RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 981, 24 September 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Friday, September 23rd, 1881. [Before M. Pbicb, Esq., R.M., and Paora Pabau, Assessor.] R®>bjohns Teat & Co. v. Petera Honatapu. Adjourned to Friday, 30th inst., on the application of the plaintiff. x, Police v. Patrick Maher, Jun. Burglary. Accused was charged on the information of Constable Walsh with feloniously entering on, and stealing from the dwelling-house of one Michael McDevitt, a gold watch and chain valued at £6. Remanded to Tuesday next. Westrup v. Bromley. Further adjourned to Friday, the 30th, on the application of the defendant. Te Whetu v. Tiopera Tawhiao. Mr. McDougall for plaintiff. Claim, £4O, value of 2 horses, saddles, and bridles, seized by the defendant, the property of the plaintiff, and £l5 damages incurred in virtue of same. From the evidence given it appeared to be a case arising out of the self-imposed authority of a Maori Committee. Several witnesses were examined at length, and the plaintiff deposed to the facts. He received a summons from the defendant, on a printed form (produced), which cited plaintiff to “the presence ” of a Committee of Rakaikitiroa, to answer complaint, as there set forth. “ Herein fail not at your peril.” The “ hamene ” included a claim of £5, and twopence for stationery ! Witness detailed particulars of his examination before the Committee, which resulted in the seizure of the goods and chattels n<iw claimed to be restored. The defendant deposed to the seizure of the horses, &c., on account of a judgment entered up by the Committee for what it considered an offenee committed by the plaintiff, and will retain them until the fine is paid. The offenee was for falsely accusing another Native of stealing. Mr. Rees rose to explain, as aenewj curiae, that the Maori Komitis have power to frame laws and inflict fines, under the Native Licensing Act, 1878, and proceeded to argue the point with the Bench, but Mr. McDougall objected, which his Worship upheld, and said he wished it distinctly to be understood that he stated most emphatically from his seat on the Bench, that unless there is an Act of Parliament authorizing these Committees to be formed to enquire into complaints, and deal with them their action is illegal. The Natives cannot meet and institute enquiries into any complaint, Vnich can only be dealt with by the ordinary- Courts of law. His Worehip in giving judgment, said the Bench had given the matter a very patient hearing, and as a Magistrate wished all these Native Committees to understand that they have no power to enquire into complaints between themselves. There is only one law—the English law—and until Parliament passes an Act empowering Native Committees to do what they are doing, they are committing an illegal act. It is nothing to say that the Government had not warned them of the illegality of their actions. In this case the Committee have committed an illegal act by seizing the plaintiff’s goods, and the plaintiff was perfectly justified in resisting, and coming to tHis Court for redress. The judgment of the Court is that the Committee do return the 2 horses, 2 saddles, and 2 bridles, and pay the plaintiff £4 damages, by to-morrow, or to pay £3O as compensation. ' Mr. Price said he was glad his friend Paora perfectly agreed with the Court’s judgment.