ILLEGAL SELLING OF FISH.
tiBY TELEGRArH — PRESS ASSOCIATION,, INVERCARGILL,ISIh.Uirch. An important decision was given by Mr. M'Carlhy, S M., iv a case m which oiw Pomeroy was charged with selling trout not being lake trout. The fish was nette.l on tbe Riverton beach, two miles sea waul of the mouth of the Oreti river. Defendant contended that both trout and salmon were indigenous to New Zealand water?, ami therefore did not come within the purview of the legislation relating to these fish ; al>-o that as the trout sold was caught ouLside the bouudary of the southern acclimatisation district, the prohibition iv the regulations did not apply. Regarding the first contention, the Magistrate said it was contrary to public history, on which much legislation relating to fisheries was based, and as to the second point held the prohibition contained in clause 11 of the regulations of 1892 w«is general, except in regard to lake trout, an I it was immaterial where a fish was caught as long as it was caught in New Zealand waters. The scope and intention of the Aot clearly included the protection of all fish inhabiting New Zealand waters. The defendant was fined £5 and costs £9.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19010316.2.24
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume LXI, Issue 63, 16 March 1901, Page 4
Word Count
200ILLEGAL SELLING OF FISH. Evening Post, Volume LXI, Issue 63, 16 March 1901, Page 4
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in