TRIAL NEARING ITS END

Taranaki Daily News, 22 February 1935, Page 11

TRIAL NEARING ITS END

/ CATTLE THEFT CHARGES > ACTION AGAINST AWAKINO MAN. CROSS-EXAMINING OF ACCUSED. SUMMING UP BY JUDGE TO-DAY. The trial of James Guild Richards, an Awakino farmer, on charges of stealing cattle was advanced towards the final stages before Mr. Justice Blair at the sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. When the Court rose last evening the evidence had - been completed and both counsel for • - the Crown (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) and for —■' ■ the accused (Mr. J. H. - Sheat) had ad- / dressed the jury. His Honour will sum r up at 9.30 this morning. The court opened yesterday morning with the cross-examination of Richards by Mr. Quilliam. “I gather,” said Mr. Quilliam, “that you would call yourself an experienced farmer.” “I would,” said Richards. “And conditions on your Te Kuiti. property were similar to those at Awakino? ’ “Similar, but not nearly so rough.” “You realise that accurate marking is a very important thing.” “Yes,” said Richards. Regarding the black Hereford claimed by Phillips, Richards said he might have said in court the previous'day that he did not mark the beast. He had seen the beast in the pen at the Awakino sale and he had seen the ear-mark on it. In his statement to the police he had said he did the ear-marking of all his own cattle. He would not admit he had marked that beast. “Do you suggest that anyone else would use your marker?” asked Mr. Quilliam. “No.” Richards said he did not think Phillip* was right in claiming there were traces of his dumb-bell mark on the ear as well as Richards’ fore-quarter mark. He had not examined the beast very closely* “Do you realise that if Phillips „ mark is there it is a very serious thing? \ “For Phillips?” asked Richards. “For you,” said Mr. Quilliam. “I suppose it would,” said Richards. Mr. Quilliam said he would like to arrange for the beast to .be brought in from Awakino that morning. His Honour agreed. ' Referring to the bluish Polled Angus Hereford cross claimed by Phillips, Richards said he had roan cattle on his property. He had branded the blue beast and a- yearling at his yards. He had driven off other cattle belonging to Phillips just before he branded the blue beast. By that time he had been on the property two years. ' “So you had some idea of your neighbours’ cattle, their marks and descriptions?” asked Mr. Quilliam. . “I did not have much idea of Phillips cattle because he was buying and selling all the time,” said Richards. Referring to the ewe claimed by Battley in February, Richards admitted that if Battley was right in claiming traces of his brand on the ear which bore Richards’ mark he would have begun to think. When he had the complaint about the second beast from Phillips in February he would realise that things were taking a serious turn. He had not gone to see Phillips until April. “Yet before then,” said Mr. Quilliam, “you would have had complaints from the two men about three beasts. You are on the telephone and have a motorcar; you have a high regard for your reputation. You could have telephoned Phillips and arranged to see the beasts. You could have looked at the beasts in half a day. Didn’t you think of doing that even for your reputation?” “LOSS OF TIME.” ! ' “It would have meant the loss of a certain amount of time.” “That was up till April,” said Mr. Quilliam. “But after April you knew your reputation was in serious jeopardy? Rumours were going round the district?” -

“Yes,” said Richards. “Can you give any reason why you did not see the cattle at Phillips’ place when you went to his place in April?” “Yes. Phillips said he was going to sell the cattle at the sale and that the matter would then be closed between us.” , “You remember the sale of Bryants weaners in . 1932?” asked Mr. Quilliam. “Who bought them for you?” “A cattle man, Mr. Death.” "Are you calling him?” “No. He does not remember anything about the cattle, so he told me.” “Was that line a line of weaners?” “They were sold as weaners. There were three not Polled Angus and there may have been more. None of the beasts were showing horns. Two of the Jerseys had stumps.” “Do you dispute the age of the beast claimed as a five-year-old by the Crown?” “I do. I claim it’s a four-year-old,” said Richards. “Do you agree that, speaking generally, tire possession of eight adult teeth denotes that the beast is at least five years old?” “I’m afraid I have not had enough experience in the ages of cattle to say.” • “Do you ask the jury to accept your statements of the ages of cattle?” “Yes.” “Now 1 come back to my other question. Do you agree with the statement by Phillips and the others that eight teeth denote generally speaking, a five-year-old?” “I’m afraid I don’t understand.” “You say,” said Mr. Quilliam, “that there were females in the line of weaners, even though Bryant and his two sons swear they were all steers?” “Yes.” said Richards. “Do you believe that Bryant came here deliberately to perjure himself?” “I most certainly do,” alleged Richards. “You say he has come here to convict you and his two sons have come here -. with the same object.” “I do.” “And that it all arises out of a dispute over £2? Over a dispute involving £2 you say Bryant and his two sons have come here to put you in prison?” “Yes.” Richards said he remembered buying a line of weaners from Duncan of Bexleys. He did not remember that there were red roans among them. Hs had mentioned the fact of the red roan heifer he claimed to have bought from Bryant among the line of weaners to Detective Meiklejohn. “Why does it not appear in the detecZ five’s notes?” asked Mr Quilliam. "Because it is dead now,” said Richard. “Are you sure of the year of that Bexley purchase?” “Yes,” said Richards. “In 1931.’ NEIGHBOUR’S EVIDENCE. Robert Wilkin Neal, farmer of Piu Piu, holding public positions in the district, said he had been farming there for 25 years. He had seen cattle owned by Richards which had the fore-quarter removed and the lower auarter removed as well. Any sane man wishing to take Phillips’ cattle for his own would, in

Richards* position, have taken out the fore-quarter (Richards’ brand) and the bottom quarter (Bexley’s brand), the latter being sufficient to remove all traces of Phillips’ dumb-bellmark, and the whole mark then corresponding to the marks of the cattle he already had on his farm.

He himself, as a matter of farming practice, had always ear-marked any clean skins, cattle or sheep, on his property, said witness, unless he had special reasons for thinking they belonged to his neighbours. .

Referring to the five-year-old cow claimed by Richards as one he had bought from Bryant as a weaner in 1932, Neal said it had eight long teeth, well formed. Witness fixed its- age at four years or more. He himself had a beast with eight teeth which was between four and five years old. He had examined the brands on the five-year-old and had come to the conclusion that Richards’ K brand had been placed on the beast before Bryant’s F brand. Referring to the alleged two-year-old heifer, claimed by Richards as one of the line of Bryant’s weaners, witness said he had examined it and fqund it rather small in body. He fixed its age as now three years old at least. After a further examination of its mouth he found that a milk tooth that had fallen out during his first examination in January had been replaced by a full-grown secondary tooth. It was his experience that generally a line of beasts described as weaners would be from two to eight months old. In the particular line under discussion they must have been badly grown or cull weaners A good line at that time was worth over £1 rather than 14s. He had never seen a good line of Polled Angus weaner steers sold for less than £l. He had examined the Jersey-Holstein cross heifer, the alleged property of Bryant, and he considered it a Polled Angus-Jersey with no sign of Holstein. Speaking of the ewe, alleged to have traces of Battley’s “v” mark showing with Richards’ quarter mark, Neal said he had many sheep with the half of a “w” mark showing with a quarter earmark. The quarter was the most common of all ear-marks. MARKING OF LAMBS. In marking lambs, said Neal, he marked the stock on his property and neighbours had the right to be present later at docking time to claim any lambs they considered belonged to their own ewes. Speaking of the branding of Hattley’s calf, Neal said branding in the paddock would be the best method to use

in the country that Richards worked. It was easy to brand a calf belonging to a neighbours’ cow when using Richards method. To Mr. Quilliam witness said the alleged five-year-old was at least four years old, and could be anything from four years to nine years old. The beast described by the Crown as a two-year-old was in his opinion, a three-year-old. He agreed to a certain extent with what Phillips had said about ages according to teeth but held that in well nourished cattle teeth appeared at intervals of 10 months and in poorly nourished cattle at intervals of 14 months. He did not know the Act now, forbade the registration of quarter brands. “What relationship have you to the accused?” asked Mr. Quilliam. Witness agreed that his son had married Richards’ wife’s sister. Richard Clyde Armstrong, farmhand previously employed by Richards at the time of the purchase of the weaners, said he distinctly remembered one female beast in the line The female was a red roan Edmund Buckeridge, drover, said he helped Richards to muster when accused branded the black Hereford beast claimed by Phillips. It was a clean-skinned beast bearing no mark. They had branded it with Richards’ brand. After the arrival of the black Hereford from Awakino it was inspected by the jurymen and later by His Honour an counsel. The jury was then addressed by counsel. ,The hearing will re-open at 9.30 today with His Honours’ address to the jury.