SECURITY IMPAIRED

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 55, Issue 3977, 12 November 1937, Page 5

SECURITY IMPAIRED

AROHENA SETTLER COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. TROUBLE OVER SHEEP UNDER BILL OF SALE. A resident of Arohena, Thomas Flett, was charged at the local Court this morning “That at Arohena between. December 15, 1936, and September 9, 1937, being the grantor of an Instrument of security over 198 wethers, dated December 15, 1936, to His Majesty the King, without the consent of His Majesty the King fraudulently did slaughter some of the said wethers, and thus did impair the security of His Majesty the King over the same.” The prosecution was laid by Richard Kerrish Ellinghr.m, of the Stock Department, for whom Mr H. T. Gillies (Hamilton) appeared, while Mr S. S. Preston appeared for Flett. On the Bench were Messrs S. H. Dunkley and G. A. Empson, Justices. A plea of not guilty was entered. Mr Gillies said he would not address the Court, merely -calling evi dence, but would answer any questions on law asked by the Bench. Edward Clive Boulton, in evidence, said he was a fields inspector of the Ciown Lands Department, at Te Kuiti. One of the farms tinder his supervision was that of Flett (the accused) , section 24, block 18, Wharepapa S.D. Flett had been assisted financially by the Department by way of an advance under the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1929, on stock, cattle and improvement. On January 8, 1937, the Crown Lands Commission paid Newton King Ltd. £249 19s 6d for 198 wethers, and a bill of sale (produced) was taken over those sheep. ■ The signature was witnessed by himself. The schedule showed the sheep to be 4 tooth wethers. Settlers under his control have to make an annual return of stock on their properties. Flett’s return, dated June 30, 1937, showed 194 wethers (foui deaths), and was received on August 11 at Te Kuiti. On August 17 witness saw Flett at Arohena, with Mr McKenzie, of the State Advances Corporation. Flett said he then had 194 wethers on the property. Tlie price of wethers was discussed, and witness suggested a sale, as the market was then good, the sheep to be replaced with others. Two days later witness called at Flett’s farm and arranged for him to muster the sheep and take them to Mr Weal’s property. He told Flett tliat Ellingham would go out and select the fat sheep from the stores, and have them all lorried tc Te Awamutu sale. On August 24 Flett telephoned witness’ home at about 6 p.m., saying not to send Ellingham out, as he was writing witness a letter. Ellingham had left Te Kuiti the previous day, and witness was unable to get in touch with him. No letter came from Flett. On August 27 he wrote to Flett, instructing him to muster all stocl; under bill of sale to the Crown, for inspection and tally on September 1. Ellingham called at Flett's on that date, but Flett was not at home. Ellingham returned to Te Kuiti. As a result of what was done witness received a letter from Auckland office dated September 2, containing instructions, and he sent Ellingham to the farm on September 7. Ellingham reported having found only 65 wethers on the farm. Those wethers were sent by lorry to Te Awamutu and sold, the Crown receiving the proceeds. To Mr .Preston: The 198 wethers were actually delivered to Flett, his receipt being dated November 18, 1936; they werq part of a mob supplied to Arohena settlers to assist in controlling ragwort. The bill of sale was taken by witness on December 15. The form on which to make annual returns was sent out by the Auckland office, but he could not give the exact date. He did not at any time demand from Flett £2 5s per head for the sheep; he did not say anything of that nature to Flett. He knew the position of Flett’s account in connection with the wethers, and a statement was produced to the Court, as also was a letter from. McCarter, Preston and Edmonds, dated November 4, 1937, and the Commissioner’s reply dated November 5, with statement of accounts and particulars of securities. The balance owing on the original advance was shown as £l4B 18s 3d.

Mr Gillies admitted that all moneys due by the Crown had been paid by' the accused. Continuing, witness said it was not well known to the Department officers Flett had a butchery business in the district, though witness had met Flett on the road delivering meat. He first learned on August 17, 1937, that Flett had a slaughterhouse on the property. That was when he first discussed the wethers with him. He was told by Flett that he was killing sheep. That was on August 19th, and he told Flett then that the Department would not look favourably on the fact that Flett was conducting a butchery business on the fa,rm, while sheep under bill-of-sale to the Crown were there. To Mr Gillies: —It was on or about September Bth, that he first became aware that there was a shortage of sheep on the property. That was when Ellington mustered the sheep, He had never in any way authorised Flett to__kill any of the wethers. The 65 wethers sold at Te Awamutu averaged j’ust over 30s each. He denied demanding- £2 ss, or any other sum from Flett for the balance of the sheep. James Gird wood McKenzie, an officer of the State Advances Corporation, at Te Kuiti, sa'd that on August 17th, he was at Arohena in company witih Mr Boulton, and was present when the latter interviewed Flett. His version of the conversation agreed generally with that of the previous witness. Flett had said the wethers were doing very wejl, and he had only lost three or four. No definite arrangements were made with regard to selling- some or all the wethers. Boulton made no demand that Fletti should pay £2 5s per head, but he did remark to Flett that prime fat wethers were selling up to 45s per head. To Mr Preston: —He first learned on August 17th, that the accused was conducting- a butchery or slaughtering business at Arohena. He had no knowledge of Flett’s notification in the Te Awamutu Courier, of intention to apply for a slaughtering license. Flett was not one of his settlers. . • Richard Kerrish Ellingham, assistant fielqds inspector, Lands and Survey Department, said when he called on Flett on September 17th, Flett had done no mustering of. the sheep, explaining that he had written to Te

Kuiti Office, saying he -was making other arrangements. He called at Flett’s on September Ist, but Flett was not at home. Nothing was done that day. Witness next went to see Fletti on September 7th. He knew then that a letter had been sent to Flett from the Auckland office. Flett said he had not received that letter. He later learned that the letter had not been delivered to Flett at that date. Witness arranged for the sheep to be mustered the following day. There were then 65 sheep. Prior to that date he had no knowledge that there was a shortage in the number of sheep at Flett’s. He denied telling Flett at any time that he could sell wethers so long as he paid £2 5s per head for them, nor did he say anything- to justify such a contention. To Mi- Preston:—Witness knew the demand to muster, per registered letters, dated September Ist, had not been delivered on September 7th. He had since learned there was a twice-week-ly delivery from Pukeatua to Arohena. The prior demand was dated August 27th, but Flett denied receiving it. That denial was made to him on September 7th. Witness one day had a, breakdown on the way to Arohena, but on arrival about 5 p.m., the sheep were not at Weal’s nor had they been there. The sheep were finally mustered at Weal’s on September 7th, in company with Flett’s son. Weal’s was about two miles from Flett’s farm. Weal’s was the only convenient place for trucking the sheep. Mr Preston pointctl out that no written instructions were given to muster the sheep at Weal’s. Continuing, witness said an average farmer receiving instructions to muster, would interpret it as a muster on his own property. The letters did nob tqll Flett to muster the sheep at Weal’s. Witness had been with the Department since April Ist, and he did not know the Arohena district prior to that. He first learned that Flett was butchering and had a slaughterhouse on the property when he visited the property an September 7th. He actually saw the slaughterhause then; there was no concealment of the enterprise. He was not aware of Flett or his activities for some time after joining the Department. On Septembei; 8, the sheep, 65 wethers were brought to Weal’s holding yards. Continuing, witnss said that Flett had told him on September 7th, that several of the sheep had died. He understood that hundreds of sheep in the district had died. Flett had received a, KlO form from Aucland, requiring returns of stock. On September 7th, Flett was absent, but a son brought the sheep to a corner. Witness roughly counted them as between 60 and 70. The lad told him that was all the sheep on the farm. Later in the day witness met Flett, and the latter accounted for the fewer sheep by saying the others had died. Flett was told that it was strange so many had died after June 30th. Flett denied that he had been butchering any of the sheep: Witness did not accuse Flett. But a little later Flett admitted killing the sheep. The only sheep he and his Department were interested in were the 194 wethers. As a ranger he was not aware that any other sheep, even if purchased by Flett with his own money, coming on that property would also be subject to the existing bill-of-sale. Mr Gillies interrupted to say that there was nothing affecting sheep of another description in that aspect. M!r Preston pointed out that the instrument included an obligation to brand. Continuing, witness denied having told Flett at any time that he would have to pay £2 5s per head for the wethers that he had killed. This was the case for the prosecution. Accused reserved his defence. The Court considered there was sufficient to warrant committing Flett to the Supreme Court at Hamilton for trial. It is understood the case will probably be dealt with at next week’s sitting in Hamilton.