POLICE COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4373, 3 February 1922, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1922.

(Before Messrs G. A'. Wilson atid A-

Tetley, J’s.P.)

ALLEGED PERJURY.

Police v. Epiha Ngawiki. This was a charge laid by the Police, alleging that the accused, Epiha Ngawiki, committed perjury on November 21 last while on path in the court when he s-wore that he received £2 per week for wages when a judgment summons was being heard before the magistrate.

Sergeant O'Grady appeared f.or the Police and the accused was defended ,by Mr Montgomery.

Jakob Bertelsen, brewer, said that accused was in his employ, and had been for the past 10 months. 'Accused earned £3 per week and only received £2. The wages'book was signed by Ngawiki for £3 per, week from June 25, 1921, to December 17, 1921, The sum cf 7s 6d per week went to pay off a debt that accused had contracted with him and 12s 6d went for food, making £l, which was deducted out of the £3 wages earned. Accused was indebted to him for £27 14s 6d. This was a debt due to him before Ngawiki entered his employ, namely, on July 2. Ngawiki had never left the brew--ery with more than £2 of ; his wages. He would continue to deduct the money every week until the debt was

repaid. i Constable McCHnchy said that on November 21 accused was before the court on a judgment summons and was duly' sworn. Although a Maori he understood English well, being at one time a licensed Native interpreter. In replying to a question asked by Mr Montgomery; who acted for the judgment creditor in the case, accused said that he received £2 per week from Bertelsen as wages. The magistrate, Mr Salmon, said that being sb he could not make an order on a man receiving that suhr. It was witness’ duty as Inspector of Factories to examine the wages books of all factories. The brewery wages sheet showed that accused was receiving £3 per week for wages. There were only two occasions on which the accused received less than £3. He did not take a verbatim report of the ciivl case against Ngawiki, but was sure that in answer to a question from the magistrate accused said he only received £2 in wages. C. W. Carver, clerk of the court, gave evidence as to the hearing cf the original action and to the replies given by accused as to receiving £2 per week for wages. Mr Montgomery said that he was sure no jury would convict on the evidence before the court, and that there was no case to answer.

After considering the matter the Justices said , the Court was of opinion that accused had- deceived the magistrate as to his earnings> and committed-him for trial. Bail was allowed in one surety of £lOO. - ALLEGED ASSAULT. Police v. H. D. Sorensen. This was a charge laid by the police against Sorensen for alleged assault on Robert Whitten. x Sergeant O’Grady conducted the case for the police and Mr Porritt for defendant. Sergeant O’Grady, in outlining the case, said that accused assaulted Whitten on January 20 last. Whitten had a permit to burn blackberries on his sections adjoining Sorensen’s house and while doing this Sorensen came out and endeavoured to chase him away. He then struck him a violent blow. " Robert Whitten, in giving evidence, said that he held a permit to burn blackberry and scrub and also to in a drain on the road. He was works ing there for two days chopping down the blackberry and ; was burning it off when Sorensen came over and said , “Cut this out, old man,” and shortly afterwards came at him with a. gun. Sorensen then chased him and pushed him down, and while there hit him on the face. The fire was two chains away from accused’s house, and witness burnt against the wind. There was no danger. 'He was employed by others to clear blackberry in the vicinity. He was- sure accused', hit him after throwing him down.

To the police witness said; that if he had not been assaulted by Sorensen he could have kept the fire front spreading. Constable McClinchy said that on January 20 Whitten came in and made a complaint against Sorensen. He went over and helped t'o put the fire out around the fence. ■' Th© fire was in Wood Street. Sorensen was very excited. He did not c.onsider there was any reason for Sorensen to assault Whitten. The defendant, H. D. Sorensen, »n evidence, said that he was going home about six o’clock and when near the post office, corner he saw that there was a fire near his house. When he got home he saw Whitten lighting fern. Witness told Whitten to stop, but he would not He pushed Whitten out of the way in order to put the fire out. He denied striking Whitten, and he attributed the injury Whitten received to the fall on the ground. To the Police: Sergeant, I can't stoop down to lace up my bobts, sb how could I hit him when he was on the ground? (Laughter.) J. Pennell, borough ranger, said that he knew the locality of the fireThere was no rubbish heaped up there and the permit was only for the sections and not for the road. In addressing the Bench. Mr Porritt said that they had no case to answer. They denied striking Whitten; II Sorensen acted hastily he certainly had some Justification as the flra threatened to destroy not only the fence, but the house. Tn dismissing the case the Bench thought that Sorensen might have hafl some Justification, but there was B). evidence that he had struck Whittejh