ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22879, 13 May 1936, Page 3

ALLEGED SHEEP STEALING

FATHER .AND SON CHARGED STATEMENTS BY THE ACCUSED UNUSUAL FEATURE OF DEFENCE A feature of the defence In a case in which father and son were charged in the Supreme Court yesterday was the suggestion by counsel for the son that his client had been the victim of a plan cunningly conceived by the father. The charges arose out of the disappearance of 73 stud lambs from a paddock in Stirling on January 27 last, and the accused were Alexander William Robinson and his son. John William Robinson, who were charged with having, on January 27, stolen 73 lambs, valued at £153 ■Os, the property of Robert Lochhead. They were further charged: That they received the lambs from some person or persons unknown, well knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained; that they conspired to defraud some person or persons then unknown by a letter to Messrs Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., representing that John Robinson was entitled to sell the lambs; that they obtained by a false pretence from Messrs Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., a cheque for £56 lis Cd on the pretext that John Robinson was entitled to sell 73 lambs consigned to Addington. The elder Robinson was charged with having received from John William Robinson 73 lambs, well knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained, and John Robinson with having, with intent to defraud, obtained goods valued at 14s 9d and £55 15s 3d in money on the pretext that he had a good title to a cheque for £56 lis 6d drawn by Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd.

Mr G. T. Baylec appeared for the elder Robinson, and Mr W. H. Carson for the son. Both of the accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) conducted the prosecution. DETECTIVE'S EVIDENCE.

Detective le Sueur, outlining the evidence for the prosecution, said that, when interviewed, the younger accused admitted stealing the lambs and railing them to Christchurch from the Lovell's Flat station the morning after he had stolen them. He also admitted receiving a cheque for £SO lis and cashing it at Gray's store at Milton. He made a statement to that effect and signed it. Later he said that he had given some money to his father, but declared that his father was not implicated in the theft. When witness and a constable went to the house where the father was living there was no response to their knock, although they could hear someone inside. Witness went to the buck door and saw A. W. Robinson crouching in a passageway. When witness called to him he came out. Asked why Ik did not respond to the knock, he said: " I did not know who it was." He was very agitated. He denied having received any money from his sqn. At the police station at Kaitangata, however, in the presence of his son, he admitted receiving £lO, but not £2O, from the younger accused. When witness was about to produce a statement made by the father, Mr Carson objected, on behalf of the younger accused, to the reading of any confession or statement made by the older accused. His Honor: It is admitted only against the person who made it. Witness then read the statement, in which the older accused denied that he was implicated in the theft in any way. While he was in custody in Dunedin, eaid witness, John Robh.son expressed a desire to see witness, and, on being brought to the Detective Office, said: " I did not steal those sheep on my own account. I assisted my father, and I do not wish to take .the whole blame. I would like to make another statement." Witness took the statement, in which the accused said that he assisted his father by ordering the truck, driving the lambs, and trucking them. The statement alleged that the father had been the prime mover in the whole matter, the accused stating that he had tried to shield the father as everything had been made out in the name of J. Robinson. It was suggested that the cheque was sent in the name of J. Robinson because he had consigned the sheep. Witness went to Kaitangata again and saw Alexander Robinson, who again denied that ho was implicated in the matter. Witness, who had in his possession the letters to Pyne. Gould, Guinness, Ltd., to whom the sheep had been consigned, asked the accused for a specimen of- his handwriting. He agreed, witness dictating the ktters received in Christchurch, and the accused writing them. _ Witness pointed out the similarity in the writing in the two groups of letters and similar errors in spelling, but the elder accused still denied that he had written the originals. After he had been arrested, however, he admitted that he had written the letters at the request of his son. He made a statement, in which he alleged that the son stole the sheep, telling him that he was pressed for money. Constable Irwin, of Kaitangata, gave corroborative evidence. This concluded the for the Crown, counsel for the defence indicating that they would not call evidence. COUNSEL'S ADDRESSES. In his address to the jury the Crown Prosecutor submitted that the guilt of both the accused on the charge of theft had been established. The fact that the lambs had been stolen by someone was transparently clear. Counsel referred to the movements of the accused as disclosed in their statements and suggested that they formed a plan to steal sheep and drive about the district to spy out the land. It was significant that the sheep in this case were driven a long distance to Lovell's Flat, whereas the Stirling station was only one mile and a-half away, and that the sheep were consigned to Addington and not to Burnside. It was also significant that the younger accused, while driving the sheep, was prepared to lie, stating, in answer to a question, that they belonged to a farmer named Hodge. In his first statement he made a frank admission of the crime, but at a later stage he furnished a further statement in which he suggested that he had drawn upon his imagination in making his first confession and that he had innocently been used by his father. Mr Adams discussed the statements at length and submitted that the work of separating 73 lambs from a flock of 200 at midnigh and taking them through another paddock to the road was the work of two men. Upon John Robinson's own confession he was a liar. Counsel asked the jury to accept the first statement, which showed clearly that he was at least one of the persons who stole the sheep. That the father had a share in the theft was made plain by the fact that he wrote the letters to Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd. Referring to the statement made by the father, Mr Adams said that he convicted himself by writing a letter with respect to the sheep with the full knowledge that they were stolen. When he accepted the money, moreover, he took what he knew to be the proceeds of the sale of stolen lambs. Upon the whole facts the proper inference was that the two men together stole the sheep. Mr Baylee said that there was no I evidence implicating tho elder accused

with the theft. It was true that the third statement of John Robinson threw the blamo upon the father, but the Crown Prosecutor had asked the jury to reject this statement and to accept the first. The first, which counsel suggested was the true statement, was a confession that the younger accused alone committed the theft. Similarly there was no evidence that the sheep were ever in the possession of the elder accused or that he conspired with the son to dispose of the sheep knowing that they had been stolen. Counsel, in conclusion, said that the jury had been asked to draw inferences as to what had happened, but he reminded the members that their oath was to return a verdict upon the evidence. They should reach their decision on the cvid nee alone. "I suggest that the son has beeu the victim of the cunningly conceived plan of an unscrupulous father." said Mr Carson in his address on behalf of John Robinson. The first statement of his client, counsel declared, contained conclusive evidence that the son desired to take whatever blame must be taken in order to shield his father. It was not unnatural that the son, after some days in custody, should have realised that he had been foolish in making the first statement and that h should have decided to tell the truth in a third statement. There were numerous details in this third statement which strongly supported the submission that it was the true record of what the son knew of the matter, showing that he acted in innocence.

Counsel's address had not been concluded when the hearing was adjourned until this morning.