PROTECTION OF FISH

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4307, 16 March 1901, Page 5

PROTECTION OF FISH

AN IMPORTANT DECISION. PRESS ASSOCIATION. INVERCARGILL, March 15. ' ' An important decision was given by Mr McCarthy, S.M., in a case in which one Pomeroy was charged with selling trout hot being lake trout. The fish was netted on the Riverton (beach, Jbwo mile* seaward of the mouth of thd Oreti river. Defendant contended that both trout and salmon were indigenous to New Zealand waters, and therefore! did not come within the purview of the legislation relating to thdse fish ; also that-- as the trout sold was-caught outside the_ boundaries of the southern acclimatisation district, the prohibition in the regulations did not apply, Regarding the first contention, the Magistrate said it was contrary to public history, on which much legislation relating to fisheries was based, and as to the second point, held the prohibition contained in clause 11 of the regulations of 1892 was general, except in regard to lake trout, and it was immaterial where a fish was caught as long as it was caught in Nfw Zealand waters. The scopd and intention of the Act clearly included the protection of all fish inhabiting New Zealand waters. The defendant was fined £5 and costs £9. , -