RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1211, 27 November 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day. ["Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] POLICE V. WM, DONALDSON. Prisoner was charged with being drunk in a public place, to wit Gladstone Road, on the 26th inst. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s | or 24 hours. POLICE V. ANARV. i This was an adjourned case of larceny of , two table cloths, the property of Henry j Morse at Rangatira. Further adjourned for the attendance of ; Mr Rees, counsel for the defendant. Mr I Rees appeared almost at the same moment, ! and the Court resumed. : Sergeant Bullen stated that the prisoner had admitted his guilt as far as one tableI cloth was concerned, to Mr Morse, the proi secutor, in the presence of Constable I’egley, , who had noted the admission in his pocketbook. I Constable Pegley sworn, deposed- -On the \ evening of the 23rd I was going out of town with Mr Morse. At Makaraka I waited for the coach, and the prisoner got out of it on arrival, and asked me to have a drink, which I declined. He then went into the hotel, and came out in company with Mr Morse. The coach was between us, but I heard Mr Morse accuse him of stealing two cloths. He said “ Anaru, you stole my two cloths.” The prisoner said he only took one, not two. I produce my memorandum-book containing notes made at the time. The following is my memo. :—“At Makaraka at 3.30 by the Roseland Hotel clock, Morse accused Anaru of taking his table-cloths. He answered that he had not taken two, but only one.” That was the whole of the conversation. Cross-examined by Mr Rees : Every word that I have down was actually used with the exception of the word table. I heard it and wrote it down as the words were spoken. I could see them at the time the words were used. I was close up to them. I was not two yards apart from them ; I was on horseback, and brought my horse round close to them. The coach is a covered coach, and I could see across it. If they had looked they could have seen me. I don’t know whether the driver was on the box of the coach. They were at the'back wheel of the coach. The prisoner's back was towards me, and Morse was facing me. I heard nothing but what I have stated. I did not ask the prisoner any questions. Had they said anything further I must certainly have heard it. The conversation was in English, which prisoner speaks fluently. Henry Morse, sworn, deposed : I rode out to Makaraka on the occasion in question. I saw prisoner there. He got off the coach at Makaraka, and accused me of having him locked up for stealing clothes. He said I accused him of stealing towels and shirts. I replied, “ You took the clothes right enough. ” He said “ No ; I only took one, the old one.” I made no memorandum of the conversation at the time. I said “Very good," and walked away. Constable Pegley was just close by the coach at the time, I suppose 5 or 6 yards from us at the time. He could hear what passed in conversation. He was in sight of both of us, just at the corner. Cross-examined by Mr Rees: The constable was at the back wheel of the coach, I was at the front. I was on foot, having just got off the coach ; he came towards me to shake hands, and then this conversation took place. Andrew was pretty close to the constable ; he must have seen him before I did. Andrew said “You had me locked up for nothing.” I said, “ I don’t know about that yet.” He said, “Youaccused me of taking the shirts and the cloths.” I don’t think I replied to that before he said “ I only took the one he didn’t give me time. Nothing further took place. The Constable was off

his horse ; he was on the ground when I saw him. The sheet produced X cannot identify. So far as I am a judge the stitch is different; my wife knows more about the sheets than I do, What I have stated is the correct version of the conversation. I did not call the constable’s attention to the confession, I said nothing to him about the prisoner’s confession. I walked away. Mary Janie Morse deposed : I am the wife of Henry Morse, residing at Rangatira. I know defendant. I saw him passing my place early on or about the 9th of last Oct. It was my washing day, and the clothes were hanging on the line. There were tablecloths, towels, sheets and pillow-cases. There were four tablecloths on the line ; one old one, and one new one among thdm, I did not bring the clothes in that night, I went for them next morning and found that two tablecloths were missing, One I had had about 18 months in my possession and the other was comparatively a new one. I am not aware of any other things being taken, I saw one of those tablecloths on the wife of the accused on the 10th of this month, She Was wearing it as a shawl. I did not charge her with stealing it, Constable Pegley brought it to my place, and I knew it to be mine. I would know that tablecloth again from its general appearance. It is a plain leaf pattern with a border down the two sides and none at the ends. I know it thoroughly well. The cloth now produced is the one, and this other I also identify as my property. Cross-examined by Mr Rees : I identify these clothes as my property by their general appearance and pattern, and having the handling of them so often. I said nothing to the woman when I recognised the cloth as my property. I followed her to the door and took up the hem and looked at it; it was my cloth ; the one with a hole in it. They bought no spirits at my place that day. It was raining very hard and they came in and remained only a few minutes. They stood in the passage and then went out. The hole in the tablecloth was made by my husband with a carving knife since we have been at the Rangitira, which is about three months.

Mr Rees addressed the Court in favor of the prisoners’ discharge on the ground of the diametrical confliction of evidence given by the arresting constable and the prosecutor, Morse. The whole evidence was conflicting, and he would submit that a false construction had been put on some mumbled words. He would ask if it were reasonable to convict on such garbled evidence. In every word the constable and the prosecutor absolutely contradicted themselves in every point. The constable used the third person in relating the conversation, and swore to them as the exact words, which is an impossibility. Mrs Morse’s statement regarding the visit of the prisoner and his wife, when she was wearing the stolen cloth as a shawl, was unsatisfactory*. He would like to call the evidence of the couch-driver, the wife of the prisoner, and a Native named Hemi,

E. Dwyer sworn, deposed : I was driving the coach last Thursday ; the prisoner, a white woman (Mrs Jennings), and three or four Natives were in the coach. I saw the constable and Morse at Makaraka. I saw Anaru get off the couch ; the constable was on the road, and Morse was tying his horse to the fence. The prisoner and Morse shook hands. I think prisoner spoke in Maori. I am uncertain whether the constable was on horseback or not. Morse asked the prisoner into the hotel. I went to Davis’s store with the parcels. I heard no more, but prisoner told me afterwards that Morse offered him £2 to acknowledge. Prisoner spoke in Maori. I think I would have heard any conversation in English. I have no doubt of the matter. I didn’t hear him speak in English. I have no doubt in my own mind that had he done so 1 should have heard it. Morse went away after that, and the prisoner came on the coach. I heard the prisoner speaking in Maori. 1 jumped off the coach immediately after the Maori. The conversation alleged could not have taken place at the time stated, or I would have heard. I was present while they were on the verandah, but they could have had time to speak while I was at Davis’s. Adjourned till one o’clock for the evidence of Mrs Jennings. Mrs Jennings having given her evidence, which was to the effect that she had heard no conversation between the prosecutor and the prisoner, His Worship proceeded to sum up. The prisoner was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor in Gisborne Gaol. This concluded the business.