RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3656, 14 September 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick,Tsq.;ii.M.) BREACH OF ABMS ACT.

John Sainsbury was charged on the information or John B. Thomson with having, in or about the month of January, 1879, without a license, sold to a Dative nHcoed Hapuka a pound of^powder, a bag of sliot, and. a box of percussion caps. Mr Miller for the accused.

John B. Thomson, sworn, deposed-rHe. was a licensing officer under the Arms Act 0f,1860 for the district of Auckland. He produced a Gazette of 6th December, 1873, containing his appointment, and also two others, one-of the 2nd of July, 1870, containing a notice authorising him to prefer informations against, and prosecute persons charged with breaches of the Arms Act; and the other of February 2nd, 1861, bringing into force the Arms Act of 1860 in every province throughout the colony. He knew the position of Whangamata, which was in the provincial district of Aucklaud. A dealer's license for that place could only be: issued either at Auckland or the Thames. He had never issued a dealer's license to the accused.

By Mr Miller: lam not the only Licensing officer in the Auckland district, as Mr Bullen was appointed at the same time as I was, ani his appointment has never been cancelled to my knowledge.. No particular portion of the district wa& allotted to cither of us. .. . . Sergeant Louis, sworn, deposed that he was clerk to the Licensing Office here, and had never issued a license to the accused, nor did he know of one having been issued to him. If one had been issued at the Tbames it would have passed through his hands. -

John Davis, sworn, deposed-—He lived at Whangamata. He had accompanied Sergeaut Russell on two occasions when he went to see. the Datives relative to the present case, and had acted as interpreter on those occasions. -He had had nothing to do with this case except in the capacity of interpreter. He had not been to that settlement for a year before these occasions. On the 23 rd of last month he had seen Hapuka, but ammunition was not mentioned in the conversation. When • he went with, Russell he only spoke to two or three natives. About a year before this he had put up a stockyard for the accused, who paid him when the work was completed. He had never told the natives, in Maori, to gather up all they. could against this European (meaning Sainsbury), nor had he told them to wash all the dirt off their hands and throw it on to him. He had once said in reply to a native that if this pakeha were taken away there were plenty more to be got. Nothing was mentioned about an hotel on either of these occasions. He had no dispute lately with accused that he was aware of, but had had one about a horse, and also about accused's cattle being on witness's land, about 18 months ago, but .they were both settled. ;

Hapuka, sworn, deposed—He remem* bered Sainsbury having a stock yard put up at Whangamata by John Davis. He gave this bag (produced) and the shot in it to Matupahau/ and he saw him give it to Sergeant Eusseli. He (Hapuk*) bad bought it from accused at Whangamata about three or four months before the stock-yard was pat up. -It was bought before the ammunition referred to in the previous case. When he-bought this shot he bought a tin of powder, a bag of shot, and a box of caps He had used all the resj; of the ammunition. He had .paid accused £1 5s for it. He had never .got a license to purchase powder from accused- -There was no one but accused and himself, present when he got it. He did-not show the whole of the articles to Matupahau, but only the bag of shot, which is in the same condition now as when handed to Sergt. Russell.

. The Court then adjourned till two o'clock.

[Owing to press of telegrams we are compelled to hold over the remainder of our report.]