PUKEKOHE S.M. COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 22, 19 March 1915, Page 2

PUKEKOHE S.M. COURT.

Fortnightly Sitting.

(Before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M.) The fortnightly sitting of thfl Pukekohe Magisterial Court was held yesterday. ;;ivil cases. Judgment by default was entered for plaintiff d in cases as follows: J. T. Stembridge (Mr J. G. Haddow) v. F. Thomas, £22 12s 3d and £G 18s 3d costs; fames and Curgill (Mr Hopkins) v. Wm. Mills, £4 13s 3d and 10s costs; same v. W. Wardleworth, 53 3d (balance) and 12s costs; T. Dickens (Mr Maheney) v. Wi Matatahi, £6 Us Gd and £1 10s Gd costs.

Judgment by consent was entered tor Mrs J. T. Nolan (Mr Mahoney) v. E. Arnold for £7 and £1 lis Gd costs.

AN ALLEJED THEFT. An Austrian subject, named Johan Letica, was charged with having committed, at Palumahoc, on March s'b, the theft of Uo shillings in moiiey arid a writ of clothes, valued at £4 lbs, the property of S. Dcvcish, a fellow countryman.

Serg:a:it Cowan explained that the suit of clothes was given Ly another Austrian to the accused for the latter to send to Auckland for the purpose of being cleaned, two shillings at the ssme time being handed hi'r. for the postage. Accused kept the money and when arrested wa* wearing the coat -part of the suit.

The accused raised the defence that he lost one shilling out of the trco shilling given him, and not having any other money at the time br. was unable to send the suit to the cleaners in Aucklaucl. Pending payment of his wagea be accordingly retained tha clothes and wore the coat.

The Magistrate thought it was , hardly a case of theft, but he severely warned the accused as to his future conduct, Hl3 Worship in dismissing the charge ordered tha accused to refund the 2s and to pay £1 lis Gd costs of the case. Oa ihe Magistrate's requaet tha Recused gave the police an order on his employer for the amount stated MAORI HORSE TRANSACTION,

'i'uhua Poihipi, a y.ung Maori, living at Whatawhata, was charged with having frtolen on March 2ad at Koharga, Occwhero, a chestnut mare, valued at £l2, the property of Mgapaka Grey Kukutai, also a Maori.

Sergeant Cowan prosecuted, and Mr De la Man 5 , Hamilton, defended.

At the outset, Sergt. Cowan asked for pertniesiou to withdraw the ehargo of theft and to substitute in its place a charge under Section 59 of the Stock Act of having removed the horse from certain land without the consent of the occupier, to wit Kukutai. Mr de la Mare raised no objection. Ngapaka Kukutai, whose evidence was interpreted, deposed that he knew accused and remembeied the 2nd inst. when he saw accused near hi? place, tie (witness) owned a mare and had put it in his paddock, The next morning he found it missing. Subsequently he found that his shed had been opened and a saddle and bridle that the accus:d had left there n week before had been removed. He bought the mare about January 12th from a farmer named Thomas Muir. Cross-examined: The father of the accused first showed him the horse soma three years ago.

At this Btsge counsel suggested tint as the witnesa was evidently well acquainted with English the time of the Court might be spared and rendered easier if the services, of the interpreter were dispensed with. The witness, however, informed the Magistrate that he did Dot thoroughly understand English; consequently the interpreter continued tu act.

Cross-examination continued: Witness did not call on the father expressly to see tho mare. The father did i ot tell him that it belonged to his son. He (witness) understood it belonged 1o the father. At that time, he wanted to borrow the mare and later on the father lent i: to him. He kept it fur about two years, ar.d then returned it to Pobipi and the acjused, but it still remained atKohanga en property that belonged to tli: father. He bought the marj from Muir on January lltb, but he did not know how it got into Muir s possession. The accused came to ()n?whero from whala and stopped with witness. Ihev wtre cousins. Accused gave him no reason for visting him and , dif not tell him that he claimed the -4 mart; They had to conversation about the mare. It wiuld be untrue if the accused's mother s«iid that she told him when he borrowed the mare that it belonged to her son (the accused). Toe mare was lent him for foaling purposes. Thomas Muir, farmer, of K«hanga, deposed to buying the maie for £7 last September from the accused's father. 'lhe father wanted him (witness) to lend money on it, but he (witness) would not do so although he offered to give him back the mare if he repaid him £7 within a month. He (witnesst subsequently sold th: horse to Kukutai, Fred Kukutai, u':cle of accused, living at Kchacgi, gave evidence as t'/ accused calling on him in the middle of the night and telling him that he was starting oir for Whatawhita and was taking his horse away with him. in answer to Mr Ut la Mare, witness paid he knew that the accused had claimed the horse. Jt was over 100 miles from Kuhanga to Whatawhata and it was therefore natural that tha accusal should have made an early s'art on the journey, Tei Kau, a cousin of the accused, stated that accused hud told him that he intended to take the horw away from Kukutai. Constable Mackintosh, of Hamilton, spoke, tc arresting the accused on Maich Gth at W'hatawhatat, Accused tben told him that he waa the owner of the mare and had' taken possession of it, Mr Do la Mare, for tbe suggested that the p"hce had beerS rather arbitrary in having tncV accused ar.estcd and prosecutorial criminally. It was a case wlhtiH Kukutai, who claimed tu be Udfl owner of the horse, should havoj taken civil proceedings for its n i^H 'the Magistrate agreed that IhciiH was no case of theft. The i 1 lu'ifl wire, however, not to be M.iinciM as Kukutai was really the pU'seS cjtor, lb': aciuaed sb.'ulj buve :<y:tM for puKßccsioo inslead ot hating ! !> 'fl ibly removed the horse, 1 he . h now laid was under the stock ActjH

but he (the Magistrate) would nut enforce ita strict meaning against a Maori if he found that the accused had acted [bona fid«s. LHe desired to hear evidence on that

point. A native named Noah Paul, at Whatawtmta, was called for the defence, and stated that in November, 1910, he bought the horse at a sale in Hamiltoa fcr £l2, the receipt (produced) being in respect of its purchase. The accused's father at tnat time had money and had given him (witness) £SO to buy a present for the accused, who was then living with him (witness). Out of the money witness buught the horse and handed it to accused, who was then 14 years of Accused used the horse to and from school. The accused, fcivmg evidence, said he was now IS years of «gear.d wbs a labourer in tbe employ of the Kaplan County Council. The horse belonged to him and he had never parted with is possession. He touk it away torn Kohanga 33 it was his own property. • By the Magistrate: His father did not tell him that he had sold the horse. It was not his father's to sell. The Magistrate remarked that ths ownership of the horse wuiild have to. be settled by a civil action. The accused knew that Kukutai claimed the hors? and was in possession of it when it was taken. He (the Magistrate) would otdpr the horse to be landed back pending civil procceed4is. A technical breach of the jkock Act tad been committed and he would convict and discharge, ordering accused to pay the costs of the case. On goicg intp the question of the amount of coste, His Worship observed that the costs had amounted up as in a recent case at Hamilton. The accused had, however, taken the law into his own hands by taking the horse away and would have to put up with the result of hi 3 action. It was nut fair that Kukutai should pay the costs under the circumstances and he (the Magistral?) had no power to make the State responsible although he recognised that it was a hardship that the accused should be called upen to pay costs equal to m:re than the value of th: horse. Mr de la Mare.poiated cut that the offence was a mere bagatelle. He (Counsel) moreover came into Court to defend a charge of theft but that was withdrawn and a charge of a much milder nature was substituied He therefore thought that some way should be found to relieve the accused of the full amount of the costs. For ore thing, he (Mr de la Mare) would suggest that the accused should be allowed to retain tfce horse so that the onus of regainmg it, if he maintained hia alleged right cf possession, should be thrown on Kukutai instead of on the accused. The Magistrate remarked that the horse was taken from Kukutai's property and he was accordingly Round to order it, anyhow for the present, to be restored to him. His Worship, however, advised Mr de la Mare to communicate with the Minister of Justice and pointing out the circumstinces to ask if a portion of the-coats could he borne by tbe State. The costs were finally settled at £H Is 6d, made up of Interpreter's fee and expenses from Auckland £2 10?, horse feed for eight dsys £1 4s, and witnesses' expenses £4 7s 6d. Defendant was allowed one month in which to pay. A MAORI'S POSTS.

Robert Brown and Frederick Abbott, farmers, both of Onewhero, were charged with the theft on March 11th, at Onewhero, of 31 fence post?,, valued at £2 2s 2ci, the property of a Maori, caired Peter Hau. Mr J. 0. Haddow appeared for Brown and Mr de la Mare for Abbott. Peter Rau deposed that he had a farm adjoining the farm of Brown (one of tte defendant's) at Onewhero. He had had -.ome pests lying on his farm fcr seme twelve year 3 and he recently found some of them on Brown's farm. He had never given either ot the accused permiason to take the pes's. In answer to Mr Haddow, witness eaid that he bai never arranged with Brown for him to take what posts he wanted and to pay bim for what he tcck. Replying to Mr de la Mare, witness said that he knew that Brown ard Abbott were gtlitJ? g P CLta on Brown's farm, bat did not arrange with them that &SL,,-. posts ceuld be sola with their's. "Si'onstable Martin, of Taakau, >i -\d that accompanied by Rau he •vVbited Brcwn's farm, Rau pointed out a number of posts he claimed belonged to him. Defendants were working near-by at the liine, and v.hen questioned they icplit- that as they had arranged to st!. post- at - G P cr luu t0 aMr CamciJ" they had agreed with Rau t0 ph y him £2 per 100 if he gave them ''.lie privilege of getting posts. Hau denied ih:a arrangement in the presence of the defendants. L)u!u<;r. C'imeror, sheep-farmer, ot Onewhero, stated tlat the defendant Abbott spoke to him a little time ago in Pukekohe and asked him if he could do wi>h some posts but witness referred him to Lis son. for the defence, Mr Haddow ooiiited out that there had been no 'concealment of the removed posts, and that fact bore out the defend an ts' contention thai ihev had the Maori's au'hority to take them for sale. Brown, in the witness box, spoke to receiving permission about a fortnight ago from Rau to take Do Mts and to pay him for them. Abbott corroborated, and staled that he arranged with Mr Cameron, unr , to supply him with posts, but no l-oats hid actually been sold. Kub-rt Shirp, farm labourer, of Onewhero, deposed to going to Brown's farm to see Abbott about March sth. He did not liwl him hut ho rame across Rau, who told I .„ tnat Abbott would Lc found ' hi y ilJau's) farm splitting posts. u,' e Magistrate eaid that although '"^P*,,,'..,.i impressed with Abbott's p«irtßtce"\iicre sti.l whs the cvithe outside witness (Sf'-in i"a ,! ' : ot Brown against that tie Maori, end although he ULidered ihe condition of affairs unsatU'tcry he would dismiss the charge. DRINK FOR MAORI-. MGWMTWH.BH.KE To ' Twu cases of drinking au.onK.it Maoris w«re bean. In (be firut case, -mo y fc u ,J. a u j pulitkohe U mi, Was '"US with havirnt m two instance? fS ooiitij supplied liquor to Maoris

for consumption off licensed pre 'mists.

Mr J. G. Haddow appeared for the defendant, and before beiig asked to plead raised the point that r.o offence could have been committed i unless the district was a "proclaimed" district. He asked whether the Police were aware whether the district had been so "proclaimed." Reference to Court books tailed to disclose the information asked tor by Mr Haddow, atd His Worship accordingly adjourned the case until April 15th. Mr Haddow remarked that the deferdant was a respectable farmer and tre circumstances were that a Maori, who was working tor him and was ill, aßked him to Ret a bottle of Sclmapps for bim (the Mauri). In regard to the other charge the defendant touk another Maori, working for him, a keg of beer, not knowing it was a.i offence. Futth?r, the defendant had refused to get liquor for a Maori, who be knew was pohibited. The Magistrate thought that in th 3 event of the district being found to have been proclaimed a email fire would meet ths case, as it seemed to be more or less a technical offence. Ha would give judgment on April 15th.

The succeeding case was against a Maori, by name Leonard Alnert, (referred to in Boyd's case) who was charged with having on December 15th procured intoxicating liquor during tho currency of his prohibi ticn order.

Sergeant Cowan prosecuted and Mr H. G. R. Mason defended.

Boyd was the first witness, and he stated that defendant had been employed by him, and on December 15th he saw him in possession of a bottle of beer. Defendant had a drink from it and also asked him to havs a drink from it, which he did.

The Maisgtrate: Did you recognise it as hotel beer? It might have been hop bser or some other vile concoction. *

Wr.ntiss replied that he recognised it as proper beer, and he added that defendant subsequently gave him a keg which he tcok back for bim (the defendant) to the hotel in Pukekohe.

Cioss-examined, Boyd said that he very rarely drank beer himself. In fact he had only tasted it once in the last six years. He was nevertheless certain that what he drank out of the bottle was hotel beer. He was aware that defendant frequently drank home-made beer. It was true that about the time of the recent Pukekohe Shov he had words with defendant and defendant's wife in regard to some meney, and as a result of that quarrel he communicated with th 3 police. Up to that time he had said nothing about the defendant drinking the beer.

In answer to the Magistrate, the witness admitted that it was in consequence of the defendant laying infojmation egainst him (witnes?) for procuring liquor for Maoris that he hid a complaint' against the defendant fcr dunking whilst prohibited.

By Mr Mason: He had said nothing about it until three months had elapsed. The Magistrate pointed out to the witness tnat by his own admission he had been guilty of the offence of assisting a prohibited person to driEk l;quor, and that had rendered him liable to a fine of £lO. Tte offence, however, was committed over three months ago so a prosecution could not now be enforced. He (the Magistrate) considered it most degradiug for a European to . have aesisted the Maoris to get drink. Boyd: They will get no more fr m me.

The defendant went into the witness box and denied that he had produced the bottle that he shared with boyd. Boyd himself brought it out and its contents were only hop bser. He further denied that he had obtained a keg of beer, but he knew that a pakeha employee of Boyd, who had since left the district, had had a keg. By the Magistrate: Although Boyd said what they drank was hotel beer, (he defendant) was certain it was nothing more than hop beer. Mr Mason: Probably the defendant i 3 more expetienced in the taste of beer than Boyd. (Laughter). In reply to Sergeant Cowan, the defendant said that he and the other Maoris, when working for Boyd, were always supplied with hop beer, which he understood was made by Bovd's housekeeper. He had never asked Boyd to hring him beer back from the town.

Defendant's wife, a smart-looking Maori, giving evidence, said that she also drank out ot the bottle, Boyd having produced it and not her husband, and it only contained hop b;er.

By the Magistrate: She did not know the difference between hotel beer and hop beer. When His Worship last November issued a Prohibition Order against her husband she remembered that she told him (the Magistrate) that her busbaud did not get drunk and that there was no need for hi-n beirg prohibited, although the police and other evidence was to the contrary effect.

By Sergeant Cowan: She had not complained to Boyd's housekeeper ab&ut her husband drinking. What she complained about was that liquor was being brought to the farm for the Maoris, her reason for sp.-akirg about it being that she did not want hei husband to get any drink. She had never tasted hotel beer and Ehe took Boyd's word for it that what was in the bottle was home-made beer.

The Magistrate said the facts | were that a white man (Boyd) and a Maori (the defendant) had a quarrel and the white man through m'jtivta of revenge had laid information against the Maori. He had mate no bones about drinking the Maori's liquor and did not abuut it until three months after the occurrence. He (the Magistrate) considered that if Maoris were to have liquor it was much better f«r them to drink in hotels. He knew that Mr Uarke, the proprietor, could be depended upon to look after them properly it they were in the Pukekohe Hotel, ! and further they were then under police surveillance. He again rej peated that it wasnioil degrading for j a European to have conveyed liquor 'to the Ma ri:-<. He did not i believe thai. Ihe bottle had only coiifaiutd i.umc mad'.: beer, but I'uyd had titta mean euoufch to d/n k the Maun a beer ai d !b<.o lo 'ilurir. .about il alter an interval, and Pnder such cireura°tance9 i he (ttie Magistrate) w'crtild o. jmieb the case.