The Parawai Maori Case.

Thames Star, Volume XVII, Issue 5143, 17 July 1885, Page 2

The Parawai Maori Case.

[Ngakapa (Coromandei) and Wikiriwhi

(OhiDemuri) occupied seats on the Bench.]

PABATA TE MAPIT V. EOTA. HAATA.

Claim, £30, on a promissory note. Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Lush for defendant.

Mr Miller, in opening the case, stated that the note had been given in accordance with a decision of a Native Committee for a wrong done by the defendant.

Tamati Paetai deposed that he was chairman of a native committee which was fop some time in existence, in fact before the Thames was made a town, Rota, the defendant was brought before tbe Com mittee in November last for a social mis» demeanor, most of the tribe were present at the meeting. Rota admitted the offence, Tawai also admitted having similarly done wrong. The Committee fined Rota and Tawai £30 each. The latter paid the fine; Rota stated that he would get his money, from his tribe at Opotiki, and he asked for time, which was given to the 12th December, and he gave the promissory note ; the subject of the present action, (note produced). Eota made no objection to the proceedings of the Committee, which were the usual steps taken in simi» lar cases. Tbe bill had not yet been paid. In answer to Wikiriwhi, the witness stated that the offence was committed in connection with the second wife of the chief Taipari, who at present has three; he bad various wives at different times, some had died, and other* had ran away. The money ordered to be paid by the Committee was to be paid to the husband of the injured woman.

Parata te Mapu, Chairman of the Native Committee, sworn, stated as to the fine having been inflicted; it was to be paid to the Committee, who were to decide as to the disposal of the money. A bill was given for the amount, and had not been paid, llota thoroughly understood what the bill was given for.

To Mr Lush : Knew Hipaipa or Tawai; she was no relative of his; she would receive no part of the fine.

W. H. Taipari (who before giving evidence asked that his expenses be guaranteed) deposed that he had a wife named Mary Anne; was married to her before the goldfield opened, but had sot got it down in writing, and ctuld not say how many years ago. Knew Hipaipa; the natives all recognised her as his wife.

To Ngakapa: Could not say whether threats were used to Bota to induce him to sign the promissory note ; Rota stated when the note was given that the money for it would be collected by his tribe at Opotiki; it was customary with tribes to pay such fines for the misdemeanors of their members.

Mr Lush submitted that no consideration was shown for the note given, and if any could beheld to have been given it was illegal and immoral; if any injury had been suffered it would be on the part of Te Tawai or Hipaipa, and not the plantiff. Various authorities were quoted in support of the contention that no consideration had been shown to have passed between the plaintiff and defendant. Taipari had admitted that he was, before the opening of the goldfields, married to Mary Anne, and she was still alive, hence Hipaipa or te Tawai could not be his wife.

Mr Miller replied that Hipaipa could not succeed were she to sue) Rota, the case was not brought for damage, but as a punishment for injury done|]to Taipari and the tribe, and Eota had agreed to its infliction. Parata was suing as the person authorised by the Committee to recover the fine. . In disputing the payment, the defendant was not acting fairly.

The Eesident Magistrate pointed out the law in the matter to the Assessors, and said it appeared that Eota and Hipaipa had consented to allow the Committee to arbitrate upon their case. He would ask if the case had been heard in accordance with Maori law, and had the decision and the amount assessed by the Committee been in accordance with it, and did they consider that Eota having given a written promise he should be made to pay. After a retirement, judgment was giveu as follows:—That the offence was admitted, and it brought disgrace on the husband and tribe, and had it been committed in olden days the defendant would have been killed ; the case had been heard and determined by the Maori Committee, and the defendant and husband of, the woman had agreed to the Committee hearing the case. The assessors thought that as Eota bad promised to pay the fine it was mean of him to try and evade his liability* Judgment Mould be given for the amount claimed and costs £5 13s.