CLAIM FOR HEIFERS

Taranaki Daily News, 8 November 1935, Page 6

CLAIM FOR HEIFERS

BRANDS AND EAR MARKS. STRATFORD CASE CONTINUED. The hearing of the claim of H. E. Nowell, Ngaere,. for the possession of two heifers and for damages from P. P. O'Brien, also of Ngaere, begun at Stratford on Wednesday, was continued before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., yesterday afternoon. Four more witnesses were called by Mr. P. Thomson, who was acting for Nowell. Mr. Hassell, Kaponga, represented O’Brien. The case was not concluded. On August 21 he received a complaint from O’Brien to the effect that he had lost two heifers, said Sergeant Annis. They had been missing for six or seven months and on August 20 O’Brien had recognised them on the farm of Nowell, Climie Road. On August 22 the sergeant went with Constable Hughes to Nowell’s farm and there they identified a heifer from the description given by O’Brien, and from the likeness it bore to two cows on O’Brien’s farm, claimed to be the mother and the sister of the heifer. There was no difficulty in picking it out. Nowell said that the heifer had been on his farm for six months and was his property. Later Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien arrived and from among the whole of Nowell’s milicing herd she selected the heifer she claimed was theirs. The party then went to the back of the farm, said the sergeant, and there among the dry stock O’Brien identified as his a heifer with a V ear-mark oh the right ear. The milking heifer earlier identified had a crescent cut out of the top of the left ear. The two beasts were brought into the stock yard and the ear-marks compared. Mr. W. Harris, Government stock inspector, was also brought out to examine the ears of the two beasts. Later Nowell said that to save any further trouble O’Brien could take away both heifers. Nowell was not himself at the time; he was very upset, his wife being seriously ill. On. August 26 the sergeant and Constable Hughes again visited Nowell’s farm and the dry stock were rounded up. The. rumps of the beasts were clipped and Nowell’s brand was found on ten of. them, though four were unbranded. In the meantime the two heifers had been taken away by O’Brien, and the same day they went out to O’Brien’s place, where the two heifers were examined. No brands were found on them. On August 29 a man named Davidson rang up the police to say that he had found brands on the beasts, and with Constable Hughes the sergeant went out and examined the heifers. They were clipped and Nowell’s brand was found on the ribs of both. In his opinion the brands could not have been put on within the last six months. REGARDED SERIOUSLY. To Mr. Thomson, Sergeant Annis said that cattle stealing was regarded very seriously, especially where there was mutilation of ear-marks, so that when complaints were received from O’Brien it was his duty to investigate. When Nowell’s ear-marks were found on the beasts no further action was taken; the matter was cleared up as far as he was concerned. On the first day they visited Nowell’s farm Nowell seemed to be satisfied that the heifers were O’Brien’s, said the sergeant to Mr. Hassell. He remembered remarking on the day the brands were found on the heifers, “O’Brien’s earmark and Nowell’s brand!’’ There was no hair growing through the scars of the brands. ' Alexander James Corrigan, farmer, Hawera, and brother-in-law of Nowell, was called by Mr. Thomson. He had had a good deal to do with the Climie Road farm, he said, especially last year when Nowell was away ill from August till about Christmas. At that time there were 28 yearling heifers on the farm, and he bought ten of them, leaving Mrs. Nowell 18, 14 fawn, one brown and three dark. Later two fawn ones were sold, leaving 16 on the farm. He had not the least doubt that the two heifers in dispute -were two of the four dark ones. He had examined the heifer with the V ear-mark and he had found that O’Brien’s ear-marker did not fit the mark. He pointed this out to O’Brien, .Who Stated: that the ears had grown since they were punched. It had beep proved by experts in the Agricultural Department, said Corrigan, that ears did not grow in animals. He was present when Davidson found Nowell’s brands or the heifers; in his opinion the brands had been oh a long time, as the scars had grown. It was impossible that the heifers could have been branded rev cently, even within the last twelve months.

He described a visit he paid later to O’Brien’s farm in company with Mr. P. O. Veale, dairy scientist, Hawera, and Constable Hughes. Mr. Veale took impressions of the ear-marks of the heifers dispute and of two of O’Brien’s heifers.

A report on his findings after examination of the ear-marks and brands of the two disputed heifers on O’Brien’s farm was read by Mr. P. O. Veale, scientist, Hawera. In his opinion the brands were consistent with having been made 18 months ago as claimed by Nowell, and not consistent with having been made within the last six months, as claimed by O’Brien, and the ear-marks on the heifers were consistent with having been cut with a knife and not consistent with having been punched with O’Brien’s ear-marker. . The brands had obviously been put on the two heifers when the animals were calves, said Mr. W. Harris, Government stock inspector at Stratford. His impression in connection with the earmarks was that one was consistent with h”'’.ng been- punched with part of O’Brien’s ear-marks. PERSONAL ITEMS. Mr. D. O’Sullivan, Inglewood, is in the Stratford hospital. Sympathy with him in his illness was expressed on Wednesday night by the executive of the Stratford A. and P. Association.