ALLEGED CATTLE STEALING.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3278, 25 July 1911, Page 2

ALLEGED CATTLE STEALING.

CHARGE AGAINST A DROVER.

SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE

The attention of Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M, was occupied yesterday with hearing a charge against James Patterson, a drover, of having on May 26th at Kaitaratahi, stolen a heifer, valued at £ls, the property of George Ernest Gaston.

. Sergeant Hutton conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Stock appeared for defendant, who pleaded “not guilty.” George Ernest Gaston, laborer, residing at Rakauroa, stated that in company with Constable Doyle, he inspected a heifer on June 13th, at Kaitaratahi. The heifer, which was a dark Jersey, and unbranded, was his porperty, and lie knew it by a mark on the tip of the left ear. He reared the heifer and since lie last saw it a piece had been taken out of the right ear. Witness left the lieifer in charge of Wm. Burns, at Kaitaratahi, on November 15th last and accused had seen it several times. Witness had never given anyone permission to dispose of the heifer or mark it.

Wm. Burns, of Kaitaratahi, said that Gaston gave him a heifer to. graze in November last, and he put it on Mr. Max Jackson’s property, and witness saw it once about six weeks after putting it out. On June 6th he saw the same heifer in Newman’s yard. He thought it was the same heifer. He noticed a mark on the right ear, though he had not noticed any mark before. He never missed the lieifer from Jackson’s paddock. After seeing the heifer in Newman’s yard he went to search for three other heifers, but not for this particular heifer. He had not been notified at any time by Gaston or any other persons that the heifer was going to be removed. Mrs. J. Scriniigcour stated that early in May last she had a conversation with accused and he asked her to run two calves for him on Newman’s property with her own calves. He said the calves were on Mr. Max Jackson’s property. On May 26th accused informed her that a Mr. Scott had sent him out for a. stud Hereford cow and calf, and if she would let her daughter go with him he could bring the calves at the same time. "Witness let her daughter go, and later the girl brought two calves into witness’s paddock. Witness told accused to put the calves into her small paddock, but he said they would be hard to find, and he thought it better to put them straight into Newman’s. He marked the calves so that he would know them. In consequence of something she heard she spoke to accused on the road. She informed him that Dir. Wilson said that the calves were his but this accused denied. . Some time afterwards accused was talking to her about Jersey cattle, and accused said he knew where there was a good Jersey calf. It was on Jackson’s property, and lie would try and buy it. She asked who it belonged to, and he replied that it was owned by a man named Gaston, but perhaps she could see Burns or he could make a deal. If accused had put the calves in witness’s paddock as suggested he would have had to drive them past Burns’ door. On June 6th two heifers were shown to her at Newman’s and they were the same as those marked by accused in her shed. She did mot ask accused at any time to bring in a couple of heifers belonging to her which were on Jackson’s property. She did not know Gaston’s heifer prior to May 20th. Jessie Scrimgeour, aged 14 years, a daughter of the previous witness, stated that at some time prior to the 26th May she was present during a conversation between her mother and the accused. Witness’ mother said that she had had the calves in her own paddock for a long time, and she wanted them shifted to Newmans. Witness’ mother also said that she wanted them ear-marked and branded. The accused said he had two calves running out at Mr. Jackson’s and he said that if her mother would let her go out apd help him to bring his in he would help to bring hers in. On the morning of the 26th May witness was at accused’s house, and Mr. Patterson said that lie was going out to Mr. Jackson’s to get a stud cow and calf belonging to Mr. Scott. Mrs Paterson had asked if he had to go out to get them but he was making it his business to do so. The accused then rode away, and Mrs Patterson and witness followed on foot. Witness afterwards saw the accused speaking to her mother at the maize paddock about 10 o’clock in the morning. Her mother told her to get the saddle for her horse as she (witness) was going with accused. Going to the paddock in question they came across a red heifer with a white star on its forehead, which was put near the slip rails, and then went to look for another, a dark Jersey, which they found. Both calves were put through the slip rails and they took them through one of Dir. Scott’s paddocks and left them in a paddock near the road. They did not pass close to Mr. Jackson’s house, and it was impossible to see from the house to where the calves were taken from on account of a hill intervening. Some of the other cattle got through the slip rails, but these were put back again. Witness did not see any stud He refords among these. They reached the paddock about 2.30 p.m., and after they had got them out. accused said: “We will go home now, and have something to eat.” They left the calves in the paddock mentioned and they then went to the maize paddock, and after remaining about five minutes accused rode away towards his own place. Witness saw him again when coming out of the maize paddock about 5 p.m., and lie was then going in the direc-

tion where they had left tKo calves. Returning home her mother sent witness a message to Mr. Patterson’s, and returning from there she. saw accused coming along the road with the two calves about half a mile' from where they had left them. Witness assisted him to drive the calves to her home. The calves were left in the paddock near the house, and the accused and witness went to tea. During tea accused asked witness’ mother what was her ear-mark and she told him that her earmark was on one of the cows, but it was not registered and that she was not going to put it on her calves until she got it registered, because Mr. Bousfield had told her that she could he fined for using an unregistered earmark. Accused said: “I will put it on my calves because I do not mind so long as I have a mark that I will know them hv.” The accused then went and brought the calves inside to earmark them and witness saw the accused mark them. Ho did not mark them like her mother’s but with a V shape mark. They were marked one on the right and the other on the left ear. Witness’ mother helped accused to get the calves into the bail, and. then went inside. Accused said to witness’ mother, “I think wo will run. them straight out and he done with them.” Her mother said, “Coitld you not leave them in my paddock for the night?” The accused said that it was a hard paddock to get at, and it would be just as easy to run them out to Dir. Newmans. Her mother asked if he would be able to take them out himself, and he stated that he had never been out that way before, and would not know which gate to put them in. Witness helped the accused to take the calves to Newman’s, a distance of about three miles, that night. After working tho cattle tho accused did not appear to be in a hurry to get away. They left her mother’s place a little after 10 o’clock and passed the Kaitaratahi Hotel, which was closed, on their way. After putting the heifers in the paddock she returned home, arriving tl cie about midnight. The two heifers were since shown to her by Constable Doyle, and these were the same two as wore marked by the accused at her mother’s place. Before accused marked the heifers witness noticed that tl ire was a small snip off the Jersey’s ear. She remarked on it, and Patterson said it was nothing.

Cross examined by Dir. Stock, witness said that accused and herself had been searching for two or three hours before the first calf was found. Witness did not point them out to accused not knowing them and never having seen them before. Witness was sent to the Kaitaratahi Hotel for some rum bn the night in question by her mother, and tiiis she had obtained through a Dir. Wilson. Witness took it home but did not see anybody drink it. Robert Scott, a farmer at Kaitaratahi, deposed that he had known the accused about twenty years, and he was working for witness during the week ending 27th Dlay last. Witness did not remember sending accused to Mr. Jackson’s on a special day, but he may have said to him that he could go and get the heifer in. About Dlay 26 accused had sent his boy to his (witness’) place to say that he wanted a day off, and witness allowed it. Subsequently witness got his three Herefords off Jickson’s run himself, after the date on which Constable Doyle had spoken to him. * To Dir. Stock: The accused had been in witness’s employ off and on for about six years. He had always found accused straightforward and honest and, in fact, he had left him in charge of the estate while he was away on trips. Accused was an experienced drover, and from his knowledge of him witness would say that he ought not to require the assistance of a girl fourteen years of age to move a couple of heifers. Had he wanted to steal the cattle, accused could have put them on to witness’ place very comfortably without taking anyone into his confidence. Dir. Newman’s property adjoined witness’ and accused could have put them on at that point without passing Dir Scrimgeour’s. As far as that went accused need not have, gone on to the road. There were plenty of facilities on witness’ place, for marking beasts, and had he desired to do it accused could have marked the beasts without anyone knowing anything about it. In reply to Sergeant Hutton, witness said that tho route taken was the most open one. He knew that it was an offence under the Stock Act to drive stock after dark. Despite this they all did it, as occasion often demanded it. Witness had not given Mr. Jackson notice that he was going to remove the cattle, but this time he found that Mr Jackson was not at home, so went and took them according to an understanding between them, William Burns, who wished to correct his evidence, said that tho calf he saw in Newman’s yard had two earmarks, one on each ear. The tip was off the left ear, and this was an old mark, and a fresh mark like a square was on the right. Regarding boundaries, Scrimgeour’s place adjoined witness’s, but not Jackson’s. Mrs Scrimgeour had never spoken to witness about a Jersey heifer, but about December she had spoken to witness’ wife.

Maximilian Jackson, sheepfarmer, at Kaitaratahi, deposed that the accused knew the back of his property well, and lived not far from witness. On 26th Dlay accused went up to witness and told him that Mr. R. Scott had sent him to get a stud heifer out of one of witness’ paddocks, and gave an adequate reason for wishing to remove her. Witness told accused that if he would wait a minute he (witness) would help him to get the heifer oilt. Accused then informed witness that he had to go to Mr. Bousfield’s and that lie would be back in a few minutes. Witness walked down towards his gate and later he met accused who was with Jessie Scrimgeour and ’another tenant of. the Kempthorne estate. Accused said nothing about getting calves. Witness knew Newman’s paddock, and a person taking cattle from witness’ paddock to the former must either pass witness’ house or the late Mr. Kimpthorne’s house. There was another way light on his back boundary. He was not sure what route was taken, but in consequence of what he had heard about the removal of the cattle, he had reported the matter to the polico.

Herbert Newton Mortleman, laborer, and residing at Te Karaka, said that on May 26 lie was working between Dir. Bousefield’s and Mr. Humphrey’s place. About 3 p.m. he saw accused and the girl Scrimgeour coming from the direction of one of Scott’s paddocks. They had no cattle at that time but he saw accused about 5 p.m. on the same day and he spoke to witness, who understood accused to say that he had a couple of cattle running on Jackson’s, and that ho would have to get them in soon as tlioy were not branded.

At this stage the case was then adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.