WHOSE FARM EQUIPMENT?

Taranaki Daily News, 18 February 1931, Page 4

WHOSE FARM EQUIPMENT?

CHAINS AND SWINOLE-BAIRS IE KTRT MAN ACCUSED OK THEFT JURY FINDS HIM NOT GUILTY. «We find the prisoner hot guilty on both charges,” said the jury in the Supreme Court in New Plymouth yesterday after considering for 22 minutes an indictment accusing Arthur John Crawford, farmer, aged 47, of stealing or “receiving” two pairs of plough chains, two swihglebars and one piece of ripe rein belonging to Daniel M. Holmes, jun., and valued at £3 2s 6d. It was alleged that he took them at Te Kiri on or about November 2. ' Mr. S. F. Grayling appeared for the Ch-own and Mr. C. H. Croker conducted the defence. The jury* empanelled comprised Mosers H. C. Hammond (foreman), Jas. Nevin, F. V. Malcolm, H. C. McEwan, Charles Wheeler, K. J. Jans, H. L. AntR. E. Johns, E. W. Hodder, William Harvey, Bertie Old, and M. J. O’Donnell. • In order to shorten the proceedings, Mr.. Croker made the admission that 1 Crawford was abundantly satisfied with Holmes’ identification of thq, articlesproduced as hie property. . There was, however, one chain which neither Holmes nor Crawford could identify definitely. Called by the Crown, Daniel Meariis Holmes jun., farmer, Watino Road, Pi•ha'ma, said that on Saturday,- November 2, a man named McGee commenced a ploughing contract on his property. Witness was snigging logs off the paddock and stayed there till about 4 p.m., when he went home to milk. He un- ’ hitched his horses and left the gear - attached to a log, On his return to the paddock on Monday the artic es had gone. He identified all the articles produced as his property. One chain he thought was his, but he could not swear positively to it. No one had his authority to take the things away., . Detective Kearney skid that on January 12 he, Constable Clouston and Holmes visited Crawford’s farm on Eltffam Road, Te Kiri. Crawford was not there at first, but whenjie came he appeared excited and wanted to know.what “all the. trouble was about.” The object of the visit was explained. When the constable was about to read a search warrant, Craw-: ford said they did not need a warrant and asked them to search the property, for. they wohld not find anything there. ■ The articles produced were found.

CRAWFORD CLAIMS PROPERTY

At the' police station, at Opunake Crawford claimed all the property as his own. He said he had had one chain f for three years. He could not say where he got some of the things from. He would not make a statement until he found out where he had procured The caae was quite simple, said Mr. " Croker. Crawford was a rough man. He took the farm over as a going concern, with chains and swingletrecs on it. As he did not do the team work he did not know what paraphernalia was there. It was common knowledge that farmers borrowed from one another. . In evidence, Crawford said he had farmed in the district all his life. His sons worked the horses on the property. He himself could not remember how long it was since he had ceased to drive the horses. He had never been on -Holmes’ place in his life and had not , 'been on the Watino Road for_ nine years. For years he had not leit his firm on a Sunday or at night. If the . articles were Holmes’ property he could not say'how they got on to his farm. It. was difficult to identify. articles of 't>his nature. The police might as well .■have taken. the, other chains, etc., on Afce place, as he could not be any more sure of them than those produced. Witness bought chains and swingletrees at various times. He produced a bill from the blacksmith in .connection with a purchase the.day af.ter the discovery on his farm. He had no knowledge of how the articles came oh to his property. It was. the custom for his boys to. lend . farmers implements. Mr. Grayling: Can you explain how these things came on .to your place? Crawford: I can if they’re mine, blit not if they’re Holmes’. I am innocent. His farm was particularly well found now, he said, except for chains and lf those produced, belonged to Holmes, where were his ?

SUSPICIONS OF ANOTHER PERSON

To Mt. Croker: He had told the police of his suspicions of another person. He became short of chains, etc., only after the polices had removed those produced in court. , _ James M. Hickey, A. M. Hickey R. J. Morris, G. A. Tonks, Francis Tindall and W. H. James, all neighbouring farmers, said they had known. Crawford for a very long time arid had always found him honest and trustworthy. They were all surprised when they heard he had been charged. Summing up, his Honoiir said he would not' detain the jury more than a minutes. He explained the nature of the crimes of theft and receiv-. ing. The latter implied guilty knowledge. The lbw was that where it was shown goods had been stolen and were found in possession of another person th© onus was on that person to show how he came by them. The Crown had not been able to connect Crawford with the theft of the goods. There , was no evidence of . that. The goods disappeared fror’ Holmes’ farm on November 2 and were not discovered on Crawford’s farm until January I'2. The jury had to decide whether Crawford had them on his farm with the knowledge that they were stolen. Evidence of character and general reputation was always open to a person accused of a crime, and the jury had heard the evidence about accused’s honesty and trustworthiness. Concerning Crawford’s conduct, they had to consider the fact that he had not tried to conceal, anything. On the visit of the police he told them to search the farm a# he had nothing that did not belong to him. Another point was Crawford’s evidence that he had not worked the horses for a number of years, these duties falling on his song as they grew up.