ANGLING.

Otago Witness, Issue 3016, 3 January 1912, Page 64

ANGLING.

By Jock Scott.

To b« I perfect fisherman you require more excellencies than are usually to be found in such a small space as is allotted to a man’s carcaae. — Parker GiusotmBeaders are invited to contribute items of local fishing news for insertion in this column. For Insertion in the ensuing issue they should roach Dunedin by Monday night’s mail.

RANK NOTE*. Thames Trout in 1911. —“ A. R. M.,” writing in an October number of the Field, Bays:—‘"Several trout have been captured by Thames anglers lately—one of over 41b being taken on roach tackle in the Sutton back-water, near Abingdon; but now the close time is in force the fish all received their liberty. The season for Thames trout reopens next April, and anglers certainly deserve to bo much bettor treated than they were in the season whidh came to an end last month. It has boen the worst six months for sport with trout experienced for many years, but this result is by no means remarkable considering the inclement spring, tropical summer, and low water. The Thames is not the only riyer which has fished badly for trout this year. Among the trout taken in the past season have boon 33, scaling 1251 b. A good many small and undersized trout have been caught and returned, one angler landing 14 in the Pangbour.no district, which was also the scene of the capture of an 81b trout by Mr A. E. Hobbs, of Henley, an angler who, despite the unfavourable season, has met with gratifying success. He has also landed an 81b soz trout —the largest fish of the season reported—and a number of other nice fish, his 12 best trout scaling 531 b. The majority were taken in the Henley district. Another good trout of 81b was captured in tho Wallingford waters by Mr G. Talbot. Curiously enough, Shepperton, always noted as a trout-fishing resort, seems to have not furnished a single large fish this past season, a most unusual occurrence. Marlow, Bourne End, Cookham, Staines, and Ohertscy have also been a failure. The - president of the London Anglers’ Association (Mr Philip Geon) was fortunate enough to catch a 6’.b trout in the Ponton Hook waters. Reverting to Mr Hobbs’s captures, it is interesting to note that four of the trout were taken in weir pools and eight from tho open stream, and that seven were secured spinning ana five with live bait.” Destruction of Trout in an English Ri*A»r. —Not since 1894, when the effluent from a paper miU found its way into tho preserves of the Otley Angling Club and led to prolonged litigation, has the Wharfe — or, indeed, any Yorkshire trout stream — suffered so sensational a disaster from tho angler’s point of view as that which befell it last week-end in the lower reaches of the Ilkley Angling Club’s preserves. The Ilkley Club hold the fishing rights over about four miles of tho mid-Wharfe, where tho volume of water is considerable and

oapabl© of carrying a big head of fish. Tlio club, pioneer? in private pisciculture, annually hatch about ICO,OOO ova. retaining ' the fry in nursery ponds until they reach the yearling or two-year-old stage, with th© consequence that no club water in the North of England is more heavily stocked than th© Ilkley length. The town stands on th© hillside above the river, and being a popular inland holiday resort is a wellknown. centre for tourist anglers. Roughly hail-f tho club’s water is above Ilkley Bridge and half below. Again, about halfway down th© lower section tho river receives th© effluent from the local drainage system in the vicinity of tho gas works, and it, was below this point—that is, in the last mile of the club’s preserves—that the damage was apparent. ' On Sunday morning the club officials wore notified by the keeper that something was seriously amiss, and the honorary secretary told me that when ho saw tho state of things that prevailed he could have sat down and wept. In tli©

Section of river' affected the bottom of the stream gleamed with the white of upturned bellies, and hundreds of the fish were feebly moving on the surface. Of the latter about 50 were secured and transferred to a neighbouring bock, where they ultimately recovered. 'jTbe Yorkshire Fishery Board •were promptly notified, and the head bailiff was quickly on the scene. Under th© 4flrootion of the officials dead fish to tho Bum her of 1154 were collected and oarted to

a farm in the vicinity, whefe they make a formidable pile, 75 per cent, or 80 per cent, being trout, -while barbel and eels figured conspicuous!-- among the remainder. Many trout were surreptitiously removed, and, it is said, found their way into the local frying pan. It is estimated that quite as many fish as were taken out still lie dead in the deeps, and cannot be removed until they float. As no dead fish were apparent above the gas works, suspicion pointed in that direction for a solution of the mystery, with tlje rcseulb that samples of water taken above and below the gas works have been submitted to the West Riding County Council’s analyst for investigation, and the sequel to the calamity will be eagerly awaited. —“W. C. P.,” in the Field. ''P.S. —Since writing the above I learn that the dead fish taken out of the Ilkley. Club’s length now number 1350, of which over 1200 arc trout. The private fishery of the Denton Estate immediately below the club length is also affected. Not. a single trout of 11b has been discovered, and it looks ae though the Larger fish had not been fatally affected. Also, no dead chub have been seen, although the portion of the fishery polluted is known to contain several. It is understood that the Fishery Board will take x>roceedings against the local council, and after that wo may hear of claims- for damages It is now estimated that at Least 3000 fish liave been killed.

Bequest to an Angling Society.—The following interesting case is referred to in a November issue of the Field:—The case of “In re Clifford.” decided by Mr Justice Swinfcn-Badv and reported in The Times of November 10. raised a point of interest and considerable importance to fishermen. The decision was that a bequest of £2OO to the Oxford Angling Society, on condition that the president of the society for the time being should undertake to invest the money and, apply the income thereof for the purpose of restocking the society’s water, was an invalid gift, and that the money passed to the residuary le.gatoes. The decision involves one of the most entertaining anachronisms to bo found in our law. It is illegal, according to English law, to create any trust which may continue operative beyond what is_known as the period of “perpetuity”—i.e., the life of some person in existence at the date of the creation of the trust and 20 years after his death. An exception is, however, made in favour of what are called, “charitable trusts.” The definition of a charitable trust depends upon the preamble of a statute of the reign of Queen Elizabeth (passed originally with a totally different object) and a long course of judicial interpretation. The preamble is worth quoting: —“Whereas I ancles, tenemontes, rentes, annuities, proftttes, hereditamentes, goodes. chattels, money and stocks of money have been heretofore limitted, appointed, and assigned as we'll by the Queen’s most excellent Majestic and her most noble progenitors as by sondrie other well disposed persons, some for relief o,f aged, impotent, and poore people, some for .maintenance cf sick and mayvned souldie s and marriners. schooles of loarninge, free echooles, _ and echoller in universities, some for repiair_ of bridges, portes, havens, caueewaies, churches, soabank.es, and highewaiea, some for education and preferment of orphans, some for or towards reliefe, stoeke, and maintenance for houses of correction, some for marriages of poore maides,, some for supprotaoion, ayde, and helpo of young tradesmen, handicnaftesmen, and persons decayed, and others for reliefs or redemption of prisoners or captives, a.nd for aide or ease of any poor inhabitante« concernrnge payments of fifteenos, setting© out of soukliers, and other taxes, etc.” The rosullt of judicial interpretation of this interesting document is that no trust will be validated as a “charltab'o trust” if it does not come within one of four heads; (1) The relief of poverty. (2) Advancement of education. (3) Advancement of religion. (4) Some purpose beneficial to the community. It is about the fourth class that conflict has raged most fiercely, for not every object, beneficial to the community will bo held technically “charitable.” To define the judicial limitation of this class of gifts is beyond the scope of this note; it will suffice to indicate the particular point on which the decision now under consideration turned. A gift to be saved under the fourth heading above mentioned must be for the benefit of the public or cn indefinite number of persona only. A trust for the perpetual benefit of inhabitants of a parish may therefore bo good under this head, but not. a gift for the perpetual benefit of the members of a club —a distinction of obvious importance to all persons interested in sport which has already been invoked to Invalidate a bequest for the annual presentation of a cup for yacht-racing (“In re Xottage.” 1895. 2 Chancery. 649). Mr Justice Swinfen-Esdy followed the same princinle in the p>-csent, ease. He held first of all that the bequest aimed at creating a perpetual trust: and secondly, that the trust, although it mioiht incidentally enure to the oublio benefit, was primarily designed for the benefit of the individual members of the society, and was therefore invalid. ,It follows that anglers who, like the testator in this case, are desirous of ben-fiting their fellows, must so frame their gift that.--either (1) the benefit of it, enures primarily to the public at large, or (2' if they have the benefit of a particular elub or association in view must, make the gift, to that society out and out without, any conditions tending to the creation of a perpetual trust.