ANGLERS' RIGHTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22777, 10 July 1937, Page 18

ANGLERS' RIGHTS

, TEST CASE BEGUN LAKE ROTO AIRA REGULATIONS CHALLENGED PRIVILEGES GIVEN MAORIS A case of considerable interest to anglers in the Taupo district involving their right to take trout in Lake Roto Aira was opened before Mr. C. R. Orr "Walker, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Charges of breaches of the trout fishing regulations were brought by the Department of Internal .Affairs (Mr. V. R. Meredith) against six Auckland professional men and two farmers. The defendants were. Harold Eric Barrowelough, Auckland, solicitor; "William W. Dove, Auckland, merchant; "William Hollis Cocker, Auckland, solicitor; John Russell Gray, Auckland, solicitor; Ernest Astley Harding, Dargaville, farmer; Bruce MeLe'od, Colyton, Feilding, farmer; John Reeco Morris, Auckland, headmaster; and Cecil A. Whitney, Auckland, merchant. Under the Taupo trout fishing regulations, 1929, each of the defendants was charged with two breaches, alleged to have been committed on March 2S last —that being the holder of a licence entitling him to fish in any part of the Taupo district as defined by regulation except in- Lake Roto Aira he fished for' trout there, and that lie fished for trout in Lake Roto Aira in breach of the regulations made with respect to the taking of trout ;; in that lake. No Offence Admitted It was agreed to take the case of C. A. "Whitney, for whom Mr. H. E. Barrowelough appeared, as a test case, 1 and the other seven were adjourned. Mr. Barrowelough entered a plea of not guilty to the second charge and •with regard to the other stated that it did not disclose an offence. If His "Worship held against him on that' then < 1 ho would enter a plea of not guilty on that also. Mr. Meredith said the regulations j under which the licenco was issued to 1 defendant precluded him from fishing i in Lake Roto Aira. The Magistrate said it appeared' there was no penalty attached to the i second charge. 1 Mr. Meredith said the penalties were i in the trout fishing regulations in 1929. 1 The Magistrate: Are you not going J back to the regulations of 1922? j Mr. Meredith said that these wore . incorporated in later regulations. No | great • reliance was placed on the j earlier ones standing alone. • • The Admitted Facts ) Air. Meredith outlined the facts admit- « ted and agreed upon. The defendant J "Whitney and others holding a licence under the 1929 regulations \\ ere fisbI in* on Lake Roto Aira when they were : actfosted by a ranger and their gear was ! taken. They were taking up the posi--1 tion that the regulations were invalid. !' The restrictions forbidding Europeans I to;, fish on Lake Roto Aira arose from } a promise given by Sir James Carroll to the Ngati Tuwharetoa tribe living \ beside the lake. Certain blind fish !,. called koara in that lake were to be preserved for "the natives, but somehow or another trout got into the lake, with the result that the koara were destroyed. In order to compensate the Maoris the Government gave them the right to take trout in this lake and prohibited Europeans from doing so. The Taupo trout fishing regulations, ' 1929. were made under the provisions of the Fisheries Act, 1908, and the Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1926. No one could fish in the Taupo district except under a licence that precluded him from fishing in Lake Roto Aira. Question of Interpretation John Bennett, senior clerk of the Internal Affairs Department, gave evidence that section 28 of the JSative Land Claims Adjustment Act of 192122, was passed to compensate the Maoris for the loss of their koara in Lake Roto Aira. Mr. Barrowelough said _ this was purely a question of legal interpretation of certain statutes and regulations. The defendants had believed that what they were going -was perr fectly lawful. It had been suggested in print that the Maoris' rights had been over-ridden, and though that was quite irrelevant he wanted to say that the defendants were there at the Marois' invitation and that the Maoris had - been rewarded. Until some breach of statute was shown they were entitled to fish where they liked. The regulations of 1922 were ytterly invalid as X far as these charges were concerned. " They did. not say a word about nrohibi'thig Europeans from Lake Roto J Aira. The sole source of authority for the 1929 regulations was tho 1922 regulations Tinder the Fisheries Act and these could not be justified. Missing Regulations Tjie position, counsel said, was that, • u . even, if tho regulations of 1929 had deliberately set out to cure the invalidity of ..the regulations of 1922 they could not have done so. The first charge referred to a regula- . tion that was purely permissive and did not disclose an offence. It said they might fish anywhere' except in Lake Roto Aira, but it did not say thev must not fish in Lake Roto Aira. Although it might bo extraordinary that ?• tho- draftsman had not made it an " offence, the fact was that he had not £ doiie so, The Court had no power to add words that had been omitted. Mr. Barrowelough had not completed his argument when the Court adjourned the further hearing of the case until Tuesday afternoon.