R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 40, 15 January 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., 8.M.) MONDAY. lunacy. Hare Te Tutanaki was brought up charged with being a dangerous lunatic at large. Dr. Pollen said though the man was not fit to be at large, yet he did not consider him a fit subject for a lunatic asylum. The man was in a most filthy condition. In remanding the unfortunate man until the 23rd instant, his Worship asked the Sergeant to endeavour to procure a change of clothing for the prisoner. RECEIVING. Karauria Kahu was brought up charged on the information of Constable R. H. Pegley, with receiving, on the 14th of January f a green stone mounted with gold, well knowing the same to be stolen. Mr. G. K. Turton appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded “ not guilty.” Mr. Turton stated that this was a Case of mistaken identity. He should call witnesses to prove that the man who stole the stone was an older and much-uglier one with a much flatter nose than the accused. He would also call witnesses to prove that the stone was picked up in the billiard-room of Mr. S; Stevenson at Makaraka. He now called James Siddons, billiard-marker at the Roseland Hotel, who deposed that he knew the prisoner by having seen him at Waerenga-a-hika and other places. On Friday he had to clear some Maoris out of the room because they were the worse for drink, and interfered with others who were playing. Could not say whether the prisoner was one of them or not. As he put one out of the door he felt ft snatch at his watch-chain. In the excitement he did not take particular notice, but in the course of five minutes he found he had lost the greenstone and key off his chain. He found the key on the floor. That was the greenstone (produced). Had never sold the stbne. He valued the stone at £2.

Cross-examined by Mr. Turton—He bought the stone some time ago, when he was billiard-marking in the Albion Hotel. Had been offered £2 for the stone separate from the watch. J. W. Francis was recently connected with the Sir George Grey Hotel. Was engaged at the hotel on last Sunday week, and saw the accused there. Mr. Harris and Mr. Hull were in the bar when the prisoner offered the greenstone to them. Neither of them purchased it, but referred it to witness. The prisoner offered the stone for 7s. 6d., butj acting under the advice of Mr. Harris, he (witness) gave ss. for it. This was about lour o’clock in the afternoon. Was perfectly certain that the accused was the person. Could not be mistaken. Never asked him where he got the stone from. Cross-examined by Mr. Turton—Had never seen the accused at the hotel before that Sunday, and had never seen him there since. If a witness stated that the accused and another had been served since by witness, it would be falser The accused paid 2s. for drinks for himself, Mr. Hull, Mr. Harris, and witness, and put Bs. in his pocket. Thought the accused had a long shandygaff, but would not be sure. The accused went out by the back entrance, the same way by which he came in. The Native said he was working at Gray’s, or somewhere thereabouts. Did not know a man named Rangatere. Had not seen a taller, darker, and uglier man, with thicker lips and flatter nose, at the hotel. The prisoner was dressed exactly the same on that occasion as he now appeared in the box. K. Hall resided at Woerenga-a-hika, and remembered Bunday, the 6th inst., when he was in the Sir George Grey Hotel, about 4.80. Knew the accused and saw him there on that occasion. Francis, Harris, himself, and accused were present. The accused offered the stone to anyone who was willing to buy it. If witness had money at the time, he would have purchased the stone. He should know the stone. Mr, France* gave the accused Bs. for the stone, providing he would shout. He had not examined the stone, but saw by the mounting that it was worth more than the money asked for it. Was sure of the identity of the accused. Did not call bread and cheese refreshment. Refreshment was drink. Was quite sure the Native in the dock was the man.

Cross-examined by Mr. Turton—The negotiation was conducted in English. (The witness was here censured for hie pert answers to the Bench.) Mr. Frances said, “ If you shout, I will give you ss. for the stone.” That was on Sunday, the 6th inst. Constable Pegley, examined by Sergeant Bullen—Knew the accused, and arrested him on the 9th at Waerenga-a-hika for being in possession of stolen property. The charge was interpreted to the accused. The prisoner said he knew nothing about it. Cross-examined by Mr. Turton—Could not tell the name of the boy who This closed the case for the Mr. Turton, in addressing the Bench, submitted that the case must fail, inasmuch as there was nothing whatever to show that the prisoner know that he was in possession of stolen property. Sergeant Bullen said there was ample confirmation of the man’s guilty knowledge in his denying any knowledge of the occurrence when arrested. His Worship said the fact of the prisoner elliug the stone for the sum of five shillings, which he must have well known was far beneath the value, was strong evidence as to guilty knowledge. Taking all the circumstances, together with the strong evidence as to identity, the evidence was very clear against the accused. Mr. Turton then set forth the difficulty of positively swearing to Maoris. He wished the witnesses to be cautioned by the Bench before they were permitted to give evidence. He now called, Hore Mana—On the witness getting into the box his Worship cautioned him as to the results of not speaking the truth. The witness then deposed that he was working at Waerenga-a-hika on the day in question. The accused was working with him as his boy. The distance from the tent to the hotel was as far as the Court was from the other side of the river. On the Sunday in question the witness went to church. The accused was left in the tent. After coming from church they went to the Sir George Grey and stopped there until the sun got low. He did not see the accused there. If he had been there he (witness) would have seen him. When he went back to the tent accused was there with the boys and remained there all tne night. He knew Rewi Rangiteri and could describe him. Rewi was a dark man with flat nose and woolly hair. . Re-examined by Sergeant Bullen—W ent to church before dinner and to the hotel after dinner, The dinner was cooked and partaken

of before they went to the hotel. It was getting dark, The sun was down. By the Court—They had some talk after dinner before they went to the hotel. He Went into every room in the house. (The Court cautioned the witness as to the improbability of going into “ every room in the house, ”) There were many Natives there and ■ome pakehas. Did not know the name of those who served the beer. Had two glasses. The sun had set when he left the house. He was in the room behind the bar. Could not see anyone come in the bar. Piripi Waipapa, was working at Waerenga-a-hika last Sunday week, and gave similar evidence as to the visit to the hotel after dinner. It was nearly sundown when they went to the hotel. . Ani Hoho was at home at Waerenga-a-hika the week before last. On the Sunday in question herself, the accused, and several Others stayed in the tent while the others

Were away at church. The accused was in her company in the morning preparing the from the cabbage-tree. The prisoner was in her company all the day. (The Bench here said ho could not believe the witness, and put the question to witness again, when again answered in the affirmative.) The prisoner was her nephew. She had children of her own, and they were with her on that day. Cross-examined by Sergeant Bullen—She had watched the accused all day for fear he would go away and do mischief. The boy climbed up the tree to get the food. She kept her eyes on him while he was up the tree. Did not lose sight of the accused through the whole of the day. Marara Kana remembered the day in question, and the accused staying with them pre. paring the dinner of koka from the cabbage--9 trees. The accused stayed there all day until night. No one told her to say that. She did not watch the accused. She saw him there. Cross-examined by Sergeant Bullen—The accused was not away for any time. He was before her all the tune, and could not have left without her knowledge. The prisoner Went for firewood, but Anie did not go with him.

By the Court—The fire was not outside the tent—in front. **- Heneriata Hinekehu was also present at the tent on the Sunday in question, aud gave similar evidence to the last witness. The accused was present through the whole of the day. By Sergeant Bullen—She had not watched the prisoner, but she saw him all day. Mr. Turton, in addressing the Court, stated that he had to ask for another remand in order to produce another witness named Bewi Rangatori, who had stated that he wan the man who had disposed of the stone, and another who had picked it up, Adjourned until Wednesday week, the 28rd instant, for the production of further witnesses for the defence, bail being refused on account of the prisoner belonging to Waiapu. LARCENY. A Native known as Dummy, on account of being both deaf and dumb, and a little fellow named Arther Curtis, a boy nine years of age, were brought up under remand, charged, on the information of Sergeant Bullen, with the larceny of a beehive from the Roseland Gardens, the property of W. Knight, on the 14th instant. The elder prisoner being both deaf and dumb, great difficulty was experienced in making him understand the charge preferred against him, and the only means of doing this was through the agency of the boy, who is a most intelligent little fellow, and speaks both English and Maori. Mr. Knight remembered Mr. Hall coming and telling him something on the above date. In consequence of this information he went with Mr. Hgll into a paddock of Mr. Welche’s, which skirts the river, and saw the elder prisoner sitting on the box, and the little boy beside him. Mr. Grey was standing watching them. Mr. Gray asked witness whether the hive was his. Recognised the hive as his property. The box was worth £2. He never authorised the prisoner to take the box away. The little boy said they had got the box from the brickyard. The box was taken from the stand between 6 and 6 o’clock on the night previous. Some ineffectual attempts were here made to interpret the evidence to the prisoner. A. Gray deposed to having gone for a bathe in the river and found the two Natives charged sitting by the box. He asked them what they were doing there, and then examined the box. Said to Hall •• I believe this is one of Knights boxes, we had better go and tell him.” Witness remained watching the Natives while Mr. Hall went to acquaint Mr. Knight. The little fellow said they found the hive in a brickyard. When Mr. Knight saw the box he recognised it as. his property. The Natives were given into custody. Hall remembered going to bathe with the previous witness and saw the prisoners sitting oy the bee box. Mr. Knight asked them where they got the box and the little fellow ■aid they found it at the brick-yard, and were going to take it to Makaraka to sell. On the young prisoner being interrogated he said they were taking the box back to the place from whence they had stolen it. The mother of the youthful offender stated that she had just brought the boy from Napiei where he had been to school. His Honor said the law must be vindicated. The boy would be taken to the gaol and given five stripes with the birch. With respect to the elder prisoner the position was somewhat difficult, inasmuch as the prisoner was both deaf and dumb, and could not understand oue word of the evidence. The case was perfectly dear, and he had been found in possession of the box and made take it back. An attempt was made to inform the elder prisoner that he was committed to the Napier Gaol for two months. The young culprit was taken away, with falterimj steps and downcast eyes, to receive his dreaded castigation. The Court adjourned until Tuesday. CAUSE LIST. The following is the cause list of civil cases to be tried in the R.M. Court this day :— Brown v. Piripi. Common, Shelton & Co. v. Kaihau. Scott v. Honor. East v. Fellows. Wallace v. Bright <fc Gillies. Brown v. Hill. Grey v. Body (two cases).