Mr Robert Graham and the Government.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3210, 3 June 1879, Page 2

Mr Robert Graham and the Government.

Ihe charges agriust Mr Graham were resumed at the Police Court, Auckland,

yesterday. Mr Hesketh submitted that the charges against defendant must be dismissed. (1) There hiid^bieetf'"tia

evidence brought forvrrrd of a notification. (2) No evidence that the Government

had purchased off the native owner*. (3) The notification was insufficient. No

moneys had been paid for purchase or

acquisition, the evidence simply showing that the moneys had been paid for a lease of the lend, and not for purchasing . it. Mr Hesketh said he should advance

nothing farther upon the two first points, but in the latter he would offer a tew ia« marks. The words " vpurohase '.'or " ac-» .,, quisition" had a distinct and definite

meaning in the Act; and in the fourth, place, he would contend thai the charges must fail, as there had been no evidence to prove that Mr Graham was not in possession of the land prior, to the proola* matioa of /the notification, which h« thought must be fatal to the case.' The prosecution are bound to show that Mr

Graham was not in possession, and to

prove the exception, if • would also *&**- mit that under the Act of 187S, the land in dispute was not made; Crown Ln^. ; ; Mr Hesketti argued these points at |reat k length. „,,_,.,, A . : , ■.,.; s . r ;: Mr Tyler then replied to the'bisections taken by council for the prosecution, and took them in order, explaining the language jof the several Acts, bearing on the case. "' ■'■'"'■'■' ' '" ' "' '■'"■ UM '< ff':»<:Un7

The Cou:t dcoided to, over-rule all the objections advanced by the defence. Mr Hesketh said a» the Bench has to

decided, he would call evidence to show that the negotiations of the Gorerament were not'boha fide. ;VL '•■':' l Ji'%i >■ •,/./ J: Mr C. O. Daris deposed that the £23 paid by the Gorernmcnt was ground rent and not on account of the purchaie money r for the lend. Other evidence was cailedf bat the Bench found Mr Graham guilty ,of the charges and fined him £5 and coits, Hfffi, ?"