CASES DISMISSED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVI, Issue 10415, 5 June 1925, Page 5

CASES DISMISSED

SALE OF QUINNAT SALMON ANGLERS' UNWITTSNG OFFENCES. I "DEPARTMENT MUST TAKE | BLAME." Considerable interest attached some weeks ago to the reported sale in Ashburton of a number of quinnat salmon which had been caught by local anglers who did not have licenses to sell such fish. Arising out of the investigation into the matter by Mr C. L. Ayson, Inspector of Fisheries, several charges were preferred against Ashburton anglers in the Magistrate's Court this morning. Mr E. I). Mosley, S.M., presided. I The defendants were J. Brown, E. Miliichamp, M. Sogers, and J. Chambers, and each was charged on two

counts: "That they did unlawfully sell selmon without having a license for taking such salmon, or for selling such salmon, contrary to Regulation 16 of the Regulations under the Fisheries Act, 1908." A charge of selling salmon was preferred against H. P. Arnst.

Mr C. S. Thomas, with him Mr V. W. Russell, appeared for the defendants. The ease of Chambers was first called. He pleaded not guilty. Mi- A. T. Donnelly appeared for the

j Inspector of Fisheries, and read the ! regulations which laid down a minij mum tine or £2. Any angler could sell j salmon betweei. Maroh 24 and .May 15 !of last yea)-. In February of this year it was Gazetted what salmon could be j sold over a longer period provided the seller liacl a license. He admitted the regulations wcrv, nut veil known ihi.3 year. The angles had evidently thought the Regulations wore the Haie as last year, when no license iras necessary. Tiie Department w'.uitcd the matter made as public as possible. Theao .vere the first prosecutions under the Regulations, which, he said, were somewhat obscure at the tune. Charles L, Ayson said licenses were approved of by him before being issued. Such a license had not been issued to Chambers. To Mr Thomas: He saw the defendants and he learned that the Post Office had informed them as far as the authorities there knew, there was nothing about a license being required. H. Turn bid 1 gave evidence as to purchasing the salmon from defendant.

Mr Thomas said the matter seemed a small one. but they might be serious. Chambers had gone on a. holiday in March, and he told Arnst he would sell any salmon he caught. Chambers then went to the secreetary of the Acclimatisation Society, who said he did not know anything about it. The Postmaster was next appealed to, as being in charge of fishing licenses in Ashburton and defendant Vas informed that no license was necessary. Chambers went fishing, and he caught some during the only run of the season. The penalty was an extraordinarily heavy one, being up to £20,, and the cancellation of the license. After a conviction, a man could not get a license to take game for three years. This would entail hardships on defendants, as they had huts on fishing grounds, some of" them worth £4OO. For the first time in his career he would ask the Magistrate to consider the case under Section 92 of the Act. He asked it humbly and that was unusual with him. There was no suggestion of the poacher or larrikin type about the defendants. Mr Thomas went | on to quote various authorities. He asked the Bench to take into consideration the mitigating circumstances and, under the Section, named, to dismiss the charges. They could be ordered to pay costs, but the monetary loss was nothing to them. The charges against the remaining defendants were then read, and taken together. Sogers said he had been connected with the Acclimatisation Society for 15 years, and had no bad marks against him. He did not know of the Regulations about a license, but having heard a rumour he made enquiries. From what he learned he went ahead with his fishing and sold a salmon, the first and last. . . Chambers said he made enquiries of the secreteary of the Acclimatisation Society, and the Postmaster. The latter said the Regulations were the same as in the previous year. James Mulvey, Postmaster at Ashburton, said the Chief Postmaster in Christchurch had charge of the licenses, j Witness had not been informed of the necessity for licenses for the sale of salmon.

Arnst said he had been on the Council of the Acclimatisation Society. He corroborated the previous evidence about the enquiries that were made. The Magistrate said he did not want to hear any more evidence. It was rather a pity any of the cases had been brought before the Court. ( It seemed an extraordinary thing that the new regulations were not issued till nearly four weeks after the season had opened. He thought defendants had been honest in their inquiries, and were not the class of men to take fish and sell them against the law. He would not put a black mark against them. They had unwitttingly broken the law. The cases would all be dismissed. Mr Donnelly said there was no question of the honesty of the men. He asked leave to withdraw the charge of selling laid against each defendant. This would reduce the costs. This was agreed to. "The Fisheries Department must take a certain amount of blame in this," said the Magistrate. "It is unreasonable the way the regulations have been issued." Each defendant was ordered to pay costs amounting to £1 3s lOd.