HOAX ON A PRIZE DAY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21296, 24 September 1932, Page 2 (Supplement)

HOAX ON A PRIZE DAY

«BOMB" UNDER PLATFORM TWO YOUNG MEN CHARGED DISMISSAL OF SUMMONSES The summonses arising out of the discovery at St. Bees School, Cumberland, of a "bomb" beneath the platform in a marquee after Lord Lloyd had addressed the scholars tin prize day were dismissed at Whitehaven on July 26. The defendants were two brothers, Maurice E. Davenport, aged 25, an old boy of the school, and Basil 11. Davenport, aged 29, of Macclesfield, Cheshire, both racing motorists and sons of a former Mayor of Macclesfield. The chairman of the Bench announced that they found no evidence against Basil Davenport and not sufficient' evidence to send Maurice* for trial.

Mr. Wragg, defending Maurice Davenport, described the proceedings as "an elaborate form of third degree." It was alleged that the brothers "did a certain act with intent to cause by an cxplosivo substance an explosion likely to cause serious injury to property contrary to the Explosive Substances Act, 1883; that they had in their possession an explosive substance with intent to cause serious injury to property; and, further, that they conspired to cause by an explosion serious injury to property." Inspector Kitchener, of Scotland Yard, giving evidence, said that defendants were together when Maurice made a statement in which he said: "1 am a director of Peter Davenports, Limited, silk manufacturers. Some time ago I bought 100 cartridge cases to shoot ducks with and clay pigeons. I buy thousands of cartridges in a year. I loaded the cases and used them for shooting, practising at all sorts of things, such as ducks, rabbits and clay pigeons. I have no cartridges left now. I filled the cases with gunpowder, but I cannot say now which kind of powder I used." Criticism ol Experts Witness said that defendant handed him specimens of the powder with which he filled the cartridge cases. While this was gping on, Basil Davenport said, "Half a minute, mister. It this is all going down to be made use of, we say no more." Witness told him'his brother must decide for himself and Maurice observed, "I will say nothing more until I have seen my lawyer."

The inspector added that during a search of the Davenports' works he found wooden handles similar to the bradawl handles used in the apparatus. Mr. Wragg, addressing the Bench, contended that the story told by the tvvo St. Bee's School boys was rather poculiar. It was exceedingly curious, he said, why fbey went to search beneath the platform bng after- the meeting was over. "Experts are brought to give evidence in the Police Court in all kinds of cases," added Mr. Wragg, "and they range from Sir Bernard Spilsbury to the village joiner. It seems to mo that it is a common feature of nil these experts, from the highest to the lowest, that they plead the cause of the side which calls them. Take Mr. Gibbs, the explosives expert. In no circumstances would lie give way on the silly quibble as to whether the apparatus could bo called a firework." "A Poor Harmlers Toy" The prosecution tried to make them believe that this was a most dreadful "bomb" which, had it gone off, would have sent Lord Lloyd, and those on the platform sky high. When it came to be investigated it was found to be "nothing but a poor harmless toy containing a small quantity of stuff used to frighten horses at the Battle of Crecy." The Act under which defendants were accused, said counsel, was one of the most ferocious and terrible on the Statute Book. It provided for a penalty of not less than three years and not more than 20 years' penal servitude. "I ask your worships to remember the fable of the man who took a sledge-ham-mer to kill a fly," said Mr. Wragg. The law did not provide punishment for ploying tricks on people. The hoax was a part of human psychology. What was manifestly a hoax could not be malicious. If defendants were called upon to answer to the charges in another place they could give an explanation.