The Timaru Herald. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1902.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 11662, 22 January 1902, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1902.

We yesterday published a Press Association telegram from Bunedin, which stated that the Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting at Kaitangata, had ruled that there is at present no law in New Zealand forbidding the killing of native game- at any season of the year. The point- was raised for the defence in a case in which a man. was charged with having killed wild ducks out of season. Counsel for the defendant said that- a.t c-orn-nym law it- was not- an offence to, kill native game, and that if there was prohibition or limitation it must be by statute. Or,' thatpoint there can be no doubt whatever. Counsel then referred to Section 17 of the Animals Protection Act, 1880, which section had provided that " no native game shall be taken or killed in any district except during ,such periods as may from time to time be fixed by notification, not exceeding four consecutive months in any year * *

But Section 17 of the Act of 1880 was repealed by Section 5 of the Animals Protection Act Amendment Act, 1800, and there has been no .later legislation on the subject. Defendant's counsel therefore contended that his client had committed no offence. The Stipendiary Magistrate took that view of the matter, and dismissed the information. We are not prepared to say that the decision is wrong. It is a purely technical question, but to a layman's mind it certainly appears that there-is a good deal to be said on the other side. It is true, as we have already stated, that Section 17 of the Act of 1880 was repealed by Section 5 of the Act of 1900, but the latter j Act contains the following provision (Section 2), which is still in force : —"The season for taking or killing native and imported game throughout the Provincial District- of

Otago sliall begin on tlie first day of April and close on the thirtieth day of June, and for the rest of the colony shall begin on the first day of May and close <mh the thirtyfirst da- of July, both inclusive, in each year : Provided that, upon the written application cf any duly registered Acclimatisation Society, it- shall be lawful for the Governcr. by notification, to further restrict such season in any particular district or portion thereof, but within the respective dates or periods aforesaid: or, in his discretion, to close such season absolutely for such period or periods, and within such district or districts, or vith respect to such particular species of native or imported game, as he may from time to time deem advisable." Now, what- do all those words mean? According to defendant's counsel in the case referred to, and the Stipendiary Magistrate who decided it, they mean absolutely nothing, and therefore might just as well have been omitted from the Act. It is very hard to believe tiiat the Supreme Court would thus contemptuously dismiss them as valueless. Where it is possible to do so, it is the duty of the Courts to put an interpretation oii the words of a statute —to credit the legislature with having meant something—and to rule accordingly. In the case under discussion there cannot be the smallest doubt that the legislature meant something, and that the words used express that meaning with perfect distinctness. Section 2 of the Act of . 1900 does not use the icnn of saying that native and imported game shall not be taken or killed excapt within certain dates ; but it uses a form which is equally clear, at all events to a layman's mind. It tells us what shall bs the season during which native or imported game may be killed or taken. It gives the date of the opening of the season and the date of closing, and, more thax' that, it gives the Governor power to. still further restrict the season. And yet che Stipendiary Magistrate held that all those plain- words were of no effect. One of our contemporaries says: —"The effect of the decision is of course that the Animals Protection Act does not protect, and that- if any person is so unsportsmanlike as to do so, he may sally forth with his gun on a native game shooting expedition at any time if the spirit moves him to do so." That is the case if the decision of the Stipendiary Magistrate at Kaiiangata is sound law, we should very, much like to see the point at issue decided by the Supreme Court. The Acclimatisation Societies, or one of them, cught to take the matter up, and endeavour to get a ruling from that tribunal. If the Stipendiary Magistrate is right, it will be necessary to pass another Animals Protection Act during the course of next session, or before the lapse o[ many years there will be no native game left in the colony. Meanwhile we would caution persons of unsportsmanlike instincts that they may chance to find themselves in trouble if they assume that the recent decision was according to law.