NOT OYSTER STEALERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 142, 14 June 1912, Page 2

NOT OYSTER STEALERS.

EIAGISTRATE'S 3J3SCISION UPS2T A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL. ■Mx Jus€st» Edwards gave . judgment at the Supreme Court to-day on the a;ppeai of t"aa Inspector of Fisheries against the decision of Mr Atcbeson, of Russell, in tie case Inspector v. Chestsi, jvhicli waa atguetl on the 3rd inst. The facts of the. a? set forth by Mr 6elwyn (Mays, were that the respondent pleaded guilty to having ■ taken oyster 3in the close season. Section 47 of - the Fisheries Act, under which she was prosecuted, provides that for this offence there should foe a minimum fine of £.1. Mr Atcheson, however, convicted defendant and ordered her to cojne up for sentence -whea called upon. His Honor said he was. quite at a loss to understand the magistrate's action in the matter, for only last year Mr Justice Sim in a similar appeal against the judgment of the same magistrate had laid it down in precise terms that the. magistrate,, in a prosecution under section 47 of the Fisheries Act, could not avail himself of any of the provisions of section &2 of the Justices of the Peace Act, I9OS. In the former appeal, which Mr Justice Sim had decided, Mr Ateheson had acted under claso A, subsection 1, setion 92, but Mr Justice Sim had decided that no portion of section 92 could he μsed in such, cases, and in the present appeal the magistrate, in spite of Mi Justice Sim's decision, had acted under clause A of the same section. He (Mr Justice Edwards) said that though he credited the magistrate with, the best intentions he was not entitled to ignore the clear and unmistakable decision of the Supreme Court. The appeal -would be -npheld. Mr Mays was very properly not asking for costs in the matter, because such costs would fall hard upon respondent, who was in no way to blame in tha matter.