MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WAIPAWA.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3250, 1 December 1881, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WAIPAWA.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER SO

(Before Henry Wilding, Esq, J. P.) Samuel Sim was charged by David Smith, of Makatoku, that he had obtained credit for board and lodging on the representation that he had £2000 in one of the banks st Napier, and had tendered a valueless cheque in payment of the charges. The bench ruled that there was no case made out against the defendant, and it was dismissed accordingly.

Alexander Birnie and Karl Smith were brought before the Court on the information of Nepia te Apitu, a native chief and others (not described), with having unlawfully cut and fallen certain timber at Te Atu in the Seventy-mile Bush, and also with having feloniously stolen the same. Mr Guy appeared on behalf of the informants, and M> Lascelle9 for the defendants. Mr Lascelles objected to the information on the grounds, firstly, that the names of the grantees did not appear ; that one joint owner could not make the charge, as some or one of the other grantees might have been consenting parties to the act of the defendants secondly, that a double offence was charged in the information, cutting timber being under the Larceny Act, and stealing timber under another Act, whereas it was dearly laid down in Johnston's Justice of the Peace that an information could be for one offence only. After a lengthy argument the bench decided to proceed with the case. Nepia te Apitu, on oath stated he was a native chief, and one of the grantees of Te Atu block. Mr Lascelles objected to this evidence, and required the production of the Crown grant to prove the title of the alleged grantees. The point was further argued before the bench by counsel on both sides. The Court took notes of Mr Lascelles' objections as follows :— u How many grantees there were, as it is shown by the document or Crown grant," and " verbal evidence cannot be given of the contents of any document unless that document is produced cr accounted for." The bench considered the non-production of the Crown grant fatal to the hearing of the charge, and dismissed the case. Before the Court rose Mr Guy stated that the case being indictable was a police prosecution to which allegation Mr Lascelles demurred. A number of witnesses, European and native, were in attendance. Mr Guy intimated that another information would be laid for further hearing.