COSTLY CATCH

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 249, 2 August 1946, Page 2

COSTLY CATCH

FISH TAKEN AT LAKE HERON POLICE OFFICERS FINED Fines totalling £42 ICs were imposed on four, men for breaches of the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations by Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Ashburton this morning. All pleaded guilty. The defendants were: Stanley Holder, Neville.Boag, Jim Weir and Robert B. Hart. Each was charged with two offences, details of these being as follows: “That, at Lake Heron, on June IS, 3 946, he took acclimatised fish by means other than rod and line, together with a landing net or gaff to land fish taken with rod and line.” “That, at Lake Heron, on June IS, 1946, he did take acclimatised fish during the closed season for the same in the said district.” Mr G. C. Nicoll, who appeared for the Ashburton Acclimatisation Society, stated that, on June IS, the society’s ranger, Mr M. M. Orton, went to Lake Heron. He parked his car and proceeded across country to a point where a creek flowed into the lake. It was his intention to place a fish trap at this place, as it was desired to obtain some ova. Near his destination, he noticed a car parked, and recognised the machine as belonging to Hart. He went to the edge of a terrace where he could look down on to the creek some hundreds of yards below.

“The ranger saw three men in the creek,’’ continued Mr Nicoll. “Two ot' them were using spears and one handnets. On the bank was a fourth man who was putting fish, thrown out of the creek, into bags, which he carried along the bank as the others moved upstream. Mr Orton set out after the party and intercepted them. He recognised Weir as the man with the nets, while those with the spears were Hart and Boag, the latter a police, constable.

Serious View Taken “When the ranger reached the scene,” added- counsel, “Boag was out on the bank. Mr Orton produced his warrant and demanded their gear, which was surrendered. Holder was a sergeant of police well-known to Mr Orton. Weir admitted ownership of the gear. In the bags were nine salmon and three brown trout. A rifle lay near the bags. “The society takes a very serious view of such offences,” said Mr Nicoll, “for this creek is a recognised place for the taking of trout ova. In June and July there are plenty of fish about there, as they come up from the deep waters to spawn. It is essential they should not be disturbed at that period of the year, and it was really to emphasise this point that the charge of taking fish during the closed season was laid.” Counsel added that Weir was convicted, in 19J2, of taking fish by means of explosives.

Mr C. G. tie C. Drury, who appeared for all defendants, stated there was little he could add to what had already been said, but there were certain 1 factors he wished to stress in relation to the penalty. He had been asked to express the regret of all defendants, for they realised the seriousness of the offences. Under the circumstances, too, they would be precluded from any possibility of repeating such offences in the future. Though two charges were laid, counsel contended that the subject matter was the same in respect of each. “Holder Knew Nothing of Plan”

Counsel explained that the three other defendants had all come forward and offered to take the full blame, for Holder had known nothing about the plan to take fish. He was a newcomer to the district, and had simply gone out shooting with them. The other three all agreed that he had known nothing of their plan/ Under the circumstances, of course, Holder should have gone right away when he saw what was happening at the creek, but allowance must always be made for human nature, and he did not do so. Holder, however, took, no part in catching the fish, but, since he put some of them in the bags, he became a party to the offence. “I do not see that I can regard this as one set of circumstances,” said the Magistrate, “for there were two distinct offences, though committed at the' same time. Each charge is dis tinct and, in no ways, alternative. There is no doubt in my mind that each defendant knew what he was doing. Holder, though he was ignorant at the start, took part in the offences, and a man in his position should have known better. His status as a police sergeant must set-off any representations made on his behalf. It was his duty to have protested against what was being done and then gone away, taking no part in it. As far as Weir is concerned, though his previous offence was a long time ago, I cannot treat him as a first offender.”

Holder, Boag and Hart were each fined £5 on each charge. Weir was fined £7 10s for taking fish by illegal means and £5 for taking fish out of season. Each defendant was ordered to pay £1 ,costs and £1 Is solicitors fGG I . Under the regulations, all gear used is automatically forfeited to the Crown.