SHEEP=STEALING ADMITTED

Taranaki Daily News, 18 February 1931, Page 9

SHEEP=STEALING ADMITTED

FARMERS IN DIRE STRAITS

LAMBS TAKEN TO FEED CHILDREN.

MEN ADMITTED TO PROBATION.

The fact that both men had stolen in order to provide food for their childreii was urged in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday when Clarence Growcott and Thomas John Henry Withers appeared before Mr. Justice Adams' for sentence after pleading guilty to the theft of three lambs. Each man was admitted to probation for two years, a- special condition being that between them they pay the costs of prosecution, £5, and the, value of the three lambs, £l.

On behalf of both men Mr. L. M. Moss said each of them wag married and 28 years of age. Growcott had four children, the eldest being nearly five years of Age, and Withers had three, the eldest being five years. They and. their families had - for some time been in the direst poverty. The property they occupied was not a farm in the proper sense. It whs a piece of very rough country, about 2 A O acres, on the edge of the Mt. Egmont reserve, part of it being standing btish and part about half-cleared. When they took it over it.iad been lying with the Public Trustee for a number of years as aii abandoned property. The adjoining farms were in a somewhat similar condition.

The men had no capital so the Public Trustee left .some stock on the place for them and indicated what they were to do. For 11 months Growcott and Withers had worked very hard to stump and. fence the place. It was really selfimposed hard labour. His Honour: Like the work of pioneers in the early days on unproductive land?

LAST MONEY SPENT.

Mr. Moss thought it said a good deal for such men that they went out to the

country, instead of staying about the towns. For three months it had been necessary for them to employ a man named Gilford, and when lie left they paid him their last cash. Growcott and his wife. and children

liyed with Withers in a shanty on the farm. The Withers family lived in town afid were.. maintained by Withers, who sent them food. This was actually a case of Stealing meat for food for tlie children. There was no bread or butter in the place and inquiries from neighbours indicated they were in the direst poverty. There was no suggestion of ' waste or rash expenditure. Growcott s had’ no previous convictions, but Withers was on probation. • .. .Counsel knew that his Honour resided- in a district where sheep-stealing - was regarded as a serious offence, but at most it could only 'be said that they

took the three lambs for use as food. No attempt was made to cover their tracks, the remains being left lying about. Counsel suggested it would be iu the best interests of themselves and the country if the court would grant probation and send them back to . their self-imposed liard-labour. . . In answer<to.-His Honour Mr. Grayling said the' pbjibb records showed that Withers was placed on two years’ probation in 1929. Mr. Grayling asked that a condition of probation should be the repayment of £3 to Ritchie, being the value of the three lambs.

AN. UNUSUAL CASE.

“Cases of sheep-stealing are regarded always as very serious because of the • facilities for coiniuitting such crimes and because of the difficulty of detection,” said His Honour. “But 1 am satisfied from the explanation of counsel tiiat the circumstances of this ease are exceptional, and differentiate it ffbin the ordinary £ trime'/df sheep-stealing that the court visits with condign punishment.” Growcott had a clean record, continued the judge, but Withers had been convicted in 1929 arid his term of probation was just. expiring. The probation offic .• had definitely recommended proA - tiatibn for Growcott and His Honour was

disposed to accept the same view regarding Withers, though his previous record ■< had occasioned the court soine doubt ' about extending leniency; It was necessary to be .very careful about granting • probation in such cases. However,' both Growcott arid Withers would be admitted to probation. Upon the judge ordering that the inert should pay Ritchie the value. of the ’ three lahibs, £3, Mr. Moss said tiiat sum seemed rather high. He understood the standard price was about Ss, Mr. Grayling Said the value of £1 each was. taken from Ritchie’s,evidence. Mr. .0. H. Croker, who was: seated at courisel’6 table, here interposed to say that as a sheep-farmer of some experience he might be able to assist the court. He had‘sold some thousands of -sheep recently and could. say . that up till Christina^-the price was not. beyond 14s. Since Christmas the price was not higher tiiJiiL Os., . • His .Honour said he was aware of . the disastrous slump in prices .and - would value the lambs at £l.