HAWERA.

Patea Mail, Volume III, Issue 218, 12 May 1877, Page 2

HAWERA.

[pBOM Otfli OWN REPORTER.] RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.— Saturday, May 5, 1877. (Before Capt. Wray, R.M., Jas. Livingstone, Esq.j and Capt. Wilson, Esq., J. P.) Regina v. Einmerton —Charge, drunk and fighting vin the public streets, on the 17th February. This case had been ad-, jonrned twice ; owing to the non-appear-ance of defendant, who pleaded as his excuse that lie had had sickness in his family, and could not possibly leave his home. Constable Coffey deposed that lie arrested the defendant in the act of fighting, but that he did not see the first blow struck. The defendant pleaded that he had received great provocation, and merely retaliated when attacked. Fined 5s ; or twenty-four hours’ imprisonment.. Fine paid. The second' case was one of assault, but as neither party to the suit put in an appearance, the case was struck out. Regina v. C. Brown —Charge, permitting gambling, or playing games of chance to be carried out in his hotel on night of 21st April, 1877.” The defendant admitted that he believed that cards had been played and gambling had been carried on in his house on the night in question, but ; he stated that lie was not personally present, nor was he aware at the time that such was the case. Sergeant Cahill deposed, that, on the night in question, and about 11.30, lie knocked at the door of defendant’s hotel, ami when asked “ Who was there ? ” he replied “ Police.” The door was opened, and on entering one of the rooms adjoining the bar, he found a number of men playing csrds. He saw money on the table, and naturally supposed” that gambling was going on ; there were about six playing. This is the first time I have entered the hotel. I haVe not known of gambling being carried on in the hotel previous to this occasion. My instructions from Wellington were to keep a sharp look out on the public-houses in the township.—After some deliberation the Bench, decided, that, as this was the first occasion of such a charge being brought against any of the publicans in the township, and as it was ascertained by evidetice that Mr Brown was not personally implicated, nor acquainted with the proceedings which formed the ground for the present charge, they would dismiss the case and caution him to be more careful in future. Regina v. T. Lloyd.—The charge in this case was similar to the preceding one. The defendant pleaded “Not guilty,”— Sergeant Cahill was then sworn and deposed : “ That about eleven o’clock on the evening of the 21st April last, he' heard a noise in the Empire Hotel, of which the defendant was landlord, and that on entering the house ho found both the front and the bar doors open ; on going into the parlour he saw a £1 note . lying on the table in front of a man who was sitting there. He did not see them playing cards; he had previously sent warning, indirectly, to the Hawera publicans relative to gambling, &e., being carried on.—Constable Colfey was then called and deposed that he entered the-hotel with the previous witness ; ho saw cards-on the table, but he did not see the persons actually engaged in playing.—Jas Sanson was then called on for the defence, and stated that he saw no card playing going on during the time he was in the room mentioned, although he was there for some considerable time. He moreover stated that he understood that the £1 note mentioned was lying on the table while the landlord went for change.—J. Beard was then called, and gave similar evidence to the preceding witness.—ln summing up the Bench pointed out the frailty of the evidence for the prosecution, and then dismissed the case, Regina v. Kurukuru.—Charge, quarreling with the Maoris and abusing a Maori woman. —Mr C. Wallace acted as Interpreter. —Sergeant Cahill deposed that he was ordered to anest the Constable by Capt. Wilson. He did not actually see the prisoner strike, the woman, but heard him threaten her in a violent manner. The prisoner admitted that he pushed the woman (his sister) with his foot, but denied using violence. —Mr Symthe, on being called, deposed : That he saw the defendant kick and strike the woman and pull her about by her hair; she was bleeding at the head and face, —The Court then gave judgment in the matter, telling the prisoner that he had been, without doubt, convicted by the evidence of unprejudiced persons of a most brutal assault, and that the judgment of the Court would be, — That he be fined the sum of £5, and costs (ils 6d), or in default of payment he be imprisoned in the Taranaki goal for the space of one calendar month. Regina v. Wataka. —No appearance of defendant. Case struck out. Roach v. J. Redding.—No appearance of defendant. Case adjourned. Ngaranha v. Wm, Trueman.—Charge, that defendant did unlawfully assault and beat a Maori woman, by name Ngaranha. Regarding this case I am most reluctant to state that, not only in my opinion, but also in the opinion of the majority of the persons who were present in Court at the hearing of the case (which I shall demonstrate below), 1 am ashamed as a European and a “ white man ” to record the verdict giyen by the Bench.— It was elicited in evidence that the woman entered the Egmont Hotel and asked for a drink ; that "the defendant was also in the bar at the time ; ana being somewhat gallantly disposed, slightly nudged the prosecutress with his finger ends, meaning no harm whatever, whereupon the prosecutress seized a glass of whiskey off the counter, aad threw it into defendant’s face. The defendant naturally felt annoyed at such a proceeding, and pushed . the prosecutress rather roughly against the counter. After this, some rough conversation took place between them, which ended in her going outside and calling her husband, who had previously been outside and some distance away from the hotel, and could not have been aware of any ot the previous circumstances connected with the case.—The upshot of it was, that the prosecutress’ husband went to the Blockhouse and took a summons out against Trueman. —On the woman being called and sworn, she deposed that she did not I know whether she threw anything in dej fendant’s face or not,, before he pushed { her against the counter.—l’he landlord of.

the hotel was subsequently called, and stated that he remembered the Maoris returning 1 -from Manutahi and entering his bar. He was present when the prose•cutress threw the liquor into defendant s face. The defendant merely “ gaver her a shove” against the counter. He_ did not see the actual commencement or the affray.—ln summing up the Bench found the defendant guilty of the- offence, and mulcted him fn a fine of £2 and costs ; or in default, 14 days’ imprisonment—The defendant signified to ' the Bench his inability to pay the amount of the fine, and was, consequently, committed to goal for 14 days. Residents in the township were, however, not found wanting who, on hearing the merits of the case, were unanimously in favour of raising and subscribing to a fund having for its object the payment of the fine inflicted on the defendant, and within one hour of his convictment the fine was subscribed by instalments rangmg from a few shillings and under ; and on payment of the sum the defendant was, of course, released from arrest. I need hardly dilate on this result of the judgment given in this case, as the- matter speaks for itself. Public opinion here was very much adverse to the judgment ; and very strong opinions were advanced in the matter. It seems now that any Maori can bring a charge against a'European and gain his case. It -is • high time such proceedings should be put a stop to.