HAWERA.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 167, 15 November 1876, Page 2

HAWERA.

(from our own correspondent.) November 11. After the sitting of the Hawera Resident Magistrate’s -Court on Saturday last, an n juiry vias held, before Major Turner, .1 Livingstone, Esq., and Hone Piliama, into a complaint made by Mr C. Pope, of Ketemafae, agmiist ■ certain natives residing there for illegal!}'remo\mg a quantity of shingles (35,000.') ‘shingles were math by Mr Pope out of trees bought from

Pepe ahd'o there, ami duly paid for. Certain members of the tribute. which Pepe belongs object to Mr Pope paying Pepe individually for these trees, saying that they aP .ought to have a : say in the matter. Previous to this occurrence no objection has been raised by any of the tribe to Mr Pope paying Pepe, although the buying and selling baa been going on for years.,. This is one-of the instances of which tbere arc, alas, a great deal too many, of the Government quietly allowing a hard working man to.be. 1 airly' robbbed of his honest earnings ‘to please the whims of the dusky race. There are riot only tvVo, or three; b;jt> there are’jnnny settlors that ! I can .naine it: required, who are at this ■ time, .smarting > under this .unjust treatment. .The Maoris 'Adorno and steal their cattle, refuse to iinpouiid them, keep them on their (n itivo) laid, and will (inly part with them at a imst exorbitant rate per head. One well kmwn settler told 1 uie to-day that they "■"'TwbttU fiomo of his cattle a few daj's back, ■ refused to give them up, .would not impound : thein. and: when lie offered to -(barter, they demanded £l6 per head . Jr this does not cry for justice, what on eaitli ...dues? It beats Bob Boy’s escapades altogelh t. RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’COURT.— HAWBBA. ■ -—o -■ ■ ■ (Before Major Turner, 8.M., and J. Livingstone, Esq., J.P.' ■ > v \ . \ 1 a-1 Saturday, 11th November, 1876. Drunk.—L Knight, for drunkenness, was fined 55., or 48 hours.. Obscene Language —J. Whitmore, for this offence, was fined ss. and costs.

CIVIL CASES. Kurd v. C. Casey and.H. Bayley.— • This was a case which came under the “ Cattle' impounding Ordinance Act, 1870” * tho/'piaintilf having charged the,defend-, '* iiiitb’’ wi th rescuing .6 head of cattle be'onging to them, and which he (plaintiff) was driving to the public pound at Hawera. , Bayley, a halff-casto, admitted the charge. Casey did not. After a lengthy hearing the Bench drew ,attention to the fact that the punishment/' they were liable to for such an offence was a heavy one, viz., a fine of £2O, with; 4 months’ imprisonment. They decided that Casey, although conniving at the offence, did not actually commit himself, and therefore they acquitted him. Bayley, however, having been proved by his own statement guilty, was fined £2, together with 4 hours’imprisonment. The Bench, moreover, remarked that their decision was as lenient as possible, owing to this being the first case of its kind brought before them, but any similar cases would, in futurQ, he dealt with more severely. C. Tait v. D. Carroll.—The plaintiff, in this case, sued the defendant for being unlawfully in possession of a. bullock. the property of plaintiff. _ Mr Adanis'-appchfed for the defendant, it appeared that the defendant bought a bullock of a Maori, supposing it to be the bona fide property of the Native. Subsequently the plaintiff learnt that the bullock was in the defendant’s possession, but instead of going in the usual way and asking defendant for the bullock, plaintiff went to the Poljca Station and laid a charge against the defendant. Plaintiff admitted that the defendant had never refused to give over the bullock. An order foi the return of the bullock was made, each party to pay their own costs.F. Waller v. F. J. Stewart. —This was an action to recover £5 10s for carting wheat. Mr Adams appeared for the defence. The clefmdant paid into Court the sum of £3 Cs, win di he considered was a reasonable and just claim foi soil ices perr formed The case resolved itself into the’ following point Whether the defendant was -obliged To pay cartage -on 2 sacks of wheat carted from Mamitabi to Hawera,which ho had not ordered, and ivhich ho ’ did not instruct the plaintiff to cart for him, although .the plaintiff did cart them, leaving them at the defendant’s house in charge’for their.owner, Mr Nicholson, of Manutahi. The Bench gave a verdict for the amount claimed, at the same time suggesting that ho should recover; the extra amount.from Mr Nicholson. ■ In-Waller v. Emmerton, £1 10s, and Jupp v. -Larkam, £7 17s, verdicts by default were given for" the amounts claimed. •* 1