RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1175, 14 October 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.J KEEPING A HOUSE OF ILL FAME. Esther Thomas was charged with the above offence. The accused denied the charge. Sergeant Bullen called Constable Farmer, who proved that the house was frequented by men, and was a brothel. Complaints had been made with reference to the house. Constable John Walsh was called, and stated that he had frequently seen men in accused’s house since the children had been sent away. The house is a brothel. Accused lives alone.

Constable Wilson was called, and corroborated the previous evidence given by the two last witnesses, which is totally unfit for publication. This was the case for the prosecution. The accused denied the charge strongly. The Resident Magistrate said that if this had been the first time the accused had been brought up he might have thought that there was nothing in it, but seeing that she had been before the Court on several occasions, and that her children had to be sent to the Industrial School, owing to her vicious habits, he would order her to pay a. fine of £5, and in default of payment a distress warrant would be issued, and in default of distress she would be imprisoned in the common gaol | at Napier for one month.

assault. Andrew Gregg was charged with assaulting Herini Tatae on the night of the 12th instant, at the Ferry. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Kenny appeared for the defendant. Hirini Tatae sworn : The night before last I was requested to go across the river with some other Natives. We went to the Ferry, and were taken across the river about 10 o’clock. Before we went over Paul asked the price, and we were told 6d per head. Directly the punt grounded the men jumped ashore, with the ex option of Caroline’s husband. Defendant reversed the wheel, and took Caroline and her husband back to this side of the river. Caroline called out that the ferryman was making improper overtures to her. I called out for the policeman. Directly I did this the defendant took the punt back. The defendant threw a kerosene tin at Paul. Defendant had a stick in his hand. He then came towards me, and threw a stone at me. I was felled to the ground. When Defendant found I was stunned, he got into the punt and went back. By Mr Kenny : Caroline and her husband were drunk, and the others were not. I was not. The constable did not tell me to go home, as I was drunk. I was not turned out of Dickson’s that night for being drunk. Defendant had a stick in his hand, and ran at Kumara. I don’t know what he did with the stick, but I felt the stone on my head. I did not see defendant throw the stone. By the Bench : Kumara was as far from me as the fence is from this Court. Defendant was as far from me as the prisoner’s box is now. It is only by inference that I say that the defendant threw the stone at me. Paora Hapu corroborated the testimony of last witness.

Cross-examined by Mr Kenny: Kumara is always a peaceful man. I saw no stones thrown by the Natives. I was not drunk, nor was last witness.

Kumara was called, and produced the stick which defendant had in his hand at the ti ne. Defendant ran at the witness with it. This witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr Kenny, and his evidence was considerably shaken. This closed the case for the complainant. Mr Kenny then addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, and called Andrew Gregg, the defendant, who stated that on the night in question the complainant and the other Natives were all drunk. He got a man to assist him. The Natives threatened to go for him. Kumara threw three or four stones at him and lamed him. So did Hirini. He (witness) only threw a kerosene tin at them. The complainant was drunk, and so were the othors, out Kumara was not so bad. Cross-examined by complainant : You pitched a stone at me, and so did Kumara. By the Bench : Kumara struck me on the ankle with a stone. I did not face complainant. I went for Kumara. I never picked up a stone or threw one, nor did I face the complainant. Little was on the punt. I could see Kumara pick up the stones and throw them at me. I only threw the kerosine tin. Kumara had his pockets full of stones. He had two in his hands ; they were about 51bs each. I don’t know how many he had in his pockets. Robert Little stated that on the night in question Hirini was drunk in the Club Hotel. Some of the others were there also, and the worse for liquor. They were refused. He (witness) was asked to assist defendant. Ho conld hear the stones falling. He could see the complainant and his friends, but he could not see that they were throwing stones. Cross-examined by complainant: I put you out of the Club Hotel. It was not my business to give you in charge. You were not fit to take yourself across the river, so that you could not take the other Maori and his wife. I heard the barmaid order them out of the Hotel.

By His Worship: I did not hear any stones fall on the punt. The stones splashed in the water. James King was called, and stated that he saw Kumara this mornihg pick up a stick similar to the one produced. Constable Walsh, called, nnd stated that he saw complainant, Kumara, and Paora on the evening in question, and they were all drunk. He cautioned Hirini and the others. Cross-examined by Hirini: I thought to let you go home quietly, and that was the reason I did not arrest you. Sergeant Bullen stated he heard a noise on the other side of the river on the night in question, and he heard a stone strike the punt and also the rattle of the kerosene tin. Defendant and Little were perfectly sober. Judgment reserved until after the hearing of the other case. The cross-action by Andrew Gregg against Hirini Tatae and Kumera, for assaulting him on the night of the 12th instant, was then called on. Mr Kenny, who appeared for the complainant in this case, asked that the case might be withdrawn. He was unaware of the fact, a cross-action had been entered, and he would therefore ask His Worship to strike it off the list.

His Worship agreed to this being done. His Woaship, in giving his decision in the first case, said that it appeared to him that the whole question turned on the condition in which the complainant and his party were at the time of the alleged assault; it almost entirely depended on the fact as to whether they were drunk or sober at the time of the occurrence. It appeared from the evidence that the complainant Hirini could not see very well, and unless he was perfectly sober, he could not say what took place. It was not proven who it was that struck him. So far as the evidence of Kumara was considered, no reliance could be placed on his testimony. The whole of this quarrel arose from drink, and in fact it appeared to him that none of the natives knew what they were doing, so that they must, therefore, take the consequences of the squabble, the result of which was a blow on the head for the complainant. The case would, therefore, be dismissed with the cost* of court.

Mr Kenny applied for his fee, and after some argument between His Worship and the learned counsel the request of Mr Kenny was declined. Furious Riding. Napier Tukia, Ka Pahoho and Mihi te Ruia were fined 40s each for furiously riding on the footpaths in Gladstone Road and Peel-street on the 10th inst. The offences were all admitted, and His Worship read them a severe lecture on the evil effects of drunkenness, which they had all admitted was the cause of their offending.