SEIZURE OF ARMOURY

Taranaki Daily News, 18 October 1934, Page 6

SEIZURE OF ARMOURY

ACTION AGAINST POLICE SURPRISING END TO COURT CASE. COMPLAINANT WITHDRAWS SUIT. A surprising finish came to a case in the Stratford Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., when N. B. Fryday withdrew his suit against Thomas Kelly, police sergeant at Stratford, for restitution of seven rifles, four revolvers, five shotguns and 2024 rounds of ammunition seized by the •1 police from his house at Ngaere. FryB day made his decision before hearing the t police evidence and after cross-examin-t ation by Sergeant Kelly. Mr. L. A. Tay- • lor, Hawera, appeared for Fryday. The • public gallery was well filled as the case had been followed with interest. 2 Fryday also figured as a defendant at 1 the last sitting of the court He was - charged with delivering a firearm unlaw- ■ fully to John Reginald Armstrong, Wai--5 tara, on or about December 23, 1933. He 1 pleaded guilty. Both cases were adjoum3 ed until yesterday, the first to be pro--3 ceeded with, and the decision in the other ’ to be deferred until the first was heard. Sergeant T. Kelly said he wished ) Fryday’s witnesses to remain in court 3 during the cross-examination of Fryday ■ so that there would be no misunderstandings, thus avoiding the necessity of • lengthy cross-examination. This was • agreed to. • No definition of a firearm was given • in the Act, said Mr. Taylor, but he sub--1 mitted that the bayonets formed no part 1 of the firearms, and that they could not be seized under the Act. Automatic ’ pistols, he contended, were in a separate 1 class. There was an exemption, too, for - shotguns and ammunition used for or- > dinary sporting purposes in New Zealand. 1 “Only in regard to registration,” said ! the sergeant. “It is not the same thing as registra- ■ tion,” said Mr. Taylor. SUBMISSIONS FOR FRYDAY. Mr. Taylor made submissions in regard to the registration and control of firearms and held that the only measure of control the Government had provided for was the provision for the necessity of applying for a permit and registering a firearm. Fryday, he said, was an old militia man and had resided hi the district for over 40 years. Some of the rifles belonged to old comrades and relatives, some now dead. When there was trouble with the watersiders in 1904 Fryday was granted ammunition by the Government. He was intensely interested in politics. The firearms had been under vaseline for years and the only shot fired from any of them was from a shotgun from which a shot was discharged some years ago over the heads of some boys who were marauding on Fryday’s lake. The firearms had frequently made interesting exhibits at small functions in and around Stratford so that there was ' no effort to cloak their possession. The aim of the Act, Mr. Taylor contended, ' was levelled against notorious characters who possessed firearms covertly. The onus of proving that he was a fit person to hold arms was not upon Fryday, said Mr. Taylor. He could, if necessary, put , forward ample testimony to his good character, but he considered that such , evidence was not the type of evidence required. Mr. Taylor protested against the refusal of Sergeant Kelly to give him the names of the police witnesses. It did < not give him power to •do justice to the case, he said. > “MOST INIQUITOUS.” * “In all my career as a police officer I have never heard of such a thing,” declared Sergeant Kelly. “How can the ends of justice be served if the names of these witnesses are given? You want to undermine the procedure of ordinary justice. It is most iniquitous to allow this sort of thing to creep in.” , The magistrate ruled, however, that ‘ although there was something in what Mr. Taylor said, the onus was on Fryday ■ first to give evidence showing that there ; was good reason for the restitution of the firearms. The onus could readily . be discharged by showing that Fryday had had the firearms for a long time, that ; they were properly registered, and that ( he had not used them for any improper . purpose. Mr_ Taylor accordingly called . Fryday. . . » ] Nicholas Benjamin Fryday, giving evi- , dence, said he had been on his own j farm for over 40 years. He had 12 years ( service with the Defence Department .

■when he first arrived in New Zealand, and then went farming. Some of the arms seized he had held since the seige of Parihaka in 1870. He did not consider himself an expert in the handling of guns. He had constructed a strongroom of brick on his premises to avoid any possibility of accident. It was about seven years ago since he had fired any of the rifles or shotguns. Several years ago some boys were annoying his ducks and he fired three shots into the air to frighten them away. He reported the matter to the police. He had not threatened anyone with any firearm in his hand. No suggestion had ever been made that the arms should be handed over to the borough. The Minister of Defence could not help him in the matter of licensing the weapons as he had no power to license the less destructive. ALLEGED THREATS. Cross-examined by Sergeant Kelly, Fryday denied he had ever fired at anybody. Sergeant Kelly put to Fryday a number of statements made by his neighbours concerning alleged threats made against various local residents, including threats to “blow their heads off,” “blow their brains out” and “let air into them,” and concerning accusations that he (Fryday) slept at night with loaded shotguns beside him, that he talked to himself in bed at night threatenmg to shoot a certain firm of lawyers and members of the police force. All of these statements Fryday denied indignantly, terming them “all a fabrication got up in a clique” and “a tissue if falsehoods from start to finish.” Sergeant Kelly: Did you lend a .303 Martini-Henry to Armstrong at Waitara last Christmas? —Yes. Sergeant Kelly: Then why did you tell me your son had it?—l did not say so. .. . Then why did 1 go out seven miles to your son to get it? —I don t know. I didn’t tell you he had it. Will you deny you made that statement in front of Constable Hughes and myself?—Yes. Then I’m a liar?—Yes. What do you want with all these firearms?—That’s my business. And that also applies to the ammunition, 2024 rounds?—We may want the lot very soon. Immediately following the luncheon adjournment Mr. Taylor advised the magistrate that he wished to withdraw the complaint. During the adjournment, he said, he had had a consultation with his client and had advised him to abandon his application for the return of the firearms, and to apply to the . minister of Defence for permission to sell them. Mr. Taylor therefore asked that the complaint be dismissed. The witnesses' expenses submitted to him by Sergeant Kelly he agreed to pay except those

allowed Mr. and Mrs. Meuli, who as sharemilkers on Fryday’s farm had suffered no loss through being called as witnesses. The magistrate accordingly dismissed the claim, making no order for the. restitution of the arms, and awarded costs totalling £8 18s Id in favour of the police. Regarding the breach of the law made by Fryday in lending a rifle to Armstrong, the magistrate said he doubted very much whether Fryday intended to commit the breach; Fryday was capable of forgetting the law on such a point, even if he were not ignorant of it. “I do not want to indicate that I find any fault, as I would do by making an order for forfeiture,” said Mr. Woodward. “The defendant is convicted and discharged.”