Denies Resisting Ranger In Execution Of Duty.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19033, 31 March 1930, Page 9

Denies Resisting Ranger In Execution Of Duty.

JAMES CHARTERS, OF BELFAST, WAS MERELY TRAILING RABBITS WITH A DOG

THE Animals’ Protection and Game Act was criticised in the Magistrate's Court this morning when a man was charged with obstructing a ranger, an offence for which the minimum penalty is fixed at £lO. Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., who was on the Bench, said he would never fine a man £lO for such an offence. The prosecuting counsel, Mr M. J. Gresson, said that he also thought the Act rather severe. The charge was dismissed on the payment of costs.

James Charters was charged with resisting or obstructing a ranger in the execution of the powers conferred on him by the Animals Protection and Game Act, 1921-22. The defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr Stacey. Mr M. J. Gresson appeared for the Acclimatisation Society. Ernest Bearman, a ranger, said that he went to the Waimakariri River bed and at the end of Wilson’s Road saw defendant with a bag and a dog, though he did not have a gun. The defendant said that he was after rabbits, but on being asked to produce the bag refused to do so. Although witness produced his authority, the accused would not let him search the bag. On the following evening, witness went to Charters’s house with the Belfast constable, but Charters said he knew nothing about the business at all. Mr Gresson: Was the man you saw at the house the man who refused to open his bag?—Yes. Mr Stacey: Did you say to Charters, “Another duck thief”?—No. Mr Stacey: How did you know his address?—From information received. Witness added that he made no effort to take the bag from defendant, who said that he was trailing his dog on rabbits.

tions about that at all. The ranger came along next night and challenged me about being out in the river bed. I said: “ That’s my business,” and walked inside. Witness, in continuing his evidence, said that he had the bag on his back and, when asked by the ranger to show it, proceeded to take it off. However, the ranger walked away, not waiting to see it. Mr Gresson: You’re a bit excitable? —Exactly. I was very much annoyed at being challenged. Mr Gresson: The ranger may have thought you were “ up in the air ”, to use a colloquialism?—Probably so, and that was why he walked away. Mr Gresson: It is entirely false to say that you refused to show the bag? —-Yes, and when the ranger came round I did not want any discussion whatever with the children about the place. Mr Stacy submited that the defendant had made no attempt to assault the ranger. He would ask that Charters be given the benefit of the doubt. The Magistrate: “Resist” will have to be omitted from the charge. The defendant is rather an excitable man, and I am quite satisfied that technically he did obstruct the ranger in the execution of his duty, though it was more by words and conduct than *by active physical obstruction. But of course rangers need to be particularly tactful.

Mr Stacey said that the ranger had spoken to his client in a discourteous manner, and he had therefore felt mild resentment at showing the contents of the bag.

Mr Gresson: I think it wrong that in these cases a minimum penalty of £lO should be stipulated. Mr Mosley: I would never fine a man £lO for this offence.

The defendant said that he took a dog to the Waimakariri bed to look for rabbits. On Wilson’s Road the ranger stopped him, saying “ Another duck thief.” Witness said “ You will have to talk on better lines than that,” when Bearman demanded to see the bag he carried. Mr Stacey: Was there any discussion about registration or license.—No ques-

Mr Gresson: I entirely agree, but I am not responsible for the Act. I suggest that the law could have one blind eye. Mr Mosley: I will dismiss the case on payment of two guineas costs.