ALLEGED STOCK FRAUD

Taranaki Daily News, 22 February 1935, Page 11

ALLEGED STOCK FRAUD

FARMER AT PUNIWHAKAU HEARING IN THE SUPREME COURT OPENING OF THE CROWN’S CASE. On charges of making a false statutory declaration and of attempting to defraud the holder of a . bill of sale over stock, the trial of Levi Bunn, farmer of Puniwhakau, opened before Mr. Justice Biair at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. Evidence for the Crown will be called to-day. The detailed charges are:— That, on January 15, at Stratford, he made a false declaration which, if given on oath, would have amounted to perjury, before Alfred Coleman, solicitor, by declaring that all the stock .were collected on his property at Puniwhakau or elsewhere - except eight calves arid 20 sheep, mostly comprising rams, and. that his sons .had no stock belonging to them grazing on his property or elsewhere. (The same information was laid in another charge under the same count <sf a false declaration under the Justice of the Peace Act). That in December, at Puniwhakau, being the grantor of an instrument dated October 16, 1934, by way of security over certain chattels, by concealing from the grantee certain chattels—five horses, one foal, four cows, four heifers and eight calves affected by such an instrument—he attempted to defraud the grantee and thus defeat the security of the grantee over the same. Mr. N. H. Moss appeared for the accused and Mr. R. H. Quilliam for the Crown. The jury was empanelled as follows: Messrs. A. C. Boswell (foreman), C. Brown, E. W. Hodder, G. C. Wood, W. H. Taylor, J. T. Stewart, C. L. Hoult, F. W. Marsden, F. Brunton, H. Richards, N. Kinsella and N. J. Derby. CROWN’S CASE OUTLINED. In opening the case for the Crown 1 Mr. Quilliam said there were a large number of witnesses to be heard and there would be a good deal of detail in the evidence about the markings on beasts. The real kernel of the case, however, was much simpler. There were three counts against the accused, two of them being alternatives relating to the making of a false declaration. The other count was that Bunn made an attempt to defraud by conceal- . ing that he had certain stock. When a man gave a bill of sale over stock he gave that as security for the loan of certain moneys. The money lent Bunn by Newton King Ltd. was lent because Bunn pledged his stock. If, with intent to defraud the lender, a man concealed certain stock to the detriment of the lender he was guilty of an offence under the Chattels Transfer Acts. e Between November, 1932, and October, 1934, he gave four bills of sale to Newton King. When he gave such a bill he pledged not only the beasts described but any other stock of his thpt he had on his property. .When Newton Kings took each of these successive bills of sale from Bunn they did not discharge any of the previous bills so that they should have ample coverage over all stock at any time during the currency of the instrument. In September last, negotiations took place between Mr. Yarndley, Stratford agent of Newton King, and the accused. Bunn owed £3OOO to Newton King. It was proposed that £2500 should be written off, that a new instrument should be taken over the stock, and that £lOO cash should be paid by the ln addition he was to give an order ’over his milk -cheques. When Newton King presented that order to the dairy company they found Bunn did not supply the factory. The order was thus useless, so Newton King sent him another, order to sign on the milk supplied. by one of ac- ’ cused’s sons. This the accused did not arrange, so in November the bill of sale was executed. In December. Bunn’s stock was taken over by Newton Kings. On. November 15, after the sale of Bunn’s stock, Mr. Yarndley saw Bunn. .The accused said Newton Kings had all the stock with the solitary 'exception of 20 sheep and eight calves. Mr. Yamdley referred to certain rumours that Bunn had concealed stock. Bunn denied it and asked for his clearance. Mr. Yarndley said he did not think the directors would give a clearance without a signed statement from Bunn. Some conversation first took place about the stock held by accused’s sons.

DECLARATION SIGNED. The declaration was drawn up, read and explained to the accused before Mr. Yarndley, Mr. Alfred Coleman, an independent solicitor, and Mr. Truby King, the company’s solicitor. Then the accused signed the declaration. Nothing was signed by Bunn until he had received a full explanation of the document by Mr. Coleman, an experienced solicitor.

Questioned by Mr. Coleman the accus-. ed said he had no stock on Watchorn’s property. He was asked about" a stallion and said it belonged to his sons. His sons had some cows on Watchorn’s property but they were to be moved. Mr. Yarndley was not satisfied and put the matter in the hands of the police.

On January 17, an employee of Newton King Ltd. went to Watchom’s place and mustered certain cattle,. comprising four heifers, two cows and four calves. All except the calves, which" had not yet been marked, bore Bunn’s ear-marks. Bunn went to look at the cattle with the police and .said, “Those belong to my sons.” The party went on to another neighbour’s (Skitropp), and there found a stallion, a mare and a foal which accused said belonged to his sons. They returned to Watchom’s and there found three horses. The accused contended these three horses belonged to one of his sons but eventually he was alleged to have said: “Yes. Those are the property of Newton King Ltd., and they can take them.” ‘

It was at that moment that Sergeant Kelly,. Stratford, asked Bunn , if he adhered to his declaration made only two days before. Later the accused pointed out other stock on his own property, including two cows, and four calves, and said he had recently got them back from Watchorri, who had been milking the cows.

Two witnesses would say that the stallion found at Skitropp’s belonged to the accused and not to his son. If it belonged to accused it was not delivered up to the holder of the bill,of sale, and the Crown would suggest that it had been concealed by the accused. Regarding the mare and foal found on accused’s property, if they belonged to Bunn they should have' been surrendered. If, as the accused claimed, the mare; belonged to his son Leslie, there was no mention of it in the declaration. Finally there was the discovery of the two" cows and the calves bearing Bunn’s earmarks. Watchom, said Mr. Quilliam, would explain that soon before Christmas the accused arranged for “some of the boys’ stock” to go on his property. No grazing fees were charged. A herd tester, De la Rue, who tested Bunn’s/cqws towards the.end of lastyear,.. would give evidence as to the mumber ; of t cows h® tested, and the jury .wouldseethatnumher was considerably .Jqwer'.than ih« number mustered on Bunn’s property on behalf of Newton King Ltd. : ' At this stage the hearing was adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning. ;