Charge Of Having Explosives Dismissed

Chronicle (Levin), 11 October 1949, Page 4

Charge Of Having Explosives Dismissed

The alleged nocturnal activities of Benjamin John Hay, described as a night porter, of Tokomaru, in his endeavours to remove an ob•struction constituting a stopbank near his water race led to his appearance in the Levin Magistrate's Court on Friday. Hay, it was stated, had used five sticks of gelignite in the operation. The police said this was an offence under the Arms Act, claiming that Hay's actions did not come under the I clause in the Act which stipulates that expiosives can only be possessed and used for lawful, proper and sufficient purposes. They charged him accordingly. Hay, represented by Mr. N. M. Thomson, pleaded not guilty. Prosecuting, Sergeant W. Grainger said that Hay occupied a five-acre property on which was a small cottage. It adjoined a property owned by a dairy farmer, Charles Edward Pedley, of Ashley Road. All the land in the area was low lying and close to the main Linton drain. Hay seemed obsessed with the idea that Pedley was attempting to stop the water flowing off his land and there had been a suggestion that a stopbank had been built. Subsequent enquiries had shown this did not exist. On August 12, continued Sergeant Grainger, some person had dug a drain 16 feet long, three feet wide and one foot deep somt' two feet inside the fence on Pedley's property and in line with Hay's cottage. The next morning Pedley had asked Hay if he had any knowledge of this drain and Hay had denied digging it. At 3.30 a.m. on August 14 Pedley had been in be»d in his house when he had been awakened by a "terrific" explosion. On investigating he had found a hole 45 feet wide and five feet deep blown where the drain had been cut. Seen by Constable B. Watson, of Shannon, later that morning, defendant had admitted that he had used five sticks of gelignite and blown the hole. He had also stated that he had taken the gelignite from the property of a neighbouring farmer without his knowledge or consent. He had been helping this farmer previously on a job requiring expiosives, and this was what had been left over from the job. Constable Watson gave evidence along the same lines. For defendant, Mr. Thomson submitted that his client's- action was not criminal. There might or might not be a civil action available to the neighbour against Hay but that was not a matter which would interest the court at t.his stage. The charge was that Hay was in possession of the gelignite ■for no proper and sufficient purpose. His client had a purpose and that was to blow up a stopbank his neighbour had erected, which would have prevented flood waters from flowing off his plac'e. Counsel contended that possession was thus lawful. . After " a lengthy discussion, tlie magistrate, Mr. A. A. McLaclilan, S.M., dismissed the charge against Hay. i