ALLEGED STOCK FRAUD

Taranaki Daily News, 23 February 1935, Page 17 (Supplement)

ALLEGED STOCK FRAUD

FARMER AT PUNIWHAKAU EVIDENCE CALLED FOR CROWN. BILLS OF SALE TAKEN ON CATTLE. animals allegedly concealed. Evidence for the Crown against Levi Bunn, farmer at Puniwhakau, charged with making a false declaration and concealing stock held under a bill of gale by Newton King, Ltd., was called before Mr. Justice Blair at the sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The hearing will be continued to-day. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for the Crown and Mr. N. H. Moss appeared for Bunn. On the application of Mr. Moss all witnesses were excluded from the Court. F. J. Nolan, clerk employed by Newton King Ltd., said Bunn had been a customer of his company since 1922. At that time he was farming at Moeroa and the company had taken a bill of sale over his stock. The amount owing to the company at that time w’as £B2B. In June, 1925, Bunn bought a property at Puniwhakau and continued to farm both properties. In June, 1925, the company took a further bill of sale over his stock. It was made collateral With the previous bill. At that time Bunn’s debt to the company was £3500. In June, 1931, the company took a third bill of sale, also collateral. Negotiations took place with Bunn about his account in September, 1934. Arrangements were made to reduce his indebtedness from £3OOO to £6OO by conceding him the difference, Bunn to give a new stock security, an order on his factory cheques, and to pay £lOO within one month. In October, 1934, he executed a further pill of sale, also collateral with the others. All four bills of sale were registered. In October, 1934, he executed an order on his milk cheques which was sent to the dairy company. The factory advised that the order was no good because Bunn was not supplying. • Bunn had told, witness that the supply was in his son s name. He wrote to Bunn asking him to make the order over his son’s, supply. Later, the order on the milk cheque proving useless, the company wrote to Bunn saying they would take action under the hills of sale. Possession was taken of Rimn’s stock and it was sold on Januaiy 14, 1935, at Douglas. There were five horses, one steer, four store cows, 16 heifers, one bull and 28 dairy cows of Bunn’s presented at the sale. In the last bill of sale the stock Was given as 30 sheep, 61 cattle (including 23 dairy cows) and seven horses. To Mr. Moss: The first bill of sale covered 1229 sheep, 54 cattie and five horses. The second covered 541 sheep, 49 cattle and one horse. , The tmrd covered 1200 sheep, 76 cattle and six horses. What happened was that all the sheep had been sold prior to the last bill of sale. Thi- case was really concerned with the last bill of sale. Witness had prepared the last bill of sale on a signed statement given by Bunn to Williams, an employee of the company. Williams had visited Bunn’s property for tnat purpose. STALLION NOT IDENTIFIED. In the schedule of the last bill of sale he could not identify the stallion known as Laddy. The only male horse mentioned was a light bay colt two years old. In the prior bill of sale taken in 1931 he could not identify the stallion. Each horse was described m the schedule by name. If the stallion were a four-year-old it should have been in the 1931. bill of sale.. “Quite obviously,” said Mr. Moss, “when Newton King Ltd., reduced their account, from £3060 to- £6OO they were really writing off a bad debt.” “Not altogether,” said Nolan. This was a guaranteed account.” “But you know the guarantee was worthless?” “Not altogether.” “Is it not a fact that the guarantor was relieved of'his liability by your firm? “Yes. We’ve .reduced the debt and given him a fresh start. _ The first returns under the first order on the milk cheques should have been due on October 20J On October 23 he wrote asking Bunn to. change the order on to his son’s supply, .said witness. ‘Then, on October 31, you close down on Bunn altogether?” “Yes,” said witness. Claude Williams, auctioneer at Stratford for Newton King Ltd., said he had visited -Bunn’s farm on December _ 2, about taking over his stock. A portion of the stock was mustered. The accused had instructed his son to muster the cows. Altogether there were 34 cattle at the shed and by calculation he now estimated there would have been 31 cows at the shed. Bunn suggested he be allowed to retain a few of the cows for domestic purposes and he was allowed to purchase three cows for himself. That left 28 cows under the bill of sale. There were two further cows which, according to the accused, were not his property. MUSTER SUSPECTED. Witness knew very well that all the cattle had not been mustered and it was agreeji between them to leave a drover on the property to help collect the rest of the stock. He had told Bunn he wanted all the horses covered by the bill of sale. Either on that day or previously Bunn had mentioned that one of the horses on the property belonged to one of his sons. Bunn had not mentioned to him a stallion or a mare and foal. He said there were 20 sheep and 8 calves also on the property and they were left for the drover to bring in later. In taking schedule for the bill of sale dated October, 1934, witness had gone out to the property. Bunn had mustered the stock, witness having nothing to do with the mustering.. To Mr. Moss: The farm was hilly and rough and he believed there was bush ’ on the back. A clean muster on such a farm would involve two days’ mustering. The seizure took place on December 21. “Did the accused have any notice you were coming to seize?” “I think not.” The dairy cattle, continued witness, had just been turned out from the morning milking. He said Bunn had offered to accommodate Brannigan, witness’s assistant, for the night so that he could get a clean muster. There was no hostility or evidence of obstruction. Brannigan stayed on the farm for the remainder of the day and the night and left early next morning. ‘‘Th® herd would be milked again in the evening,” said Mr. Moss, “and Brannigan would still be there? “Brannigan would be on the property but he might not be present at the milking,” said witness. “Were the two stranger cows which had walked on to accused’s property included in your schedule and in the bill of sale?” “Definitely not,” said Williams. At the clearance sale he sold 28 cows and included in them were one. springing heifer and one heifer with calf at f °To His Honour: At the sale 26 cows were sold as dairy cows, and there were two stores, one springing heifer and one calved heifer, making a total of 30. When

he drew up the schedule in August there were 23 cows on the property. These, together with 10 heifers in calf at that time, would make 33, assuming all the heifers produced their calves and went into the herd. “But against that,” said Mr. Moss, “there, were the three cows Bunn bought from you for his domestic use?” “Yes,” said witness. “So that he handed over to you the maximum number of cows he could have had then according to the schedule you drew up?” “Yes,” said witness. To Mr. Quilliam: That was according to the schedule, but the company was not satisfied that the number of stock mustered by Bunn for the drawing up of the schedule was correct. William Harris, registrar of brands and ear-marks in the Stratford district, produced exhibits of brands and ear-marks of the accused. Austin Yamdley, Stratford manager of Newton King, Ltd., said he had spoken to Bunn after the sale at Douglas. Bunn said he had delivered, everything to Williams and had nothing but what he stood up in and asked for a clearance for everything. Witness told Bunn that from what he heard Bunn had not accounted for the whole of the security. They had arranged a meeting for next day. Mr. Truby King, the company’s solicitor, Bunn and witness were present. Accused asked Mr. King for a clearance but witness interjected and said that on account of rumours they had heard neither he nor Mr. King could recommend the board to give the clearance. Asked whether there was stock on his properties belonging to his sons, said there were four cows. Bunn had said there were 20 calves and some sheep that Williams had left there still on his property. , „ Yarndley then said that if Bunn was so certain the rumours were incorrect the best thing would be for him to make a declaration. Witness then' took a list of the stock that was in possession of the accused and his sons. Bunn said it consisted of eight calves, 20 sheep, one stallion, four cows and certain stock that accused’s brother-in-law, Prestidge, ,had bought for him at the sale on the previous day. The declaration was drawn up and at a meeting a little, later of Messrs. King and Coleman (solicitors), the accused and witness, Mr. Coleman had read the declaration over to the accused. Bunn said he did not see why his sons should be brought into it. Yarndley told him that if the' statement were true it would not matter at all if the sons were brought in. After Bunn had read the declaration Mr. Coleman had read it to him aloud, paragraph by paragraph, drawing his attention to a declaration at the end under the Justice of the Peace Act. Bunn signed the declaration and Mr. Coleman questioned him about stock on Watchorn’s property. Bunn said there was nothing on Watchorn’s property, but that in the morning he had instructed his sons to move two cows from the property. Questioned about the stallion, Bunn said it belonged to his son. Later, after Yafndley had telephoned Watchorn,' he had placed the matter in the hands of the police. Witness remembered a bay mare at the Douglas sale being sold to Bredow. e WAS NOT SATISFIED. To Mr. Moss: Apart from the figures of stock he had taken no notes of the conversation between himself and accused. He would not swear that the list of stock taken by Williams for the bill of sale schedule was not correct, but he was not satisfied. “The list was taken on August 16 and the bill of sale was signed on October 10, nearly two months later. When did you became dissatisfied with the list of stock?” asked Mr. Moss. “As soon as I got it.” “Did you make no further inquiries?” “No, but I did make the bill of sale collateral with the previous bills.” “Isn’t it an exception if your firm does not do that?” “Yes,” said witness. ' . “There’s no love lost between you and the accused.” “I would not say that,” said witness. “Up till the day he signed the declaration I did everything in my power to help that man.” At the Douglas sale he had heard rumours about the accused, and had taken a note at the time of what he was told. The note said: “Saw Watchorn about 12 cattle and few horses. Said he had 300 sheep grazing on Bunn’s.” He had seen Norris at the sale but Norris had mentioned only some harness.. Later, he recollected information Norris had given him. There were “quite a few” who wanted to give him information. “I put it to you that Bunn was not exactly. surrounded by friends in, his district,” said Mr. Moss. “To put it frankly,” said Yarndley, “I don’t think he has a friend in the whole of Taranaki.” “Do you seriously say that about, a man elected unopposed in his own district to the county council?” “If he was, then there was something behind it,” said Yarndley. “There’s not one man I’ve met who has had a good word to say about him.” “In other words,” said Mr. Moss, “you have a dead set against him.” Yarndley repeated that he had tjiedto meet the accused over the finances and assist him up till the time of the clearance. “Don’t you agree that the reason Newton King, Ltd., wrote down the accused’s debt was because the security for it was not there?” “No,” said Yarndley. “With the accused you could never be sure what assets he had or did not have. He is a clever man in his own line. Frankly, the reason we decided to clear matters up was because it was the easiest way to get rid of him.” “Did not the accused say he did not like making the declaration about the stock on the spur of the moment?” “I don’t memember his doing so. He seemed only eager to get the whole matter cleared up.” “You made it clear that the. firm didn’t want any stock belonging to his sons?” “Yes.” It had been made clear to Bunn that the inquiry, however, concerned the stock of himself and his whole family. He had not been told by Bunn that the four cows claimed by Bunn’s son had Bunn’s earmarks on them. Had the declaration been proved true, then he would have recommended the directors to discharge Bunn of all liability. “I suggest to you that you had decided to take these proceedings before you got the declaration?” said Mr. Moss. “No. It would have depended on the truth or not of the declaration.” “But all you had to do after you got the declaration was to ring Watchorn, and then inform the police?” “No. A good deal of investigation had to be done before proceedings would be decided upon.” “Do you remember Bunn telling Mr. Coleman, after he had signed the declaration, that he wished to correct his statement in regard to four heifers?” “No,” said witness. If he had heard Bunn mention them he agreed the correct thing to have done would have been to alter the declaration. SOLICITOR'S EVIDENCE. Truby King, solicitor in practice at Stratford, supported the evidence of Yarndley regarding the meeting in the office on January 15 and the signing of the declaration by Bunn. To Mr. Moss: He did not recollect Bunn making a protest that he should be asked on the spur of. the moment to give details of his stock without having records by him. He remembered Bunn saying the company had had “everything but his hide.” Bunn had said he had .given the four cows'to his boys as calves in reward for work they had done for him. He did not hear the accused mention anything

about three three-quarter cows. Alfred. Coleman, solicitor at Stratford, gave evidence of attending the meeting in Yarndley’s. office and of explaining the contents, of the declaration to Bunn. He detailed the conversations held in the room. Feeling very doubtful over the whole business, he put several questions to Bunn after the signing of the document. He asked Bunn if there were any horses belonging to himself or his sons running on Watchorn’s or Welsh’s properties. The answer was no. Asked by witness whether he had any stallion grazing out, Bunn said the only stallion they had grazing out belonged to his eons. He said this stallion was by another stallion belonging to a man named Perry. He said the dam of the stallion belonged to the boys too. Asked if there were any cattle belonging to himself or his sons on Watchorn’s, Bunn said there were no cattle there except four cows belonging to the sons which were being brought from Watchorn’s that day. He said there never had been on Watchorn’s property any cattle belonging to himself or his sons except those four and eight calves. Bunn added there was no livestock belonging to his wife out there. He also stated, witness presumed as a correction of his statement, that he had four 15-month heifers, which he had not disclosed, running on his Puniwhakau property but he had not been able to muster them. To Mr. Moss: He could not say whether the accused had a friend in Taranaki or not. Strictly speaking the declaration should have been altered to include those four heifers, but he did not anticipate any trouble with Kings about that matter because, as a fact, the man had disclosed the four heifers before the three people in the office. Bunn had answered his questions in a very positive manner. “So that you formed the opinion that Bunn was either telling the truth or lying very expertly?” “Yes,” said witness. His-Honour: That is a matter for the jury to decide, Mr. Moss. George Pugh, stock agent, said he went to Watchorn’s property on January 17 and, with Watchorn, mustered certain cattle. They brought in two cows, four calves and four grown heifers. The four grown heifers and the two cows bore Bunn’s ear-marks. Bunn said these cattle really belonged to his sons. The police and accused had joined the party. They then went to Skitrop’s place. Skitrop told them he had two horses, a four-year-old stallion and a four-year-old mare with a cream foal at foot. Bunn said they really belonged to his boys. The party then returned to Watchorn’s to inspect three fillies. Afterwards they crossed the river and saw four heifer calves and two cows in milk. One cow had Bunn’s present ear-mark and the other had an old ear-mark used by Bunn. Bunn had not disputed the marks on any of the cattle. To'Mr. Moss: He suppo.sed it would be possible to conceal cattle on those properties in the bush at the back. The first lot of cattie were found on the top of a ridge in the 40-acre paddock and the fillies were found near the homestead. The value of the stock he had examined that afternoon would total £BB. The stallion would account for £35 and the mare for another £l5 of that sum. At this stage the hearing was adjourned until 9 o’clock this morning.