POLICE COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 338, 12 February 1902, Page 3

POLICE COURT.

! A NATIVE Oil ARC! ED WITH PER-

J URY

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Captain Clirisp and J\lr G. Matlhewson, Justices, lopa te Hau was charged with perjury in connection with the recent case against Te Whetu Rulene, (f stealing £l3 13s from a cheque cashed. Mr L. Rees appeared for the defence, and the prosecution was conducted by Sergeant Siddells.

W. A. Barton, S.M., gave evidence that on January 7th last an information was sworn by the accused against Te Whetu Rutene, for alleged theft, informant and accused being natives and the evidence being interpreted by C. W. Ferris, a licensed interpreter. After being sworn, the accused, among other evidence, staled : “ t know of only one cheque for £4O. I did not sign one before this (meaning thereby the one that was the subject of the information then being heard). I do not remember a cheque signed by me I with the words l or bearer ’ struck out. I did not hand them (meaning the accused or his wife) a cheque with the words l or bearer ’ struck out. I do not know anything about such a cheque. I did not draw out this cheque (then produced) and give' it in place of the one with ‘or bearer 1 struck out. I do not remember Mr Lewis seeing me about such a cheque, and saying that unless I endorsed it it could not be cashed. The cheque was not made out on the 3th. I did

not draw a fresh cheque on the 6th.’

In reply to the Bench, witness stated that the question whether a second cheque had been drawn on the Cth hy accused was in his opinion most material to the case. In explanation witness stated accused had given Te Whetu a cheque to take care of, and that Te Whetu' had cashed it and appropriated £lO 13s. The defence was that Te Whetu had held the £IG 13s as payment of a gambling debt. lopa had sworn that he had not given a previous cheque with the words “or bearer ” struck out.

Charles William Ferris, licensed interpreter, recognised the copy of evidence produced as that given by accused. Accused had thoroughly understood the questions asked him Witness then proceeded to read the statement made by lopa. In reply to counsel, witness stated that he could give the substance if accused’s evidence without the depositions, but could not give the evidence verbatim from memory. The deposi tions were not written out by witness. v Mr Roes contended that if the case went before a higher Court the depositions would not be available as evidence, not having boen written out by accused. To Whetu Butene deposed that he had been accused of the theft of £l6 13s in a case heard on January 14th. On January sth ho and his wife had gone to the accused’s place. Ho won £lO 13s from accused at cards, but did not at that time get the money. When in the billiardroom at Karaka on the 6th, his wife handed him a cheque signed by lopa for £4O. The one produced in Court was not the one handed to him, as the latter had the words “or bearer” struck out. He had only tried to cash it with Miss HowChow. Witness informed lopa that the cheque was no good, but accused said it was all right, and that he and witness would go to town and get the cheque cashed. Afterwards accused signed a fresh 'chequo, and witness returned the first cheque to lopa. In the evening he saw lopa outside of Mr Lewis’ store. Mr Lewis said ha would cash the cheque, as it was all right. lopa told him to go into town and cash it. While in the billiard room witness and his wife showed the first chequo to John Morris, who said it could not be cashed.

By Mr Roes : He had won £lO 13s off accused on January 4th at cards. Witness l?ft Karaka at sunrise to cash the cheque, but he did not say or lead people to understand that ho was going to Poututu that day to see about his grass-seed. There had. been no talk about grassseeding atfifc-'.tutu. Witness was at present sowing'SfW. Witness would not say that he waqmot in before nine o’clock in the morning With the cheque from Karaka. Witness saw the accused in town that morning, and lopa asked him for £23 7s of the n o :ey. Te Whetu’s wife gave similar ovidenco. She had been givon the cheques because, together with her husband, lopa owed them £lol3s. In reply to Mr Rees, witness stated that in tho first chequo something was crossed out by a line, but, being unablo to read, sbo could not point out the words in the chequo. When Te Wheu left Karaka to get the cheque cashed, lopa remarked that witness’s husband was going away very early, to which she replied that he was going to Poututu. When she made this statement she knew that To Whetu was going to town, and lopa also knew. After hearing further ovidenco the Bench considered that a prima facie case had been made out, and tho accused was committed to tako his trial at the next criminal sittings.