COMMITTED FOE TRIAL

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 243, 12 September 1929, Page 8

COMMITTED FOE TRIAL

SHEEP STEALING CHARGE.

SOLDIER SETTLER ACCUSED,

(Special to “Standard.”)

FEILDING, Sept. 12.

At tho Feilding Police Court today, Norman Alfred Miller, a farmer, of Otamakapua, appeared before Messrs F. S. Guy and A. J. Geary,

j.P.’s, to answer a charge that, on or about August 27, he clid steal two sheep valued at £4 4s, the property of J. J. Bryce, farmer, of Iviwitea. Mr Ongley, for accused, in addressing the Bench, said that the police had the method of procedure in the case entirely in their own hands. If the charge * was laid under the Justices of the Peace Act, accused could be dealt with summarily, but if laid under the Crimes Act no plea could come from accused and the case would have to be sent on to the Supreme Court. Sergeant Cahill replied that the proceedings would be laid under the Crimes’ Act, and ho proceeded to outline the case to the Bench, stating that Mr Bryce, junr., had seen the sheep on accused’s property, and a search later had brought to light the skins of sheep which had been identified as belonging to Mr J. J. Bryce. These would be produced in Court. John Joseph Bryce, farmer, of Iviwitea, said he owned another farm at Otamakapua, near ltangiwahia, and this farm was under the management of his son, Lindsay D. Bryce. The farm was of IICO acres and carried 1200 to 1300 Romney breeding ewes, and 600. other sheep. Accused’s farm adjoined witness’s, the boundary between their properties being a creek, with vertical banks in places which took the place of a fence, while in other places the ordinary seven or eight wire fence was erected. It had never been a satisfactory boundary and sheep had gone backwards and forwards between the places. Witness understood that accused bought and sold sheep in a small way. In August last, witness was shown a sheepskin by Constable Fergusson, of Kimbolton, and witness swore that the ear-mark of the sheep was his, although the ear-mark had been cut away partly, apparently after the sheep was killed, as there was no blood marks on the ear. Witness slso identified another skin ( produced) as bearing his earmark, although the hole in the right ear had been cut out. Witness explained to the Bench that mutilation of the ear had taken place after the sheep had been killed, there being no congealed blood on the ears. The sheep were branded at shearing time, but it would be impossible to find the brand now as the growth of wool had obliterated it. The value of the sheep would be £2 2s. Witness had never sold any sheep to accused,' and it was not the practice of sheep-farmers to sell sheep bearing their ■earmark to a neighbour, for obvious reasons. The skins of the sheep produced only had the one registered earmark which was that belonging to witness. Accused had no authority to be in possession of any of witness’s sheep or to take any on to his (accused’s) property. Mr Guy: You sell sheep from time to time, of course —Yes Lindsay Douglas Bryce said he managed his father’s property at Otamakapua. There were about 1550 ewes, 40 rams and about 450 ewe hoggets on the place. The sheep were all strong woolled Romneys. The sheep sometimes strayed between his place and accused’s which adjoined, but not so much lately. Witness had always returned any sheep that belonged to Miller. The boundary between the two farms would be between 40 and 50 chains. Miller did a fair amount of dealing and kept a lot of classes of sheep, but at present he had a lot of ■old short woolled Romney breeding ewes and hoggets. Witness’s sheep had more than twice the length of wool than Miller’s, which were low in condition also, and were shorn later. Miller’s sheep were also practically all branded, while none of witness’s were branded or raddled. On August 27 last, witness was going round the sheep at the bottom end of the place when ho saw three sheep on Miller’s placo which ho took to be his. AA’itness was on his way to look at the sheep when Miller came along and asked him to have morning tea which witness did. Miller then said that lie had been trying to put three of witness’s sheep back, and later witness did so himself. By Miller’s fowl-house witness saw the remains of a freshly killed sheep, and he became suspicious and rang Constable Fergusson when lie arrived home. Constable Fergusson came out on the 28th and in company with witness searched accused’s farm. Miller was working beside the cowshed when they arrived and witness called him over and explained to him that he did not like the appearance of things the day before, and that he had communicated' with the police. He was making a search and would like to see the skin of the sheep that had been killed. Accused abused witness but at the 'request of the constable jiroduced the skin which witness identified as his at once, .after examining the right ear. The left ear was gone and the remaining ear had the two back notches and the notch in the tip, being a two-tooth age mark. The hole had been cut out. The skin was freo from brand and witness identified it because of the length of the wool and black on the wool from charcoal marks from burnt manuka on the property. Witness would certainly say that the ear had been mutilated after the sheep was killed on account of the absence 'of blood marks. AVitness would swear that the skin produced was from one of the sheep on liis property. After examining the skin witness turned to Miller and said : “I can see now why all the abuse.” Miller then stated that ho had sheep with a similar ear-mark on his place and he mustered a number for witness to see, but he could say, although they were similar, they were not alike as earmarks go. The punch marks were quito different. The sheep killed had been a young one whilst those mustered by accused had been ail old ones. A passing neighbour had been called in by witness to look at the earmarks and he had told Constable Fergusson that the marks on the skin were those belonging to witness. They then picked up a sheep’s head which had a small portion of the right ear on it, which had also been tampered with with a knife. There was a portion of witness’s registered ear-mark on the ear. To witness the head looked about four to six days old, and had not come off the sheep killed the day before. From his examination of the head witness would say that this head belonged to another sheep of his, the mutilation marks on the ear being similar, while the wool was stained with charcoal dust. There wero no signs of any other ear-mark but witness’s. He had not sold any ewes of the same age to anyono round the place. Accused had a green paint brand on the bulk of his sheep while others bore raddle marks, r rom time to time witness had missed sheep out of the paddock adjoining Miller’s property. AA’it ness mustered this paddock from about four to six times a year and each time found his tallies from six to ten short, after allowing for the sheep ho found dead. He valued tho sheep at ,£2 2s per head.

To the Bench witness said the sheepskin produced corresponded exactly to the three sneep he had driven off Miller’s place. To Mr Ongley, witness said the three sheep were grazing separately on lAiiller’s place and could be seen quite easily from his own place. He went round his sheep about every other day. As far as he had seen, there were no other of his sheep on Miller’s property. The ear-marks on his sheep were somewhat alike, but in the case of his mark the notch was put in with a half moon punch, while Miller’s was a bigger punch and a different one, being round at the top with square sides. The ear-marks of the skins produced differed from his father’s registered ear-mark in that they bore an extra notch in the tip as an age mark. AVilfred Swainson Marshall, of Ohingaiti, farmer, said lie was stopped on the road on August 28 last near Miller’s house and asked to examine a sheepskin and ear-mark. The skin had the left ear missing and the right ear mutilated. From his examination of the skin, he would say that it was from one of Bryce’s sheep, because of the length and quality of the wool, tho age of the sheep and the charcoal stains on the wool. AVitness knew both Bryce’s sheep and property quite well, and had often assisted in working them. Miller had stated that the skin was from one of his sheep, but witness would say that the ear-marks on Miller’s sheep were put on with a totally different ear-marker. AA’itness later saw the top jaw of a sheep head bearing a portion of a right ear which bore Bryce’s ear-mark.

To the Bench, witness said he knew the head of the sheep he saw was from a young sheep because of the appearance of the ear.

Constable Fergusson tendered corroborative evidence and detailed the circumstances leading up to the taking out of a warrant to search Miller’s property, and the finding and identification of the sheepskins. This concluded the evidence and, following Mr Ongley’s intimation that he would call no evidence for the defence, accused pleaded not guilty and was committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court in Palmerston North. Bail was allowed in accused’s own recognisance of £IOO and one surety of £IOO.