PIGEON SHOOTING.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1955, 11 December 1906, Page 3

PIGEON SHOOTING.

THE JUDGE'S DEOIBION. pkk press association Falmoreton North, Inst night. Judge Chapman's reserved dfoWm on Iho Foilding pigeon sboosieg appeal one was read at Jho Courlhouao this morning by (ho Deputy Registrar of the Supremo Court. Tbo appeal was heard by His Honor in Palmerston on November 22nd list, and was from a conviction by tbo Justioea finding that tiro riofandant, Charles Stuokor (far whom Mcsrrs Cohen j and Wilfo d appeared), 11 Did on tho 22i.d August, 1906, at Fciidtug, ill*' o it. a certain nnimai, io wit a pigeon ” Urn H.nor'sa>d, in tho course of his judgment : " It may be alatod, however, that defendant was a member of a gun c!ub devoted to p'g.ton shooting as a form of sport, a match being held on the day in question Too information laid by Mr T, Hazluhurat (Ur Ale Intyre) was intend'd to relate so She statement of a particular pigeon out if 800 tr 400 shot on the day referred to, the evidence relating chiefly so tho wounding of the bird.” After referring t.) i’re m d.s eperandi of tho master, as disolored by tnc ev denoe, His Honor mentioned that (hero wore no previous eases of Sbe same nature ns iho prrs nt one to help in a decision, and held that it seemed to him that he had to approach the matter by answering two questions, viz.: f.l) Aro tieid sports which involve tho infliction of pain within the Act? (2) Is there any distinction in this respect botween the form of sport and those held sports which have come down to us from our ancestors ? As to the iirst question, His Honor said that were he to answer it in the affirmative he would he obliged to say that when in 1849 tho British Parliament passed the Cruelty to Animals Act it had in mind tho suppression of all sports which involved the pursuit of domestic animals when it was intended that such animal should bo killed and pain incurred in the process, and that when in ISS4 our Parliament passed an Act almost in the same words, but not restricted to domestic animals, it intended virtually to suppress all shooting of animals and birds unless in cases where it was shown that death without suffering ensued. In regard to the English Act, His Honor did not think that the Act of killing or wounding tame pigeons was within tho minds of the legislators as an act of intentional cruelty. The New Zealand Act presented no greater difficulty, His Honor saying that its purport was that the subjest may pursue sport, even at the cost of incidentally inflicting pain upon animals, and that the infliction of such pain must not be regarded as contemplated cruelty. Regarding the second question, he had been asked to draw a distinction between incidental hurting of animals in cause of sport and such acts as were described, which were not the acts of a sportsman following tho chase in pursuance of the traditions of our forefathers His Honor said there wa3 evidently a growing opinion that it was uomanly to derive amusement from aots which caused Buffering to animals, but such arguments would probably not be applied until a more advanced staca of sooiaty w>s reached. However, all he bad to deal with was the intention of the legislature when it f assed iba law of 188 i. The act of shooting from a mark at bird’s liberated from a trap had never been condemned by Parliament, and ike intfinsio cruelty of the aots of the competitors at a pigeon matoh was probably less than that of sportsmen shooting an equal number of birds in the field, as there was a b’ghar average of skill and less ohanoe of shooting; the suffering of a given number of birds was on the whole less, and the sufferiog of individuals no more. He cculd not eee any logical distinction between one mode of infl cling incidental pain on birds and the other. After noticing certain dicta oil judges in other cases, His Honor concluded by saying : “ it must be held that shooting at pigeons with tho object of killing them is an adequate and reasonable object, and that unless having this in viow unnecessary pain is caused in the process no law is broken. I think, therefore, that the appeal must be allowed, but I allow it without costs, as the informant brought the case into Court as agent for a body the aims of which ought to be encouraged and recognised by society, and particularly by such clubs as this, while the ascertainment of the law on this subject, so far as this judgment ascertains it, will prove beneficial to such clubs.”