DISTRICT COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 5, Issue 241, 27 June 1861, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

This Court was opened by Robt. Hart, Esq. Judge, on the 19th inst. The only criminal case was that-of the Queen v. Albert Frederick James WTiitaker, who was charged with having, on the 25th Feb. 1860, at Wanganui,, stolen and carried away 200 sovereigns, three? trunks, three boxes, four blankets, one bag,, one bed, and two pillow cases, belonging toWalter /iedpath there. Jury sworn, —-Joht.i Garner, George Gyde,. Wm. Cramer, T. 11. Gibson, Thus. Handley,. Geo. Gower, Tlios. Garner, M. J. Goodson,. C. M. Harlcness, Thos. Henson, John Gower,. John Gibson, foreman.

Mr. Ross addressed the jury on the part of the crown.

Walter Redpath, labourer, Wanganui, being sworn, said, —Left /Fanganui about Feb. 1860; before that lived at Wanganui Knew prisoner; was lodging at Mr. Kells’ in January and part of February I 860; was living in the same' house as prisoner, who carried on business as a watchmaker, my wife living with me. Left. /Fanganui sth Feb. 1860 for Wellington. Lett my wife in same house as prisoner. Lett 2001! with her, and the rest of my goods in Mr. Gudgeon’s store in chests. Returned on 39th March 1860. Prisoner and my wife had both gone then. Found my property left at Mr. Gudgeon’s removed to Mr. Kells’, the publican.. Got there three chests and a bed and bag—one of the original chests and the other two bought since I left. The prisoner’s address was on them all in prisoner’s handwriting on his business cards. Asked Mr. Kells where he got them—[the boxes were produced and identified], 2'wo of them were not mine, when I went to Wellington ; the third the one left at Mr. Gudgeon’s when I went away. It is worth ss, the bed worth 30s. Looked slightly into chest on 19th March, and found in it some of prisoner’s goods. Removed these out of the boxes, and put them into a box by themselves; the box now produced. The key left with John'Kells. The prhouei’s goods, not in boxes when I left. Those uow produced, two coats, pieces of watches, a watchmaker’s lathe, were in my chests. 1 identify these goods as prisoner's. The portions of watches produced were in one of my boxes, which bad prisoner’s card on it, and address in prisoner’s handwriting. On 19th March Mr. Kells ’showed me a letter in prisoner’s handwriting. In consequence of information I received went ter Wellington, where I took out a warrant against prisoner for felony. He was apprehended on said warrant in the colony of Queensland. I proceeded to New Souths cf ales in April in consequence of the informa-, tion I received here. First saw prisoner at Sydney on 23rd November 1860; he was then brought to Sydney in custody 7. First saw* my wife on the 24th November 1860, iu the courthouse, Sydney. '.Prisoner was brought to Wellington in the Prince Alfred steamer; returned m)'self in same vessel; also my wife. She did not come in my company ; I did not pay her passage; was not asked to do so. Prisoner came in second cabin ; my wife in first cabin. Afterwards came to Wanganui.. Arrived on 10th Feb. ; first court day 13th. Feb. Prisoner was brought here in custody.. My wife came in the /Fongu JFonga. She lias not returned to me- since. Z/ave never

seen my £2OO since. [Four blankets were produced, and identified by prisoner as bis property and worth 20s each. They were in one of bis boxes bearing prisoner’s card..] y/nother card shown to witness, who said it was in prisoner’s handwriting. He never had authority from me to put a card on my boxes or trunks. On loth Feb. last was present at court. My wife was near the court at that, time, and on the IGth. Arclul. Cameron was presmt on the IGth, anil my wife was pointed out to him.

By Mr. Roberts, prisoner’s counsel. —7/ad no conversation with my wife about going to Sydney ; did not take 200/ with me ; neglected to take it; left it with my wife, and told her to bring it along with her. Never heard my wife say that she should leave me. Did not say to her, “ If you choose to go. you’ll want some money with y u.” Had the money in the bank some time. Brought it in the day I was going to Wellingt-n. Left h on the table, and told my Avife to bring some with her when she came. Never said anything to Whitaker about leaving—that the}’' should noth come away. Prisoner was carrying on business in Queensland when I arrived at Sydney. Had great difficulty in finding him. Did not go to Queensland. Don’t know about „ j risoner’s own property. My name was not «>u my blankets, but am sure of their being mine ;. was a weaver before I came from home. Don’t think prisoner had any blankets; lie lodged at Kells’. I wrote to my wife from Wellington. By Mr. Ross.—l don’t know what became of that letter. I brought my money from England ; got gold at the bank four or five weeks before I left. Applied to the police immediately on reaching Sydney on 12th April; prisoner was not arrested till Bth of Cctobir. A warrant was fiTwaid.il, from *\Velinj.t n to Sydney; kmw the warrant produced to be the same. By the Foreman —Don t know anything about the mo; ey , have not sien it since. Stephen Curtis being sworn, deponed,—tliat he had sold two trunks to Mrs. /Falter Redpath on 11th Feb., and believed the trunks produced to be said trunks. Thc-s. Way.th Gudgeon being sworn, said, — that prosecutor had, two or three months before Feb. 1830, left in his charge three or four largo boxes and a canvas j axel; Mrs. Redpath was in the habit of coining and getting any of the goods she wanted ; .does not recollect her taking any of the boxes ; some of the emply boxes were sold by him, and account sales rendered to Mr. Redj ath. John F. Kells being swo n, said, —that he was a licensed victualler at§ Aanganui. Knew prisoner, who was carrying on business here in the early part of last year; had given the prisoner permission to leave some things at his place, and believed the trunks produced to be those left. Was not'at home when they were left. Tri-oner left Wanganui the following day. Received a letter from him from Wellington soon after he left, requeuing that the 1 oxes should l e sent to /Fellington ; thought ihere was an address on the boxes like that on the cards produced, and tl at the handwriting was prisoner’s. Believed the boxes to be in his charge for prisoner; lelievel thsi produced to be the same. Showed Dedpath the prisoner’s letter. Could not swear that Whitaker said the boxes left by him were to be sent; but could only understand the letter to refer to the boxes left by him. The boxes were removed from his place 1 y Dedpath by authority of the court. John Cole, on his oath, said, —he was at. present rt siding at Karori, Wellington. Isa labourer. At the beginning of last year was living with Mr. J. Kells here. Knew the prisoner then. Mrs. Dedpath, not Whitaker, asked me to remove the twoboxes produced from Whitaker’s to Kells’; assisted prisoner in removing them. Mrs. Redpath put the cards on the boxes. They were addressed Mrs. Redpath, Sydney. Two days afterwards was surprised to find these cards removed, and cards with JFhifaker’s address substituted. Did not see Mrs. Redpath at Kells’ after the boxes were left. Prisoner remained at Kells’ till hi left for Wellington. Could not say who put the cards with Whitakei’s address ou the boxes.

Arclul. Cameron gave that he had taken the prisoner and Mrs. Bedpath to Rungitikei in a spring cart in Feb. 1860. Walter Redpath re-examined, —Mr. Kells showed me a letter from prisoner o.i 19th March ; it gave an account of Whitaker’s and my wife’s journey down the coast. He asked Mr. Kells to forward the boxes to his address to 71/r. Freeman, watchmaker, Wellington. By the Foreman.—There was no property of mine on prisoner’s person when 1 apprehended him. Mr. Roberts, solicitor, appeared by leave of court, to carry out the ends of justice, although lie had appeared Lefore for the. prosecutor i?edpath. The prosecution, he said, was not based on felony, but on personal injury by prisoner having had criminal connection with his wife, lie stated what was required to constitute felony. 7'lie husband was liable for the acts of the wife. The real charge was only,—did the prisoner take some dirty blankets ? The charge made against him of steal-

ing 200 sovs. there was not a tittle of evidence to support, and he wondered at the prosecutor hating made it. It was done only to carry weight with the jury. It had not been shown who put the cards on the boxes. He quoted Baroa Park’s and Aord Denman’s opinions as to wluit constituted larceny. It was laid down by them that the distinct posses; o ; of goods by one’s own act was necessary to constitute this crime. The learned judge summed up, recapitulating the evidtnee, and explaining the law with regard to the larceny with which the prisoner

was charged. In doing so, and in answer to questions from the jury, lie stated that it was not necessary that the prisoner sluuild have himself put the address on the boxes in order to establish his connection with their removal. If he did it by on agent, or if be wro'e them for the purpose of their being put on, and they were put on with his sanction, that was enough. Direct evidence was not necessary to prove this. If the jury thought that the circumstances of the case warranted them in believing that the prisoner had either himself or by an agent put on the boxes the labels with his address, that opinion should of course weigh with them in giving their verdict. The adultery had been admitted by the counsel for the defence; the circumstances attending the departure of prisoner and prosecutor’s wife from this place, and the circumstances under which they were again met with anil returned here, were such as would warrant the jury in finding that adultery had been committed ; and if they believed that the removal of prosecutor’s boxes to Mr. Kells’ house, in which the prisoner had assisted, was part of a preconcerted scheme, to be completed by the elopement, that removal of itself was sufficient to constitute the larceny. The jury then retired, and after being absent some considerable time, gave in a verdict of “ not guilty.”

The civil cases came on on the 21st June, and one of them being of some importance we give a more particular account of.it. Tylee and Jones v. Easton and Dees. —This was a debt of £23 owing on a promissory note, and judgment was given for the plaintiffs.

Bett v. Hood.—The parties in this cas * were in partnership in Wanganui as smiths and wheelwrights. A year and a half ago they required additional capital in their business, and the plaintiff raised £IOO by a mortgage on a house and section in Victoria avenue belonging to, him, without the defendant’s knowledge. The money is due on 12th Dec. next. Three weeks after the loan had been received by the plaintiff, he lent ,£SO of it to defendant to put into the business, be himself putting in the other £SO;. an acknowledgment was taken from the defendant in which reference was made to the mortgage. The defendant paid half of the expences and of the agent’s commission ; he also agreed to pay half of the interest. In October last year the parties dissolved partnership, on the understanding that they were both to receive money and pay their debts. The defendant has received 4/10s, which lie retains. The plaintiff presented an account of receipts and payments, which showed a balance of 11/ 7s 6d in his possession. There are debts still outstanding, and the late firm has an acre of land at Turakina, with a smith’s forge on it valued at 90/, and a horse valued at 25/. They have had an offer of 75/ for the house and section at Turakina, but the defendant refused to ..take less than 80/. The defendant also said that Mr. Bett liacl been willing to allow him to retain the 50/ if he found satisfactory security. These are the facts of the case as brought out by the statements of both parties Mr. Ross appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and contended that the defendant was bound to pay to his client the sum sued for, on the ground that money had been lent by him to the defendant for the purpose of currying on the business, that the partnership was now closed, and that the plaintiff had no further interest in continuing the loan to the defendant, the specific object for which the money was lent no longer existing. He considered that the loan must be looked on entirely apart from the partnership. It was the loan of one private individual to another for a certain purpose—for carrying on a particular 1 usiness. That business no longer existed, and the borrower was bound to repay the money to the lender when the latter called on him to do so.

The Judge did not coincide with Mv. Ross. He considered that the loan was connected with the mortgage, and though no express stipulation to that effect had been made that it was not due till the bond required to be paid ; that would undoubtedly have been the case had the business continued to be carried on. The fact of the dissolution of partnership did not alter it, as the business was not yet[wound up. The money had been borrowed io be employed in the business, it was so employed, and it was still to be found in the uu realized property belonging to the late firm. So soon as this property was disposed of the proceeds must be appropriated to paying off (lie mortgage, hut he did not think the defendant was bound to pay liis share before the bond was due, if the funds of the late firm on baud did not show a sufficient sum at his credit to do so. Had the estate been wound up it would have been different; then the plaintiff would have had a clear case against rlie defendant. If in con equence of the property not being realized in time to pay off the bond, the plaintiff suffered los3 from its not being paid when due, he would have a claim against the defendant for damages. It was not averred that the defendant was not owing this amount to his late partner, but Uiat it was not due until the plaintiff required to pay off the mortgage, ft was a case such as he had not met with before, and there were in it some difficult points. He should therefore take it into consideration, and give judgment uext day. The Judge delivered his judgment on Saturday morning, the 22nd inst. He said that this particular transaction had been mixed up with the general business of the firm ; and that while the partnership business was in process of liquidation, no particular claim of this kind of one partner on another could be enforced. He must therefore give judgment in favour of ■ the defendant.

PROCLAMATION OF lIIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR TO THE ' 1 '" ‘ 1 </ Thomas Gore Browne, Governor. In order to avoid misapprehension, the Governor directs the attention of the Chiefs and people assembled at Ngaruawahia to the present condition of affairs in New Zealand, and states distinctly the course necessary to ba taken in order to avert the calamities that threaten the country. In the year 1858, a portion of the Maori people resilient in Waikato pretended to set up a Maori King, and Potatau was chosen for the office. He was installed at Dangiawhia, in the month of June in that year, On Pota'au’s death in 1860, Matutaera, his son, was nominated his successor.

Diversity of opinion existed from the commencement as to what would result from this movement. Some were led to believe that its supporters desired only the establishment of order, and a goyenjing-’iihthority amongst themselves ; while others viewed with apprehension a confederacy, which they-deemed fraught with danger to the peace of the Colony. The Governor at first inclined towards the more favourable view'of the movement, but soon felt misgivings, which have been justified by the e vent. The Governor, however, has not interfered to put down the Maori King by force. He has been unwilling to relinquish the hope that the Maoris themselves, seeing the danger of the course they were pursuing, anil that the institution of au independent authority must prove inefficient, for all purposes of good, would of their own accord abandon their attempts. The Governor can now only look with sorrow and displeasure on wlmt has been done in the name, anil by the ■ adherents, of the Native King. 1. An authority has been set np inconsistent with allegiance to the Queen, ~ and in violation of-the Treaty ..of /Faitangi. 2. A large number of the adherents of the Native King have interfered between the Governor anil other Native tribes in matters with which obey had no concern ; have levied war against the Queen, fought against her troops, and burned ami destroyed the property of her peaceful subjects, ■ 3. Other adherents of the King have assisted, encouraged, and harboured the men who have committed these outrages. 4. A war party of several hundred men some time since assembled, and advanced to within forty miles of Auckland, for the purpose of interfering with the due course of the administration of Justice. 5. Her Majesty’s Mail has beeen stopped ; jurisdiction has been usurped over her Maje.ty’sEuropean subjects; and other offences have been committed to the subversion of her Majesty’s sovereignty, ami of the authority of Law. At this very time the adherents of the Nntivelving are using the most strenuous efforts to possess themselves of arms and ammunition for the purpose of effecting their objects by iu timidation and violence.

The Governor cannot permit the preseut. state of things to continue. No option now rests with him ; he has been commanded by her Majesty the Queen to suppress uulawful combinations, and to establish beyond a question, her Majesty’s Sovereignty iu New. Zealand

Submission to her Majesty’s Sovereignty requires— 1. That every man yield implicit obedience to what the Aaw, (which is the same for all), prescribes for the public welfare. But while the Zaw exacts what is essential for this object, it confers great benefits and guarantees freedom and security to the weak as well as to the strong. 2. That rights he sought and protected through the Law, and not by a man’s own will and strength Ko man in the Queen’s dominion is permitted to enforce rights, or redress wrongs, by force : he must appeal to the Law. 3. That men do not enter into combinations for the purpose of preventing other men from acting, or from dealing with their own property, as they think fit. • 2’liis is against the Law. 4. That every man, European or Native, under the Queen’s Sovereignty submit to have roads and bridges made on his land, • wherever the public convenience requires them. But land can only be taken for these purposes under lawful authority, and on pay ment of a reasonable compensation. ~ '

On the other-hand, her Majesty’s Sovereignty secures “ to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand, “ and to the respective families and individuals “ thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisiurbed possession “ of tlieir lauds and estates, forests, fisheries, “ and other properties, which they may collectively “ or individually possess so long as it is their wish “ and desire to retain the same in their possession.” This is the Maoris’ safeguard for their lands, and it has never been violated. The Governor has been falsely accused of desiring to introduce a new system in dealing with Native lands. This he has never attempted, nor has he the power to do so. The Queen’s promise in the Treaty of Waitangi cannot be set aside by the Governor. By that Treaty, the Queen’s name has become a protecting shade for the Maoris’ land, and will remain such, so long as the Maoris yield allegiance to her Majesty and live under her Sovereignty,but no longer. Whenever the Maoris forfeit this ■‘protection by setting aside the authority of the Queen and the Law, the land will remain their own so long only as they are strong enough to keep it; —might and

not right will become their sole Title to possession. r •

The Governor sincerely hopes that a correct appreciation of the real interests of the Maori race-will induce the adherents of the Native King to conform to her Majesty’s declared wishes, and to abandon the baneful and dangerous course they are pursuing. Her Majesty has- an earnest solicitude for the welfare of "her Native people, and it will be the duty of the Governor to give the fullest effect to measures calculated to secure that end. 'The Maoris cannot be more anxious than the Queen and her Governor for the complete re-establishment of law and order amongst the Maori people, and that the institutions of the Government should be, as far as practicable, in accordance with their interests and wishes ; but the-Maori:must ; not forget that these objects are unattainable without their own cordial co-operation. ~

The Governor last year convened a meeting of Chiefs to consult with him upon Native affairs, and has declared his intention again to assemble Chiefs from all parts of these islands for the same purpose. Her Majesty has been pleased to approve of these proceedings. It is the Governor’s wish that the coming Conference should devise measures for the introduction of law anil order, and the establishment of useful institutions in Native districts, and it will be his earnest desire to give effect to any measures approved by the Conference, which appear likely to promote the welfare of the Native people, and to bring all her Majesty’s subjects in these islands, both European and 71/aori. under one law, upon terms of equality. The Governor earnestly hopes that the Chiefs and people, who are adherents of the .Maori King, will abandon their present perilous position; they will then receive the same invitation as the other A atives of New Zealand, to choose some of their most respected and influential Chiefs to represent them in the approaching Conference, and to afford assistance in its deliberations.

The Governor now states specifically what Ids demands are ; 1. From all,- —Submission without reserve to the Queen’s Sovereignty, and the authority of the law. 2. From those who are in possession of plunder, taken; from her Majesty’s European or Native subjects,-“/iestoration of that plunder. 3. From those who have destroyed or made away with property belonging to her Majesty’s subjects, /European or Native, — Compensation for the losses sustained. Compliance with these demands will satisfy the Queen and her Governor, no other demand will be made on Waikato, the past will be forgiven, and for the future the well conducted will be protected, offenders punished, and the rights and privileges of all maintained by the Queen and her laws. 21st May, 1801.

Why Facts are Unpopular. — Although the examination into facts is the great condition of all light conduct and sound opinion, it will never be popular with mankind. It is far from-a natural process to most minds* and it is only by severe self-control that we can bring ourselves to care for facts. It saves very much trouble to take a side, and there are two great reasons why, on general grounds, constant inquiry seems a dangerous habit. In the first place, it may be said that unless we take assertions on trust we shall have so many doubts and difficulties to solve before we accept any proposition, that human life would not suffice to bring us to any useful result. Secondly, it may also be said that the mind advances not only by inquiry.into truth, but by having its fancy awakened and its sympathies enlisted. We are not only reasoning beings, but beings with imaginations and hearts. Indolence .catches at so happy an excuse for itself as the hope that it is gaining a victory for the heart over the head, if the investigation of facts is seldom pleasant to oneself, it is still more seldom pleasant to other people. The patient and just man is apt to be disliked and thought a bore. Human nature loves partisanship ami inconsiderate pugnacity. It detests qualifications, guarded admissions, and, above all, suspension of opinion; and as these are the conclusions to which a rigid examinarion of facts most frequently leads us, it is not wonderful.that their examiuation be held in disfavour.Saturday Review.