SHOOTING OF GREY DUCKS

Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1928, Page 8

SHOOTING OF GREY DUCKS

PENALTY ESCAPED ON TECH NICALITY.

INVERCARGILL, Nov. 2

A case of unusual interest was heard in the Magistrate’s Court at Vinton, before .Mi' 0. Cruickshank, S.M., on October 30. when the Southland Acclimatisation Society prosecuted Ernest (Jordon Bailey, Walter Andrew Bailey and William Williamson Plunket, all farmers’ assistants at South Hi 1 lend, on a charge of having on April 29, 1928, at Black Creek, South Hilleml, unlawfully taken seven grey duck.

In a case of this description the information requires to he laid within six months of the offence, and although the defendants had admitted having taken the ducks on a date which brought them within- the law they later learned that this date was not correct. Conclusive evidence was brought forward to show that the date was March 18. and this removed the case beyond the six months’ limit.

Air Eustace Bussell, for the society, stated that the information was laid a s a result of interviews by Ranger Evans and Constable Korse on September 2d last with the three defendants. Walter Andrew Bailey at first denied shooting any ducks this year. Init he admitted shooting Id ducks before the season opened in 1927. On being interviewed a few horns later he admitted that he. in company with Ernest Bailey and William Plunket, had taken or killed seven gre v ducks at Black Creek on April 29 Inst, or perhaps before that date; and that he and his brother had shot two ol the ducks, and the remaining five, which were flappers, were taken and killed by the three of them with the assistance of a dog. Ernest Bailev. in his statement, admitted the oflenee. and stated that the date was April 29. William Plunkett admitted being with the other two defendants on Anril 29, when the seven ducks were taken. He denied that he had killed any of the ducks taken. He said that he was not certain of tho exact date. AH- AY. T). Tait appeared for tho defendants', iwho. be said, did not deny the taking of the ducks, but had evidence to. prove that the taking was on March 18. As more than six months had elapsed before the information was laid, he asked that th charge, should be dismissed. The magistrate, in giving judgment, said he was satisfied that the evidence 1 showed that the. taking "<is on AI arch IS. and in the circumstances Ih> must dismiss the information. He onsidered that it was a disgrace that these three young men should be guilty of taking grey ducks out of season, and if the information had been laid within six months from the date of the offence he would have inflicted substantial fines.