ALLEGED TRESPASS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 10304, 2 March 1922, Page 3

ALLEGED TRESPASS.

acclimatisation society • SUES LATE RANGER. INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT. At the Magistrate’s Court, Temuka, on Tuesday, before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., James G. Deckle, ranger, was charged with having, on the 10th day of February, 1922, at Temuka, did wilfully trespass on the property of the S.C. Acclimatisation Society, and refused to leave after being warned to do so. Mr T. J. Rolleston appeared for the Society and Mr Campbell for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty Mr Rolleston explained that the information ; was laid under a section of the Police Offences Act. Until recently Mv .Leckie was the duly appointed 'ranger of the Society, under an agreement which provided that until its termination he should reside in the Society’s cottage free of rent, but on the termination of the agremeent he was to give up possession peaceably. The agreement was terminated on the Ist January, and it was claimed that after that date Leckie became a tr sepasser. There was no question of landlord and tenant, and as Leckie had failed to leave he became a trespasser. He did not think there would be any dispute as to the-evidence he would call, but he understood that probably the question would be raised as to ’the legality of the election of members of the Council that gave Leckie notice; and he suggested that legal argument on this point could he taken inTimaru-; He called Bernard Hughes, secretary Soutl. Canterbury Acclimatisation Society who produced the title deeds of the property now in occupation of Mi Leckie. He-alsb produced a copy of the rules of--the'- Society, which was duly incorporated in accordance with the Protection of Animals Act, also a copy of the amended rules of the Society passed on 16th May, 1918 and also the agreement hetw'een the Society and Mr Leckie. On the Ist day of December he wrote to Mr Leckie, in accordance with the resolution of the Council, giving him notice to leave. On the 10 th February in company with Constable Simister, he . interviewed defendant and gave him notice to leave and warned him that he would be treated as a trespasser. On the 20th February he repeated the notice, in the presence of another witness. He produced a copy of the minutes of the Council. To Mr Campbell: The booklet form of rules were-ln force in May, 19,18 Mr Hughes said he could only say as he was not then secretary. Mr Campbell asked. whether the amended rules had been duly deposited and registered. Mr Hughes said he could not say. Mr Campbell produced a letter i from the Department of Internal Affairs stating that the amended rules had not been deposited in Wellington. . ■ , Mr Campbell said under the old rules. Rule 11 provided that 12 members of the Council were to bo elected in May. Under the. amended rules passed in May, 1918, the number to be elected was reduced to half; half of the Council being elected in one year and half in the next. Half the Council that dismissed Leckie was elected in May,.,1921, and half in May, 1920. That was, they had all been elected since May, 1918. This amendment had been acted on in May, 1920, and 1921. The result of thp ; amendment was that there were* two classes of members — life members and registered mem- 1 brse. Registered members voted- at the election in May, 1921. At the time Leckie: was dismissed three members of . the Council were not elected in- accordance with the original Rule No. 11. These three gentlemen were sitting r under the amended rule, which had not been deputed or gazetted. Mr Rolleston .said it became a (question whether leaving the three gentlemen referred to out they could get an analysis of the/voting at the annual meeting. There were eight other members, and he could produce evidence to show how these voted. Mr Hughes : read the minutes of the Council’s meeting on Ist. December, when the resolution dismissing Mr Leckie, was passed. The resolution was carried by six to five, the vote being taken by a show of hands. Messrs Mcßride, James, Pigolt, Wigley, Benn, and May voted for the resolution, and Messrs Aspinall, Rutherford. Lysaght, F. Adams, and E. Hardcastle against it. Messrs Mcßride, James, Pigott, Wigley, Benn, Aspinall, Rutherford, and Lysaght were life members. According to the old rules fiy.e members of Council forin a quorum. Cross-examined by Mr Campbell: The voting , as he had stated it was according to his distinct recollection. It was not at all .difficult to define it. Was in office in May, .1021, and was at the annual meeting. The life members elected were Messrs W. Mcßride and W. G. Aspinall. Have no means -of knowing who elected them. No register of it was kept. Registered ■ members voted, and it was impossible to say whether their votes would have affected the election. There was an election in regard to Temuka, Timaru, and Geraldine members, but not in connection with the Mackenzie members. William Mcßride, chairman of the Council, said he was present at the meeting at which Leckie was dismissed, and had no doubt about the voting Mr Aspinall challenged the voting" and he (the chairman) had asked members to hold their hands lip high. There was not a shadow of doubt regarding the result. He was absolutely clear as to the analysis of the voting; as more interest had been taken in the matter than it deserved. To Mr Campbell: He remembered 47 life members and six registered members being present at the meeting |u the Foresters’ Hall, Timaru, in May. 1921. He could now think of ten of the latter. James Leckie deposed that he was present at the annual meeting in May 1921 being doorkeeper. He was acquainted with the difference in the qualifications of life members and registered members. He could mk sav exactly the number of life and the number of registered members t-hat. were present at each, but thought they were about equal. He checked every member, stopping those who were not life or registered from passing in. To Mr Rolleston; He did md know at that time that there was anv informality in regard to the qualifications, of registered or licensed members. He knew of it before he was dismissed: after the. first meeting that Mr Pigott gave notice to move for his dismissal. ina' would be the Ist October. Had an idea of it when he wrote to 'Wellington in January. Mr Rolleston; Why did you noun which were life and "'lnch wen registered members that the Council meeting? ' v *V IK .’’ S : Because I had a list by checked them. When Had a do .1 1 a bent- a man 1 looked at Witness continued that he thought there were about double as many lift members as registered. Ml Rolleston wild the list showee

199 life members and 79 registered members, nearly 2| to 1. , Witness said 12 of the life mem-' hers on the list were dead, and others were away. He could show 45 names pf men who were away. Mr Rolleston handed the witness a list and he enumerated between 30 and 40 whom he said were away, without getting to the end of the list. Registered members had voted, and he thought- their votes would affect the election. Tie was a member. At the election there were two sides which organised, their forces. He did not interest himself particularly with the election of Messrs Gabites and Gillies, though he did in the election of Mr May, to whom he was opposed, on account of action he had taken. Mr . Rolleston suggested ihat ihe case could now stand adjourned td the Court at Timaru for argument, but suggested that Mr Campbell might disclose his grounds., Mr Campbell said his point was that the action of the Council was invalid because the election of hall of them was participated in by persons not qualified to vote, and some persons sitting on the Council who were not legal members of the Society and had no right to he sitting on the Council. He contended that the rule conferring membership on license-holders not being deposited or registered was invalid and therefore he asked His Worship to

decide whether the action of ihe Council in dismissing the ranger was valid. The case was then adjourned sine die. and it was agreed that His Worship should hear legal argument in Timaru on Thursday.