THE NGARUAWAHIA MUR DER.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 752, 12 April 1877, Page 2

THE NGARUAWAHIA MUR DER.

CONVICTION OF TE PATI

At the Supreme Court on Tuesday, before Mr Justice Gillies, and a common jury, Te Pati (18), an aboriginal native, was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with the wilful murder, in the gaol at Ngaruawahia, on the 20th of February last, of Samuel Morgan, well known as a Pakeha Maori, and married to one of the principal na tive women of the Waikato district. . The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Brookfield) appeared to support the indictment. Mr Hesketh defended the prisoner. Mr Brown, of the Native Office, acted as interpreter. The prisoner being placed at the bar and called on to plead said, " Yes, I did it ; but he angered me; he provoked me to do it; when I was angry with him ho swore at mo."

Ultimately the prisoner was given the opportunity, and pleaded " Not guilty."

The evidence (at the inquest) has been already published in full in our columns.

Mr Hesketh, in addressing tbe jury, said that he, for the purpose of the defence, and the jury for the purpose of|their verdict, must discard all that they had heard apart from the demeanour of the witnesses, and the plea of the prisoner at the bar. The statement of the prisoner had been the same from first to last—that Morgan angered him , that Morgan cursed him, and therefore he killed Morgan. There was no denial of the killing, but there was an unconsciousness of any motive to the killing except the anger which incited to the act. As a rnlo. no verbal provocation is sufficient to excuse murder, but one learned judge had laid it clown that words mio-ht be used in some particular conjunction of circumstances which would .be sufficient to the mind of an intelligent jury to reduce the crime from one of murder to manslaughter. What might have accompanied this curse of the deceased man—xwhafc manner, what acts, while they wore both confined in the cell, ifc was impossibe to say. The prisoner afc the bar was not in the position of a man possessing the results of culture and civilisation. To him, from his earliest infancy, different aspects of the act of killing were presented among the native people. It was very doubtful if he realised the nature of the crime in its legal sense, or whether his intelligence could have evolved out of its oommissson the oonsequences it would entail upon him.

His Honor, in summing up the evidence, said the admission of the act of killing by the prisoner had made it unnecessary to read over the evidence at any considerable length. He must tell the jury, as a general proposition, that no verbal provocation could in any circumsfcanoes justify a man in taking the life of another, The prisoner was indicted for a orlme against the English law, and not for a crime against the Maori law, and the jury must deal with the case according to the law of England. It was true that wprda might be uttered by one person to v another whioli would be a greater provocation than acts done. difficult to say what imounfc of passion acting through the sudden impulse of a moment would affect the character of the crime charged • for the law presumes that the killing is murder until the defence proved that it was not so. The mry might take it then that if a man provoked by words merely, seized a

lethal weapon and killed another, that was mura6Wf^Tlfe: f JQry had nothing to do with the wnsWomhon; whethe-ttKe mm& of the «efen<hnSfe wa s still in a: semi-savage condition. Any consideratiqnof that kind would be for those Who had to dispense the prerogative of mercy/ In the present case, the evidence went to show that the man Morgan was killed, not in the act of any misconduct towards; the prisoner, or : of any evil words spoken to the prisoner, but while he was asleep, Dr Waddingtqp had given very reasonable grounds for the belief that such' was the tact. The effect of that would be that the prisoner, no* in the-heat; of. anger,' but with' .some deliberation,; made choice of his own time, place, and circumstances, for taking away the life of that man. ; ; ! ■• :! / The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after the absence of a quarter of an hour, returned with a verdict of "Guilty of wilful murder." [There was no movement on the part of the prisoner to indi, : eate that he was moved by the con* sequences such a verdict involved.] The jury attached to their verdict a rider to the effect following:— " The jury do not approve of the T ' arrangements of the at Nga"rawwahia, either -in custody of prisoners, or for the safe keeping of tools and other articles.--The Registrar,,. of. s the.,. Court challenged the prisoner whether he had anything to say why he'i should not be seritencedsto'dieaccording to*. law. ■■' "■■'•''■'" l '' The prisoner, after a somewhat lengthened pause, answered -with a single Maori word lido- 1 ' no.' • ■ J His Honor proceeded to pass sentence of death, and addressed the prisoner as follows : TePati,—After a patient trial an. .able defence by counser in your behalf, in which, everything was lurged: that could possibly be urged in your favour, the jury found you guilty of the crime of wilful murder.,. They have considered, as I have mbst anxiously considered, the excuse that has.been set up, namely, that, the deceased man cursed you. But I have to tell you that our English law does not made that a justification of deliberate killing. Nor indeed, if I am not mistaken, does even your Maori Jaw make a ■ curse a-justification for treacherously killing a man . in„his bed. Such treacherous killing in cold blood is, according to European law, as I believe it is according to Maori law, murder. You must know that both according to Maori law and English law the punishment for murder is death. I am but the mouth-piece of the law in pronouncing its sentence upoiv you. [Here his Honor assumed the black cap.] And that sentence 1 now pronounce. It is that you be taken from where, you are to the common Gaol of Auckland, at Mount Eden, and there at the time, in the form, andmanner by the law provided, you be hanged by the neck till you are dead. The prisoner heard the sentence without the slightest manifestation of concern, still leaning on the dock, until the Judge added, "Remove the prisoner," who walked out of the dock with the same stolid indifference as to all appearance he had entered it. "■".•••'•