Trial of the Native Obstructionists.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4447, 6 April 1883, Page 2

Trial of the Native Obstructionists.

(FBOM OUE OWE COEEESPONDENT.)

Avckland, This day,

The Conrt was crowded yesterdayseveral ladies were present—-duriDg the trial of the native obstructionists. -The prosecution was conducted by Messrs ..Williamson and Hesketb, and Mr Earl defended, owing to Mr Sheehan's inability to be present. Mr Bryce attended. .

Mahuki, when asked to plead, said," A man who has a lame leg cannot hold it up." His manner was thoughtful, and after a few moments delay he said, " I am not able to answer that word." The plea recorded was " Not guilty." Mahuki wanted to plead for the other prisoners, who could not be got to plead for some time; they subsequently gave the noncommitting reply to the questions put to them, " I have nothing to say." Mr Hursthouse was examined, and detailed the outrage as previously published.

Mr Hesketh called the attention of the Court to the fact that Mr Earl was acting as counsel for the defence in rather a doubtful kind of way, and suggested that the natives be asked if that gentleman appeared for them in accordance with their desire. Mr Earl said "he had conferrftd with his clients, but was unable to obtain any explicit au»wers from them; they apparently did not recognise him as acting on their behalf. The Court asked Mahaki if Mr Earl was understood by. them to be acting on their behalf, and he answered that the Judge, jury, and counsel were Europeans, and he being a native did not want to be represented by the counsel. The other natives when asked the same question remained silent. The prisoners were then told that the appointment of counsel to appear for them was an act on their behalf, and if they neglected to avail themselves of it, any consequence arising would be of their doing.

Mahuki, who appeared to be accepted by the whole of the prisoners as spokesman, replied : " I have nothing to say. I am a Maori, and the lawyer is a European. I did the wrong, and I have been brought here for it. I have no wish to evade the punishment, or to shift the onus on my account, upon any one else. If it is for my good that the lawyer appears, let him do so ; if it is for my evil, let him do so;-I; am a dog in my master's house." .

When informed that the counsel required no fees on account of his appearance for the prisoners, Mahuki answered that a slave chief had no power to give authority for anyone to appear.

The Judge remarked: It is quite clear that counsel cannot appear without the assent of the prisoners, and however much I should like to have Mr Earl act for the defence in this case I cannot rule otherwise. It would be a considerable relief to me to have him act for them, for when prisoners are unrepresented by counsel, it becomes the^duty of the Judge to protect their interests as far as lie can, and tho duty is a difficult one in a case of this sort. Mahuki has shown very clearly that he declines to give any authority for the lawyer to appear for him ; all I can do is this, that I should be /very glad for Mr Earl to continue his services by watching the case for the prisoners rather than by acting as counsel for them. That is to say that be should assist insofar as points of law are concerned, leaving the prisoners to undertake the cross-examination themselves, it seems to me the only position he can take up. He will thus act as qmicus curios, urging in prisoners's favour any matter of law that he can. I do not see any other cause after the prisoners have refused the assistance proffered them by government. i Mr Newsham and To Wetere gave similar evidence to that given by them at the preliminary enquiry, and the prisoners were found guilty. Sentence was dejferred until the remaining case against them are disposed of.