SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23107, 5 February 1937, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

ALLEGED CATTLE STEALING GUILTY ON THE SECOND COUNT The hearing of the charge against John Riely, a farmer, of Otokia, of cattle stealing, was continued at the Supreme Court yesterday. The charge was that Riely, on or about November 10, 1936, at Otokia, stole two steers, of a value of £2O, the property of Eliza Jane Walker. On an alternative count Riely was charged with receiving the two steers from some person or persons unknown, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. Mr A. J. Neill appeared for the accused.

Constable Southgate, stationed at Outram, said that on November 2,1936. he had interviewed the accused regarding some rabbit traps. On that occasion the accused said that he had no cattle. The cattle on his farm, he said, belonged to Alex Murray, and were being grazed there. Aberdeen Angus-Hereford cattle were not bred on the Taieri, but occasionally an animal of that cross was brought into tfio district by dealers. On November 22 witness said that he had made a seaich with Detective Gibson and Constable Marshall on Ricly’s property Mr Murray and his son had just completed a muster before the police had arrived, and they had four cows m their possession. A large proportion of the farm was in heavy bush. Detective Gibson said that on November 20 he and Constable Southgate visited Mrs Walker’s farm to investigate the loss of two steers from the farm. There were eight steers on the farm of the Aberdeen Angus-Hereford breed. On the following day he had gone to Messrs Waters, Ritchie, with John Walker, and had taken possession of two skins, with the face and ear trimmings. Subsequently he had taken possession of four other skins. On November 21, 1936, witness .had, with Constable Crawford, interviewed the accused, who said that he had bred the two steers from which the hides had been obtained from Messrs Waters Ritchie. The accused had said that the steers were Shorthorn-Jersey cows. The accused denied stealing the two steers. He said that he owned about 13 head of cattle. Riely had made an explanation, which witness had taken down in writing. Riely stated that he had driven the two steers from his farm to Ralston’s farm. He saw no one when driving them there, and there was no one at Ralston s farm when he arrived there. . Detective Gibson then gave evidence regarding the visit made to Riely s farm on November 22. No cattle were discovered on the property. It was approximately five miles from Riely s farm to Walker’s farm, and approximately five miles from Riely’s farm to Ralston’s farm. This closed the evidence for the prosecution. , , Mr Neill said that he did not propose to call evidence. Mr H. S. Adams, acting Crown Prosecutor, outlined the evidence for the Crown, and submitted that the evidence was quite clear—that the steers which Mrs Walker had on her farm had been bred on the Glen Lyon Station by the witness Preston, and that subsequently they had been purchased by Mrs Walker. The chain was complete from the Glen Lyon Station, where the cattle were bred, to Mrs Walker’s farm. Mr Adams dealt with the sale of two steers to Ralston, the butcher, by Riely, and said that the Crown claimed that the hides m court were from the two stefsrs missing from Mrs Walker’s farm. Riely stated that he had bred the two steers, and in order to refute that statement the prosecution had called a certain amount of evidence from farmers in the district to enable the jury to discover whether there were cattle at Riely’s farm. The Crown submitted that the explanation given by Riely was not a satisfactory one, and held that the two steers were stolen from Mrs Walker’s farm. Mr Neill, in his opening for the defence, criticised the Crown for refusing the defence permission to inspect the hides. Counsel submitted that Preston was not the only breeder in the South Island of the Aberdeen Angus-Hereford cross, as Mr Lindsay, who lived close to the accused, had steers of this breed. It was quite clear that the breed was not restricted to any one part of the country. Touching on the question of the identification of the hides, Preston had said that three hides on exhibit were Shorthorn and one Holstein, and Johnson had said that they were Hereford and Shorthorn, and they both could not be right. Counsel said that the two cattle sold by Riely to Ralston, the butcher, had been driven in broad daylight from Riely’s farm to the farm of the son of Ralston senior. Was that the act of, a guilty man. who stated that it had taken him two or three hours to do the journey? Counsel referred to the ear-marks on the two skins obtained from Messrs Waters Ritchie, and which were from the two steers sold by Riely to Ralston, and to the 'diversity of evidence, and submitted that the cattle that were taken to Ralston were not Mrs Walker's cattle. The witness, Edwards, had stated that the cattle sold to Mrs Walker were in forward condition, and that they were worth about £lO each, what did Ralston, the butcher, say? That they were not in good condition, and that he considered they were not worth more than £6 each. That would be the kind of cattle from Riely’s farm, which was poor, hilly country. Counsel asked why Alexander Ralston, jun„ and Eric Ralston, and a man named Thomson, who had given evidence in the lower court, had not been called in the higher court. Surely they could have given evidence about the condition of the animals. Were these witne;3ses not called because the Crown Prosecutor thought they would not assist the case for the Crown, but assist the case for the accused? These were the witnesses who could have identified the hides qf the animals sold to Messrs Waters, Ritchie. Counsel referred to the fact that the cattle at Mrs Walker’s farm were hill-bred and seldom handled, and that it was strange that two could be taken away from the herd without anyone seeing them, and that nobody had seen Riely in possession of them. Counsel said he would place four points before the jury; (1) Why did not the Crown muster on the Hope Hill Station when Riely said that he had 13 cattle there, and that two were Polled Angus cross cattle —one heifer and one steer? (2i What evidence had they of the accused taking cattle? (3) Why were witnesses called in the lower court to give evidence not called for their evidence in the higher court? (4)—-The vital point in the Crown's case—Why were the Ralston brothers and Thomson not asked to identify the hides as from the cattle received from Riely? The Crown Prosecutor said he had informed Mr Neill that the witnesses referred to would not be called by the Crown and that he had given Mr Neill the opportunity of calling them if he wished. Mr Neill said that he had been officially advised of this only on the previous morning. After his Honor had summed up the jury retired at 3 o’clock and returned at a-quarter past 4 with a verdict of not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second count. The prisoner was remanded for sentence to 10 o’clock on Tuesday morning. ALLEGED ATTEMPTED BREAKING AND ENTERING John Coory appeared on a charge of attempted breaking and entering of a shop by night, Mr H. S. Adams appeared as Acting Crown Prosecutor, and the accused was represented by Mr J. G. Warrington. The first witness called was Macdonald Brown, who gave evidence of photographs taken by him of the locality of the crime. Randall Wilfred James Wakrow. manager of Shillings, Ltd., gave evidence concerning a broken window and grill, and he was followed by Charles Robert Chilcott, nightwatchman to the firm, who testified along the lines of the evidence given by him in the lower court. At this stage the court was adjourned for 10 minutes by his Honor to enable a sketch plan of the locality to

be produced for the guidance of the court. Sergeant Donald Austin produced the necessary plan, and explained it to the court, after which he was stood down to bo called again later. Mr Warrington suggested that the jury should be given an opportunity of inspecting the locality, as the outcome of the case would hinge largely on the scone of the alleged crime. His Honor agreed to the suggestion which he indicated could be implemented at a later stage. Chilcott was still in the witness box when the court adjourned until this morning.