FARMERS FINED

Southland Times, Issue 25361, 13 August 1935, Page 4

FARMERS FINED

SHEEP-STEALING CASES PENALTIES TOTAL £l7O Fines totalling £l7O with solicitors’ fees, Court costs and witnesses’ expenses totalling over £4O were imposed on the three Balfour farmers, John Slater Shaw, John George Shaw and James Slater Shaw, who three weeks ago were charged before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., at Gore, on a large number of charges relating to the theft of sheep, wool and lambs and breaches of the Stock Act. Yesterday the Magistrate delivered his reserved judgment and imposed penalties as stated. The three defendants were charged on three counts with the theft of 27 sheep valued at £33 15/- and on four counts with the theft of 89 fleeces valued at £l7 16/-. The two sons were charged on four counts with the theft of 39 lambs valued at £32, the sheep, fleeces and lambs being the property of Fairplace Estate, McLeod Brothers, Copland Brothers and McKellar Brothers, owners of neighbouring stations. The three defendants were also charged with and pleaded guilty on three counts of failing to give notice of a muster and on four counts of neglecting to brand stray sheep on the head after shearing. Dealing with the facts, the Magistrate said: “These do not appear to be seriously in dispute except as to what took place at a surprise visit to the shearing shed of accused on January 15 last by John Luke Parsons, a neighbour. The position appears to be: What are the correct inferences to draw from the facts, whether guilty or innocence? The facts are that defendants, who are sheep farmers of many years standing and who claim to be experienced sheep farmers, were shearing their sheep in January of this year. Whilst shearing Parsons paid a surprise visit to defendants’ farm and his version of what took place and what was said I accept as true. I do not believe the defendants’ account of what took place. Parsons says the first person he saw was the father and he asked him if he had any of his sheep, to which Shaw replied that he had none, that his fences were in good order and he did not get any of Parsons’ sheep now. Shaw said he was busy and left Parsons. As Parsons stood on the road he noticed several of his sheep among Shaw’s shorn sheep in the ’paddock alongside the road. He then tied up his horse, went into Shaw’s paddock, went into the sheds for some raddle to mark the sheep and when coming out of the shed he met the two sons, the other defendants, and asked them the same question, namely, if they had any of his sheep, to which they replied they had none, and that they had not seen any of Parsons’ sheep recently. Parsons said they seemed surprised. Sheep Picked Out.

“Parsons then pointed out that they had just shorn some of his sheep and they replied that they had not noticed any and left the yard. They did exactly as their father did, namely, got out of the way. Walking away as all defendants did looks very suspicious. Parsons remained and in a few minutes picked out 12 of his sheep from that particular mob. These 12 were not branded, but Shaw’s had all been branded. All were shorn sheep. This shows that the Shaws recognized these 12 sheep as stragglers and this is consistent only with guilt intent. It is convenient here to refer to one point for the defence, i.e., that defendants, all say: ‘lt has always been our practice to shear all sheep whether ours or stragglers and after shearing to put the stragglers into the paddock adjoining the road and house.’ (They say they did this on this occasion.) They then notify the neighbours to come and get the sheep. This was the instruction from the father, so the boys say. They did not let the neighbours have either the lambs or the fleeces. John Shaw denied in the course of cross-examination that he had followed the practice of former years in shearing all sheep irrespective of ownership, but admitted they did it this year. They say that if they wanted to steal the sheep they would not have put the stragglers into a front paddock where every passing neighbour could see them. This sounds very plausible, but the facts will not bear inspection. I say, in any case all neighbours would know when the Shaws were shearing and the placing of stragglers in close proximity to the road means nothing. If this defence were genuine then I ask this: ‘When Parsons asked defendants if they had any of his sheep, why did they all reply they hadn’t any?’ Would not the logical answer be ‘Yes, look in the road paddock where we always put stragglers.’ The whole circumstances are consistent with guilt only, not innocence.

“I think that what defendants did and were in the habit of doing was this: Shear- all sheep (as admitted) and put them with their own sheep in paddocks handy to the road until after shearing. If neighbours made inquiry, so much the worse for them, if not, so much the better, when all sheep would be turned out with their flocks except a few which I suggest were returned to neighbours every year to allay suspicion. Some of the neighbours in their evidence said an odd sheep or two shorn by defendants was returned each year to them. It will be remembered that of the stragglers shorn some were branded and some were not. Presumably the branded ones would be the few returned in pursuance of their plan. The answers given by defendants to Parsons in view of defendants’ alleged practice are consistent only with guilt intent. I think the defendants were cornered and they thought the best way out of it was to deny they had any foreign sheep or had even seen any and then to get. out of Parsons’ way as soon as possible. This appears to have been done in pursuance of a plan because it would be noticed that all three adopted the same course. Muster Requested. “Now, as the result of Parsons’ visit he got in touch' with the stock inspector, who requested Shaw to muster The inspector says Shaw, sen., demurred and did not seem anxious for a muster. An honest man having nothing to hide would have been only too willing. A muster did take place and as a result no fewer than 121 stragglers were found among defendants’ flock, of which number 89 were shorn. Defendants’ answer to this large number is that they must have been picked up along the road when driving their flocks or had wandered on to their farms through defective fences. In this connection an endeavour was made to show that the road fences were not in good order, but the evidence disclosed the contrary. So far as the boundary fences across streams and gullies are concerned it was suggested that last year was a particularly bad one for stragglers because of heavy snow in the back country where drifts occur-, pushing down fences, and because of last year’s dry season, but it was proved that snow does not affect defendants’ property in the way that the streams were not more affected than previously. If the fences were as bad as defendants would lead the Court to believe, then defendants should have expected more stragglers and should have kept a sharper lookout for stragglers at shearing time. When approached by Parsons the father said the fences were in good order. All the farmers who were called stated that a practical farmer would have no difficulty in detecting stragglers. Defendants are practical farmers. No defence was raised as to confusion as

regards earmarks, so I need not deal with that aspect. “As to shearing neighbours’ sheep, as previously mentioned 89 put of 121 were shorn. An honest man would have placed these in a separate paddock and would not have shorn them. The fact of shearing them and not accounting to the neighbours until caught redhanded is an act consistent only with guilt. Defendants say they had an arrangement with one Hargest regarding shearing any sheep of his found on their property, but that is outside these and as Hargest was not called no reliance can be placed on their statement. In any case no such arrangement was made with any of the owners of the sheep alleged to be stolen, the subject of these charges. Now another circumstance which is ' of material weight is the fact that a considerable number of the foreign ewes on Shaw’s property were wet ewes and had lambs sucking them. What do we find? That not one straggler lamb was discovered. The Shqws had tailed them and had earmarked them with their own earmark. Is this consistent with innocence? Any farmer should know when his sheep are wet and should provide for one lamb for each wet ewe. Of Parsons’ sheep out of 17 found 12 were wet and five were dry. Number of Lambs.

“Once the lambs were earmarked and tailed it was not possible to identify them when in a mixed muster. It will thus be seen how simple it would have been for the Shaws to steal the lambs. The fat lamb sales were dose at hand and all fat lambs would have gone on their way. In fact the lamb buyer was expected either the same day or the day after the muster. Mr Bannerman raised the point that it was not possible for the prosecution to prove the exact number of lambs. This is quite so after the defendants had handled them, but the prosecution appears to be well within the mark when it charges the defendants with the theft of only 40. I presume the Court is permitted to take notice of the fact that a ewe if wet must have had a 'lamb, and if still wet at shearing time that lamb still survives. The number of sheep shdrn was 89. Of these 40 were wet, and I presume I must accept that there were at least 40 lambs. Then, of course, there were other lambs from unshorn wet straggler ewes. Mr Bannerman submitted that 121 stragglers on the muster were nothing out of the ordinary, but the defendants themselves do not agree with him. They admitted the • number was unusually high and were unable in the box to explain away such a number. Another point urged in favour of the defence was the fact that all neighbours had been paid for the lambs and fleeces, etc., and this was done immediately the defendants were acquainted with the fact that they had appropriated their neighbours’ lambs. There is nothing in this. It is just as consistent with guilt as with innocence. It might have been done in the hope that the neighbours would be satisfied without going any further. Shaw, sen., denied that the threat of the police brought immediate payment. “An endeavour was also made to saddle the whole responsibility on to James Shaw. It wgs alleged, and Mr. Bannerman said he would prove conclusively, that James, although 45 years of age, had a mind of a child of 12 years. His evidence in support failed absolutely. He called two doctors who admitted they had questioned James on the matter of sheep only, and not generally, which one would have expected them to do, and Dr Rogers in reply to me said that James was a little below normal, but not very much. Then it must not be forgotten that the father said he left the sheep to James. Is it likely he would do so if he thought James was subnormal? The neighbours when asked said they were unaware that James was looked upon as subnormal, and that they had not noticed anything wrong with him. If a person were simple one would expect people in the neighbourhood to know of it. I was asked to attribute the fact of so many sheep being shorn to carelessness on account of James being overworked and to put it down to gross carelessness as opposed to theft. I cannot see any possible reason for adopting such a course. I am satisfied he knew what he was doing and was following his usual practice. Statement to Police. “James tried to get over his statement to the police as did his brother John by expressing ignorance of what was in it, and stating that he and the police ‘made it up between them.’ When asked by Mr Macalister about his brother the previous year drawing his father’s attention to the number of stragglers in the yard and his statement to the police that the father told him to shear the lot, he maintained a puzzled look, but as soon as Mr Macalister said: ‘Don’t you remember your father telling John to ‘shear the lot,’ his face lit up with intelligence and he said: ‘Oh, yes, I remember that.’ For the 'time he appeared to have forgotten his adopted demeanour. Perhaps an earlier understanding of the Shaw vocabulary may have resulted in further admissions. The father protested that he had nothing to do with the sheep or the shearing in the 193435 season. He posed as a sick man. He said he suffered from blood pressure. However, he admitted his presence in the shed, working in the shed, sweeping up, etc., and when out of it there was no boss, that he alone held the purse strings, and one son said his father was in and out of the shed all the time. I am quite satisfied his was the guiding hand. He tried to act the ill man in the witness box, but he forgot his part when arguing with counsel by heatedly arguing his point and shaking his finger at counsel, necessitating a rebuke from the Court. Although he may not have actually'done any shearing or drafting he was there directing operations and admitted that when there he was boss and I do not doubt it. I am satisfied that all three defendants took part in the operations at and about shearing and were parties to the appropriation of the sheep, wool and lambs.

“I now come to the charge of failing to brand neighbours’ sheep, which they had shorn, and failing to notify intention to muster, to which charges all pleaded guilty. I think these matters are very relevant, and are strong evidence against a farmer charged with sheep stealing. The fact of not notifying a muster opens the way to theft, and the fact of not branding neighbours’ sheep which they had shorn clearly shows appropriation or intent to appropriate the fleeces, and possibly the lambs. If a straggler or two was missed in branding then no doubt that may be excusable, but here we find a considerable number. Then there are the police statements of the two sons. The father endeavours to get over these by suggesting a feud between him and the sons, the innuendo apparently being that the sons had given a false statement to the police. I am satisfied if there was a feud, which I doubt, then it was of very recent origin, probably for the purposes of this case and as the result of these statements. I must say that I have entirely disregarded the statements of the sons as evidence against the father and that I have decided the case against him-apart from the statements. I am unable to find in the many defences raised one set of circumstances from which I can reasonably infer that such were consistent with innocence only.” Serious Offence. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr H. J. Macalister) said that the offence of sheep stealing was and had always been revaYded in New Zealand as very serious. The present circumstances appeared to be a case of rather systematic theft from neighbours. All the defendants were experienced sheep farmers and knew what they were doing. It was perfectly clear they intended to

steal the sheep, fleeces and lambs. Nothing else was known against them. Mr R. B. Bannerman said the father was 70 years of age and suffered from blood pressure and in his case a sentence of imprisonment would be practically a death sentence. The youngest son was not absolutely normal. He suggested that the offences had arisen through a belief-that their neighbours were doing the same thing. The Magistrate said that as the cases had been reduced so as to be' dealt with by the Lower Court the penalty was limited. Therefore it would be necessary to impose penalties on each charge. The convictions would be several. He thought that in the words of counsel the father was the brains behind the matter, but on account of his age he did not propose to impose a term of imprisonment. On the three charges against the three defendants of failing to give notice of a muster the father would be fined £lO with Court costs 10/- and solicitor’s fee £1 1/on each charge and the sons would be fined £2 10/- on each charge. On the four charges of failing to brand, the father would be convicted and ordered to pay 10/- Court costs and solicitor’s fee £1 1/- on each charge. On the three charges of theft of sheep against the three defendants the father would be fined £lO with 10/- Court costs and £2 2/- solicitor’s fee on each charge and the sons would be fined £2 10/on each charge. On the four charges of theft of fleeces against the three defendants the father would be fined £lO with Court costs 10/- and solicitor’s fee £2 2/- on each charge and the sons would be fined £2 10/- on each charge. On the four charges of theft of lambs against the two sons each would be fined £2 10/- with £2 2/- solicitor’s fee, on each charge. Witnesses’ expenses, approximately £5, would also require to be paid. The fines totalled £l7O, with £5 Court costs, £5 witnesses’ expenses and £3O 9/- solicitors’ fees. i