Untitled

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 11664, 24 January 1902, Page 2

We observe that a few of our contemporaries have commented on the recent decision of the Stipendiary Magistrate at Kaitangata that- there is at present no law in New Zealand against taking or killing native game. The judgment is evidently not accepted without misgiving, though the papers hesitate to say point-blank that the Magistrate was wrong. The " Southland Times," however, has been informed, that the local Acclimatisation Society have been advised " that there were not sufficient grounds for Mr Cruickshank's judgment, and that the society will prosecute any person found in possession of native game during the close season." We assume that the advice alluded to is that of the society's lawyer, who is as likely to be right as is the Stipendiary Magistrate. The " Otago Daily Times " had a short article on the subject on Wednesday, the writer taking precisely the same ground which we had taken, that is to say, not venturing positively to denounce the judgment as wrong, but casting doubt on it. After expressing the opinion that it is a matter for grave regret if, through a bungle on the part of the legislature, it is no offence at the present time to kill native game in New Zealand, and alluding to the repeal of Section 17 of the Animals Protection Act, 1880 (which was quoted by us in our article on Wednesday last), our contemporary proceeds as follows:—"A reference to the Act of 1900 raises, however, a doubt as to whether the prohibition against the killing, within certain limits, of native game has actually been removed. It is: perfectly true that the section of tie Act of 1880 which we have mentioned has been repealed. But Section- 2of ' The Animals Protection Act, 1900,' makes express provision- for the holding of an open season for taking and killing native and imported game." That is what we pointed- out in our own article. Our contemporary concludes as follows:—"The considerations to which we have alluded lead us to hope that the decision of the Magistrate that the killing of native game is not an offence against the law may, if an opportunity of its being reviewed should present itself, prove to be based upon a misconception. The matter is one of so much importance to the community that it is desirable that any doubt that may exist regarding it should be resolved by a judgment of the Supreme Court, the opinion of which is ascertainable by the statement of a special case." Our advice to the Acclimatisation Societies is > to take " immediate" action in this matter, and joint action if possible. The mere obtaining of legal opinions will not suffice, even if they all go in one direction. What is wanted is a decision by the Supreme [ Court, and that should be obtained early in [ the year, so that if it should be found that fresh legislation is wanted the Bill may be ready to be introduced as soon as Parliament meets. If there is delay, the Bill may be included in the usual " slaughter of the innocents." There is only one other bit of advice which we shall offer the Acclimatisation Societies on the present occasion, and that is that, if they find it necessary to go to Parliament, they shall put nothing in their Bill but a provision reenacting Section 17 of the Act of 1880. If there is a general tinkering with the law relating to the killing and taking of native game, the Bill will of course stand a greater chance of being thrown out or discharged from the Order Paper. Next year it might be as well to consolidate the laws relating to game, both native and imported, and to the functions of Acclimatisation Societies.