TROUT POACHING.

Otago Witness, Issue 2665, 12 April 1905, Page 58

TROUT POACHING.

TWO CASES AT NASEBY. (Faoic Otjr Own Correspondent.)

NASEBY, April 10. At the Police Court, Na&eby, to-day, before Mr James M'Ennis, S.M., Enoch Jopson, of Naeeby, joiner, was charged that on the 27th March last, at Naseby, he unlawfully did take certain trout, without a license, contrary to the provisions of " The Fisheries Conservation Act, 1884-," and the regulations made thereunder.

Mr W. C. MacGregor (Dunedin) appeared to prosecute for the Acclimatisation Society, and accused (who was unrepresented by counsel) pleaded " Guilty. 3 ' Mr -MacGregor stated that Constable Lemm met Jopson two days after the offence was committed. Jopson was seeding a box away by coach, and when asked by the constable, whose suspicions were aroused, what the box contained he replied " Fruit," and etoutly maintained this. The constable opened the box, and found that it contained 22 trout. Accused then admitted taking them from Matthew Young's dam. Mr MacGregor stated that a great deal of poaching was carried on, and it was difficult to get a conviction, and he submitted that the only way to put down poaching was by the imposition of exibstantial penalties.

Th-6 Magistrate stated that the fine must be not more than £5 nor less than ss. He thought that the fact of accused voluntarily pleading guilty should be taken into consideration, bufc at the same time a great many trout had been taken. He fined accused £2, solicitor's fee £1 ls % Accused was allowed one month in whicH ?o pay the fine.

A SIMILAR CHARGE.

Robert Horswell was then similarly charged, Mr MaoGregor appearing for the society, and Mr Hjorring for the accused, who pleaded "Nof guilty."

Mr MacGregor said that the poaching was done on a Sunday morning. Accused was seen in the neighbourhood of the dam, with his coat off and his shirt-sleeves rolled up.

Two boys who were passing were asked by him to assist. The ct a m had been iua off, and they helped him to bale out the water from a hole, in which were trout. He gavo one boy six trout and the other fhe, and had about a dozen loft in the bucket. Ho was afterwards seen, about noon, with a dczen trout in a handkerchi&f, and was seen taking some of these to other persons. Counsel understood that accused intended to submit that he had authority from the owner of the dam to take fish ; but, even if he had, the owner could not give permission. Mr Young, however, gave no authority. The society was at great expense in stocking and looking after trout, and counsel submitted tnat the full penalty should be inflicted.

On Mr Hjorring's application witnesses were ordered out of court. Evidence in support of counsel's statement was given by John Peterson (one of the boys who assisted Horswell), who, in crcss-cxamination, admitted that he had previously netted trout in another dam, and by William Jacob (the other boy) ; also by Henry Jacob, father of the iast witness, who, in reply to Mr Hjorring's question as to whether he had not stated that he had got 300 trout out of the dams recently, said that he had stated that he had had a "cut-in" with about 300 fish, but that that statement was false.

Mr Hjorring submitted that the Acclimatisation Society had no jurisdiction over the waters of the dam, wHich belonged to a private individual, and cited in support Campbell v. M'Donald (4 Gazette Law Reports, 503). The waters were private waters, and the Fisheries Conservation Statutes did hot apply. He would show that accused had authority from the owner of the dam, and submitted there could be no conviction.

Matthew Young, owner of the dam, deposed that he had a grant for a dam, and for a water race to supply the same from Eweburn. He met Horswell on Sunday morning, and he went home to his (Young's) house with him. After chatting at the house they went together to the dam, and found that it had been tampered with. Witness said to Horswell, rt If you get a fish you can take one or two." He did not then know {Eat accused had been there before and got the fish.

In replying. Mr MacGregor stated that Young had disproved any authority given, for the fish had been taken before the alleged authority had been granted. The society had jurisdiction.

The Magistrate said that the only point upon which he was doubtful was as to the interpretation of the words in the statute, " Property of the owner." If the waters belonged to a private person the question was whether or not they were exempted from the operation of the act. He had considerable doubt en the point, and wouT3 give accused th& benefit of it and dismiss the ease.

Mr MacGregor asked his Worship to state a case on appeal.

The Maerjgtrate said that on the facts he was satisfied that no authority had been given until the fish had been taken, and that he would state a case for the higher court on the law point only.