Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.



Ohristoihtroii, July 9 At tho Eesldent Maglatraio's Court, Ohriatoharoli, to-day, before Me Tt. Biotham, R.M , and Me 11. Wentenra, J.P., Juni'ia Ha'fijld, atowiud of the Canterbury Olab, wua chared with having In bla possession o:ia trout contrary to thg regu'atlons, nnd undor suction 5 of the jFiohericß Ootmorvattoa Act, 1884; and Henry Joneo, manager at War&ea' fiahmonger'a shop, was similarly ohargod j be waa a'ao ohargjd vritU aelllng iha trout to Mr Hatfield. Mr Spaolcrnan appeared for tho AoolimatlaiHon Soalety ; Mr Fcee for 'he defendant Jones, who did not admit tho oflfjnoe. EUtfield pleaded « Guilty." Jam«B Hatfield, culled by Mr Bpaokman, deposed to purchasing a trout from .Tone* ,on June 24. whloh was invoiced an " Bngllah salmon," 9ib at li. Thore wa« no elgm of Ub haying bean froflan, Witness had previously bought trout from Jones and used them. S. 0. Farr, Secretary to tho Acclimatisation Soolety, gHve formal evldenoe, and orated that defendant Jones had nppllf d to the Soolety for a 1100/me to aell fiah wbloh was not granted. Jane was In tho close Beasoo for trout, whloh are then UDfit for con«nmptlon. A. M Olllviur deposed to aoelug part of a trout on the table at the Olub Thfa web the naae for the proeeontlon. Mr Free called no evldor.oo, but aakod tho B jnch to dldcrodlt Ha'Qold'n ovldcnoe, Me Bgotham considered tho caee thoroughly oomploto. These OJB9a were of n moat unpopular obes, and wero dffi:a!t to ustablloh M»uy offdMc<-8 of the kind— whfoh n ilorloußly wero ftrqaont w«ro not brought home to the offaudere. The proooduro w»b tedious and expenafvo, aud tho Aoollmatl■atlon Society not being wealthy could not afjord to egend money on suqh Investlgatlona. There h»d been some' before him (Mp Beethano), and apon conviction be

had been a cry about reproduolug bore the oppressive measures naed with wh»t wera called poaohera olaowbpre. The t«ro ihingn were not parallel. Fish and game in Great Britain were stringently preserved for the benefit of owners of land, and no doabt In doing 'so maoh severity bad been used. Our fish and game, however, were not the property of a clans, but belong to the public, acd by the payment of a small license fee were accessible to *il. A great deal of go -d had been done by the lutroduotion of fish. The Aooiima'loation Soolety had provided a means of healthy recreation and on thnt ground alono had done a pabllo benefit, not to speak of tho introduction of an additional food supply. He believed It to be tho duly of Magistrates, npon sufficient proof to lofi ot Buoh penalties os would doter others from the oommißalon of similar • ffenoes. la this case both the defendants were equally to blam? — If there wore no buyers there would be no sellers —and both would be dealt with alike ; •hey would be fined eaoh £20 with coats £3 17^ divided. Mr Spaokman, by leave of the' Court, withdrew tho other oharge against Jones. »

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

UNSEASONABLE TROUT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2170, 11 July 1889

Word Count

UNSEASONABLE TROUT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2170, 11 July 1889