MAORIS AND LIQUOR.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3431, 10 March 1920, Page 2

MAORIS AND LIQUOR.

CURIOUS LEGAL POSITION‘

TE KUITI, March 6

A cmicus 1o°"x1 ' - at posltlon was reveal

ed in the M=lgiS’fl'?~te’s Cou'l't., when, bet’ol'c- Mr E. W. Burton, S.M., a Maori nmm-«1 Thomas 0111211-u, who was

fmlml with liiluor in his possession

was charged in the usual way with aiding" and abetting some person or persons unknown‘ to procure liquor for him in 21 proclaimed area. It has. of course, long been an offence to supply it Maori. with liquor, and the custom has been that when a Maori is caught with liquor in his possession he is charged with aiding and abetting some per.son' to procure for him such

liquor. Wlieii the case against Omaru was called Mr .T. D, Vernon. for the dofence, raised the point -that the evidence in. such cases was insuflicient to sustain conviction, as the Maori. for instance, might have found the liquor. or mine into. possession. of it in sorne other legally legitimate manner. Counsel also contended a Maori could not under the shitute he helil to be an aider or abettcr. the onus be ing on the police to ]n'O\'(= the existence of the principal offoniler. Thus if his client chose to maintain an at--I‘i€u(,lv oi’ ‘,‘s’rul>born silvolicr“"'illc}iOlicC would be powerless. Mr Vernon furtlwr Contenderi that the existing statute \\'~a.s for the protection of Mam-is. an«l could not be used for the purPoS€ of bringing a criminal prosecution against them. Sergeani .\ilattllew said the question was a most difiicult. one, and having consulted the Crown law officers he saw not choice but to witlnh-aw the ini’orlnai'ion.

The I\*l:l_g'islmte ;~:ni(i he wngsi glad the point. had been raised, as the (‘ourt had for some time past been imposing fines for this offence. Clearly the intention of the statute was to in-otect the Maoris against ‘themselves. In other words, they were in a atzito cf tutelagxo. That being the case. how could they be guilty of aiding and a'bot'ting? Maoris were Children in the eyes of -the law. and therel’m'e could not be placed in the same c:1teg01'); as Eiiropealis. Obvioll.~'l_v the law would have to be amended. The ccnnsel said the same point was fought out about eight yea;-S ago. The Magistrate: Surely not. What was the result‘? ffounselr The case was dismissed.

The Mzxgisx-Hate: It is ext.ram-(lillaVry tlmf this point had not be brought into more prominence. In the ]i§’,']lt of what has been revealed. I must Elismiss Hl9 charge.