WHITEBAITING

Hokitika Guardian, 26 November 1931, Page 6

WHITEBAITING

BREACHES OF REGULATIONS. Breaches of the Fishing Regulations were preferred against two mein in the Hokitika Court this morning before Mr W. Meldrum, . S.M. Thomas Spoor was charged with, that he did use a contrivance, to wit, a boat, with a net to divert or prevent the movement of whitebarv. A. G. Howe was charged: That lie did construct a trench in Mahinapua Creek without the approval of the Inspector of Fisheries; and further that he did use a contrivance, to wit a trench, to divert or prevent the movement of whitebait. The charge against Spoor was heard first Mr Brosnan, appearing for him, and ’pleaded not guilty. Sergeant King said that on Octobei 10, he visited the Creek and found defendant in the boat, which was stationary. He had a net attached to a pole and was using this to catch whitebait. The position of tile boat and net had a tendency to divert the run of fish. Whitebait ran into this meek in numerous quantities, and he contended that defendant, by his action, was . diverting the movement of the fish. 1

Mr Brosnan dealt with many technical points surrounding the use of the boat and the net. Sergeant King said that defendant was using his boat really in the service of a trench. The .'Bench said the point to be emphasised was what was to he defined as lawful or unlawful. , There .was insufficient ’ evidence m support of the charge which was withdrawn.

The second charge against Howe (Mr Brosnan) was withdrawn. In connection with the first charge. Sergeant King said that defendant had been a registered fisherman for six "or seven years. This year defendant had built, a trench in one of the back creeks of Mahinapua .without registering it, and without authority as to position and construction. To Mr Brosnan, Sergeant King said that the objection was that defendant bad not applied for permission to erect a trench. Had defendant come to him he would have given him approval, the construction of the trench itself was satisfactory. Mr Brosnan: Did you not have trouble with defendant before. —No. Mr Brosnan: Not with his brother’s trench.—That was not a registered trench either. Mr Brosnan: What about last year? —That is different. Mr Brosnan: What happened last year.

Sergt. King objected to the question The Bench upheld his objection. Mr Brosnan: As Inspector of Fisheries, the Sergeant has a discretion vested in him, and this must be -used judicially. In the case last year, the Sergeant bad not used it judicially. The Bench: That has nothing- to do with this case, has it? Mr Brosnan: I can bring evidence to prove that there has not been the best of feeling between the Sergeant and fishermen in general, including Howe.

The. Bench: Over this trench? Mr Brosnan: Well, no. The conduct of the Sergeant to the defendant was such that the latter felt it useless to apply to him. and took the matter into his own hands. Mr Brosnan submitted that the regulation under the Act might be translated a little more freely, and he asked the Magistrate to consider everything in his summing up. Sergt. King outlined the practice of registration an c } the requirements demanded.

"I’m not hostile to Howe,” said the Sergeant, "and I don’t think he is hostile to me, I have clashed with him before, as I have with other fishermen, hut I. have to carry out niy instructions

Mr Bros nan then submitted that Marinapua Creek was not a tidal creek, and on that point the Magistrate could

not convict, as jthis creek did • not come under the regulations. He drew attention to the obscure way the regulations wer e drawn up, and that the charge preferred was not that against which the regulations were aimed. Summing up, the Magistrate said that the regulations referred to "any streams and creeks in Westland.” Sergt. King: I’ll prove that Maiiina.pua Creek is a tidal creek. Mr Bros nan : I object, the Sergeant has closed his . case. The Magistrate said h e wou’d g've the Sergeant leave to prove his assertions. The Court here adjourned for lunch. Upon resumption after lunch, Sergt. King aid that he knew that Mahinapua Creek was a tidal creek according to the regulations. To Mr Brosnan : It is not a stream at low water, hut was a. backwash, rt joined the Mahinapua Creek at high water,' 1 into which the tidal waters penetrated.

The Magistrate said that it appeared to be tidal water, and fpioted the regulations governing groins or trenches in whitebaiting, ITe said that the evidence showed that a breach had occurred. Although the maximum fin e was £2O, lie would only fine the minimum amount of £l. Costs 10/- were allowed against defendent.