LOSS OF FIREARM

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 7, Issue 98, 11 August 1944, Page 5

LOSS OF FIREARM

ARMY RESERVIST'S RESPON-

SIBILITY

NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

The contention by counsel (Mr B. S., Barry) tliat the loss of a firearm under the regulations was. not necessarily an offence punishable by sentence ol" the court but merely a case for claiming the value of the lost article Avas upheld by Mr E. L. Walton in the Wliakatane Court last Tuesday. The case arose out of proceedings against Arthur John Linwood, who pleaded guilty to having lost a .303 calibre ride, and its accessories to the total value of £10 12s, the property of the New Zealand Government which had been issued to him for training purposes. Mr Barry, in admitting the otfcnce, said, that the law prescribed no penalty but merely proceedings to' procure- the value. The Magistrate concurred, adding that the case, was not, a criminal procedure. "I' will make out a judgment by consent on order for £10 125," said Mr Walton. Mr Barry demurred, saying- that his information showed that the, rille was of the 1918 variety and in a very delapidated condition. It was scarcely worth the ,sum mentioned. "You know the story of the boy who found a jewel, and took it to a jeweller for him to value,," said the Magistrate. "The jeweller lost it, and in claiming it the boy contend-i ed it to have been the best. In the case, of all lost property, it is always presumed to have been the best. The only thing for your client to do is to pay the value put on it by the authorities."