MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 July 1929, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

’ THURSDAY, JULY 18th. . fßefore W. -Aleldrum, Esq,, S.M.) DEBT OASES. L. J. Kirwan v. Searle Bros., claim £22 8s Id. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £4 17s 63. Johnson and Woofiioiise (Mr .Elcock) v. H. Barlthrop, claim £l7 9s. Judgnieii for amount with-costs 30s Gd. x(£l4 ios’’ had been, paid in.).Park and Murdoch v. W. H. Shaw, clgim £5 . os.’ Judgment for plaintiff with costs £1 10s’ Gd. ...LICENSING ACT. The Polide- clnuged a prohibited pqrson qvith (procuring Mqiipr while prohibited. Fined 5s and costs 10s. A WHITE HERON... The Police charged.Thomas' Edward Roberts,., a lad of 17 years, . . wPh shooting, a white heron -at Okarito; with pursuing a pnkeko with intent to kill and with using a gun in pursuit of .protected game.. Air Murdoch for defendant, pleaded guilty. He stated that the lad who was working at Okarito was innocent ,f intent to do wrong, and as a matter of fact he wefnt down the street at Okarito after shooting tlie bird, a ini the first person he showed the bird to. was a Ranger, Air Norman Friend. The boy made no attempt to conceal what he had done. He asked that his Worship view the matter as leniently as was possible, especially .as any. penalty would, fall heavily on the parents of the defendant. Sergeant King said this young ,lad .was at work, for tlie Public Works Department at Okarito. On the afternoon of the 25th May this lad- took a pea rifle from a hut in which he lived. He was not the holder o: a gun license. He went out to shoot pnkeko which are absolutely protected. He saw a white heron and shot it dead. He puffin the defendant’s statement in which he said iie did not know the bird was protected.’ His -Worship said lie was .quite satisfied til at the boy acted •‘in ignorance and that lie killed the bird which he did not know was protected. There was no concealment as he showed the bird to the Ranger. This mitigated the seriousness of the defendant’s action. It was necessary that game of this kind should be protected. The Act provided a substantial penalty, but in view of the statement by the Ranger and counsel, and the fact that 1 the lad was a member of a large family who would suffer if a heavy pon•vly was inflicted, he did not propose to inflict any fine. Defendant would bo convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called on within twelve months and to pay costs 10s, on the charge of shooting the white heron. On the other two charges lie would be convicted and ordered to pay costs 10s on each charge. His Worship gave a warning that now publicity had been given any future offence would he dealt with scverely. ELECTRIC WTREeVIEN’S ACT. P. H. Wynn, Electric Wifomcn’s Department (Mr Park) v. 11. D. MeMa»a way (Air Elcock), a charge of making an electrical connection with-

out authority. Air Elcock pleaded guilty, stating tlie infringement was a technical one. The work of installing two. extra lights was made and completed late in the afternoon and connected up, hut approval was not obtained, of tlie work till next morning. Fined 5s and posts £1 14s.