RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1365, 6 October 1883, Page 1

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth Eeq., R.M.) Friday. Dbwksssess. Pirikchehi pleaded guilty to the above offence, aud wae fined 10s, in default 24 hours, Waerangl was also similarly dealt with for the same offence. Waiuiex v. Te Kani—Adjourned by consent for 2 weeks. Bkassev & Feaser v. A. I’eteks—Adiourned for 2 weeks. J. D, Oh.mosd v Haiona Mokexa, and Hoi'isßA Kiwi—Mr Kenny for plaintiff and Mr Rees for defendants. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants the sum of £25. It appears that Haiona Mokena signed a certain deed conveying her interest in a certain block to the plaintiff, for which she received £25 as consideration, as a spinster, but now turns out to be married, and her husband now objects to the sale, hence this action. Captain Porter deposed--In October last our firm was acting as agent for the plaintiff, I know the defendant Mokena by sight. In November Mr Ormond was purchasing land, Wharekopai No 1. I hold a deed of conveyance, conveying her (Mokena’s) interest to plaintiff. My name being ou the deed as witness I can swear that that is her signature. Mr Rees objected to any evidence being taken on the deed as it wes not stamped. Examination continued: I produce a declaration which was taken before Mr Fisher, J.P. I was present at the time it was read to her. At the time of signing the parchment she did not say she was married. £26 was the consideration for her interest. The deed was not produced before the Land Court for the purpose of sub-divi-sion. A man named Nopera objected to it, as Haiona Mokena had signed it without hie consent, and she was his wife. The Judge of the Land Court made enquiries, and Nopera said he was her husband. He had quarrelled with hia wife when she received the £25. He had stated he had received £lO of it. He agreed to take £l5O to confirm his wife’s signature. I declined, and he said he would refund the money, (£25). I then agreed to strike out that particular claim No consideration whatever has been received by plaintiff for this £25, and none of it has been paid back. To Mr Reea i The plaintiff received no consideration from the defendant. He received the area of the land from other per. sous whoso names arc in the deed. There were no negotiations in the matter. I conducted the negotiations for Maoris in the purchase of the Wharekopai block by Mr Ormond. I arranged the prices to be given, I was the licensed interpreter of the signa tures of the deed. I decline to answer the question whether I am u partner of plaintiff’s or not. Mr Roes appealed to the Court, that the question should be answered. Mr Kenny objected to the question on the ground that it was irrelevant to the case and was only put for ulterior purposes. Mr Kocs contended that the question wm absolutely to do with the case. He said persons in glass houses should not throw stones, if the question ho hud pul was for ulterior purposes, What was tins action. Ho considered that it was not brought for the mere recovery of the £25, but dearly for ulterior motives and to frighten the Natives. Examination continued: I have no connection with the plaintiff in this matter, nor haw I hud any. Nopara promised to nay the money back. When the question was asked in tho Land Court Nopera said ho hud received £lO. Ho was speaking in Maori. I saw tho defendant sign the deed. The deed says that they convoy their interest in the laud to tho plaintiff. I don't know whether the consideration has failed. E. Woon—l am u licensed interpreter at Gisborne. On the 17th September I was in tho Native Lund Court, 1 hoard some remarks of the Judges to Nopera relative to a deed before the Court. Captain Porter was there. I don’t know what Nopera was saying, E, if. Word.—On the 17th Sept. I was in

the Land Court when this document (produced) was before that Court. I don’t think Mokena was present. Nopera was there and objected to have the deed passed, because he did not consent to his wife’s sale. Captain Purler and he went out of Court at th« Judges and my suggestion®, to arrange the matter. The Judge asked Nopera if he did not consider that he ought to refund the £25, as he had received pa?’t of it, and he stated he would refund it. A good deal else took place, but that was all of importance. To Mr Bees.—Mr Brooking or Mr Hamlin might have been the interpreters. I know the Native stated that he had received part of the money. 1 understood him to say that he had received £lO of it, I a.ked the question to that effect '.o be put to Nopera through the Court.

Mr Reea then addressed the Court at length, submitting that there was no case at all. The deed was totally invalid as it was hot stamped. If it was a good contract, no aub’divislon of the Native Land Court could affect it in auy way, and that if one of those signing the deed could be sued, all the others could also be sued. Mr Kenny submitted that the share had been cut out, and that was sufficient, fo the other side produced any evidence It contradict this statement, he should be compelled to call the Judge of the Native Lands Court. Mr Rees submitted that providing a man’s wife entered into any contract without the knowledge and consent of her husband, the transaction, in the eye of the law, was null and void, He submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited.

Mr Kenny said the first point he should deal with was the question raised by his learned friend as to the validity of the deed as it was not stamped. The deed was perfectly valid for the purposes for which he produced it. The deed had not been proauced in proof of title, but for an entirely collateral purpose. The question as to its legality had nothing whatever to do with the Court. The question to be decided by the Court was whether this man was entitled to hold this money which had been received by his wife. The man himself had acknowledged that it was inequitable for him to keep the money. There could be no. possible doubt but what the woman had received this money as a consideration for her share in the block of land, and that afterwards it was found out that she ought to have obtained the sanction of her husband, Was it not justice and equity that she should, when it was found that her husband refused his consent be compelled to refund this money which had been obtained under such deceptive circumstances. It was undoubtedly the duty of the Court to right this wrong. His learned friend had wandered into some far-fetched hypothesis, but he thought it was a matter of justice for the Court to set this matter right" A great deal had been done in this line in the Native Lands Court during the last few weeks. It had been said that morning that though Captain Cook had discovered these islands yet they would have to thank Judge Brookfield for a large amount of its prosperity, and this was being brought about by the exercise of moral courage in telling the natives where they had done wrong, and in dealing with cases in a broad snirit of equity without any subtle distinction of law. Mr Reea having replied on a point of law, His Worship said that as the case was of great importance to the district, he would take time to consider the evidence, he would deliver judgment on Tuesday next,