District Court.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 991, 27 October 1881, Page 2

District Court.

Tuesday, Oct. 25. [Before His Honour Judge Kenny.] His Honour took his seat at 10:30. ABSENT JURYMAN. John Wilson was fined £2 for neglecting to attend. QUEEN V. MEHAKA KAIKAU. The prisoner was charged with having on the 9th of May last violently beaten and assaulted by kicking one Rewi Tanganui, doing him bodily harm by breaking his leg. Prisoner pleaded that he did not know, as he was drunk. His Honor: Very well, take that as a plea of Not Guilty. i Mr. H. Lewis was elected foreman. ;

Mr. Nolan, Crown Prosecutor,' opened the case, and called Dr. Pollen, who deposed that he remembered seeing the injured man lying• in Mr. Page’s bar about the 9th of May last, with his leg broken. It was a; simple fracture. A kick would be likely to cause such a fracture.

Honi Hahi: Saw the prisoner on or, about the 9th of May, about sundown, at Page’s. There were lots of people there. Prisoner asked Rangi to give him a glass of spirits. Rewi said he' had no money Without further re-' mark the accused kicked Rewi on the; leg, who then fell. This evidence was fully corroborated: by Rewi and another native. For the defence Rua deposed that Mahaka did not kick Rewi. He could, not have done so without witness seeing him. Rewi was angry with Mehaka, and rushed at him. Then both fell down. Rewi was drunk. After some time spent in discussing whether breaking a man’s leg was actual bodily harm, a verdict of Guilty: was returned, and the prisoner sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in Napier gaol. The Crown Prosecutor applied that His Honor would direct a prosecution to be instituted against Rua for per-: jury. In Poverty Bay the books of the Court were constantly being hampered with false depositions made by natives. He made the application on public grounds, believing it would be a caution to these people. The Court then adjourned until 2 p.m. CIVIL CASES. ANDREW REEVES V. RANGIORA AHIPETA. This was a case for the recovery of £9l Bs. Mr'. Nolan appeared for the plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for £124 145., being the amount claimed, with interest and costs. M. MULLOOLEY V. HENARE RURU. Mr. Finn for plaintiff, and Mr. Rees for defendant. Adjourned until Thursday next, for argument as to whether the service had been a legal one. The Act states that any one summoned who is living 20 miles away must have at least 15 days’ clear notice. The Court had been advertised to be held on the 17th, and the summons was not delivered until the 4th. Mr. Rees contended the Court day meant the day appointed for the Court to be held, and Mr. Finn •that it was the day on which the Court sat. SAME V. HEPETA MAITAI. Claim £124, principal and interest due on a P.N. The facts of this case may Be stated to be as follows : —Since 1874 the defendant had been dealing with plaintiff, and his account reached a considerable amount. The defence was that a large portion of the sum was for rum supplied in less than 20s. worth at a time. This the plaintiff denied, and said that the rum had mostly been paid for in cash at various times, and that for stores alone Hepeta owed more than the £lOO. Mr. Rees had given notice that the plaintiff’s books would have to be produced, but they were not forthcoming, Mr. Finn explaining that he had been served with the notice of which the plaintiff knew nothing. For the defence Hepeta said that before he became a Good Templar he used to drink large quantities of rum, but never bought more than one bottle at a time. When he signed the P.N. he did not know what it was about, nor the amount. Notwithstanding this assertion Mr. J. T. Large’s signature appears on the P.N. as a licensed interpreter. Mr. Rees said he took up such matters on public grounds, as he thought it was altogether wrong for publicans to supply drink to natives and then get them to sign these promissory notes.

His Honour said he must look upon it that spirits did form part of the consideration, and he would therefore give judgment for defendant with costs.

There were three other cases in which Mr. Finn accepted a nonsuit, and it was eventually agreed that all the open accounts should be submitted to arbitration, and the objectionable charges struck out.

Wednesday, Oct. 26. PERJURY. His Honor directed that the police should take the lad Te Rua, and institute a charge against him for perjury in the Police Court. ABSENT JURYMEN. Duncan McMillan was fined £1 for not answering to his name. John Wilson, who was absent on Tuesday, attended yesterday, and half of his fine was remitted. REGINA V. M. MULLOOLEY. Michael Mullooly, of Tologa Bay, was charged with having, on or about the eighth day of September, 1881, at Tologa Bay, feloniously did steal, take and carry away certain valuable securi-

ties for money, to wit, two cheques on the Bank of New South Wales, Gisborne, drawn by Andrew Beeves in favor of one Raniera Turoa, for the sum of £57 and £5 respectively, and of the value of £57 and £5 of the goods and chattels of the said Raniera Turoa, contrary to the form, &c. The jury consisted of Messrs.'W. Teat (foreman), W. L. File, H. Davis, J. Wilson, 11. J. U’Ren, C. P. Brown, W. Graham, H. Lewis, G. Beveridge, J. Clement, J. Whinray, W. Withers. Mr. Nolan applied that the witnesses should be ordered out of court.

The Crown Prosecutor opened the case, and explained to the jury the natureof the evidence he would adduce.

Raniera Turoa being sworn, deposed: I kncfiv Mullooley and I know Andrew Reeves. I saw Mr. Reeves at Tolago some time ago, and he gave me money —a cheque. This is one of the cheques marked A, Reeves gave to me. I received another cheque. The name on the back of the cheques is mine. The money was for land. When I received the cheques I paid it away for food to Brown. Mr. Finn objected that there was a conversation going on. His Honor explained it was necessary, in order to get a definite answer. Witness : It was not one of these two. I put it in my waistcoat pocket. I remained at Tolago, and I commenced to drink. Those cheques were given to me on Tuesday; on Wednesday I was very drunk. I awoke early on Thursday ; felt for my money, which was not there. I went to Mullooley’s. I saw Hoana there, but did not see Mullooley there. Hoana and I went away together. She told me something ; went upstairs, and then came back with Mullooley. He had the £5 cheque with him. I saw the cheque. Hoana showed it to me. Mullooley took it out of Hoana’s hand. I said, “ My friend, give me back my money.” He refused, and said “ I will keep this money myself.” I said his action was wrong, and that he had no right to seize this. I went out. I did not see the £5 cheque till I came to Gisborne. I saw it at the Bank. I did not pay it away. Mullooley says I owe him money ; I don’t know. To Mr. Finn: I have not been to Mullooley’s for goods. The signature to this document (a P.N. for £5O) is mine. I have never been asked to pay that P.N. It is true I never had goods from Mullooley. Mr. Finn read an account of certain goods. Witness : I have said before I have not got goods from Mullooley. His Honour warned the witness to be careful. Witness : Personally I have not had them. I don’t remember paying Mulfiooley £6 15s. on account of goods. I promised to pay Rakanui’s debt of £9O to Mullooley. I have not done so. She does not read English ; she can read figures. After getting the cheques I commenced to drink immediately in the two public-houses. On the following day. I was drunk, aud went to sleep at night. I went to Mullooley’s with Rawiti, and we did not separate until we got into the house. We went in together and came out together. I did not say in the Police Court that I left Rawiti outside. Tamati (the barman) was in the bar when Hoana went upstairs. Mullooley was upstairs ;he was not iu the bar. I saw Stagpole, the constable, but did not complain to him of my loss. I made no complaint till I came to Gisborne.

Rawiti Rangi sworn, deposed: I don’t remember the beginning of September. 1 did not see Raniera. I know MsJillooley’s house at Tolago. I know Hoana.’ I saw her on a Thursday morning. Raniera and I went to Mullooley’s. We went inside. Hoana was there; she came from upstairs. She said to Raniera “ I have your money. Raniera said “ Get it.” She came back dressed. When she came down Mullooley, Raniera, Tamati, and myself were in the bar, and Hoana handed a cheque to Raniera. Mullooley seized it out of Hoana’s hands. Raniera said “ Give me my money.” Mullooley said “ No, I will keep it for the debt,” and put it in his pocket. Raniera said “ I will summon you.”

To Mr. Finn : My statement that Mullooley was in the bar when Hoana came with the money is a false one. Mullooley and Hoana came down the stairs together. He had never spoken to Raniera about what was to be said. I heard Mullooley say he would keep the cheque for a debt. I don’t know what the amount was. I know Constable Stagpole. I did not tell him Hoana went into her own house for the cheque. C. A. Tabuteau, manager of the Bank of New South Wales, proved that the £57 cheque was presented on Sept. 10th by the Bank of New Zealand, and cashed ; the £5 'cheque was presented on the 26th of September, and refused, payment having been stopped. A. W. Croft, of the Bank of New Zealand, stated the £57 cheque was paid into Mullooley’s account, and cashed, the £5 note was paid in by Henry Cannon.

Mr. Nolan, at this stage, asked the permission of His Honor to enter a raoZZe prosequi, as he j udged from the remarks of His Honor as to it being a ease for a civil action, and from the nature of the evidence that there was no likelihood of a conviction. He trusted His Honor would direct the jury to bring in a verdict of “not guilty.” Mr. Finn said he would ask His Honor to go further than that, aud direct the jury to add to their verdict

that his client left the Court without the slightest stain upon his character. Mr. Mullooly was an old and respected resident, and never had such a thing brought against him before.

His Honor said he could not do that, the jury could please themselves as to that. He thought the Crown Prosecutor had acted most sensibly in the matter by acting as he had done. No man had a right to stop money which came into his hands without the consent of the owner. But where it was evident that such stoppage was made by a person thinking he had a right to it, the law would only recognise a civil action, if no right could be proved, then the person guilty would be criminally punished. There was a difference in taking, thinking you had a right to it, and taking, knowing you were wrong.

The jury, after a few seconds, returned a verdict of not guilty, adding that Mr. Mullooly left the Court without a stain upon his character. His Honor thanked the jury for their attendance and discharged them.