SHEEPSKINS MINUS EARS

Taranaki Daily News, 23 October 1930, Page 4

SHEEPSKINS MINUS EARS

FINE FOR URENUI FARMER DEFENCE OF THE CUSTOM HEARD MAGISTRATE ISSUES A WARNING.' “What is passing through my mind is how it is possible to make farmers realise this legislation is for their protection,” said Mr. K. W. late, S.M., at New Plymouth yesterday when fining Claude Hutton Taylor, farmer of Urenui fo Is and £1 15s costs for _havin o five sheepskins without ears in hie possession Unlawfully on August 7. On a similar charge relating to 12 earless skins sent to an auction mart on August 1 he was convicted and discharged. “I suppose the only way. to impress it on them is to make the fines heavy, continued the magistrate. The offence is that it is unlawful to remove the ears from skins. The Statute was passed in 1908 and was designed to prevent this very thing—to skin sheep in such a fashion that the ears are removed. It is an offence to be in possession of earless skins unless a satisfactory explanation can be given to an inspector or other authorised person. At the request of Mr. C. H. Croker, who appeared for' Taylor, the fine was raised by one shilling from £5 to enable the lodging of an appeal. In opening the case Detective Meiklejohn recalled that between 18. months and two years ago a prosecution was brought in that court under the same section. Some publicity was then given through the Press. Owing to the prevalence of sheep-stealing it often happened the police found earless skins passing through dealers.’ hands. There was then no chance of identification.. Giving evidence the detective said that on August 7 he made inquiries at Urenui in connection with the loss of sheep by a farmer. On returning he saw Taylor and asked him if he had any skins in his shed. He said he had. In reply to a further question he said they did not have the ears on them. The detective found two skins, fairly now, without ears, and later found three other skins in a similar condition,

ADMITTED HE KIDDED SHEEP.

Taylor admitted he had killed the sheep and removed the ears. He also admitted ho had recently said he had sent to Nolan’s mart 13 skins minus the ears. ■/' Taylor explained he had not left the ears on because it was his custom- to remove the heads. He had been brought up to kill them that way. He admitted he had forwarded skins without ears for sale and that he had been killing meat for neighbours. To Mr. Crbker; He appreciated the difference between cutting the ears from the skins and cutting the skills off Without taking ears with them. Taylor had admitted he had removed the cars ■from the skins. He had not asked Taylor to show him the skins with ears on them. , ■ It was Taylor who suggested that he had some heads of recently killed sheep, but when he could not find them he thought the dogs had eaten them. The detective denied having accused Taylor of stealing 130 sheep hist year. Norman Eva, storeman for Nolan and Co., said he had received on August 1 from L. W. and C. H. Taylor 12 sheepskins. The one produced had no ears. “I understand you handle thousands of skins without ears?” said counsel. “We used to, but it is getting better now,” replied Eva. He said there was no serious suggestion that these earless skins were from stolen sheep. Some Skins arrived from small farmers without ears, the sheep having been killed for home consumption Between October 29, 1929, and September 30, 1930, 50 skins had been sent to the mart by Taylor Bros. It was not unlawful for a person to have earless skins in hia possession, said Mr. Croker. The only thing that was unlawful was failure to give a satisfactory account when called upon to do so. Taylor, counsel explained, was in partnership in a large farm at Urenui and in a farm on the Hurford Road. For a considerable period he had killed one sheep a week at Urenui in order to obtain fresh meat. An arrangement had been made under which neighbours took part of the carcase. It would, be Shown that 53 skins had been disposed of in 12 month's, thus corroborating the statement that Taylor killed One Sheep a week, _ > t ,

J; LEFT EARS .ON HEADS. ;if

Taylor in evidence said he killed fat ewes. The practice he had been brought up to was to cut the sheep’s throat, skin it, and leave the ears on the head, which was thrown to the dogs. He himself had lost 130 sheep last year. When the detective visited hipi Taylor alleged he said: “Look here, Claude, you can’t stand here and say these skins are not from Gaustad’s sheep. You can’t say, Claude, ( tihat you did not sell the 130 sheep last year and pocket the inoney.” “You went to school with the detective?” suggested counsel. "Not that I know.” ..jj.j . ‘‘But you are close friends?” Wi"No.” ” J' "How long have you known him? "Not till the day he came to the farm.” "And he called you Claude the first time he saw you?”

"Yes.” “It shows his impertinence,” said Mr. Croker. ; %. Taylor—” said the detective on rising to cross-examine. “That’s better,” said Mr. Croker. "Why did you not instruct your counsel to ask me about calling you Claude while I was in the witness-box?” asked the detective. Taylor maintained the detective had called him Claude. "Be careful, Mr. Taylor,” said the detective. “I say that, is perjury.” The detective said he would again go into the box to say that he had not called the man Claude, but Mr. Taylor.

“And I shall be glad to cross-examine you,” said Air. Croker. He described the action of the detective as impertinent. Following a further remark by counsel the magistrate asiked that the case should go on without argument. Taylor said he had 254 acres at Hurford Road and 189 acres at Urenui. He realised, now the importance of keeping the ears on the skins, but he had not realised it previously. He had not removed the cars from the skin. He left them on the head.

"If you were not annoyed at the time about me calling you Claude, why are you annoyed now?” asked the detective. "Because you accused me of stealing the 130 sheep.” Witness recalled that he had told the detective to "'bring along the biggest man in New Zealand and he would have a go at him.” To Mr. Croker: It was tho custom amongst farmers always to notify one another before the removal of stock.

'Harry Foreman, sheep and dairy ■farmer, Tikorangi, and chairman of Ike Clifton County Council, said that occasionally he killed a sheep for home consumption. Formerly the practice was to leave the ears oil the head, but late*

Iy, having seen a case in the paper, he had left the ears on the skins.

Taylor’s place adjoined a bush section belonging to witness. He had no doubt of Taylor's integrity. He very rarely Inspected the bush land adjoining Taylor’s. He would not believe the suggestion that Taylor had stolen 130 cheep belonging to the partnership. Taylor had informed him of stragglers belonging, to witness. He considered there was nothing sinister in Taylor’s possession of an earless skin. He had always been honest.

George Samuel Taylor, New Plymouth, a retired sheepfarmer, and father of the defendant, said his son had followed witness’ practice of killing a sheep a week for home consumption. The practice was to cut the throat and alevcr the head with the ears on it, and throw it to the dogs. Witness had not known it was proper to leave the ears on the skins until the present case. To the detective: There had neVcr been any question in his day of stolen sheep. The custom was to notify the neighbours before a muster.. He admitted. 0 that if he suspected a neighbour had killed an unbranded sheep belonging to him and had removed the ears, he would not be able to identify the skin. Charles Herbert Wilson, Urenui, said hie sheep farm adjoined Taylor’s. He had every confidence in Taylor. If he had thought Taylor had not been honest he would have set a trap. It w.as not possible to fence all the boundaries and the sheep often strayed. similar evidence was given by Fred iSarten, sheepfarmer, Tikorangi. Mr. Croker said lie had no objection to the matter being ventilated in the court. His client and the witnesses realised its importance. He asked the magistrate to realise that in spite of the publicity of the recent case mentioned the position was not generally known among the farmers. He suggested the magistrate might that day extend a further warning through the Press. The carrying of a number of sheep on dairy farms was being advocated, and counsel was sure^ sheep on these places, were being skinned without leaving the ears on the skins. Mr. Tate said he had accepted an explanation before, but apparently the effect had not been satisfactory. Offenders were liable to a fine of £5O. Sheep skins must retain the cars and the only way to teach the farmers appeared to be the infliction of heavy fines. However, he would treat this case rather in the way of a second .warning. ■