Men’s Behaviour ‘Grossly Irresponsible’

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32209, 30 January 1970, Page 3

Men’s Behaviour ‘Grossly Irresponsible’

Two young men who shot at a street lamp at Culverden, toll wires and insulators at Marble Point and a road sign at- Lewis Pass, were each fined and placed on probation for 12 months when they appeared for sentence before Mr P. L. Molineaux, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on charges relating to the incidents. John Delwyn Culverhouse, aged 19, a camera mechanic, was fined a total of §lB5 on seven charges, and Stanley Laurence Davis, aged 24, a glass fitter, was fined a total of $lBO on seven charges. Each was ordered to pay $35 in court costs and to make restitution of $29 for damage. Culverhouse had previously pleaded guilty at a hearing at Culverden to three charges of wilful damage, three charges of wilfully discharging a firearm in a public place, and one charge of aiding in the commission of an offence.

Davis had pleaded guilty to two charges of wilful damage, two charges of driving a car with a loaded rifle in it, one charge of discharging a firearm in a public place, and one charge of aiding the commission of an offence.

The Magistrate said Culverhouse had fired one shot from a .303 calibre rifle at a street light in Culverden on October 20. The light, valued at $11.50, was destroyed by the shot At Marble Point both defendants fired a number of shots at-toll wires and insulators, causing damage worth $18.25. At Lewis Pass both

shot at an Automobile Association sign, causing $28.85 worth of damage. Three loaded rifles had been found in Davis’s car at Hanmer Springs the next day. Both men had behaved in a grossly irresponsible manner while under the influence of liquor, said the Magistrate. Nobody could have anything but the greatest contempt for this sort of behaviour. If the defendants had wanted to test their rifles they could have gone into a much more remote area and set up a target, he added. It could not be denied that the episode was one of stupid and bad vandalism, said the defendants’ counsel, Mr D. H. Stringer. The defendants now realised this.

The shooting community was very concerned about this sort of behaviour, said Mr Stringer. He himself was a member of a club formed by the shooting fraternity in Christchurch, who were concerned that there were no facilities for testing and sighting-in rifles in Christchurch. A range was now being established where youths who had rifles would be able to test them. Had this been available it was quite possible the offences would not have occurred. The couple had set off from Christchurch to go deer hunting but after drinking liquor the defendants had decided to test their rifles. Both had disposed of the rifles and were most regretful at what they had done, said Mr Stringer.