REVOLVER FIRED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22839, 21 September 1937, Page 8

REVOLVER FIRED

WAE-TIME SOUVENIR

INCIDENT AT PARTY BULLET STRIKES HOUSE MAGISTRATE FINES HOST £1 [nv TKIiKCiK.VPH —OWN COItRKSI'ONDKNT] NEW PLYMOUTH, Monday Revolver shots heard at Frankleigh Park, New Plymouth, about midnight recently caused concern in the neighbourhood. It was stated by the police that a bullet struck the side of a house and splintered a board. The result was the appearance in Court to-day of Alexander Ritchie Strang, who was charged with discharging a firearm without reasonable cause so near to a public place as to endanger passers by. Jhe charge was admitted and it was explained that the incident arose from a party of wartime comrades, who were handling weapons used in the Great War. Took Responsibility Senior-Sergeant I urner said thai Strang came to the police station and said he intended taking full responsibility for the occurrence. He stated that he had some blank ammunition for the revolver and it was possible that a live cartridge might have been among the blanks. It was not suggested that defendant had intended to frighten or injure anyone. He was a man of good character and highly respected.

Counsel for defendant, Mr. Bennett, said that Strang had a gathering of some of his war companions. A short time prior to the occurrence defendant and his friends had been examining a. number of war souvenirs which were hanging on tlie walls of a room in his house. The revolver was among the relics. It had been used by Strang at the war and was naturally a piece of some interest to his friends. It was usually kept charged with blank ammunition, and he believed it was so loaded on this occasion. He attributed the whole thing to excitement created by the exchange of war reminiscences. Defendant did not admit that he fired the revolver, but.it was his party and it took place at his house, and he had seen fit to take full responsibility for what happened. Magistrate's Comment The magistrate said it was not difficult to imagine what had happened and that defendant was to blame for what one of his guests had done. It was of course improper for him to allow a guest to do that, but the secluded situation of the place made it perhaps less serious than otherwise. In view ol this and the good character of defendant, he considered he was justified in recording a fine of £l.