DESTRUCTION OF FISH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18025, 25 February 1922, Page 11

DESTRUCTION OF FISH.

QUESTION OF CONDITION.

INFORMATION DISMISSED.

Au interesting prosecution was heard in the Police Court yesterday, before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M. Sanford, Ltd. (Mr. Ward) were charged under section 54 of the Fisheries Act, with having, on November 13, 1921, wilfully destroyed fresh fish fit for human consumption. A plea of not pilty vra» entered.

Mr. Paterson, who appeared for the prosecution, said ho would call evidence to show that on November 13 a large quantity of fresh fish was put on the company's gut boat for dumping, and that there had been systematic dumping of fresh fish.

Albert Lomey said he was on the waterfront between 5 and 6 a.m. on November 15, and saw a cartload of fish put on the boat. He; was told it was to make room for an incoming load. The boat was so loaded with fish that many fell off in the water. They were in the best of condition. He got about a down out of the water and took them home. They were eaten. Tho following Sunday the same thing happened. Cross-examined, witness said he was a line and net fisherman. He was not prejudiced against trawlers. There were Detween 200 and 300 baskets of fish on the boats Two other witnesses gave similar evidence as to the fish tipped on to the boat on November 13. In their opinion they were fresh and firm and fit to eat. They had seen the same thing happen on many previous occasions. The boat was fully loaded. The captain of Sanford's gut boat said he took out about 60 baskets of fish and some tins of offal on November 13. Tho fish were unfit for human consumption. He had never made a different statement to ,the inspector of fisheries. The fish were in "ths usual rotten state." James Phillip Bennett, fisheries inspector, said that in consequence of complaints he investigated the present case. The captain of the gut boat told him the fish were good. He had cleaned some on the. way out, but they went 1 bad before he got them home. Tho captain also said he had the boat at the wharf at 4 a.m., but Sanfords were late in sending the fish down. Had the fish been there at 4 a.m. as arranged, noone would have known anything about it. Counsel for the defendants submitted that on the facts there was no case to answer.

Paul Sanford, foreman in the company's shed, said he condemned the fish at 11 a.m. on Saturday, November 12, and ordered them to be disinfected and dumped. These orders were carried out. The fish were bad. In cross-examination witness denied that -the fish were dumped to make room for the Cosgrove's load. Henry Whitford, carter for Sanford, Ltd., said that on the Saturday he received instructions to disinfect a chamber of fish and dump them on Sunday. The fish were bad. The chamber held about'so or 60 baskets. Cross-examined, witness said he did not see Lomey that morning. He did not say orders had been received to clean out the freezers for an incoming load. The next Sunday witness dumped one cartload. Two other witnesses stated that the fish dumped on the bout on November 13 were bad. There were about 60 or 60 baskets. Further evidence was given by Gilbert Sanford, secretary to the company. The magistrate said the evidence showed that fresh fish, fit for human consumption had. been destroyed together with fish that were bad. But he considered there was no evidence of- it having been wilfully done. In his opinion & Judge would set aside a conviction. There was no doubt fresh fish were dumped, but he could not convict on the evidence.