KILLING DUCKS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18807, 20 February 1931, Page 13

KILLING DUCKS.

A QUESTION OF RIGHT. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., Victor McMurtrie (Mr Walker), was charged, on the information of A. L. Thoreau (Mr W. D. Campbell), that, on January 1, 1931, he wilfully damaged four Indian runner ducks of the value of £2/2/-. The evidence for the prosecution was that given by the informant and his son, Auburn Thoreau which was to the effect that they found two ducks killed and two alive but injured. Defendant told them that he had killed two of the ducks because they were on his property. The defence was that the defendant believed he was entitled to do what he had, because the ducks were trespassing upon his property. He and his wife gave evidence to the effect that they were much troubled by the informantss’ ducks being on his land. The Magistrate said that the only defence that could be set up in this case was that the defendant had an honest belief that he had a right to do so. Before that could be set up he must have a fair and reasonable belief that he had that right. To establish that a certain state of law must exist. The only “colour of right” that could be established would be that the ducks had caused some damage. It would be a very dangerous thing to hold in every case where a man acted under “bush law” that he had a colour of right. Defendant had his civil remedy, but he did not take it, but got a broom stick and cruelly killed two ducks. If he had wanted to exercise his right why did he not kill only one duck? The Magistrate admitted that a certain amount of annoyance would be experienced from ducks trespassing on defendant’s ground, but that did not justify him in what he had done, when he had another remedy. The law was that the belief in the existence of a set of facts which had actually existed, would justify or excuse the act dons. These facts did not exist in this case. Defendant was fined £l, with solicitor’s fee £2/2/-, and he was ordered to pay £2 for the ducks killed. Witnesses’ expenses were not allowed, because of the ducks being allowed to wander on defendant’s land.