£lO FINE IMPOSED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 17 December 1936, Page 12

£lO FINE IMPOSED

RESISTING A RANGER 1 CASE AGAIN BEFORE COURT Following the decision of Mr Justice Ostler in reversing the judgment of Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., in the ease m which he dismissed a charge brought by the Marlborough Acclimatisation Societv against Bernard Vincent Buliff, of resisting the society’s ranger in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him, the case was again before the Magistrate at Blenheim, reports the Ex press,” when Buliff was fined £lO and. ordered to pay costs amounting to £2 17s. The defendant was charged witn resisting the ranger when the latter desired to conduct a search of bags, which the defendant was carrying, suspecting that they contained ducks, although when a search was actually made they proved to contain rabbits. Yesterday evidence was given by the defendant, for whom Mr A. E. L. Scantlebury appeared, that lie had been carrying two baas, one containing vegetables and the other rabbits, when he was stopped by the ranger,..who baa asked what were in the .bags. The defendant had told him and the ranger had taken iiis word for it. Then, he had wanted to know about a bag being carriccl by the defendant on bis back. The defendant bad told him that it contained rabbits but the ranger had wanted to examine it. The defendant became annoyed because an attempt was made to drag the bag from his back, and, feeling that he was being treated unreasonably. lie had struck the ranger. To Mr McNabb, who appeared for the Acclimatisation Society, the defendant stated that he had been present in Court when the evidence of the ranger and of his son had originally been heard. He denied having used foul language or having told the ranger that he was not going to have a look at the bag. To the best of his memory some of the evidence given by the ranger and Ins son was not true. Addressing the Court. Mr McNabb submitted that the evidence given by the defendant should not be believed. It was not likelv that the ranger vvdd come into Court and give evidence which was corrobated by his son, that was not true. The evidence had been given fairly. The magistrate commented tint tire evidence appeared to be strongly for the prosecution, and imposed the penalty mentioned. Three months were allowed for the fine to be paid.