MAORI FISHING RIGHTS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20088, 3 May 1927, Page 9

MAORI FISHING RIGHTS.

PROSECUTION AT MILTON. MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION. (Fhv. : Ouh Own Correspondent) MILTON, May 2. A oase of considerable importance and one which affects the rights of Maoris to fish in the rivers in New Zealand was heard at the Milton Magistrate’s Court, before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., on Friday last. Douglas Dawson, of Henley, was proceeded against by the Acclimatisation Society’s ranker (Mr Pellett) on three charges: (1) Fishing for trout or perch in the Taieri River above Henley bridge on April 5, without a license; (2) using a not other than a landing net; (3) fishing otherwise than by artificial means. Defendant, a half-caste Maori, pleaded not guilty. It was stated that ho was discovered by the ranger netting above Henley bridge, and that two perch were found in the boat when it was examined by Mr Pellett. Although not a qualified solicitor, Mr J. M. Ellison, a Maori, applied for permission to appear on defendant’s behalf, and the request was granted by the magistrate. Mr Ellison then admitted the facts that the defendant did not possess a license, and was also netting. The Ranger stated that when discovered the defendant had two perch, and several mullet and flounders in his boat. The Taieri River was a tidal river, and the defendant had no legal right to net beyond the boundaries specified by the Gazette notice. Witness had seized the boat acid fish; and the charges _had been laid under the provision of section 1 of the Fishing Regulations. Mr Ellison, in his contention for the defence, delved into ancient history, claiming that fishing rights within the New Zealand waters were retained by the Maoris by article 7 of the Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed by representatives oi the Government and the Native chiefs. The place where the defendant was caught was opposite a Native reserve, and the Maoris were entitled by the Treaty to net the rivers for food, but ' not • for monetary gain. In the Otago district the fishing fights were reserved to the Maoris when the land was sold to the Land Company in 1840. The rights then retained had not been waived in the slightest degree, nor forfeited. The defendant did not know that the two fish caught were perch, until ha was so notified by the T’ia defendant, in evidence, stated that ho was a half-caste Maori, temporarily residing at Henley, at which place he had removed , from the- Gatlins district only three days prior to the ranger’s visit His father was a half-caste and his mother was a three-quarter-caste, whilst his wife was also a half-caste Maori. _ The porch wore somewhat similar to moki or terakihi, and ho thought the perch was a _ saltwater fish. Ho had never fished with a rod and line, but he had had experience of deep-sea fishing. He also knew that the Maoris in the Henley district netted the Taieri River for flounders, or The Ranger contended that the netting limits within tidal rivers had been, fixed by statute within prescribed limits and tho Marino Department relied solely for tho prosecution on tho provisions of section 1 of the Fishing Regulations. Decision was reserved.