Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISTINCTION OF DEER

> «a+«st>—< BOUNTY ON TAILS. TWO MEN CHARGED WITH FRAUD. At the Magistrate’s Court, Blenheim on Saturday, Alexander Calin Ruse hi arid Frank Murray Thomson, were charged with attempting to obtain the sum of £54 from the Internal Affairs Department by producing for the bounty alleged deer tails which were, in fact, spurious tails. Charles L. French Pont gave evidence that on April 23rd he was a clerk in the Agricultural Department. The accused arrived tit the office with a sack containing 744 articles which, they said were deer tails. They were applying for a bounty at the rate of 2s for each tail. The witness gave them an interim receipt for the tails. He was not sure as to whether Busclil or Thomson actually took the receipt. He, subsequently altered the figure on the duplicate by striking out the letter's 744 and substituting ,201. He did this to keep the records in order; it having been discovered in the meantime that only 201 of the 744 tails were genuine. He also added the word “Moleswortli” the accused having stated that that was where the deer were shot. Subsequently he made a search of the old Departmental receipt books which disclosed that the two accused had handed in more tails than anyone else. On February 10th, 1831, Busclil handed in 57, and a week later Thomson handed in 119. On March 3rd Thomson produced 115 tails and on the same day Busclil came in with 114. Between February 10th and April 23rd, 1931, the two accused brought in 1149 tails. Replying to the Bench, the .witness said the Department now required part of the bone to be left in the tail or the bounty would not be paid on >t but in April this was not necessary. ; The new regulation came into force on -May 27th. John Gilbert Stott gave evidence that in April last he was officer in charge of the Stock Department at Blenheim. On April 24 th his attention was directed to some deer tails which had been brought in the previous day. Some of them did not look very genuine, and the witness called in Mr Barra, who rejected a large number. The tails were then bagged up again and forwarded to the Department at Wellington. Witness explained that by an arrangement between the two Departments, the Stock Department accepted the tails and gave a receipt for them, payment being made by voucher after the tails had been checked. In this particular instance no payment had been made. As a rule the receipt issued for the tails was accepted bv the Department without further question, and the bounty was paid upon the number of tails shown in the receipt. In this instance the receipt had been endorsed by the two accused as claimants. The bounty at the time was 2s

per tail. CHARACTERISTICS OF GENUINE TAIL.

Herbert Peter Barra, a stnt’onhand, gave evidence that he had had close on ten years experience as a deer stalker and had shot over the Leatham and Molesworth country He explained the differences between genuine deer tails and'those produced in Court. The genuine tail, among other things, tapered off to a natural tip and carried very little fat, while on the under-surface there was a section of thin skin on which no hair was grown. The exhibits produced had no natural tip, carried a great deal of fat, and showed no sign of the bare skin to which he had referred. On April 24th he happened to he in the Stock Department’s office with

some fleer tails and, while there, classified a parcel of supposed tails and rejected a large number. He was no imormed as to who had brought the tails in and had no idea as to whom the parties were. George Eranklyn Yerex. an Inspector under the Animals Protection and Game. Act and at present in charge of the Department’s deer destruction operations throughout the South hland, gave evidence that he had examined the supposed deer tails which formed the subject of the present enquiry. There were no genuine tails in the package, these having .been removed in Blenheim. Then 1 were, however, five portions of genuine tails, but not sufficient to warrant any of filer to pay bounty on them. There were a total of 040 alleged tails in the package. Various “tails’’ from the package were handed to the witness and lie rejected them all, explaining tli :t they were pieces of deer skin an ( | outlining in each case what part of the hide they came from. The witness then produced genuine tails, enpliasising that there was never any white on tail. The interior substance was a reddish tissue like liver in appearance, ami the hairs on tin 1 outside of the tail grew right into this tissue, it being possible to strip the skin and hair away from it. In reply to a question, the witness snd that in lii.s opinion it was utterly impossible for any two men to secure 1119 deer between I'Ybruary tilth an 1 April 23rd in any pirt of New Zealand. Similarly, if Thomson claimed that be and Buschl shot 178 deer in a week at the Leatham and three weeks later 219 in a week be thought it was unreasonable. No two men. in bis experience, bad shot anything like 800 doei' in six weeks as, lie understood, had been claimed by Thomson. The accused pleaded not guilty and were commitleil for trial, bail being allowed

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19320121.2.15

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 21 January 1932, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
920

DISTINCTION OF DEER Hokitika Guardian, 21 January 1932, Page 3

DISTINCTION OF DEER Hokitika Guardian, 21 January 1932, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert