NETTING TROUT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14461, 2 March 1909, Page 7

NETTING TROUT.

tmrbb convictions. Mr H. Y' AYiddowson, S.M.. prosicl.-tl at*the f'ily I'ol'ee Court, yesterday, when ,lol„i Wi'/n.dl, ilohn Pollock. .iikl Edgar v were Feparatelv cliurgc<l wi_lli a net" for hiking '-rottl in _( Jingo' Harbour, tho Sou! hern District Iroul-iut-(inir' area. contrary to llie provisions of "'Hi" Fisheries Act, 1908."—-Mr Hay aprfarrrl for tho defendants, who <5 "No! tiiiiltjy' awl ilr AV. 0. AlacGregov appeared lor the prosecution on ix li.nlf of the (.Hago Acclimatisation Society. ]t narf dccidod to hear lira charges separately, and accordingly that against Wignall wa.i taken first. Mr Maclirogor said tho charge was laid liiulrr regulation 6 of "Tlic Fi=hene* Aet, 190.;" The faets weM> that the Hiroo joiniff men were seen in a boat near St. lyeonawls. They cast t.h'o net three limes, and on the second occasion they hail jlu: fortune io capture a 31b or 41h trout. 'Ihey tcok it, 1o tho beach, and afterwards [jilt it iii the lioal, where it uvw ultimately found hy the rangers. Thcic were also flounders in tits lx)iit. A ranger said he was near St. Leonards on .lanunry 31 with another ranger on the lookout, for people netting He saw the thri'e oci'iiscd about 8 p.m. 'J hey were in .1 boat, a:;<] had just drawn tiie net. They shot the net again, mid when llwy drew it in they had a, trout, which they p!ncc<l on the heaeh and finished (he net. Liter they picked up Iho tionl and too 1 ; it to the boat and pulled JOilyds to 'lOOvds down the harbour, where Ihey again shot llw nel, and wilnifs and the other ranger boarded the 1-oat and found Vic* trout."and several tloimdjre in a hag. Witness told Wignall lie was going Jo take possession' of the boat and net. Vvigjii.il raid (re was under the impression that ihisv could net lor trout as long as they lccpt away from the upper pait of the harlHwr. lie had caught trout before, and did not think he was doing any harm. Tho place wliero witness saw tho tio*.it caught was at Blanket Hay, in the ►Awlhcni Pi-dret.

Mr Hay: Tlio area had better Ijc proved. What docs tins ranger know about il? • Cross examined, witness said he was sum Wignall said ho hud caught trout on one previous occasion. Another ranger was in evidence lo torrolulo i 1 iis oviduii'.o, but Mr liny said it was not worth while difipulin# it. This concluded llio cat® for the prose,ciiliou. Mr Hay, who addressed tlic court at great length, contended that the cliavga was jai l under tho wrong clause of the art. 'lilt- charge should have bei-ri netting without a license. The more ftiiit that, n man netted was not. a prima fario olfcnce. He submitted that (lie regulations wcro ultra vires. It was almost impossible for anyone, even a lawyer, to understand (Iks regulations as embodied in tho Fisheries Act. One could find regulations applying lo a particular district, mid then find on top ot that a regulation applying to the whole of tho Dominion. It was high time that tho attention of the authorities was called to the matter Mr MacGregor said it was hopeless to contend that any regulation? any.vhere •ipproae'iiiig tho statute wero ultra vires. The whole matter was that it was illegal to net troitl iu that, part of the harbour. His Worship paid - that in his opinion he must convict. Mr Hay pointed out that Wignall wrs the owner of tho boat arid net. Would they Ire confiscated? After soma little discussion his worship lined defendant £2 and costs (£1 10s), awl iriado an order that tho boat, nets, and trout be forfeited.

Tho other two defendants were then together charged, the same evidence bein<; offcred, ami his Worship fined each of (hern £2 and costs (£1 10s).