BREACHES OF THE GAME LAWS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1956, 20 August 1891, Page 15

BREACHES OF THE GAME LAWS.

At the City Police Court on tbe 13th, William Inglis Conradi was charged with having on the 10th July sold one sack of native game— to wit, pigeons, without having a license so to sell. Mr F. E. Chapman appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Meatyard for the defendant. A further charge was laid of selling a sack of pigeons on the 17th of July without his having a license. It was decided to hear both cases conjointly.— Mr Meatyard said that defendant admitted the offence but pleaded ignorance of tbe law on the subject. He asked his Worship to make the fine as light as possible.— Mr Chapman said that he was instructed that what Mr Meatyard had said was true and that the defendant sold the game in good faith not knowing that there was any illegality about it. Great difficulty had been experienced, however, in bringing the charges home. They did not wish for a heavy penalty.— As there were several cases of a like nature, his Worship decided to allow this one to stand over until the others were heard. — James Has tie was charged with selling on the 14th of May, 15 pairs of pigeons without having a license to do so. Mr F. R. Chapman appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Fraser for defendant. A second charge of the same character was also laid. A plea of not guilty was put in.— John Burt, ranger for the Otago district, said he laid the information against tbe defendant. — Cross-examined : Witness had never heard of any prosecution like this before.— Willliam Stewart, fishmonger, said that he dealt in game. He kept a register, according to tbe act. On the 31st July there were entered 15 pigeons, purchased from Mr Hastie. They were wild pigeons. The other game mentioned in ths information was also entered. — To the Bench : Wild pigeons were native pigeons. — Crossexamined : Witness could not say whether the pigeons were wild English pigeons or nativa pigeons. He thought the latter. Witness had cautioned the defendant not to sell to anybody else but to holders of licenses. — In speaking for the defence, Mr Fraser stated that his Worship had dropped a hint referring to the stringent regulations in regard to such cases as the one then before the court. He confessed himself that he had not been aware of the stringency of these regulations. Under them a man could kill any amount of game and give it away, but any unfortunate settler who sold a pigeon for 6d would be breaking the law. He thought the laws were such as should be blotted out from the statutes of New Zealand. In this case the praotice had been allowed to run on since 1889, and he thought that if a nominal fine were inflicted the ends of justice would be met. — It had been stated that the utmost difficulty was experienced in securing tbe necessary evidence for a conviction, but if Ranger Burt had gone to Messrs Ross or Stewart he would have found 50 cases marked in their registers. It seemed to be a matter of persecution, not of prosecution.— James Hastie, expressman, defendant in the case, said that the evidence given by Mr Steward was quite correct. Witness did not know that he was breaking the law. He bought an express from a well-known man named " Charlie," and he also bought "the pigeon run." "Charlie" used to sell the game in this manner for years.— Cross-examined; Witness bought the "pigeon run" about two years ago. Witness never sold the game -to anyone but Mr Ross and Mr Stewart. Witness had delivered game, but had never sold game to hotels or private houses.— His Worship said he would hear the other case before he gave his decision. George Tilbury was charged on twe informations with selling native game— to wit, ducks, without having a license so to do. — Mr Chapman appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Fraser for defendant, and pleaded not guilty.— Ranger Burt deposed that he had bad a conversation with defendant, who said that he did not sell the game to the poulterer, but only delivered them. — William Stewart, poulterer, gave evidence in rsgard to the transaction in ducks with defendant. He told defendant that if he had any ducks to spare he would buy them, and defendant gave him 17 pairs, for whioh witness paid. — Hugh Ross, poulterer, deposeoVthat when he took out his license to sell game, in the month of May, he saw Tilbury and told him that he was in a position to buy game, but that he (defendant) could not sell without a license. Defendant then asked if he could get the game consigned to witness, would he take it and would it be all right, to whioh he (witness) answered " Yes." He paid defendant for the game. — Mr Fraser stated that in this case Mr Tilbury was simply a carrier. If he wero convicted, it was obvious that no man could carry or deliver game from the railway station unless he made inquiries that the person who killed it had a license to do so, and also had a license to sell it. If that was so, how were the shopmen to get their game P — Tbe Bench : Go out and shoot it.-— (Laughter.) How did this sapient acclimatisation society say that these men were to get the game? Tilbury might have been technically guilty, but he had never made one shilling out of it. Why the prosecution was kept back until the end of the season was inexplicable, unless it was that they were waiting until the game bad been delivered.— George Tilbury, defendant, was then called. He stated that he had a number of country customers who brought eggs, butter, and other dairy produce, into town at regular intervals. One of these sometimes brought a little game, and Mr Stewart had told witness that he would be quite safe in selling this game to himself (Mr Stewart) or Mr Ross, as they both held licenses. Witness used to do this, and transmitted the money to the man up country. Witnf ss never made anything out of the transaction b u yond the price he charged for cartage. He was quite unaware that he broke the law.— His Worship said, that if he were rUowrl to s»y the defendant was ignorant, of Iho law, fan would Bay so» but he must presume tb«t be did know the law. All the esses were prov< <% and there would be a conviotion in each. He could not see a difference in any of the cases. His belief was that those men did not know that they were doing anything wrong, and the esses being the first under the act, a fine of 10s each, and costs, would be inflicted in each instance. The fine under the act might be anythiog up to £20.

The Southland County Council has declared against one-man-one- vote in county eleotions, and also against the subdivision of ridings and increase of members.