R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 98, 3 April 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) THURSDAY. DRUNKENNESS. Thomas Hawkins was fined five shillings and two shillings costs, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment with hard labor for the above offence. ASSAULT. The case against John Heron (Salvation Jack), for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Solomon Black washcard this morning at the Gisborne Hospital, where the sufferer was lying. The following is the evidence :— Solomon Black deposed—l am n laborer. I was last residing at the Te Aral Saw Mills. I am at present a patient in the Gisborne Hospital. I knew John Heron, (Salvation Jack). He was working at the mill at the time with me. The mill opened on the 11th February, I think. I remember going to the Bridge Hotel the day after it opened, with accused and 3 others. This was 10 o’clock in the forenoon. We left again in the evening. Accused and a boy named Bob Marshall were with rne. I could not say if we were sober. The boy was. I had no drink on the road, at least not to my knowledge. We got as far as the Pipiwaka Bush when a sort of sweat came over me, and I felt as if I wanted to lie down. The accused said I should not lie down. I did lie down, and the first thing I felt was a “ lick ” across the hand with a stick, the accused at the same time telling me to get up and go on. I got another lick or two about the shoulders and on the arms. I then sang out “ Murder.” I did get up and then lay down again, and accused came at me again as I laid on the other side. He told me to get up at once and go on, and hit me again with a stick. He struck me on the hip and right thigh and both shins. He managed to get me on about three chains from home when my right hip felt so injured that I had to lay down again. He then hit me across the mouth with the stick. He also gave me a couple of licks on the back of ray head. He also struck me on i the left thigh when first I lay down. During all this the boy was with us. When we got within 3 chains of home accused then left mo and went away. During the beating he did not say that he had any instructions from Mr. Hurrey to bring me home. He and I never had any quarrel. After he went away I lay till daybreak. I then managed to crawl into the cook’s house. I know George Williams, who is present. He was at tire cook house. He did nothing to assist me at the time, but ho did about two hours afterwards. At last I managed to get into the cook’s bunk. No one examined me before that. I saw the accused that morning, he did not offer to do

anything for me. He only told me to get up and go and have a wash, and that he had not used a stick, but that I had run my head into a briar bush. After that I remained at the mill till the following Friday week, I was confined to my bed all that time. The accused came to me once or twice, and said that he was sorry about it happening. I was removed to the hospital the Friday week following. I have been under Dr. Pollen’s care ever since. I was working up to the day of the opening of the mill. To the accused—l am not aware that we had any liquor on the road. I do not remember lying down before we came to the bridge. I did not heave a log at you. Dr. Pollen deposed—The patient, S. Black, was admitted on the 22nd of February last. He had a large abscess on the back of the left hand, another on the back of the left wrist, a little higher up. The whole of the . left arm was bruised and swollen. All outside of the left thigh and leg was swollen, and sore to touch. There was a large swelling on the right hip joint, and a considerable scalp wound on the back of the head. The man on admission appeared very much shaken, and was feverish with a pulse of 120. Lately a large deep abscess has formed in the deep muscles of the left thigh, affecting the thigh bone. I should say it was caused by external violence, all the bruises were made by some blunt instrument. Several times he has been in a very precarious condition. If everything goes well now he ought to be discharged in about 3 or 4 weeks. R. Marshall deposed—l am a laborer. I am working at Mr. Hurrey’s Saw Mill. I know accused and complainant. I was at the Bridge Hotel with them the night of the day after the opening of the mill. The 3of us left about 8.30 to go to the mill. They were both middling drunk. I carried a bottle of whiskey for accused. On the road accused hit complainant with a stick, all over the body. Complainant was lying down at the time. Accused said he hit him so that he could go to his work in the morning. The stick was about Jof an inch in diametr. I was with them till within 30 chains from the mill, when I left them together. Complainant was crying for help and mercy, but accused paid no attention to the cries. Accused was not striking with all his force. To the accused—The two nearly finished the bottle of whiskey on the road. Two more witnesses, George Williams and Thomas Wright, were also examined. After the hearing of which His Worship committed the prisoner for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court to be holden at Gisborne.

TOLOGA BAY LETTER, NATIVE LAND COURT. IMPORTANT PROCEEDINGS. [FROK AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT.] Uawa, April 2. The Court re-opened on Tuesday, after a week’s adjournment to allow a voluntary arrangement of cases for subdivision. The Court was crowded by Native and European claimants, the members of the legal profession being well represented by Messrs. Brassey, Ward, Rees, Watson and Nolan. The first case called on for subdivision was the Rotokautuku, which it was found could not be proceeded with owing to the want of a certified plan, His Honor stating that the several Judges of the Court had agreed as a rule of practice not to attempt to subdivide estates or make orders unless duly certified plans were before them, as an order of the Court had the full effect of a land transfer certificate, and great care should be observed in making orders. A lengthened discussion then ensued between the Court and Native claimants. Major liopata said it was a misnomer to call it a Native Land Court for the settlement of Native titles when all the practices and all the laws were patella. The Court was firm in its ruling as to the want of proper plans, and struck the case out, agreeing that if a proper plan could be produced he might re-instate the case, but thought it impossible. The Huiarua was then called on, a block in which 300 out of 330 owners had alienated their interests to Europeans, and the purpose of subdivision was to define the interests of the parties to the sale and the dissentients thereto, as provided by the provisions of the Act of 1873, re lands under Memorial of Ownership. His Honor said the Court could not follow the same course of sub-division as that adopted at Gisborne, as he considered that the Sub-division /let of 1882, repealed by implication the Act of 1883, so far as it referred to divisions, and that while admitting the intention of the Act was to facilitate the division of estates on behalf of every person having a bona fide interest, yet he had the dictum of a Judge of the Supreme Court to literally construe the Native Land Act, as no other laws in New Zealand gave such wide powers, and he would adhere to the strict wording of the Act. He could not, •therefore, accept deeds as evidence of the desire of a majority for subdivision, but would accept a special document if executed by a majority of owners appointing one or more of themselves to act before the Court, and to obtain a subdivision of the land, and such order as might be necessary to carry out transactions, such documents to become records of the Court as evidence of the subdivision. Messrs. Rees and Ward pointed out the difficulties that would ensue upon the course now suggested by the Court, and the serious effect upon the whole question of subdivision of estates, nearly all of which must fall to the ground, which would be largely detrimental to the district, and nullify the good work of the Court at Gisborne. His Honor quite admitted the importance of the position, and would assist in stating a case for the decision of the Supreme Court at once.

This was agreed to, and the several solicitors agreed to frame a case, Mr. Rees volunteering to argue it in Wellington. Captain Porter then, on behalf of himself and other claimants, asked the Court to allow all cases in which a majority of owners had disposed of their interests, to stand over pending the judgment of the Supreme Court upon the case referred. The Court considered this only fair, and agreed that only purely Maori claims should be proceeded with. The list was then gone through and the following claims were proceeded with: — Rahui, Waitekaha, Wairoro No. 2, Tuawhata, Anaura, Mangarara No. 1, Rototahi, Mara'aed, Te Kunui, Waiomoko, Tuawhatr, Whangara. On its adjournment at mid-day on Tuesday, the Court intimated that in order to afford ample time for settlement of all legal questions, it would stand adjourned till the 7th May.