SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 390, 15 April 1902, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

ALLEGED PERJUBY. (Before His Honor Mr Justico Conolly.) lopa te Hau appeared for sentence on a charge of perjury. Mr W. L. ltees, who appeared for accused, called a number of witnesses to give evidence as to character. Constable Farmer stated that the accused resided in the district over which he had jurisdiction, and as far as ho knew prisoner

was honest and his character was good. Thomas U’Ren, a settler, residing at Kaiti, and formerly at To Arai, stated that he had known the accused for somo years, and was aware of nothing against him. Mr Swanson, clerk in the Native Land Court, said that he had known the accused for somo years, and always heard him spoken of as a man of good character. Captain Ferris stated that he had come in contact with accused in native affairs and had never heard anything against him. He looked upon him as an example to the other natives. Accused generally ved by himself. His Honor : You acted as interpreter in the Lowor Court? Witness : Yes, Your Honor. His Honor: Did accused fully understand what he was swearing ? Witness : Yes ; I think ho fully understood.

A. F. Matthews, surveyor and engineer, had known prisoner for a number of years. As far as he knew accused was a man of good character. H. 0. Jackson, an officer in the Native Land Court, said that he knew nothing against the accused’s moral character. Many of the natives looked upon accused as a very contentious man. Mr Rees was at a loss to understand how the probation officer came to furnish an unfavorable report, stating that that was the reason why he called so many witnesses. In reply to His Honor, Sergeant Siddells said that the probation officer’s report had been furnished from information obtained, and not from his own knowledge. His Honor: You say that he is looked upon as a sharper, and that he is a notorious gambler. That is the opinion formed from the enquiries made. Witness : Yes, Your Honor.

In sentencing accused His Honor said : “ Prisoner, your case is a very bad one, and I cannot see one mitigating circumstance. The evidence, which is uncontradicted, is that you were playing cards for money on a Sunday morning, that you lost the sum of £7 to a Maori woman, and also that you gave her a cheque to order for £4O, for what purpose is not clear. If you have a banking account you must have known that this was of no value at all. On the cheque being returned to you you gave a good cheque, but you endeavored to stop payment of that to prevent it being of any use. When you found out that it had been cashed you presented a totally unfounded charge of theft, and to support that chargo you sworo that you did not sign more than one cheque and did not exchange one cheque for the other. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the Auckland gaol and kept to hard (abor for a period of twelve calendar months.” A SERIOUS CHARGE.

A native lad named Rakati Thomson was charged with having carnal knowledge of a native female child. The alleged offence was stated to havo been committed at Tolago Bay on the 11th January, 1902. Mr W. L. Rees, with Mr L. Rees, appeared for the defence. The following jury was empanelled : Theodore Jackson, F. J. Jeune, Graham Johnstone, W. Barlow, A. E. Colebourne, A. Boyd, F. G. Allen, J. O. Biggar, W. H. Harding, P. Barker, D. Dawson, and H. H. DeCosta. Mr W. Barlow was chosen foreman.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. W. Nolan( briefly outlined the evidence, and several witnesses were examined.

The Court adjourned at a-quarter to six until this morning, when His Honor will address the jury. ALLEGED ASSAULT.

lii the case of the young native Matahaere, who was Tbund guilty of/ common assault, Mr R. N. Jones appeared for the accused, and asked that he might be allowed probation. Evidence as to character having been given by Messrs F. Lysnar and H. Wall, His Honor stated that he would deal leniently with the accused. He had no doubt that the evidence of Dean was not true, and that he did provoke the accused by insulting language. He took the verdict of the

jury to mean that the injuries and actual bodily harm were not caused by the accused. All that was against the accused was that lie inflicted blows in a light. Accused was fined £5, or in default one month’s imprisonment.

ADMITTED 10 PROBATION. In the case of the Native Ahipene Paku, charged with having committed rape and indecent lv assaulting a Maori girl 13 years of age, His I-lonor said that he thought the evident' might be made much shorter. There had been a great waste of time in the lir.st hearing.

Mr Nolan said he was prepared to admit that the g>ri was 15 years of age, thus doing a.vav with the necessity of’ again .ailing the Rev. H. Williams. Mr Njun further stated that he would he satisfied, if the accused pleaded guilty to the second count, to withdraw the more serious one of rape. Mr Lysnar said that he would he prepared to do 1 his if Mis Ilonot would admit the moused to probation. Mis Honor said that lie could not make a bargain with Mr Lysnar. In

the event of the charge of rape being abandoned he did not think the case was one for severe punishment. Mr Lysnar asked for a few minutes adjournment in order to confer with the accused, and upon returning to Court stated that the accused was prepared to plead guilty to the charge

of indecent assault. Counsel called evidence to show that accused had hitherto been of good moral character. His Honor admiCed the accused to probation for twelve months. Speaking of tlie case, i.e said that he was nearly satisfied that there was no rape in the matt-r and that the girl was a consenting party, therefore it was only an indecent assault by statute. AN EXTRAORDINARY CASIO. A well-dressed young man named Charles Edward Rw'ward was charged with administering a noxious thing, to wit, beer, to one William Burton. Mr R. N. .Jones appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty.' The following jury was empanelled William Barlow (loreman), Frank P. Duncan, Albert Penfold, Theodore Jackson, Fredrick James Jeune, Graham Johnstone, Albert 10. Colebourne, David Curtain, Miomas 0 Donned, Michael O’Coniior, Frank Hicks, Stephen Liddle. William Burton, a hoy about twelve years of age, wr; the first witness called. He stared that he was woiking with accused at a bakery establishment in town, and was sent to Inc British Empire Hotel for sixpenny worth of beer. ihe beer was prod . ed in a hilly Up m returning to t> o bakery the men drank of the beer, the accused Redward, William Pritchard, and Jim Hogan, being present. The men drank out of a tin pannikan.- The mug (produced) was not the one used., He was sure the men drank out of a tin pannikan. Witness had two drinks out of the hilly, and used a mug like the one produced. No one gave witness the beer. He took it himself, out of the billy, A Mrs Davey came in whilst he was drinking the beer, .‘me accused Redward was not present whilst he was drirjning the beer. No

one gave him the beer. Mr Nolan : i his is my witness, Your Honor, but I should like to ask him a lew questions with regard,, to his evidence in the lower Court, 'Hus is an absolutely contradictory state-

ment. . . His Honor : You have no right to say that in the hearing of the jury., You must take the evidence as it is, Continuing, witness said that Flic accused could have seen him drinking the beer. Hogan spoke to him whilst he was drinking the beer. Hogan said : “ What are you doing there, you cow ; clear out of that.” Chat was all that was said to him whilst lie was drinking the beer. After further questioning, Mr Nolan

remarked, 11 I shall have to treat him as a hostile witness. I should like to ask him whether he has forgotten the evidence given in the lower Court. His Honor : You can ask him if the evidence given now is correct, or the evidence given in the lower Court. Mr Nolan : Is what you are stating here to-day the absolute truth, my hoy ? .i

Witness : Yes, it is. Mr Nolan : You always tell the truth,? The witness made no attempt to

answer, and counsel several times repeated the question, remarking, “ Come along, my boy, come along ; you say you are telling the truth today, -so answer my question,” Still getting no answer, Counsel said, “Do you understand the question I am putting to you ?” Witness : Yes, I understand. Counsel : All that I want is to know from you if you always tell the truth. i Witness replied “ No,” but counsel took'the'answer as “I don’t know.” Mr Nolan : This is the second Lime that you have been in Court, On which of the two occasions are you doubtful of ? Witness : The last time. . Counsel : Do you know what you said the last time you were in Court ? Witness : I do not remember. His Honor Has anyone been telling you what you are to say here to-day ? Witness : No sir. Counsel : “ I am in somewhat of a dilemna witli this witness. I hardly know what to do.” Addressing the boy again Counsel asked, “At any rate, you did make a statement to the police before you went before Mr Barton.

His Honor ■ You cannot give evidence of it. Counsel : Did you make a statement to the police ? Witness : Yes.

Counsel Was it the same as you made to-day ?

’ Witness :■ I do not remember. Counsel : Did you at any time sign a statement which you had given to the police ? Witness I do not remenber .signing anything, Counse, : Was not Cissy Webber with you when you signed a statement for the police ? Witness: Yes, I was forgetting about that occasion. Counsel : You still say that the statement made to-day is true '! Witness : Yes.

Mr Nolan : In the face of this evidence it is useless proceeding. I have no evidence beyond what appears in the depositions. It is a lamentanle state of affairs, and there is some-

thing wrong somewhere. At anyrate, 1 will take him one or two questions further.” To the witness: “The beer made you sick ?” .Witness : Yes.Mr Nolan ; The police took you to the station,.where you saw Dr" Cole? Witness : Yes. Counsel : And lie recommended your removal to the hospital ? Witness : \cs. Mr Nolan resumed his seat, and Mr Jones rose to cross-examine the wtness. His Honor : I see no object in cross-examining. He has given no evidence against your client, any more than against you. Mr Jones said that lie had several questions to ask, and would perhaps recall the witness. Mr Nolan : I do not propose to call further evidence.

His Honor recognised the difficulty Mr Nolan was in, and directed the jury that as there was no evidence against the accused they should return a verdict of “ Not Guilty.”

.This having been done His Honor ‘said : “ This boy in the lower Court swore exactly contrary to what he has stated to-day. and was either telling abominable lies then or now. I do

not pretend to say which statement is true, hut they both cannot be correct. It is a very shocking state of affairs, and the bov ought to he ashamed of himself. I shall disallow his expenses. It is very shocking that he should tell wilful lies either then or now.”

Mr Jones said that- there was sworn evidence in the lower Court contrary to the witness's statement.