CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 49, 3 May 1873, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Our columns are open for free discussion; but we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents.]

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STANDARD. Sir, —I beg to call your attention to a case Keke v. Stevenson in the R.M. Court on the 24th of April, hoping that you will have observed the discrepancies in the evidence of the accuser. Teka a known murderer at large, swore that no warning was given by defendant, whereas Keke the accuser acknowledged to the warning. Natives swore to seeing the dog killed and removing the collar. Two Europeans swore that they saw the dog lying dead with collar on, and no marks of blood. Four of the natives were together, three of them swore to seeing Stevenson kill the dog (on foot.) The other merely heard the dog howl and saw defendant ride off. Sir, in calling your attention to the above it is not altogether as regards my own case but for the principle in generaL The most flagrant cases of perjury in this district (and doubtless in others) have been known to pass unpunished, and I naturally ask that while the Maoris receive and appreciate the advantages of British law, why should they be screened or allowed to shirk its responsibilities or penalties? The result of the present case is pecuniarily immaterial. But if they succeed in this, what is to prevent their killing a horse to-morrow and swear that I committed the deed, anything equally preposterous is open to them, the consequence of which I leave to your imagination, and implore the aid •of your prolific pen to discuss. —Yours, &c., William Stevenson. , P.S.—Two Europeans saw me poison the dog. I hope to obtain a re-hearing of the case. [Judgment has been given in our correspondent’s favor since receipt of his letter.—Ed.]