OPOSSUMS.

Bruce Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 67, 27 August 1917, Page 4

OPOSSUMS.

ARE THEY PROTECTED? MAGISTRATE SAYS NO. _____ v An interesting case- was argued at the Balclutha Magistrate's Court on Wednesday, 'before Mr. Acheson, S.M., to decide whether opossums are protected within the meaning of "The Animals' Protection Act, 1908." Joseph Meek (farmer, Ratauui) was charged on the information of F. W. Pellett (ranger to the Acclimatisation Society)' with having in'.;his possession on August 3,' 1917, 16 opossum skins, the said opossums being protected animals within .the .meaning of "The Animals'' Protection, Act, 1908," and the regulations' made 'thereunder. Mr D. Cooke (Dunedin) appeared for informant, and Mr W. G. Hay (Dunedin) for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Cooke said that in 1911 opossums were declared to be protected, but in 1912 they were made free and skins could be'sold. A year later (August, 1913) opossums were again declared protected. The poiut in the case was the question of notification. A notification was a publication.in the Gazette and in any newspaper in the district affected. The 'Gazette published the notification' in regard to the protection of opossums, but the Otago Acclimatisation Society had not advertised the actual' wdrding of the notice in the Gazette, but had published it in auother form. This, counsel contended, was; sufficient notification. In addition, there was a notification on August 27, 1913, in the Otago Daily Times, which counsel read to the court. There was also a notification on a calico sign exhibited at the entrance to the Owaka Post Office. Constable Hay ward (Owaka) said he visited defendant's house on August 3 in company with Ranger Pellett. In a hut oh defendant's property they saw 16 opossum skins under a bunk, which they took possession at. To Mr Hay: The skins had been recently dried" Defendant stated that the opossums' had been trapped by his children. Ranger Pellett (Otago Acclimatisation Society) corroborated the previous witness' statement. The skins appeared to be fresh.' To Mr Hay: Opossums'were not so numerous now as they used to bo. Constable 'Hayward (recalled) said he got the calico notice (produced) of the Notification in regard to opossums ■from the entrance to the Owaka Post ; Office. It had to his knowledge been '.there for at least a year. ' Witness, also produced a copy of an advertisement ; which he stated appeared in the Otago Daily Times relative to opossums. To.the magistrate: 'At the time the skins were found there were five sons and two daughters at home. The ages, of four of them ranged.from 10 to 16, and they would be quite capable of setting traps. Mr Hay stated that the defence was a matter of law.and also a matter of fact. From the evidence the assumption was that the skins belonged to defendant's children. He (counsel) said that he had come to the conclusion that unless there were further notices than those'referred to by informant's counsel opossums were not properly protected. Mr- Cooke said there were no other notifications than those referred to. Mr Hay (continuing) said that the point was that the Governor may-from time to time, by notification in the Gazette and in any newspaper in the district concerned, declare any animal or animals to be-protected. The newspaper publication must be under the Governor's direction. In this case there was no declaration by the Governor, and if there had been there was no evidence that it had been inserted in the" newspaper , by his. direction. The calico sign notice could not be considered a newspaper publication. There was also no evidence "before the' court that the newspaper referred to circulated in the district concerned. | Mr Cooke submitted' that it was 'a matter of common knowledge that the I Otago Daily Times circulated- in the ! district concerned. With' reference to |Mr Hay'a contention that the notification in regard to protected animals must be by the Governor's direction, the notification must, be "'by or under the Governor's direction." The magistrate said that if it was an offenceto have opossum skins in a person's possession, then it would be an offence for anyone to have an opossum rug in his possession. The opossums might have been caught outside New Zealand. The defence was that the animals were not protected under "The Animals' Protection Act, 1908." The question to be determined was whether the opossums were properly protected under the meaning of the Act. The provision was that the Goyernqr may by notice in. the Gazette and by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the district declare certain animals to be protected. The prosecution alleged that the necessary notification had been made. In his (the magistrate's opinion there was not sufficient evidence to 'show'that the "Otago Daily Times circulated in the district concerned. There was no suggestion in the paragraph in. the Otago Daily "Times signed by Mr Russell (secretary 'of the Acclimatisation 0 Society) and offering a reward, for the conviction of persons found shooting''and trapping opossum's that the notification could be declared a declaration by-the Governor. If this was "the v only advertisement appearing'in <fche district,'' then- : he> : did not consider "that opossums' wei'e protected in the'district. The' information would • th-eref ore be dismissed- On /'the ground that'the animals were .-.not" protected. • • .- • Wl3¥y appliefljfoj *;CQsts,

'The. magistrate.,said that in, such eas«s it ; was not his practice to allow costs. Mr Hay stated that he had informed informant's last June ..that he considered that opossums were not protected, but since then two similar informations, haid been laid. The greater proportion of the Revenue of the Acclimatisation Society ' was /derived from lisease fees. The magistrate: To stock the streams in New Zealand- with trout and in other ways carry out work in the interest of the country. 'His Worship refused to allow costs. The ease in which Peter Mason (Katea) was charged, on the information of F. W. Pellett with having in Ins possession 41 opossum skins was withdrawn on the application of informant's counsel, as were also the cases in which John Powley (Clinton) was charged with that, on May 31, at Clinton, he took opossum skins, opossums being protected within the meaning of "The Animals' Protection Act, 1908," and, further, with having, iu f his sion 64 opossum skins on May 31.