RANGER SHOULD NOT HAVE SEIZED SKINS.

Shannon News, 3 February 1928, Page 2

RANGER SHOULD NOT HAVE SEIZED SKINS.

IS SATISFIED OPOSSUMS WERE

LEGALLY. CAUGHT

At the Magistrate's Court, Palmerston, Leslie Herbert' Best, farmer, of Shannon, instituted proceedings against

Tlios. Andrews, Acclimatisation Society ranger, for Ihe recovery of 15 opossum skins which he alleged were wrongfully seized.

Mr .1. W. Rutherfurd appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. M. Ongley for defendant.

Plaintiff, in evidence, stated that on August 4th, he obtained a permit to trap opossums and borrowed traps from trappers working nearby. In the following 11 days he caught only 15 animals. Witness said he set the traps himself and did the killing, but secured the- services of a boy named Reid to do the skinning and bring home the traps which witness had gathered into a heap on a neighbouring ridge. Later he discovered that Reid was trapping without a license, and witness warned h'm of the risk he was taking. Reid had got six opossums when the ranger (defendant) appeared on the scene. The latter took those skins and the 15 belonging to plaintiff as well. Witness saicl he complained to the ranger about his action, but the latter's reply was to the effect that the skinning of the animals was, according to the Act, part of the killing, consequently as Reid had performed that operation, the 15 were also illegally possessed. D. G. Reid gave evidence of having lent the plaintiff traps for the purpose

of taking opossums. J. A. Reid, employed by the plaintiff, admitted having been convicted of trapping opossums without a license. He had used some of the traps that plaintiff had borrowed from D. J. Reid, and had secured six skins. Witness had nothing to do with the 15 opossums that Mr Best trapped except the skinning. When the ranger came he threatened to get the police.and search the house unless witness produced more than the six skins. Mrs Best was at home and as she didn't want any trouble, the 15 taken by Mr Best were produced, but Mrs Best asked the ranger to do nothingi.unt.il her husband returned. Andrews, however, would not wait. To Mr Onglcy witness that when threatened by the ranger he first brought out another six skins but didtiot mention that they were Mr Best's. Under further pressure he brought out tire remaining nine, but couldn't remember whether they were plaintiff's

or not. Mr Onglcy: Why didn't you? Witness: 1 was frightened and didn't know what I was doing. Mrs Best, wife of the plaintiff, stated that she. told the ranger that the 15 skins belonged to -plaintiff and asked him not to take them away until her husband returned. Andrews, however, picked them up and went. The lad Reid seemed very upset at the time. This concluded plaintiff's case. Mr Onglcy, for defendant, quoted the ■eguJations which stated that nobody .van allowed to assist in the taking, killing, and skinning of opossums who was not, licensed. Furthermore, all skins, traps, firearms, , etc., used in a breach of the regulations were forfeit

and became the property of the Crown and the ranger had power to seize them. It was very easy to set up such a claim as defendant had set up, after

the seizure. Mr Eutherfurd: The claim has been made repeatedly. Defendant, in evidence, stated that when he accused the lad Eeid of illegal trapping, the latter admitted the offence,. Eeid first showed him" six skins and under pressure produced another six and under a further threat of search, the remaining nine. The uul added: "It's not the skins I mind losing, but I hope I hear no more about it."

To Mr Eutherfurd defendant stated that it was out of Mr Best's house that .lie extra skins canine, but he did not

ihink that a sufficient reason to await

plaintiff's return. Bead's action in. bringing out the skins in two lots was very suspicious.

Mr Eutherfurd: Do you now believe the skins were Best's? Witness: No.

Herbert Thos. Bowler told the Magistrate that he accompanied Andrews to Best's place and was present when the lad Eeid admitted illegal trapping. The

cond lot • of six skins were brought

from out of the house and when threatened with a search warrant, Eeid produced the remaining nine skins. Neither Eeid nor Mrs Best claimed at the time that the skins belonged to Best. To Mr Eutherfurd witness denied that he had told Mrs Best during the course of the case that he knew the skins belonged to Best.

Mr Eutherfurd submitted that it would be ridiculous to suggest that the skinning of the" opossums, could be taken as part of the taking and killing; further it had to be proved that the skins were to be illegally used, to nterpret properly the wording pf the regulations. His Worship said he was satisfied the skins belonged to plaintiff and he did not propose to include skinning as part of the taking and killing. If the Acclimatisation Society was anxious to include skinning as part of the taking and killing, if, would have to amend its regulations. Judgment was given for return of the skins with costs amounting to £4 lfis lOd. '