BUSHMEN BROTHERS PENALISED FOR TIMBER TRESPASS

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 July 1950, Page 3

BUSHMEN BROTHERS PENALISED FOR TIMBER TRESPASS

Timber trespass was alleged by the Conservator of Forests, Mr R. B. Collett, against two Ngahere bushmen, Albert Victor. Hill and Arthur Richard Hill, in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth this morning. The defendants entered a plea of not guilty to a charge that between February 1 and March 1, 1950, at or near Bell Hill they did, without lawful authority, cut from lands in State forest No. 26, Ahaura S.D., 36 rimu trees containing 14,400 feet board measure, of a royalty value of £l2 12s. „ , , An inspection had disclosed that the defendants had cut unbranded trees a minimum distance of 25 chains from their own areas at Ngahere, stated Mr F. A. Kitchingham, representing the Crown. While he conceded that the plans given by the department with the licences were not very informative, he pointed out that the boundaries had been plainly cut and marked. There was no doubt, he said, that a trespass had occurred because the defendants, in reply to a letter from the department, had admitted cutting trees and had stated that they had been under the impression that they had been on their own area. Marking Boundaries Mr Kitchingham pointed out that this was frequently the excuse of cutters, but it was difficult to see what more could be done to mark the boundaries. , . George Gibbs Wright, forest foreman, Hokitika, described an inspection of an alleged trespass area m the Ahaura district. The defendants when interviewed had admitted taking the trees, but thought they held, been on their own area. Mistake Claimed Evidence in defence, wag given by A V Hill, who described applications'to obtain rights over the whole of the area, and he told the Magistrate, Mr R. M. Grant S.M., that the trespass was admitted but it was a bona fide mistake. ' “I have no doubt about what to do in this matter and the defendants must be convicted,” said Mr Grant. “It is no use the defendants saying they misunderstood or read the plan they were given upside down; they must have had some knowledge as they have been in the business for many years. Apparently they were tempted to take the trees close to their mill.” ' , t ‘ , ~ , When Mr Kitchingham stated that he had been instructed to apply for a penalty equal to'treble royalty, adding that- this was not usually inflicted, Mr Grant said that he would be reasonably lenient because of the possibility of confusion having existed. “I won’t exact double royalty, but will inflict a penalty of £ 15, which is more than the £l2 12s royalty,” he stated. Costs included £o 3s solicitor’s fee and 12s court costs. “I warn you that if you make any more mistakes like this, you will not be treated so leniently,” said the Magistrate to the defendants.