LOWER COURT TRANSCRIPT.
WAS IT ACCURATE? (By T'leg.raphi-S.iieeial Auciifanrt, February 5& The atctsraey of the evidcacfi plnced on tho depositions in the l;ower. Court in aft alleged cattfe-steftlmg case-was emphatioally disputed by a Maori .witness at the AuckkiKl Suprem& Court ■on S-aturctay. Questioiwd by .the CroWn frosecutor. the witness, a. woman,' declared that the wp-rcts read eut were not tiiosß that sliq had tisod in the preliminary hearing. . ' "Of course, they firo iwt, remarked Mr. Justico Cooper, who added that the Maori used by the witness might not have carried the same weaning, as the English translation.'.. "In all such casosi" said His Honour, "the evidence sho'jltl be,-talsen down in Maori fts welt as in English; it would avoid trouble.'' '.-,■• "But it is. irot tho pt&ctice, interposed' the Crown Prosecutor. '•Well, it ought to to thft practice," eoieiiaticaHy declared His 80-nour. tho witness added, further, that tin? depesitious were not read, over to her cither in Maori or .English before sfo was asked to attach her signature', and, fl.ioti.gli closely pressed, sho adhered to that statement'
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19140223.2.73
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1991, 23 February 1914, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
176LOWER COURT TRANSCRIPT. Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1991, 23 February 1914, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in