SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2163, 14 February 1891, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Before His Honor Mr Justice Dennistoun. ALLEGED SKEEP STEALING. Oa Wednesday, John Campbell, a farmer residing in the Woodbury district, was charged with on or about the 16th November, 1890, stealing 90 sheep, valued at £7O, the property of Thomas Percival Wooding, farmer, Fairfield.

Mr Joynt, with Mr Hay, appeared for the accused; and the Crown Prosecutor, with Mr Kaymond, conducted the prosecution. Ihe following was the jury:—'. Gunnell (foreman), A. Scotfc, G. W. Gardner, J, Harrison, J. Marshall, B. Nesbitt, J. Morrison, P. Kyan, J. McAuliffe, F. Marsh, P. Keen and E Metson, The evidence in this case was very voluminous, and as we have already published the principal part of it, it is unnecessary for us to do so again. For the prosecution, T. P. Wooding, fsenr, Joseph Wooding, and T. P. Wooding (his sons), Miss Eose Wooding, G. Winter, and A. B. Cox gave evidence.

On Thursday Frank Standish (Manager for Mr Grigg), Eobt. Kennigton (sheep dealer), T. M. Jones (stockman and booking clerk to Mr D. Thomas; Auctioneer), Terence O'Brien (detective), and H,, Willoughby (constable), gave evidence for the prosecution. '. ■'■:■. '•' ' ,! '■ : John Campbell (the accused), Archibald Campbell (his father), Donald Macpherson (shepherd), Donald Macdonald (sheep farmer), James Johnson (sheep dealer), John Munro (shepherd), Peter Bain (shepherd), Donald McLeod (Manager for Mr Postlethwaite), Alex. Mackenzie (farmer), and John Cunningham (Manager for the Bank of New Zealand, Geraldine), gave evidence for the defence.

Mr Joynt then addressed the Court for the defence, and Mr White followed for the prosecution. Both addresses were lengthy. His Honour's summing up occupied nearly an hour. The exact date and exact number of sheep stolen did not signify in a trial of this kind. There was no reason to doubt that Wooding lost the 90 sheep, and the presumption must be that they were stolen, for it was most improbable that if they had merely strayed they would not have been heard of. They could not disappear entirely. Then the question was, did the accused steal them ? Were the 83 sheep found with accused some of those lost by Wooding ? Asa rule he did not care to refer to the matter in which witnesses gave their evidence; the jury could see that and form their own conclusions. But an attack had had been made upon Mr Wooding which went entirely beyond any justification by the evidence, therefore he thought it right to say plainly what was his opinion on the Bubject. No doubt it was very wroDg and injudicious for a witness to mention what evidence he had given, and the father seemed to to have been talking in a general way in public, as an experienced witness could not have done. That was all the evidence came to. It was fair matter for comment, but not for making such an attack as had been made. He would say that he never heard evidence given in "a clearer or more apparently truthful manner. The way Mr Wooding gave his evidence struck him as being clear and intelligent,not and given with the obvious intention of straining a point against the accused. He was there as a witness in the discharge of a public duty, and was entitled to the protection of the Court. He did not think that Wooding was a man who would commit perjmy or induce his sons to lie in order to convict a man of stealing some of their sheep. His Honour then spoke of the question of identification. If they believed the story of accused and his father and Macpherson, that put an end to the case. Their evidence was open to the criticism that the prisoner was fighting for his liberty, and his father would naturally aid him, and the servant could be trained to tell a story. They

must therefore look at the surrounding circumstances, which could not be suspected of lying. Strong evidence 1 for the Crswn was the similarity of the 83 sheep with others in the possession of Wooding when placed in juxtaposition with them the mixture making a compact even block. The Crown asked them to say whether it was likely that such a close similarity would be found between sheep differently bred and diffently fed. That was the strongest point made by the Crown. The evenness of the 83 might be explained by the story of the defence, but that did not explain the I similarity between the 83 and the specimen 25 from Wooding's farm, : Then there was the identity of earmark. This was another strong point, and that a man that lost 90 sheep bearing a distinct earmark, should find nearly the same number of that mark with his next door neighbour was a strange coincidence, made the stranger that they were used as the same sex mark. It was shown that other people used that ear-mark, but no attempt was made to trace these sheep from any of those persons. Of course the accused was not bound to do that. But looking at the evidence as it stood was it likely that lambß such as were stated to have been bought would turn out practically identical with those bred by Wooding ? His Honor read extracts from the evidence of Standish and Kennington, as to the stunted character of the lamdsthey sold, and of other witnesses as to the improbability of such culls

growing into such good sheep. On the other hand was the opinion of several witnesses that they might, and of the accused, his father and servant that they actually did bo. Had the Crown succeeded in proving their case as to thiß point ? Apart from the general identification there were the four specially indenified sheep. Supposing a man lost twenty one-pound notes, sixteen of which he : could only identify in a general sort of way, and four of them he could i certainly identify; if he found those < four along with the sixteen that : resembled the lot he had lost, he <

would be pretty sure that the whole were his. That seemed to be the case here. The specially marked sheep ' were shorn and bore Campbell's brand. If the jury believed the evidence respecting the identification of the four sheep, that would be important in deciding, the probability as to the ownership of the rest. There was also the conduct of the accused and his doctrine about the earmarks, upon which doctrine the Crown asserted he acted—that after a sheep was shorn an earmark was useless for idetificafcion. His refusal to raddle two sheep he caught on the road was suspicious : why should he not have permitted it ? The most suspicious point in the conduct of accused was that he manoeuvred to get the sheep out of the paddock before Wooding could see them. When they were roughly examined the Woodings could only find four or five. Then the rest of the 83 must have been somewhere else, and the accused misled the Woodings by saying that they could search for them. Could they have any doubt that next morning was the time fixed upon for the delivery to the company. Was it likely the company would send to take delivery without sending him sufficient notice, so that the sheep could be kept ready ? He admitted that he went to the Sugarloaf to muster the sheep for delivery, and would not have done so merely" to satisfy Wooding. Bain

understood notice was given. The jury could say what they thought of that. The sheep were not moved out of the district, bnfc the difficulty of examining them was increased by the removal, and this fact, though not very important itself, might turn the scale in case of a doubt. If the jury were convinced that these 83 sheep were Wooding's, they could only conclude that accused stole them. For he had not only had possession of them, but attempted to account for that possession by a story which if the sheep were Wooding's must be false, and if his story was. fake his whole defence was destroyed. It was said that accused had told a consistent story throughout. Of eourse if a man was guilty ha could make up his mind to tell a consistent story; but the fact must be taken into account that he had been consistent throughout. His Honour exculpated the Woodings from the insinuationslofjcounsel for defence that they only Bought to recover their sheep. Nine men out of ten who lost anything o£ value and went to the police about it would do so with the desire in the first place to recover their property. If they were satisfied that the sheep were Wooding's he thought they would find, from what would then be the false story of the accused that he stole them. Lastly there was the kigh character given to the accused bv many persons who had known him for a long time, and that evidence should weigh with them a leng time in case of doubt. His Honour impressed upon the jury that they must be convinced that the sheep were Wooding's, and not merely a suspicion of it.

The jury retired at 6 55, and returned in about twenty minutes, to say that they had not agreed, but would probably do so before ten. They were then sent to dinner, and His Honour undertook to see them again at ten. At this hour the jury were recalled, and gave a verdict of Not Guilty, the foreman saying that two of them had very grave doubts of the tanocence of the accused. His Honour accepted this a as verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was discharged. This closed the criminal business.