ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION OF A BAILIFF.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1086, 14 September 1883, Page 3

ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION OF A BAILIFF.

- '♦ ' :A Queer Case. At the R.M. Court this morning a charge brought by William Connolly against Wiremn Tan, Arapeta, and Te Anpenn, for illegally rescuing goods seized under a distress warrant, came Up for hearing. Mr Hamerton appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cook, of Wanganui, for defendants. ItfJblonel McDonnell was sworn in as ijrerpreter. After Mr Hamerton’s opening nddress the following witnesses were called for the prosecution. William Connolly : I am a bailiff at Patea, and have been in that employ mcnt about ten years. On the 2nd of August I received two warrants which I produce. I proceeded to execute them. On the 2nd day I took an interpreter and proceeded to Pakaraka, beyond Waitotara. There were no natives when we arrived at the pah. We looked round and made an inventory. After a’ time some of the natives made their appearance, and we read the warrant to one of them Nihi Yapapa, a defendant in one of the actions. He said he could do nothing till Uru te Angina came. We remained in possession till the 4th The native also stated that he expected Colonel McDonnell would come and arrange a settlement. We went down again on the Bth in order to proceed with the sale. On the morning of the sale we found the goods bad not arrived from Waitotara where the sale was to have been, so I postponed it till 2 o’clock at Pakaraka. When I arrived at Pakaraka 1 found the entrance gate was

chained so it could not be opened. I on Mr Williams, the interpreter, mnster the natives together, ns I wished to read a notice to them. Mr Williams called the- natives bnt only a few came. I read the notice (prodoced and read). After reading the notice I asked the natives to open the gate bnt they refused, when I ordered my assistants to break down a portion ot the fence. After considerable trouble we managed to get in, the Maoris offering considerable violence, pulling the men about. The sale was then proceeded with, bnt the goods were situated in such a manner that we could not'remove them. I recognise the three defendants as being conspicions for their violence. The defendants made a great uproar. During the sale at Pakaraka there were three settlers present. Before we proceeded to sell we received no intimation not to sell. A day or two after the sale I was retnrning home, I met Colonel Me -Donnell and Mr Cook, and they told me I was not to sell the goods, but I said they were sold. That was all that passed between ns. At the sale I found . only one buggy, whereas I had seized two. I sold the chance of recovering the buggy which the natives had recaptured. Cross-examined: I am bailiff of the Court- I was appointed in 1873. I don’t ■ think I have the appointment in writing. Pakaraka is beyond Waitotara. It is not in this district. . I did . not know that it was not in this district at the time I executed the warrants. I had never been down there before with a warrant. It is not usual for me to go out of my district, nor have I any authority. Mr Cook entered an objection on the ground that the bailiff having no jurisdiction at Pakaraka, there could have been no seizure, and consequently there could have been no rescue, basing his objection on the 7th and 13th sections of the Resident Magistrates’ Act. The Court was not satisfied on tins point, and would like to to hear Mr Hamerton. Mr Hamerton was quite aware of the point his learned friend would raise, but at the time the information was laid there was no jurisdiction from the obstruction unless the warrant was void, which could not be. ..... . The Court thought it better to go on with the case, as section 148 seemed to set aside the objection. _ , Cross-examination continued : I advertised the things I seized and I produce the paper. The sale was to take place at Waitotara in the first instance. I did not lemain in possession personally all the time. I remained in possession from Thursday to Saturday, but I left Mr Williams in charge. I expected Mr Williams and two men whom I sent up to have the goods removed. The men came hack and said they could not get the goods away. Finding the things were not at Waitotara. I adjourned the sale to Kakaramca. My warrant was against Uni Te Angina and Molii Yapapa. 1 called them but did not

see them on the day of the sale. I think some of the natives did claim some of the goods as belonging to them, and not to Uru ; bnt, being in such a boisterous mind, I took no notice of them. The sale realised £36. There were only two two purchasers the plaintiffs—Messrs Patterson and Williams. With reference to the attempt to rescue the horses, — Before selling, one of the defendants, Araketu, came at full gallop and drove them out of sight, so that they could not be recovered. I don’t know if he took any of them out of the enclosure they were in. As to the one buggy, I didn’t see the defendants take it away. I did not see any of the defendants try to take away any of the carts nor the two pairs of harrows and plough, I recollect seeing Mr Cook after the sale. I recollect telling Mr Cook I had sold everything. I did not say anything of rescuing them.

Re-examined by Mr Hamerton : The natives prevented our sale. They prevented by their action the ordinary course of law. If it had been a fair sale the goods would have realised more. When 1 was going to the sale I had informed the natives I was going to sell. At the most Pakaraka is about two miles beyond the boundary. At the time I went there I did riot know it was outside the district. 'The three defendants obstructed us. With regard to the . horses the native Arepeta drove „hem out of sight.

By the Court: The distress warrant was against Mohi Yapapa and Uru Te Angina. In the pah we seized everything we came agross. I did not think it impiudent. There were only two Europeans at the sale. I don’t think it was a. sham sale, as the bad resnll was caused by the action of the natives.

William Willliams : I am a native interpreter, living in Patea. I know the three defendants in this case, I was at Pakaraka from the 2nd to the Bth of August. These three men were there. I was with Mr Connolly. I went down for the purpose of interpreting. I saw Mr Connollyjseizo the property. There were some natives about, and I told them what Mr Connolly had come for. I saw Mohi and he said Uru te Angina was not there, but he would send for him. He sent a messenger. Wiremu Tau, but Uru did not come. Mohi then said that he would send for Colonel McDonald, and he would make arrangements. There were none of the goods removed on that occasion. With regard to the ownership of the items at that lime, they did not make any dispute, but after a while one of the natives said the buggies were his, and I told him what it was necessary for him to do in order to get the buggies back. When the sale was going on Arapeta said the bullock dray was his. I know that one of the bullock drays and one of thejbuggies were made for Mohi. Mr Connolly left mo in possession. I endeavoured to get the things down to Waitotara, but the natives prevented this. I was present at the sale, I saw Mr Conolly come up and endeavour to get in. There was considerable disturbance, in which defendants took part for nearly an hour. During the five or six days 1 was there, the natives had frequent opportunities of telling me what belonged to them. Cross-examined by Mr Cook ; I know Uru. I.knew he had goods at the pah—the dray and harness, and other things. I remained at the pah the whole of the time, but I did not sleep there. I saw Arepeta preventing people from buying at the sale. There were three people present that I know of.

Constable Lister deposed to having been present at the sale. He was outside the fence, and saw the bailiffs assistants pull down the fence. He saw nothing but the disturbance at the gate, which lasted about ten minutes.

Daniel James Williams gave evidence as to purchasing a buggy for £l. He bid to protect himself. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Cook then asked if the Court would adjourn, but His Worship said that it would not be necessary to go into the defence. He did not think it necessary to put the accused on their defence, as he could certainly not convict on the evidence, and, moreover, the whole of the proceedings were irregular. In the first place the bailiff had gone outside his district, and he thought the natives had been treated in a most oppressive manner, their goods being seized right and left and sold for almost nothing. As far as he could see, the natives had acted in a more forbearing manner than ho would have expected, more so than Europeans would have done under the circumstances. The information would be dismissed with costs.