ANGLING CHARGES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 230, 28 August 1937, Page 2

ANGLING CHARGES.

FISHING ON ROTO-AIR A. REGULATIONS HELD VOID. AUCKLAND, Aug. 27. A reserved decision was given to-day by Air C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., dismissing informations laid at the instance of the Under-Secretary for fnternal Affairs, against eight anglers. The informations were that by fishing for trout in Lake Roto-Aira in the Taupo district on March 28, the anglers infringed the regulations made by Order-in-Council and otherwise for the preservation of the fishing in that lake as a special benefit conferred on members of the Ngati-Tuwliaretoa tribe of Alaoris. It was admitted and clear, stated the Alagistrate, that the regulation alleged to have been broken in respect to fishing for trout in Lake Roto-Aira was No. 9, sub-clause 7, and that the subsequent regulations referred to were those mentioned in the Taupo Troutfishing Regulations Order-in-Council. The regulations purported to have the authority of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22, to enable the Governor-General to override the Fisheries Act, 1908, in making regulations authorising the tribe of Maoris known as Ngati-Tuwliaretoa to take trout or other fish in Lake RotoAira subject to such conditions as he thinks fit to impose. “The Governor made certain regulations under this Act,' 1 ’ stated the Magistrate. “He firstly makes it lawful for any native of the tribe mentioned to take trout from the lake, without taking out any license or payment of any fee. This is clearly within the powers given by the Statute. Strange to say, tlio Governor-General then gives power to any one of the tribe mentioned to authorise in writing any other native to take trout. Such power seems to be in direct conflict with the provisions of section 28 of the Act aforesaid.

“The Governor-General then provides that, except as provided in these regulations, no person shall be entitled to fish in such lake notwithstanding that he may be the holder of a license to fish in any acclimatisation district or of a license to fish in the Rotorua district only. There is no express power in setion 28 of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act to make this last, regulation, and it is therefore ultra vires and void.” After pointing out. in addition, that there were no penalties provided by section 28 or the regulations for a breach, His Worship decided that he could not convict under regulation 9, sub-clause 7 The second information charged the defendants with fishing in Lake RotoAira in breach of the terms of their fishing licenses, but the Alagistrate held that the prohibition as to this lake was not expressly stated on the license and, in the circumstances, he could not convict defendants. The informations against the defendants. C. A. AVhitney, H. E. Barrowclough. AY. AV. Dove, AV. H. Cocker, E. A. Harding, B. McLeod, J. R. Morris and J. R. Gray were consequently dismissed. Air A r . R. Alcredith appeared for the Crown and Air H. E. Barroivclough for defendants. On application by Mr Meredith, His AVorship agreed to fix costs as security for appeal.