SHOOTING OF DUCKS

Chronicle (Levin), 18 May 1946, Page 4

SHOOTING OF DUCKS

CHA^GE AGAINST SPORTSMAN DISMISSED Afe the Mggistxate's "Court at Foxtp»j b,ef ore Mr. C. Marsack, S£M., Frank Graham, of Koputaxog, w.as chaxged with killing ari expess, XLumber of ducks on op.enin,g dpv, May 4; He was repres,ented by Mr. N. M. Thomson, of Levin, and pleaded not guilty. ' Inspjectox Andrews, oi the Acclimatisation Society, stated thgt he ha^ visitedi the lake oh w.hfch the defendant was shooting, andwith his assistapce had, collected fifty^four ducks, all of which were on the. western side oi thp lako near the defendant's mai-mai. To Mr- Thomson the inspector admftted that Graham had cl.aimed, that ail of these ducks had not been shpt by him, and that there hadbeeri other people on the lake, appgrently trespassers, who had ieft earlier. The inspec-tox stated. Ghat the water contained a large ngmber of floating empty cartridge cases, some white and some green, but that he could. not say whatj makes' of cartridges' they comprised. i He also admitted seeing some .ua- i attend,ed decoys on an a.djoinin.g! water. Graham, in evidence, stated that | at least three other guns had beenj firing on his lake, and tha.t t\ie - wind had caused all the ducks shotj on tho lake, including his own, to j accumulate 011 the western side. He1 stated that he was only using C.A.C. j cartridges, which were black or red m colour, and had definitely used neither white nor green cartridges.! He was not prepared to swear that h'e had not shot one or two ducks over- the limit, although on the other hand he may have shot one or two under the limit. He was positive, however, that he wa.s not responsible for the majority of the nfty-four ducks in his lake. J. L. Graham, brother of the defendant, who was shooting on an adjoining patch of water, gave corroborating evidence as to wind drift and as to other unkno.wn shooters operating on his brother's ia.ke. Counsel for the defendant" subrnitted that although the inspector has been justified in bringing the cape, and that the onus was on Graham to explai-n the presence of Dhe ciucks, nevertheless the evidence was not sufhcient to convict, and that Graham had discharged :he onus and that his explanation •hould be accepted. It was clearly established that other people had Deen operating on the lake, and Tiat the wind could have taken ducks from their water into Graham's, while the evidence of cartridges not used by Graham was almost conclusive. His Worship stated that as this was a criminal case it must be proved by the society beyond reasinable doubt and the evidence fe}l ihort of reasonable proot The charge brought by the society was accordingly dismissed.