CATTLE THEFT CHARGES

Taranaki Daily News, 19 February 1935, Page 2

CATTLE THEFT CHARGES

AWAKING FARMER’S TRIAL EAR-MARKINGS MADE ON STOCK. NEIGHBOUR'S BEASTS STRAYING. SUPREME COURT HEARING OPENS. Facing six charges of cattle stealing and six alternative charges of receiving stolen cattle, J. G. Richards, an Awakirio farmer, appeared for trial before Mr. Justice Blair at the sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The hearing was begun in the afternoon and is expected to continue all to-day. The charges are: Thefts in February, 1934, of one black Hereford heifer valued at £2 6s, the property of G. A. Phillips; in March, 1934, of one Polled Angus Hereford cross heifer valued at £3 ss, the property of G. A. Phillips; in November, 1934, of one Jersey-Holstein cross heifer valued at £1 10s, and one black Polled Angus cow valued at £3 10s, the property of J. N. Bryant; in November, 1934, of five Polled Angus cows of a total value of £2l, the property of J. N. Bryant; in November, 1934, of one fawn male calf valued at £l, the property of E. D. Battley; in December, 1934, of one lamb valued at 7s, the property of E. D. Battley. For each theft charge there is an alternative charge of receiving the beast in question knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. The Crown was represented by Mr. R. H. Quilliam and the accused by Mr. J. H. Sheat. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. H. S. Wagstaff (foreman), H. NBernstein, T. J. Salmon, F. Snelling, A. Pearce, W. T. McEwen, J. Spedding, R. W. McKenzie, L. J. Leyland, C. Linn, C. Bryan and J. Simmonds. In opening the case for the Crown Mr. Quilliam said various farmers along the Taumatamaire Road, near Awakino, were concerned with the case. He produced plans of the area, prepared by the Crown. The stock alleged to have been stolen was claimed by the Crown to have belonged to Phillips, Bryant and Battley, all farmers in the district. The brand of Phillips was shaped like a sixpence and his ear-mark was in the shape of a dumb-bell, placed in about the middle of the ear. The first two counts referred to a black Hereford heifer alleged to have been stolen early in February, 1934. RESULTS OF MUSTER. In February, 1934, Phillips and Mr. Kelly were mustering on Kelly’S property, where it joined Richards’ farm. They found there a Hereford with the brand of Phillips and ear-mark of Richards; also they alleged one could see on the ear part of the mark -of Phillips’ dumb-bell. Richards’ ear-mark was a left forequarter for females and a right forequarter for males. That removed a large part of the ear. Until recently Richards used to slash out his ear-marks with a knife. Having found the Hereford with its unusual marks Phillips telephoned Richards and asked him to call and discuss the matter. Richards did not come. Laterthe beast was taken to the sale at Awakino, and there it was seen by Richards, who made no comments. At the same sale Phillips openly sold the beast as his own.

Later at New Plymouth Richards acknowledged that the beast had Phillips’ brand, that it had been running on his place and that as far as he could say he had ear-marked the 'beast. In March, 1934, Phillips was mustering on his own property when he found a Polled Angus-Hereford cross heifer which had a recent brand -of Richards. Phillips would say he had bred the beast himself and knew it well. He drove it home and again telephoned Richards, asking him to come and see it. Richards did not come, so the animal was taken with the first one to Awakino in May and sold to Campbell Rigg for £3 ss. Later to Detective Meiklejohn Richards said about this episode: “I let him take her. I knew the beast. I had thought she was mine.” Following on the incidents in February and March with Phillips’ beasts, and another incident on November 6, the police interviewed Richards and a careful muster was made oh Richards’ property. At that muster five cattle were found which were claimed by Bryant. In 1931 some of Bryant’s stock disappeared. In the same year Bryant had grazed 30 hdad of stock on Richards’ property, and when they were later mustered two were missing.

In April, 1932, Richards bought stock belonging to Bryant at the Awakino sale, and when asked for an explanation of several of the beasts in his possession he claimed they were those he had bought from Bryant. As a fact, he had bought 23 Polled Angus weaners at the sale from Bryant. Bryant would say that they were all males. On November 6, 1934, Phillips found two four-year-old beasts bearing Bryant’s brand and Richards’ ear-mark. Bryant would say that one of the two corresponded in age and markings with one of his missing ones. As the beast was a Jersey, it could not have been included in the 23 Polled Angus which had been sold to Richards at the sale. RICHARDS’ EXPLANATIONS. There had been a big muster undertaken for the police on November 16 at Richards’ property. At that muster a black Polled Angus cow was found bearing Bryant’s brand, also Richards’ brand and ear-mark. Bryant suggested this was one of his cattle that had strayed in 1931 on to Richaids’ property and had failed to return. The beast was claimed by the Crown to be a five-year-old beast, so it could not have been bought by Richards' as a weaner in 1932.

They also found a black Polled Angus heifer, which was claimed by Bryant. It was claimed to be a two-year-old. Therefore it would have been too young to be a weaner in 1932. The three remaining cattle claimed by Bryant were all females and the Crown claimed that no females had been included in the sale of weaners in 1932. Then there was a ewe and lamb alleged to have been stolen from Battley by Richards. In February, 1934, Battley was dipping when he noticed an aged ewe and a lamb. He had bought the ewe from McEwen in the Awakino. He noticed now that the ewe had the earmark of McEwen, with marks also of Battley and Richards. The lamb had only Richards’ ear-mark. Richards, when told of this, claimed the ewe as his, and said he had bought it from Tatham. Tatham denied selling the ewe to Richards. The ewe was taken by Battley and sold as his own. Battley, however, allowed the lamb to be taken away by Richards. The fawn male calf, claimed as the property of Battley, was found to be marked with Richards’ ear-mark. Several witnesses would say the cow belonged to Battley. The calf belonged to the cow, and therefore also really belonged to Battley. George A. Phillips, farmer of Awakino, said Richards’ farm was seven miles from the township. Witness’ property adjoined that of Richards for about a mile and a-half. The fences were not in very good order and cattle could get through easily. He had been mustering with Kelly in February, 1934, on Kelly’s property where it adjoined Richards’ boundary. They particularly noticed a black Hereford heifer which, witness said, was his own. It had witness’ brand on the loin and Richards’ ear-mark on the left ear, with traces of witness* ear-mark. The heifer was running with some of Kelly’s cattle. Some of Richards’ cattle were running with them as well. When he got home witness rang Richards and told him he had found a beast belonging to himself with Richards’ ear-mark on it. • His Honour: If one farmer says that to another what does he mean? Is it a serious statement? Phillips: It is.

FOUND FRESHLY BRANDED. In March, 1934, said Phillips, he was mustering near Kelly’s boundary when he found a beast freshly branded with Richards’ brand but, witness alleged, belonging to himself. It was a Polled An-bus-Hereford cross heifer, bluish-black in colour, with a white face. He rang Richards, told him about it and said he would keep it until Richards came over. Richards did not come. Witness said he could identify the beast as his because he had bred it and knew it by its colour. It did not bear his brand or ear-mark, probably because. he had missed it in the mustering. He had kept both the beasts until May and then taken them to Awakino and sold them.

Phillips had told Richards he could see the two beasts when he took them to the Awakino sale. Richards inspected the beasts but made no comment. The first beast was now at Wilkinson’s property at Pukearuhe. On November 6, said Phillips, he was mustering on his own property near Richards’ place and discovered one heifer and a cow which both bore Bryant’s brand and Richards’ brand and ear-mark. The cow had a calf. The cow was a Polled Angus and the heifer was a Jersey-Holstein cross. He took the beasts home and notified Bryant, who came to see them and claimed them as his. They were examined by the police, Bryant, the stock inspector and Richards.

On November 16 witness conducted a muster for the police on Richards’ property. Richards assisted in the muster. An examination of the muster was made on the following day. There was a Polled Angus cow with a calf, the cow bearing Bryant’s brand and Richards’ brand and ear-mark. Both Richards and Bryant claimed the beast. Richards said it was one of a lot of weaners that he had bought from Bryant at the Awakino sale.

. There was a black Polled Angus heifer in the muster, three years old, bearing Bryant’s brand and Richards’ brand and ear-mark, and it was claimed by both Richards and Bryant. Richards said it was one of the weaners he had bought from Bryant at the Awakino sale.

There were three other beasts with the. same ear-markings and brands, all claimed in the same way. They were all three females. There was a Polled Angus-Hereford cross heifer, two years old. also bearing Bryant’s brand and Richards’ brand and ear-mark. This beast also was claimed by Bryant. There was a cow in the muster bearing Battley’s ear-mark, and it had a calf which bore Richards’ ear-mark. Richards did not dispute that this was Battley’s cow. Witness believed the calf certainly belonged to the cow. CONDITIONS OF FARMING. Cross-examined by Mr. Sheat, Phillips said the country was very rough, very steep, some in bush, and held in fairly large holdings. He himself had 6000 acres and Richards had 2700. It was situated on what used to be the old road to Auckland. The fences on the boundaries were poor and stock strayed fairly freely between the boundaries. If stock strayed, one notified one’s neighbour, who came to collect the stock. It would be fair to say that between musters owners did not know exactly what stock they held. Farming there was a different proposition from farming, say, about New Plymouth. They tried to have a fairly good muster twice a year. They depended very much upon one another’s honesty. Until February, 1934, he and Richards had interchanged strays without any trouble. On occasions Richards had taken stock belonging to witness from his own place and put it into witness’ paddocks. There was no suggestion of dishonesty prior to 1934. • “When an animal comes in on the muster with a clean skin and clean ears, if one was satisfied it did not belong to one’s neighbours one marked it oneself?” asked Mr. Sheat. “Yes,” said witness, “but with the un-

marked beast that Richards branded as his own Richards should have known it was not his on account of the peculiar colour.” “If he honestly did not recognise the beast,” said Mr. Sheat,. “he had really done nothing not in accordance with the usual farming practice in that district?” asked Mr. Sheat. “No,” said Phillips, “not if his belief was genuine.” As soon as he himself had claimed the beast, admitted Witness, Richards had given it up ryithout question. “There is a possibility that Richards did not know the beast was his?” asked Mr. Sheat.

“There is a possibility,” said witness. “If he thought it was his own,” said Mr. Sheat, “then the charge regarding that beast falls to the ground, does it not?”

“Yes,” said witness, “if he genuinely thought it was his own.” Referring to the first animal found on Kelly’s place, said Phillips, the beast was found in a paddock adjoining Richards’ property. The only evidence they had at that stage that Richards had ever seen tire beast was the quarter out of the ear. That marking would have to be done in a yard. Branding would not necessarily be done at the Same time, just for one beast. Witness said that according to his experience earmarks grew according to the size of the ear. Ear-marks did not vary greatly in quality. On the beast in question the ear-mark would probably grow half as big again. At this stage the hearing was adjourned.