DISPUTE OVER COW.

Thames Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 18409, 5 February 1932, Page 3

DISPUTE OVER COW.

THEFT CHARGE FAILS. A Mangatarata Case. QUESTION OF IDENTIFICATION. LONG EVIDENCE HEARD. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr F. W. Flatts, S.M., Mrs Kalin Renshaw appeared charged with stealing one Jersey heifer, valued at £5, the property of Amelia Martin, of Mangatarata. The police asked that the case be dealt with .summarily and the charge reduced to common theft.

This was granted by the Bench

Accused pleaded not guilty through her counsel. Sergeant Macnamara said the complainant was a sharcmilker of Ngatea who was in partnership with one Nicholson. In June, 1930, Mrs Martin and Nicholson each .sent eight heifer calves on defendant’s farm for grazing payment being arranged. On September 10 drovers were sent to collect the calves, but were only able to collect 14 out of the 16, two being missing. Mrs Martin sent through her solicitor to the defendant to return the calves, but received the answer they were not on her property. Both were branded and earmarked with Mrs Martin’s registered brand On December 22 Constable Clifford called at defendant’s farm and the stock was mustered. The constable found a beast answering the description of one of the missing heifers and bearing Mrs Martin’s brand. Mrs Renshaw said she bought it off a neighdour, A. Henderson. The heifer also bore a brand which Mrs Renshaw said was hens.

H. A. Nicholson, farmer, of Mangatarata, said he was at one time milking on shares With Mrs Martin. He remembered the stock being driven to Mrs Renshaw’s place. There were 31 head altogether, heifers and calves. Witness described a visit to the place four or five weeks afterwards and later Mrs Martin sent for the stock which arrived back two short. These belonged to Mrs Martin. He had seen the two missing ones since then on Mrs Renshaw’s place. He had been to her place two or three times after the cattle but Mrs Renshaw said they were not on the farm. He had no doubt regarding the identity of the animals. . The brand was an L with an arrow head on it. He had no interest with Mrs Martin in the stock. '*

To counsel for defendant: The stock was taken to Mrs Ren.shaw’s in one lot, but came away in several lots, and totalled 29 only. The calf in question was eight months old when it went to Mrs Renshaw’s. He did not see it in the interim. He could positively identity the calf with the heifer. He had earmarked the beast himself. He never branded any cattle on Mrs Renshaw’s property. Mrs Renshaw refused twice to let him on her property to look for the animals, Allan J. Renshaw, son of Mrs Renshaw, said he worked at Kaihere at present but previously worked for bis mother milking cows. He remembered branding six cattle, amongst which, was a small lightcoloured heifer. The brand was “ICR.” It had the L and arrow brand on it at the time. The ICE. was on the rump. He was told to brand it by his mother. He could not remember if he was told anything about this particular heifer, but he had seen it on the farm before. Mrs Martin had some stock grazing on the farm, but he did not know if they were branded. He had never branded stock before. To counsel for defendant: He had seen the heifer on the farm before and had heard that it was branded. As far as he knew the heifer was there before Mrs Martin’s cattle came. The brand had become indistinct before re-branding

To the Sergeant. His mother’s brand was not on that heifer before he branded it.

Archibald Henderson, farmer of Mangatarata, deposed he sold Mrs Renshaw 10 calves in January, 1930. They wrnre neither branded nor earmarked. They were fawn and yellow Jerseys. He had .seen them when he w T ent round with Constable Clifford. He did not know' Mrs Martin’s, brand but Constable Clifford pointed out a fawn Jersey with what he said was Mrs Martin’s brand. He could not swear that lie sold that beast to Mrs Renshaw 7 , but none of the calves w 7 cre branded.

To counsel for defendant: It w 7 as not possible for him to identify stock after tw T o years and he did.not think anyone else could. Constable Clifford, of Kerepeehi, said he made enquiries of Mrs Renshaw' about the missing tw T o heifers. She said the cattle were not on her farm and witness then went through the stock, which were yarded for him. He found a 21-year-old fawn Jersey amongst them with Mrs Martinis brand on the rigid hip. It also had Mrs. Martin’s ear-mark. There w'as another brand, K.R. behind the brand and on the left hip, the same brand. These had only recently been put on. He drew' Mrs Renshaw’s attention to the brand and asked her where she got the beast from. Sl>“ replied that she got it from Mr Henderson and that someone must have branded it in her place. Witness pointed out that the brand was obviously an old one. Henderson was brought over, but he could not identify any of the cattle. Nicholson picked out the heifer three chains away in Mrs Renshaw’s presence, Witness knew Mrs Martin’s brand quite well and was sure that the heifer in question was branded when a calf. It w'as perfectly plain. To counsel: One KR. was upside down. , .... : . „ .

This concluded the case for the police. Counsel for defendant said it was a case of mistaken identity. The old brand must have been placed on tlie beast while on Mrs Renshaw’s property ami that it was on before Mrs Martin’s stock came to the place. Mrs Kalm Renshaw gave evidence. She farmed at Mangatarata and took in stock for grazing. Mrs Martin’s stcok totalled 41 head and were on the farm a little over four months. Witness detailed that these were taken away in different lots. She was sure that the 31 were handed back. Two months afterwards one of the boys asked her if she had two heifers left on the place. She told him no, but he could go and look over the farm. His reply was that he couldn’t be bothered. She bought the animal in dispute off Mr Henderson before Mrs Martin’s stock arrived. It was branded by a Mr McKenzie .shortly after it arrived. Henderson told her if she reared the calf it would be a good heifer. She did not notice Mrs Martin’s brand until the winter coat came off in October, 1931. It was too large for a calf brand. She could not account for the brand being there. To the Sergeant: She bought the heifer in January, 1930, from Henderson. It was peculiar that Henderson could not now identify the heifer as once being his. There were no other stock of Mrs Martin’s ever on her place. Witness identified a letter of hers to Mrs Martin, dated January, 1931, which stated that she had a heifer of Mrs Martin’s and as 31 had been removed, Mrs Martin had one of hers. To the Bench: No reply was received.

In answer to the Sergeant. Thero is a mistake in the letter. Witness could not explain the position as her daughter wrote the letter and she signed it. To the Sergeqnt: She instructed her son to brand the cattle as the marks had grown indistinct. Nono of Henderson’s calves were branded when she bought them.

Cross-examined: The brand was put on the calf by McKenzie shortly after she bought it. She was sure that Mrs Martin received all her stock back.

To the Sergeant: Martin’s farm was over six miles from her place. Jacob Hill, a Maori scliolboy, said he had lived four years on Mrs Renshaw’s farm. He remembered the purchase of the 10 calves two years ago. He saw the stock every second day. He remembered the heifer in question; it had been on the place the winter before last and was one of the ten bought from Henderson. He had not noticed the brand.

To the Sergeant: He remembered young Renshaw branding the cattle

Cross-examined: McKenzie branded the calf when it first came to the farm.

His Worship reviewed the evidence which did not, on Mrs Martin’s side, say how many cattle were returned Mrs Renshaw was emphatic that 31 went back, Mrs Martin did not reply to tiie letter. It seemed that there was a bona fide dispute which should be settled by civil action. The defendant was a woman of excellent character and there was no evidence of theft on her part. The ease would be dismissed.