RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT AT PUKETAPU.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 29, 16 January 1862, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT AT PUKETAPU.

On Tuesday morning Mr. Heelop’s farm at Pukctapu presented an animated scene, owing to the assemblage of natives and pakehaa to hear the case of the Messrs. Shirley for trespass on native lands adjudicated on. —The Court was held in Mr. Heslop’s large barn. The Magistrates were Captain Curling, Resident Magistrate, G. S. Cooper, Esq., Crown Commissioner, J. Anderson, Esq., with two native Assessors, the Chiefs Tarcha and Renata. The latter was objected to as being a party concerned—so that the three above-named gentlemen and Tareha constituted the Court of Justice. Mr. Grindell acted as Clerk of the Court and Interpreter. Among those present we noticed His Honor the Superintendent, the Hon. Crosbio Ward, Secretary of native lands, &c., J. B. Ferguson, Esq., J.P., A. Alexander, Esq., J.P., Rev. W. Colenso, Messrs. Locke, McLean, Rich, Laserre, Gilmour, Buchanan, Donaldson, Captain Hinton, and others interested in, and conversant with, Maori affairs. Mr. Wilson for the prosecution, Mr. Allen for the defence.

_ Mr. Wilson in opening the prosecution declined giving any particular dates, or stating the precise number of cattle trespassing, hut stated that he was prepared to prove that the defendants did trespass for a series of years on the laud of the Complainants.— In support of the prosecution Paora Kai Whata, of Omaranui was sworn, aud deposed that the Messrs. Shirley had trespassed for upwards of five years on his land and the lands of other natives, that they had repeatedly complained to Shirley, and at last demanded £3O, and finally carried off Shirley’s cattle out of his stockyard, pulling down a part of his stockyard in so doing.—That the natives then erected a milking shed and milked the defendant’s cattle.—That the defendant offered £2O, but it was refused as 100 little.—That in money matters the natives present would all share (assessors also.) (Here Mr. Allen observed “this is sufficient to upset the whole case.”) He further said that he had returned to Shirley 20 head when in fact he returned only IG. They were all branded, yet he did not know the brand.—He knew nothing of any other cattle, did not know of nine head, Shirley never offered them ten shillings per head for nine head.—Knew of no native holding nine head of cattle. Paora Torotoro being sworn knows Shirley for the last six years—Sliirly had ten cattle when he came first, often complained to Shirley, on the 3rd complaint charged him £3o.—Says,. Shirley has forty head now, may have more, Shirley has killed a number so that he cannot be sure, ho may have 50—Shirley used to drive the cattle over regularly, lias seen him, others also have seen him.—When ho demanded the £3O Shirley said he would pay it when Alexander paid for his and others paid for their trespass.—He knew the cattle were Shirley’s, because ho saw them regularly and because Shirley said they were his.

Mr. Allen on behalf of the defendant, said that although he could, he did not wish to urge any technical objection, still he would mention, tha't there is no law affecting this matter, the law is for European versus European on fenced lands, and although the Legislative Assembly passed a law in 1816, concerning land whether fenced or not fenced referring to trespass, it did not apply to native lands, neither would it be just so to apply it, ho contended that the natives had suffered no damage, it was not carefully cultivated grass lauds, but°it was wild, rough grass lands that Shirley’s cattle had strayed over to. This case is altogether wrong, and illegal, as no one can impound cattle for trespass without twenty-four written notice, besides if trespass is allowed to go on for more than two years no one can recover for more than that period. Therefore as £3O is the amount claimed for five years trespass, he begged to request that only twofifths of the £3O bo awarded. The defendants had also suffered great loss in the destruction aud injury of their cattle by the natives, and the consequent loss of £-!■ a week—the average amount of their former sales in all £o2—besides the injury done to the cattle and calves, the cattle from' improper treatment, aud the calves from starvation. He charged the first complainant with telling wilful! lies—as no man could sec cattle every day for five times 365 days, knows that they were branded and yet not know what the brand was.—He had also to impress on the minds of the defendants that to this case and its decision the natives were looking with considerable anxiety to establish a precedent. He hoped that the court would take into consideration the losses and injury sustained by the defendants, and besides awarding a very small amount of trespass money (if they did so award,) that they would consider the defendant’s contra set off for actual loss and damage sustained.

T. Shirley was examined; Remember the fourtcentli October. Had 20 heart of cattle in his stockyard, awaiting a sale next da.y. Hart they been sold, I consider they would have honestly fetched at least £8 per head. Since tliev were returned lately, I have examined them. They are now worth from £i to £5 a head ; at the outside not more than £3, These cows and my farm were my only means of subsistence. It is a clear loss in butter and produce of £4 a week. I never offered the natives £3O. I offered £2o, and agreed to secure them that amount out of the proceeds of the sale. They returned sixteen head of my cattle the other day. Mr. Wilson cross-examined the defendant, but elicited nothing differing from the above.

The spectators and hearers of the trial now retired, whilst the Court deliberated; and here we cannot refrain from mentioning that a plentiful and most excellent dinner was awaiting those inclined to attack it, which did credit to the culinary skill of Mrs, Heslop, and which, from the vigorous assaults it received on all sides shewed how much it was relished and appreciated. Then came the catching and saddling of horses in readiness for departure. Aiver considerable delay, which shewed how cautiously the matter was being weighed and debated by the Court, the doors were rc-opcned, and the decision given, to this effect—

That the Court had most anxiously and carefully considered the case; and, whilst not treating it iu the same v'Ji? a Purely European matter, the Court considered that the natives had throughout shewn great forbearance, and only when they saw the cattle shut up for sale did they seize what they thought to he their only chance of being paid. In this they thought they were doing what was right. They had, by command of the Court, returned tne cattle, and submitted themselves to the law this dav, ana uuerefore the decision of the Court was, that the rtedo l > ? y tl>c sum of £3O; the second or contra case 01 kurrley against the natives being dismissed. The Court then broke up, and all departed, pondering deeply over the events of the day.