A TE KARAKA CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2263, 7 August 1908, Page 1

A TE KARAKA CASE.

PAKEHA V. MAORI

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF.

Hearing was taken in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon by Mr. AV. A. 'Barton, S.M., in the case in which llobt. Cnrlilo, To Kanaka _(AIr. Hoi) sued Held Thompson (Mr. AA r . L. Rees) to recover £O3 Its lid for money lent, work dono, and material supplied. Air. Hoi outlined tho case for the plaintiff, and,.cqlled •Robert Carjifo, .who stated that he had, on three different occasions, lent money to the defendant, amounting in all to £2 7s Gd. He made a coffin for defendant’s lute husband at defendant's request, and lie considered that bis charge of £8 for the coffin and funeral expenses was a fair and reasonable one. AVitness took tlio body from To Karakn to Ormond, as bo was tlio undertaker. In regard to tlio claim for value of posts, fencing, etc., defendant had as! d him to repair a fence around li-r property, and also a subdivision fence in the front paddock, i half of which was to bo ljtased to witnesst AVitness’ man was engaged fourteen days in erecting tlio fence, and witness assisted for throe days. All the articles mentioned in the statement of claim were supplied by witness at defendant’s request. Shu was present during the erection of tlio fence, and pointed out the direction she wished it to run.

To Air. Rees: He was never told not to erect tho fence. Defendant had agreed to lease the land on one side of tho fence, but on that occasion tliero was no interpreter present. The terms of tlio loise wero for six years ,at a rental of £ls per annum, payable half-yearly, in advance. There was no written agreement, and later witness went to see defendant, taking an interpreter with him. Defendant said that witness was to act as her agent lor tho purpose of repairing fences and leasing her paddocks. Defendant denied that the g ito had been broken open by her instructions. The fence was finished on July 11, and tho gate was broken down within a week of this. No person was present when instructions wore given to erect the new fence, 'i'lie size of tho paddock was about nine acres, and defendant asked him to pay for the materials in tho fence, and she would repay him later. To Air. Hei: Ho took possession of the paddock leased to him about July 12.

Gieorge iScott, slieepfurmer, To Karaka, stated that he was present at a conversation between plaintiff and defendant at the latter’s house. He was told that plaintiff was managing the land, etc., and any dealings would have to be with him. Defendant spoko fairly good English. To Air. Rees : Had known defendant for twenty-five years, and she could understand his speaking in English. Ada Elizabeth Carlile gave evidence of having seen her husband (plaintiff) loan money to defendant on two occasions. Early in June defendant came tq witness’ house and asked plaintiff if he would do the foncing and lease the ground for her as sho was getting nothing out of her land. Plaintiff agreed to get tho work done. AYitiiuSs had no difficulty in understanding who spoke fair English. Defendant agreed to becomo responsible for the fencing materials. AVitness 'saw- defendant on tlio fence line wliilo it was being erected, and also gave evidence as to tlio arrangement regarding the lease of tho paddock.

Frederick Power said that lie erected the foncc on defendant’s land at To Karaka. Defendant came to him and asked who lie was, lie replied that lie was the man making the new fonce, and she replied that it was all right. Defendant made no objection to him regarding the erection of tho fence.

Ernest F. .Krauze, farmer, gave evidence ns to the fact of plaintiff acting as agent for defendant. Norali Jones, of To Karaka, a Nativo girl, testified as to having acted ns interpreter betaa-eeii plaintiff and defendant in a conversation regarding the fence, avhen defendant authorised plaintiff to erect the boundary fences. For all this avork plaintiff'avas to pay. To Air. Rees : She only went on ono occasion to see defendant avitli plaintiff. o

H. Hei, barrister and solicitor, stated That towards the end of June plaintiff and defendant came to his office. The litter asked avitness to prepare two leases, one for plaintiff anti tho other for Air. Krauze, to be ready on Wednesday, July Bth. On that day they came hack, but for some reason the leases avere not executed. For the defence, •Monkaraka AVaihoki said that lie remembered the erection of the fence. Ho spoke to plaintiff, asking him for the key of the gate, but he refused. AA’itncss then threatened to break the lock, which he subsequently did, acting under defendant’s instructions. After he broke the lock he asked plaintiff to take aavay his cattle. He avas present avhen the parties had a conversation regarding fencing. He arranged with Mr. Carlile about subdividing tlio fence when the others went outside.

To Air. Hoi: He saw the dividing fence being erected but lie made no objection to it. Heni Thompson, defendant, said that plaintiff had lent her no money, bub had done so to her brother. She told plaintiff to repair tho boundary fonce, but gave n 0 instructions regarding any other. To Air. ITei: She did not a rreo to lease any of her property to [laintiff. She instructed him Cvlr. IV-i) to prepare a lease, but she would not sign it. She saw men erecting the dividing fenco for several days and raised strong objections. She did not instruct plaintiff to obtain materials for the fence. This closed tile evidence for the defence, and lifter both counsel had addressed the Court, !l His AA'orship said that lie avas inclined to think that plaintiff must have had some authority to erect the fence. Plaintiff in his opinion was entitled to succeed, except ill the item where he had chimed 15s per day for three days’ work on the fence. This he would reduce by 15s, and judgment avoukl be for plaintiff for £G2 19s lid, with costs of Court £9 19s lOd.