ALLEGED THEFT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 412, 22 December 1932, Page 6

ALLEGED THEFT

, Our Own Correspondent) .

DEAF AND DUMB MAORI WOMAN AS A WITNESS MAORI YOUTH'S ESCAPE

( From

The fact that the plaintiff and chief witness was a deaf and dumb Maori "woman added interest to the case of Police v. Morehu Tukaki (age 23), and Kahurangi (age 21), in which the two Maori youths were charged with stealing a bag containing money and goods from an aged Maori woman, who was referred to as the "Dummy" owing to the fact' that she could neither hear nor speak. After liearing a good deal of confiicting evidence the Magistrate, Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., dismissed the charge in both cases owing to insufficient evidence. When the plaintiff went into the witness box another elderly Maori woman came forward to interpret the signs by which the first one conveyed wftat she wished to say to the licensed interpreter who in- turn translated the Maoiu into English. The clerk of the court when swearing-in tim witness mistook the interpreter friend for the deaf and dumb witness and swore her in, only to find that he had sworn the wrong person, but fcho matter was corrected and the hearing proceeded. In reply to Sergeant Miller, the vfitness indicated that on the day of the theft she had left her house to go to the store and hotel kept by Mr. Yvalkfcr at Te Kaha, and had left her bag under the head of her bed. This .,-as about seven o'clock in the evenng and she had returned about 10 o'clock, but she did not know that the bag was missing until the following morning. A bag was produced in court which recognised as hers and which had .tdd £4 12s in cash as well as other oo.s. I vVhen asked a question as to wheae. tne money was in siiver or notes „ae witness did not appear to understand what the question was and her friend had to try three or four sets of signs before she appeared to get .r satisfactory answer. The reply fin.1 y was that some of it was in notes ..nd some of it in siiver, the notes • oing in a cigarette tin and the silvcx' in a handkerchiefFound the Bag She indicated that after disco.vering the loss she searched about for the bag and finally found it near Kahurangi's house after which she took it down to Mr. Johnny Walker (the . torekeeper) who assisted her to exmine it. She had noticed four young acn walking by on the previous night out the oniy one she had recognised iiad been Tupara Delamere. Mr. N. V. Hodgson, who appeared for Kahurangi in cross-examining the witness, was very anxious to establish the fact as to whether she had oen two young inen or four, but the Aerpreter fiicnd appeared quite unq .•> n.ahe the witness understand *4"*w *» iv».*5 *. OL «.uiu G v cUdiiaiiy iiUvi o xet the matter drop. A.leged Admission Tupara De.amere, a Maori youth -f about 16, in giving evidence, said that both he and accused had been ..anging about the blacksmith's shop t Te Kaha. In response to a request from the two accused he had gone aown to the store to see if the "Dummy" was there. On his return he had . een them inside the fence round the plaintiff 's house. Morehu had asked ixim not to say that they had the bag I>elonging to the "Dummy." He saw the bag later at Kahurangi's house, where he slept that night. Morehu had given him a handkerchief and half a-crown to bribe him not to tell. The handkerchief he had ieft at Waikawa and the money he had spent on cigarettes at Mr. Roy Helm's store at Maungaroa. In reply to Mr. Hodgson he said he had left school last year and was then only •n primer fourKahurangi and Morehu gave evidence along somewhat similar lines, except that in each case it was the other two who were to blame for i what had ocenvrerl.

Mr. Hodgson, for Kahurangi, admitted that there was no evidence to convict his client, except that of i Tupara, and he thought that Tupara fearing that he might be implicated himself, had tried to clear himself by blaming Kahurangi. After Morehu had gone into the witness box Mr. Murray submitted that there was not enough evidence to convict his client of the theft, although there had been a certaixi amount of larrikinism. Personally he thought that the person who started blaming others was the one most likely to be the real offender. His client had had three days in gaol arid he thought this would deter him from any further larrikinism and while he knew that the sergeant was keen to put down this larrikinism and he as a member of the community was only too anxious to uphold him, in this matter he felt that in the present case there was not enough evidence to convict. The Magistrate said that he had iittle doubt that the three were morally guilty, but unfortunately there was not sufficient evidence to convict. Although this v/as so, he saw no reason why the elder Maoris of Te Kaha should not deal with the matter. a