TRIAL OF THE MAORI PRISONERS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2055, 24 September 1880, Page 3

TRIAL OF THE MAORI PRISONERS.

[PBB PBESS ASSOCIATION SPECIAL WIBB.J NEW PLYMOUTH, September 23. Sixty-five Native prisoners were arraigned this morning at the District Court on the charge of wilfully obstructing the free passage of a thoroughfare at Paugarehu, on the 4th of September. Mr Standish, Crown Prosecutor, with Mr Samuels, appeared for the Crown, and Messrs Hulso and Roy for the prisoners. Mr Halse, counsel for the prisoners, took exception to the indictment. He said that it was bad on account of its uncertainty. It slated that the offences that the prisoners were charged with were committed within the boundaries of the co'.fis.a el lends defined by the schedule of the Act. There is no fourth boundary given in the description ; only three sides are defined. He said that it was of the utmost importance in a case of the kind where the liberty of an individual was at stake that the indictment should be strictly correct, and as the indictment stood it should be quashed on the ground of its uncertainty. Mr Samuel replied, contending that it waa essential to take notice of the preamble of the West Coast Settlements Act, in order to answer the objection raised by Mr Halse. It was clear from the preamble of the Act that the land mentioned in the 4th schedule of the Act was the same aa»that mentioned in the Act for appointing a Royal Commission to enquire into Kative affairs on the West Coast. The description in that Act supplied the deficiency in the 4th schedule of the West Coast Settlements Act, 1880. The boundaries given in that Act were from White Cliffs to Waitotara, on the west coast of the North Island. That supplied the missing boundary, viz., the coast line. In support of his argument that the preamble of the Act should be considered, ho cited several cases from Maxwell and Rougham. Mr Halse replied that nothing had been advanced on the part of tho Crown to meet the objection he had raised. They had nothing to do with the intention of the legislation in this case. It was not a question for the Court to consider whether the provisions of the Act would be rendered inoperative on account of the omission of the fourth boundary line. The Court must consider whether the Act itself is sufficiently definite to_ convict the prisoners of an offence. It is the description of the land given in the Act itself that this Court must go upon. Any one will say that the land described in the schedule is wanting in its proper boundary, that tho intended boundai‘y was the sea coast, but that boundary is not mentioned in the Act, and that omission renders the indictment untenable. He therefore asked his Honor to quash the indictment. His Honor said that he could not at that stage eay that the boundaries were incomplete, as it was quite possible for three lines to form a complete boundary. He would, however, take a note of the objection. Thomas Humphries, chief surveyor, produced the map showing tho confiscated territory mentioned in the West Coast Settlement Act, 1880. He said that there was only one confiscated territory on the West Coast of the North Island. The boundaries mentioned in tho Act were tho interior boundaries of the old confiscation made in 1865. The whole of tho land proclaimed by the Government was within the confiscated territory. There was only one road under construction within the confiscated boundary. Ho had no doubt that the whole of the land in the vicinity of the road was confiscated land. Maps had been prepared under the West Coast Settlement Act. He could not fix a starting point of the boundaries mentioned in the West Coast Settlement Act. The line running due east had not been cut. The line running west had bean cut from the Ngarie swamp up to Mangatui block, about a distance of fourteen miles. Tho Ngarie swamp comprises 7000 acres. The boundaries of the confiscated land made in 1865 were exact, and not indefinite, like the description of the boundaries given in the West Coast Settlement Act.

Ohas. Hursthouse, surveyor and engineer in charge of the road construction on the confiscated land, deposed that from the description in the first schedule of the West Coast Settlement Act, 1880, he should say that the land was the same as that included within the confiscated territory. The word “ within,” which is used in the schedule in reference to the boundaries precludes the idea of any other portion of the land being intended, other than the confiscated land. It certainly meant the land to the seaward of the lines mentioned in the Act. He knew the place where thefences had been erected and pulled down by the Natives. It was on a road within the boundaries described in the first schedule to the Act. The Natives sowed wheat after the road had been made. The constabulary constructed about five chains of fencing to protect the cultivation, but the Natives pulled the fence down. They had special powers for taking the road in that direction, and they could not avoid the cultivations unless they took the road round some miles. He heard the Natives ask Major Tuke to erect a gate at the fence across the road. They said they would desist from fencing if the gate was erected. Major Tuke did not erect the gate. He had no authority to do so. He did not know whether ho informed the Government of it. The Natives were told to come next day and talk about the fence being erected, but they did not do so. Walter Gudgeon, Sub-Inspector of tho Armed Constabulary Force, deposed that he had been stationed at the camp since June last. The main road from Stony River to Waingongoro Eiver runs through tho confiscated land, and was being formed. The road is eighteen feet wide, and is drained by ditches. On September 4th, when on special duty, he taw tho Natives coming to the camp carrying pieces of wood, which they placed on the ground across the road. The Natives were warned to desist. They had been warned not to fence across the road on several previous occasions. As the Natives refused to desist he arrested fifty nine of them. The constabulary took down the fence aed fenced along the road for tho purpose of protecting the crops, but the Natives pulled down tho fencing erected by the constabulary. E. S. Thompson, interpreter, deposed to telling the Natives that he was instructed by Mr Bryce to tell them that they must not fence. On September 2nd he went to Pari haka and distributed conies of the West Coast Settlement Act, which had been translated into Maori. Te Whiti and Tohu asked him what he came for. He could not say if all tho prisoners were present, although he knew some ol them were there. Gave Kohi, who was returning from fencing, a copy, but he refused to take it, saying ho supposed that there wore plenty at Parihaka. After he had distributed tho Act at Parihaka Tohu collected them together and throw them at witness. He was present when the prisoners were arrested. The Natives were erecting an old fence. After counsel had addressed the Court, his Honor summed up and tho jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after remaining absent about three quarters of an hour, re turned into Court with the verdict of guilty. His Honor sentenced tho prisoners to two years’ imprisonment in tho Lyttelton gaol, and to find a security in the amount of £SO each to keep the peace for six months after tho expiration of the sentence. Ho also told tho interpreter to tell tho prisoners that the length of their sentence depended upon how the Natives they left behind behaved themselves.