MAORI FARMER GUILTY

Taranaki Daily News, 27 February 1935, Page 5

MAORI FARMER GUILTY

THEFT OF SHEEP PROVED

EWE KILLED ON AWAKING LAND. TOSS REMANDED FOR SENTENCE. Charged with the theft of a ewe on Maniaroa pa, Awakino, on January 7, Joe Toss, a Maori, was found guilty before Mr. Justice Blair at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. On an alternative charge ' of receiving he was found not guilty. The jury, retiring at 11.45 a.m. and returning at 2.30 p.m., took two and three-quarter hours to reach the decision. Toss was remanded, for sentence. •' *

Toss, whose Maori name is Toahu Tohia Harawira, said he was managing the Maori farm at the Awakino pa.- He was 37 years old and had a family; He. had lived most of his life at the pa, taking up the management of the property about 12 months ago. Prior to that he was assistant inspector to the Waitomo County. The stock at the'pa, sheep and dairy cows, belonged to a Maori estate. The property consisted of 125 acres. ’ On the day he killed the sheep, said Toss, he was cutting firewood in the gully with O’Brien, a Maori who had been living at the pa. They were about 100 yards up from the back of Huia’s whare. Toss had seen three dogs rounding, up a sheep some distance away and had dropped his axe and run towards them. The sheep was in his property. • One black dog, said Toss, was biting the sheep round the head and throat. The sheep was .bleeding badly so he decided to kill it. He knew it was Calvert’s sheep. After killing the sheep by hitting it over the head with a stick he went back to the house for his knife. More dogs followed him back. He skinned the sheep where it was, punching the skin off. He had long experience with sheep and in the course of his work had done a lot of skinning. He had skinned the sheep carefully, taking care not to soil it. He gave the carcase to the dogs and kept the skin to show to Calvert as proof of what had. happened on the property. . ‘ KEPT SKIN TO SHOW OWNER. O’Brien followed him up but did not come near enough to see the details of either the killing or skinning. Afterwards, said Toss, he put the skin on top of the firewood in his cart and took it home. He had kept the skin to show Calvert, who frequently called to see him. Young Calvert and Martin arrived about a week after the skinning to make inquiries.: He denied that he had told Martin and Calvert that the dogs had tom the inside out of the sheep. There were 13 dogs at the pa. Six sheep had been killed at the pa for Christmas and the hones had disappeared soon afterwards. “How far away on the day you. killed the sheep was the woodcart?’’ asked Mr. Quilliam. • “About 200 yards or more?” said Toss. “Did O’Brien see the sheep?” “No.” ' ■ ■

“Did you tell O’Brien what you were going to do?” "Yes.” ‘

“When you killed the sheep, then you walked 1200 yards to the house and back again to the sheep, all to get the knife?” -. “Yes.” ' ,

“You say now that you did not give any meat to Hula?” ' “Yes.” ' ' ’ :

“You don’t think Martin and Calvert were right in saying you told them you had given a forequarter to Huia?” “No, I did not say that to them.”

“You know they had gone to Huia?* “Yes.” “Did they give any reason for going to Huia?” “Not to me.” “Martin and Calvert said when they came back that Huia had said you did not give him a forequarter and you then said Huia was a liar?” said counsel. . . ' “I did not say Huia is a liar. Huia is a straight-forward man.” SEARCH OF LOCALITY. \ ,

Detective Meiklejohn, said Toss, had not made a particularly thorough search of the place where the sheep was killed. Toss went with him and they walked about glancing along the ground as they went. He had no grudge or ill-feeling against Martin, said Toss. He had found him a good neighbour. “But his evidence contradicts yours on a number of points?” said Mr. Quilliam. “Yes,” said Toss. “But you would say he is an honest, reliable man?” “As far as I know,” said Togs. That concluded the case for the defence. Both counsel then addressed the jury and afterwards His Honour reviewed the evidence. The charge against the accused was of theft, said His Honour, with an alternative charge of receiving. As far as they were concerned they would have to consider the charge of theft. On the charge of receiving they could bring in a verdict of not guilty. The definition of theft in law .was much the same as they understood it in ordinary life. -The thing taken had to be taken with the intention of depriving the owner of it If that object was taken without that intention there could be no charge of theft.

The defence had set up an. affirmative case. They admitted that the sheep had been killed but claimed it had been dona without the intention of depriving the owner of the sheep. A free translation of the defence was that the accused said the sheep was being worried by dogs so he killed it. The Crown said that his was an incredible story full of. contradictions.

The defence claimed that the sheep was killed in full daylight in the view’ of the road. His Honour reminded them that the Crown did not accept the fact that it was killed in broad daylight or in any of the circumstances that Toss claimed. There was a good deal of inconsistency in the evidence on the part of the accused. For instance he had given three variations of the Huia story, and the Crown suggested that these inconsistencies must affect the whole story told by the accused. The jury would have to weigh the evidence and judge the facts for themselves.

There was another point that interested him, said His Honour. Toss said he fed the meat to the dogs and was keeping the skin to show Calvert, who did hot , live far away. Later Calvert called and asked to muster on the accused’s prop- . erty. Calvert was there worrying about lost sheep. The accused at that time ■_ did not mention to Calvert about the skin. One might have imagined he would be bursting with whole story about Huia and so on was not even mentioned until the r skin was brought out of the shed. The Crown suggested that the evidence was affected by inconsistencies in the story of the accused. It rejected the dog worrying story altogether and suggested that the accused killed the sheep, did what he wanted with the carcase and would later dispose of the skin. He reminded the • jury, however, that th* Crown must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt,. . . *