NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20108, 11 December 1930, Page 6

NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

MAORI'S CONVICTION FOR ARSON. (rHESS ASSOCIATION TBLEOJtAM.) WELLINGTON, December 10. In the Appeal Court judgment was given in the case of Bex v. Hoana Hita Hakiwai, of Hastings. The judgment ofN3ir Michael Myers (the Chief Justice), Mr Justice Blair, and Mr Justico Kennedy stated: "On the ca3e as presented before the Appeal Court we are clearly of tho opinion that the evidence should have been admitted, so that accused might give and call evidence showing the ground on which he did the act complained of, with a view to setting up, if he could, that he acted with legal justification, or excuse, or with colour of right. We gather that the case was presented to this Court not in the same form as it was presented to the trial Judge, and was certainly much more elaborately argued here. Had the matter been presented to the trial Judge in the same way as it was presented to this Court we think he would have admitted the evidence, or, if he refused, would have stated a case for the opinion of this Court.'' Judgments to the same effect were also written by Mr Justice Herdman and Mr Justice Smith. An order accordingly was made for a new trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court at Napier. A convietion was recorded against Hakiwai in the Supreme Court at Napier, when ho was charged with setting fire to two stacks of straw, the property of W. J. Potter, thereby committing arson or, alternatively, mischief. Mr L. A. Rogers, who appeared for accused in the Appeal Court, said that the main grounds on which the motion was based were that the Judge presiding at the hearing had misdirected the jury and refused to reserve for the opinion of the Court of Appeal certain questions of law arising at the trial. Hakiwai was sentenced to three years' probation, and sentenced to pay £25 restitution. Counsel said that although the native admitted the actual setting on fire, he did so believing he was entitled so to do. Hakiwai had previously let the land on which the stacks stood to Potter, but, having determined the tenancy and being entitled to be in possession, he believed th 3 stacks themselves were his property. Mr Justice Eeed had refused to allow that defence to be raised at the trial. Mr Taylor, for the Crown, submitted that such a belief on the part of the native was not a defence, and that the conviction should stand.