MIDNIGHT DISTURBANCE.

Shannon News, 31 January 1922, Page 3

MIDNIGHT DISTURBANCE.

SHANNON RESIDENT BEFORE COURT. At the Palmerston North Magistrate's Court yesterday, Hector Neil Gemmell, of Shannon, was arraigned on several charges, as follows: (i) Using indecent language; (2) carrying firearms: —a rifle —for an unlawful purpose; (3) falling to notify change of abode for registration of a rifle; (4) assaulting Constable McGregor by threatening to shoot him. Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty to all charges. Constable McGregor said that at 11.30 p.m. on the 10th inst., Mrs Gemmell called at the Police Station to complain of family trouble. While they were talking accused came along, called out “Here he is,” and came close up to the fence. He was very excited, so witness told him to be quiet and get off home. He said lie would do as he liked and on being again requested to leave said: “You come out here and I’ll fix you up.” Witness went inside and got dresseu but on returning accused had gone. Witness advised Mrs Gemmell to go home, and just as she was leaving gemmell again appeared and walked along the opposite side of the police station. Witness went out on to the street. Gemmell came to within five yards of him, and witness then noticed he was carrying a pea rifle. As soon as Gemmell saw witness he turned and fled. Witness went and summoned Constable Shannon, and ljoth proceeded to the vicinity of Gemmell’s house. Gemmell and his wife were in the yard, standing several yards apart. His wife told him t& put away the gun. He replied that the gun was not for his wife but for MeGregor. He said he could not.shoot, witness down when there were others about, but if he (McGregor) put a foot inside the fence he would . (Witness wrote down the language used). For fifteen minutes accused had kept up a flow of indecent adjectives. Later on, in response to his wife’s entreaties, he apparently unloaded the rifle and adjourned to the house. To Mr Cooper: Witness could not say whether accused was drunk or not. He was either drunk or mad. Accused made no actual attempt to Tiarm him. Constable Shannon gave corroborative evidence. For the defence, Mr Cooper said that accused was more or less drunk on that particular night. Apart from the indecent language the statements were nothing more than those of a drunken man. On each occasion it was possible for him to assault the constable he made no attempt to, in fact, lie had run away. Furthermore, the statements were made to his wife, and not direct to the constable. As to the gun, accused had gone to the garage to get it that night, because he desired to go out shooting the next morning. The gun belonged to him. There were no cartridges in it. Mr Cooper asked his Worship to meet the case with a fine. The language was used at a late hour in the night, and no one but the constable heard it, and counsel did not suppose it caused any great shock to their morals. The Magistrate said that accused had undoubtedly threatened the com stable, but not directly,,and -apparently he was not in any ; great danger. At the most it could be no more than a technical assault, also the one of carrying firearms for an unlawful purpose. On the charge of using indecent language accused would be fined £5 and 7/ costs, and on the charge of failing to notify change of abode m connection with the Anns Act, he would be fined £l, and 7/ costs.