RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 81, 23 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Gisbobne. Monday, August 18. [Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M.] A special sitting of the Court was held on Monday afternoon for the purpose of rehearing the following case. Te Paki and othebs v. Mubphy.—Mr. Cuff appeared for the plaintiffs. A decision had been given in favor of plaintiffs for £3B, and which defendant obtained the consent of the Bench to reconsider on the arrival of Mr. Locke who was an important witness in the case. The ground on which Mr. Murphy claimed a rehearing was that the Deed of Lease held by him from the plaintiffs contains a clause which provides that the duty payable to the Crown under the Natives Lands Act, shall be paid by the defendant out of the rent as it falls due.—William Henry Tucker, sworn, states: I am a licensed interpreter. I have done business on account of the leases in question. The debts of the lessors were handed over tome by Mr. Locke, to be deducted out of their rents. I went up to Tologa Bay. I explained to the natives who came to Gisborne the nature of those debts, and they did not question them. The deduction of the duties to the Government was also explained to them; they did not question it, and signed the receipts for the rent in full. When I went to Tologa Bay it was not questioned by the natives there. I know of other leases on the East Coast that are held on the same terms. By Mr. Cuff: When I went to Tologa Bay, to settle with the natives, it did not occur to me at the time that this action against Mr. Murphy was pending. I reminded the natives of the duty payable to the Government at the time of settling up with them. I pointed out to Te Paki the deductions for duty, the chureh, and all the other deductions. Patihana Aukomiro understood the affair. I rather think they said that they would endeavor to recover the amount of duty deducted. The natives said that the deductions were correct, when I read oyer the accounts to

them. By defendant: When I put the accounts before Paki he did not object to the deductions. By the Bench: I positively say that the whole of the natives understood all about the deductions. —James Meldrum, sworn, states: I saw the natives sign the deed that bears my signature as a witness. I know that certain clauses were struck out of the deed —improvement clauses, and the payment of the duty clause by the natives substituted. There was a great discussion on the matter, as I understood from Mr. Worgan and Mr. Thatcher, who were there, and both being native linguists. I was a witness to both deeds. The alterations on the deeds were made in my presence. —Mr. Cuff contended that from the evidence the natives did not understand that they were, by provisions of the deeds of lease, compelled to pay the Government duties. That the covenant to pay all rents without any deduction is totally repugnant to the last provision of the deed of lease, whereby it is made lawful for the lessee to deduct all duties and fees, and therefore the covenant to pay rent without any deductions must stand, and the last clauses of the deeds of lease must be rejected.—Te Paki te Amaru, being sworn, states : When Mr. Tucker went to Tologa Bay he said no money was due to us; that it had all been expended in debts due to Mr. Locke and the Government duty. We were very angry, not knowing why our money should be taken by the Government.—Aperana Parekata gave similar testimony.—The Magistrate reversed his judgment, in favor of defendant, as follow :—“ I believe the nature of the deed had been explained to the natives when they signed it; and that they understood that the 10 per cent, fees to the Government was to be deducted from the rent. I am also of opinion that the last clause in the deed is not repugnant to the preceding part of the deed inasmuch as it was substituted for a compensation clause originally inserted in the lease. Thursday, 21st August. [Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M., and J. W. Johnson, Esq., J.P.]

Read V. Donahoo.—Debt £29 10s 9d. Judgment for plaintiff. Read v. Gilmore.—The plaintiff claims the sum of £5O as damages sustained by reason of the defendant having illegally driven sheep into the flock of the plaintiff.—G. E. DeMoidrey, sworn, states : I hold a lease of land under aptain Read which title is, I believe, disputed. Captain Read’s shepherd, John Tye, informed me that my sheep had been driven amongst Captain Read’s sheep. I heard, on arriving at the Ferry Hotel, that the defendant had been seen driving my sheep through a gateway. I do not know of any public road near the property I lease from Captain Read. The sheep are all mixed and both Captain Read and myself will suffer great damage to divide them.—John Tye, sworn, states : I am plaintiff’s shepherd. I found on the 13th inst. my sheep and Mr. DeMoidrey’s mixed. I went down to the Ferry and found tracks through the fence near the Ferry. The sheep are lambing and it would do great damage to divide them again.— By the defendant: There is no gateway in the fence, but there is about three chains of fencing down near the river. I have not allowed any sheep to mix with Mr. DeMoidrey’s, as I have carefully kept the boundary hitherto.—Thomas Goldsmith, sworn, states : I am in charge of plaintiff’s stock. On the 13th inst. Tye told me that Gilmore has mixed Mr. DeMoidrey’s sheep with plaintiff’s. I went down the following day and advised them to leave the sheep mixed as they were lambing down. —By the defendant: The road is within a chain of the opening in the fence, where the sheep were driven through.—Judgment £6 and costs. Jeffereyes v. Davis.—Assault.—Alleyen Jeffereyes, sworn, states: I reside at Ormond. I went to Mr. Villers’ Hotel on the evening of the 13th. The defendant came there with a man named Brown. George Clark was also there. The defendant and Brown were playing cards for money and drinks. The defendant asked mo to play with them. I refused. I was sitting at the table. I saw that the men were quarrelling, so I moved my chair to the fire. The defendant turned to me and said I was a cur and a .

I told him I could please myself; whereupon he struck me four or five times in the face. I defended myself and struck him in return. I did not challenge him, but told him to be quiet. He struck me first. I was standing at the time. Mr. Villers ran out of his room and prevented him doing me any further injuries. I went home. The defendant followed and tried to break the door in. He said, ” You old villian, I will do for you ; and the first time I meet you I will put my fist in your face.” He went away, but came back very much intoxicated. He was not very drunk when he first struck me. When he returned, about 10 o’clock, I was in bed. He knocked at the door and feigned his voice. I told him to go home. He said, “ Ah, you old scoundrel, I will do for you. He remained some time and then went away. He came again the following day and threatened me in the same way. By the Bench: We were on speaking terms before this. By the defendant: I swear positively you came back to my house a second time that night.—George Clark, sworn, states: I am a bricklayer. I was at Villers’ Hotel on the night of the 13th inst. I saw the plaintiff and defendant there. I was not in the room long before I heard a disturbance between plaintiff and defendant about cards. The plaintiff called defendant a duffer. The plaintiff got up to fight, and the defendant did also. The plaintiff commenced the row. They both rose from their chairs together, and they both fought together.—John Hartley, sworn, stated: I was at Villers’ Hotel on the night of the 13th. I was there during the row with plaintiff and defendant. The defendant was playing at cards with a man named Brown. The plaintiff and defendant had words. I think they were both in fault. Defendant called plaintiff a ■. .—The defendant was ordered to be bound over in his own recognizances of £lO to keep the peace towards the complainant for three months.