TREE UNLAWFULLY CUT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 78, Issue 7017, 9 February 1949, Page 7

TREE UNLAWFULLY CUT

TWO MEN FINED NOT A SERIOUS CASE The State Forest Department yesterday proceeded against David William Wyatt Shepherd, and Colin William Mcßae, in the Te Awamutu Court on charges of unlawfully felling a rimu tree and cutting battens therefrom, on Mount. Pirongia. Mr S. L. Paterson, was the presiding Magistrate, and Mr B. Malone, appeared on behalf of the Crown, while Mr A. R. Hill appeared for the defendants who pleaded guilty. Mr Malone outlined the provisions of the Act relative to the offence and the penalties that could be imposed. The Department asked that the expenses of the officer who made an inspection be recovered but, the Crown prosecutor at Hamilton (Mr J. F. Strang) who instructed him (Mr Malone) to appear on behalf of the Department, said he did not think that the Department could do so, and with that view Mr Malone said he was inclined to agree. Continuing Mr Malone said that on the Ist April last, Mr Shepherd, a farmer at Pirongia wrote to the Department asking for a permit to cut battens for himself; the battens not being intended for sale, but his neighbour, Mr Mcßae the other defendant helped the former to cut the battens, a fifty-fifty basis being agreed on. The tree was estimated to produce 3000 battens. The request was referred to the District Ranger at Te Kuiti for a report and when he did so he found that the two defendants had commenced work having felled a green rimu tree, the batten value being £3 15s Id. The District Ranger reported that Mr Shepherd had commenced felling the tree without a permit, and the latter believed that he was in order, as he had secured permission to do on other occasions, but the Department felt that seeing it was a green tree that had been felled, the matter was a serious one. Both defendants were young men with good reputations. The battens were not removed, and they were still there as the property of the Crown. Mr Hill said that the facts had been placed very fairly before the Court by Mr Malone. The defendants had applied for permission, a nd had even sent a telegram asking for an early reply. There was no suggestion that the defendants were thieving, and he (Mr Hill), suggested that the cases did not call for severe penalties. The Magistrate said it was not a case for the penal rate in regards the timber cut being inflicted. It was not as if the matter had been done wilfully. Both men were convicted and fined 50s each, and ordered to pay 10s Court costs, and solicitor’s fees £3 3s in each case.