IN PURSUIT OF GAME?

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6863, 19 March 1929, Page 4

IN PURSUIT OF GAME?

FARMER GETS BENEFIT OF DOUBT A charge of being found in pursuit of game during tho closed season was preferred against E. M. Kilgour, of Kauwhatu, in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Thos. Andrews, ranger of the Wellington Acclimitisation Society, said that as a result of complaints, he kept watch for three evenings, and on the last evening he saw Kilgour endeavouring to bring down ducks. When taxed with the matter defendant said he had been shooting at rabbits, but when defendant pointed out it was too dark to see a rabbit five yards away, defendant then said he had shot at a pukeko. Witness said he told defendant that that was an equally serious offence. Kilgour had asked him whether a £5 note to the Acclimatisation Society would square the matter up without his name going through the Court.

In answer to Mr Ongley, defendant’s counsel, witness said he didn’t see Kilgour actually shoot at the ducks, although several shots were fired. Since the incident witness had received a complaint from Kilgour about pukeko damaging his pea crop, but if that was so, defendant had his remedy by applying for permission to shoot them. Witness added that subsequently he had worked tho swamps around defendant’s property and had not raised more than ten pukekos. There was

evidence of turkeys and geese having had access to where the pea crop was. Corroborative evidence was given by C. T. Andrews. Mr Ongley submitted that thece was no evidence of Kilgour having pursued the ducks. Defendant entered the witness box and stated that the only shots he had fired were at rabbits and a pukeko. When the ranger appeared on the scene he told him that he had not shot at the ducks but at the pukeko. Had he wanted to shoot at the ducka ho had plenty of opportunities of doing so< Witness denied offering the £5 as alleged. The reason he hid every time ducks flew over was so as not to frighten them away. He wanted the ducks on the water-holes on May I, when the season opened. His Worship thought there was an element of doubt which he would give defendant. The charge was dismissed. Protected Birds Killed.

Charges of killing protected birds (pied stilt plover and bittern) were preferred against Wm. V. White, Francis White and James Potter. The second named pleaded guilty, while tho other two denied the offence. Mr Ongley stated that the lad who shot the birds was now sorry that he had done so. Mr Wilson, for the Acclimatisation Society, stated that there was no excuse for shooting the plover which was a rare bird and as different from a hawk as a magpie. A fine of £5 with 10s costs was ’imposed.