THEY TOOK GAME AND FISH AT WRONG TIME.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18188, 22 June 1927, Page 5

THEY TOOK GAME AND FISH AT WRONG TIME.

SOME MISTOOK DATE OF OPENING OF SEASON. Several cases brought by the Canterbury Acclimatisation Society were heard by Mr IT. P. Lawry, S.M., to-day. Mr M. J. Grcsson appeared for the society. MISTOOK OPENING. Arthur Penfold and Thomas Prebble were charged with having taken native game out of season. Mr Stacey, for Penfold, said that the offence took place on May 1, on defendant’s own property. Usually the season opened on May 1, but as it fell on a Sunday, the opening was on May 2. Defendant was not aware of that, and the same applied to Prebble. The Magistrate: Attention was drawn to it in the papers. Each defendant was fined £1 and costs, the Magistrate remarking that it was feasible that a mistake had been made. SOLD NATIVE GAME. Robert C. Searle (Mr Hanna) pleaded guilty to a charge of having sold native game. Mr Hanna said that defendant had just opened a fish and poultry shop in Papanui Road and was quite inexperienced. He sold two grey ducks to Ranger Digby, in ignorance of the law. Mr Gresson said he thought the explanation was quite genuine. There was no attempt to secrete the ducks. A fine of £1 and costs met the case. OTHER CASES. John Barbour was fined £3. and costs for having trout in his possession out of season. A charge of using a gaff was withdrawn. William Reid was fined £3 and costs for having trout in his possession in the close season, a charge of having used a gaff being withdrawn. Oliver Francis Sutton was fined £3 and costs for having trout in his possession during the close season. A charge of using a gaff was withdrawn. A CHARGE DISMISSED. A charge of taking or killing native game was heard against Charles Selby Lucas (Mr Thomas). John Digby, the society’s ranger, said that he saw defendant and his son at Little Rakaia. They discharged four shots at seven ducks which had flown overhead. It happened late in the afternoon, but he saw them clearly. He stopped their car and charged them with shooting at ducks, and searched the car. Nothing was said of shooting at hawks. There were no ducks in the car. He was about 200 yards from defendants when the shots were fired. J. P. M’Evedy said that he was in the ranger’s company and saw the shots fired. The distance was over 300 yards. He did not hear the conversation at the car when defendant was stopped. The witness M’Evedy, to Mr Thomas, said that he had been convicted twice I previously. He was not a particularly good friend of Digby, who had to do his duty. He thought Digby was beside him when the shots were fired. He knew that hawks went to rest about six o'clock. People had been blaming him for shooting ducks out of season. Mr Thomas: Oh. Have they? When do hawks go to rest? Witness: About six o’clock. Mr Thomas: Not the only things that go to rest about six o’clock. Mr Thomas said that Lucas was a business man of good reputation with a hut at the Rakaia River. On the day in question, he, with a party, had a small gun for shooting blackbirds. In the vicinity were a number of carcases which attracted hawks and he had a shot at one of them. Then the lights of a car came along and Digby came up and charged Lucas with shooting at a duck. Counsel said that he would be justified in asking for a dismissal, but would put the defendant in the box, particularly because there were discrepancies as to the time in the evidence of the ranger and the witness M’Evedy. Charles Selby Lucas said that he had a shot at a hawk. The hawks were at a carcase. Ducks had passed overhead but he did not shoot at any. The gun (produced) had a killing range of about twenty-five yards. To Mr Gresson, witness said that there were ducks about, but he did not see any at the actual time the shots were fired. The Magistrate: Is it not this? That a duck went over and you were suddenly tempted? Mr Gresson: That is what I am going to suggest. Defendant: I can absolutely say that T was not tempted, as I saw no duck at the moment to be tempted in any The wife of the defendant gave corroborative evidence. She had not said that her husband had fired at a duck. She saw ducks about but not in their direction. Another woman witness said that defendant shot at a hawk. Recalled. Mrs Lucas said that her husband fired two shots and her son one. The information was dismissed and Mr Thomas asked for costs.