SKINS WITHOUT EARS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 49, Issue 14878, 16 March 1923, Page 5

SKINS WITHOUT EARS.

POLICE TAKE ACTION. MT. BRUCE FARMER CHARGED. In the Police Court at Masterton this morning, before Mr S. L. P. Free, S.M., Gus Johansen, a well known farmer, of Mt. Bruce, was charged with having been unlawfully found in possession of sheepskins from which the ears had been removed. Mr A. 0. Major appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Sweeney said that on ,13th February he visited defendant’s farm at Mt. Bruce, accompanied by Constable Phillips. Witness told Gus Johansen that be was enquiring about the sheep he was killing, and asked if they were his own. Defendant replied: 'Oh, yes; only lour own.” In a statement defendant said that for Christmas he killed two lambs, and since then three or four. He said the last sheep he killed was a hogget, on the previous Sunday. He said it was his own sheep. He said he had not kept the skins, only those of the lambs he had killed at Christinas. Johansen’s farm was about 17 miles from Masterton, and nobody resided on it. Johansen resided about two miles away from it. Witness asked Johansen to show them where he. killed the hogget on the Sunday, and he showed them an old fallen down shed. Witness asked to see the skin of the hogget, and defendant produced an old skin, falling to pieces. Witness asked for the hogget’s skin and he replied that he had cut it into pieces and given it to the dogs. Constable Phillips, Johansen and witness went, through a wire fence and witness told the constable and Johansen to have a look down the creek, which has banks about JO feet high, covered with thick vegetation. Witness saw the constable find the two skius produced. When the skins were brought to the bank he stretched one out and said, ‘‘lt looks like a lamb’s skin, and is from one recently killed.” From its appearance it was evident that it had only been taken off the carcase a day or two. Defendant replied: “No, it is not a lamb’s skin. Witness asked to see the carcase, and witness showed them two hindquarters hanging on a tree, covered by a sack. Witness said: “It looks like a lamb, and defendant replied, “No, it’.s a small hogget.” Asked why he had thrown the skins into the creek, defendant replied, “Because it creates_ a smell about the place.” The intestines had been left close to where the killing took place. Near the stump of a tree they found the head produced. Witness was not prepared to say it was a lamb s head. It had the appearance iof having been recently killed. Johansen examined the head and admitted it was the head of a lamb, but he could not account for its presence on the property. He said they did not have any shorn lambs on their property, and that he was the only one who killed sheep ion the property. No trace of the ears could be found. About 200 yards from where the skins were found is McLachlan’s property, and across the Ruamahanga river is Wall’s property. Replying to Sir Major, the witness said he was not going to divulge iipon whose information he went to Johansen’s place. It was from information received. He did not know that McLaehlan and Johansen were quarrelling over a boundary fence. Johansen had not at any time admitted that the fresh skin found was a lamb’s skin. _ Constable Phillips, who accompanied Sergeant Sweeney to Johansen’(S, corroborated the Sergeant’s evidence. Ihe constable detailed the finding of the two skins in the creek, neither of winch had any ears. The lamb s head found near the stump seemed to have been recently killed and the ears were clean cat Witness searched, but could find no sign of the ears. Johansen .said he generally cut the cars off and threw them to the dogs. He said he had no shorn lambs that season. To Mr Major: Witness considered that the head and the first skin both came off the same lamb, but defendant maintained that the skin was a hogget’s skin, and not a lamb’s. Defendant told witness that lie generally cut the ears off and threw them to the dogs. A. T. P. Hubbard, Inspector of Stock, said he visited defendant’s property on 26th February with regard to the skins minus the ears. Defendant told witness he sometimes killed his own meat and sometimes bought meat. He said he invariably killed hoggets, because they were the least valuable type of sheep. He said the skins were of little value, and he threw them away or gave them to the dogs. With regard to the skins found by the police, Johansen said it was true that he killed a hogget on the Sunday prior to the .police visit. He said the only lambs he killed of recent date were two at Christmas. Witness said that if one of the skins found could not account for it. Witness could by the police was a lamb’s skin, he not regard this explanation as satisfactory, Witness could not say whether the skin produced was that of a lamb or a hogget, but the head was certainly ■that of a lamb. . Charles Bannister, wool expert, said the skin produced was that of a shorn lamb. The head was also that of a lamb. The other skin he should say was that of a cull 2-tooth. The lamb skin would be worth about a shilling.

CASE FOR DEFENCE. Mr Major said that defendant did not surest that McLaclilan had placed the lamb’s skin and head -on his property, but someone had placed them there. Johansen had always got on well with his neighbours until recently, when Johansen and McLaclilan had fallen out over a dispute connected with land boundaries. Someone must have placed the head and skin 0 n Johansen’s property, as he did not put them there hnnselt. Mr Major pointed out that the real stin" of this prosecution was that if defendant was convicted it would indicate that he had been guilty of a more serious offence, and would blast his reJohansen, the defendant, said he remembered the police visiting him last month. He went to the fa™ on the Sunday before the police visit The two young Welchs went up with him, one about 6 and the other 8 years old After lunch they killed a small hoasret. He threw the skin and inside over the bank. The dogs took the head. When the Sergeant spoke to him, witness told him he had killed three or four hoggets in the spring, and had given McLachlan ’ls part. McLachlans had killed some and given him part. At Christmas he killed two black-faced lambs. When killing the hoggets he shore them to get the- wool. Hethiow the skins away because he did not think they were worth anything. He did not think it mattered in these cases if he left the ears on the skin or on the head, and he had at times left the cars on the heads. This was never done with the object of evading identification of the skins. Witness denied that •he had told the Sergeant that the skin produced was the skin of the hogget lie had killed on the Sunday. When the head was found, witness told the ber-o-eant that he did not -think it was the head of the sheep he had killed on the Sunday, as the sheep he had killed was

a hogget. Witness could not explain how the lamb’s -skin and head came on t,o his property, as lie had not killed a lamb since Christmas. Someone must have -put them on his property. He had had a good deal of trouble- with his neighbours lately. His Worship remarked that the matter of -this trouble could not be gone into, as the neighbours were not here to give their side of the question. Witness said lie had been in the Mt. Bruce district for 38 years, and until recently had got on well with his neighbours. He had no need to steal a lamb, as he had plenty without stealing. Sergeant Sweeney: What became of the -skin from the carcase you killed on the Sunday?—l can’t say. It was thrown over the bank; it was of no value. , _ , Questioned further by the Sergeant, the witness denied several of the statements made by the Sergeant and Constable Phillips. He said that he was speaking the truth. Witness considered that someone had placed the skin on his property to injure him. DEFENDANT FINED £25.

His Worship said the law was well known that it was obligatory u P° n those who killed sheep to preserve the ears attached to the skin. It was only by this means that skins can be identified when an animal is dead. He was satisfied the skins were the property of defendant, and lie was satisfied defendant had broken the law. In his Worship’s opinion defendant, feaung the consequences of his act, had made inconsistent statements. Defendant -would be convicted and fined £25 and costs.