CATTLE CHARGES FAIL

Taranaki Daily News, 23 February 1935, Page 16 (Supplement)

CATTLE CHARGES FAIL

NOt GUILTY OF THEFTS AWAKING FARMER DISCHARGED. SUPREME COURT HEARING ENDS. r • ' With.a verdict of not guilty on all counts, the trial of James Guild Richards, an Awakino farmer, who was facing seven charges Of the theft of cattle, ended before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The jury returned its verdict after 40-minutes’ deliberation. The hearing was continued yesterday morning with the address of His Honour to the jury.* Mr. J. H. Sheat appeared for Richards and Mr. R. H. Quilliam represented the Crown. Counsel-for each side, said His Honour, in his address to the jury, had referred to the importance of ths case, but all criminal cases were important as far as the -accused and the country were concerned. ' , , ’■ There were 14 counts in the indictment and, as far as each count was concerned, the first was a charge of theft and th 6 alternative a charge of receiving. He agreed, said His Honour, with Mr. Sheat when he said that with the course the evidence had taken they need not consider the counts of receiving .but need consider only the counts pi theft. It was no part of his duty, His Honour emphasised, to give his, Opinion on the fact and he always, endeavoured 'to conceal his real view.. If he did by chance express his view the jury was perfectly entitled to disregard it.' If he made & mistake in directing them on the law there was a court which could put. him'right, but if they made a mistake • on fact there was no such' cotirt to correCt;their mistake. ’ ' ' ' ; j-DIVIDED INTO CATEGORIES. . , They would therefore have the seven counts to consider. The counts referred to 11 cattle, one sheep and two lambs. To help them he had put the various counts into three classes, because it seemed to him that as far as the Crown’s evidence Was concerned they fell into three categories. There was one matter common to all the counts. That was the question of brands. The ownership of station cattle was ■ indicated by. brands. Therefore it followed that the alteration of a \ brand indicated to the’ordinary farmer an alteration in ownership. The deliberate alteration of a brand, With intent to deceive, would amount to. evidence upon which a jury would be en-titled-to bring in a verdict of “guilty. 'lt was very rarely indeed that , the Crown could ever find a witness who had seen the accused person driving. the,} cattle away, so the'Crown , relied on the? evidence Of brands. , , ■ > The first of the three . categories'included unmarked cattle branded with the accused’s marl"; -the second included cattle which bore the dual marks of both Bryant and the accused; and the ;third included cattle on which it was alleged that the accused's mark had been placed to obliterate the mark of the previous owper. ■ - In the first class there Were the bluish heifer belonging to Phillips, and Battley’s bull calf and lamb. Reviewing the evidence on the beasts in the first class His Honour said the bluish heifer bore Richards’ mark but the accused said he had marked it by.mistake. If they accepted the evidence of Buckeridge, the drover, they might think that went a far way to establish Richards’ innocence on that count. On the other hand, the Crown said there came occasions when there were too many such mistakes, all profitable to the accused. Sattley’s bull calf, the accused said, he marked in the paddock, but the Crown suggested he could easily have, ascertained the calf’s mother if he had Wishe.L The case of Sattley’s lamb differed from that of the bull calf by reason of the fact that it would not be marked in the paddock and the marker would be less disturbed by the mother. EARMARKING OF CATTLE. The second class included the weaners that accused claimed were sold to him by Bryant at the Awakino sale in 1932. These cattle bore the brands of both Bryant and the. accused. They included one' five-year-old cow, five three-year-old heifers and one two-year-old heifer,. The Crown said that if. the accused claimed to have bought the weaners at the sale, Bryant. claimed ,to have sold nothing but-steers,'and further that .the five-year-old and the two-year-old could not have been weaners in 1932. The jury would have'to consider the evidence, weigh it carefully and decide the facts for themselves. In the last class, said His Honour, he had included two animals, Phillips’ heifer and Sattley's ewe, that the Crown alleged the accused had deliberately marked by cutting his own ear-mark Over the marks of the other owners. If they came to the conclusion that accused must have seen the dumb-bell mark of Phillips and Sattley and deliberately marked over them, then the facts would bear a grave complexion*, They had seen Phillips’ beast in the lorry the previous day and could decide for themselves whether the dumb-bell marks were still visible. He was bound to refer to the remark made by defending counsel that the accused, if he had done what the Crown alleged, had done very foolish things in not’ better concealing his doings. The whole history of the detection ,of crime, •he pointed out, was always bound up with the mistakes made by wrong-doers. Reference had been made to the good reputation borne by the accused in the district That, of course, could be carried too far because in the case of a first offender one could say: “There’s an honest, man who has stolen a horse.” At the same time the accused was entitled to all the benefit a good reputation could give him. Counsel for the defence had said the whole genesis 'of the trouble was the dispute between accused and Bryant over £2 for grazing. That could have little bearing on the cases which included Bryant, and he thought they might think that for a man to come and

perjure himself and get his two sons to perjure themselves all over that dispute Was far-fetched. On th<? other hand, of course, they , migat decide to consider it was a reasonable action. If they concluded the Crown had not proved its case on any cotint they would bring in a general verdict of not quilty. If they decided it had proved its case on some counts and not on others then they could find accused guilty on those counts and hot on the others. The jury retired to consider the verdict at 10.30 a.m. and returned at 11.8 am.