MAGISTRATES COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 475, 2 September 1909, Page 2

MAGISTRATES COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., yesterday. civil, CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended civil cases: — Tatton and Son vJ. Lambess, claim £3 12s, costs ns; Easton and Stewart v. W. J- Fullam, £9 3s 4d, costs £1 10s 6d; J. A. Nash and Co., Ltd., v. S. J. Hickson, £9 7s lod, costs £1 3s 6d ; same v. R. G. Hickson, £3 6s gd, costs los ; Austin and Park v. W. Moffatt £2 3s 4d, costs 10s ; J. A. Nash and Co., Ltd., v, E. Brightwell 113 Bd, costs £2 14s ;W. Ross and Sou, Ltd., v. Hudson and Marriott, Ltd., £2 4s lod, costs 10s ; Neil Neilson v. Fred Lecaldano £5 X2s, costs 8s ; A. Cockburn and Sons v. William Derrick 8s 6d, costs 3s ; same v. G. Tozer 4s 6d, costs 10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Judgment debtors in the following cases were ordered to pay the amounts forthwith, in default three days’ imprisonment in the Wellington prison : A. Cockbmn and Sons v. Leo. Alzdorf, £2 5s "6d ; Manawatu Herald v. Frank Spiers £3 7s 2d; E. Barnes v. Walter Anderson £1 15s.

alleged breach of the FISHERIES’ ACT. William Young (Mr Moore) was charged on the information of the Inspector of Fisheries (Mr Reade), that on August 26th he did use a whitebait net of a larger area than that prescribed by the regulations of the Act. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Evidence for the prosecution was given by the local Inspector of Fisheries, John B. Hall, who produced the regulations, which state that the opening in nets used for whitebait fishing shall not exceed seven square feet. He stated that on the morning of the 26th August, he had seen with his glasses defendant and two others fishing for whitebait, and also saw them returning in the boat. Eater on he went to defendant’s whare and saw the boat with severol nets in it nearby. Told delendant that he was going to take possession of one of the nets and proceed against him for committing a breach of the Act. Defendant said “alright take one and make a test case of it. ’ ’ The net produced was quite wet when witness took possession of it. On measuring it he found that the opening was fully nine feet. Mr Moore stated that the defence was that the net in question did not belong to the delendant, nor had it been used by him. He also pointed out that as far as the Manawatu River was concerned the regulations were absurd and unjust. The regulations had no doubt been framed to govern small streams, but in the case of a river like the Manawatu it would not in any way effect other fishermen if nets ot twice the size were used. He called Willham Young, who swore that the net produced did not belong to him, nor had he ever used it. On the morning in question he had not been out fishing at all. When Mr Hall spoke to him on the matter, he (witness) had told him to take a net and make a test case of it. Had also told Mr Hall that if he could not use a larger net than that allowed by the regulations he would have to knock off fishing, as he would not be able to make a living. He would not use the net produced, a? it was too small. His net was about twice the size of the one produced. When Mr Hall took the net it was quite dry.

Frederick Dunn said he remembered Mr Hall speaking to defendant. Hall said, “lam going to take a net,” and he went down to witness’ boat, and took a net off it. The net taken by Mr Hall did not belong to defendant, nor had he ever used it. Witness said that he would not use the net because it was not big enough. The Magistrate said that he was satisfied the net had an opening greater than that allowed by the Act, and fishermen must take notice that no net with an opening of more than seven feet can be used for catching whitebait. If they could not make a living with a net of that size, then they would have to stop fishing. The case would be dismissed on the grounds that there was no evidence to show that defendant had used the net.