FISHING ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 19 February 1932, Page 2

FISHING ACT

BREACHES' OF REGULATIONS

THREE CHARGES THROWN OUT.

An echo to recent “breaches” of the Fisheries Act was heard in the Hokitika Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon when three cases were brought by the Inspector of Fisheries for hearing by Mr VY. Meld-rum, S.M. Alex Kelly and Thomas Spoor were each charged that he did use a set net for the purpc se of taking whitebait in the Malhnapua Creek, being a tidal stream, in other than a groin or trench, without first securing the permission of the Inspector of Fisheries.

Mr Brosnan appeared for defendants and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant C. J. King, as Inspector of Fisheries, conducted the prosecution, and outlined the charges. Each defendant was a registered owner of a trench for 1931. He- visited the Creek and found defendants fishing in a boat, using nets, the boat being moored to the side of the creek out of the current, half a mile away from their registered position. He contended that a person was not entitled to go away from his position and fish from a boat. It was a direct contravention.

Mr Brosnan : Had it been referred to you first, would you have approved.—No.

a ill- Brosnan: Then why request approval first ? The Inspector: I would not grant approval for fishing from a boat if a fisherman had a registered groin or net.

The Inspector outlined the authority under which lie had brought too charges. Defendants had a trench which was in < nler, but the using of a net lion a boot, constituted a

second trench < r groin, the same purpose being involved. The Magi l dr a to: A boat is not a trench or groin. The InsneetcT: ft is used for that

purpose. The Magistrate: ft was used to keep them from falling in the stream, I think. If, there anything in the Act forbidding whilebaiting bv nets, other than set nets? The Inspector: What h the use of registering a position then. It is not fair lo others who observe the regulations.

The Magistrate: What is the offence of drawing a net behind a boat—We snv it is an offence.

The Magistrate: There is no offence under . the rc«uta*ie~«. The ease resolved itself into a difference jn tcchnial terms. The Inspector: Do you hold there-

fore, that a man, registering a trench, can go and fish elsewhere,

Tlae Magistrate; Yes.

Mr Brosnan: I object to the way the Inspector is conducting the civs®. He appears to wish to Jwti. something of fishing, and wishes u» to pay for his education,

"The Magistrate dismissed the cases. Mr Brosnan asked for costs. The Inspector, he said, had failed in his charges against the same men last year, on the same charges, and he had brought it at a time of the year when there was no whitebaiting. He reluctantly thought that the Inspector wished to secure a conviction against fob o or.

The Tinspector entered the box to “prove that the offences had occurred/’

Mr Brosnan: I object, for no offence has been disclosed.

The Magistrate: The charges against the men are not offences under the regulations. Mr Brosnan: It' the Inspector persists, I shall ask for costs on all cases.

' The Inspector: 1 was under the impression that an offence had been committed, and, guided by the remarks in the introductory case, 1 thought I would bring fresh charges., These charges are not brought through any feeling of unfriendliness. . .

Mr Brosnan: They don’t seem to agree on that! The- Inspector: The offence in these charges are the causes of the dissention among fishermen in tne creek. It is not a question of bringing Spoor here for the purpose of a conviction, but to show that an offence had been committed, and that it might be stopped. The Magistrate declined to allow costs.

William Holly was charged that, being the user of a. groin or trench situated in the Mahiuapua stream, being a tidal stream in the County of Westland distrit, he did use more tliap one groin or trench for the purpose of whitehaiting. Mr Brosnan appeared and pleaded not guilty.

The Inspector said Holly was a registered owner of a trench, also bis wife, the trenches being about six chains apart. The broach was that “more than one groin or trench had been used” as evidence would prove. Mr Brosnan: Were you there this day. -No.

Frederick Howard said he was a registered fisherman at the creek and bald a trench there-. Holly’s trench was about three and n-half chains below Ids, while, Mrs Holly’s trench was a further six chains away on the opposite side of the ereck. He saw Holly fish from lii, s own and his wife’s trench on November 4th., and also from a boat in front of witness’ trench.

Witness said he and h|s wife each had a trench, each working their own, arid lining assisted b.v a young son and daughter.

Ma‘ Brosnan: Do you stvear that you have never lifted a finger to help your wife’s trench.—No, Mr Brosnan; Then you have committed the same offence ns Holly— Not, A man lt|as Hie right to help his wife, Witness said that defendant rowed back and forth from his own trench to that of his wife, and empty the nets.

Mr Brosnan: Was that the day Sergeant King came over to the Creek.—No.

Mr Brosnan: During, the whitebait season, you were not fishing only ? No.

While that was Holly’s sole employment,? It is my only employment now.

Did Holly point out to you that his brother was fishing his wife’s trench, and that his wife’s trench is his headquarters?—No. Mr Brosnan: While on the dole, who , fished your trench ?My little boy.

He is not a registered holder is he.—No.

Did your little boy lift those heavy mots on his own.—Yes, the catohess were not very heavy last season. Defendant’s brother said he was a registered fisherman, and on November 4th., he saw defendant fishing at both trenches, as well as from the boat, lifting the nets at each trench, the nets being fixed.

The Inspector: Was Mrs Holly on the creek?—No. she was ill at tli* tini.m

Witness said be had assisted his wife at her trench. He complained of the practice of fishing two trencues on the same tide. Mr Brosnan said he did not pro-pose to go any further. The Magistrate would see that the practice of assistance had been going on for years.

The Magistrate said that the evidence showed that defendant had only used his wife’s trench which she was yick at the time, and admitted that it was the rule for husbands to assist, their wives. It would lie straining the regulations unduly to prevent the husband using the wife’s trench on her behalf while ishe was sick at the time. There was nothing to prevent ii registered owner appointing an agent for the time being, the husband being the agent. As long as it was not a blind lie could not- see that any offence Intel been committed.

The Magistrate dismissed t!io case