EXPENSIVE WHITEBAIT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2802, 25 October 1924, Page 2

EXPENSIVE WHITEBAIT.

SCOUT AND ILLICIT FISIIE'RMKN BEFORE THE COURT. SKQVEL TO POLICE RAID. FINKS TOTAL £9O. At tlie S.M. Court yesferdnv. belore Air J. L. Stout, S.AI., Edward ( harles Boyle was charged with obstructing an officer appointed under the Fisheries Ad, Robert Owen, in the execution of his duly, on (»c!id»cr 1 si. Mr Bollings appeared for defendant. who pleaded not guilty. ('unstable Owen said that he was an Inspector of Sen fishing. At 0 a.in. ••n the Ist October, be went to pay a \isi( of inspection to the drain which served as an outlet to Robinson’s Lakes, and from which it was illegal to take whitebait. When half a mile from the drain he noticed a man standing mi the top of one of Hie high sand hills near the drain, with a horse. After spending an hour and a-half in making his way i i the drain, in company with Constable Rian, avoiding defection by Boyle, the man on the hill, they got i Phin a few chains of their objective. There was an open space between them and the drain. Witness

•• mid see a man lishi.ng in ihe drain wr i a set net. ffe made a dasii futhe fisherman an I as he did so Boye* jumped up and Mounted Ids hors**, and idled and whistled several times and appeared to he attempting to attract the attention of the lish errnen. He then galloped away. Later witness made an inspection of the fill on which Bovift had been local,e 1 and the horse's footprints lei in s.-veral directions. He interviewed Boyle the same day and accused a 1miltfi! being on Hie hill that morning and f aid he h id been there waiting for Lucas, a new fisherman.

Questioned by Aid nullings, wi.ncss said 'ie was about 20 chi'Ms away when he tirst saw Boyle. He had been warned to look out for a scout when visiting the drain, lie had been able to locate Boyle with Hie aid of a powerful pair of held glasses. Boyle would be about LO chains from the fisherman. Hartley.

Air Hollings contended that it was impossible for a man situated on the nil! in question to see a man sitting on the bank of the creek, and produced a rough sketch (made by Boyle) to this effect. Wjitness said he was able to see Hartley quite clearly from where he was in the scrub and that Boyle who was on an elevated position, could look right down the drain from the stone bridge to the river. “Boyle yelled like a madman distracted’’ when lie saw witness making a break for the drain. Mr Hollings: How near did you get to Boyle? About 10 chains. Well, how could lie obstruct you :,! that distance? By giving the other man a warning of my approach. And yon call a warning an ob-.-t ruction ? Yes. Then my knowledge of file English language is lacking. Continuing, Mr Hollings said: Do sou mean to say that if J saw a friend of mine playing-—ivlial shall I

say — A Voice: “Two-up!" (Laughter). Air I Tull infs : Ho would be no friend of mini' if lie wort* playing; Iwu-iip! Addressing Constable Owen: Would you rail il obstruction if I Miw a .friend of mine playing a game down the street and 1 saw you coming and called out to him that you were coming ? Witness quoted authorities on the question, which bore out his contention. Mr Ifoliings said the reason Boyle had decamped was that he owed the police a fine which lie was at the I lime unable in pay. i 'flie 5.. M.: Then why did lie call out to attract attention? Mr I hillings: lie didn’t call out. (.'unstable Byan gave eorroboraiive evidence. On the morning in question he accompanied Constable Owen to the creek. It took them an hour atul u-half to cover a distance that they would have taken 10 minutes to do had Boyle not been on the hill watching for them. A perfect, view of the road and drain were to be obtained from the bill on which Boyle had been loeated. .Mr Boilings suggested that witness had made a mistake about bearing Boy call out. Perhaps it was Hartley‘calling to his cows'? The S.M., facetiously: Or tish? Witness, was quite certain he had heard Boyle ealling out and whistling. Boyle was about, ten to fifteen c ha ins from Hartley. Edward C. Boyle, the defendant, in evidence denied scouting' for Hartley. On the morning in question he had ridden to the hill because he wanted to meet Lucas. He was at the time mi bis way to Hunia’s meek, across the run. He did not see or know that Hartley was fishing in the drain. The hill was 400 yards from where Hartley was and it would have been impossible to have seen Hartley from his position owing to intervening hills. He did not call out when he saw the police but immediately decamped as he thought they were looking for him to pay his fine. Constable Owen: What did you want to see Lucas for. Wasn't it to sell him some whitebait? Witness said he did not have an appointment. He was a brother-in-law of Hartley’s and resided near him at the beach. George Hartley said he was not. aware that Boyle was out on the morning in question. He was certainly not scouting for witness. It woud have been impossible for Boyle to have seen witness from where he was. Summing up, the S.AI. said that if Boyle’s tale was correct about owing a line and being frightened

of observation it was a funny thing that.he had not slunk away instead of making a noise, lie had hardly acted like a man waiting for another to come along tlie road. He considered that there was sufficient evidence to prove an attempt to warn Hartley of the approach of' the police, constituted obstruction. Under the circumstances he would be convicted and fined £lO with costs 7/-. IDLED A ELY FISHIXO. Oeorge Hartley, charged with fishing for whitebait in the drain, contrary to the law. on October Ist. pleaded guilty under a misunderstanding. Constable Owen said that lie had been instructed to ask for the full penalty provided for in these cases, £2O. Asked what Ids excuse was. Hartsaid that he believed that he was allowed lo lish' in portions of the drain affected by the tide. Constable Owen said that Hartley had lived at the beach for years and had taken the risk, well knowing the regulations governing the drain and had had a scout out.. He had offered a good deal of insolence at the time of being caught. Convicted and fined £lO with 7/- ] costs. John Merritt, on a similar charge, was also iined £lO with costs 12/-. Each accused were allowed two months in which to pay the line.