Fishery Charges Against Akaroa Men Dismissed

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28748, 20 November 1958, Page 23

Fishery Charges Against Akaroa Men Dismissed

Charges brought by the Marine Department against two Akaroa fishermen for alleged breaches of the Fisheries Regulations were dismissed by Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., at a sitting of the Akaroa Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, and similar charges against two other fishermen were withdrawn at the request of Mr P. Feenstra, who appeared for the Crown. William Charles Barrett, was charged that, as owner of the fishing boat, Sambeau, he employed David Charles Barrett as master, when he did not hold a licence.

D. C. Barrett, son of W. C. Barrett. was charged that on or about July 29 he sold to P. Feron and Son fresh crayfish of a length less than 10 inches; with acting as master of the Sambeau without a licence, and with taking live crayfish of a length less than Win.

Mr R. A. Young appeared for the Barretts, who pleaded not guilty.

On July 30, said Mr Feenstra, a fisheries inspector inspected three cases of crayfish marked as coming off the Sambeau, which was owned by W. C. Barrett, and worked by D. C. Barrett. Six crayfish measured by the inspector were under the regulation minimum of lOin, all six being 93 inches long. Charles Arthur Hornsby, fisheries inspector, said that the crayfish he had examined on July 30 had been landed either that day or the day before.

He had not carried out investigations about the ownership of the boat or about the crew licence. To Mr Young he said he could not recall the identification on the cases. Whatever the case label was. it was the Sambeau’s label. He did not know that crayfish were not sold to Feron’s, or that they sold them on commission for the fishermen. Measuring Crayfish Asked how he measured fish, Hornsby exhibited a wooden carpenter’s rule, saying that the steel tape he had used on the day in question had been thrown away because it had rusted. Mr Young: Was the rule tested for accuracy?—No. Mr Young: Is it not the practice of the department to have rules tested for accuracy?^—No. Mr Young produced a small crayfish and explained that the method of measurement as laid down in the regulations was from the rostrum or beak, along the back to the tail, with the fish spread, as near as possible, flat. Hornsby denied that he had told fishermen to measure a crayfish on the underside. He had done that when he was a fisherman himself, but he now measured along the back. He measured with the tail segments spread out, on instructions from head office. He then showed how he measured, but the Magistrate pointed out that the measurement would be inaccurate because the rule could not be laid flat along the crayfish’s back.

Mr Young then measured the crayfish with a tape measure, saying that along the contour of the back it measured 10 inches. Hornsby’s measurement with the carpenter’s rule was 9 7-8 inches.

“When you are down to such a nicety as an eighth or a quarter of an inch should you not have an accurate rule?” asked Mr Young.

“I’ll go into that, but can you prove the rule was inaccurate?” replied Hornsby. He added that when he measured Barrett’s fish he had used a flexible steel tape. To Mr Feenstra, Hornsby said he had not investigated the licence question, which was out of his province.

Mr Young asked the Magistrate to rule if there were any cases to answer. He submitted that there was no evidence against either

Barrett on the licence charges. As to the charge against D. C. Barrett, of taking undersized fish, there was no clear proof that he had taken them. There was no adequate system of measurement, and the way Hornsby had demonstrated in Court left a possibility of error by eye. The inspector should prove to the Court’s satisfaction that the fish had been accurately measured. > David Barrett said in evidence i that he had measured his fish on the day in question. He knew ( the regulations and was satis- ■ fled that none of the fish was under 10 inches. There was nothing in the regulations to say ; the tail segments had to be spread ' out. The fish had been measured ; along the contour of the back. The Magistrate said that while , Courts were zealous to see that ' the law was enforced, they must also see that evidence was accept- . able in quality and admissible in , law. It had not been proved that • there was a sale. It had hardly ; been proved that the fish had been delivered to Ferons. He was sure • that Barrett had delivered the fish i to Ferons as his agents, to be ; sold on commission, and the evi- ' dence was insufficient to support ] the charge of selling. As to the charge of taking, there • was no evidence that Barrett had ; taken them. In all fairness he < should have been present when the fish were measured by the

inspector. There was controversy on methods of measurement, but that was not the point he had to decide. The evidence was utterly inadequate to establish the charges, and all would be dismissed. Mr Feenstra then asked leave to withdraw similar charges against two other Akaroa fishermen, E. J. McNabb and R. W. Harraway, saying that the same evidence applied, and the Magistrate withdrew the charges.