ALLEGED CATTLE-STEALING

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14820, 7 December 1921, Page 6

ALLEGED CATTLE-STEALING

A CAMBRIDGE CASE. CHARGE AGAINST A FARMER. PRIM 1 ACQUITTED-. A young man named Henry Albert Print pleaded not guilty, before Mr Justice Stringer and a common jury at the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday, to six charges of cattle-stealing. The cattle alleged to have been stolen included four heifers, valued at £6O, the property of A. E. Jamieson; two heifers, valued at £l4, belonging to Edward A. May; five cattle, valued at £SO, the propertv of Warren and Brown; two cattle, worth £3O, belonging to J. A. Marks; one heifer, worth £ls. belonging to A. N. Macky; and one eow, valued at £ls, the property of F. E. Walker.

Mr H. T. Gillies, in stating the case for the Crown, said prisoner had a farm at Te Miro, and to stock his farm he bought 35 head of cattle from Newtori King and Co., the latter taking a bill of sale over them. In July Newton King ordered the cattle to be brought into the sale but, to the surprise of the agent, prisoner arrived with 15 head of cattle short. Prisoner explained that he had lost the others on the way. Newton King's agent then hired a drover, to assist prisoner in finding the lost cattle. Prisoner went on to different properties and "cut out" certain animals, which were eventually sold to Matthews Bros. Several witnesses would prove beyond doubt that the cattle sold to Matthews Bros, were their property. The only question for the jury to decide was as to whether prisoner removed these cattle with guilty knowledge, knowing them to belong to other people. Hugh Duncan Cameron, stock agent for Newton King, said that in July he told prisoner that witness' firm could not wait any longer for their money, and that he must muster his,cattle for sale. Prisoner only delivered 10 cattle at the sale, however, explaining that his dogs were no good and that, he had lost the remainder of the cattle coming in. Witness then sent out a drover with Print to find the other cattle, and they returned with 15 additional head. Answering Mr T. P. Walshe, who appeared for accused, witness said it was quite possible' for cattle belonging to different owners to bear the samo car-marks." He would not swear that prisoner said his dogs were inefficient. It might have been that he had no dogs. Witness could not say that the cattle 1 alleged to have been stolen were not those referred to in the bill of sale', - - ' * David Ford Livingstone said he assisted Print .to muster his cattle for the sale. They did not go over the whole of the farm, as some of it was heavy bush. They mustered, in all, 18 cattle. There was a possibility of prisoner's cattle wandering on to other people's properly. The settlement was about 10,000 acres, and there was very little feed in winter- time. Print told witness he had 44 head of cattle on the property/and from what witness saw of the mob he should imagine the number to be as stated. He did not think Print had sold any cattle. He had never seen him driving any cattle to the sale. Neither had he seen any carcases about the place. William Brown, farmer, of Fencourt, said Livingstone delivered Print's cattle at his place, and witness took them on to the s'ale next day along with a mob of his own. • He separated his own from those of Print at the sale. James Norris, stockman', who assisted Print in the search for the missing cattle, said they mustered about 150 cattle on Walker and Geary's section, Print "cutting out" about 14. They picked up others at the bottom of the hill and a couple on an opposite ridge. Print appeared to have no doubt as to which were his cattle. In answer to his Honor, witness said Print, in cutting out the cattle from the 150, appeared to honestly select what he considered were his own cattle from the mob, and did not choose them haphazardly. Cameron, recalled, was asked what Print said in regard to losing the cattle, answered, "he said he had lost them on the way." Witness: That'is the same effect. His Honor: Excuse me, but it is not the same at all. Witness eventually held to his Lower Court statement. Henry Matthews described v certain cows which he bough), at the Cambridge sale and which certain persons afterwards claimed were theirs. Amongst the ones claimed was a blue Holstein. There was a blue Ilolstein described in the bill of sale. He could not say whether any of the cattle claimed came in with the first or second lot. He believed one of them was in the first lot, because he remarked upon its' poorness at the'sale. Frederick Ernest Walker said he \ identified one of the cattle sold to Matthews as his. His Te Miro property was not properly fenced, and it was possible for his cattle to wander on to other people's property and for theirs to stray on to his. From the cattle grazing on his property he missed altogether 16. Alfred E. Jamieson, farmer, of Te Miro, said that prior to the Cambridge, sale he mustered his cattle and missed six dairy heifers. He searched the whole of the Te Miro block for them in vain. Print assisted him in the search. He had recovered four of the cattle from Matthews. Others were still missing. Evidence was also given by Edwin A. May, James L. Brown, Jacob Albert Marks, E. N. Macky of having missed cattle and later of identifying them on other people's property. Prisoner.gave evidence, during which he stated that when he received instructions to muster the cattle he tried to do so, but only gathered in 18. These' he sent in by Livingstone to Brown's place. Later on he (accused) found the other 15, but on the way down they "beat" him at the cross-roads and got -into- the bush. Later on, with the aid of Norris, he found the 15 cattle wandering with others. He was quite certain the animals he "cut out" when with Norris were his. After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and prisoner was discharged.