CHARGE OF POACHING

Southland Times, Issue 20633, 3 November 1928, Page 7

CHARGE OF POACHING

PROSECUTION MADE TOO LATE. THE SIX MONTHS’ LIMIT. A case of unusual interest was heard in the Magistrate’s Court at Winton before Mr G. Gruickshank, S.M., on October 30 when the Southland Acclimatization Society prosecuted Ernest Gordon Bailey, Walter Andrew Bailey and William Williamsun Plunket, all farmers’ assistants at South Hillend, on the charge of having on April 29, 1928, at Black Creek, South Hillend, unlawfully taken seven grey duck. In a case of this description the information requires to be laid within six months of the offence and although the defendants had admitted having taken the ducks on a date which brought them within the law they later learned that this date was not correct. Conclusive evidence was brought forward to show that the date was March 18 and this removed the case beyond the six months limit. Mr Eustace Russell, for the society, stated that information was laid as a result of interviews by Ranger Evans and Constable Kerse on September 25 last with the three defendants. Walter Andrew Bailey at first denied shooting any ducks this year, but admitted shooting 15 ducks before the season opened in 1927. On being interviewed a few hours later he admitted that he, in company with Ernest Bailey and William Plunket, had taken or killed seven grey ducks at Black Creek on April 29 last or perhaps before that date. That he and his brother had shot two of the ducks and the remaining five, which were flappers, were taken and killed by the three of them with the assistance of a dog. Ernest Bailey, in his statement, admitted the offence and stated that the date was April 29. William Plunket admitted being with the other two defendants on April 29 when the seven ducks were taken and denied that he had killed any of the ducks taken. He said that he was not certain of the exact date. Mr W. D. Tait appeared for the defendants who did not deny the taking ‘of the ducks, but led evidence to prove that the taking was on March 18 and as more than six months had elapsed before the information was laid the information should be dismissed. Mr. Cruickshank, S.M., in giving judgment, said he was satisfied that the evidence showed that the taking was on March 18 and under these circumstances he must dismiss the information. He considered that it was a disgrace that these three young men should be guilty of taking grey ducks out of season and if the information had been laid within six months from the date of the offence he would have inflicted substantial fines.