THE BOYS AT BURKES

Evening Star, Issue 15479, 29 April 1914, Page 8

THE BOYS AT BURKES

MISCHIEF LEADS TO SHOOTING.

ONE YOUTH WOUNDED

Frederick Heather, a resident of Burkes, was charged before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., at tho Police Court this morning with discharging a firearm —a pea rifle—without reasonable excuse and so near to a public place as to endanger passers-by. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. George Thomson, of St. Leonards, said that on the evening of Saturday, April 4, he, in company with a number of others, travelled by train from Dunedin to St. Leonards. Alighting at St. Leonards, he walked towards Burkes, expecting to meet a youth named Maloney. ,He reached a corner of the road, and was waiting for his mates, when he was shot in the shoulder by a bullet. He did not wait for another shot, but went home.— To Mr Hanlon : He would deny that he belonged to a gang in that district who were the terror of the neighborhood. He was never nearer - Heather’s place than half a mile that night. He admitted that if Heather only had a pea rifle and was half a mile away he (Heather) could not have shot him.

Evidence was given by Alan hlarr and. Acting-detective Hall, and the defendant, who said that he had fixed some cartridges loaded with salt, but one might have contained lead inadvertently. Mr Hanlon submitted that the case should be dismissed. The defendant contended that he was molested by a pack of hoodlums who had thrown stones at his house late of a Saturday night. He had had to put up with this annoyance for a considerable time, and he resolved to give them a fright. So he extracted the bullets from several cartridges for a pea rifle, and loaded them with a paper wad and salt in order to scare his tormentors. When these hoodlums visited his place and commenced their annoying mischief he went out and fired the rifle two or three times, with a view to letting them think that they would probably get shot if they did not get out of the way. If that were true, and if he loaded the rifle with something other than ball, then he could not endanger anybody at all. There was no wilful intention in discharging the rifle. If it were true that he shot Thomson, then it was clear that on© cartridge must have contained a ball, and that it had been inadvertently put into the rifle. But if Thomson’s story as to being shot from a distance of half a mile were true, then it was clear that Thomson was not shot by Heather. It was physically impossible for Heather to have shot Thomson if Thomson were standing half a mile away. The rifle fired by Heather • could not possibly have any penetrating power at 800 yds. It was absurd to say that it could have penetrating power at that distance. Counsel proceeded to say that if a pack of larrikins came about a man’s home and pestered him the man had reasonable cause to discharge a firearm if he thought he could scare them away. That was reasonable, and for that reason he would not be liable to any punishment. The case was dismissed.

Several charges against youths for throwing • stones were held over. ,