DEAD TROUT IN NET.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20177, 4 March 1931, Page 8

DEAD TROUT IN NET.

, RANGER APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT. . ■ :■ r J ' I ■ :•! MAGISTRATE UPHELD. ■ ,'- r'J-i • ■ '',•■'■■■ ' ' ' 'i [THE FRBJSB Special 9anflb»,l DUNEDIN, March 3. Interesting remarks on the game and fishing laws of New Zealand wore made by Mr Justice Ostler in the course of a de«isiont in an appeal case in the Supreme Court. The appeal was made by the ranger of the Otago Acclimatisation Society against the dismissal of an information laid by him against James Harwood Wilson, of Papatowai, for taking or catching trout by means of a net. On being heard before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., the information was dismissed on the ground that at the time the fish entered the net it was dead, and that the Act did. not apply to a dead fish. "Although the question -seems to be somewhat trivial, it is one of prime importance to the- Acclimatisation Societies," said Mr G. T. Baylee, who appeared for the appellant. He added that if the Magistrate was right, the societies would find themselves in the position that all trout that were netted be dead before they were discovered. / ' . , His Honour: That is a question of fact, not of law. "X am a firm believer in our game and fisheries laws, and in the wieaom, in the public interest, of upholding then}," said his Honour. He quite agreed that the Fisheries Act and the Animals Protection' Act were remedial measures deserving of fair, large, and liberal interpretation. Nevertheless, he oould not agree that -any offence -.under the Fisheries Act or its regulations had been committed by a person who merely picked up a dead fish, - and .took possession oi it, Whether the -fish was dead or alivp was not ft question of law, bat a question of fact. If the prosecution .was not able to prove that the fish taken was' alive, the prosecution would fail> not on a question of law, feut pn'a question of fact. The appeal in the present case would be dismissed.