MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 913, 3 November 1910, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., yesterday. The only undefended ciyil case was that of G. Wright v. W.n Ashmore, claim £1 4s 6d for which amount judgment was entered up by default with costs 7s. BREACH OB' FISHERIES ACT. William Young was charged on the information of the Inspector of Fisheries that he did place a set net within a distance of less than two chains from another set net, in the Manawatu River, contrary to the form of Section 2 of the regulations for taking whitebait in the Manawatu River in such case made and provided. The defendant pleaded not guilty and for the prosecution the Inspector (Constable Woods) called evidence as follows : Finest Dudsou stated that on October 9th, he in company with two others, went to the Heads for the purpose of fishing for whitebait. He set his net near the bar at 2.30 o’clock in the morning and his two mates set their nets further along, each being two chains apart. At about five o’clock defendant came on the scene and asked witness to shift his net, which he refused to do. Defendant then said he would go and get Faugley to come and make him shift it. He returned shortly afterwards with a man named Mitchell and again asked witness to shift the net. On his request being refused, defendant took witness’ net out of the water and threw it on the bank, Alitchell putting his net in its place.

William Andresen corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness. He did not hear any of the conversation but saw Youug take Hudson’s net out of the water and Mitchell put his in its place. For the defence, W. Youug, the defendant, admitted taking the net out of the water, but said the position taken up by Dudsou was the one he had had for the past week. He denied, however, that the nets were set less than two chains apart. Similar evidence was also given by Thomas Mitchell and Dick Newson.

The Magistrate convicted and lined defendant 20s, with costs 7s and witness’ expenses 10s. Pie pointed out that a fisherman had no claim to any particular portion of the river, and when he found that someone else was before him he must take up another position. The fine inflicted was the minimum allowed under the Act, and should be taken as a warning.

A GATE AND A POST, WHO OWNED THEM ?

The Court was occupied for about three-quarters of au hour on a claim of £i ss, or the return of a gate and post, brought by Stevens, Easton and Austin against A, P. Easton. Mr Innes, of Palmerston North, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Moore for defendant.

F, S. Easton, a member of the plaintiff firm, swore that when the new road through their property

was being formed his firm had erected three gates on same, in order to keep stock in. The gates erected belonged to Stevens, Easton and Austin. Defendant, however, took two of them, one of which had since been recovered. He still had possession of the other one.

In reply to Mr Moore, witness denied that the gate in question was erected on the property at the time defendant purchased it from his brother. He supposed that if the County Council so desired they could claim the gates. For the defence, evidence was given by A. P. Easton, who stated that the gate in question had been on the property when his brother purchased it from Stevens, Easton and Austin. He subsequently purchased the property from his brother, and the gate, therefore, was his property. George O. Barber gave corroborative evidence.

The Magistrate said that on the evidence judgment must be for defendant with costs 4s,