Untitled

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 30, 23 January 1862, Page 3

To the Editor of the Hawke's Bay Times.

Sir, —In the Herald of to-day, I find a report of the proceedings of a Resident Magistrates’ Court at Puketapu on Tuesday last in the case of the natives against the Messrs. Shirley for cattle trespass, and I cannot refrain from remarking on some of the most prominent feature of the affair. It is obvious to all that the Messrs Shirley had violated no law, in permitting their cattle to range over the unalienated wastes of the Province, neither had they made themselves amenable to any in resisting the demands of the native owners (so called) but the very reverse, for had they occupied the land for a consideration, they would at any time be liable to prosecution, for you are well aware'that such renting of native land was, and still is (as the hon. Crosbie Ward has informed us) illegal, which consideration renders it clear that the wiseacres of the bench have inflicted a fine on the Shirleys for their observance of the law! Sir, I am not now arguing either for the justice or wisdom of the provisions of the Land Purchase Ordinance —questions veiy interesting in themselves, but foreign to my present purpose. The question I am discussing is one of fact, and that fact thataparty is declared by a Court of Justice to be criminal because they have refused or neglected to act in defiance of the laws, as many of their neighbors have done, and are yet doing with impunity,—for neglecting or refusing to do this, they have a verdict recorded against them, and are cast in damages accordingly; while on the other hand, the facts seem to be proved that the natives did with force and violence take possession of the cattle of the Messrs. Shirley, and retain them for a period of three months, thereby inflicting on the owners serious loss and damage; and that in so doing they were certainly acting in an illegal manner; and as some of the natives had already laughed the Officers of Justice to scorn, and treated the summons of the Resident Magistrate with contempt, the folly of applying for justice to him was only too apparent; after all this, well known and proved, they are acquitted,—nay, more, they are complimented for their extreme modei’ation ! and forbearance!! into the bargain. Mr. Editor, this case is very interesting to the settlers generally. As an instance of the kind of justice we may expect from the newly-constituted courts, it was plainly stated in evidence by the Maori prosecutor, that the land in question on which the cattle fed belonged to the two Native Assessors on the bench, Renata and Tareha, as well as to himself and others, and that the money would be divided, — plainly proving that the Native

Judges in the case were parties interested in the result, as it is certain they will and must of necessity he in almost every case that can be brought before them. And not only this, but they may as well be the sole judge*; f° r the European Magistrate will have no othf 1 ’ means of agreeing with them in doubtful cas> es than that of yielding to them, it being quite futile to expect that they will yield to him. New light seems also to have been shed from some source or other on the meaning of the third section of the Wellington Impounding Ordinance, for until this case was tried it has always been held that there was no law under which the native could obtain redress for alleged trespass on unfenced land, but now it seems to have been discovered that this aforesaid third clause does entitle natives to recover damages for such trespass. If this be true, it will indeed appear that much of the blame for the evil so many of our neighboring settlers have suffered of late front maories rests where it has not been suspected: to lie, I need scarcely say, on those, who, having a law to meet the case, not only did not make use of it, but more than once declared that there was no such law. I am, sir, Yours, &c., Lex Rationis. Jan. 18, 1862.