CATTLE THEFT CHARGES

Taranaki Daily News, 20 February 1935, Page 11

CATTLE THEFT CHARGES

AWAKINO FARMERS’ TRIAL

FURTHER EVIDENCE FOR CROWN. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PHILLIPS. • • f OTHERS FARMERS IN WITNESS BOX. The trial .of J. G. Richards, farmer in the Awakino district, on charges of cattle stealing, or alternatively of receiving, stolen cattle, was continued before Mr.. Justice Blair at the sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The hearing, which began on Monday, continued all day yesterday with further evidence for the Crown, and should be completed to-day. The Crown is represented by Mr. R. H. Quilliam and the accused by Mr. J. H.\ Sheet. When. the court reopened yesterday morning, Mr. J. H. Sheat continued his cross-examination of the chief Crown witness, George A. Phillips. Phillips said that in order to cut out the.whole of his dumb-bell earmark the person : cutting would have had almost to.cijft out the whole of the ear. In the case of the earmarks alleged to be superimposed by-Richards, the two curves at the .lower part of witness’ dumb-bell earmarks still showed on the ears of the cattle. By means of diagrams Phillips showed the size Richards would have had to make his quarter mark in order to take out the whole of the dumb-bell Bigp. On the heifer under discussion * Richards had taken out an extra big quarter, much bigger than he usually did. . , ' "Can you understand, then,” said Mr. Sheat, “why Richards did not take pains to obliterate the whole of your earmark’”. • ’ “One could hardly see the remains’of my . mark without putting the beast in a race,” said Phillips, if it had not been for the remains of my firebrand on the beast I would not have put her in the race.” "Anyone putting his earmark on that must have seen your earmark, then?” asked Mr. Sheat. “Yes,’’ said Phillips. "And , the same would apply, to your firebrand?” asked* Mr. Sheat. "Not necessarily,” said Phillips, “because >in winter cattle get a very, rough cpat and often you have to feel for the brand.” .

“There was. no attempt to obliterate yqur brand,”, said Mr. Sheat,-“so I put it to you, if that was an attempt to steal yp,ur, beast it was a most ineffective attempt.’’- . <

• .‘-'Not. necessarily,”, said Phillips, "because Jlhost. farmers brand on the rump but I*brand; oh the rib. Anyone attempting: to, steal the beast would probably overlook my brand;” 1 , Phillips admitted th-t -brands and earmarks were not closely examined unless the. ownership .? of the beast were in question.. In that.district they very often earmarked without branding. ■3s it <■ your settled conviction,” said Mr;. ‘Sheat, /‘that there is no possibility of-that quarter having been taken out except by/Richards?” ; • “YjW,”'said Phillips.'

H|s Honour , pointed out that counsel was. asking the witness to make a deduction rather, than putting to him a question of'fact J ■ > t

Phillips said he was a dealer in cattle and his beasts had a wide variety of earmarks. ;He would not admit that there, would be beasts in his herd todsy with/ marks .similar to Richards’ quarter, but he would admit that it was a common mark. He had recently seen a . beast in . a mob of cattle being driven by Buckeridge, a drover, past his place and pointed out to Buckeridge a beast which had the same, earmark as Richards used. He himself had on occasions noti-

fied Richards that he (Phillips) had bought,stock with the quarter earmark but ;not in the-same ear. - Cattle men very .seldom marked beasts in the wrong ear. He would not agree that the quarter mark on the beast under discussion had been there before, witness’ earmark. He personally branded all his own cattle. . , PRACTICE OF FARMERS. To His Honour: After a beast had been done five months, it was impossible to tell whether an, earmark was recent or not. Sometimes farmers earmarked without branding, but they never merely, branded and did not earmark. ,*3t is impossible,” said Phillips, “that the quarter-mark on the beast had been tom out, leaving traces of the dumbbell marking. One can tell by the edges whether the ear has been torr, or cut.” “Did you hot say Richards did not come to see you about the beasts?”

asked Mr. Sheat. Phillips ■ replied that Richards had come to - see him '.about rumours going about the‘ district concerning the wrongful earmarking of cattle. He had asked if Phillips was spreading Jhe rumours. Phillips had said no, but neighbours had been asking about them. Richards had not asked him to have the beasts in the yard for examination. :"I believe you told Richards at that time, that you were not going to take action,” said Mr. Sheat. “I ■ do not think I did.” “If. Mr. Keith Black, Awakino, were to swear , you told him that, would you still say you had not?” ‘‘Nol. I may have said so, although I

don’t remember it.” “Then how did the incident come to

be reopened?” said Mr. Sheat. “About the time of the muster I gave the police some information about it. That >was after the Bryant incident had arisen?’ . .

Phillips agreed that in May he sold the two beasts he had found with Richards’ earmark and his own, and heard nothing more about the affair till November. He believed he had been correct! in stating earlier that the quarter earmarkings on the cattle he had taken from Richards had been done in May. He would not agree if another witness said they had been done in the previous. November. To determine the age of Bryant’s beagt?,-Phillips explained that he mouthed.- them and told the age by the teeth in. the front part of the lower jaw. After five, years one could not tell die age of a, ! beast with certainty but an expert would have a fairly good idea. There were.occasionally slight variations in the teeth of sheep but never very wide differences. He would not agree with the statement in a book of veterinary science that-a beast might be full-mouthed at the age of three years and three months. When Richards took over the property, said he took, over the property’s brand and earmark. He took it clear of stock- The main sale of the stock from the. Taumatamaire ' station was held at Pio Pio and a straggler sale was held at- Awakino. He remembered Bryant buying stock at one .of those sales, and such stock would have both the earmarks belonging to Richards and to Bryant. It was unlikely that it would have Richards’ earmark without Bryant’s as well. Referring to'the Jersey-Holstein cross cow, alleged to have been stolen from Bryant, Phillips thought it unlikely that it could have been included in a line of 'Polled Angus weaners. IDENTITY OF CALF. | Referring to Battley’s calf, Phillips said he had heard Richards’ explanation that 1 '

he had marked it in the paddock. It would not be hard in those circumstances to tell that it was the calf from Battley’s cow, because it was marked young and should not be far from , its mother. To His Honour: If a man found a calf in his property with no mother accompanying it he would mark it as his own. - ■ - ■

Phillips said he did not remember that there had been another calf from another cow of Battley’s that Richards had recognised as Battley’s.

Re-examined by Mr. Quilliam, Phillips said if cattle strayed on a man’s property and were of a strain he knew, was his neighbour’s, the man would ring his. neighbour. The bluish-black animal claimed as his was a peculiar beast. He did not know of anybody with a beast of that colour in the district apart from himself. When Richards came to see him about the rumours the two beasts with Richards’ earmarks were a mile or more from the yard. He had no financial interest in the case whatever. He had got his beasts back and had sold them. William Flight Kelly, the second Crown witness, said he had been farming in the Awakino district close on 40 years. He knew the earmarks of both Phillips and Richards. Richards had been in the district between three an., four years. He described the markings of the Polled Angus Hereford-cross heifer found on his property by himself and Phillips. After examining the beast closely in the yard they could see a trace of the dumbbell mark on the ear below Richards’ mark.

3 To Mr. Sheat witness said Richards’ t mark, to have obliterated Phillips’ mark, :. would need to have been more than the , legal ' quarter. He had known Richards s a good' while and Richards had conf suited him before buying the property, i Speaking of the accused’s personal ret putation, Kelly said he had never heard I anything against Richards until the pret sent matters had cropped up. He agreed ! that Richards was an intelligent man. “Would you think that any intelligent > man who intended to steal that beast 1 that you and Phillips found would have ; left it with, the earmarks in . that condition?” asked Mr. Sheat. . “No,” said witness, “I should not." The next witness, James Norman Bryant, said he had been farming in the (district for 25 years. His firebrand was the letter F standing upright. He used the same earmarker, a keyhole mark, I for both cattle and sheep. On his proI perty he had a Jersey-Polled Angus l’l herd,' and run cattle, mostly Polled An‘l gus-Hereford cross. Some time ago, in

. 1931, some of his. stock, Polled Angus ; cross, had strayed on to Battley’s property. The stock were two-year-olds, bearing his earmark, and brand. One or two were not. recovered. In 1931, he had grazed some cattle on Richards’ property. They were Jersey heifers bearing his own marks. When mustered there were two missing, and He disputed the matter with Richards. He remembered being shown a couple of beasts by Phillips on November 6. One was a Polled Angus cow with calf at foot. The other was a Jersey-Holstein cross heifer. The Polled Angus cow bore Bryant’s mark and the letter F, also the accused’s brand and earmark. He claimed the beast as one of his. Exactly the same marks were on the Jersey-Holstein, and he claimed that beast too. SIZE OF EARMARK. . His Honour: Was the quarter on these beasts quite sufficient to have removed the whole , of your keyhole earmarks? Bryant: Yes. On November 17, said Bryant, he was present at an examination of stock mustered on Richards’ property for the police. He had claimed five of the stock as his own. The first beast examined was a cow with calf at foot bearing Richards’ earmark and brand, also Bryant’s brand. That was a female beast, five years old. Three other bests, Polled Angus female three-year-olds, had Richards’ brand on the loin and Richards’ earmark, and had witness’ brand on the rump. The quarter was large. The next one was a Polled Hereford heifer, two years old, with the same brands and earmark as the others. When Bryant said the beasts werte his, Richards claimed that. the whole five beasts as some he had bought from Bryant at the Awakino sale as weaners in 1932. That would make their age, at the time of dispute, - three years. The two beasts he had, claimed earlier from Richards were also, Richards said, some of the same lot of 23.

Bryant said he remembered the 1932 sale at Awakino. Richards had bought 23 Polled Angus-steers from him at that l sale. He said he was sure they were steers because •- it had never been his policy to sell Polled Angus heifers. He used all his heifers to replenish his herd. He did not think there was any possibility of there being any females, or any Jersey or'Jersey cross cattle in the line of 23 he . had sold at Awakino. He was aware, said Bryant, that Newton. King’s sale book showed “m.s.” after the lot of weaners, indicating mixed sex, but he could not account .for. that. Possibly the

description had been given by the yardman, or Newton King’s agent, Mr. Westfield. .

’ Shortly before the accused took over the property, witness said, he had bought stock from Richards’ predecessor.. That stock had the K brand and the quarter on the ear, both the marks of Richards. When witness got the stock he marked them also with the keyhole earmark and branded them with an F. He did not think there was ; any possibility of the seven beasts in dispute having belonged to that lot. If they'did they would have borne. his keyhole earmark, just behind the quarter earmark. “Your accusation against Richards,” said Mr. Sheat,. “is then that your stock wandered on to Richards’ property and he stole them, putting his own marks on them.” .

“That is how it appears,” said Bryant. • “Can you suggest any reason for the theft? Any financial difficulty?” “No. Not that I know of.” “Then can you suggest any reason for Richards’ having left the allegedly stolen stock on his property? Was not that the act of a fool?” “Not necessarily,” said Bryant. “He could keep the stock and use it for breeding purposes.” NOT ILLEGAL SIZE. “When Richards found these cattle with your brand on them was there any point in his putting his own brand on them alongside your brand? If the stock were to stray again on to someone else’s property, what value would Richards’ brand have when they were found?”

Bryant said it would not have much value. Pressed by counsel witness admitted that the earmarks Richards was alleged to. have superimposed on his own were not illegal in size. “Have you any record of the sale of the weaners to Richards at the Awakino sale?” asked Mr. Sheat

“No,” said witness. He had had a diary note of the sale.'

“Was the diary shown to the police or produced in the Lower Court?” “No,” said Bryant. “It is not now in my possession.” “And you ask the jury,” said Mr. Sheat, “to believe that such a diary, containing records of your farm transactions and with a record relating to the transaction that took place less than three years ago to-day has been destroyed?” “Yes.” . . - “And that book,” said counsel, “ac-

cording to your story, would have been —if it had not been destroyed—the most important piece of evidence against the accused. Do you know that the description ‘m.s? against the weaners in Newton King’s sale book was made by Mr. Kirk, a most experienced stock auctioneer?” “No.” “I suggest to you,” said counsel, “that there was bad blood between you and Richards, ever since he insisted on your paying for the two missing beasts out of the 30 that you gave to him to graze. Richards insisted that you should pay grazing for all the 30, instead of making you an allowance for the grazing of the two missing beasts. He charged you for that and you paid under protest?

“That is so.” “If your evidence is correct, Richards was dunning you for the grazing of the two missing beasts at the time he was stealing your stock? Does that seem common sense?” “Yes.”

His Honour: You mentioned something about a diary. What did you keep in it? Bryant: Rough notes about stock, their number and any sales. Basil Henry Bryant and Keith James Bryant, sons of the previous witness, said they remembered their father taking the weaners to the sale at Awakino. They had helped to draft the cattle and could say there were no females among them. COW AND CALF CLAIMED. Another Awakino farmer, Ernest Rio Battley. said he had seen an aged cow, which he claimed as his own, at the examination of the police muster at Richards’ place on November 17. The cow had his earmark of three v’s but the calf with the cow had Richards’ quarter ear-mark. He had claimed the cow and calf as his and there was no dispute. Another time, when he had mustered for the Awakino sale in February, 1934, he sighted a ewe of his, which he claimed he had purchased from McKeown. The ewe had McKeown’s mark, Richards’ mark and traces of witness’ mark. A lamb belonging to the ewe had Richards’ earmark. He sold the ewe at the sale, after informing Richards that he claimed it as his own. Not being a hard man he had not strenuously disputed Richards’ claim to ownership of the lamb. Later, on December 17, he found one of his ewes which had a lamb again bearing Richards’ mark. "Is not the branding of wrong lambs

frequently happening among neighbours in the district?”

“That is so,” said Battley. “When you do that, you immediately notify your neighbour that you are leaving a lamb for him in return. It had happened between Richards and him before.” “So that,” said Mr. Sheat, “when you found this lamb with Richards’ earmark you didn’t see anything sinister in it?” “Well,” said Battley, “I didn’t like the look of it.”

William J. McKeown, farmer of Mokau, said he examined Battley’s ewe and its markings. Its markings would have corresponded with those of a line of ewes he had sold Battley in 1932. His opinion was that the earmarks on the ewe showed Richards’ mark and part of Battley’s mark. His own forequarter, which was on the other ear, was taken out much smaller. He judged by the hair growth on the edges of the markings that Battley’s mark had been put on before the mark of Richards. He himself had never sold any sheep to Richards.

John Drowsdoski, manager for C. A. Wilkinson at Pukearuhe, said he had a black Hereford heifer, bought through Newton King’s, which had an earmark more like three-quarters than a quarter. Later a ewe had passed through his hands which had markings apparently of both Battley and Richards. Kenneth Finch Kirk, auctioneer to the firm of Newton King Ltd., produced the sale entry book for the Awakino sale of 1932 in which Bryant’s weaners were sold. The sale entry, in his own handwriting, was “Bryant, J. M., 23 P.A. weaners; m.s.” The book was compounded either from his own observation, the yardman’s, the clerk’s or the stock agent’s observation. The price in the sales entry book was marked at 14s for that line of weaners.

To Mr. Sheat: The price would not give an idea whether the weaners were male or female. To Mr. Quilliam: At that time the price of male and female weaners was very much the same. At this stage the court adjourned.