CASES UNDER ARMS ACT.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 19 March 1927, Page 5

CASES UNDER ARMS ACT.

CONSTABLE UNABLE TO TIRE AUTOMATIC. MAGISTRATE ORDERS FORFEITURE NELSON, Last Night. The unusual spectacle of a police constable endeavouring to fire an automatic pistol with certain ammunition formed an interesting feature in connection with the sitting of the Magistrate's Court at Collingsvood. The weapon failed to discharge the ammunition in question but the spectators, judging by their attitude fearer more than discharge in ordinary way.

The incident occurred in a case where Charles Glass, of Bainham, farmer, was charged on: (1) being in possession of two automatic pistols; (2) being in possession of a quantity of ammunition expressly intended and adapted for use in an automatic pistol; (3) being found in possession of an unregistered double-barrelled breech-loading shot gun; and (4) being in possession of an unregistered firearm, to wit a Remington repeat-ing-rifle, contrary to tho Arms Act 1920.

Counsel for defendant pleaded guilty on behalf of defendant to all charges save that of having ammunition especially intended for use in an automatic pistol.

He explained to the Court that defendant was a Main Body man who had gone through the war to the last day and who had acquired the automatic revolvers in France as souvenirs and had used all the ammunition he had brought from France for use in automatic revolvers in giving exhibitions to his friends. Constable Joss deposed this was not so. He had ammunition that was found fitted automatic revolvers and could be used for them. Counsel strenuously denied this and applied to the Court for an order that the constable be ordered to fire the automatic pistol. This was granted and the Court and spectators adjourned for the purpose, when after several tries the constable signally failed to fire either automatic pistol. On resuming counsel contended that as the tests had failed there was no, proof this ammunition was intended for use in an automatic revolver.

The Magistrate, Mr E. Maunsclf, upheld the contention and made an order for the forfeiture of the revolvers and imposed a fine of £2 on the charges of having them in possession, stating that had the ammunition fitted the revolvers he would have imposed ! a very severe penalty indeed.

On the other two charges he convicted defendant and fined him £l, but refused to make an order foi forfeiture.

John R. Haldane, of Bainham, was also charged with being in possession of an unregistered automatic revolver. Counsel explained defendant had acquired three German automatic revolvers in France and on his return was at once registered as owner of two giving one to his brother wno neglected to register it. Defendant had taken the responsibility, keeping the revolver in his house.

On this charge defendant was convicted and fined £2 and costs.