necessary. He wished to contradict Wills' statement that he had said he had killed Chapman's sheep. To Mr Creagh: He denied having seen a crossbred skirt on the willows spoken of by Wills, and he would contradict Wills regarding it. He killed the two-tooth ewe for mutton rather than the merinos on the land. He did not kill one sheep a week. The sheep had been killed about a month when Wills arrived. He was surprised to see marks at all. There was a doubt whether he marked the ewe. He asked the Chapmans to withdraw their statements because he considered bis explanation satisfactory. Chapman had sent him an account for forty odd pounds for a fence he had never ereceted. Wills did not suggest that he should say they were Chapman's sheep, but he said to Wills, "If I said they were Chapman's sheep would that be a satisfactory explanation J" He said this because he knew that Chapman was at the foundation of his trouble. It was before proceedings were taken, but after the skins were taken away, that he told Mr Orr of the ewe and lambs returning. To iMr Crawford: He had resolved to kill these crossbreds as soon as they came back, because they were always stragglers and would go away again. Be did not know where they came from. George Orr, Kurow, said his land was bounded on one side by Chapman's, and on the other by Chalmers'. It was a difficult thing to keep Chapman's sheep out. Cliapman's run was tussocky. -He had delivered three to Chapman and put another through the fence. He produced the skin of a halfbred sheep which he killed a week ago. He hung the skin on the fence, and next morning the ears were gnawed away. He often noticed the ears had been eaten oif skins. Sometimes one ear only was eaten off. He considered it impossible to identify the skins of such crossbreds as Chapman's by the wool. Chalmers told witness about the ewe and lambs returning three days before Sergt. King and the detective came up to investigate.

W. Pearson gave evidence as to mustering accused's sheep, and noticed that there were mutilated ears of all sorts, but-they were not unusually so. TO-DAY'S SITTING. Mr Crawford addressed the Court at length, reviewing the evidence and dwelling mare especially upon the alleged confession to Inspector., Wills. Referring to this, he stigmatised it as a "Star Chamber Inquisition" proceeding, as conducted in the dark ages. Ho pointed out that if this confession were really made, it should have been noted at once in the presence of a witness, which, he said, Mr Wills could easily have obtained. He said the police, who had been in Kurow for days, would have dropped the case if it had not beeni for Wills' evidence of the confession dragged from him at the last minute. He discounted Wills' statement that at the outset he was investigating a case under the Slaughtering and Inspection Act, alleging that lie was from the first getting up a case of sheep-stealing against accused in concert with Hille and Chapman. He held that his client did say, "They were Chapman's sheep," but not till after first saying, ' c Do you want me to say—" Accused was charged with stealing two of Chapman's sheep on the 20th June, bui it was not proved that he had stolen them. If they were Chapman's sheep there was no evidence to show whether the sheep killed had beeni killed by accused or his eon. He pointed out that if they were Chapman's sheep it should have been made the subject of a civil action by Chapman against accused to recover their value. He asked the jury not to convict the accused, but to go further than acquitting him, and say that he left the Court without a stain on his character.

Mr Creagh said he was not going to make a long address, but only to clear up a few of the inaccuracies in the evidence and referred to by his learned friend. It was not the duty of the Crown Prosecutor to injure an accused's character, but to see that the evidence brought against him is properly put before the Court. He then referred to the evidence briefly. Referring to the lad Chalmers' evidence, lie said he might be speaking the truth, but lie was a son of the accused, and there might be a doubt about it. He defended Mr Wills i against the aspersions endeavored to be cast upon his veracity, holding that he simply did liis duty in reporting the matter. He called attention-.to the statement i of accused about the returning ewe and lambs not being made until after proceedings were taken. He said it was absurd to think that the accused should think that his saying they were Chapman's sheep would be "a sufficient explanation! fofr his offence under the Inspection Act. If he only had to defend a charge under that Act why should he assume that it was a charge of sheep-stealing? Wills' friendliness to the accused could not be taken as though he wished to induce the accused bo make statements, but that he noticed he_ was suffering and wished to help him by giving him tune and opportunity to make an ex-pl-mation. Hel pointed out that the reason the witnesses Orr, Sutherland and M"lnnx3 W6re antagonistic to Mr Wills was because he was the rabbit inspector and had to keep thorn up to the mark regarding the state of their holdings nnder the Rabbit Act. He held that "Mr Wills' statement must be taken as correct as to what the accused had stated to him. He said Mr Wills had no motive in getting accused convicted for sheep-stealing. He pointed out that his statement, judging from his dftmeanor in the Court, should be taken as against that of the accused, who had everything to gain by discrediting it. His Honor, in summing up, said that the jury, before convicting the accused, must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he killed the sheep, knowing th&t they were Chapman's. He reviewed the evidence, and in referring to the statements made to Mr Wills, he said it was of the greatest importance, because if they were not satisfied about Mr Chapman's identification that spoke about it. He was just an hour summing up, and at 1 30 the jury left the Court, to consider their verdict-

After deliberating for thirty-five minutes, the jury returned into Court with a verdict of not guilty, and accused was disclfcvrged.