A WORD FOR THE MAORI WOMEN.

Patea Mail, Volume III, Issue 220, 19 May 1877, Page 2

A WORD FOR THE MAORI WOMEN.

J.JL. M ViH ' * V/4.V •" ■ • (To the Editor of the Patka Mail.) Sir —My attention was directed to an article by your Hawera correspondent, that appeared in your paper of last Saturday. He professes to report proceedings of Resident Magistrate’s Court here, and comments freely on the decision given in the case Ngarongo v. Trueman. A correspondent has a right to comment on decisions, but before doinß so be should corrcctly report the evidence as given in Court, and let your readers judge for themselves. In this case your correspondent has m-'slead your readers by only reporting a portion of evidence, and distorting that portion to suit his own views. The evidence of plaintiff was, that herself and husband came to Hawera and dismounted at door of Egmont Hotel. Leaving her husband holding the horses, she went inside and asked for a tumbler. The barman was out, but two Europeans were at the bar drinking. One of them told her she coidd not get a glass till the barman came in. While waiting one of the men finished what he was drinking. The Maori woman then took his tumbler, and proceeded to fill it with water, when defendant began jmlling ber about. This, your correspondent, terms “gallantly,” and ‘ poking her with his finger ends.” Where does your correspondent draw the line between gallantry and indecent assault? She pushed him from her, and as he would not desist, threw the contents of the glass in his face, u mn which defendant threw her with considerable force against the counter. The husband, who stated that he was by the door an 1 could see the most that passed through the window, corroborated plaintiff’s evidence. This witness, your corrcspon lent stales, was some distance from the hotel. Both these witnesses stated that the other European —defendant’s companion—remonstrated with defendant on his conduct to plaintiff. The defendant did not produce his companion to give evidence on his behalf, and as the landlord only came in at the latter end of the dispute, the Bench had only to decide between the testimony of two natives, who were sober, on the one side, against that of defendant, who admitted he was not sober at the time.

There are no instances of natives drunk or sober, moulting or assaulting, our women. But the natives often complain that their married women are insulted and assaulted by drunken men of our own race. If we wish our women to go unmolested and respected by natives, we must punish those who indecently assault their women. In this case a woman was insulted, and then assaulted, for defending herself. Reverse the case ; had this been a settler’s wife, assaulted by a drunken native, would a line of iwo pounds have satisfied the plaintiff ? Your reporter says he is a European. Most Europeans are manly enough to advocate the protection of females against insult and assaults. The Turks alone regard women as inferior beings, without souls or legal rights to protection. I should, therefore, infer from his singular view of the question, that your reporter must be a young Turk.—l am, &c., FAIR PLAY. Hawera, May 15, 1877.