Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAORI OR PAKEHA?

QUESTION FOR MAGISTRATE APPEAL MAY BE HEARD Press Association NEW PLYMOUTH, Saturday. j That Nilio Papakura, a native agent j and interpreter, was a Maori within ! the meaning of the Bills of Exchange ! Act, which requires that a bill to ! which a Maori is a party should be : written in Maori, or have a translation j inscribed, was the decision of Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., this morning. C. T. Trundle sued on a promis- j sory note for a sum of £IOO and inter- J est, the note being signed jointly and j severally by defendant and F. V. j Gully. The money advanced was for j the benefit of the latter, who had j failed to meet his obligations. In his judgment, the magistrate said | the defendant was seven-eighths Maori j and one-eighth white. His father’s j grandmother was white, and all his 1 other ancestors were Maori. The summons was not translated, but that had been waived. A Maori could not be held liable on a bill of exchange which was not written in the Maori language. The promisory note had not been written in the Maori language. Were the formalities complied with? The late Judge Edwards had held that a half-caste was not a Maori. The various statutory definitions of a Maori were arbitrary only for the purposes oe the particular Acts. The word “Maori” had to be construed in its ordinary meaning, and its ordinary meaning did not include a half-caste. The defendant possessed a preponderance of Maori blood, his environment was that of the Maori race, his property was subject to the disabilities of the race, and his voting power was that of the Maori. He therefore came within the definition of a Maori in the ordinary sense of the word. He was not therefore liable on the note, which did not satisfy the requirements of section 97 of the Bills of Exchange Act. Judgment was therefore given for defendant. Mr. L. Hughes, who appeared for the plaintiff, asked that, in view of the importance of the judgment, leave be granted to appeal. * The magistrate said he would be glad to facilitate that, as he thought the question needed clarifying.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19290415.2.128

Bibliographic details

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 638, 15 April 1929, Page 12

Word Count
369

MAORI OR PAKEHA? Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 638, 15 April 1929, Page 12

MAORI OR PAKEHA? Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 638, 15 April 1929, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert