Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1872.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 19, Issue 1402, 15 August 1872, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1872.

SUPREME COURT.' (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.) WEDNESDAY, 14-th AUGUbT. (Report of proceedings continued from our last.) Perjury. The Court resumed at 2 p ra. After some further discussion, the legal point relating to position of the matter in the Distiict Court, as well as several other points which aro*e, was reserved for the Court of Appeal. H. M. Hamlin, sworn, deposed: I am a duly licensed native interpreter. Was in the. District Court on the 4th of October last. An application was made by defendant and others that day for an injunction against Robert Cashmore restraining him from cutting certain timbers on Mangateretere West. I administered the oath in the native language to Paora Torotoro. It was by the wish of Mr Stedman, Paora's counsel, that he was examined not by order of the Court. A question arose respecting a certain deed of conveyance produced by Mr Wilson. This deed was produced to show that Paoro Torotoro had conveyed his t?hare of Mangateretere West, regarding which the injunction was sought, to Mr Sutton. I communicated the nature of the deed to Paoro. Deed produced marked F i-< the one. I asked him } interpreting a question by Mr Wilson, " Did you sign that deed 1 ?" tie' replied that he was shortsighted, and the Judge gave him an eye-glass. He examined the signature through the glass, and said, in Maori, ''This was nor written by me.'' Another deed was pi educed, which he said he did sign. A question was then raided as to the consideration. He was asked if he had not received the i-300. He replied, "I did not receive the money; I never hid the ,£300," He wn< asked if lie had not received the consideration money in goods., He replied: "All the goods I received were ammunition —two bags of shot, eight 11 asks of powder, and four boxes of caps " He was asked how he got the ammunition from Mr Button, and leplied; "Mr

Sutlon gave me a paper, which I gave to Ilohepa, who took it to the Custom House, and received paper tliere, which I tc^blsf to Mr; ; Beyer, and received the Natives here have to get an order from the Superintendent or the General Government agent, before they can obtain the perm it from the* Custom Hm rse. I re cognise document produced. It releases Mr Sutton'from liability due on ac count of Petane blocks andauthorises him to pay his account out of balance owing on account of Mangateretere block. Tt also withdraws certain statements, made by. defendant relating to the latter transaction. I explained that document to Paora and witnessed his signature^ By: Mr Lascelles: The deed £ is dated 18th April, foot-note altering the date. This was the first deed placed in Paora's hand. I read it and ex))lained it to him before askinsr him about the signatui'e. 1 did not do so with the second dyed; which was a mortgage. Willi the second, I merely told him it wa« a deed of mortgage. He denied signing either mortgage or conveyance. When I him if he had leceived any consideration other than money ;my question would lead him to understand, that 1 meant up to the time of my asking him. He then replied; that he, had received no consideration except the ammunition mentioned. The document now produced was explained to Paoiu when he signed it. I was aware of its exis tenee at the time of the application for the injunction In my evidence I casually mentioned its existence. By Mr Wilson : He was asked repeatedly, and told to examine the signature carefully, which he did, and each time he replied that he had not signed it. George Bnckbmd Worgan deposed : I am a licensed interpreter. I know Paora T<>r<>toro. I know the deed produced ; it is attested by myself. I saw it signed by Paora Torotoro, at Kohupatiki, at his own house, on the 18th April, 1870, not 1869. The deed had been drawn long before it was executed, which is the only way in which I can account for the mistake. The declaration on the back of the deed was made by my-elf'on the 19th April, 1870. Paora also signed the translation annexed, which is a true one. There was another witness to the signature, Waka Takahari, a native. Negotiations had been pending some months before the execution of the deed. The paper marked G is in my handwriting. I do not remember seeiug the signature affixed, but identify it as Paora's writing. By Mr Lascelles : The foot-note of Deed F is in my wi iting. I do not remember when I added that note; it, was certainly added after the execution of the deed. The deed was executed at a bo at 5 p.m. I should say Paora was perfectly sober when the deed was signed. I first saw Paora at Waka Kawatini's house, where some drinking was going on. I took him from there to his own house, decliniug to do business in the crowd. No spirits were produced till after the execution of the deed. Some brandy was then pi educed, certainly not by Mr Sutton or myself. I don't remember anything being said of any mortgage to Mr Sutton. The na'/nes understand the difference be tween a mortgage and a conveyance. I interpreted to Paora the acknowledgment contained in the deed of the receipt of £3OO sterling from Mr Sutton The date 1869 appears in the Maori translation as well as in the deed. I explained the effect of the as well as I understood it. I explained that the receipt of the money was acknowledged, and if it had not been paid he would trust to the good faith of the pnrchaser. By Mr Wilson : There was some conversation about a debt owing to Mr Sutton; but I do not know to what effect. Fredeiick Sutton deposed : I am a storekeeper, residing at Napier I have some knowledge of the Maori language, and have had considerable business with the natives. I was present in the District Comt on the 4tb October, at the hearing of the application by Pnora and others for an injunction to restrain Cnshmore from eutting timber on the Mangateretere Block. The District

Judge, on the 2nd October, had said he should require the evidence of the plaintiffs. I gnow the deed produced ; it w>s pfaced sn?P&o;ra'B handstand he was!* askjed |f| the* signature was Lis, which he denied. Mr Hamlin: has correctly related what took place* I was present at the execution of the deed, on the 18th April, 1870, in the defendant's house. Mr/ Worgan, myself, defendant, and his wife, were present. Waka Takahari came in while the deed was being interpreted, i and , witnessed the signature. Inhere was an argument whether I should pay £290 or £3OO. I agreed to pay £ 300, in addition to the mortgage for £2lO. I told 'him I would pay'the £3OO, but made no special arrangement as to the day. He then owed me about £IOO. Some portions of the £3OO was paid in goods, the principal pitrt in money, and it was all paid within six weeks. I never gave the defendant any ammunition upon any occasion, nor any order to obtain any. I never gave him any letter to the Customs or to Mr Beyer about ammunition. The paper produced was written in my shop and signed by Paora. It is a receipt for £35, which I paid him the day it was signed. His signature is attested by Mr Worgan. The deed F was prepared at the end of 18C9, when negotiations were pending between myself and defendant I registered the deed and paid for the stamp the day after its execution. By Mr Lascelles : In the District Court. I did not say chat I purchased the land for £SOO 'in 1869. i said I was negotiating in 1869. I cannot say exactly what portion of the £3OO I paid in money. I. hold receipts for portions of the ptirchase money. I did not obtain receipts for all the sums paid. I have had no transactions with him since. He now owes me some £l7. I have paid Paul other money besides the £35 for which I produce receipt- I gave him a cheque for £lO the day after the conveyance was siguecl I have never delivered Paora any account in detail -bowing how our accounts stood, but I have shown him my book, with which he was satisfied. I had made him advances duiing 1869, while negotiations were going on. I had also advanced about £7O on account of the Petane block, which defendant afterwards sold to Mr Maney ; and the advances I had made on this account were deducted from the £3OO. This paper G- shows Paora's debt to me on the Bth April to have been £251 19s. lam almost positive that I have paid more than the remaining £4B in money. The foot note to the deed F was made by Mr Worgan in the Regis try office in presence of Mr Sealy and imselt the day after the declaration, and previous to the daed being stamped and registered. Mr Tabuteau, deposed : I am Collector of Customs and licensing officer under the Arms Act. By the direc fciou of the Ceneral Government I do not issue permits to licensed dealers to supply natives with ammunition without a" written authority from the Government agent for the time being. I produce the book containing the counterfoils of all permits granted to natives. No permit was ever issued to Paora or Hohepa for the quantities of ammunition mentioned in Paora's statement. On the 30th May, 1870, on the order of Mr QrmoDcl a permit was issued to Paora Torotoro for lib powder, Hlb shot, and 250 caps. I never received a letter from Mr Sutton requesting me to give ammunition to a native. By Mr Lascelles : I do not know what native brought me Mr Oraioncls order. His Honor said that Mr Tabuteau's evidence would quite fail to show perjury on Paora's part. It did not contradict anything which Paora had represented as having occurred within his own knowledge. Hohepa wa* the witness who should have been called. Mr Wilson assured his Honor that he had no intention of calling Hohepa.

After considerable discussion between Mr Wilson and his Honor on the subject of the effect of Mr Tabuteau's evidence on the case, the Court adjourned at 6 p.m. till 10 a.m. to-day.

[Wc are compelled to hold over our report of to-day's proceedings ]

The following ave t-lw points in the prosecution of Psiova Xorotoro reserved by his Honor for the decision ot ihe Court of Appeal, up to 2 p.m. to-day. The issue numbered 4 was raised this morning by Mr Luscelles: — 1. Whether there is any evidence suiticieiii in law to prove the pendency of proceedings in the Supremo Court by the defendant and others at the time of the application to the District Judge for the injunction. 2. If there is not, had the District Judge jurisdiction, although no action bad been brought? 3. If there he no evidence of the pendency of the action, hut the District Judge still had jurisdiction, could the defendant be legally convicted on the indictment as it stands? 4. On the evidence does it appear that the deed in question was .of no effect under section 58 of the Native Lands Act, 1865, and section 16 of the Native Lands Act, 1869; and if so, whether the question of the execution of the deed, or amount and nature of the consideration, is material.