MOTU SHEEP CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 14284, 28 April 1917, Page 9

MOTU SHEEP CASE.

INFORMATIONS DISMISSED.

The hearing of the charge of alleged sheep stealing at Motu against Robert Little and Robert Alexander Little, was continued yesterday afternoon, and tho information was dismissed. Additional evidence, was given as, follows : Constable Williamson, stationed at Motu",' stated that'oii' March 26 he was at Matawai -saleyards, : When Messrs Bright and Quirk made a complaint to him. In consequende he proceeded with thehi- to tlie > Ma.tawai trucking yards. P'rocoeding, witness 7 corroborated what otlier witnesses 1 said about the sheep belonging' to Bright,' Ori*, and Donovan being found. He said he asked accused, senior, ' : how ho "came m possession ofl the* five, sheep; aiid he replied that he had bad eyesight, and that he had 1 nothing to do with tlie- sorting, which wad done by -Eric (accused junior). Witness then asked the latter if lie could account for the sheep 'getting there, * and; jib said that owing to the wet when "'"working the sheep they might have overlooked them, otherwise it was a mystery how they got there. These sheep - were raddled the same as the' nest of "the mob. '

To j\ll' Burnard • They, were ■' half an lipur- jopking through .^he «li'eepi... It w^'.'hW treasonable- -for witness to request that tip. sheep be" turrifcd out of the truck. Accused " senior refused to allow 'them io be put' but. Mr ;Quirk had to crawl into the bottom.' 'floor - to get' his sheep*: " .'* ' '* ' '* This concluded the evidence. Mr Burnard said -this -was a 'case where the , evidence should be clear. Nothing had -be^n- pToved" to show that " accused senior was present at the drafting, and there' was" clearly no das© against him. Counsel also submitted : there was no cAse against the son. T.lie day was wet, the yards muddy, and the drafting was d(jne hurriedly, so that there was isdme excuse for^ any "slumming" that might' have taken place. ' Ownership had not been established m the oase of Bright's lamlp. H© had- previously sold lambs, aiid it might have been one of these that got amongst accused's sheep. As to Orr's sheep it could not be said three sheep picked out by Orr were stolen, for the mob had been placed m Orr's yard to enable him to pick out any of his sheep that might be there. "*l3iere was no suggestion that accused . • had attempted, to convert the sheep to his own use. Regarding tlie other two sheep claimed by Sri* Orr it was probable tliey were picked t up later. Detective McLeod;: Who raddled them? Mr Burnard replied it could not be said who raddled tliem. It was known that farmers' raddled' sheep for a vanjety of purposes. Had sheep:! 'got into another person's property that- person vould ha.v« raddled. them to distinguish them from Ids own, and it was likely these two got out on the road again. That left them with two sheep — a ewe .and a lamb. Because 1 two sheep were 'overlooked m a mob of 380 it was not unreasonable, and certainly was no evidence of theft. ■ His Worship said tliere was no evidence against accused senior, who was : discharged. : ' 1 ' As to' the son, his "Worship said lie [was not satisfied tliere was any evid,'enc© of' criminal intent 7 on accused's part. He had given' notice to Orr that "h«i was passing through, and .'"that- was !not the actioti of a miaii -wlfo'- wanted 'to I "get away" with another person's .sheep. "I am not satisfied upon, the (evidence," added his Worship, "that any [jury "in .the world -would, convict upon (the evidieh'c'e before me, and, that being jtlie case it wwild '"be wasting, the funds (of the country m sending accused for .(trial. There must be some evidence to S justify me that there was some -crinrmal on the part of the; accused, I ; do not find that there was, and accused j therefore will be .discharged.".