MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 19 October 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

SAWN OFF RIFLE. GREYMOUTH, October 19. Appearing on remand at the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday, before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M. Joseph Ellison, was charged that at Wall send on October 12, he was in possession of a dangerous weapon, to wit, a .22 sawn-off rifle. Accused, who was represented by Mr T. F. Brosnan, pleaded not guilty, and elected to be dealt with iiyDetective Sergeant T. E, Holmes, /said the information was laid under /infection 5, -of the- which /provided thut&persons, .-carry no gun of the kindj/m eveife|; pistol, ex-, •cept for somdfls|p\d purpose. The onus was on SS&/fliccused to prove lie had the weapon in his posession for a lawful purpose. The circumstances was somewhat amusing. About the beginning of the month, information reached the police that a serious oxfence might be carried out. The name of the accused was also given. It was ascertained that accused was in possesion of a sawn-off gun. Constable Rodgers went to his hut at Wallsend. He eventually broached the matter to accused, who first denied all knowledge, but finally consented ■ to let the Constable see the guil, A used .22 shell was found in the chamber of the gun when it was recovered. Questioned where he got the gun from, he Raid he had got it from a man, a month ago, but he did not know where that man was now, Probably, accused said, he in Australia. He also stated he had got the gun to shoot opossums. The gun was a dangerous weapon, filed at the breach. It was likely to become a dangerous weapon both to the person fired at and the person Using it. Corroborative evidence was given and Mr Brosnan then called'accused to give evidence. He said he had been six years in New Zealand and was a carpenter by occupation. Meagon was the name of the man from whom he got the gun. He had fired once >at an opossum. He had fired at a tin on other occasions at a range of; about eight yards. He did not know he had to get a permit. He had had no convictions recorded against him. The only purpose for which he had the gun Was for shootingj opossums.

To the Detective-Sergeant. He did not have the gun registered. He had not just usd Meagon’s name because he had gone to Australia. A man named Btargess shared the hut with him but did not' . know witness had the gun. ‘Mr Brosnan said there were sinister suggestions which were very -unfair, but the story of the gun had not been contradicted, There was tt shadow of suspicion that) because the rifle was cut down, it' was therefore o .'matte r of necessity that there should be A hold up,

The Magistrate said! Jibe weapon was found in the hut of accused, The question wag whether it was a dangerous weapon. The- evidence was that the weapon would kill a man at 30 yards and anyone with any experience of firearms would come to the conclusion that it was a dangerous weapon. The question was whether the onus of proof that it was held for a lawful purpose had been discharged by accused. Accused had suggested it might be useful td kill oposums. The question was Whether he was to believe that story. Nobody else saw Meagan with the gun, and accused said he was not friendly with Meagon. Meagon seemed rqtelir a ficitious person, but even so if lie did get if from him he did not have a license to hold the

<r'iin or to shoot opossums. Ho had to lioid that the. weapon was not held by accused for a lawful purpose and lie would he convicted and fined 112. He also ordered that the weapon he confiscated. Default would he seven days’ imprisonment, 14 days being allowed in which to make payment.