The Express.
London, England, 1867-12-05 00:00:00

)1 Nut EsAIAL Dl OF
THAMES.

A cage of considerable importance affecting tt,
cultivation of fish in the Thames was yesterday leou
before the mayor and a full bench of magistrates at th
Town•hall, Gravesend.
James Clark, the master of the Heron fishing.hewt,
peered in answer to an information issued at the invoice,
of the Thames Conservancy Board, charging hint wit,
having on the 9th of November exposed for sale and
sol
certain fish, to wit, whitings, which had beet caught
the river Thames, and the size of which was under sigh
inches long from the eye to the end of the tail, contras
the rules, orders, and ordinances for the fisheries it t,
rivers Thames and Medway.
The prooss excited intense interest, and the bo..i
of the Town- all was crowded by fisbenken. On i,
bench, is addition to the magistrates, were Mr. Jouithw
Thorpe, deputy cheats= of the Thames Conservawi
Board ; Admiral Sir F. Nicholson, one of the board ; aid
Captain Banta, 8.N., secretary. There *ere aji,
Mr. Frank Backland and Mr. L K. Lord, the naturalise
and members of the Royal Zoological Society.
Mr. Sharland, the town clerk of Gravesend, appewril
in support of the prosecution, and Mr. Ribten, the ba,
ester, for the defendant. „

It may be stated that although the ease was only goo
into ►g►inst the present defendant, there me eleven onto
summoned for ► similar offence. _ _

Theprooeedings were instituted under an old bye.laer
the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, dated I,
Nov., 1785, which provides that no whiting less than etti
inches long shall be caught in the river Thames, or two.
ingly exposed for sale.
A technical objection having been taken by Mr. latot
to the form of the summons, which was overruled by tin
bench, the case proceeded.
Mr. Shetland, in opening the case for the Thames Coe.
satrapy Board, said it was one of considerable in,
involving as it did the culture of saleable fish io in.
Thames. Since the river had become somewhat purified,
whiting, which had not been seen in the Thames f a
great many years, had become very plentiful, 'aril
the bye-laws were not infringed would afford sat
only a considerable supply for human constunption, pot
be a source of much profit to the fishennes.
It would be shown that on the 9th of November cue at
the Gravesend police went to the canal basin, and there
saw the defendant's boat, Heron, which had on beard a
large quantity of whiting, which he was informed led
been caught in Long Beach. The officer was told that
they bad been sold to • Mr. Marshall, who was a sort of
middle man between the farmer and fisherman foe
manure. In the reseal there were 220 bushels of fish con.
siderably under the sin mentioned in the bye-law, mad
they varied from two to six inches in length, generally
running from 2to 3. There was not one near 8 inches
long. He understood that the defence would be that the
fish was not whiting ; but he would be in a position to
show that they were. He would mall Mr. Frank Boa.
land, the eminent naturalist, sad inspector of salmon tub.
dies, and also Mr. Lord, a gentleman who had been sent by
the British government with the boundary commission to
British North America to inspect the fish there ; and both
these gentlemen would prove that the fiah in question
were whiting.
A police-constable in the Gravesend force mid, in
pursuance of instructions he went on the 9th d
November to the canal basin, where he saw the Heron
fishing boat, the master of which (the defendant) eo
there. He saw fish in the boat, and while he was nea.
✓ut* some of them one of the men asked him if he
wanted a fish 8 inches long. He (witness) said that he
did, and they overhauled a heap of fish en the jetty, lit
cold not find one of the length stated. He could nut fill
one in the whole cargo 8 inches long. The witness diet
that the men in the boat admitted that the fish tai
been caught in Long Beach, and were whiting, and the
they had sold them to Mr. Marshall for manure.
On being cross-examined the witness stated that none;
the samples of whiting in bottles produced in supporta
the prosecution formed say part of the stock in the boat,
although they looked like them.
Mr. Sharland stated that the samples of whiting or
tabled in the bottles had been procured from other how
which had been similarly engaged on the river.
Mr. John Kest Lard said he was a naturalist sad fells,
of the Royal Zoological Society, and had been sent by tt.
British government to British North America in referee,
to the matter of the fisheries. Hs had had great experiens
with all kinds of fish, and he had no doubt that the fie;
produced were whiting.
Mr. Frank Buckland said he was her Majesty's is
spector of salmon fisheries, and had a museum of all ea
caught in the British islands at the IforticulturalGardere
at Kensington. He had no hesitation in saying that the
fish produced were young whiting, and if they bad DOI
been taken so young would at some future time have
fetched from threepence to ninepence apiece ; and be
might add that the fishermen. in taking them the
early, were doing a great deal of mischief to themselves,
and he was very sorry to see it.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Ribton, an)
after expLaiaing the difference, especially in respect of tit
mouth, between the haddock and the whiting, persistel
in his belief that the samples produced were of the lair
species of fish.
Mr. Sharland said that he had a great many more Tit
names to call, and as it would be impossible to conclude
the case that day, be suggested an adjournment.
Mr. Ribton said he had also several witnesses tool] ;
and it was at length arranged to adjourn the further hut.
ing of the case until the next court day.