COURT NEWS

Opotiki News, Volume I, Issue 104, 2 November 1938, Page 3

COURT NEWS

MAGISTRATE’S SITTING CHARGE) OF THEFT OF COW FURTHER A J) J O' URNAIENT The mointhly sitting of the. Opotiki Magistrate’s Cburt was lit*l d in the Opotiki Courthouse yesterday, before Air. It. L. AValton, S.Arf f J’hc adjourned case in which James Lyon was charged with the, theft of a cow valued at £l2, the property of M,i\ Swinton, Raukokore, again came forward. -Mr. East, who represented the defendant, stated that the witness Bailey had not put in an appearance hut was quite able to travelSergeant J. Lsbistor said that Air. Lyons had stated lie could produce ten witnesses. He then said he could produce two hut it had now hoiled down to one. He was quite satisfied that Bailey would he quite useless as a witness. He was an invalid and was not able to travel at the present time. M.V. East saidj the witness Bailey was quite essential to the defendant. He had been on the verandah and saw everything. He was quite able to get about and could climb lences. Air. AValton said there was no reason wily the constable at To Kalia could not see if the witness was able to travel to Opotiki. It was the duty of the defendant, to see if the man was able to coime. 'The case was further adjourned to December Uth. I’ROH lISLTION ORDER HR EACH 'Taylor Tai was charged with a breach of liis prohibition order on October 22. Sergeant Isbister said that Tai was arrested by Constable Uathic and dealt with hy justices, ft was his third breach in the past 12 months. Air. Bunkall, for the defendant, said that lai was a Ketuined Soldier and had a badly damaged leg. He walked with a pronounced roll whether he was sober or drunk. lai was'lined £<‘l and costs. TALKI DISBELIEVED Peter Hill was charged that on Ortower 22 he was lound on licensed piemiscs without lawful excuse. Sergeant Isbister said that as he a as passing the Opotiki hotel on the night in question dcleiulant came out of the hotel. He stated that lie had just been paying the porter some money for boor he had prevoiusl.v bought. The porter was questioned: nut denied having received, any money from l-lill. The porter said that Hill had asked for liquor which had not. been supplied. Hill was convicted and fined. TITAITiC OKI 1 KXCF.S Three charges were brought Toward by the borough Lrattie inspector. M r . J. 11. A 1 Orel I. for failure to have a light on bis c.vi le a cyclist was convicted am! fined as and costs. A motel ist. Joe I lerewini. was (barged with exceeding the limit of .51) m.p.li. in a restricted area. I be inspector stated tlmt the speed had heel! K> m.p.li. Defendant was further charged with having no driver’s license. On the first (barge lie was lined Cl and costs and on the second charge was lined os and costs. Inspector Delves proceeded against D. IT Stewart who was charged with

having no warrant of fitness on the lorry' lie was driving. Mr. BunkaJl, for defendant, pleaded guilty. Iv. B. Quirk, owner of the lorry was charged with aiding and assisting in the offence and was further charged with operating a vehicle on the Opofi-ki-Gisborne highway without a heavy traffic license. The. inspector stated ho had stopped the motor lorry near Matawai. The lorry was loaded with timber and there was no warrant of fitness or heavy traffic: license. The license had been issued two days later. The owner of the lorry had an agreement in connection with royalties with the Cook County Council. Air. Bunkall said it had been the practice to take the truck in lor overhaul at regular intervals. This had been done as usual but the certificate of fitness had not been issued by the garage. AVithout any further work being done toi the truck the certificate had been issued immediately. The traffic license had been paid quarterly and was only 13 days overdue. The company had paid ai royalty of £SOO a year. They had been granted a refund of the fees but had been unbusinesslike in not finalising some of the arrangements. The Magistrate convicted and discharged the driver, while the owner, Alir. Quirk was convicted and fined on the first charge and on the second charge* was also fined.

FISH INC IN PROHIBITED AREA AVHAKATANE TRAWLER CAUGHT CONVICTION RECORDED Charles Samuel W right was charged that on the Ist- Ala,\, l DBS, lie used :i Danish seine net in a prohibited area. He was also charged with a similar offence on the 10th. April. .V third charge was later withdrawn. Air Harry, NVhnkatane, entered a plea ot not guilty on all charges. All witnesses were ordered out of the court. Air. -\. V. ’ Hodgson appeared on behalf of tne Alarum Department which prosecuted. Sergeant J. Isbister stated that he had been appointed inspector of fisheries at Opotiki. The Ohiwa harbour area had been included in the prohibited area for seine trawling. A plan of the prohibited area thou produced. ’ The sergeant, said that a lew days ago he had telephoned the defendant at W hakatane and asked him if he were the master oi the vessel “Outlaw”. -Mr- Wright had lep'icd that lie was. Kiilward NVehh, labourer, said he was an amateur fishermen and had fished for about 21 years and knew the Opotiki coast laiily well. On the 10th. April lie was out fishing with Air. A\ . Walker, who was a licensed fisherman. They went tm the Waiotahi rock. This was a submerged rock off the Waiotahi river, about two miles oil the beachWhen they went towards the rock Air. Walker drew his attention to another boat Homo inshore. lliev went in to see which boat it was. I hey did not go direct to the vessel as they thought that if they went straight, to the boat it would pull up the trawl. When they got close lie saw seine net ropes. The trawler was steaming along as they got near andi they were picking up the net. Witness then explained, to the court flic Danish seine netting system. ,

Witness ■ stated £hat he saw the ropes coming in first and then the net. The trawler was steaming along and picking the net up. They were then about 200 yards away and he saw the net which he took; to be a Danish seine net. The closest they got was about 50 yards. They circled the trawler which was the AK4B*. When they were going up to the boat they saw no one but when they got closer tlnee or four men appeared all of a sudden. The' boat’s anchor was not down and there was no attempt to put down an anchor. There were fish in the net and they emptied into the boat. Some, fish were thrown overboard. The trawler was 10 to 15 chains from the shore and the day was calm. The trawler was heading in to the shore. Afterwards the trawler went along the coast and on this occasion dropped anchor. They were 20 to 25 chains from the shore and dropped the trawl. In reply to a question witness said he was not present on the second occasion with Mr. Walker. Cross-examined by Mr. Barry witness said the rock might he more than two miles from the shore or less than two .miles. He first saw the men. when he was 15 to. 20 chains away. They went in to see what the trawler was doing. He couldn’t say how many men were on the trawler and couldn’t sav definitely if the net was a seine net. Witness spoke to the trawler and said they would hear more about it. William Walker, fisherman, said he fished off the Opotiki coast and! had lived in the. Hay of Plenty all hi, s lil'c. He had operated a number of vessels over a long period. Oil the day in question lie saw another boat closer to the shore. He had an idea, the other boat was trawling and did not want them to know and they first went in the direction ol' Ohiwa. He knew straight away the other vessel was trawling as it was circling around and tin’ll steamed up to the buoy with the net. Witness’ boat circled around the trawler’s bow. When lie first saw the trawler he did not see any men. The net "as a seine net. He only I'callv recognised Mr. Wright on the trawler. \\ lien lie first saw the Outlaw” she was about a-quartcr mile oil' shore. Jlc called out “You people are close in aren’t you. lYou’re inside the limits.” The “Outlaw” again set- the net further along the coast, On the Ist. May he was out again with -Mr. Kerr. They went about one and a-hall miles oil the Opotiki bar and later went off the Waiotahi Peach. They were oft' the shore over a mile. It was a dear, calm day ami they saw a launch away inside them. It. was the “Outlaw”. She was a good hall-mile inside his boat, ’die uatei close inshore was particularly good for sdinappcr. The seine fishing had cleaned the fish, right out and many of the young fish were killed by tins method. To Mr. Barry witness said the line fishermen objected to the tiawlcis killing the young lisle Witness went in to sea what the other boat was doing. He noticed three men on .the boat—it wouldn’t be live. He didn t know what net it was being used. He was not an honorary inspector but would; be willing to give any assistance. Some small boats Iroin Auckland! inul been fishing about two years ago but he could pick the “Outlaw” two miles away. On the second occasion the boat dropped the buoy and circled, around. To Mr. Hodgson-witness said he did not think the trawler would be inclined. to circle close in while the men were having a meal. On the first occasion lie actually aaw the iojhs. Witness” own launch had a cabin and the engine was enclosed. Ho saw the net conning in over the stern. It was an ordinary seine net with two wings and: a hag. The hah were tipped out by I.aiding up the hag by the wiiieli. He could pick the “Outlaw” any where. .Hr. Francis Kerr, bridge carpenter, said that on the Ist. May he went out over the bar. After about, two hours they shifted to the 'Waiotaln beach- He noticed another vessel oh the hcacli. hater it made a circle and then went, olf towards Whale Island. In connection with the third charge. .Mr. Hodgson informed the bench that the evidence on this charge was not very strong. .Mr. Barrv submitted that the information should la’ dismissed and in connection with the second charge said the witnesses were too Inr awa\ to say what was being done. r l lie witmesses did not know what type ol net was being used. The evidence was contradictory as far as the distances were concerned. The witnesses were also incorrect as to; the method ol operating the seine net. No evidence had been given as to what type of net

' was being used. < Alir* Waltoni; What was he doing 4*. there. Section 48 gives a definition of the seine net. I’d like to hear ’ '/ ’what they have got to say about it. tr Air. Webl) said lie saw the net- being ■ • 'emptied- ». Air. Barry said lie did not propose to call, any evidence. . Ahy Walton said that he would enter a ! conviction in .• connection with 5 the charge on the 10th. April. The - . other [two charges would-be dismissed. The Witnesses were near enough and did see the net sufficiently to describe it in operation. Air. Barry snidl that it was only on the 11th. July that defendant had got a. copy of the amended reflations. The regulations only came into force a short time before the .alleged offences find at the time defendant had no knowledge of the regulations. The local member had told Air. Wright that the proposed regulations would not apply to boats under 4.0 feet. This recomemndation had not been approved. I Defendant did not know lie was committing an offence. Defend■.ant’s father was negotiating for the sale of I the business and the Department was holding up the sale of tlu* business. % ,Alr. said that the maximum pehalty was 050 and the coniis--cntion. of the boat, and gear was included' Air, Walton considered that the co.hfispatibiti o<f the boat mull gear was Klost' unreasonable and said lie could P j V *

overcome that difficulty by making defendant make a. contribution to chanty. — Defendant, was ordered ( to pay £2 to the Opotiki and Wliakatan e Hospital Boards and ordered to pay solicitor’s fees . and costs. The confiscation of the boat and gear would, he dismissed.

1 - i - | SUPPLY OF MILK BELOW REQUIRED STANDARD Air. A. C. Butterworth was charged by the Health Department with supplying milk which did not have the required Imtterfat content. Defendant pleaded) not guilty. Sergeant Isbister conducted the proceedings and stated that- on 13th. September Inspector Fogarty had obtained a sample of) milk from defendant’s premises and when tested the sample only had 2.50 per cent, butterfat contentAir. Al. J. Fogarty said he was a health inspector and had visited the defendant’s premises alter receiving a complaint. Defendant was not home but his wife accompanied witness to the . shed. He took three samples leaving one with Airs. Butter worth. Two of the samples had boon sent tot Auckland. Air. Hodgson who appeared for the defendant, asked the inspector if lie sent the samples by registered post. The department had stated that the

samples had been handed in in Auckland personally. Air. Fogarty replied that there had..been a mistake as he had sent the ... samples by registered post. When, lie went to the premises first there jvas nobpdy there. He then went to the. lidiiise and returned with Airs. Butter worth. Later Mr. Tew and Air. Ashdown had arrived. There were two cans of milk in the shed. He presumed the milk in the cans was for Air. Tew, who laid made a complaint. He ..only presumed the cans were for Air. Tew who was to pick the milk up. The milk was poured backwards and forwards into cans and thoroughly mixed. He had received complaints from Tea’s that every customer receiving Butterworth’s ' milk had complained about it.

Air. Butterworth, the defendant, a dairyfarmor,. said) he had been supplying Tews with milk for three months. PricA to" that lie had supplied milk to Air. Alassey. He had complained to the Tews about the time they were Collecting the milk. He finished his milking from 6 to 6.30 a.m., but sometimes he had rung up at 3 p.m. and asked Tows tr> come and get the morning milk. On the particular morning the inilk had been left i'll .the open shed to' be 'picked up. This milk would be in 6 and 4 gallon cans. The milk tested came, from the 4 gal-' lon can. He had no reason, to offer for the extra, low test. It had' been a very bad season. After standing for three or four hours the milk would have to be well agitated. He had been told by two people that, the milk

had only been tipped once and he did. not consider that would be a fair test.

To Sergeant .Is bister, defendant said lie had tested) the "cows for years and he could not account for the low test. He realised the onus was upon him to supply a standard milk. Alter the day. the milk had been testedi he had kept, his shed locked up. M'r. Hodgson submitted that after the milk bad been left standing for such a. long period, the test was not a fair one.

The Magistrate sail lie had no option but to convict and defendant was fined £1 and' costs. Mr. Walton added that lie did not think the breach was a wilful one.