The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of Department of Environment and Management Fish and Wildlife Regulation §20-1-12 (feeding wildlife prohibited).  The Defendant was issued a ticket for feeding geese in an apartment complex common area and was identified through an eyewitness account and video evidence.  The Defendant argued on appeal that the trial transcript was inaccurate.  The Panel noted when a conflict of personal recollection arises against the written transcript, the transcript is viewed as accurate and the court must accept that what is found in the transcript was said in open court.  See Schafer v. Thurston Mfg. Co., 137 A.2d 5 (R.I. 1927).  Here, the Panel found such a conflict existed and, under Schafer, the transcript must be viewed as accurate.  Additionally, the Panel noted the alleged inaccuracy in the transcript did not affect the decision.  The Panel denied the appeal.