SECOND EDITION MISSING LAMBS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17472, 22 January 1931, Page 8

SECOND EDITION MISSING LAMBS

STOCK SALE SEQUEL ALLEGATION OF THEFT Kidlnwing i in l AtaLuvlioro slock sali mi I li'i-ciii !>i■ r 1 !i, :i |ini-i'h:iser of ;i )im "f i ■"> lambs iliscuvered tlint the lamb: vi'iv missing, ,'iiiii this morning : ntiiliili' m:ni, (teorge Murray, :i)i ;it'.'i' J before Mr. I’. 11. Harper, S.'.M. * I ."riii'il ivilh having; stolen them. Tin 1 ii.i'g.’ to uiiidi .Murray pleaded no: guilty was of stealing on Deceinbe It', al Mat aw Hero, 15 hitnhs valued a' 'I its a. I, tho property of Alexainlet Watson Muir. Tho accused chose it " deal with in t lie lower con ft. 1 ’o! is ti ve M i-1 jOikl prosecuted, ain ■M r. A. A. Whit ahead appeared for tin 1 1; ■ft ■ n i-< ■. , Tiio facts as outlined by Detective McLeod were that Muir purchased If lambs and a' number of wethers at tin Matawhero sale on December lit, am after they had been counted out t< him, boxed them ail together in a small paddock in the yards, the tinu then being about 2 p.m. At about I.W ]i.nt. h'e went to take them home and found that the lambs were missing. On the satin' day tin* accused purchased a line of 23 lambs from one firm am! a line of 26 from another. They were counted out to him, anil he signed for that number. In addition ho was tusked by a friend to lake 40 sheep to Ormond. The whole lot wore boxed together, and he commenced to leave tlie yards with them. According to the accused's statement, when lie was leaving the yards his sheep became mixed with Muir’s, and seeing the lambs raddled in the same manner as his own lie drove them all away. The following morning, continued Detective McLeod, lie (tho detective) recovered the lambs from the accused’s property at Ormond. Evidence would be called to show that it would have been impossible for the accused’s sheep to have become mixed with .Muir’s. Kill isei ni ll i-ithe accused was a man with many years’ experience with sheep, and if Itis had been Imved with the others tho least he could have done would have been io count his own sheep over again. At the salevards here there was no final check on sheep at i he gate leading from, t he yards out on to the road, and the system lent itself to dishonesty. Detective McLeod’s explanation was con tinned by Alexander Muir and his sea, Raymond Muir, who detailed the uiYaiigi merits made to secure the sheep in the padd.., i at the yards, and by John Farits, who gave evidence of the parch::.,e m sheep by the accused, and ! of the arrangements at the yards. | in evidence Detective McLeod stated that on the da\v after the sale Muir idi ntilir d his 15 lambs on the accused’s property at Ormond, the rest, of the sheep being in another paddock, though the gates between the two paddocks were opened. The accused stated in evidence that he purchased pens of 23 and 20 lambs, and a f inn!, Jones, bought 45 sheep and lambs. Jones helped him to empty the three pens into the alleyway, and then left him. Witness drove the sheep through the yards and then noticed a number of lambs in a paddock which lie thought should have been in It's mob, judging from the raddle marks on them. He left his own nmb, and went over and took the wethers and lambs into the drafting yard, where he and Jones drafted the wethers from I lie lambs, putting the wethers bad: into the paddock and the lambs with his own mob. Assuming Iha i the lambs in the paddock were his, he did not count the mob. Witness denied any knowledge that the 15 lambs were there. He did not know the earmarks, and had beeil going by the raddle marks. The mob .had not been Liken right home flint night; had they been taken home and drafted the extra 15 lambs would have been discovered, and they would have telephoned to the auctioneers. The accused’s explanation of certain features of the matter was corroborated by Tlmmas Jones, who stated that he purchased 29 owes and In lambs at the stile. Witness also took over from Murray the pert of 23 lambs which Murray had bought. Witness marked till the lambs lie had purchased with blue raddle on the rump, and Murray marked his on the head, to distinguish them when they arrived home. Witness arranged with the accused for the latter to drive the stock home. Witness detailed the confusion at the yards as the mob was being driven out on to the road. Roy Vincent Gully, stock agent, stated that in his experience with the accused in stock dealings he had never had any trouble with him. Witness had examined the fence of the paddock at the yards, and in his opinion it was reasonable for a man driving lambs through the yards to think that some of the lambs' had got through a hole under the fence. Frequently sheep had been taken by mistake from the yards, ami on one occasion the accused himself' bought sheep and left one pen of them behind in llie yards. Usually ■when a farmer found that lie was short he communicated with the auctioneers, who commeitced to make inquiries, am! it was very often found that; another man had them amongst, his mobs byjnistake. In reply to the magistrate, witness stated that if the accused saw 15 lambs in the paddock and thought they were his, the natural thing for him to do would be to count his own mob roughly to see if there were any missing. The magistrate commented that the accused was charged with a very ser'fons , hut there was some doubt about the matter. In order to assist him to arrive at a decision he considered il advisable to inspect the yn rd s. Tin* mu id adjourned to enable an insimrl ion t o )v made.