ILLEGAL FISHING BAIT.

Matamata Record, Volume II, Issue 113, 30 December 1918, Page 2

ILLEGAL FISHING BAIT.

Worm Not Allowed. At the Matamata Magistrate’s court on Friday, William Craig and Samuel C. Snell, both residents of Tirau, were proceeded against by the inspector under the Fisheries Act on charges of fishing without licenses; also using illegal bait. Snell was also charged with obstructing the inspector. The charges were heard by Mr W. G. Kenrick, S.M., Mr C. L. McDiarmid appearing for the prosecution and Mr G. G. Bell for the defence. Mr McDiarmid said the whole of the charges arose out of one set of circumstances. John Miller, an inspector under the Fisheries Act, 1908, came upon two defendants fishing in the Waihou, using earth-worms for bait. When asked the defendants surrendered the bait, but Snell refused to allow Oraig to give up his rod, alleging that both being used belonged to him (Snell). John James Miller said he was an inspector duly appointed under the Fisheries Act, 1908. On October 28th he was in the vicinity of Putaruru owing to complaints which had been made. He met both defendants in the centre of the Waihou stream, Craig having his line in the water, and Snell placing earthworm on the hooks of his line. The latter tried to remove the worm but left part of it on. Witness took the hooks from which Craig had also taken the bait. He demanded the lines, but Snell refused to give them up, stating that he was not aware that worm was illegal bait. This year’s license staled that worm was illegal bait. Neither defendant could produce his license, but took day licenses out at Tirau later in the day. To Mr Bell: He had not given either defendant notice that the prosecution was to take.place.

Mr Bell asked that the action be dismissed.

The Magistrate held that the section quoted applied to officers, not to persons operating in pursuance of the Act. Defendants were not acting in pursuance but against the Act. Mr Bell, before calling defendants, said Snell was a fisherman of several years standing, and he had decided to take out day licenses. He had arranged with the postmaster, in the event of him going out before the pest office opened, that he would take out his license upon his return from his fishing expedition. Application had been made by the Tirau Acclimatisation society to the Auckland society for its consent to worm being used on the Waihou, and he understood that the president approved of the request. The defendant (Snell) admitted fishing with worm. He had had licenses for terms right up to the Saturday before Miller approached them (submitted). He had been informed by the president, Mr Hill, at Cambridge, that it was alright, “ they had got worm as legal bait.” If he had infringed the law he had done so unwittingly; but he had acted quite openly. He bad offered to surrender the line being used by Craig. To Mr McDiarmid: He paid for the license after he came back. He had on previous occasions dropped the money for the license into the post office, and had collected the license afterwards. On the morning of the 28th he did not follow this custom. He fished all last year with worm. He could not produce anything or name anything in which consent was given for worm fishing, or of the restrictions being removed. The Magistrate held that it was made most plain on the licenses that worm fishing was illegal. Fishermen were bound by their licenses, and it was their duty to read them and abide by them. He believed that it had been decided to remove the restrictions against worm, but it was not yet law. Defendants had been careless. William Craig said he had never been fishing before, and had never seen a license until he took out the one on the -28th. The Magistrate said a man like Snell, a prominent member of an acclimatisation socitey, had every facility for knowing the law. He should have seen to it that he got his license before he went out. He would not, however, suggest that either defendant wished to avoid paying for a license, but they should have taken them out prior to fishing, not afterwards. If they were not certain as to the conditions under which the licenses were, issued they should inquire of the officer issuing the license. If they took the licenses they should abide by the conditions. The licenses stated quite plainly that worm fishing was not allowed. He held

that defendants were not ’poachers, and consequently he would inflict the minimum fine in the charges of fishing without licenses and using illegal bait —40s each on each charge with costs. Snell would be fined 5s and costs also on the charge of obstructing the inspector.