R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 233, 11 September 1884, Page 3

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) THIS DAY. Horse Stealing. Anaru Harihari was brought up at the R.M. Court this morning, charged with stealing a horse, the property of D. Malone, at Waerenga-a-hika on the 28th of July last, valued at £5. Mr. Whitcombe appeared on behalf of the accused. The Sergeant stated that the accused had only been arrested last night, and was therefore, unprepared to proceed with the case, and would ask for a remand until Wednesday next. Remanded accordingly. A. Keefer v. W. OMeara. A. Keefer sued W. O’Meara for £75 on a judgment summons, obtained in the Supreme Court. The defendant deposed that he was the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff on a dishonored P.N. at the beginning of the year. He was lessee in the Ohikaura station, and had disposed of it for £4OO since March last, but only £lO of that had passed into his hands, as £lB9 odd went to satisfy the lease to Porter & Croft, and about £2OO to put the property square for back rent, which was still due. He could not redeem the lease which was assigned to himself alone. He had not paid the £2OO rent, but would have done so to-morrow only for this summons. To Mr. Ward—Was not in a position to pay the claim. Mr. R. Cooper holds the L2OO on behalf of Mr. Campbell. The place would have been sold by auction, only Mr. Campbell came forward to purchase it. K. Campbell deposed that he advanced L4OO to the defendant for the lease of the property. There was no understanding that defendant should be allowed to redeem the lease. There was nothing covenanting to that effect. He paid Mr. R. Cooper the money. To Mr. Ward—Looked to defendant to pay back rent up to 31st July last. Made no agreement as to any right for the defendant to redeem the property at any future time. The defendant was recalled by Mr. Whitcombe, and stated that one of his parents was of the native race. Mr. Whitcombe submitted that an order must be made for immediate payment as set out in the Act, as the payment of the money was made over on the security of the lease, which security was bad, for it was an assignment by a native, and not through an interpreter, as should have been done, therefore there was no legal assignment of the property. The defendant was a half-caste, and according to the Act could not carry out the transaction without the intervention of an interpreter. He wouid ask that an order be made on Mr. R. Cooper for the money he held. Mr. Ward contended that this was a case where an interpreter was unnecessary, inasmuch as the defendant understood English thoroughly. Mr. Whitcombe said that was of no consequence. Mr. Ward said the Native Land Act Amend-

ment, 1879, met that. It said under section 4 : “ For the purpose of executing instruments any half-caste who shall on the instrument executed be certified by any Justice of the Peace holding a commission as such in or out of the colony, to have a thorough knowledge of the English language, shall be deemed a person of the European race.” Mr. Whitcombe then supported his contention for an order being made by stating that it had been fully proved that since the time of the order he had had sufficient funds to satisfy the claim. R. Cooper was called and deposed that the leasehold negotiations between defendant and Campbell, had not yet been completed. The consideration money was £4OO. He held £2OO on behalf of Campbell for back rent on the property. He was agent for the sale of the property, and received an offer from Sir George Whitmore for the property. That was since last March. The offer was given provided the title be completed with the stock. Sir George did not offer anything as it stood. He received other similar offers through Sir George Whitmore. Mr. Ward said the evidence was very clear and there was nothing to show that the defendant had ample means to pay the claim. His Worship said the question was, was this £4OO all defendant got for the property ? On the evidence it did not seem that any part of it belonged to him above £lO. The property was actually of more value than what it was sold for. He must satisfy himself that the defendant had the means since the judgment to settle the claim. Mr. Whitcombe pointed out that the defendant had not only the means, but property of equal value. His Worship was of opinion that he had property sufficient to satisfy the judgment, and it ought to have been paid, he therefore considered himself justified in making an order on the amount held by Mr. R. Cooper, in default seventy days imprisonment.