MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19056, 8 July 1924, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CHARGE OF TRESPASS. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Ernest P. Pridham entered a plea of not guilty, when charged on the information of the Acclimatisation Society, with trespassing on land occupied by E. E. Fletcher, on the left bank of the Wangachu river, in pursuit of imported or native game. Walter Coy, who was similarly charged, pleaded guilty, and was fined £1 10s, plus 7s costs. Mr Izard, y'ho appeared for the Society, explained that the ease was one which affected the individual more than the Society, for people in pursuit of game often wandered indiscriminately over farms, disturbing stock, etc. The defendant Coy, who, it had been stated, was warned to keep off the property, deposed that he was taking a short cut and did not know he was on Mr Fletcher’s property. In the Pridham case, evidence was given to the effect that Mr Fletcher had been troubled considerably during the season through persons shooting on his property. The defendant had apologised for going on the property, but this was not accepted owing to the continual annoyance by trespassers. When the defendant was accosted he said he thought he was on Mr Silcock’s property. For the defence, it was stated that on June 8, the defendant, and a man named Taylor, were shooting on Mr Silcock’s ‘property at Wangaehu. They were aware that Fletcher’s property was in the vicinity* and had been warned against shooting on it. When they were on Silcock’s property, the defend ant “bowled over” a hare. However, he did not kill it, for it made off through the fence, with him in pursuit. Ho had no idea that the fence marked Fletcher’s boundary. He lost trace of the hare, and just as he was about to return to the other paddock, the plaintiff’s son came on the scone. Fletcher, jun. asked the defendant if he had per-: mission to be on the property, and bo replied in the negative. He also gised for the mistake. j After hearing the facts of the case, ’ his Worship considered that the defendant had discharged the onus under the ; protection of Animals and Gaines Act,! and judgment would accordingly be) given for him.