FINE OF £25.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18652, 22 August 1930, Page 7

FINE OF £25.

ECHO OF SHEEP-STEALING CHARGE. MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT. At the last sitting of the Supreme Court at Timaru. Henry Lawson Brown was acquitted on a charge of sheepstealing. Before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.. at the Timaru Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, Brown was charged that on April 21, 1930, at Pleasant Point, he was in possession of four sheep skins from which the earmarks had been removed. Mr L. M. Inglis pleaded guilty on behalf of accused, who did not appear. Detective Studholme stated that the Magistrate was conversant with the circumstances, which had been placed before him in the lower Court. Briefly the facts were that four skins without ear marks had been found in defendant slaughterhouse on April 21st. Mr Inglis pointed out that two of the skins had Brown’s own brand, while the other two bore the brand of a neighbour named Blakemore. Witnesses before the Supreme Court had sworn to the identification of the skins, and the present case did not appear to be very serious, as evidence of identification had not been destroyed in any way. Of the four skins in question Brown had stated that one was taken from an old cancerous sheep. In the process the skin had been torn, while the head could not be skinned at all. The defence in the Supreme Court had been to the effect that the skins had been placed in defendant’s slaughterhouse by an enemy, and he believed that Brown had been discharged on these grounds. The Magistrate: “How do I know that?” Detective Studholme claimed that it was defendant’s duty to prove this defence in the present proceedings. He objected to the statement made by Mr Inglis in regard to the skins being placed in the house. Mr Inglis stressed the point that marks of identification had not been destroyed. The Magistrate said that the charge was regarded as serious, and he had power to impose a penalty up to £SO. He was conversant with the circumstances, having heard the evidence in the lower Court. He was aware, also, that the jury, for their own reasons, had discharged accused in the higher Court. It was not for him to say, and it should be impossible for anyone to say, on what grounds the jury based their verdict. “I understand,” continued the Magistrate, “that the defence alleges that the skins had been substituted by some bad-minded person. To-day Brown has pleaded guilty, and that, in my opinion, does not justify the stand he took in the upper Court. If the circumstances are as the defence allege, it is surprising to me that Brown has not fought the case to the bitter end.” Mr Inglis: “Brown has had enough of Court proceedings, and does not want to be present again.” In convicting and fining defendant £25, with costs 10/-, the Magistrate remarked that it was surprising that Brown was not prepared to take up the defence before him again.