Native Game Charges Against Maori Fail

Northern Advocate, 18 July 1938, Page 9

Native Game Charges Against Maori Fail

Charles Tatana GV-r j. B. Reynolds) was charged before Mr G. N. Morris, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court, Kaitaia, on Friday, with having killed native game, namely pigeons and a tui.

E. Yates, State Forest ranger, stated that on May 1 he was patrolling the State forest at Herekino, and at 4 p.m., as he was walking along a track he saw a sugar-bag containing three pigeons and a tui and a lumber jacket. Witness went into the bush, about 97 yards from the track, and sat down within view of the track. He took the bag with him. While there, he heard a shot further in the bush, and then heard someone ask. “Did you get him?" and the reply “No." About five minutes later, Charlie Tatana came along the track to where the bag had been, and stood for a time as though looking for something. Tatana then walked down the track and carnc back again. Witness stood up and spoke to defendant, who ran away. Defendant was carrying a .22 calibre pea-rifle. There were ethers in the bush at the time. Witness had seen Tatana wearing a lumber jacket similar to that found in the bag.

To Mr Reynolds: He had since learned that there were two men in the.bush besides defendant.

Constable Taylor stated that on May 28 he interviewed Tatana, who made a statement in writing in which he denied having been in the State Forest Reserve for about two years, and affirmed that he was nowhere near the reserve on the date of the alleged offence. He also said he did not know who owned the lumber jacket, found in the bag, and that he was playing cards all day at his home on May 1. Constable Molloy gave evidence that defendant had made a further statement to him on June 3, in which he said he was not in the State Forest on May 1, and did not own any gun at all.

Mr Reynolds said he would not call evidence. The charge was quasicriminal, and "the proof had to be of a substantial nature. The defendant was charged that he did take or kill absolutely protected game, that is, he shot pigeons or a tui, or that he fired at some native game and missed. Had the ranger left the bag on the track and allowed defendant to get possession of it, there might have been some case. The only evidence against defendant was that he was in the bush on the date of the alleged offence; that the name “Charlie” was heard, and also a reply suggesting that someone had missed. There was no connection between ownership of the contents of the bag and accused. All they had was that someone had fired a shot. The magistrate said there was no doubt that the man seen in the bush was defendant, and that one of the party shot the pigeons in the bag, Coming back for the bag did not involve Tatana. If he was sure that Tatana had shot at a pigeon he would convict, whether it was killed or not. Had the bag been left where the ranger found it, and had the defenc--ant taken it, there would have been evidence that he was in possession of the birds. On that a charge could have been made. The charge would be dismissed. OTHER PROSECUTIONS. William Shelford pleaded guilty to a charge of having procured liquor while prohibited, and was fined £1 and costs. Aiding to Procure Liquor. Frank Hoepa was charged with aiding some person unknown in supplying liquor to a native for consumption off licensed premises, and pleaded not guilty. Constable Molloy stated that at 6.20 p.m. on June 11, he saw defendant with a bottle of beer, in his pocket in company with Shelford. They went to the back of Archibald’s, and he followed and saw them trying to take the top off the bottle. On being questioned, defendant said he had bought the bottle of beer from a European. Defendant was convicted and fined £3 with costs 10/-.