DISOBEYED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 131, 26 January 1932, Page 6

DISOBEYED

.COURT SUBPOENA ISSUE Oi WARRANT FOR ABSENT WITNESS CONSIDERED CASE ABOUT FOWL-HOUSE A prosecution brought in the "Rotorua Magistrate's Court yesterday against a resident of Ohinemutu Native village for failure' to obtain a permit for the erection of a fowl-house: had an unusual development when it was suggested that a warrant should be issued for the arrest of Mr. Wiremu Kingi, secretary of the Ohinemutu Komiti Marae, for disobedience of a subpoena issued in connection with the case. After considering the matter, however, the Magistrate, Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., pointed out that as Kingi's expenses as a witness had not been tendered to him at the time the subpoena was served, a warrant coulci not be issued. The remainder of the evidence was accordingly heard, and the case was adjourned to enable s fresh subpoena to be served upon Kingi. The information in regard to the fowlhouse was laid by the Borough Building Inspector, Mr. A. Shuter, who proceeded against Hector McDonald, a resident of Ohinemutu for failing to obtain the necessary Borough permit for the erection of the building.

Komiti's Authority. An interesting point was raised during the hearing as to the authority for the issue of building permits in the borough. It was contended by the defence that Mr. Kingi had been under the impression th'at the Komiti Marae at Ohinemutu had the right to issue these permits in respect to buildings in the native village, but the Town Clerk, Mr. W. A. McLean. who was called, stated that by ar~ rangement with the Borough Council the Komiti had not this right, but could only consider permits and make recommendations to the council. Before the case was heard, Mr Erk Roe, who appeared for McDonald stated that one of his chief witnesses Mr. Wiremu Kingi, in spite of thc fact that a subpoena had been servei. upon him and that he had been warned that he must attend to g'ive evid ence, had left Rotorua and would be absent for some days Kingi had appeared to be very i-eluctant to givx evidence in tlie case and had interviewed counsel in connection with th. matter on several occasions. In orde. to suit Kingi's convenxence, the cast had already been onee adjourned. The Magistrate said that he would consider the matter when the casx was resumed later in the morning. Mr. J. D. Davys, who appeared fo; the Borough stated that although no tices had twice been served upon McDonald, he had erected a fowlhousx upon the boundary of his propertj contrary to the Borough by-laws and without obtaining the necessary permit.

No Permit Applied For Alfred Shuter, building inspector foi the Borough of Rotorua, said that oi October 12, he had noticed that McDonald had erected the building ad jacent to the boundary of his fence No permit had been applied for i: connection with the matter and In had accordingly interviewed McDonald. The defendant had said that h had made appiication to the Komit Marae but the appiication had no been reeeived by witness from the Komiti until January 12, when a summons had already been served upo1 the defendant. The Town Clerk, Mr. W. A. McLean said that some time ago an arrange ment had been made between txio Komiti and the council which empowered the Komiti to consider and report upon any applications for building permits within the boundaries oi the village. Mr. Kingi had informecx witness that it was owing to an oversight on his (Mr. Kingi's) part, tha" McDonald' s appiication had not reach - ed the building inspector until January 12. The Komiti had delinitely no authority to actuaily issue permits. In reply to Mr. Roe, the witness said that he had not heard that King had told McDonald that he had been given the permit. The Komiti had not the authority to issue the permit This closed the case for the prose cution and Mr. Roe opened the defence.

Case for Defence . Raymond Bileski, a plumber, said that he had been present at a conversation between Shuter and McDonalc concerning the fowl-house." McDonalhad just reeeived his first notiee i. regard to obtaining a permit. McDon ald had told the inspector that h had made an appiication to the native committee, whereupon, to the best oi v/itness's recollection, Shuter ^ said "You have nothing to be afraid of. You can go ahead." McDonald had showed the inspector a coloured piawhich witness understood set out thboundaries of the property. In reply to Mr. Davys, Bileski ad xnitted that he was a personal frien of McDonald's and had worked witl him for some time Ile had been aske to be present at the conversation as a witness. The defendant, Hector McDonald said that on September 10, he hat made appiication to the Oh ncmutKomiti Marae for a permit to erec the building. Ha ha l understood _ tha the Komiti had the authority to is.su the permit. The matter had been con sidered by the committee at a meeting on September 25 at which witnehad personally bean present. He ha been informed that the eommittewould be unable to do anything unt; the site had been inspected and thnext day, Mr. Kingi had come roun to see the site and had told a mmi ber of witness's family that it woul be all right to proceed with the work Not On Boundary Actuaily, McDonald said, the fowlhouse was not on the boundary but had only been erected adjacent to r garden fence on the property. The actual boundary was 40-50 feet away After he had reeeived the first notiee he had seen Shuter with Bileski, and the inspector had then told him tha* it would be all right, as witness had made an appiication to th.e Komit' Marae. On Christmas Eve, however witness had again seen the inspector

/ho had said that he had not yet leard from the native committee. and onsequently, as a matter of form, vould have to go ahead with the proecution. In reply to Mr. Davys, witness said hat he had thought that it would be n order to proceed on the strength if the inspector's verbal assurance le could not explain, however, why he inspector should have sent him i notiee if matters were in order. "Not Good Enough" This completed, Mr. Roe's case, with

;he exception of Kingi's evidence. .) ealing with the failure of this witiess to appear, Mr. Roe said that Cingi had seen him several times in ■onnection with the matter and had jeen very reluctant to appear. He had >een told definitely however, that he nust give evidence and would be rejuired to produce the minute hook of he Komiti. "I do not v/ant -to see any man arested," said Mr. Roe, "but I must 0 my best fcr my client. He is only 1 worlcing man and cannot stand ah he expense. This man has absolutey clisobeyed the subpoena. This sort ,£ thing is not good encugh." .The Magistrate enquired whether he witness had been offered his exjonses when the subpoena was servd. Mr. Roe said that this had not •een done as Kingi was a local man nd he did not think ho would have my expenses. His Worship pointed uit, however, that under the Act, a. vitness must be offered the expenses which in this case would he 9/- for the day, Mr. Roe admitted that as this had not been -done, a warrant could rot he issued and the case was accordingly adjourned until February 1 to enable a fresh subpoena to he servid upon Kingi. Mr. Davys asked that the costs of the adjournment should he against defendant. It was not fair that his orincipals should he asked to carry the expense. Mr. Roe protested and His Worship reserved the question of costs,