NATIVE GAME

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 17 April 1939, Page 10

NATIVE GAME

SHOOTING OUT OF SEASON ALLEGED TWO CONVICTIONS AND THREE | DISMISSALS FINES OF £2 INFLICTED The adjourned case in which Thomas j Ukins. Leo Patrick O'Connor, Larry lancy O'Connor, Sydney Boyes and Villiam J. O’Connor were charged that n Ist March at Appleby they took lotive game, namely grey duck, during he closed season was continued in the •lagistrate’s Court to-day before Mr T. C. Maunsell, S.M. Recently, when the case first came letore the Court, the charge against ne of the defendants, Thomas Atkins, vas heard, at the conclusion of which he Magistrate reserved his decision, aid the charges against the other deendants were adjourned until this de- j • sion could be made known. To-day the Magistrate indicated that j ie was Recording a conviction in \tkins’ case. Leo. Patrick O'Connor was then ■barged and Mr C. R. Fell, who appeared for the ranger, called the evid- ( mce of Atkins. s Thomas Atkins, farmer, said that he f ivas in the paddock that night with 1 Patrick O'Connor, and the third man 1 was a stranger. He did not know who 1 -hot the ducks. Defendant had one * gun and witness the other, which be- ! longed to Dan O'Connor, of Appleby, j 1 Witness had been with Patrick O'Con- • I nor all day. The guns were picked up in Appleby. Patrick O'Connor brought the guns to the car at a spot this side of Appleby bridge, near O’Connor’s property. They came out of a shed there. A third man was picked up in the same vicinity on the road. He had one gun. not the doublebarrelled one. The ammunition was bought in Brighlwater that day. He did not know how many shots were hied. He did not shoot eitjier of the ducks. He had never met the stranger before. This stranger got into O’Connor's car at Appleby. O'Connor introduced the stranger to witness, but he did not catch the name clearly. They went to the paddock at O’Connor’s place to have a look over the paddock to see if it was suitable for placing sheep on. When he ran from the constable he dropped the gun. Mr Fell, further questioning witness j about the unknown third man said "And as far as you know that chap's | running still-'.'”—“l don't know where! he is.” Questioned by Mr J. R. Kerr, who appeared for defendants, witness said that a moonlight night as that night was suitable for shooting hares. It would have been perfectly proper for defendant to have gone on to the property to shoot hares, submitted Mr Kerr. The magistrate said that there was no evidence that hares were shot, but that ducks were. He quoted authority to justify his assumption that the three men went to the paddock w-ith a joint and common purpose. “I must come to the conclusion that when O’Connor picked up the third man, the whole ihree left wfth the common and joint purpose of shocking ducks.” He did not believe that he could assume othcrMr Kerr said that defendant was not with the other two in the paddock; and he did not have a gun. Mr Fell said that the three were together coming across the paddock when they saw the constable and they all ran away. There was a joint purpose. The Magistrate said that the law was so far-reaching on this subject, that it seemed that if a parly went out with only one gun they were all liable. A conviction would be recorded in this A CASE DISMISSED Larry Clancy O'Connor was then charged. Leo Patrick O’Connor said that the third man of that night’s party was a stranger to him. He met him in the evening on the road near the Appleby bridge. He was walking along the road with a gun. Witness did not know to whom the gun belonged. This man had previously assisted witness in getting some petrol for his car when he ran out of it. Witness had asked him to come out and have a shot at some hares, and had told him he would pick him up at the Appleby bridge. The case against this defendant, L. C. O'Connor, was dismissed. TWO FURTHER CHARGES William J. O'Connor and Sydney Boyes were then charged. Albert Cotton, ranger, said that on L-t March he went to O'Connor's property at Appleby where he heard i shooting. He met tfie two defendants coming across a paddock. They both had guns and said they had been shoot-' ing hares. Whilst he was talking to them he heard a shot fired in the next paddock. In answer to Mr Kerr, witness said that there were two shooting parties that night, one of three in one paddock and one of two in the next. Constable F. Reid said that O’Connor had remarked that it was a good job he and Boyes were bad. shots. It was a pity that he could not take game on his own property without being

caught. Both paddocks were in stubble and it was good practice for shooting parties to ocupy adjoining fields, for ducks when disturbed in one paddock generally flew over the next. It was not light enough to shoot ground j In answer to Mr Kerr witness said that defendants were coming ofl the | paddock when he saw them. Mr Kerr said that the property was owned by O'Connor and he was annoyed by the ducks which ate the stock food. He wanted to frighten the ducks off his property and had gone to shoot hares for this purpose. William John O’Connor said that he did not fire a shot on Ist March. He had never had such a bother with ducks as this season. They were eating all the grain and wheat on the paddocks. Sydney Boyes said that he did not go on the property,to take or kill native game; but called in to see the O'Connor boys; and thought he might pick up t hare. William O’Connor sat down ir the paddock and did not fire a shot Witness fired two shots at hares. He ! did not go there to shoot ducks. O'Connor had spoken jokingly to the ranger. i These charges were then dismissed ! THE PENALTY | The Magistrate was hearing counse on the subject of penalty, and hac 1 stated that he intended that it should 1 be heavy, when it was indicated thai one defendant was a married man wit!; nine children an,d was earning a verj smalt wage. The Magistrate said thai this circumstance compelled him to the penalty lower than he had intended. Both Atkins and L. P. O’Connor ’ were fined £2. and costs.