Prosecutions Under "The Arms Act."

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 9234, 29 December 1898, Page 3

Prosecutions Under "The Arms Act."

Kawakawa, December 24, J,' fl,, Galloway, a storekeeper, charged on 10th June, 1898, with selling powder and shot, also charged ( with acting on same date as a dealer, without then having a dealer's license. Detective Herbert prosecuted in each case, and Mr Blomfield appoarod for the defence, The evidence for the prosecution was conflicting and the , cases were dismissed, 'Albert Haines, a storekeeper—Four charges of .selling' arms between March 14th and April 30th, and four charges of acting as a dealer. Two of the informations were withdrawn before ttial, and after hearing the evidence for prosecution the Magistrate dismissed two others. The accused reserved his defence on the other four charges, and was. committed to take his trial at the Supreme Court, bail being allowed. Detective Herbert for prosecution, and Mr Blomfield for the defence, Reginald Aicken, a storekeeper.— Two charges of selling arms in April last, and two charges of acting as a dealer without a license on the same date. The accused.was defended by Mr Blomfield. He reserved his defonce, and was committed to stand his trial •at the Supreme Court, Bail wus allowed. Alfred W. Edwards, a storekeeper, was charged with selling a rifle and 100 cartridges'in 1892, also charged with acting as a dealer without a license on the same date. The evidence showed that the accu8 c d had informo 1 the police himself whon asked, hut he p'eaded that, ho had no kni\v kge at tne time of the offence of any such Act being in force. Ho is no it a licensed dealer, and pioluced hislxense. The Act allows a prosecution no matter how long past the offeuco look place. Accused therefore reserved his defence, and was committed lo stand his trial at the Supreme Court, bail being ■' alio ved. Mr Blomfield for defence. J, D, Martin, a settler in an out-of-the way place at Waoku, was charged v with selling a rifle on the 4th April, 1898, and a gun on May Ist. From the evidence for prosofcution it appeared that the accused knew nothing about the " Arms Act," and had unwittingly committed the crime. He reserved his defence, and was committed to Btand his trial at the Supreme Court in both .cases Mr Blomfield for defence. There were also two other cases against settlers, neither of whom .had heard anything about the " Arms Act," and in each instance the acousod was committed to stand his trial at the Supreme Court-