WYNDHAM NOTES

Southland Times, Issue 20523, 27 June 1928, Page 5

WYNDHAM NOTES

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (From Our Correspondent.) The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Wyndham was held on Monday, before Mr G. Cruickshank S.M. CIVIL CASE. The only civil case to engage the attention of the court was that oi A. Lindsay v. A. E. Dawson, claim for 29/- for goods supplied. There was no appearance of defendant, against whom judgment was given for full amount, with costs 10/-. APIARY CASE. S. C. E. Rhodes, inspector of apiaries, proceeded against Joseph Allan, Wyndham, on a charge that on February 20 he being a beekeeper within the meaning of the Apiaries Act 1927, did expose honey bee comb and appliances taken from an infected hive in such a manner as would allow access thereto by bees before such material had been thoroughly sterilized so as to remove any infection. Defendant was represented by Mr C. E. Davey (Wyndham ). Inspector Rhodes, in support of the prosecution, testified that on the occasion of his visit to defendant’s apiary on the date signified for his inspection he drew the conclusion that the disease of foul brood existed therein. He saw proof of defendant having already destroyed some infected comb. On examination of a hive he found foul brood in two cells, one of which he showed defendant. Mr Davey: Where does the charge of exposure come in? Where was the danger? Allan was in the act of overhauling his beehives when you arrived on the scene. The inspector replied that one infected hive would soon spread disease right through an apiary. He was not aware of having said to defendant that he was well pleased with the improved condition of the apiary since his last inspection. He recollected seeing a fire in which, so defendant told him, he had spent several hours in burning apiary spojl etc., including samples of foul brood. Witness found only three infected combs. There was an average of 6000 cells in one hive. Mr Davey: If you were a rabbit inspector and you found a single rabbit on a property, w’hat would you do? Would you prosecute as you are doing this instance? Witness: I am not a rabbit inspector, so I cannot say. But I know my duty as an apiary' inspector. His Worship, without calling upon defendant to give his version of the matter, said he would dismiss the case, which dealt with a trifling matter. TERRITORIAL CASES. Defence Instructor J. Fritzgerald proceeded against W. J. Milne for having on May 7, 1928, failed to return to the Defence Department clothing and equipment of a total value of £lO 13/-. —Convicted and ordered to pay £2 8/11 with costs 10/- in default ten days in gaol. Police v. R. A. Farrington.—A charge of failing to render personal services by attending a casual camp for Ist Battalion Southland Regiment.—Convicted and fined £3, with costs 10/-, and witnesses’ expenses 10/-. OPOSSUMS. Allan A. Campbell, Otago Acclimatization Society ranger, proceeded against several defendants for breaches of the Animal Protection Act. Edward Arnold Jnr., Albert Randall, J. H. Eden, and Thomas Fraser were jointly and severally charged (1) with on April 19, 1928, at Wairekiki, Wyndham district, taking or killing opossums or assisting in doing so, during the close season; (2) with being illegally in possession of opossum skins. Mr C. E. Davey appeared on behalf of the accused, all of whom pleaded not guilty. Ranger Campbell in the course of his evidence said he had found defendants in a camp at Wairekiki on the banks of the Mimihau River. There were opossums skins lying about; he got 17 in all. Mr Davey said that defendants had been at the Wairekiki flaxmill, run by Edward Arnold Senr. When the mill closed down for the season and the employment outlook elsewhere not being promising, they (defendants) had seized upon this opportunity of making a little money.

To his Worship: This occurred during the close season.

The ranger, proceeding, said it would be ridiculous to assume that defendants did not know that they were infringing the law by acting as they had done. All sorts of flimsy excuses were being invented nowadays by such delinquents. The case of Thomas Fraser was taken first. Ranger Campbell, in the course of his evidence, said that when he visited defendant’s camp it was a wet day and he found all the men in bed. He saw all sorts of opossum trapping gear about the camp, and also found a number of skins.

Fraser denied being guilty of the charges preferred against him “I’ve never in my life gone in for ’possum trapping,” he said.

Edward Arnold Senr., who had been called as a witness, said he had been flaxmilling at Wairekiki for about 16 years. He had no personal knowledge of illegal opossum trapping in those parts. Albert Randall said he knew nothing as to whether Fraser indulged in opossum trapping or otherwise. Mr Davey pleaded that there was a bona fide doubt as to whether the accused should be proved guilty. The evidence for the defence went to show that Fraser .was not mixed up with such action. His Worship said he was going to enter up convictions. “This illegal opossuming business must be put down,” he added. Each defendant would be fined £lO with costs 10/-, and witnesses’ expenses 10/-; £5 of each fine to be paid on August 1 and the remaining £5 payable on September 1 in default three weeks’ in gaol. The case against Fraser was dismissed. J. H. Bamford, charged with being illegally in possession of opossum skins at Mokoreta on May 4, pleaded guilty. He mentioned that he had been only a short period in the Dominion and was out of work at the time of the offence and hard-up.—Convict-ed and fined £l2, costs 10/- and service 10/-. £6 of the fine payable August 1, and balance September 1.

Thomas Ralls and K. T. Withers were charged with similar offences the date of such being May 25 and the locality Mount Bleak, Upper Mokoreta. They pleaded guilty, but stated that they had unwittingly broken the law, being strangers to the district in search of work, having come from Rangiora, North Canterbury. They had since taken out licenses. His Worship took into consideration the fact that these defendants had only anticipated the open season five or six days too early and imposed a fine of £3 each, with costs 10/-. A similar charge was also preferred against Findlay McKinna. The ranger said he had found a line of traps and on going to defendant’s place had found two opossum skins. As the season was on he could have had a license. He w’as not making a big job of it. He was a farmer working over the boundary from his own place and could have had a permit to trap his own property. Defendant was fined £3.