Another man accused of weapons offences in relation to violence at Wellington Oval in April of this year walked free on Friday, after a judge ruled there was no case for him to answer.

Two of four original defendants in the case have now had charges against them dismissed, Kijah Russell Butterfield and Jamie Ford.

But Magistrate Will Francis rejected similar submissions from two remaining defendants.

Butterfield, 21, of Paget had his case dismissed on Friday.

He had been represented by Elizabeth Christopher who made a no case submission on his behalf on Tuesday. Pivotal to her submissions was the failure of the Crown to provide evidence that her client committed the weapons offences he was charged with.

The dismissal follows a similar ruling last week on the case against Ford, 23, of Warwick.

Mr. Francis ruled there wasn't enough evidence to convict Ford on his weapons charges or the assault on Antoine Anderson.

Butterfield had faced charges of possessing an offensive weapon and going to a public place in a manner to cause terror stemming from the violence at April's Friendship Trophy Football final in St. George's.

But Mr. Francis said his ruling came down to the testimony of the Crown's two witnesses, one of whom he found unreliable.

"The first, mystery witness, who we can't name, said he saw Butterfield with a knife coming out of the melee on the field," Mr. Francis said. "But he didn't say he saw Butterfield doing anything with it."

Mr. Francis also agreed with Ms Christopher's submission that the Crown's evidence hadn't sufficiently shown that Butterfield had carried any weapon in a public place nor proven that he had intended to cause terror.

There was no evidence that Butterfield "had gone from point A to point B brandishing anything," she said. Also, the witness could not say exactly what was in Butterfield's hand nor what he was doing with it which "could be considered terror inducing", she said.

"If it had been a nail file, would would there be a case against my client?" she asked on Friday.

Further Mr. Francis agreed that Crown counsel Shade Subair had not provided enough evidence that Butterfield had an offensive weapon that day, despite testimony from a witness who saw him with a machete after the violence.

"I could accept the second witness' evidence about Butterfield, but she told us that she only saw Butterfield with a machete when he was putting it in his trousers ? but this was at an ambulance after the violence had stopped on the field."

The witness said Butterfield walked from the ambulance to his car with the machete in his trouser leg.

Ms Christopher said, in light of the Crown's evidence, the machete could not be considered an offensive weapon .

Since it is a tool not specifically intended for violence, in law the machete could only be an offensive weapon if its intended to be used for injuring someone, she argued.

"The burden of proof fell on the Crown to prove that Mr. Butterfield intended to cause injury when he was seen sheathing the machete in his trousers," Ms Christopher said. "But the Crown failed to do that."

"In reviewing these two sets of evidence, I cannot find that there is a case for the defence to answer," Mr. Francis said .

But Mr. Francis rejected the no case submissions of lawyer Leo Mills for Wolde Trott, 21, of Paget, and Kavon Earlstone Smith, 25, of Southampton.

Trott and Smith face charges of possession of an offensive weapon and going armed to a public place in a manner to cause terror at Wellington Oval.

"On the face of it, there is enough evidence to convict both Mr. Trott and Mr. Smith," Mr. Francis said on Friday.

"I fully agree with the Crown that it's now up to the defence to prove that both them had a reasonable excuse to be carrying weapons."

The trial will resume on Thursday at 9.30 a.m. Both men were remanded to custody.