MAORI DISPUTE

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVII, Issue 33, 7 February 1913, Page 2

MAORI DISPUTE

AMENITIES AT THE PA

The hearing of a personal dispute the parties to wh.ch wore i/iaoris, occupied the attention of Mr F. 08. Loughnan, fci.M., for some two hours yesterday. Heinoata Makitania, who was judicially separated recently from her . husband, Tuiti Mac Donald, charged her bother-in-law, Peter Mac Donald, with having used threatening language to her, and asked that lie be bound over to keep the peace. On the information of Peter MacDonald, Hemoata Makitania was charged with having used threatening language whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. • The incidents in question were alleged to have occurred at the Wairau Pa. In the first-mentioned case it was alleged that Peter Mac Donald violently declared to Hemoata.on January 22nd that he would dash her brams out. The defendant admitted ' having told her that he would knock her head off if she maltreated his children while he was away from home; but pleaded provocation, the complainant, he asserted, having threatened his children repeatedly when they went to draw water near the house in which Hemoata lived with her mother, and elsewhere. Hemoata denied having behaved improperly towards the children, and stated that the words complained of y i j i - Were used b^ Peter when she asked him to stop them from insulting

The charge against Hemoata was £r • *? Ist she accosted Men Mac Donald, Peter's daughter, aged 13 years, and threatened to smash her head: into pulp, and convert her into, bacon. The defendant denied having behaved in this manner.

Tts ?• P- I JS ;Nab appeared fc TW* I'^' V! d ¥ r T- Scott-Smith fc Peter Mac Donald. The Yen. Arc! deacon Grace acted as interpreter fc Hemoata, and also for her mothej Ata J!,rana, who was a witness. Th gul gave evidence in English, sayin that HenioaU was the aggressor, an that she (the witness) did not act tt &«? h r in., th« mannef atfegei StPlf J m<l ther Said that she ™ with her daughter when Meri behave m the msolent fashion described b the complainant. with much oratorical abilitj He asked his Worship to take the vie' tiiattlemoata was ostracised from th io KurU settlement, and that sh 5? l™ tlr Uy V oukaw the Wa its • ' -Vf re she Provoked ill-feelin SS T? ClM> general ft™**- Th her 9 w\? or6> the ■<*** befriende of hiJtu^. 8"0068501- tUrned °« H^i\ PreSe"tation of ller characte d S-^^av faulted him as to her P St. A S' 0, nJ, I? uJ »n connection with th n^ t Whl°h W3LS tlle S«bieCt Of thi Sfv Sh€ Seemed *° be really af ;S for her peraonal safety, and h"" ierrea her io her solicitor. Arcl deacon Grace said that, having ? chned to believe that the woma actually did have occasion, for he trS^h^ Or " + m<f^ Y ho was recalled, repliei &JS" S Vab at her h««^nd Pwa hvmg with another woman. In the course of his evidence Pete Gaud that he had conduct*, iiemoatas native land affairs fo three years, and always befriende, herr-eyen m the Divorce Courtuntjl she assailed his children. Sh. was the cause- of endless turmoil, an< •m m wni. the.? ourts many times Mr McNab said it was unfair t< make it appear that Hemoata hac trequently figured in the Court unde' discreditable criminal circumstances fehe appeared in an affiliation cas< and; in her charges against her hus band, and won all her cases. Peter'; statement that he was her friend fc three years did not tally with hi evidence as to her antecedents anc hisopmion of them all along The Magistrate said that the cvi deuce had disclosed a very peculiai set of circumstances. The womai was judicially separated from " hei husband, and was befriended by th< late Hare Rore. That chief was succeeded by one. who, it might bt said, knew not Joseph, and s&e wa* .Aimed out from the principal domicile or the pa There seemed to be a considerable amount of ill-feeline between these natives one to th< other and it- was quite clear thai reter s children, had been annoying Hemoata. They seemed to havl been set on by their father. In the case m which th© information was laid by the father, it appeared that the threats used were conditional If you come on the road," said Hemoata, "I will smack your ears"; and "If you com© on the road I will smash your head to pulp and make you into bacon." It. was ■ not an absolute threat.. He did not think that this was a case to which the provisions of the Police Offences Act were applicable. He must decide that this complainant had failed to prove that Hemoata used threatening language in a public place. In regard to the information laid against Peter, two witneses—Hemoata and her mother—swore distinctly that threats were used, and it was anticipated that, considering the customs ot the Maoris, there was a danger of these threats being carried out. The evidence of the defendant was that these threats were conditional— c 'I will scatter your brains if you attack my children." It was very much to be regretted that this illfeeling existed at the pa. ' These matters could better be dealt with by the Maori Committee. Peter Mac Donald: I challenged Tahua Watson (the chairman), but he refused to take action. His Worship said it was a great pity that something was" not done, because such matters were very difficult for tho Court to deal with. The evidence was so «k>ntradictory. But there- was the evidence of Archdeacon Grace, who knew the ways of %h<* natives, who wished them 'well, and who was perfectly disinterested. It might be said that the statements of Hemoata. her mother, and Peter were not completely reliable; but it was not so in regard to the evidence or Archdeacon Grace, who was the iriend of all the natives. Peter Mac Donald: That is so. His Worship said that Archdeacon brace thought the woman should be ! protected. His own conclusion was that the Court should interfere. Ho was not inflicting punishment on 1 efor m binding him over to keep tho peace, but setting up an inducement to him to do so. Ho made the order prayed for by Hemoata, Peter

Mac Donald to give his recognisances ) in'the sum of £25, and to find aj surety of £25. Costs amounting to j £2 18s were given • against this j defendant. 1

Mira 1, Won by