RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1100, 15 July 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.— GISBORNE.

Thubsdat, 13th July. [Before M. Pbice, Esq., B.M.] THE POLICE V. A. AUSTIN. The defendant was charged with making use of obscene language, but pleaded not guilty of making use of the words stated, though the evidence clearly proved to the contrary, and that the words in the charge were the words made use of. His Worship therefore fined the defendant £5, and costs of the Court, or in default 30 days’ imprisonment. Fbiday, July 14. Hone Burn v. Nikora Kiripauria, claim £2. Mr Robinson appeared for the defendant. * It appears that the plaintiff received an order from the District Court for £2 against the defendant, but as it was not translated into the Maori language, and as the plaint had been made out incorrectly, thereon Mr Robinson based his defence, and would ask for a nonsuit. The plaintiff stated that he had shown the order, signed by Judge Puckey, to the defendant ; that he had promised to pay the amount, and that he ’could bring a witness to prove that what he stated was correct. The witness was then called, and said that he heard Nikora say that he would pay the sum when he came to G-isborne, but which he would not, it appears, afterwards do. His Worship said, in reply to Mr Robinson, that he did not see what difference it made in this case whether it was translated or not, as it had been clearly proved that the defendant had promised to pay the amount when he came to town. After seeing the order, it was clear, from his own admission, that he understood what it meant. A great deal of argument ensued between the Bench and the Counsel, Mr Robinson, who kept falling back on the translation of the order, and ultimately his Worship decided to leave it in the hands of the Assessors, whether the order should have been translated, and to go by their decision. They, however, considered that it was not necessary, and decided in favor of the plaintiff, with costs.

Tawhioo has declined to interfere in any way in Winiata’s case. The Union Co’s Mahinapua arrived at Port Chalmers on the 7th inst. It would appear that there is no truth in the statement that Barlow drugged Winiata prior to his capture. When the half-caste round that the murderer was asleep he quietly removed a revolver (which he always carried with him) from his breast, and secured his hands. Winiata then woke, and asked his Quondam friend what his hands were tied for. “I am now a constable, and have come to arrest you,” replied Barlow, and without more ado, tied his man to the saddle. Winiata made an attempt to cry out, which, however, the captor stopped by throttling him. Another statement anent the capture is also erroneous. Barlow was not in the slightest degree exhausted when he arrived at Kihikihi, and Winiata was as a child in his hands. His reason for obtaining assistance at Kihikihi was a fear that the natives might be in pur•nit.—Auckland Star.

For continuation of nites see Uh page.