NOMINAL PENALTY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18652, 22 August 1930, Page 5

NOMINAL PENALTY.

POSSESSION OF PARADISE DUCK. SHOOTING NOT DELIBERATE. Albert P. Greenfield, was charged ai the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.. on June 14, 1930, at Hick's Lagoon, that he did have in his possession withc&t lawful authority a paradise duck, during a close season. Defendant, who was represented by Mr W. D. Campbell, pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was conducted by Mr F. W. Pellett, ranger to the Souui Canterbury Acclimatisation Society. Mr Pellett stated that this year the open setson for paradise duck was from May Ist to May 7th, during which time any person with a license was permitted to shoot paradise duck. On June 14, at Godley Peaks, he found defendant coming away from Hicks Creek, with three grey duck and one paradise duck. He accepted defendant’s statement that the bird had been shot by mistake and took it from him. Mr Campbell: “Those facts are admitted.” In evidence, Frederick Walter Pellett stated that when he met defendant coming from the lagoon, he told him that he (defendant), had no right to have the duck in his possession. He met defendant about a mile from the lagoon, and it was dark at the time. Mr Campbell said that defendant had been with a party of sportsmen and although they could not dispute the facts, the only matter in doubt was who actually shot the bird. The party had fired a concerted volley as the grey duck came over, and by mistake one paradise duck had been included in the tally. Defendant stated that he was a member of a party of four. There were hundreds of paradise duck about, and after they had fired a volley at grey duck witness assisted to pick up the birds that had been shot. He noticed the paradise duck lying on the ice with a broken wing. He picked it up and took it away. He did not desire to take the duck back to town but to leave it at the station. There was a member of the Council of the Acclimatisation Society in the party, and ht was aware that it would have been wrong to take the paradise duck away Wl rr!i duck from the station. The Magistrate-said that it aopeared under the circumstances that it was possible for anyone to have shot the •ill ■ a thing was always possible at dusk, but the charge was not one of shooting, but of defendant having the duck in his possession. “I am not going to assume for a minute that defendant purposelv shot the bird,” continued the Magistrate, “but I believe that he it up and put it out of its miserv.” Defendant had committed a formal breach, in picking the bird up. and would be convicted and fined 20s, with costs 20s.