SHOOTING OF PUKEKOS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19418, 28 August 1926, Page 12

SHOOTING OF PUKEKOS.

POKENO VALLEY INCIDENT. RANGER IN A MOTOR-CAR; THREE FINES OF FIVE POUNDS. Charges that, not being the holders of licenses they took or killed game in the Auckland Acclimatisation District, and that without lawful authority they had in their possession native game, namely two pukekos, were preferred against Herbert Biddulph, of Otahuhu, and Harold Arthur Bycroft, Raymond Charles James Keech and William ■ Albert Keech, of Takanini, in the Police Court yesterday. Mr. R. H. Grevilie appeared for the defendants and pleaded guilty on behalf of Bycroft and R. C. ■ Keech, and not guilty on behalf of the others. > .

Douglas B. Stewart, ranger for . the Auckland Acclimatisation Society, said that on June 13 he was motoring in Pokeno Valley Road when he saw Biddulph standing beside a car. The other defendants, were in a paddock. When witness drew up Biddulph stood at the back of the car so as to hide the number. Witness waited until W. A. Keech returned and entered the c&r. There were then two pukekos in the car. Keech produced a license for the Whangarei district. He also remarked they had shot at two pheasants and missed and that it seemed hard to be caught when they missed. Biddulph said he did not have a license or a gun. The other two defendants produced Whangarei licenses. Witness asked who owned the pukekos and Bycroft and R, C. Keech admitted they had shot them. Biddulph, in evidence, said he was asked to take the party out shooting for the week-end. He assumed they had licenses. He remained in the car and did not do any shooting. The Magistrate, Mr. Poynton: He had the birds in his possession when they were in the car. W. A. Keech said ho took not part in the shooting of the pukekos. He was in the car at that time. He did not at any time have the birds in his possession. Mr. King, who appeared for the Acclimatisation Society, submitted that Biddulph should be convicted of having the birds in his possession. It was the duty of car-drivers to see that those whom they took out shooting had licenses. The magistrate said that when the person who shot the birds was discovered he did 1 not think another .person should be,convicted of having them in hi 3. possession. This charge was intended to permit of a conviction-when the original perpetrator of the offence could not b6 discovered. The charges against Biddulph were dismissed. Each of the other accused was fined £5 with cost 6on the charge of taking the game and convicted and discharged for having the birds in hia possession. •' , , •