RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 708, 2 June 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day.

BREACH OF ARMS ACT.

John Brodie, on remand, was charged that he did on 21st May, fraudulently obtain a license, contrary to the 35th section of the "Arms Act, 1860." Mr. Rogan and Mr. Bromfield for defendant. Mr. Brassey conducting the prosecution. 4 Tuta Mhonhio, deposed : I remember going to Pamell's to buy a gun. When I went to buy a gun I had a license. Mr. R. Cooper gave me that license. I bought cartridges as well. I could not use them for the gun I bought. By Mr. Bromfield : I have not had any conversation -with. Brodie regarding the license. Brodie was not presenb when I received the license. I cannot read English. By the Bench : The reason I know the license is because a piece was torn off the corner by Maraki, who tried' to snatch it from me. Maraki wanted the license because he wanted to get the gun, and that I could get another from Cooper. I thought it was a good license. I got the cartridge cases only ; there was no powder or ball m them. ' Edward Burch, gunsmith, deposed : lam m the habit of purchasing guns. I have bought two double barrelled guns since the 13th of May, from Parnell and Boylan. Mr. Rogan objected to this evidence. Witness continued : When I purchased those guns, I had one license from the Customs, which was issued to me by Mr. Johnson's assistant. When I obtained the guns, I handed over the license to Parnell and Boylan. I got one other license during the month, and got a gun on that license. I have these three guns m my possession now. Constable John Coyle, A. C, deposed : On the 22nd, from information received I arrested John Brodie on warrant. I took him to the lock-up, and cautioned him m the usual manner. After this he

made the following statement : — "I can see I have done wrong, but it is like me — always too ready to do a good turn without thinking. I was standing m the public-house, when Bob said to me, ' You have not had a license for the last three months.' I said 'No, I have'nt,' when he gave me a shilling, and I went down and got a licence. After I received the license 1 went back to the public-house and gave it to Cooper. I can see that I was wrong m telling Mr. Johnston that it was for myself. " Mr. Rogan, addressing the Court, said that the prosecution entirely failed to make out an offence under the 35th section. There was no contrivance or attempt at fraud. Alljthe evidence given was defendant's statement, from which it was clear that he had no fraudulent intent or design. There was no idea on defendant's part as to what Cooper was going to do with the license. Fraud was the essence of the charge, and the prosecution had not succeeded m proving anything like fraud. He had obtained a license, and no doubt delivered it to Cooper, but there was no penalty m the Act for handiug a person a license. A case had not been made out againat the accused, and unless such was made out, and there was a strong probability of actual guilt, there should not be any committal. All there was m the evidence was accused's statement to the constable, on which no jury would convict, as it was not possible for the folly or heedlessness admitted by accused, to mean intent or design. He considered that there was no prima facie case made out. His Worship said that any person who shall sell any warlike stores, or obtain a license, except m the form of the schedules provided by the Act, was guilty of a misdemeanour. The prosecution had made out that the accused obtained a license, knowing that it was not for himself. Whether the offenoe amounted to a fraud it was not for that, but a higher Court to say. He thought that there was a case made out quite sufficient to justify him m sending it before a jury. The charge was then read, to which defendant had nothing *to say. The Court then committed the accused to take his trial at the session of the District Court, on the 19th instant. Michael Boylan was charged under the 28th sectiou of the Arms Act, with having feloniously selling arms and warlike stores without a license m the form of Schedule A provided by the Act. •• Not guilty " was pleaded by defendant, who was unrepresented by counsel. Mr. W. Brassey conducted the prosecution. Tuta Nihoniho, deposed : I know defendant, from whom I purchased a gun at the store of Parnell & Boylan, on the 21st May. I paid £12 for it. I had a license produced from Robert Cooper. I did not go to the Customs for my license. I asked Mr. Boylan where I could get a license. He told me to go to the Custom-house. When we got out of the door of the shop, defendant called us back, and told us that Cooper would issue the license. It '.was on the license received from Cooper that I bought the gun. By the Bench : The morning after receiving the license from Cooper, I took the license to Farnell & Boylan, where I saw the accused. Parnell was not there. I gave the license now produced to Boylan. . I gave it to him open. He looked at it and said " all right" and then went to look for the gun. I selected one for £12 and paid the money to Mr. Boylan. I got 100 cartridge cases instead of the powder shot and caps named m the license. D. Johnson, Collector of Customs, deposed to issuing the license m the name of J. Brodie. Mereana Tuta deposed to being present m the shop of Parnell & Boylan when Tuta made enquiries for the purchase of a gun and about purchasing a license. After further evidence m which nothing fresh was elicited than what is now so generally known, this defendant was also committed to take his trial at the session of the Supreme Court, Napier, for June 11.

Assault.

A. C. Arthur v. Hamiora. After occupying the Court for the greater part of the afternoon sitting, was struck out on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Court had been ousted on the question of title cropping up. From the evidence the Bench thought that the defendant went on the ground at Ngawairua m ordor to assert his right ;to the title. But though this case was struck out, it did not follow that, he could not at that Court deal summarily with offences of this nature, and for the future he should send up all such cases whether arising with European or Maori for trial to the higher Court, and further he would have the assailants bound o\er m heavy sureties to keep the peace. The cross action of Hainiora v. Arthur was withdrawn.