CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5494, 17 December 1885, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Day. (Before R. Beetham, Esq, R.M.) Alleged Wipe Desertion. — Joseph Hannam was charged on information with deserting his wife Rebecca Hannam and four children. According to the woman's statement defendant had been in the habit of living at a house of bad repute, and neglecting hia home altogether. She waa not prepared with, any evidence, however, and His Worship remarked that when informations were laid in cases such as this, he thought j the police should assist the informant. - Women generally had no knowledge of the > steps they ought to take, and when they ! had been deserted by their husbands they ; had a peculiar right to the services i •f the police. There was no such ; thing as an information of this sort being j regarded as private ; the interests of the . public, who had frequently to support the deserted wife and children, were concerned i in such a matter as soon as the information i was laid. Sergeant Willis assured the Bench that such matters would be attended to, and the present case was adjourned till Saturday, to enable the police to make • enquiries. j Breaches of Fishing- Regulations. — ; John Barritt waß charged that on Dec. 9 he did use mussel as a bait to catch trout, while fishing in an affluent of the Avon. Mr . , Thomas prosecuted for the Acclimatisation ' Society, and Mr Stringer defended the | accused. The information, Mr Thomas explained, was laid under Section 2 of . " The Salmon and Trout Act, 1867," and \ the Regulations made thereunder, published in the Gazette of Sept. 24, 1885. These . Regulations stated the kind of bait that was to be used in fishing in any. stream in ■ the Provincial district of Canterbury ! north of the Rangitata. The holder i of a license to fish for trout f perch or tench might use as bait, ; " natural or artificial fly, natural or ! artificial minnow, ailveries, bullies, grass- i hoppers, spiders, caterpillars, creepers, and , worms," and no other kind of bait was , allowed to be used. David Douglas, Ranger I for the Society, stated that on Dec. 9 he Baw defendant, who held a license, in a boat ! moored in the stream at Riccarton, close to Mr Wood's dam. The rod was lying across the boat, and the line in the water. Defendant was not holding the rod; he was simply " feeding the river " with pieces of mussel, bo as to attract the trout. The ranger got into the boat, and defendant at once pulled up the line; the hook was baited with mussel and there were pieces of mussel in the water. Another witness gave corroborative evidence. The rod and line were such as are used for trout fishing, and there were trout in the stream. The use of the mussel was not denied, but the fishing for trout was disputed. Mr Stringer submitted that the information must fail, because the prosecution had failed to prove that trout had been imported into the Colony, which was a condition precedent to the Act coming into operation* nor had it been proved that trout had been turned out in the Avon. There was no evidence that defendant was fishing for trout. He might have been eeling. The Regulations, he submitted, were really of no avail at all, because there was no Order-in-Council declaring that trout should be protected in Canterbury, or specifying the particular provisions of the Act which were to apply in such a case, as was expressly required by Section 4 of the Act, His Worship considered the last objection very serious. Mr Thomas produced an Order-in-Council dated Oct. 7, 1884, which declared that salmon and trout and their fry were protected throughout the Colony, but Mr Stringer at once retorted that this Order, made under Section 4 of the Act, waa bad, because it did not specify the provisions of the Act which should apply. He went on to contend that the penal clause of the Regulations was bad, because it fixed a minimum penalty, and did not leave the j Magistrate a discretionary power as was j intended by the Act. Mr Thomas, in reply to the more serious objection, said that as no provisions were specified in the Order-in-Council, it must be taken that all the provisions of the Act apply. His Worship thought there were two objections of moment raised for the defence, viz., that there was no evidence that defendant was fishing for trout, and that the Order-in-Couccil did not specify the provisions of the Act which should apply. As to the first he would hold that the fact that a man was fishing with a trout rod and line in a trout stream was good evidence that he was fishing for trout; as to the second, Section 2of the Act gave the Governor power to make regulations in respect of I anything that affected the preservation of j these fish. One clause of the Act referred [ to protection, and the Order-in-Council alluded to protection, but whether the use of that word could be held to apply to all the fifteen clauses of the Act dealing with the subject was a nice point he wouldleave to a higher Court to determine. He would convict, and impose a fine of £2, with solicitors' tee and costs. Mr Stringer spoke of appealing to the Supreme Court on the point he had raised. — Charles Garrard was accused of fishing for trout in the Avon without a license. Mr Farr, Secretary of the Acclimatisation Society, stated that defendant had no license to fish for trout. Ranger Douglas stated that on Dec. !) he saw defendant, a young lad, fishing in the Avon off the Park banks. The defendant said he was out with hia brother who had a ■ license, and just held the rod for a moment while his brother went to get a fly. The Ranger said the reason he had brought this case was because it seemed to be a practice with some boys that one of them should get a license, which they imagined entitled two or three of them to fish. His Worship after hearing the lad's explanation, said there was no doubt, strictly speaking, that as defendant had no license, he had no right to fish for a moment ; but he did not like to impose so high a fine as £2 — tlie minimum penalty— in such a case as this. He adjourned the matter till Monday next, on the understanding that defendant took out a license. Alleged Assault. — James Bowie and Joseph Cockburn were charged on the information of John White with assaulting him on Dec. 12. Mr Weston appeared for defendants. The case was dismissed without the defendants being called upon for their statements, as it appeared to have been nothing more than a quarrel between the parties, in which high words were exchanged, and each pushed the other about a little Another similar information against T. and F. Beal, who did not appear, wa6 also dismissed as the complainant, J. M. Newman, admitted he had mis-stated the day in his information.