POACHING NATIVE GAME.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3844, 13 September 1928, Page 2

POACHING NATIVE GAME.

TWO YOUTHS CONVICTED,

Constable Owen outlined the case and said that the two defendants had visited the lakes on the day in question with shot-guns in search of Native game. Interviewed later, Coley admitted firing at a mob of ducks.

vU the local Courthouse this morning, before Mr. J. L. 'Stout, S.M., 'a charge of taking Native game out of season on Robinson’s Lakes, on August 12th, was preferred against E. R. Coley and W. R. Hartley. Both pleaded not guilty. Tap Taylor, labourer, in evidence stated that on Sunday 12th August, with several others he visited Manawatu Heads. He saw defendants at the end of No. 2 Lake. Each was carrying a shot gun, and were in possession of a boat. Defendants rowed out to a mai mai. Some time later witness saw defendants in the mai mai. It was the first occasion on which witness had visited the lake. He saw a number of ducks on the lake that day. 'He heard no shot fired.

To Hartley: He could not say that defendants were actually in the mai mai. There was a drain connecting the lakes through which a boat could be taken. Witness did not hear any shots fired. N. Huff, corroborated previous witnesse’s evidence. Witness saw two defendants with a man named Parfitt. Defendants told witness that they were going over to some rushes or mai mai to get a boat. When witness came back to the lake some time, later he saw the two defendants in the mai mai and they waved.

To Hartley: Could not swear that it was defendants in the mai mai. Defendant had two rabbits which he had shot and one his dog had killed.

Edward Robinson, who accompanied the two previous witnesses to the lakes on the day in question also gave similar evidence. Stanley R. Austin, in evidence, said he frequently shot over the lakes. The locality was the home of the grey duck. Constable Bell said he had received a complaint that there had been a lot of shooting on the lake on the day in question. As a result he had interviewed Coley, who in a statement (produced) admitted that together with Hartley, he had shot at a mob of ducks, one of which was shot and fell in the scrub, and could not be found.

Some days later witness interviewed Hartley who admitted that a duck had been shot. Both had fired but he could not say who had shot it as both had fired at once. Hartley refused to give his companions away. He considered, however, that’he had a right to shoot over the Jakes which were on Messrs Wilson and Dalrymple's property. Hartley’s defence was that in company with Coley he visited the lakes for the purpose of bringing a boat back to the Heads for whitebaiting. There he met Huff and his friends who were indulging in rifle practice. Witness rowed the ’boat through from No. 4 lake, and it was when passing through a connecting drain a chain and a-half from the mai mai that they mistook witness for being in the maimai. Witness never fired a shot at ducks, but shot two rabbits. A shag had been shot by one of the party.

Edgar Coley corroborated Hartley’s evidence in regard to the boat. No shots were fired at ducks, but a shag had been shot. The S.M.: Wjlien did you find out the difference between a duck and a shag? —I was told shags sit on sticks and ducks don’t. (Laughter). Constable Owen: Why did you tell Constable Bell that you shot at ducks? —I didn’t know the difference between ducks and shags then.

The S.M. said lie did not think there had been any suggestion of shags till Hartley had made it. They did not seem to have got much game and would be fined £2 with costs £1 2s fid each.