OPOSSUM SKINS

Southland Times, Issue 19069, 2 March 1921, Page 6

OPOSSUM SKINS

RIGHT to possession. INTERESTING CASE AT WYNDHAM. An action to decide the possession of certain opossum skins seized by the police from the depot of John Ford in October last was brought by the police at Wyndham before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., on Monday. Mr Eustace Russell (instructed by the Otago Acclimatisation Society) appeared to urge their forfeiture to the Crown and Mr C. E. Davey represented the defendant. Mr Russell quoted the Police Offences Act governing the disposal of property in such circumstances. The circumstances, he said, were highly suspicious, and the police retained the 80 odd skins. Opossums were protected and deemed to be imported game, but m 1912 there was an open season, with the result that there was such wholesale slaughter that in 1913 the protection was renewed. The police and the ranger had searched Ford’s skin sheds, and, in face of his repeated denials, found the 83 ofiossum skins. Defendant admitted the skins were his and purchased some short time before, but refused to say who was the vendor. An action w T as brought, but the police withdrew the case. Mr Davey, acting for Ford, had claimed the return of the skins in correspondence with the police; and threatened proceedings in January for their recovery; but no action had resulted; hence the present action by the police. The onus was on Ford lo show that the skins were legally taken. The buyer of skins illegally taken had no better title to them than the seller. If the skins were unlawfully taken, they were by law forfeited to the Crown. Constable Alfred Hastings Jones, in the course of his evidence, detailed how he had* visited Ford’s skin depot on October 12, 1920, in company with Ranger Duncan, who I produced his appointment, and said he had reason to suspect that Ford had opossum skins in his possession. Ford said he had not any. At one place theyrfound 11 skins in a sack. These he said he had had some two months. Ford said there were no more, and I they found 17 loose under some sacks. Ford could not say where the second lot came from—“perhaps Munro bought them.” Ford, in reply said that he had not the use of the loft above the motor garage, and the ranger said he was prepared to take his word for that; but witness later received information that he was in occupation of the loft. Witness tried to get the ranger, who had gone to Mataura, but failed; so he went again to Ford, who again denied that he had the loft, but admitted having a key for the loft door. Witness searched \the loft, but found nothing. He noticed a trap door leading to the lower floor. He received information that the skins were there in the morning, and, if not there then, they must have been removed. He renewed the search and found two sackfuls of black opossum skins, 55 in number, hidden under the gear in a motor chassis. He asked Ford. “Are they your skins?” and Ford replied: “They are” but refused to say how he came by them. “That is my business. I am here to buy anything, and would do it again.” The skins were not old, being not properly dry. Witness took the skins. Ranger Duncan was called to give evidence, but Mr Davey said it did not matter so long as it was admitted that Ford claimed the skins and they were taken from him. Mr Davey said no evidence would be called for the defence. The point was an extremely interesting one. What would put a man I up in one case would not do so in another. The forfeiture of the skins could only fol- | low on a conviction, and his client had not I been convicted. If there were no conviction, the regulation did not apply. The facte might appear as they liked—a conviction was the test. The sting of the section was the taking and killing. Ford was going to admit until he advised him of the difference of being illegally in possession. Counsel quoted a recent English decision, in which it was held that where the seizure of partridges’ eggs which might have been made under the powers given by “The Poaching Prevention Act,” is wrongly made with a view to prosecution under the Gaming Act, an action for detinue and trover is maintainable against the person who made the seizure. His Worship: It depends on the Regulation.

Mr Davey said the fact remained that Ford was not convicted and how could it be said that he was illegally in possession where there was no decision. Mr Russell said that the law was that, all birds and animals and their skins if illegally taken, shall be forfeited. The skins were in the possession of the police, and the only inference was that, they were illegally taken. This was an interpleader summons and Ford should go into the box to prove that he came by the skins lawfully. The fact of their being “p anted” and repeated d-mials ci having any sk’.na were evidence tantwr.ount to guilt. lord had now the opportunity to gc into the box to show where ho. got them. He was afraid to do so. It wis doubtful if the English case would apply. The Regulation said, “cannot take or kill.” Mr Rusaeil added: “Ford knows that we know the man he bought them from,” His Worship: The skin must run back to the animal. I am inclined to agree with Mi Russell; but I will take time to look into the matter and will give a written decision.