TRAPPING OF OPOSSUMS

Taranaki Daily News, 3 October 1930, Page 3

TRAPPING OF OPOSSUMS

DISPUTE OVER BOUNDARIES PARK BOARD BRINGS ACTION. MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION. The hearing of the charges against three opossum trappers, John ,de Cleene, Robert de Cleene and Charles Lane, of wilfully attempting to trap opossums oil June 10 outside the area allotted to them by the Egmont National Park Board, with breaking the Animals Protection and Game Act and with entering upon certain parts of, the park without the written consent of the board was concluded in the’New Plymouth Police Court yesterday. The magistrate (Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M.) reserved his decision. The three defendants were represented by Mr. A. A. Bennett. Mr. E. S. Grayling appeared for the Park Board. The case for the prosecution was that the Park Board had granted trapping blocks as follow: Block 14 to W. G. Wilson, blocks 15 and 16 to A. C. Upson, blocks 17 and IS to Dowling and 19 and 20 to defendants. The board alleged that defendants had trapped outside their block boundaries on the territory of the other trappers. * ,

The Egmont Park .Board’s honorary ranger, John C. Bell, Oakura, said that three years ago there had not been a track on the Kaitake ranges. He had helped cut the Davies track and it was clearly defined. Five horses had passed over it . There were notices giving directions from the summit to the pa. There were two parts of the pa. The first ond might be , mistaken for a natural feature but.tjie second one was clearly the place for a last stand because of the tower and tiers. He had done a good deal of cutting on the boundary between blocks 14 and 20, which was a clearly defined track along ■the ridge. It would be impossible to” mistake a goat track for a boundary. As a matter of fact he had utilised the goat tracks in making the boundary tracks. There were no tracks, leading through from block 20 to Lucy’s Gully, ridge. \ ‘ , DELINEATION OF TRACKS. ' He had first come into the controversy when Larsen had brought the men to see him regarding their boundaries He told them he did not ■ think they could miss the track boundary between blocks 16 and 14 and 14 and 15 leading from the trig. He said they had no right to go down there at all. They had replied that they were “new chum’s” and were’not so familiar with the track as he. They had said they had not been able to find the pa and they. thought the notice, had been l shifted. Thp' defendants’' had never made any arrangements for him, tQ show. them the boundaries. Courtenay Kenny, suvveyor, gave formal evidence as to direction and distances at certain points in the Park' Board’s reserve.

The charges against the defendants were three, said Mr. Bennett. He would refer first' to the charge that they attempted wilfully to take opossums from other parts of the park. That was laid under a section of the Egmont National Park Act which, stressed the word wilfully. He submitted that on the admission. of the board’s own witnesses thei'e was no proof of wilful undertaking. - As regarded the change of attempting to take opossums contrary to the provisions of the Animals Protection and Game Act,/it was admitted by. the prosecution that defendants hbld a license to take opossums under the regulations. The third charge was of entering upon certain parts of the park without the written consent of the board. The park was an area in which it was lawful to take opossums. It was admitted each defendant held a certificate from the Park Board dated May 26, 1930. This was a certificate granting them the right to trap opossums in the reserve area. They were also entitled to trap,, opossums in the Taranaki Acclimatisation Society’s district. ■' It was further admitted tliat four days later the defendants entered into a contract with, the board giving them the inclusive right to trap in two subdivisions of the board. .The defendants held a license to take or kill in the Taranaki Acclimatisation district. That license would not include, the park area without the written consent of the board. By the receipt or contract the men were, given. an exclusive right to portions df the reserve. It might purport to restrict their right over other portions of the reserve by the reading together of the contract and the conditions.

INTENTIONS OF BOARD. ■' ■: ' I : In fact, said Mr. Bennett, there was no doubt the Park-Board intended to restrict the men to certain areas. That was a matter of contract. It was possible that the board intended to make it an offence to go outside those, areas but .the board by its contract dpuld not create an offence. , ' The board’s attitude in seeking compensation; for Wilson was,the only attitude it could legally adopt. The receipts were tlie contracts and‘ 'the remedy, if any, open in the matters complained of was a claim, by the board for breach of contract. . The case as it! stood disclosed no offence either under the Park Board Act, the Animals Protection Act or the regulations, submitted Mr. Bennett. Nowhere, was it stated that where, a trapper.. had. exclusive rights over two sections of the .reserve such an offence as defendahts were charged’ with was committed. If these submissions were correct in law there was no ease to answer on any of the charges because there was no ■ evidence in court to negative the documents submitted by the defendants. ■lf he saw fit, said Mr. Bennett, he could rely on the evidence of the prosecution’s own witnesses. Blit the acts took place within eight days of entering on the property and before the defendants had had the boundaries pointed out. The information to be’obtained from the plans was negligible. The defendants said they were entirely unaware that they had acted contrary to their rights. If there were an offence it was unintentional. -

if the section had been 300 acres the ridge where the traps were set would have been in defendants’ area. There had been no secrecy, every trao being marked in such a way as to be positively identified as their trap. .He submitted that this was not the ■ act’ of men who were intending to filch. They admitted that inadvertently they encroached on the area, but this did uit prove mens rea. Assuming that they w.ere s guilty the total number of opossums found in their traps while they were on doubtful property was three. Cross-examined by Mr. Grayling Charles Lane admitted that he had been trapping for four. years on ordinary ridge country which was much the same as the Egmont reserve. Tlie arrange-

ments were very similar 1 to those in Taranaki, though more definite. The first season the ranger went out and pointed out the boundaries. ’ . '- Robert de Cleene corroborated the evidence of the previous, witness.