RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1735, 10 May 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temdka Wednesday, May 10, 1888,

[Before Captain Wray, R.M.] DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was mulcted in the sum of ss. STRAY CATTLE. James Davis for allowing a cow belonging to him to wander on the railway was fined 5s and coats, BREACH OF THE FISHING REGULATIONS. Richard Spayne and Arthur Best were charged on the information of Thomas Gunnion, with that they did unlawfully drag a net, not being a landing net, io water situate in Milford, contrary to the regulations made by His Excellency the Governor under the Fisheries Conseryatioa Act, 1884.

Mr Aspinall appeared for the prosecution, and Mr White for the defence. Mr Aspinall stated the short facts of the case to be that on the 4th of April last information reached the ranker of the Acclimatisation Society that netting was carried on in the Milford lagoon. Ha at once took steps in the matter, and, in company with Constable Morton, proceeded to the lagoon. They examined the lagoon, and found no nets. They, however, found a tent pitched, and a boat anchored alongside, with a net in it. They watched through the night till the following morning, when the defendants were seen to come from the tent, take the boat, row down tha lagoon, and drag a net. The rangsr and the constable, on their dragging the net ashore, at once accosted them, told them they were acting illegally, and seized the net. Thomas Gun nion, ranger to the Geraldine County Acclimatisation Society, and that on April 4th he received information that netting was going in th# Milford lagom, and went with Constable Morton to the place. Found a teacaod boat there. Hext;morning saw th« defendants take the boat, row down tha lagoon, and sot tha net. Saw them drag it, and went with Constab'o Morton to them and took their names, and took possession of the net. It was brought to the police station I and dried there.

To Mr White : Thera was no conceal* ment of the boat or net. Anyone could wait. No resistance was offered. The boat was away up the creek, but any one w liking about there could see it.

To Mr Aspinall; The place they were notting is a good way off the road. Constable Morton: On April 4th, in c iUipany with the last witness and another in >n, I saw these men. They rowed down iie Milford lagoon and landed there a id made one end of the net fast and !■ oiled at the end next to the boat. There

was some mullet in it. Went across after 'hem with the other two men, and told i hem it was unlawful to drag the place, •md took possession of the net.

To Mr White: The man was fined in Wuimate for hawking fish without a licens°. When I told him he was acting i legally ha told me Mr Tarnbull told him he could fish there, ani said he could f-how me a telegram from the Colonial Secretary’s office. He gave me no trouble whatever. He gave assistance with the net. The tide ebbs and flows in the Milford lagoon.

N. 0. Nicholas, stablekeeper; I am a member of the Aoclimaiisation Society. C7OO salmon fry have been libera'ed in lhe Opihi and Temuka rivers. These rivers flow through the Milford lagoon into the sea. These rivers are within the district.

Mr White, for the defence, called Richard Spayne, who saiJ: It is a fact I dragged the net, but before doing so Mr Turnbull telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary. (The telegram, which was to the effect that there wore no regulations affecting the Waihi, Opihi, or Waimate lagoons, except those affecting trout, perch, and tench in the Milford lagoon, was put in). I was under the impression, owing to that telegram, I was entitled to fish for mullet. It is a 2-in, diagonal net, and I never knew a salmon or trout to be meshed in such a net. Three mallet were caught in the fiet. The Opihi does not flow through the lagoon. The tide flows through the lagoon, not the river. To Mr Aspinall: I do not knew that a lib trout could mesh in that net. Ido not know much about trout or salmon, A. Best laid ; 1 went to fish with rod and line. Spayne came and said he bad a perfect right to fish, and he showed me the telegram, and Mr Turnbull told me it was right, and then 1 assisted Spayne on the strength of (hat.

To Mr Aspinall; 1 had my tent there before Spay no came. Spayna took possession of my tent during my absence. I never saw Spayne before in my life, Mr White put in the fishing regulations of January 12th, 1888. He said these regulations dealt with the fisheries of the whole colony, and did away with the regulations relied on by Mr Aspinall. Mr White then quoted from the regulations at some length, and argued that they superseded all previous regulations. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the Milford lagooa was not private waters, and this had not been proved. It was shown this was a tidal river, and anything done there could not interfere with trout or salmon. It was shown the defendants believed they had a perfect right there, o*iegfo the telegram ihSj had from the Colonial Treasurer, and they did not try lo hide themselves. He also quoted a case to show (hat a oonviotion could not ba recorded against them even if they look a young salmon, if if could not bo proved that they knew it was a salmon. He submitted there was no case.

Mr Aspinall rose to show that the regulations of 1886 dealt specially with this district.

Mr While said ho had no right to reply. His Worship said he did not think it was necessary for him to do so. The regulations referred to : by Mr White dealt with the whole colony, but did not override the local regulations, and there was no doubt but the defendants committed a breach of section 16 of the local regulations. He would take into consideration that they believed they were acting within their rights, owing to the telegram they had. As regards the question of private waters it was notorious that every one knew these waters wore public, though it might have been better if it had been proved. Ha must record a conviction, but as to the question of the forfeiture of the not—

Mr Aspinall said he did not wish to press that. His Worship said that in that case ha r would inflict, the minimum penalty of £1 each and costs, inc uding £1 Is solicitor’s fee and 5s witnesses expenses. People must not think they would get off so easy iu future. He made the fine light in ibis case owing to the defendants thinking they had a right to do as they had done, but now than the case had been ventilated he would not ba so lenient in future. Defendant Spayne ; Will you allow me to address the Court. His Worships No. CITIL CASES. / W. Ackroyd v. 0. Doggies—Claim £6 9s. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. A Maori v. B. Lavery. Mr Lavery said he had paid the rent claimed for the land before the division was made by the Court, and now an effort was made to gat him to pay it over again. The case was adjourned for a fortnight.