TROUT OUT OF SEASON.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7359, 11 July 1889, Page 6

TROUT OUT OF SEASON.

At the Resident Magistrate's Christchurch, yesterday, before Mr r! Beetham, R.M., and, Mr R. Westenra, J.P., James Hatfield, steward of the Canterbury Club, was charged with having in his possession one trout contrary to the Regulations, and under section 5 of the Fisheries,. Conservation Act, 1884; and Henry Jones, manager at Warnes' fishmonger's shop, was similarly charged; he was also charged with selling the trout to Mr Hatfleld. Mr Spackman appeared for the Acclimatisation Society; Mr Free fo r the defendant Jones, who did not admit the offence. Hatfleld pleaded " Guilty." James Hatfleld, called by Mr Spackman, deposed that on June 24th Jones, whose voice he perfectly recognised, rang him up on the telephone; &c said he had a fine fish, and from the conversation that followed Jones sent him round a trout weighing 9lb, which on June 26th was cooked and served up at the Club. The account produced was the one referring to the trout, though it was charged an English salmon, 91 bs at Is per lb. There were no sijms of it having been frozen. Witness had before bought trout from Jones and used them. S. C. Farr, Secretary to the Acclimatisation Society, gave formal evidence as to the districts to which the regulations apply. Defendant Jones had applied to the Society for a license to sell fish; it was not granted. June was in the close season for trout, which are then unfit for consumption. A. M. Ollivier deposed to eeeinp part of a trout on the table at the Club. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Free did not call any evidence. Addressing the Bench, he said they should discredit the evidence of Hatfield, who had admitted that he had been in the habit of evading the law, and who was the only witness who had connected -Jones with the offence. Even he had only heard a voice through the telephone, which was not the most satisfactory evidence; Mr Beetham said this was a very eerioue matter. There wan no question but that Jones had sold the fish, and Hatfleld had bought it. The proof did not rest merely on the recognition of a voice through the telephone. There Jwas the delivery of the fleb, and its appearance on the table of the Club. There were the previous dealings of the parties, and there was also the bill, which, though purporting to be for "English salmon," was, no doubt, for this particular fish. The case was thoroughly complete, These cases were of a most unpopular class, and were difficult to establish. Many offences of the kind—which notoriously were frequent—were not brought home to the offenders. The procedure was tedious and expensive, and the Acclimatisation Society not being wealthy could not afford to spend money on ouch investigations. There had been some before him <Mr Beetham), and upon conviction he had always Inflicted a smart fine. There bad been a cry about reproducing here the oppressive measures used with what were called. poachers elsewhere. The two things were not parallel. Fish and game in Great Britain were stringently preserved for the benefit of owners of the land, and no doubt in doing so much severity had been need. Our fish and game, however, were not the property of a class, but belonged to the public, and by the paymentof a email license fee were accessible to all. A great deal of good had been done by the Introduction of fish. The Acclimatisation Society had provided a means of healthy recreation ana on that ground alone had done a public benefit, not to speak of the introduction of an additional food supply. He believed it to be the duty of Magistrates, upon sufficient proof, v> inflict such penalties as would deter others from the commission of similar offences. In this case both the defendants were equally to blame—if there were no buyers there would be no sellers —and both would be dealt with alike: they would be fined each £20 wf th costs £3 17s divided. Mr Spackman, by leave of the Court, withdrew the other charge against Jone*.