37 



all wild birds in a given district. But no penalty is fixed by this 

 Act for the infringement of such an Order, and there are no 

 penalties under any earlier existing Act either for taking A\-ild 

 birds or for kilUng, except by shooting them ; therefore a man 

 may in these respects infringe the Order and go unpunished.* 



Another point which frequently arises is the difficulty of 

 proving the birds in the possession of the person charged to be 

 wild birds. 



Over twenty years ago we remember a man being charged under 

 the Act of 1880 with having in his possession some young Wild 

 Duck in dowTi from the nest. It was believed he Avould in defence 

 allege that they were the young of one of his own domestic ducks. 

 An ornithologist friend and ourselves were visited by the officer 

 in charge of the prosecution, who required us to state then and 

 there whether one of the wTctched Httle downy dead birds 

 produced to us was of wild or domestic origin. We had not seen 

 the nest from wiiich it had been hatched, and w^e had no specimens 

 for comparison. We hurriedly referred to a few' standard books 

 on birds, wiiich helped but Httle, and to Darwin's great work on 

 " Animals and Plants under Domestication," and took some 

 measurements. We both inclined to the behef that the specimen 

 was a recently hatched duckling of Anas boscas, but would have 

 been sorry to have been asked to swear to the fact without 

 further investigation and consideration. The officer, however, 

 did not require our presence at the tribunal before which the 

 case was to be tried, but merely w^anted an opinion in wiiting. 

 A very guarded expression of our view was therefore wTitten, 

 with which he contentedly retired. We afterwards heard that 

 any difficulties presented by the case w^ere overcome by the 

 possessor of the birds pleading " guilty." We have often since 

 wondered to what use it was intended to put that unsworn 

 opinion in the absence of the persons who wTote it. It is said 

 that nearly four hundred cases under the Wild Birds Protection 

 Acts are heard each year, and that convictions result from about 

 half of them. How interesting it would be if the evidence upon 

 which all these convictions are obtained was pubHshed ! 



The penalties fixed by the Act of 1880 are very light, the 

 maximum fine is only one pound for each scheduled bird in 

 respect of w^hicli an offence has been committed, and m respect 

 of each unscheduled bird a reprimand and payment of costs on 

 the first offence, and a maximum penalty of five shilHngs for every 

 subsequent offence. f The punishment for taking, destroying 

 or inciting any other person to destroy eggs protected under the 

 Act of 1894 extends to a fine of one pound for every egg taken or 

 destroyed. J 

 * See Marchant and Watkins, op. cit., p. 34. f Sect. 3. J Sect. 5. 



